Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

Do you want a Open PvE

  • Yes, I want a Open PvE

    Votes: 54 51.4%
  • No, I don't want a Open PvE

    Votes: 49 46.7%
  • I want only Open PvE and PvP only in groups

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Total voters
    105
  • Poll closed .
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
If you are serious about wanting PvP, friend some of the Code players and then work the CGs. You then have a greater likelihood of engaging in the sort of gameplay you are thirsting for.

Leave the simulation alone and the rest of us can enjoy it the way we want to enjoy it.
 
The reason for that request is simple, currently pvp is pointless when it can and is easily circumvented. There's no way to influence, and prevent influence with pvp. For however many you kill in open there's probably an equal number in Solo or group. Players would like it changed to allow for a more pvp style of play.

There's also the psychological whiplash of players being able to effect you without being able to confront them, that runs contrary to every video game ever.

Selfish? Perhaps, but it's probably seen to some as a necessary evil to help shift the balance towards pvp.


I'm sorry Jordan but this is a full cop out answer.. i have no issue trying to make PVP more fun, but calling for PVP to be the privileged form of Elite gameplay is horse hockey.

No other mode is trying to make themselves the ONLY mode or the only one that matters. Constantly it is OPEN players that want special treatment or their mode to be the only one, cause apparently they are better than everyone else. Because they pvp they think they are entitled to rewards or the ability change the game and others not. If PVP is so pointless because it can be circumvented.. than why do people continue to do it? just for kicks.. I keep hearing the "rare but meaningful" mantra.. yet I wonder since it has become commonplace and meaningless according to you.. is the issue that PVPers can't influence the game or that it was deemed that PVP would be used to abuse the influencing the game?

And you talk about psychological whiplash.. yet pvpers don't give a CRAP about the psychological whiplash they inflict on those who don't want to pvp.. but suddenly the influence of a faction changes and they have NO idea if it is because of solo, group, x-box, or open in a different instance and suddenly there is psychological whiplash and they are suffering? Yet again for their victims.. to bad so sad.. get better at the game...

And I call utter horse hockey that being able to affect you without being able to confront them.. because they are not effecting you.. they are not damaging your ship, causing your weapons to overload, interdicting you...they are only affecting the environment, just like you and everyone else is... and if it runs contrary to every video game ever then maybe you need to go look at every game with a PVP flag system and watch how people affect things and cannot be touched by PVPers all the time.

Yes it is incredibly selfish and there is no viable reason to "shift the balance towards PVP" PVP has it's place in the the galaxy and ALREADY HAS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. PVE.. has private groups and jump through hoops to find people.. otherwise your are alone in solo.

PVP.. Has Open and CQC.... yet they want MORE... more more.. gimmie gimmie gimmie.. OPen needs to be the only mode, We have more "risk" we need more rewards for everything, make people play more in Open, OPen should be the only mode that influences the BSG...


When does it end?


How much of the game does PVPers need to control before they are happy and will let everyone else play the game and no longer have to suffer the constant barraging need need need.
 
Pardon me but I am a player (who plays in open for the greater majority of the time these days, if that matters) and I do not want this.


As am I, and I wouldn't like this. Perhaps some PvP events and ways to affect the BGS MIGHT be fun in certain circumstances, but not at the expense of the existing ways.
 
I'm sorry Jordan but this is a full cop out answer.. i have no issue trying to make PVP more fun, but calling for PVP to be the privileged form of Elite gameplay is horse hockey.... <snip>

No it's not Polo, it's anti-Solo... It's this:

[video=youtube;hFDcoX7s6rE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFDcoX7s6rE[/video]
 
I'm sorry Jordan but this is a full cop out answer.. i have no issue trying to make PVP more fun, but calling for PVP to be the privileged form of Elite gameplay is horse hockey.

No other mode is trying to make themselves the ONLY mode or the only one that matters. Constantly it is OPEN players that want special treatment or their mode to be the only one, cause apparently they are better than everyone else. Because they pvp they think they are entitled to rewards or the ability change the game and others not. If PVP is so pointless because it can be circumvented.. than why do people continue to do it? just for kicks.. I keep hearing the "rare but meaningful" mantra.. yet I wonder since it has become commonplace and meaningless according to you.. is the issue that PVPers can't influence the game or that it was deemed that PVP would be used to abuse the influencing the game?

And you talk about psychological whiplash.. yet pvpers don't give a CRAP about the psychological whiplash they inflict on those who don't want to pvp.. but suddenly the influence of a faction changes and they have NO idea if it is because of solo, group, x-box, or open in a different instance and suddenly there is psychological whiplash and they are suffering? Yet again for their victims.. to bad so sad.. get better at the game...

And I call utter horse hockey that being able to affect you without being able to confront them.. because they are not effecting you.. they are not damaging your ship, causing your weapons to overload, interdicting you...they are only affecting the environment, just like you and everyone else is... and if it runs contrary to every video game ever then maybe you need to go look at every game with a PVP flag system and watch how people affect things and cannot be touched by PVPers all the time.

Yes it is incredibly selfish and there is no viable reason to "shift the balance towards PVP" PVP has it's place in the the galaxy and ALREADY HAS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. PVE.. has private groups and jump through hoops to find people.. otherwise your are alone in solo.

PVP.. Has Open and CQC.... yet they want MORE... more more.. gimmie gimmie gimmie.. OPen needs to be the only mode, We have more "risk" we need more rewards for everything, make people play more in Open, OPen should be the only mode that influences the BSG...


When does it end?


How much of the game does PVPers need to control before they are happy and will let everyone else play the game and no longer have to suffer the constant barraging need need need.
You wanted an answer and I explained it to you. I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, I was merely explaining a perspective of the other side.

I'm not going to bother defending against any of the arguments you or anyone else made. There's absolutely no point. One side is never going to convince the other side of anything. It's always going to be one side or the other, that's the downside of pve vs pvp, it's a zero sum game. buffing one hurts the other, and nerfing one helps the other.

I'm always going to support pvp and want it to be better. I find pve insanely boring and tedious, it's only bearable in small doses. And you support pve over pvp for your own reasons and want to see pve improved.
 
Last edited:
You wanted an answer and I explained it to you. I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, I was merely explaining a perspective of the other side.

I'm not going to bother defending against any of the arguments you or anyone else made. There's absolutely no point. One side is never going to convince the other side, that's the downside of pve vs pvp, it's a zero sum game, buffing one hurts the other, and nerfing one helps the other.

That is why Elite Dangerous is not a PvP oriented game. It is a PvE game where rare and meaningful PvP can take place.

There are no PvP vs PvE elements in the game. When suggest it would be a good thing to make Open buffed, they ignore the design, the purpose of some of the modes. In fact, you could easily point out that Groups is a better fit for PvP than open, as if you have a small PvP group, you are guaranteed to see each other, being friends and in the same group, without other players getting in the instance and forcing some of your mates whom you like to PvP with...

Of course there are the PvP type of person who has no friends. They are the one who cry that there are not enough fodder for their guns... in which case, it boils down to pure selfishness.

PvP in the environment (CGs, PP, etc) have only a very small influence by design. To want to change that is to want the Moon...

With extra sauce.

And pickles.

Twice.
 
I said players, as in some players, not all. I thought that was obvious.

Eh... no.

fWxty1g.gif
 
As I've explained (suggested?) before, there are a lot of reasons thrown around here as to why instancing invalidates any argument for mode disparity which I believe aren't really that much of an issue. At least they can be justified as things that can be 'lived with'. The problem where players cannot (or will not due to network manipulation) join an instance with others is the remaining problem.

A potential solution to that would be for the servers to make a determination on a client based on network performance and ability to join instances. If instance connections are required/attempted (i.e. there are other pilots in the area) and the client continually fails (for whatever reason), then that clients actions would not affect the BGS (but would still have to affect the player where appropriate).

DISCLAIMER: I am not suggesting/requesting this or promoting it in any way. Just floating ideas.

Digital Apartheid

"Sorry son you're not commin in ere'. 150Mbs up an down only, now get back to where the poor people live."
 
I am currently playing both the PC and XBone versions in solo. I have never fired a weapon and don't intend to (in the rare cases I am interdicted I run, and I am fast). I am currently a loooooong way out from the centre exploring away happily and when I do eventually find an unexplored system I would like to see my name all over it. But, I also don't want to run the risk of meeting another real life player who will probably just want to ruin my day.

So I like the fact I have the chance to affect the universe (in a very, very small way) but I don't ever want to meet another real life player. The 'Single Player, but in an online universe' aspect of Elite Dangerous was a bit part of why I pledged on the KS and a big part of why I continue to pootle about in it's universe still.
 
… It's always going to be one side or the other, that's the downside of pve vs pvp, …

I don't think that good PvE results in bad PvP or vice versa. I hope that FD manages to get the balance between PvP and PvE right.

I'm always going to support pvp and want it to be better. I find pve insanely boring and tedious, it's only bearable in small doses. And you support pve over pvp for your own reasons and want to see pve improved.

If somebody doesn't like PvE the whole "Solo mode shouldn't affect the BGS" makes no sense at all from that point of view. Manipulating the BGS is pure PvE. It has nothing to do with PvP. Demanding that only Open Mode player can affect the BGS is just denying a group something they like to do even if oneself doesn't like to do it.


A better way - in my opinion - would be to make special player group minor-factions that can only be affected by player interaction (PvP), but have no influence on the BGS. Some type of player(-group) reputation ranking.
Player groups in open could get reputation for piracy, PvP combat, trader protection - for general CMDR vs/with CMDR interaction.
Such a system would give PvP centric player groups a way to get recognition in-game (something I think is very important for those groups, but I might be wrong). Without forcing them to do something they don't like - managing "their" minor-faction by doing PvE stuff.
 
I'm sorry Jordan but this is a full cop out answer.. i have no issue trying to make PVP more fun, but calling for PVP to be the privileged form of Elite gameplay is horse hockey.

No other mode is trying to make themselves the ONLY mode or the only one that matters. Constantly it is OPEN players that want special treatment or their mode to be the only one, cause apparently they are better than everyone else. Because they pvp they think they are entitled to rewards or the ability change the game and others not. If PVP is so pointless because it can be circumvented.. than why do people continue to do it? just for kicks.. I keep hearing the "rare but meaningful" mantra.. yet I wonder since it has become commonplace and meaningless according to you.. is the issue that PVPers can't influence the game or that it was deemed that PVP would be used to abuse the influencing the game?

And you talk about psychological whiplash.. yet pvpers don't give a CRAP about the psychological whiplash they inflict on those who don't want to pvp.. but suddenly the influence of a faction changes and they have NO idea if it is because of solo, group, x-box, or open in a different instance and suddenly there is psychological whiplash and they are suffering? Yet again for their victims.. to bad so sad.. get better at the game...

And I call utter horse hockey that being able to affect you without being able to confront them.. because they are not effecting you.. they are not damaging your ship, causing your weapons to overload, interdicting you...they are only affecting the environment, just like you and everyone else is... and if it runs contrary to every video game ever then maybe you need to go look at every game with a PVP flag system and watch how people affect things and cannot be touched by PVPers all the time.

Yes it is incredibly selfish and there is no viable reason to "shift the balance towards PVP" PVP has it's place in the the galaxy and ALREADY HAS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. PVE.. has private groups and jump through hoops to find people.. otherwise your are alone in solo.

PVP.. Has Open and CQC.... yet they want MORE... more more.. gimmie gimmie gimmie.. OPen needs to be the only mode, We have more "risk" we need more rewards for everything, make people play more in Open, OPen should be the only mode that influences the BSG...


When does it end?


How much of the game does PVPers need to control before they are happy and will let everyone else play the game and no longer have to suffer the constant barraging need need need.
I want to make clear right at the start, that I've only been playing for about a month. 90% of that time has been in solo or group, with a couple of games in CQC... So take this with the appropriate amount of gravity.

However, I'm used to playing PvP open style games, and can't help but feel that the overall longevity of this game will depend on emergent gameplay, and player-driven content. I've stayed in Solo or group up until now, because I could. There was no incentive to venture into Open, other than the draw of PvP, and that wasn't very appealing during the early stages of the learning curve.

I can absolutely see a need (more than one) for Solo mode and PvE... makes game entry less disheartening than some games I've played, some players just like PvE, and less dangerous place to try out new builds.... oh.. and somewhere to go if funds get low enough that you are risking ending up in a Startwinder again... Did I miss any?

Now, while I think it's perfectly fine (even a good idea) that Solo mode players can have an effect on the background simulation and that each type of player is accommodated, I think there needs to be some incentive to play Open mode. There's more risk, possibly a chance of dying more often, and the associated costs. Players are inevitably going to be harder and more unpredictable than NPCs.

Solo mode players aren't affected by other players (other than the background simulation), so why would it matter to them if Open players got a little bit more, for being a little bit braver?

Maybe more rewards for missions in Open. If you collect a mission in open, it must be completed in open. PvP missions/rewards/bonuses for killing/pirating CMDRs of opposing factions etc.

I'll acknowledge that the focus of FD on making the environment so detailed will help with longevity, but I just think that ultimately at some stage, PvE won't be able to compete with player driven content.
 
I want to make clear right at the start, that I've only been playing for about a month. 90% of that time has been in solo or group, with a couple of games in CQC... So take this with the appropriate amount of gravity.

However, I'm used to playing PvP open style games, and can't help but feel that the overall longevity of this game will depend on emergent gameplay, and player-driven content. I've stayed in Solo or group up until now, because I could. There was no incentive to venture into Open, other than the draw of PvP, and that wasn't very appealing during the early stages of the learning curve.

I can absolutely see a need (more than one) for Solo mode and PvE... makes game entry less disheartening than some games I've played, some players just like PvE, and less dangerous place to try out new builds.... oh.. and somewhere to go if funds get low enough that you are risking ending up in a Startwinder again... Did I miss any?

Now, while I think it's perfectly fine (even a good idea) that Solo mode players can have an effect on the background simulation and that each type of player is accommodated, I think there needs to be some incentive to play Open mode. There's more risk, possibly a chance of dying more often, and the associated costs. Players are inevitably going to be harder and more unpredictable than NPCs.

Solo mode players aren't affected by other players (other than the background simulation), so why would it matter to them if Open players got a little bit more, for being a little bit braver?

Maybe more rewards for missions in Open. If you collect a mission in open, it must be completed in open. PvP missions/rewards/bonuses for killing/pirating CMDRs of opposing factions etc.

I'll acknowledge that the focus of FD on making the environment so detailed will help with longevity, but I just think that ultimately at some stage, PvE won't be able to compete with player driven content.


To me, Open Play incentive is to give me the opportunity to play with everyone, everywhere, at anytime without knowing what would be the outcome in advance.
And the reward is to share a very good fun time event with everyone, everywhere at anytime.
 
Last edited:
I can absolutely see a need (more than one) for Solo mode and PvE... makes game entry less disheartening than some games I've played, some players just like PvE, and less dangerous place to try out new builds.... oh.. and somewhere to go if funds get low enough that you are risking ending up in a Startwinder again... Did I miss any?

Now, while I think it's perfectly fine (even a good idea) that Solo mode players can have an effect on the background simulation and that each type of player is accommodated, I think there needs to be some incentive to play Open mode.

The incentive is that you get to shoot Marvin in the face, unless Greedo shoots first.
-
The type of gameplay you appear to seek is the lure of Open. There is no requirement to tilt the table in order for you to go and play the game you want to play!
-
Unless of course you can't find anyone to play along with and thus seek to impose your will on their playstyle (rather twofold as you would then seek to impose your will on them in Open once you strong-armed them into Open in the first place...)
-
I disagree with your premise and your reasoning. Choice is good. Playing the game is good.
 
If somebody doesn't like PvE the whole "Solo mode shouldn't affect the BGS" makes no sense at all from that point of view. Manipulating the BGS is pure PvE. It has nothing to do with PvP. Demanding that only Open Mode player can affect the BGS is just denying a group something they like to do even if oneself doesn't like to do it.

Actually that stance makes perfect sense if you think about it.

People who want to find soft targets cannot find them in Open - as the soft targets tend to play in Solo or Private Groups Vs the BGS.
So by making the BGS interactions Open Only - you move the soft targets out of Solo / Private Groups in to Open.
Giving those players who want soft targets, exactly what they want - unwilling, unarmed cannon fodder to shoot at / annoy / grief.

Those people can all ready PvP with each other in Open / CQC - but they clearly are not looking for a fair fight, or they'd be happy to leave PvE'ers alone and go beat each other up.
Yet they are here saying "balance" / "fairness" / "broken" and so on - when really, what they want is pew pew boom lulz. And we know that is what they want due to all the arguments put forward so far, is either not a mode issue (SCB stacking for example) or the PvE counters for the PvE attacks are being ignored to argue for PvP counters to PvE game play.... aka pew pew boom lulz Vs soft targets.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom