Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[The Wallet Inspector]

Um maybe you should go back and read your own posts and look at the words you use..





consent is not required must accept



If clicking on a mode means I MUST accept and that my consent is not required then I've signed a contract.. which I never did.

"Um maybe you should go back and read your own posts and look at the words you use.. " I did. I did not use the words binding contract, you did

"If clicking on a mode means I MUST accept and that my consent is not required then I've signed a contract.. which I never did."

Well then if I said you must be aware, would it be more palatable for you? In the same post I said I suggested a trigger warning. That was what I was referring to, FD must make players aware that is what CAN happen. Hopefully this clears things up for you At no point did i mention contract, you brought it up. But that is evident from the posts ^^^

 

[Jockey79]

Well, the P2P architecture already needs to be improved even if they don't change anything else. Combat logging and shenanigans like that should be unacceptable. Instancing should be fixed. You shouldn't have a huge blockade in 1 instance and people by-passing it in another one.

The game is not designed to support large groups though.
The max is 32 players and no one has hit that yet. I think 16 was the record and that took some effort and network tweaking.

Also, player run blockades are not a supported game play option - not on a large scale. Plus with Private Groups and Solo you can bypass them anyway.
Fd made it quite clear, if there is to be a "real" blockade - they will run it and it will be in every instance in every mode.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Thats why we need separate modes.

The fact that Mobius even exists should tell FD that there is a huge problem with the current modes.
PVEers being forced to PVP.
PVPers being bored because there is nothing meaningful for them.

Both sides deserve better.

It also telld FD their private group mode is very popular, and is working

 

[ianw]

Well, the P2P architecture already needs to be improved even if they don't change anything else. Combat logging and shenanigans like that should be unacceptable. Instancing should be fixed. You shouldn't have a huge blockade in 1 instance and people by-passing it in another one.

You make it sound like it's a simple thing to fix. Clearly it isn't - which is why it hasn't been fixed and possibly never will be.

There are far too many variables that are completely beyond FD's control.

 

[Mouse]

Interesting you speak of vitriol, then make nasty comparisons between a cancerous growth and people who play in Open. Very ironic, but not very funny.

only some people.. and what's the old addage? Throw a stone at a pack of dogs and the one it hits yelps the loudest...

I don't advocate open being shut down, but Open does have a serious problem.. and until it is cut away as Jockey put it.. the issues will continue.. That is why many of us counter the Open Only advocates with a request for an Open PVE mode so that people can choose to play ED with a bunch of people and decide on PVP or no PVP..

 

[Roybe]

I have to say Jockey in spite of the fact we agree on many things - I don't like Roybe's idea or your idea of removing open.

Have a good meal!

Wow a convert to carry on the idea! 80)

Jockey just realize that the idea I had was one of extremism. I think the idea would change the game radically into something else. I do not want to see that occur, without giving the game a chance to get over its growing pains. PVP and PVE will have to coexist in Open...it is the original idea of how the game should work.

However, the main reason I pushed this as hard as I did, was to create a cautionary idea to those that keep pushing the boundaries within the game...people should stop and think. FDev if pushed...will change the rules of the game...and if PVP does get out of hand and start causing toxic problems through out the game for folks...PVP can be curtailed in a number of ways...including removal....and with CQC coming...there is room to make that change. Pushing the game, to show the devs the problems that are inherently there, to get the devs to fix/change things is valid and they do respond to it...but this can go to far and be detrimental to the game overall.

Which leads to the inevitable issue of inequity in the game for the PVE players. They cannot play in a social manner, risk free, from PVP that is equivalent to Open. Do not point to Mobius since that, in my mind anyway, is the unfair use of a player by the developers of a game. No user should have to deal with the hassles of a HUGE group because of the way a game is designed...not without being paid for his time, computer equipment, and his internet access. Mobius is a fantastic member of this community...and deserves every accolade anyone shouts...but it is not his JOB to take care of all the PVE players within this game.

This is where the real breakdown is occurring around this issue. And will continue to occur...until either PVE accepts this position of an unequal situation of the game...people leave because of it...or a change to the game is forced. The devs have resisted any requests to 'bring equity' to Open...I see no reason why they would not resist this change just as hard....unless, as I said, the game loses money because of it.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

only some people.. and what's the old addage? Throw a stone at a pack of dogs and the one it hits yelps the loudest...

I don't advocate open being shut down, but Open does have a serious problem.. and until it is cut away as Jockey put it.. the issues will continue.. That is why many of us counter the Open Only advocates with a request for an Open PVE mode so that people can choose to play ED with a bunch of people and decide on PVP or no PVP..

"Throw a stone at a pack of dogs and the one it hits yelps the loudest..." Yeah well make a cancer joke with someone who knows people who suffer from it is bound to make people "yelp" a little :/

"That is why many of us counter the Open Only advocates with a request for an Open PVE"

They are within their rights to request it, I just thought it was an honest one, not a counter debate tactic.

 

[JuicyFruits]

only some people.. and what's the old addage? Throw a stone at a pack of dogs and the one it hits yelps the loudest...

I don't advocate open being shut down, but Open does have a serious problem.. and until it is cut away as Jockey put it.. the issues will continue.. That is why many of us counter the Open Only advocates with a request for an Open PVE mode so that people can choose to play ED with a bunch of people and decide on PVP or no PVP..

Choice is key here.

If you don't want to pvp, you shouldn't have to. Open-PVE would be great in that regard.

But if you DO want to pvp, you should have a balanced battleground too.

I believe there is room for everyone. FD just need to tweak the modes / rules a bit. But most importantly, something must be done.

After the hutton CG fiasco, countless "open vs solo" threads... this shows that this is a hot topic and a valid concern for a lot of the community. FD should at least acknowledge the problem and start working on a solution.

 

[Jockey79]

Thats why we need separate modes.

The fact that Mobius even exists should tell FD that there is a huge problem with the current modes.
PVEers being forced to PVP.
PVPers being bored because there is nothing meaningful for them.

Both sides deserve better.

Yes, they do deserve better.

Private Groups can and do provide any type of game play people want.

Want a group just for people with purple Type 6, no problem - can do.
Want a group just for Sidewinder pilots, no problem - can do.
Want a group just for 1 gaming community, no problem - can do.

The problems spring up when you throw everyone into 1 mode and say get on with it - then comes cheating / exploiting / combat logging / false accusations of the previous due to feeling victimized and so on. remove the mode you remove the problems to go with it - job done.

Private groups do really solve all the issues, don't like how a group is run - don't play it, join another. We have a Groups section on the forums, so it's easy to find a new group and you can switch whenever you want.
Solo Mode is actually a Private Group, of 1. The Devs detailed this ages ago. It's only in the menu to make it easy to get in to. So we can remove Open and all the rubbish to go with it and stick to Solo and Groups.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Apparently they use force desync to blast each player in an instance into their own instance, basically killing an instance rather than deal with other players. That is what one forum member admitted to here. I asked why he wanted to spoil others game, and said it was a protest against FDEV or something. I think it is a pretty destructive form of cheating. Other players on here have admitted to blocking the connections to their computer via their modem settings. I still consider that cheating, like logging. I am no expert on networks though, if it is true it sounds pretty shameful to me.

Yeah, sounds dodgy!

I guess that's the problem with peer-to-peer stuff; ultimately it's up to you who connects to your router, so it's hard to take any action against it.
Which means it's possible for pirates to block known bounty hunters, traders to block out pirates or even to block a trader's escort and leave the trader for the taking.

But people doing this are likely to be so few and far between, if any at all, to not be a real problem.
And if they're really going that far over a game, then I pity them more than I worry about them!

 

[Mouse]

"Um maybe you should go back and read your own posts and look at the words you use.. " I did. I did not use the words binding contract, you did

"If clicking on a mode means I MUST accept and that my consent is not required then I've signed a contract.. which I never did."

Well then if I said you must be aware, would it be more palatable for you? In the same post I said I suggested a trigger warning. That was what I was referring to, FD must make players aware that is what CAN happen. Hopefully this clears things up for you At no point did i mention contract, you brought it up. But that is evident from the posts ^^^

Are you seriously mis construing on purpose? You even posted my explanation but completely ignored it to go off on your little "I didn't say that" when you clearly did but using Different words. The meaning of what people say is important and I've noticed you tap dance around that.

You want triggers.. easy

Solo
Group
Open-PVE
Open-PVP
CQC

which is interesting because you voted against the "triggers" This clearly shows and makes the players aware of what can happen..

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Are you seriously mis construing on purpose? You even posted my explanation but completely ignored it to go off on your little "I didn't say that" when you clearly did but using Different words. The meaning of what people say is important and I've noticed you tap dance around that.

You want triggers.. easy

Solo
Group
Open-PVE
Open-PVP
CQC

which is interesting because you voted against the "triggers" This clearly shows and makes the players aware of what can happen..

They are not trigger warnings, those are proposed game modes By trigger warning I mean a warning saying "Players can attack you against your will if you enter this mode". You can dance around the nuances of what I said all you want, but I did clarify it so as to avoid confusion. I did not "vote" against triggers, I voted against Open PvE, because in my opinion, the game does not need it. It is fine as is. You obviously misunderstand what I mean by "trigger warning". Sorry for the confusion

 

[Mouse]

"Throw a stone at a pack of dogs and the one it hits yelps the loudest..." Yeah well make a cancer joke with someone who knows people who suffer from it is bound to make people "yelp" a little :/

"That is why many of us counter the Open Only advocates with a request for an Open PVE"

They are within their rights to request it, I just thought it was an honest one, not a counter debate tactic.

My mother survived it, my uncle died of it.. and he wasn't making a joke.. he was making a comparison which was somewhat accurate.

 

[Asp Explorer]

People do this sort of thing more for the lulz or the "You think you are a pro-bro PvP God? this'll show you who's boss, punk" by eliminating the actual player, rather than waste time with any in-game interaction with that player.

I don't condone this type of behaviour, but anyone with a functioning brain can do it.

 

[Mouse]

Choice is key here.

If you don't want to pvp, you shouldn't have to. Open-PVE would be great in that regard.

But if you DO want to pvp, you should have a balanced battleground too.

I believe there is room for everyone. FD just need to tweak the modes / rules a bit. But most importantly, something must be done.

After the hutton CG fiasco, countless "open vs solo" threads... this shows that this is a hot topic and a valid concern for a lot of the community. FD should at least acknowledge the problem and start working on a solution.

I agree.. and that is why they have CGC for one type of balanced PVP and Open-PVP for anything goes PVP. I'm not for getting rid of pvp I want everyone to be happy and play.. but I am adamantly against PVPers using those who just want to play with others and forcing them into PVP which is what we have right now in Open.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

My mother survived it, my uncle died of it.. and he wasn't making a joke.. he was making a comparison which was somewhat accurate.

Either way, I find it in poor taste, and think it is probably not something the rules allow. It has nothing to do with the debate, and is itself meaningless vitriol.

 

[Mouse]

They are not trigger warnings, those are proposed game modes By trigger warning I mean a warning saying "Players can attack you against your will if you enter this mode". You can dance around the nuances of what I said all you want, bu I did clarify it so as to avoid confusion. I did not "vote" against triggers, I voted against Open PvE, because in my opinion, the game does not need it. It is fine as is. You obviously misunderstand what I mean by "trigger warning". Sorry for the confusion

both can be defined as triggers per your definition. Mine is more blunt and clearly shows where people can go.

 

[JuicyFruits]

Yes, they do deserve better.

Private Groups can and do provide any type of game play people want.

Want a group just for people with purple Type 6, no problem - can do.
Want a group just for Sidewinder pilots, no problem - can do.
Want a group just for 1 gaming community, no problem - can do.

The problems spring up when you throw everyone into 1 mode and say get on with it - then comes cheating / exploiting / combat logging / false accusations of the previous due to feeling victimized and so on. remove the mode you remove the problems to go with it - job done.

Private groups do really solve all the issues, don't like how a group is run - don't play it, join another. We have a Groups section on the forums, so it's easy to find a new group and you can switch whenever you want.
Solo Mode is actually a Private Group, of 1. The Devs detailed this ages ago. It's only in the menu to make it easy to get in to. So we can remove Open and all the rubbish to go with it and stick to Solo and Groups.

My problem with group is that the galaxy is huge, and the population is spread thin (even in open). If you remove open and split the community into small groups... might as well play solo.

 

[Jockey79]

Are you seriously mis construing on purpose?

I'd put him on ignore if I were you.
He is trolling the forums and has been all afternoon - you can see by using my links to filter his posts (note all the edits - despite my quotes having the unedited versions in).

Every point I've made he did exactly the same, ignore the points and misquoted me constantly and consistently.
Then kept spouting off about being the victim and reporting me.

The posts are still there to read.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

both can be defined as triggers per your definition. Mine is more blunt and clearly shows where people can go.

"both can be defined as triggers per your definition. Mine is more blunt and clearly shows where people can go." - Sorry but I do not understand. I am going by this definition of trigger warning. "a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc. alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material.". Your definition is in fact invalid. Commander Roybe can clarify if you need further info, it was his suggestion and I seconded the notion.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd put him on ignore if I were you.
He is trolling the forums and has been all afternoon - you can see by using my links to filter his posts (note all the edits - despite my quotes having the unedited versions in).

Every point I've made he did exactly the same, ignore the points and misquoted me constantly and consistently.
Then kept spouting off about being the victim and reporting me.

The posts are still there to read.

I have only reported when you have made abusive comments towards me, I have received no complaints for my input into this discussion, as I have remained respectful. also whenever you have claimed to have taken insult, I have apologized. Whenever you or anyone else has misunderstood my point, I have made clarifications. I see no purpose in more sniping like this, and complaining about me in this fashion, the mods asked the sniping to stop.