Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].

[Roybe]

Have fun all!

I'll be back at some other time. Going to go and try to get the brass ring!

 

[SteveLaw]

Why do you disagree with the center.

If you play chess, the interaction is between the two players. If one of the players is put on a timer and the other isn't, the game becomes unfair. It's a similar state. In a Race/Competing Goal, the timer is ticking. One player can choose to play in Open or contribute more (and subsequently make more) by going to Private. Most players are going to go where the contribution to the outcome (or their pocket) regardless of their desires to interact. Most of us, making this choice, feel that this is a design to force us into private mode. Again, this is ONLY IN THE COMPETING/RACE type goals.

Again, the merry go round is starting.

Both chess players have the choice as to use the timer or not but one of them chooses the timer even when the other doesn't. That's their choice.

 

[fademist]

Why do you disagree with the center.

If you play chess, the interaction is between the two players. If one of the players is put on a timer and the other isn't, the game becomes unfair. It's a similar state. In a Race/Competing Goal, the timer is ticking. One player can choose to play in Open or contribute more (and subsequently make more) by going to Private. Most players are going to go where the contribution to the outcome (or their pocket) regardless of their desires to interact. Most of us, making this choice, feel that this is a design to force us into private mode. Again, this is ONLY IN THE COMPETING/RACE type goals.

Again, the merry go round is starting.

then find a solution that doesnt hurt solo/group mode not try to force solo to open

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why do you disagree with the center.

If you play chess, the interaction is between the two players. If one of the players is put on a timer and the other isn't, the game becomes unfair. It's a similar state. In a Race/Competing Goal, the timer is ticking. One player can choose to play in Open or contribute more (and subsequently make more) by going to Private. Most players are going to go where the contribution to the outcome (or their pocket) regardless of their desires to interact. Most of us, making this choice, feel that this is a design to force us into private mode. Again, this is ONLY IN THE COMPETING/RACE type goals.

Again, the merry go round is starting.

Chess is an interesting starting point for the analogy regarding CGs - in chess there are a maximum of two players, each player starts with exactly the same equipment and it is the skill of each player that determines the outcome - which is not the case with CGs as players (and, more specifically, groups of players) do not all start from the same position of equipment or numbers. While I would agree (to an extent) that placing a timer on one player would be unreasonable, I fail to see how the timer analogy is pertinent to the current situation. While players can choose to change modes to suit their Min/Max drive, that choice is open to every player.

When players on different platforms are taken into account (as they ultimately must be) - there will be many more players that will never be able to be encountered to hinder their opposition to a particular goal.

 

[TartanDragon]

You are completely missing the point. You are focusing on the wrong thing in this. It's not about people playing with each other....it's playing against each other. They do not have to work together in the same instance...they just have to work together..pulling in the same direction.

Are you suggesting they introduce a "Guild Tax" so that not only guilds, clans, corp, whatever fancy name they come up with, are awarded less for their work in the BGS but all other players in solo and groups have the same reduction applied also?

 

[Arioch]

Maybe I'm being a bit dense because the coffee hasn't kicked in yet, but I cannot see how the arguments against Solo couldn't also be applied to every other instance the player is not in. ​If you cannot interact those other instances, surely you must group them together?

 

[SteveLaw]

Maybe I'm being a bit dense because the coffee hasn't kicked in yet, but I cannot see how the arguments against Solo couldn't also be applied to every other instance the player is not in. ​If you cannot interact those other instances, surely you must group them together?

This is one of the core areas of difference in the debate. I don't understand it either.

 

[TartanDragon]

This is one of the core areas of difference in the debate. I don't understand it either.

I think I understand what he means. Forget instances and working in the one instance. A organised group of players in a private group mode can play the game with no player interaction to hinder them, while the group in open do have players getting involved. Also if a group of players in their own little world all work against one faction it does not matter if they see each other or not. All this would work in solo also.

Please correct me if I got that wrong Roybe.

 

[SteveLaw]

I think I understand what he means. Forget instances and working in the one instance. A organised group of players in a private group mode can play the game with no player interaction to hinder them, while the group in open do have players getting involved. Also if a group of players in their own little world all work against one faction it does not matter if they see each other or not. All this would work in solo also.

Please correct me if I got that wrong Roybe.

But the organised players in a private Group is no different to organised players in a different instance in Open (or with blocked connections). In both cases they cannot be hindered by other players.

 

[TartanDragon]

But the organised players in a private Group is no different to organised players in a different instance in Open (or with blocked connections). In both cases they cannot be hindered by other players.

Not sure about blocked connections but I think I am on the right track. I did the Quivira CG and the mess at the beginning of it was cause by an empire guild flipping the system, in solo, group or open I don't know but having say ten players all doing missions in solo would make more sense than trying it in open. Again I am guessing something like that happened and more than likely something similar at Lugh.

Once again Roybe will correct me if I am on the wrong path.

 

[fademist]

Not sure about blocked connections but I think I am on the right track. I did the Quivira CG and the mess at the beginning of it was cause by an empire guild flipping the system, in solo, group or open I don't know but having say ten players all doing missions in solo would make more sense than trying it in open. Again I am guessing something like that happened and more than likely something similar at Lugh.

Once again Roybe will correct me if I am on the wrong path.

from what i know lugh had other problems bugs at influence when the CZ's was up noone tried to flip the stations was busy with cz's (i think )

 

[TartanDragon]

from what i know lugh had other problems bugs at influence when the CZ's was up noone tried to flip the stations was busy with cz's (i think )

So they had twenty pilots in solo racking up kills with no player interference, I'm guessing a well run band of players are always in the background (solo/group) working against the faction they say they oppose.

 

[Arioch]

So they had twenty pilots in solo racking up kills with no player interference, I'm guessing a well run band of players are always in the background (solo/group) working against the faction they say they oppose.

Coffee still not working - so it could be 20 pilots in their own instances or 5 wings of pilots in Group or Open - if they are not instanced with you then functionally, what is the difference? Everyone not in your instance is pretty much the 'ghost mode' that I've heard mentioned previously.

 

[SteveLaw]

So they had twenty pilots in solo racking up kills with no player interference, I'm guessing a well run band of players are always in the background (solo/group) working against the faction they say they oppose.

They key to their victory, if they actually have one, is twofold. First, they are well organised. Second they are using the best tool for the job. If some players choose to stay in Open then that is their choice. If you do not like the results of playing in Open then play in Solo. Everyone can do it. I will get more done using a hammer for nails and a screwdriver for screws than someone who will only use a screwdriver for everything.

- - - Updated - - -

Coffee still not working - so it could be 20 pilots in their own instances or 5 wings of pilots in Group or Open - if they are not instanced with you then functionally, what is the difference? Everyone not in your instance is pretty much the 'ghost mode' that I've heard mentioned previously.

There are tens of thousands of players playing the game how can any group of players expect to be able to control them all?

 

[TartanDragon]

Coffee still not working - so it could be 20 pilots in their own instances or 5 wings of pilots in Group or Open - if they are not instanced with you then functionally, what is the difference? Everyone not in your instance is pretty much the 'ghost mode' that I've heard mentioned previously.

More coffee mate

If I am on the right path, being in solo or a private group is 100% positive not to have other players, you cannot say that in open. Sure one or two may get an empty instance but I don't think everyone would in open. Friending may get round that but there is no way other than solo or group to be sure no other players interupt you. Hey I could be wrong and I am sure Roybe will let me know if I am correct, or wrong, about his point.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Frontier opposes blockades? Am I wrong, or haven’t there been GalNet articles warning of blockaded systems? Plus, haven’t several groups attempted blockades before? I’ve never seen Frontier object to blockades, so I don’t see why they’d not consider the blockade system I proposed. And considering that the point of the blockade is to give Open players a way to counter the actions of their unchecked opposition in Solo, I’d say this blockade idea has everything to do with Solo vs Open.

First off all, just read what they are talking about what kind of Game they want to make. Jockey always does post there explanation of what kind of Game they want to make but nobody seems to read it, its worth a check (he did post it on the First Page of this Thread).

To get more specific into blockades, this Video fits it very well around the 20 min mark:
[video]https://youtu.be/7HOUQN_qaHI?t=20m39s[/video]

Let me put an emphasis on this part (probably not perfect quotet, just look the video): "Essentialy its the Game of the freedom of the individual the ability to just go out and do your own thing. Guilds can very easy become almost like mafiosi saying don't travel here or we kill you."

Does this sound like he wants to make a Game where you can tell me "don't go here or I kill you"? The Freedom of the Individual is really the big point, what the Game is about. A Player will never have power over another player unless the other player chooses to give him this Power.

And yes, people try to do blockades, and theres nothing wrong with that. Other people might join your Game and fight you and you can have fun, but you cannot force anybody into playing your Game. Why should you? Why should you or anybody else decide how I play and where I play? Are you my boss? No, where I play, how I play and what I play is my descision and theres is no good reason what so ever why it should be yours. Unless you pay the Game for me and pay for my Time playing the Game, then I can work for your fun. Untill then: just no.

 

[Jockey79]

....
Again, the merry go round is starting.

It's never stopped.

Until you tell us the difference between the auto matchmaker making private instances for players and a player making them for themselves and other players, this isn't going anywhere.
This is the main point given by the advocates of Solo/Group. All we are doing, is what the game does by itself anyway. You can only have 32 people in 1 instance and if the matchmaker does not like the ping between some of them, it won't put them in with other people.

And the best example, is when the game first came out. The forums lite up with complaints over people playing in Open but never seeing anyone. Constant threads in General and Tech forums over it, FD couldn't answer them as to why so many folks in Lave were being placed into Solo instances despite picking Open from the main menu.
Turns out, the game client had uPNP turned off by default - so everyone was playing Solo no matter what they did. As soon as another forum user seen this, they posted what file to edit to turn it back on and bingo! people could suddenly see each other.

The whole game is built around instancing, so until you can explain how the auto systems is fine but the manual one isn't - proceed to bang your head up that brick wall.

 

[fademist]

First off all, just read what they are talking about what kind of Game they want to make. Jockey always does post there explanation of what kind of Game they want to make but nobody seems to read it, its worth a check (he did post it on the First Page of this Thread).

To get more specific into blockades, this Video fits it very well around the 20 min mark:
[video]https://youtu.be/7HOUQN_qaHI?t=20m39s[/url]

Let me put an emphasis on this part (probably not perfect quotet, just look the video): "Essentialy its the Game of the freedom of the individual the ability to just go out and do your own thing. Guilds can very easy become almost like mafiosi saying don't travel here or we kill you."

Does this sound like he wants to make a Game where you can tell me "don't go here or I kill you"? The Freedom of the Individual is really the big point, what the Game is about. A Player will never have power over another player unless the other player chooses to give him this Power.

And yes, people try to do blockades, and theres nothing wrong with that. Other people might join your Game and fight you and you can have fun, but you cannot force anybody into playing your Game. Why should you? Why should you or anybody else decide how I play and where I play? Are you my boss? No, where I play, how I play and what I play is my descision and theres is no good reason what so ever why it should be yours. Unless you pay the Game for me and pay for my Time playing the Game, then I can work for your fun. Untill then: just no.

i like that ...to get payed from them

 

[Arioch]

More coffee mate

If I am on the right path, being in solo or a private group is 100% positive not to have other players, you cannot say that in open. Sure one or two may get an empty instance but I don't think everyone would in open. Friending may get round that but there is no way other than solo or group to be sure no other players interupt you. Hey I could be wrong and I am sure Roybe will let me know if I am correct, or wrong, about his point.

Disregarding time of play/geographical location/internet speed, there may be a chance of adversarial player interaction in Open. So their contribution to whatever should count for more? I'm still not seeing that as a valid enough argument for reducing Solo/Group rewards.

 

[Arioch]

It's never stopped.

Until you tell us the difference between the auto matchmaker making private instances for players and a player making them for themselves and other players, this isn't going anywhere.
This is the main point given by the advocates of Solo/Group. All we are doing, is what the game does by itself anyway. You can only have 32 people in 1 instance and if the matchmaker does not like the ping between some of them, it won't put them in with other people.

And the best example, is when the game first came out. The forums lite up with complaints over people playing in Open but never seeing anyone. Constant threads in General and Tech forums over it, FD couldn't answer them as to why so many folks in Lave were being placed into Solo instances despite picking Open from the main menu.
Turns out, the game client had uPNP turned off by default - so everyone was playing Solo no matter what they did. As soon as another forum user seen this, they posted what file to edit to turn it back on and bingo! people could suddenly see each other.

The whole game is built around instancing, so until you can explain how the auto systems is fine but the manual one isn't - proceed to bang your head up that brick wall.

This is what confuses me with some of the arguments I see in this and the previous thread - it's as if people are wilfully ignoring the Peer-to-Peer structure of the game.

One previous poster admonished Solo players to not 'lock themselves away in a cupboard', ignoring the fact that all of us are in our own little cupboards and lots of those cupboards exist in the same space, tesseract style - hypercupboards, if you will

If you've absolutely no way of knowing who or how many are in the other cupboards, why worry about it?