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

[relayer]

too many ppl are risk adverse, without any risk there really isn't any reward

Well, different people have different goals and strengths. Perhaps you wouldn't have the patience or meticulous planning ability to fly for weeks to get to Sag A*, or the patience and legwork needed to do trading routes or circumambulate the galactic disk?

Risk, risk, risk, that is the most-often-repeated statement offered in the "open or nothing" camp. Do you think that perhaps there's different ways to play the game than yours?

 

[Mouse]

Exactly as I see it also. There seems to be a great chunk of paranoia on the force-everyone-to-open side that "all the solos are cheating me and manipulating the game!"

As far as I am concerned, I only did 2 community goals (just to contribute to, you know, the community). I also knew other players, even opposing ones, would get the same benefits/rewards as me, but so what? It was fun.

Otherwise, and from reading a bunch of these forum threads, most of the Solo/Group players are out there doing their own thing. I see no-one going "hardy-har-har! I am pulling a fast one on Open!" - I see mostly people trading, exploring, doing some pewpew... certainly not gangs of people united in their need to screw with things just for the hell of it, particularly in PowerPlay.

What I do see is this: Open guys explaining why they "had" to drop into solo mode "because it wasn't fair." Some Open guys giving tips on how to game the system for Ranks and Powerplay stuff. Posts about (with video evidence) using shield/ammo/scb hacks. Etc. It seems like more Open players than not are the ones "ducking into Solo" and abusing the Mode switching mechanic. You know, the "metagamers."


So please don't worry that I am planning to nefariously undermine your system, or get a Big Ship to bring to Open to fight you, or grape your sister and grandmother or whatever. In fact, I'm about 1000ly away from anybody and that's the way I prefer it.

But if they don't' manufacture the "threat" of solo being against them than their argument falls apart.

 

[relayer]

Why does that bother you so much? What is the difference between someone doing that and someone who has more resources from simply playing longer or from trading in empty systems? You keep complaining about Open being empty, after all.

I don't understand this either. First, you get "people who fly in Solo against NPCs will have crap talents regarding other players so it doesn't matter what ship they have because we will crush them!" Then it's "you're getting all your credits in Solo so you can get a Big Ship and kick our butts and it's unfair!"

Flippy-Floppy.

 

[relayer]

Do you ever tire of characterizing people who enjoy PvP style of play as bad people? I think all of us could benefit from a more moderated and balanced discussion.

It appears to me as if this cuts both ways, like the term "carebear" or "chicken" or "hiding" or "coward" or... well, you can read the rest in this thread.


People who like PvP are literally forced by the design of the game to shoot players who may not care for it. This is what happens when you allow PvP and force everyone on to the same server.


But that is exactly what so many of us like - not being forced to do anything, or play a certain way. It isn't us who want to force everyone to be together in the same instance or the same sector even.


The people who bought the game for the PvP aspects aren't going to fly around asking for permission before shooting. Players can only "force their will on others players" because the game allows it.


Well, the game "allows" it in only 1 mode. Thankfully, there are two others to choose from on a session-to-session basis. Perhaps the PvPers really should have done more research on a game they were throwing down $60USD on. Also, we're having to separate the psychokillers from Pirates like Jordan, to whom most of us would submit & dump cargo for, because that is what pirating is - not wholesale murder and yuks.


If you have a problem with it, you should take it up with the developers rather than trying to make PvP'ers feel bad for playing the game their way.

But no one is trying to make PvPers do anything. That is the point of the modes. You can cheerfully play a psycho if you like, no matter how unrealistic a role it is (as if Sector Navies wouldn't blow you into space dust when you became too much of a bother) but you can't complain that no one wants to play with you...


- - - Updated - - -

... with weapons-grade imbecility wants to level up their Lulz by seal-clubbing newbies. /QUOTE]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*deep breath*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
OK, I'm done. No, wait...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

how kin I gets that weapons-grade imbecility for mah pewpew?
I needs to club some baby seals!

 

[n13L5]

How did this ever have to be a "vs" thread?

Just for the sub-section of aggressive people with a need to force everybody into their idea of how things should be, using the argument that somehow, this game should play by some kind of pure competitive rules as if it was the space ship Olympics, but the real goal is just getting live cannon fodder.

Dinosaurs had a very pure and bloody competition going that nobody on the planet could avoid or get out of. No high tech niceties like solo or group mode.
Learn about Buddhist rebirth techniques to reincarnate as a dinosaur. You'll love it!

 

[Captain Willard]

Could someone please show me the link where I can team up with the solo players "That I have never met" and join the conspiracy to undermine open play?

 

[relayer]

True enough, but I played games with a pvp and pve modes and the pvp mode is always too violent for my tastes. The pvp mode becomes pvp only, everyone you see attacks or kills you.

I like elite how it is, however as mentioned it's usually unfair one party in the fight.

You know, reading the whole threadnaught (and I mean the first one also) if I could know that most (of course you cannot stop psychos) pirates played as you outline it, I'd have no problem playing in Open or tossing cargo as a business expense.

As to your quoted post above, this has been my own experience with many online games, starting way back in Mechwarrior NetMech (16 players to an "instance") and Diablo/D2/LoD, and more & more... one thing that goes on here is people representing themselves as "pirates" when they really are pewpew psychos. It's unfortunate for the (real, RP) pirates but I don't know what can be done about it, unless a PvP flag is initiated.

 

[relayer]

... I also have held the belief since I started playing ED that rares were created as a piracy good, they buy for almost nothing and sell for an enormous amount its a perfect commodity for piracy as you only lose time for having to drop some (as opposed to say palladium where you lose time + substantial money) Either way I think they'll always be a hotspot.

I have sometimes thought that perhaps rares were put into the game to help new players with limited cargo space & jump range to get credits to upgrade ships. They really are best done in a smaller ship (up to Asp) because the bigger trade ships with regular cargo runs will outperform them monetarily.

That stance is maybe why I view all the camping on rares routes by jerks as really, really trying hard to gank new players & keep them from game resources; in fact, discouraging new players or encouraging them to play Solo.

 

[Captain Willard]

At one time I thought about fixing up a ship, max shield boosters, a hull filled with hull pkgs, coming out of solo and trolling for pkr's. Turn and ram them to splinters. Then what would that make me? After being banned here 2-3 times, I remembered after leading 2 guilds in air combat and rpg's for years. I loved helping ppl. At 60 yrs. I'm getting old, vengeful, spiteful. I can't allow that to happen. A big thanx to the mods for booting me. Woke me up.

 

[n13L5]

Actually, an Open-PvE server would be an equitable development for those with no interest in PvP but who are quite sociable - it would allow them to meet other random players with no PvP potential.

Oh, I missed this comment!
For me, this would make the game 200% better.

Even the largest PvE groups miss a lot of PvE players that might like to socialize if "Solo" wasn't the only immediately available 'safe-from-PvP' option.

I don't know how hard that would be to implement, but I think it would give the game a great boost, considering the PvP vs PvE server population statistics in major MMORPGs. WoW, for example has almost three quarters of the player base on PvE servers with some optional, themed PvP areas (Battlegrounds) So people *can* PvP, but they get to choose when and where, avoiding the infinite annoyance of permanent PvP. SWTOR has a very similar distribution.

There are many who do enjoy PvP as an organized effort of one group against another for a specific goal, but would never play a game with an ever present risk of being ganked when they want to just play the game's environment. If you are not the type who would randomly attack others, rolling on a PvP server has always been a poor choice, as it would offer no advantages to you, only disadvantages.


Another possibility to look at is PotBS, which has a very similar structure to Elite from the overall game world design and instancing system. It features player created temporary PvP zones that stay for a few days and then dissolve after a big competitive battle over who will own or ransack the contested port. This allows PvP players to exert some control on a temporary basis on where people who don't want PvP can go, but still can't force people into PvP unless they decide to risk it.

 

[Derthek]

[redacted]

 

[Captain Willard]

nope, never will. Another eve online shooter is all that is wanted in this thread.

 

[Mouse]

nope, never will. Another eve online shooter is all that is wanted in this thread.

oh I hope not.. It is not what I wanted from this thread.

 

[n13L5]

it never endsssssssssss

You think it will get longer than the threadnaughts about FD reneging on the single player offline game?

 

[SteveLaw]

it never endsssssssssss

It will end once people stop asking to change the way the selective multiplayer works.

 

[Faded Glory]

Do you ever tire of characterizing people who enjoy PvP style of play as bad people? I think all of us could benefit from a more moderated and balanced discussion.

But characterizing people who don't enjoy PvP as cowards, carebears, and not man enough is ok?

People who like PvP are literally forced by the design of the game to shoot players who may not care for it. This is what happens when you allow PvP and force everyone on to the same server.

And this is why you have the separate modes, so people are not forced to be shot at if they don't want to be.

The people who bought the game for the PvP aspects aren't going to fly around asking for permission before shooting. Players can only "force their will on others players" because the game allows it.

And Open is what that is for. The game absolutely allows it, but also gives a way to avoid it. Some people seem to want the way to avoid it to be removed.

If you have a problem with it, you should take it up with the developers rather than trying to make PvP'ers feel bad for playing the game their way.

There is no problem with it from a non-consensual PvP perspective. We don't have to participate. You can play the game the way the devs chose to implement it, and so can we, but we don't have to be your targets, your content. PvP'er seem to be the ones who have a problem with the way the game is. You can and have taken it up with the devs, they don't seem inclined to change it.

 

[PhazonAran]

Actually, an Open-PvE server would be an equitable development for those with no interest in PvP but who are quite sociable - it would allow them to meet other random players with no PvP potential.

Didn't the PvPers shot down this idea when it was submitted ? They were afraid the PvP mode would be a wasteland, and a lot of games tend to give them reason on that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

nope, never will. Another eve online shooter is all that is wanted in this thread.

I can't come up with a scenario where this debate would end. A twitch combat version of another very popular game may well be the goal for some of the participants in this and other threads on the topic - certainly not by all participants though....

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I can't come up with a scenario where this debate would end.

i can think of ONE way which may help. Either DB, or MB come out with a completely black and white answer - not "no plans at the moment" or "it is not something we are considering yet" but a

Guys...... We appreciate your reasons, but please safe your breath. These modes were put in for a reason and many of our loyal core fanbase would be majorly put out if we renaged on this feature which is working as intended. There is NOT going to be a change to the 3 separate groups or swapping between them OR the ability for each group to affect the back ground sim..


Then anyone who posts can just be linked to said dev commnet. The only reason i have posted so much in here is because i worry if the people who like the idea of the promised modes do not push back FD my get the wrong idea we do not care.

 

[Robert Maynard]

i can think of ONE way which may help. Either DB, or MB come out with a completely black and white answer - not "no plans at the moment" or "it is not something we are considering yet" but a

Guys...... We appreciate your reasons, but please safe your breath. These modes were put in for a reason and many of our loyal core fanbase would be majorly put out if we renaged on this feature which is working as intended. There is NOT going to be a change to the 3 separate groups or swapping between them OR the ability for each group to affect the back ground sim..


Then anyone who posts can just be linked to said dev commnet. The only reason i have posted so much in here is because i worry if the people who like the idea of the promised modes do not push back FD my get the wrong idea we do not care.

While a definitive statement from Frontier would be nice (and the recent E3 interview with Arstechnica contains yet another re-iteration of DBOBE's point of view on this particular topic) I don't think that it would make very much difference. We will always have those who cast back to the Offline mode debacle and use it as an example of Frontier changing their mind on a topic.

What we do have is an ever increasing time since launch with no changes to these core features. That, by itself, is an indicator of Frontier's continued support for the core features of the game that they have stuck with since the game design was first published over two and a half years ago.