Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Sylveria]

Just thought to put this here, seeing as it applies to many of the arguments in this thread (along with "strawman," "Overton Windows" and etc)

Wikipedia - Nirvana Fallacy

The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.


By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better".


The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. It is common for arguments which commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about exactly how, or how badly, a proposed solution is claimed to fall short of acceptability, expressing the rejection only in vague terms. [/Wikipedia]

Sound familiar?

I think a lot of mud gets slung back and forth- and both sides have used fallacies in order to support positions of argument. Happens all the time in debates. (just look at any political stage, and you'll see what I mean)

IMO the only "perfect" or rather near-perfect solution is giving people choices- not removing them. That said, "pidgeonholing" people never makes anyone happy.

Removing choices means limiting options- whereas providing choices only expands the chances that a problem may be resolved. In a competitive mindset- there's always gotta be a "winner" and a "loser", and IMO it's that tendency that introduces dichotomy to begin with.

With those who aren't as competitive- whose choices likely aren't being affected by "ego", the chances are much less that there's going to be a dichotomy introduced.

How's that for thought?

 

[Roybe]

What a tangled web we weave, indeed.

Busteeeeeeeed!

- - - Updated - - -



Would laugh hysterically if FD released it without announcement, too.

We all would!

 

[Mouse]

I think a lot of mud gets slung back and forth- and both sides have used fallacies in order to support positions of argument. Happens all the time in debates. (just look at any political stage, and you'll see what I mean)

IMO the only "perfect" or rather near-perfect solution is giving people choices- not removing them. That said, "pidgeonholing" people never makes anyone happy.

Removing choices means limiting options- whereas providing choices only expands the chances that a problem may be resolved. In a competitive mindset- there's always gotta be a "winner" and a "loser", and IMO it's that tendency that introduces dichotomy to begin with.

With those who aren't as competitive- whose choices likely aren't being affected by "ego", the chances are much less that there's going to be a dichotomy introduced.

How's that for thought?

fully agree, live and let live would be great

 

[DarkWalker]

You are literally argumenting with flaws of the game

You can't say "there are bugs" and because of that you abuse a bug. Just because the bug is there.

Doesn't make it right.

What, the fact Frontier chose, from the start, a networking model that makes it nearly impossible to ever force players to see each other?

This is one heck of an argument for which is Frontier's intent regarding the game's multiplayer. Or would be if they didn't explicitly say, multiple times and ever since the idea of the game was first presented, that players would be able to control who they might encounter, restricting it in any way they see fit, and changing that setting at will.

---

The possibility of other players is what makes the grind go bye bye and emergent gameplay say hello. They keep trying to explain that but people like grinding, it's odd.

As was said before, what you see as a grind is, for others, enjoyable.
Besides, even if I were to consider the game a grind, that would still be better for me than allowing non-consensual PvP to happen. I regard unwanted PvP with the same cold fury I usually reserve for spam, and won't accept it in my gameplay in any shape or way. Not even the chance of it, no matter how small.

The guy you are talking to is in love with grinding NPC's and has never experienced an amazing sandbox social experience before.

Many people, myself included, are so adamant about PvP being fully optional exactly because we have experienced the kind of sandbox you are pushing for and found it sorely lacking. After my time in EVE I vowed to never again even give a chance to any game where I'm not able to opt out of PvP.

And, BTW, most people that do try a game like EVE and (pre-Trammel) UO dislike it. This kind of game always has a huge issue with player retention.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

That's so sad with the Cobra vs. Viper thing. I don't like the Cobra but I would want to fight with the Hutton Truckers.

Heresy! The Cobra IS Elite. Best part about the original is that there was none of this acquiring new ships. That Cobra became YOUR ship, not a stepping stone.

 

[relayer]

<snip>

IMO the only "perfect" or rather near-perfect solution is giving people choices- not removing them.

<snipsnip>

Removing choices means limiting options- whereas providing choices only expands the chances that a problem may be resolved.

<snippitysnip>

How's that for thought?

Exactly why I posted it CHOICE is the greatest part of this game.

- - - Updated - - -

Besides, even if I were to consider the game a grind, that would still be better for me than...

<snip>

... mindlessly watching the telly?

 

[Daffan]

I have to say I think it is funny that you have ignored everything I've said to you including a question to be answered..





I would like to know also how you say you were gone for two days when looking at your posts.. you were replying here yesterday..

did u like how i wrote "Like 2 days" I live in Australia so different TZ , i posted, went to bed (sleep in day, night is work) and then came back.

One post was at 2:33am and the one i did before it was 8:33 am the day before

Oh don't. I'd have to buy a new PC chair, as I'd wet myself laughing in this one

Why would we care that open pve would be released?

it already exists.... wouldn't change a single thing in this topic

fail burn imo

 

[Jockey79]

did u like how i wrote "Like 2 days" I live in Australia so different TZ , i posted, went to bed (sleep in day, night is work) and then came back.

One post was at 2:33am and the one i did before it was 8:33 am the day before



Why would we care that open pve would be released?

it already exists.... wouldn't change a single thing in this topic

fail burn imo

There is no open PvE mode, as all multiplayer modes have PvP enabled and there is nothing to stop PvP in any multiplayer mode.

So saying it "already exists" is a massive misunderstanding of the game you're commenting on.

Also, a "burn" would be against forum rules, due to a "burn" being an insult or sarcastic remark designed to upset someone.
If me finding a hypothetical situation funny upsets you, that's not a "burn", that's you looking for excuses to be upset.

 

[DarkWalker]

Besides, even if I were to consider the game a grind, that would still be better for me than...

<snip>

... mindlessly watching the telly?

Quite
(I stopped watching TV long ago, when entertainment options on the Internet became good enough — and, given that I prefer reading over watching videos, for me that point came before the Internet even became good enough for streaming. My gripe about others dictating how I play? It also applies to having my schedule dictated by what is on TV, to the point three decades ago I was already time-shifting almost everything I watched.)

---

Why would we care that open pve would be released?

Perhaps not you specifically, but many proponents of Open fear that, if an official Open PvE mode is released, most players will choose it and the current (PvP-enabled) Open will be left empty. It has, after all, happened in UO (though, of course, without creating a PvE world, UO would likely have been axed over a decade ago; forced PvP both made player retention distressingly low and skyrocketed support costs due to all the people complaining about PKers).

Yeah, there is already the Mobius group working as an unofficial PvE mode. But it's not promoted by Frontier; chances are good that most of the 90%+ players that don't read the forums don't even know that the group exists. Also, there is no way to pro-actively prevent unwanted PvP from happening there, the only thing that can be done is banning from the group after the fact.

 

[Sylveria]

Exactly why I posted it CHOICE is the greatest part of this game.

- - - Updated - - -


<snip>

... mindlessly watching the telly?

I don't even own one, personally. Haven't had cable for at almost 10 years and even when I did, it lasted perhaps 6 months total. (did it as a test just to see if I was "missing" something)

Not interested in anything on the television. I think for the most part, what I don't like about television is it's always someone else's perspective of what life is "supposed to be about", and yet seems hardly realistic at all. People are literally being "programmed" all the time, and they don't even know it.

I'm one of those "independent" people who actually learned to think for myself very early in life. It started as a "had to" then turned into a "chose to keep doing so".

 

[Sylveria]

Quite
(I stopped watching TV long ago, when entertainment options on the Internet became good enough — and, given that I prefer reading over watching videos, for me that point came before the Internet even became good enough for streaming. My gripe about others dictating how I play? It also applies to having my schedule dictated by what is on TV, to the point three decades ago I was already time-shifting almost everything I watched.)

---

Perhaps not you specifically, but many proponents of Open fear that, if an official Open PvE mode is released, most players will choose it and the current (PvP-enabled) Open will be left empty. It has, after all, happened in UO (though, of course, without creating a PvE world, UO would likely have been axed over a decade ago; forced PvP both made player retention distressingly low and skyrocketed support costs due to all the people complaining about PKers).

Yeah, there is already the Mobius group working as an unofficial PvE mode. But it's not promoted by Frontier; chances are good that most of the 90%+ players that don't read the forums don't even know that the group exists. Also, there is no way to pro-actively prevent unwanted PvP from happening there, the only thing that can be done is banning from the group after the fact.

Speculating a bit here- but I'm wondering if the reason they didn't implement Open PvE to begin with and opted for Group mode is so that they could save money with patrolling the game with GM's. That way, they hand the "controls" to the Group moderator- instead of having to have dedicated GM's patrolling it.

Of course, the problem is that it's not a viable solution if you've got a 10K+ group of players and not much in the way of tools for moderation. It's like handing someone a Sidewinder, trying to fit 200 tons of cargo in it and fly it 5000 LY with no frameshift drive.

 

[Jockey79]

....
Yeah, there is already the Mobius group working as an unofficial PvE mode. But it's not promoted by Frontier; chances are good that most of the 90%+ players that don't read the forums don't even know that the group exists. Also, there is no way to pro-actively prevent unwanted PvP from happening there, the only thing that can be done is banning from the group after the fact.

Exactly this.

Until FD make an Open PvE mode, there is no PvE mode.
The Mobius Group is great and I've enjoyed talking to some folks in it, but there is always that chance they will just fire on you for no reason - as was proven by CODE.

Right now, there is no multiplayer PvE mode - for an "MMO" that is poor. Even World of Warships and World of Planes have Player V. AI matches to practice in before going to the Player V. Player games.

 

[Roybe]

Speculating a bit here- but I'm wondering if the reason they didn't implement Open PvE to begin with and opted for Group mode is so that they could save money with patrolling the game with GM's. That way, they hand the "controls" to the Group moderator- instead of having to have dedicated GM's patrolling it.

Of course, the problem is that it's not a viable solution if you've got a 10K+ group of players and not much in the way of tools for moderation. It's like handing someone a Sidewinder, trying to fit 200 tons of cargo in it and fly it 5000 LY with no frameshift drive.

My belief, after various discussions with devs from Frontier, is that they expect the community to handle morality issues among themselves.

If someone slights you, players have the option to smite another player or group, or find safety/non-conflict in the Private modes.

There are new tools coming for group administration...in the Later™ and Someday™ range of game dev parlance.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

My belief, after various discussions with devs from Frontier, is that they expect the community to handle morality issues among themselves.

If someone slights you, players have the option to smite another player or group, or find safety/non-conflict in the Private modes.

There are new tools coming for group administration...in the Later™ and Someday™ range of game dev parlance.

if this has come from the horses mouth as it were (the devs) did they happen to mention to you at what point did they about turn from the dev diaries? Surely us KS backers (this is not having a go at you or arguing with you I am just thinking aloud as it were) but surely us KS & beta backers who may have backed in part on the basis of these videos on crime and consequence deserve some official feedback on why they changed direction so massively.... and if what we have now is working as intended & OPEN being policed by players in open rather than AI authority is most certainly a huge change imo.

 

[Mercy Killing]

Even World of Warships and World of Planes have Player V. AI matches to practice in before going to the Player V. Player games.

Um.....that's what solo is for? Don't get me wrong, I'm only solo mode, not bashing it at all, but it seems that the CHOICE is what sets this game apart. Nothing is forced on anyone.

 

[Roybe]

if this has come from the horses mouth as it were (the devs) did they happen to mention to you at what point did they about turn from the dev diaries? Surely us KS backers (this is not having a go at you or arguing with you I am just thinking aloud as it were) but surely us KS & beta backers who may have backed in part on the basis of these videos on crime and consequence deserve some official feedback on why they changed direction so massively.... and if what we have now is working as intended & OPEN being policed by players in open rather than AI authority is most certainly a huge change imo.

nope...nothing said about this. Just that they want us to be able to take care of problems related to players doing 'bad things' between the players.

Looking at what happened at Hutton...and some responses I have seen elsewhere...this is what is expected. We all need to put on our adult underwear and take care of business...or ignore it. I am uncertain as to what was discussed...however, anything discussed/promised...always comes down to expectations vs. reality..and the juxtaposition of the two. I think a lot of people over-expected on promised features. And this is not meant as a argument or condemnation...we are all guilty of it at times.

I actually went through one of DB's video..and showed we received exactly what was promised, with only a couple items missing...which was a pale comparison to the expectations. So I expect any promises made to basically come down to this problem. We have security forces and anarchy systems where anything goes....it's just a different level of reality to expectations. More might be coming...but, in all fairness, it might not be.

 

[Chip Patton]

my 2 cents

My guild has created a private group of folks we know won't cheat and are good people to PVE and PVP with. The group has about 200 folks in it now, folks we have picked up from other MMO's such as STO, EVE, and ESO. We have also picked up players from other server hosted games in which we own a server for including ARK, 7D2D, and SE. What I'm saying is, I don't really understand the point of burdening the devs, when it is a lot easier to create a sub forum dedicated to those that have these bigger groups going that may have a condition of PVE or whatnot. This is not something that would affect my crew in the least, it is a closed group and invitation only through those that we have known for a while in TeamSpeak (and their closest friends), but I do know that many groups out there exist with massive player bases in group play that have just 2 conditions to play with them: PVE only and no cheating.

 

[ianw]

If they can't balance at as they said they would - and Sandro confirmed balancing is ongoing, they like to get low sec dangerous and hi sec more secure and they're trying to get player pirates playing more with player bounty hunters.

If that happens that might help a lot of people.

If not then they really ought to give people a PVP flag or a separate PVE login so that those people can enjoy meeting like minded people in open.

Let people vote with their feet. Give people incentives to play in open as a victim - give them a bit more a chance especially when they're new.

If your game isn't able to encourage more people to want to play trader with target on their back for the pirates then it doesn't seem to work terribly well in that area.

 

[Roybe]

If they can't balance at as they said they would - and Sandro confirmed balancing is ongoing, they like to get low sec dangerous and hi sec more secure and they're trying to get player pirates playing more with player bounty hunters.

If that happens that might help a lot of people.

If not then they really ought to give people a PVP flag or a separate PVE login so that those people can enjoy meeting like minded people in open.

Let people vote with their feet. Give people incentives to play in open as a victim - give them a bit more a chance especially when they're new.

If your game isn't able to encourage more people to want to play trader with target on their back for the pirates then it doesn't seem to work terribly well in that area.

You can already vote with your feet. Private modes are your vote.

 

[ianw]

You can already vote with your feet. Private modes are your vote.

You know that doesn't address the point I'm making.

It doesn't help people who'd like to enjoy the game in open with like minded people.

The ones that you won't see anyway because they stay in Mobius if nothing changes so it couldn't possibly harm you if they had a PVE login you couldn't see them in either.