Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[h347h]

Your solution was a bit of a non starter from the moment FD cancelled the offline mode.

Solo players don't destroy anything in the game. I'm guessing you are referring to the fact that not enough players choose to trade in Open, so there are few targets for pirates, and unscrupulous players with bounties can 'hide' in Solo so bounty hunters have nothing to do.

Nobody has to play this game as a pirates content unless they wish to do do so. Those that wish to do so are already doing it, those that aren't won't suddenly materialize in Open if you try to separate the modes. Those unscrupulous players sneaking into Solo to hide from the bounty hunters? They are your Open players. You think they will sign up for an Open only world? Very doubtful if they are not willing to take their chances in Open now.

You can blame the modes all you like, but they are actually a simple and elegant solution to the problem of PvP ruining your game if you don't wish it to. And as for C'bears ruining your PvP (be aware, that word is considered in a very dim light by the mods on this thread, it is seen as insulting). Again, those people ruining your PvP (I'm guessing you are referring to combat loggers, but I don't really know), they are Open players.

If Open is a dead ghost town, it's because 'most' people playing the game don't want to play there. Could also be because the sandbox is pretty big, so you just don't see people. Creating a separate Open game, or even offering the choice of an offline game, which plenty of people wanted, won't change that at all. Those people who want to play with you are already doing so.

Edit: Ninja'd by Mouse... With far fewer words.

Solo players can indeed ruin stuff for open players. Just accept that you don't understand why, but that it does happen.

 

[Mouse]

Your solution was a bit of a non starter from the moment FD cancelled the offline mode.

Solo players don't destroy anything in the game. I'm guessing you are referring to the fact that not enough players choose to trade in Open, so there are few targets for pirates, and unscrupulous players with bounties can 'hide' in Solo so bounty hunters have nothing to do.

Nobody has to play this game as a pirates content unless they wish to do do so. Those that wish to do so are already doing it, those that aren't won't suddenly materialize in Open if you try to separate the modes. Those unscrupulous players sneaking into Solo to hide from the bounty hunters? They are your Open players. You think they will sign up for an Open only world? Very doubtful if they are not willing to take their chances in Open now.

You can blame the modes all you like, but they are actually a simple and elegant solution to the problem of PvP ruining your game if you don't wish it to. And as for C'bears ruining your PvP (be aware, that word is considered in a very dim light by the mods on this thread, it is seen as insulting). Again, those people ruining your PvP (I'm guessing you are referring to combat loggers, but I don't really know), they are Open players.

If Open is a dead ghost town, it's because 'most' people playing the game don't want to play there. Could also be because the sandbox is pretty big, so you just don't see people. Creating a separate Open game, or even offering the choice of an offline game, which plenty of people wanted, won't change that at all. Those people who want to play with you are already doing so.

Edit: Ninja'd by Mouse... With far fewer words.

You had a far more elegant explanation. ^,^

 

[Faded Glory]

Solo players can indeed ruin stuff for open players. Just accept that you don't understand why, but that it does happen.

Oh my... Now we're just too stupid to understand. Great argument.

 

[Mouse]

Solo players can indeed ruin stuff for open players. Just accept that you don't understand why, but that it does happen.

Please explain oh wise one. I would love to hear a reason that hasn't already been debunked.

 

[Roland2]

Sorry, this is my first time posting in this thread.

I am just trying to solve the problem by coming up with a solution that will solve everyone's issue.

My solution is based on what is an easy and simple solution to the problem, SOLO destroys what is emergent and beautifully elegant game play in the online world, It laughs at the triangle of Traders, Pirates and Bounty hunters. This precious Triangle is what makes OPEN appealing, Yet OPEN is a dead ghost town because this Triangle is destroyed.

People want a game, People don't care about what goes on beyond that, Offline is for those who don't want to play Online and with other players and OPEN is those that want to experience the beauty of Emergent gameplay, it's as simple and as democratic a solution to the problem can be and as a bonus those without internet or limited access to the internet can play too, If people can play offline i doubt they'd care about what goes on in the OPEN universe and if they want to experience the OPEN universe they have every right to do so.

My solution STOPS PVP Ruining your game
My solution STOPS Carebears ruining your PVP

What problem is "the problem" you are trying to solve?

What about groups?

You never said what your solution is, but it appears to be creating an offline mode. Since Frontier have already said that offline wasn't reasonable, and wouldn't happen, it's a non starter.

What would offline fix that the current 3 modes don't fix? If I'm not playing in open, PVP isn't ruining my game. I haven't seen any proof that any of the modes are ruining anyone's game.

I also don't see how people not playing in open are "ruining your PVP".

 

[Jockey79]

Positive or negative they are affecting the galaxy. Emergent behaviour brought about by players making the galaxy more dynamic - altering known trade routes etc. Exactly the kind of content the game needs to liven up the static galaxy. Can't wait to see more.

But not everybody wants that.
And the current set up allows people to stay away from that sort of game play, or let them slowly move from one mode to another.

Emergent behaviour, for better or worse - is not for everyone. And FD made the game so those who want it, can get it and those who don't can play in private groups with set rules / play styles or solo on their own.

The ability to jump from one to another leaves options there to let people move to open (if they ever feel like it) in their own time, as they feel more at ease with the game.

 

[Julissa Silver]

Have a look at this test.

Happy to have scored a 39!

Also happy to be in my Bacon Cats private group doing the Bast <-> Heike CG, saving the galaxy so that we are free to share the joys of bacon and laughter (all Bacon Cats should be doing that, I'm just saying).

 

[Roland2]

Solo players can indeed ruin stuff for open players. Just accept that you don't understand why, but that it does happen.

Like the others, I too would like to know how you think people playing in group or solo are "ruining stuff". And no, I'm not a child, I don't have to "just accept" what you say as truth.

While your at it, maybe you could show some proof that group and solo players are "ruining stuff", not others players in other instances.

 

[Mohrgan]

Calling popping traders headed to a CG as 'Emergent Gameplay' is pretty silly. That's so common and expected that you can hardly call it anything but obvious. Emergent play comes from finding ways for players to make the game more than it's mechanics. Groups like the Fuel Rats, or Code do that. They affect the way people choose to play. The Rats, have people impatiently waiting for the call to rescue. They aren't grinding for merits or credits, they have found a way to use the tools from the game to elevate how and why they play.

Code, gives their members a reason to log into the game. That group gives their members activities and a purpose beyond PP or the BGS. They coalesce around an idea an act in ways beyond the obvious scope of the game. In the face of great adversity as well, I might add. They have no in game tools, or mechanics available to achieve their goals, but they pursue them none the less. For the enjoyment in the attempt.

If you want Emergent gameplay you have to make it. Stalking T ships in a CG system is as far from emergent play as ramming at stations is. PvP doesn't make something emergent on it;s face. Ganking weak ships isn;t 'player made content', those views are just justifications to act that way. What PP attempt to do is give players a reason to fly. That's what Emergent play is about. Creating a unique way to use the game outside of the regular activities.

 

[Mohrgan]

I'm sorry Morhgan but you missed what I was pointing out as emergent gameplay. I was talking about the galaxy being altered. With those stations shut down players will have to find new places to trade, dock etc. and so that will change where traders and thus pirates and thus bounty hunters do their business. This makes the player population shift to fresh stomping ground and changes the face of player populated territory. I like that Power play does that too and I hope that thargoids radically alter the map.

Those are all good things for the game, but could hardly be called Emergent. It's kind of the opposite. It's the game design altering how we play, not us changing how we play using the game's mechanics.

I want a rich galaxy with weird stuff going on all of the time. I think FD does too. We just have to give it time. We need to let the kettle boil before we can make the tea. FD needs to put things out, see how they fly, and make the necessary adjustments. We have a unique opportunity to be in on that. We as players just need to take the journey, and journeys take time.

 

[h347h]

Like the others, I too would like to know how you think people playing in group or solo are "ruining stuff". And no, I'm not a child, I don't have to "just accept" what you say as truth.

While your at it, maybe you could show some proof that group and solo players are "ruining stuff", not others players in other instances.

First disprove that players in solo have not ruined the game for those in open. Spaghetti monster right back at you. The simple fact that this thread exists proves solo has indeed ruined the experience for some open players. You either understand this or you don't. Its odd you bring up being a child because not understanding their actions can effect other is a childish trait.

 

[Mohrgan]

I believe the main point of CG's and Power play was to affect and produce a living galaxy. That combat and trading come from it is symbiotic but only to get players to engage.

Exactly, but players engage in what interests them. If they are interested in combat, that's what they seek. If a player seeks to save the system from a plague, that's what they do. We all just have to respect other player's choices. The game is made to entertain it's users. There is no fundamental agreement that the players need to entertain any of it's users.

Many players, for many reason, at all different times don;t look for engagement. Just as many do. C'est la vie. If the whole of the playerbase could just live by that motto the time it took to type all of there posts could have been spent in-game enjoying the work FD has put into this galaxy.

 

[Fire70]

Wow bit more "spice" in here now...

So who is winning???

 

[Julissa Silver]

I believe the main point of CG's and Power play was to affect and produce a living galaxy. That combat and trading come from it is symbiotic but only to get players to engage.

And given how players are communicating and cooperating with the latest CGs in Bast, I think we're seeing a limited form of 'emergent' game play there and conflict isn't a part of it, it's actually come as a side-effect of lots of players getting together and opportunists trying to grab low-hanging trader fruit. The necessity of having to defend from random psychos shooting unarmed traders has brought some emergent cooperation, but I feel it's far more strongly observable in the way players are working together in groups to oppose the game-given difficulties better. That's players cooperating, finding new ways to generate results that impact upon the galaxy without falling for the fallacy that shooting your neighbour in the face is emergent game play.

Far stronger is my desire to cooperate to build something that individually we could not than my desire to simply burn everything and stand as the biggest bulldog in the ashes of what's left. I'd rather push for a Star Trek "benefits for all" future, rather than a Mad Max "burn it all" future and I think a lot of other people would, too.

 

[Mouse]

First disprove that players in solo have not ruined the game for those in open. Spaghetti monster right back at you. The simple fact that this thread exists proves solo has indeed ruined the experience for some open players. You either understand this or you don't. Its odd you bring up being a child because not understanding their actions can effect other is a childish trait.

Are you flipping kidding me.. that is your argument? Say something and then demand that others "prove you wrong", I didn't realize Open was a freaking religion. The fact that this thread exist doesn't prove solo has ruined open, it proves that some players feel their mode is "superior" to others and believe there is some sort of "vs" when there never was one in the first place. Starting a thread does not prove someone right and to suggest so... wow.. talk about an asinine answer.

 

[Mohrgan]

First disprove that players in solo have not ruined the game for those in open. Spaghetti monster right back at you. The simple fact that this thread exists proves solo has indeed ruined the experience for some open players. You either understand this or you don't. Its odd you bring up being a child because not understanding their actions can effect other is a childish trait.

The idea is, the game stands now with the freedom to enter the game in any of the three choices we have, Open, Group, and Solo. That's the game we have. You propose to change that design. The 'Burden of proof' lies with those that want to change it. Your side needs to prove to this thread, and more importantly to FD how the modes are bad for the game. Unfair is not enough. There is so much in open that can be called unfair, and have those calls swept aside by 'you entered open, you knew what you were getting into' that any unfairness within the modes can't be hauled out as a reason. Your side has to convince the powers that be, that the current system is unsuitable and needs changing for the good of the game. Not just your personal views on how the game should be played. I often ask, and am never answered, why should the many have to succumb to the gamer ethics of the few?

Those that believe as you do need to develop a compelling argument besides 'it's not what I dreamed it would be'. Many other players had very different dreams of how the Elite galaxy would turn out. FD knew that and developed a way for as many players as possible to fulfill their vision for Elite. We all just need to play our own game, for our own enjoyment and leave others to their own purposes. It's one galaxy for all of the players.

 

[why fi at all]

Holy merged threads batman.

yea a lot of new faces. . . . . . . .yet the same old ideas.

could there be a clue here?
i am probably just too, too dull to see it.

i'll drop this tree in the forest and see if it makes a sound:

the game is working as it should.
the open/group/solo configuration and the influences they have or have not on each other is the correct situation.
no changes needed.

.

.

.at least from the devs side.

 

[Mouse]

Now the shoe is on the other foot.

If you seriously believe that than your comprehension needs work. As many parts of the discussion you've participated in, you know that comment is false.

 

[Mohrgan]

If you don't like the outcomes from Open affecting Solo/Group you are just getting a taste of the ramifications Open only players don't like. All the more reason for FD to look into it and find a solution everyone can live with.

The outcomes from open are just fine with me. I have no issue with playing in open. I infrequently do myself. What I don;t like, and I struggle against is forcing players to play by one set of gamer ethics. For as many players there are, there are reasons to play. Let them do it the way they want. You play your game, and I'll play mine. Fair?

 

[Mohrgan]

No I don't. What I do know is that you try and force people to accept your point of view. I absolutely refuse it and I'm not alone in my point of view.

What is the basis for your point of view? And, more importantly, why should that matter to anyone but you? That sounds harsh, and I don;t wish to be harsh, but this is a 'brass tacks' moment. Why should the whole, be made to play as the few wish? Why should I have to play by your vision, your gamer ethics?