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

[gMcizzLe]

As to your first point. If you had everyone in open there would be even more players in the RES with you. All you have to do is find a different RES, and your efficiency will improve. Fairness is ensured with equal availability to any of the modes, at any time.

Open is just as efficient a mode as solo on the whole. It's the same environment as solo. Exactly the same. What you have to do is decide what you are looking for. Player interaction.... play in open. A quiet place to play.... solo. A little of both.... private group. It's up to you. What do you value more? Efficiency or interaction.

I jump between the modes to find the activities I want at that time. That is how it is all balanced out. Insisting that everyone be made to play to your gamer ethics is just plain wrongheaded.

Yes, I know if I want more efficiency I can go to an empty RES or go into Solo. But I'm saying that I WANT to bounty hunt in RES with other players (i.e. Co-op mode), but that I am unable to because the spawns are so limited. Also, sometimes in a populated RES, there are 0 wanted ships, but like 20+ clean NPCs doing nothing. Convert some of those useless clean NPCs into wanted pirates!

 

[Roybe]

That doesn't do anything to help the fact that npc spawns don't scale.

It takes the worry out of what those other bored commanders might shoot next...before they realize they need to jointly reset the RES or go to private mode.

'Someday, the scale will be introiduced!'

 

[Mohrgan]

Yes, I know if I want more efficiency I can go to an empty RES or go into Solo. But I'm saying that I WANT to bounty hunt in RES with other players (i.e. Co-op mode), but that I am unable to because the spawns are so limited. Also, sometimes in a populated RES, there are 0 wanted ships, but like 20+ clean NPCs doing nothing. Convert some of those useless clean NPCs into wanted pirates!

So, what your real trouble is, is the spawn rate in RES's, not the mode switching design. RES's have, to the hive mind, become a promise of continuous farming. As if the games owes us a place with a constant flow of victims. I think an 'entitlement' culture is developing around RES's and it's a shame.

 

[Mouse]

Yes, I know if I want more efficiency I can go to an empty RES or go into Solo. But I'm saying that I WANT to bounty hunt in RES with other players (i.e. Co-op mode), but that I am unable to because the spawns are so limited. Also, sometimes in a populated RES, there are 0 wanted ships, but like 20+ clean NPCs doing nothing. Convert some of those useless clean NPCs into wanted pirates!

You do realize that in solo private the # of ships will be the same .. there is no "easy mode" in solo. Kill a few wanted ships and suddenly there are countless security forces and soon you can't find any at all. So you hit a RES then move to maybe nav beacon or other RES and keep moving after a few pirtates

 

[gMcizzLe]

So, what your real trouble is, is the spawn rate in RES's, not the mode switching design. RES's have, to the hive mind, become a promise of continuous farming. As if the games owes us a place with a constant flow of victims. I think an 'entitlement' culture is developing around RES's and it's a shame.

I have trouble with both, and other things within the game as well. I just want Solo farming == Open farming. Nerf Solo spawn rate. Buff Open spawn rate. Or both. Just balance things.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize that in solo private the # of ships will be the same .. there is no "easy mode" in solo. Kill a few wanted ships and suddenly there are countless security forces and soon you can't find any at all. So you hit a RES then move to maybe nav beacon or other RES and keep moving after a few pirtates

Yes, sometimes in Solo you get a low spawn rate instance, but sometimes you get one with enough ships to shoot for an hour. I just want a multiplier or something, so that the number of ships increases relative to the number of players present. So if you have a low spawn rate instance, you will run out of ships to shoot at the same rate whether you are in Solo or with another person in Open.

 

[Mohrgan]

I have trouble with both, and other things within the game as well. I just want Solo farming == Open farming. Nerf Solo spawn rate. Buff Open spawn rate. Or both. Just balance things.

The balance is inherent. The balance lies with the equal availability of any of the modes to all, including you. The trouble I see is your insistence that other people play by your gamer ethics.

 

[FuzzySpider]

I have trouble with both, and other things within the game as well. I just want Solo farming == Open farming. Nerf Solo spawn rate. Buff Open spawn rate. Or both. Just balance things.

I've run up against this issue myself in Open.

Here was the solution...

I don't consider it griefing as it was in a CZ, and everyone already had their hardpoints deployed and was geared for trouble. It was intense as hell though. You really should try it.

 

[Mouse]

I have trouble with both, and other things within the game as well. I just want Solo farming == Open farming. Nerf Solo spawn rate. Buff Open spawn rate. Or both. Just balance things.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, sometimes in Solo you get a low spawn rate instance, but sometimes you get one with enough ships to shoot for an hour. I just want a multiplier or something, so that the number of ships increases relative to the number of players present. So if you have a low spawn rate instance, you will run out of ships to shoot at the same rate whether you are in Solo or with another person in Open.

You do realize that solo farming does equal open farming. Adding a multipler doesn't make sense. heck why not just play a game where you stand still and enemies are marched by you as you shoot. I'm sorry but it sounds like your wanting reward with no real effort. In truth if it is NPC or PC.. what pirate would jump in see a whole bunch of people and police and then attack someone.. Once a RES is "hot" for them.. they should bail.

 

[Roybe]

I want solo players to keep to themselves and stop interfering with the background simulation in open.

They don't want to play with me and that's fine but i don't see why I should be forced to play with them.

Basically, we have to, because the rules in the box top say so.

 

[Mouse]

I want solo players to keep to themselves and stop interfering with the background simulation in open.

They don't want to play with me and that's fine but i don't see why I should be forced to play with them.

you are not and never were "forced" to play with anyone in solo. You just effect the same background simulation. That is not forced play.

 

[Mohrgan]

The idea that Open is the basic state of the game, and the other modes are leaching off it is the trouble here. The BGS does not belong to open. The BGS belongs to Elte: Dangerous, and Elite includes all three modes. It has from the very beginning. Once that is established there should be no more trouble.

 

[Roybe]

you are not and never were "forced" to play with anyone in solo. You just effect the same background simulation. That is not forced play.

Mouse you have to admit that everyone is 'forced' to play with everyone else....as far as the BGS is concerned. To me...this is just an aggravation...or at worst...something to trophy for if someone is attacking a system. People would like to be able to try to make this from occurring by attacking the players moving the numbers...rather than grinding out more trophies...but trophies is all we can fight with.

 

[Mouse]

Mouse you have to admit that everyone is 'forced' to play with everyone else....as far as the BGS is concerned. To me...this is just an aggravation...or at worst...something to trophy for if someone is attacking a system. People would like to be able to try to make this from occurring by attacking the players moving the numbers...rather than grinding out more trophies...but trophies is all we can fight with.

I disagree because we all react to changes in the BGS and we all may make insignificant changes in it as well, but at no point is anyone forced to do anything. IF your playing PP and a system is flipped by someone else, you made that choice to participate in PP and have as much influences as others.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

In my view, the issue isn't the reward, and neither the risk by itself; rather, it's the amount that is lost when the player loses the engagement, the punishment for failure.

PvP, on average, can't happen more often than the time to recover from a PvP encounter dictates. That is not an opinion; it's a logical impossibility. If you make the loser of a PvP match need a few hours to recover, then a PvP match can't happen more often than once in a few hours, otherwise the players engaging in PvP will just bleed resources until they are forced to stop playing.

The "sheep and wolves" arrangement does change this a bit, by shifting how much PvP each player takes part in; the "sheep," who tend to lose the fights, rarely see PvP and have time to recover; the "wolves" see far more PvP, but need proportionally less time to recover because they win most fights and often have less to lose in the first place anyway. But this requires a large number of "sheep" for every "wolf," and ever since MMOs started to proliferate, those "sheep" need to be willing; there's too much choice nowadays for players to ever be forced into that role, they would just change games instead. As a result, I'm not aware of a game where this "sheep and wolves" arrangement worked well ever since UO first implemented the PvE world of Trammel over a decade ago, and I believe expecting it to work in ED is foolhardy at best.

It's why my suggestions to improve the situation focus more on reducing the loss; lower buyback, cargo insurance, part of the exploration data and bounds (and other kinds of credit that vanish on the ship's destruction) preserved through death, etc. Allow the defeated players to get back into the PvP action faster, so every willing player can find more fights.

It might increase the number of players that fight to the death when they see a pirate, as they would be losing less than currently, but it's my belief that most of those that actually find the whole piracy RP engagement pleasant would play along.

We're both just arguing two sides of the coin. You say nerf the risk, I say buff the reward. Either way it has the same effect.

I don't have any problems with the risk getting lowered, as long as it follows 2 simple rules:

1) It effects all professions equally. I know any talk of reducing insurance for pvp will come with the caveat, unless you're a pirate or PK'er.

2) it's not 100% effective. There has to be some risk to any fights in the main game. Otherwise the whole thing becomes like cqc.

Imo, 50% is about right for insurance and you get to keep 50% of your non cargo related losses. 30% of your (non stolen) cargo will be covered by the standard pilot insurance, with an option to cover 30% more with cargo insurance. You pay 5% of the galactic avg on the avg price of 30% of your cargo.

 

[Roybe]

I disagree because we all react to changes in the BGS and we all may make insignificant changes in it as well, but at no point is anyone forced to do anything. IF your playing PP and a system is flipped by someone else, you made that choice to participate in PP and have as much influences as others.

Not talking about PP just the BGS. It is part of the game...and it is something that people need to get their heads wrapped around...and accept. The game is designed with this in mind. Unfortunately, regardless of peoples personal desires to the contrary, the game cannot work otherwise.

If you do not play the game and work with the BGS...your understanding of 'insignificant' is skewed. One player, innocently playing in Private, can mean directed play for hours and days for some. Intent not withstanding. A player doing missions in a system, in unknowing opposition to someone else, is a problem. Dismissing this because it is 'insignifcant' is telling someone that their time in game is the same.

 

[Mohrgan]

We're both just arguing two sides of the coin. You say nerf the risk, I say buff the reward. Either way it has the same effect.

I don't have any problems with the risk getting lowered, as long as it follows 2 simple rules:

1) It effects all professions equally. I know any talk of reducing insurance for pvp will come with the caveat, unless you're a pirate or PK'er.

2) it's not 100% effective. There has to be some risk to any fights in the main game. Otherwise the whole thing becomes like cqc.

Imo, 50% is about right for insurance and you get to keep 50% of your non cargo related losses. 30% of your (non stolen) cargo will be covered by the standard pilot insurance, with an option to cover 30% more with cargo insurance. You pay 5% of the galactic avg on the avg price of 30% of your cargo.

Yours, and Dark's viewpoint come from the PvP is worth saving camp. From the PvP is just a byproduct point of view, everything is settled by letting people choose what involvement they care for. The interchangeable modes do an admirable job in answer.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Not talking about PP just the BGS. It is part of the game...and it is something that people need to get their heads wrapped around...and accept. The game is designed with this in mind. Unfortunately, regardless of peoples personal desires to the contrary, the game cannot work otherwise.

If you do not play the game and work with the BGS...your understanding of 'insignificant' is skewed. One player, innocently playing in Private, can mean directed play for hours and days for some. Intent not withstanding. A player doing missions in a system, in unknowing opposition to someone else, is a problem. Dismissing this because it is 'insignifcant' is telling someone that their time in game is the same.

The player doing missions in a system could be opposed by a player who cannot be in the same instance, plays at a different time of day or on a different platform....

 

[Roybe]

The player doing missions in a system could be opposed by a player who cannot be in the same instance, plays at a different time of day or on a different platform....

True...but it is no less fair, or stoppable, because of it. The only avenue that is available to work against them is to fight with the PvE collection system. There is no PvP pew pew response to it. And the game is designed this way and people have to accept this. On both sides of the fence, respectfully.

 

[gMcizzLe]

You do realize that solo farming does equal open farming. Adding a multipler doesn't make sense. heck why not just play a game where you stand still and enemies are marched by you as you shoot. I'm sorry but it sounds like your wanting reward with no real effort. In truth if it is NPC or PC.. what pirate would jump in see a whole bunch of people and police and then attack someone.. Once a RES is "hot" for them.. they should bail.

If there are more players, then it makes sense for there to be more pirates, because there is more possibility of goods to steal. What doesn't make sense is lots of pirates when there is only one player in the area, which happens all the time when entering your own RES.

 

[Mouse]

If there are more players, then it makes sense for there to be more pirates, because there is more possibility of goods to steal. What doesn't make sense is lots of pirates when there is only one player in the area, which happens all the time when entering your own RES.

Your not understanding. Pirates are not going to take a risk assaulting a large mass of armed ships. The risk does not outway the reward