Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Faded Glory]

Isnt that the very definition of "risk" ? You risk encountering an enemy CMDR in open. Maybe, maybe not. But the risk is still there.

I also don't want to "diminish" solo. There is nothing superior about open. Its a game and the 2 choices are valid. However, at the end of the day, when talking about balance, IMO, Open is more risky, and something should be done about that. I don't claim to have the best answer, but at least I am trying to come up with suggestions and possible solutions.

Well, in Solo, you 'might' get interdicted by a highly ranked NPC, and for some players, that is a significant challenge so that risk is there too. You might also get interdicted by a wing of NPCs (it happens quite a bit to me), so that risk is there too. More risky, as has been said is subjective, you might meet a perfectly harmless new CMDR in a Sidewinder, or a CMDR in an Anaconda who has reached trading Elite, but isn't so good at combat. The game carries (pretend) risks that we all face, like it or not. If the challenge resulting from that risk is too much for you, then that's tough, in whatever mode you play.

I understand that you are trying to suggest possible solutions, but firstly, as i said in my earlier replies to you, the things you proposed regarding separate saves and essentially a separate game (Open only) are not trivial, and will likely never be implemented. Other suggestions, such as getting higher rewards in Open are simply not justified, not necessary, make people who suggest them sound greedy (I mean, it's a game, soon enough you'll have all the credits and all the ships you want, whatever mode you play), and since as you say, Open is not superior to any other mode, would imbalance the game for players who don't wish to play Open, for whatever reason.

 

[relayer]

This whole thread seems like debate for debate's sake.

You're right; it's a steam pressure bleedoff valve.

"Something for everyone. A comedy tonight"

I had to rep you just for that quote

The only problem I see with all this is those who cannot find enough wanted player victims in Open mode. Well, they've simply chased the rest of us into the other modes by attacking legal players.
It's not MY behavior or the play mode I chose causing the problem.

Indeed. This does appear to be the core argument behind nerfing solo/rewarding open, disabling mode switching & all the cries about "people trade safely in solo then come to open with their big bad combat Anaconda" and so on, despite open pvpers bragging that they could "easily take out" such a player because, well, solo is "easier."

The problem as you state is the real one, and is one of the main arguments of this threadzilla from the solo/group/openPVE players. We also get a lot of "open is a barren wasteland!" but it doesn't sink in that the players have made it that way. Sauce for the goose and so on. [/QUOTE]

 

[Grumpy181155]

Exactly this, have some rep. People playing their way, creating online content in an emergent and dynamic fashion. I want to join Code when I get back from outer space, A rated Python at the ready

Arrrrgh. Nooooooooo!!!! Do something useful - join the Fuel Rats

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

It was coming from the Open ONLY advocates.. those who wanted solo and private shut down and everyone forced into Open ... because they needed more targets after running everyone away.

"Again you looking at it from a physical point of view.. "

Forced to choose, well I think that is stretching it a bit but if you want. All things in life are composed of choices, I see no way round this. Even if there is an Open PvE mode, you will be "forced to choose".

"So that is why you thought erroneously that Open was the proper way to play? "

Can you please show me where I said "Open play is the proper way to play"? I never said that. I think you will find I have repeatedly stated that ALL game modes are equally valid You are confusing me with someone else.

"So instead you throw out the known correlation and search instead for other reasons instead."

No, I said I ahve no idea, and that the factors are too complex to make a judgment about it here. I think I made that clear.

"you are the one who keeps going back and trying to make a point where none was to begin with. It was at rest but you keep pulling it back up and claiming no no no.. it means this instead and your invalid. I offered trigger warnings like you wanted.. at no point was it said "only on these specifically" so you object and keep bring it up because you don't want it to mean that.. but of course since I am replkying to you .. I'm the one making a bit to much of it. "

I have nothing more to add . I will just copy and paste my initial point again for your clarification:

"I would like to see a "Trigger Warning" next to the Open Play Tab, and by that I mean "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.". That should put it to rest - Cannot be any more clear. I am in favor of that. I am not in favor of Open PvE, but you claimed I "Voted against trigger warnings", that made no sense to me. "

"Go back up and read where you said that everyone who brought up a different game was trying to derail the conversation, even though in the way they were brought up they were pertinent to the conversation.. but nope.. to you they were irrelevant because you talk about ED only. "

I never said "Everyone" was trying to derail the conversation, I am saying those are other games, and have no bearing on this. It is Offtopic. I disagreed with your claim it was "pertinent". I am allowed to do that.

"It was coming from the Open ONLY advocates.. those who wanted solo and private shut down and everyne forced into Open ... because they needed more targets after running everyone away."

No one has been forced anywhere, that is just your opinion. I am an Open Only Advoacte, and I do not want "more targets". So that again is a generalisation that is false.

 

[DrugaRunda]

Well, in Solo, you 'might' get interdicted by a highly ranked NPC, and for some players, that is a significant challenge so that risk is there too. You might also get interdicted by a wing of NPCs (it happens quite a bit to me), so that risk is there too. More risky, as has been said is subjective, you might meet a perfectly harmless new CMDR in a Sidewinder, or a CMDR in an Anaconda who has reached trading Elite, but isn't so good at combat. The game carries (pretend) risks that we all face, like it or not. If the challenge resulting from that risk is too much for you, then that's tough, in whatever mode you play.

I understand that you are trying to suggest possible solutions, but firstly, as i said in my earlier replies to you, the things you proposed regarding separate saves and essentially a separate game (Open only) are not trivial, and will likely never be implemented. Other suggestions, such as getting higher rewards in Open are simply not justified, not necessary, make people who suggest them sound greedy (I mean, it's a game, soon enough you'll have all the credits and all the ships you want, whatever mode you play), and since as you say, Open is not superior to any other mode, would imbalance the game for players who don't wish to play Open, for whatever reason.

While it is up to FD to respond, I would expect "Open" only selection in addition to the betas that we get, is just as easy to setup as a beta, and also just as easy to roll out updates to. May be a bit more work, but I view this "issue" as a philosophical one, rather than the technical one.

Whatever the cause, the solution is the current one, and this topic is by far the longest during the first year of the game being officially released, so if it's any indication a lot of players do think it would be lovely to get a mode where once you start your character, the interaction with other humans is compulsory.

As I said earlier, mixed mode should stay for those who appreciate it, but "forced open" selection would add a gameplay dimension to this sandbox which currently does not exist.

 

[Grumpy181155]

"As soon as I press that Open button I should expect both the good and bad that comes with it."

Yup. As long as you know what you're getting and you have choices, great.
The smaller the group who feels they have no place in the game the better. No game will ever satisfy everyone.
I'm willing to put up with the present obstacles to my style of play because so much of the game is just flat out worth it and I've only scratched the surface.
-Pv-

Agreed........

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Arrrrgh. Nooooooooo!!!! Do something useful - join the Fuel Rats

I could be an undercover Code agent who joins the rats, and then go 22000 lightyears to commit some RP terrorism on some explorers, I will think of some political reason later LOL JK! No one take this seriously, but this is the kind of thing i love about the game. I often wondered, what if a fuel rat goes postal and takes me out?

 

[-Pv-]

"But its not the "living" galaxy I envisioned, partly because of the modes."

Dynamic, player-influenced artificial intelligence providing the underlying structure over which the human players react to and manipulate the structure.
Players influence the supply and demand. They also influence the politics which changes how easy or difficult play features will be in a particular region.
This also affects the relationships between one region or another. Regions also change size, identity, quality, ease based on player activity.
This "dynamic" exists in all play modes. Other than that, I don't know what "living" is.

-Pv-

 

[JuicyFruits]

Well, in Solo, you 'might' get interdicted by a highly ranked NPC, and for some players, that is a significant challenge so that risk is there too. You might also get interdicted by a wing of NPCs (it happens quite a bit to me), so that risk is there too. More risky, as has been said is subjective, you might meet a perfectly harmless new CMDR in a Sidewinder, or a CMDR in an Anaconda who has reached trading Elite, but isn't so good at combat. The game carries (pretend) risks that we all face, like it or not. If the challenge resulting from that risk is too much for you, then that's tough, in whatever mode you play.

I understand that you are trying to suggest possible solutions, but firstly, as i said in my earlier replies to you, the things you proposed regarding separate saves and essentially a separate game (Open only) are not trivial, and will likely never be implemented. Other suggestions, such as getting higher rewards in Open are simply not justified, not necessary, make people who suggest them sound greedy (I mean, it's a game, soon enough you'll have all the credits and all the ships you want, whatever mode you play), and since as you say, Open is not superior to any other mode, would imbalance the game for players who don't wish to play Open, for whatever reason.

Thats the thing, "more risky" is not subjective. Its a fact. Open has all the basic risk of solo, with an added twist ; you can get jumped by a wing of pirate in open, and get killed. The fact that this thing is POSSIBLE, is all that matters. Its a simple as (1+1) > 1

This is a flaw in the original design of the game, and should be adressed, or at least acknowledged by frontier.

 

[-Pv-]

"so if it's any indication a lot of players do think it would be lovely to get a mode where once you start your character, the interaction with other humans is compulsory."

You'll lose me for target practice for sure and Frontier will lose my investment in Horizons.
Otherwise, if you DIDN'T force my hand, I would have ventured into Open eventually.

Anyone who tells me what to do in a game, I'm gone. I don't play to please others, I play to please myself. There are so many other things in life where I have no choice,
gaming is decidedly NOT one of those things even if hitting the hand ball against the wall, I still get something out of it because I decided that's what I want out it.

-Pv-

 

[Jockey79]

Thats the thing, "more risky" is not subjective. Its a fact. Open has all the basic risk of solo, with an added twist ; you can get jumped by a wing of pirate in open, and get killed. The fact that this thing is POSSIBLE, is all that matters. Its a simple as (1+1) > 1

This is a flaw in the original design of the game, and should be adressed, or at least acknowledged by frontier.

No it is not that simple, with what has been posted in these mega threads for the last six months your sum is more;

1+ (wasteland, no other 1 exists) = incomplete sum.

I personally asked, for 2 weeks if Open Advocates would make their minds up and decide is open more risky or a wasteland.
They opted for wasteland.

Hence me saying the "risk" argument was debunked. It was by open advocates, not by anyone else.

Edit;

Forgot a point - the "flaw" was throwing everyone into 1 mode and expecting people to play nice.
remove Open and you fix the flaw, people will move to groups of like minded players with the same gamer ethics.

 

[Mouse]

"Again you looking at it from a physical point of view.. "

Forced to choose, well I think that is stretching it a bit but if you want. All things in life are composed of choices, I see no way round this. Even if there is an Open PvE mode, you will be "forced to choose".

Nope, People can play alone, can play with others, can play with other and have combat with them. Currently have to choose first or third with the second only if you jump through hoops, hoops sadly that many new players don't realize are there.

"So that is why you thought erroneously that Open was the proper way to play? "

Can you please show me where I said "Open play is the proper way to play"? I never said that. I think you will find I have repeatedly stated that ALL game modes are equally valid You are confusing me with someone else.

I already did earlier.. I even quoted you

"So instead you throw out the known correlation and search instead for other reasons instead."

No, I said I ahve no idea, and that the factors are too complex to make a judgment about it here. I think I made that clear.

For you they may be not for everyone, but apparently if it is to complex for you.. others who have seen a clear correlation must be wrong

"you are the one who keeps going back and trying to make a point where none was to begin with. It was at rest but you keep pulling it back up and claiming no no no.. it means this instead and your invalid. I offered trigger warnings like you wanted.. at no point was it said "only on these specifically" so you object and keep bring it up because you don't want it to mean that.. but of course since I am replkying to you .. I'm the one making a bit to much of it. "

I have nothing more to add . I will just copy and paste my initial point again for your clarification:

"I would like to see a "Trigger Warning" next to the Open Play Tab, and by that I mean "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.". That should put it to rest - Cannot be any more clear. I am in favor of that. I am not in favor of Open PvE, but you claimed I "Voted against trigger warnings", that made no sense to me. "

And I will answer with the "trigger warnings" Open-Pve, Open-PVP. Easy for people to understand and still relevant

"Go back up and read where you said that everyone who brought up a different game was trying to derail the conversation, even though in the way they were brought up they were pertinent to the conversation.. but nope.. to you they were irrelevant because you talk about ED only. "

I never said "Everyone" was trying to derail the conversation, I am saying those are other games, and have no bearing on this. It is Offtopic. I disagreed with your claim it was "pertinent". I am allowed to do that.

I notice you quoted "everyone" but left off "who brought up a different game" that way you could make a claim I said something else.. You claim it has no bearing and it is "off topic" because as you previously stated.. to you, anyone who mentions another game is derailing the discussion because you only talk about ED.. so you do not see how they are relevant and pertinent because you've already tossed their argument out as irrelevant because it mentioned another game.


"It was coming from the Open ONLY advocates.. those who wanted solo and private shut down and everyne forced into Open ... because they needed more targets after running everyone away."

No one has been forced anywhere, that is just your opinion. I am an Open Only Advoacte, and I do not want "more targets". So that again is a generalisation that is false.

I swear you are not reading replies but looking for key words to comment on.

You have claimed repeatedly that you don't want to change game and are happy with what FDev has made.

BUT!!!!!

you are an Open Only Advocate..

you do realize that the Open Only Advocates WANT TO CHANGE THE GAME. They want solo and Private modes gone and everyone forced to play in open. They want Open to be the ONLY Mode available..

And it wasn't a generalization or false.. Open Only Advocates have complained (if you were to read the megathreads) that open was a wasteland and they COULD NOT FIND TARGETS.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

No it is not that simple, with what has been posted in these mega threads for the last six months your sum is more;

1+ (wasteland, no other 1 exists) = incomplete sum.

I personally asked, for 2 weeks if Open Advocates would make their minds up and decide is open more risky or a wasteland.
They opted for wasteland.

Hence me saying the "risk" argument was debunked. It was by open advocates, not by anyone else.

It is not a wasteland though, it is full of commanders. This is more opinion being touted as FACT. I doubt the majority 800000 commanders heard these questions of yours.. We cannot infer anything from the equation you provided.

 

[Mouse]

I could be an undercover Code agent who joins the rats, and then go 22000 lightyears to commit some RP terrorism on some explorers, I will think of some political reason later LOL JK! No one take this seriously, but this is the kind of thing i love about the game. I often wondered, what if a fuel rat goes postal and takes me out?

So you love about the game is others who purposely want to disrupt other people's gameplay?

 

[Grumpy181155]

I could be an undercover Code agent who joins the rats, and then go 22000 lightyears to commit some RP terrorism on some explorers, I will think of some political reason later LOL JK! No one take this seriously, but this is the kind of thing i love about the game. I often wondered, what if a fuel rat goes postal and takes me out?

That did make me laugh and I immediately thought of the vid posted by Cmdr Shadmar about the Fuel Rats saving his 'bacon' The vid would have taken a distinctly different turn and I can imagine Shadmar's reaction had Surly Badger deployed weapons - not necessarily fired just deployed with some comment about violating some restricted zone.

 

[Mouse]

It is not a wasteland though, it is full of commanders. This is more opinion being touted as FACT. I doubt the majority 800000 commanders heard these questions of yours.. We cannot infer anything from the equation you provided.

You seriously need to read the thread instead of assuming that what is said is OPINION.. what you claim as Jockey saying is opinion.. IS WHAT HAS BEEN SAID by some who want to vindicate making Open either the only mode or to give it rewards over other modes.

 

[Faded Glory]

While it is up to FD to respond, I would expect "Open" only selection in addition to the betas that we get, is just as easy to setup as a beta, and also just as easy to roll out updates to. May be a bit more work, but I view this "issue" as a philosophical one, rather than the technical one.

Whatever the cause, the solution is the current one, and this topic is by far the longest during the first year of the game being officially released, so if it's any indication a lot of players do think it would be lovely to get a mode where once you start your character, the interaction with other humans is compulsory.

As I said earlier, mixed mode should stay for those who appreciate it, but "forced open" selection would add a gameplay dimension to this sandbox which currently does not exist.

Frontier won't respond here, but they have responded very publicly, and very officially both on the forums and elsewhere. They maintain that all modes are equal and a valid way to play. If you take a peek at Jockey's wall of text on the first page of the thread you will see links.

While I don't particularly disagree that there are some people who would love a dynamically player driven galaxy to inhabit, that isn't the game FD seem to want to make, and we can either assume they blundered into the game making process blind, or it was what they wanted to do. If it was the latter, continually complaining about the game isn't going to suddenly make them sit up and change it, especially as they have the numbers of who is playing where, and what mode and so on.

Personally I disagree with your suggestion that running a second version of the game would be just like running a beta. Firstly, the beta is the same game, just some updates, while a new, Open only game would quickly diverge from the one we have now, the BGS, the back story, Galnet, all that stuff would be completely different, and need to be staffed continuously. I also imagine that the game would diverge in other ways, balancing for PvP only rather than predominantly for PvE. It would very quickly be two different games (not to mention they would need to redo the networking architecture first), somewhat more than 'a bit more work', and it's hardly likely they want to do that.

 

[Sylveria]

I spent 9 years fixing technologically advanced equipment that had been used by squaddies, you could give these guys 2 cast iron cannonballs and in less than 8 hours, they would have broken one and lost the other.

That's THE funniest description of support services I've seen yet. +1 rep. I'm half-tempted to quote you elsewhere lol

 

[Faded Glory]

Thats the thing, "more risky" is not subjective. Its a fact. Open has all the basic risk of solo, with an added twist ; you can get jumped by a wing of pirate in open, and get killed. The fact that this thing is POSSIBLE, is all that matters. Its a simple as (1+1) > 1

This is a flaw in the original design of the game, and should be adressed, or at least acknowledged by frontier.

Well, at the risk of sounding abrupt and rude, if you are unhappy with the extra risk that you feel is in Open, don't play Open, and if you are happy to face that extra risk, then enjoy it. As you say, it's simple, nobody's forcing you.

You think it's a flaw in the design, I don't think FD do.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

I swear you are not reading replies but looking for key words to comment on.

You have claimed repeatedly that you don't want to change game and are happy with what FDev has made.

BUT!!!!!

you are an Open Only Advocate..

you do realize that the Open Only Advocates WANT TO CHANGE THE GAME. They want solo and Private modes gone and everyone forced to play in open. They want Open to be the ONLY Mode available..

And it wasn't a generalization or false.. Open Only Advocates have complained (if you were to read the megathreads) that open was a wasteland and they COULD NOT FIND TARGETS.

"I already did earlier.. I even quoted you"

No you have me confused. I have never said "Open Way is the Proper Way to play". I have repeatedly stated ALL game modes are equally valid.

"For you they may be not for everyone, but apparently if it is to complex for you.. others who have seen a clear correlation must be wrong"

I disagree, you claim there is simple and obvious correlation, but it is apples and oranges. ED have their vision for the game. I am happy with it. Others are not, but they should complain to ED, not ask me to support their conclusions. I do not.

"And I will answer with the "trigger warnings" Open-Pve, Open-PVP. Easy for people to understand and still relevant "

What do you mean? They are menu options, not a statement of disturbing material. Either way, you are free to advocate for Open PvE. I think it is not needed, and don;t expect I will see it any time soon. I am glad of that Anyway, you keep bringing this up lol!

"I notice you quoted "everyone" but left off "who brought up a different game" that way you could make a claim I said something else.. You claim it has no bearing and it is "off topic" because as you previously stated.. to you, anyone who mentions another game is derailing the discussion because you only talk about ED.. so you do not see how they are relevant and pertinent because you've already tossed their argument out as irrelevant because it mentioned another game. "

What is wrong with me expressing the opinion that I believe that is not pertinent to the discussion? Either way, I stand by my point. It is not relevant to Elite Dangerous. It has its own way of doing things, and I like that Either way, I did not say "Everyone", so I am correct.

"I swear you are not reading replies but looking for key words to comment on. "

For your information, I am reading them all. It appears you are getting a bit emotive about all this, I am not trying to upset you or anything. Just after some hinest debate

"you are an Open Only Advocate.. "

Yes, I only play in Open. I would advocate to others they do the same, as I believe it is a really good mode. I would even advocate others do the same , but it is THEIR FREEDOM TO CHOOSE, they are not forced. I don't think they should be. At the same time, I believe ALL modes are equal and valid, and have no problem with any commander who chooses to play the game their way, within the framewoek ED have provided.

"you do realize that the Open Only Advocates WANT TO CHANGE THE GAME. "

Well I am an Open Only Advocate, and I do not want to change the game. I have the odd suggestion for improvement, but nothing radical or drastic, just little tweaks. I am happy with their vision, and feel I was not mis-sold the product. I got what I wanted.

"Open Only Advocates have complained (if you were to read the megathreads) that open was a wasteland and they "COULD NOT FIND TARGETS"."

If you have a problem with this attitude then you should discuss it with the people who have said that. I did not say I could not find targets. Actually in the interests of accuracy you said "they needed more targets after running everyone away", but I wouldn't want to nitpick

Anyway, have a good night! Chill out, and remember, it is only a game Nothing to lose sleep over.

- - - Updated - - -

You seriously need to read the thread instead of assuming that what is said is OPINION.. what you claim as Jockey saying is opinion.. IS WHAT HAS BEEN SAID by some who want to vindicate making Open either the only mode or to give it rewards over other modes.

That is just a thread full of opinions though, I can boot up the game and see that it is not. Anecdotal evidence is not very reliable in my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

You seriously need to read the thread instead of assuming that what is said is OPINION.. what you claim as Jockey saying is opinion.. IS WHAT HAS BEEN SAID by some who want to vindicate making Open either the only mode or to give it rewards over other modes.

I like the idea of rewards in Open, but I understand others do not. Hopefully we will see more, like the competitions and some CQC tournaments