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

[Fire70]

Community goals being restricted to open should never happen. There's no particular reason why doing a CG 'ought' to be more challenging than any other mission. As far as I'm concerned all a community goal is is a recurring special mission, the rewards for which depend on the efforts of the whole community and also the player as an individual.

Just because some people are having a harder time because of playing on open and running into players whose stated goal is to try to work against the CG doesn't mean that everyone else should be forced to play this way. Everyone should have access to what is really nothing more than an enjoyable variation on the standard mission format.

Yep that is right if you want to play in solo go ahead, nobody is saying otherwise.. What some of us are worried about is if players who are in open losing decided to all switch to solo to complete the goal (or maybe PP when 1.3 comes out).

It makes many interactions pointless i.e. blockading, opposing in CZ's etc and just becomes a race.

What some of us are suggesting is if you are going to do a CG then it should only be valid for the mode you choose when joining. So if you play solo then nothing changes, you do the community goal like normal.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

but why should community goals be available to players
who are'nt playing in the community area?

restriciting CG's to open might encourage more people to join the online community.

Because Frontier hopes that I and like minded players will buy future expansions, more paint jobs etc etc. The quickest way to make sure that I don't do any of the above is to tell me and like minded players, "Oh, you play solo? Tough, we're just developing for open now. You can't play any of the new content in your preferred mode."

Now I suppose you could make the argument that your future purchases are dependent on Frontier screwing over the players who play modes you don't personally like, but I believe it's obvious why that won't fly from a developer's point of view who wants to sell as much to as many as humanly possible. No, I think it is safe to say that Frontier will endeavor to stay the course without taking anything away from anyone.

 

[WlLL0W]

Because Frontier hopes that I and like minded players will buy future expansions, more paint jobs etc etc. The quickest way to make sure that I don't do any of the above is to tell me and like minded players, "Oh, you play solo? Tough, we're just developing for open now. You can't play any of the new content in your preferred mode."

Now I suppose you could make the argument that your future purchases are dependent on Frontier screwing over the players who play modes you don't personally like, but I believe it's obvious why that won't fly from a developer's point of view who wants to sell as much to as many as humanly possible. No, I think it is safe to say that Frontier will endeavor to stay the course without taking anything away from anyone.

erm.... it seems like you're saying that frontier should do what you want, otherwise you wont buy their stuff....

methinks you possibly attribute yourself with a higher state of influence than you actually have. (no offence meant)

and as for the rest of your post, it was little more than a straw man argument with an assumption about me, thrown in there too.

however, and thank you for your effort btw, in replying to my post, you didnt actually answer the question.....

WHY should those in solo or private groups, have access to community goal objectives,
when they choose to play outside of the MMO community in solo mode or private groups?

do you see how a threat not to purchase any more content doesnt answer the question?

PS dont forget that this game is about to be sold on xbox one,
so its worth bearing in mind the additional income stream before resting your point on not buying more content.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

erm.... it seems like you're saying that frontier should do what you want, otherwise you wont buy their stuff....

Well that went over your head. What I did say is that Frontier has a vested interest in pleasing as many players as possible so that they will continue to buy Frontier's product. And yes Virginia, that really does mean that they should think twice before removing content from any game mode.

methinks you possibly attribute yourself with a higher state of influence than you actually have. (no offence meant)

Nope. I'm just smart to realize that Frontier isn't going to start taking things away from players, because it's not rocket science to realize that breeds nothing but contempt.

WHY should those in solo or private groups, have access to community goal objectives, when they choose to play outside of the MMO community in solo mode or private groups?

At this moment, for no better reason than community goals have already been given to them to play. To change at this point would truly be a case of Frontier giveth and Frontier taketh away. Again, there is nothing to be gained with such a move, as it will just whip up a firestorm. No one likes an Indian giver, no one.

 

[DarkWalker]

Now my favorite sumg kick starter, where does it say "CG progress will transfer for one mode to another?", you can switch modes anytime you want but it doesn't say everything carries over. It is a typical sweeping marketing blerg that can be interpenetrated any way you like.

In the Kickstarter? No need, back then Frontier wasn't using the "modes" label to dumb down the explanation of how multiplayer would work in the game. Basically, the only difference between modes is the filter the matchmaking system uses to determine who the player will meet, and the explanation in the Kickstarter page made this clear; so, basically, there is no "transfer" of progression between "modes", because when the player changes modes he is still playing the same game with the same save and rules, the only difference being a different filter used to match him with other players.

Or, in other words, "modes" is just a simplification to make explaining how multiplayer works easier to understand. In truth the game has just one mode, though it has many settings for the matchmaking.

Here is the short description of how multiplayer would work, straight from the sales pitch:

Multiplayer: you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends as you choose. This technology is already working, using a combination of peer-to-peer (to reduce lag) and server connections.

Below, in the FAQ, it explains a bit better:

How does multiplayer work?

You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) some of the other ships you meet as you travel around are real players as opposed to computer-controlled ships. It may be a friend you have agreed to rendezvous with here, or it may be another real player you have encountered by chance. All players will be part of a “Pilot’s Federation” – that is how they are distinguished from non-players – so you will be able to tell who is a player and who is a non-player easily.

The core element here, and the central promise, was that players would be in control over who could join their game.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh I meant no insult to Jockey79, and my apologies if that was how it was received. I simply meant that some people out for the lulz will do nasty things to other people, simply because they can - and some router manufacturers have simply awful security.

Editing to add - or none at all!

Or have well known backdoors. Like many commonly used Cisco and Linksys routers.

I have read it many times any time anybody has suggest a improvement to the game you trump this statement out like it is the holey grail. I feel you place far too much importance on this statement.. Like I said its pretty broad and you can interperate what you will out of it..

If it was actually an improvement...

But, as far as I can see, the vast majority of "improvements" suggested in this thread are truly about making solo and group less interesting or enjoyable, perhaps in a misguided attempt to push everyone into open. Those are not improvements, not by a long shot. As an example, see the post I'm quoting just below, where the player unabashedly asks for part of the content the game has to be summarily removed from solo and group modes.

however, and thank you for your effort btw, in replying to my post, you didnt actually answer the question.....

WHY should those in solo or private groups, have access to community goal objectives,
when they choose to play outside of the MMO community in solo mode or private groups?

Because your question starts from a false premise. Just because a player doesn't want to meet others in game, either for a while or permanently, doesn't mean he isn't part of the community. To suggest otherwise is to say that there can be no community in non-MMO games, and to suggest that even in MMO games there can be no larger community that encompasses players of all servers and factions.

Your question, and the way you redefine community in an uncommonly narrow way, smacks of a "no true Scotsman" attack. Since you want to find a reason to exclude solo and group players from community content, you sought a way to redefine community to mean "every player except those that play in solo or open".

PS dont forget that this game is about to be sold on xbox one,
so its worth bearing in mind the additional income stream before resting your point on not buying more content.

And don't forget that console players will get to influence the exact same galaxy as PC players — and, likely, take part in the same community objectives — despite PC and console players not being visible to each other. Which, by itself, is a strong counter to your assertion of who should be able to take part in the community content; supposing the final number of players on each platform ends roughly the same, regardless of where you play you won't be able to see about half the player base even if those players are all in open.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

Yep that is right if you want to play in solo go ahead, nobody is saying otherwise.. What some of us are worried about is if players who are in open losing decided to all switch to solo to complete the goal (or maybe PP when 1.3 comes out).

Why is it everything from you is about force? In this case it is about being forced to stay in open if you start in open. I don't know how many times it can be said, but you cannot force people to be your content. If the other guy wants to switch, he's going to switch, and you're just going to have to live with that. Hell, if you want to switch, you can switch. If there is anything to be learned from Frontier's design and decisions to date is that the company is loathe to force players into anything. Everything that's been implemented thus far stands as a shining testament to that philosophy.

 

[jpaulwilson1982]

so the solo commander will sign up and he will guard himself? lol

Sorry I wasn't clear enough. Read below:

I think he means that you can guard NPC ships. I for one like the idea of being a support ship where you job is to ensure convoys of traders get through (I hope that is ok on Jock's bible of the game development).

Can be done in open or solo..

The original way I was thinking of it: A player signs up at a station as a System Authority, and flies around that station's system (maybe a couple of surrounding systems too) looking for USS-like "Distress Calls". When a marker pops up "Distress Call" you hit it up like a USS and assist your side of that situation. But to be fair, the folks who prefer illegal actions should be able to participate in something similar. So you can sign up for either side. Maybe it'll just be someone requesting escort, maybe it'll be someone getting attacked by pirates (or pirates requesting support and offering a share of the loot), and when 1.3 drops then maybe you can also provide fuel for ships that ran out, gaining rep and reward for your support.

However, it might be far more practical to set up these activities simply as missions, like in DarkStar O... wuh.... wuh... wuuuh *barfs*, erm, One, because people may find that hunting for "Distress Calls" in only the system you signed up at to be a pain in the butt. I personally wouldn't mind patrolling for USS-like Distress Calls, but that's just me. I'm totally willing to compromise on that.

I think this could add some life to Open and Solo. Something that provides for both modes without taking something away.

Blockades will never work in ED due to P2P with a max instance of 32 and the match making, but that's another discussion entirely.

Take a look at this clip, its a couple of mins max, its well worth a look (its DBOBE's view on "Blockades", he even uses the word "Mafioso"), do watch it on full screen though, I would even rewind it a minute & watch how he reacts to each question, (I hope the guy presenting the questions still has a job, DBOBE don't look happy).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJzizYUEF9c;t=19m41s

Watch his reaction to the questions, not just the words, I think DBOBE might have voted no.

I appreciate you "refined my notes and possible solutions" but I just can't see the problem you are trying to solve?.

I'm trying to solve problems that people have with the Solo vs. Open stuff, such as- the disputes about CGs being in Open and Solo, and how we can make that fairer or more practical- the debate about piracy being inefficient especially in Open, but this still affects Solo, as well, since you can't negotiate with NPCs- issues with griefing- people switching modes to gain an advantage (some would argue an unfair advantage)- the issue of Solo supposedly not getting as much "love" from Frontier as Open- and whether or not commanders should be worth more in bounties and bonds than NPCs of comparable combat rank, ship type, and overall value.

And, we can drop the whole blockades thing. I concede the point to its opponents in the interest of moving on to other ideas that may hold more weight and may be compromised on. Let's try to progress.

Yep that is right if you want to play in solo go ahead, nobody is saying otherwise.. What some of us are worried about is if players who are in open losing decided to all switch to solo to complete the goal (or maybe PP when 1.3 comes out).

It makes many interactions pointless i.e. blockading, opposing in CZ's etc and just becomes a race.

What some of us are suggesting is if you are going to do a CG then it should only be valid for the mode you choose when joining. So if you play solo then nothing changes, you do the community goal like normal.

Agreed. As long as folks can play any mode they want, seems reasonable.

erm.... it seems like you're saying that frontier should do what you want, otherwise you wont buy their stuff....

methinks you possibly attribute yourself with a higher state of influence than you actually have. (no offence meant)

and as for the rest of your post, it was little more than a straw man argument with an assumption about me, thrown in there too.

however, and thank you for your effort btw, in replying to my post, you didnt actually answer the question.....

WHY should those in solo or private groups, have access to community goal objectives,
when they choose to play outside of the MMO community in solo mode or private groups?

do you see how a threat not to purchase any more content doesnt answer the question?

PS dont forget that this game is about to be sold on xbox one,
so its worth bearing in mind the additional income stream before resting your point on not buying more content.

I think Solo and Private groups should be allowed to participate in CGs. They're so tied into the the story or current affairs of the game that taking it away is essentially taking away one of the most important aspects of the game. There's no Story Campaign or Story Mode, or storytelling in any other way aside from GalNet. CGs are the closest thing any of us have to a Story Mode. While I believe Open is inherently open to more risk thus should yield more rewards, perhaps even in CGs, I don't think CGs should be limited to Open only. Frontier has made it clear that, whether or not we like it, we're all tied to the same background simulator, and we will contribute no matter if we prefer to play with others or by ourselves. I think from that perspective, we're all one community.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Why is it everything from you is about force? In this case it is about being forced to stay in open if you start in open. I don't know how many times it can be said, but you cannot force people to be your content. If the other guy wants to switch, he's going to switch, and you're just going to have to live with that. Hell, if you want to switch, you can switch. If there is anything to be learned from Frontier's design and decisions to date is that the company is loathe to force players into anything. Everything that's been implemented thus far stands as a shining testament to that philosophy.

The last person who tried to force me to be his content, ate his own router misfeeds rectally. Did I feel bad about that? Urm, nope.

Just to be clear - this was nothing to do with any in-game stuff.

 

[W0OCQCK]

i disagree.

you could say that 8 people forming a private group is a community, small but still....
or a group consiting of 8500 people that could be termed as a community as well....

but really, they are both splinters from that which actually IS the community.

ask yourself....

even though FD gave everyone the choice,

do you think that when FD created a universe where everyone and anyone could encounter other players that they had never met before..
in one huge MMO universe,

they they went for what 'your' perception of what the community is...... or theirs?

i'm not trying to belittle private groups, but the truth is, private groups are not the begining and end of the game.
there is something much much bigger in terms of what 'the community' actually is,
which perhaps is easy to forget if one is used to playing in private groups.

private groups may well be 'a' community... but they are not 'the' community.
they are offshoots.

Hey WILLOW, you ever heard of a game called Free Lancer? Did you know that you can only still play this game on private servers, which is essentially a private group hosted on private hardware. Yes that game is still very much alive, but only with private groups. FYI

I'm of the opinion Private Groups are just as valid a way to play this game, as in open. I personally don't agree with your off shoot idea. I look at my group as just a different group of like minded folks, and I feel very much part of that community. I do not feel the overall community of ED is in any way shape or form my community.

 

[WlLL0W]

Because your question starts from a false premise. Just because a player doesn't want to meet others in game, either for a while or permanently, doesn't mean he isn't part of the community. To suggest otherwise is to say that there can be no community in non-MMO games, and to suggest that even in MMO games there can be no larger community that encompasses players of all servers and factions.
Your question, and the way you redefine community in an uncommonly narrow way, smacks of a "no true Scotsman" attack. Since you want to find a reason to exclude solo and group players from community content, you sought a way to redefine community to mean "every player except those that play in solo or open".

firstly this.... 'you sought a way to redefine community to mean "every player except those that play in solo or open"

i notice that you even quoted me...

at no point did i say that, and if you believe i did, then i question your mental process.

any points i made have related to the opinion i have which is that in order to retain the integrity of community goals,
i believe that they should only be available to those engaging in open mode.
most of the counter points i have read have rested on the defintion of the word 'community'

some have described their own group as a community, others have defined it as being everyone who plays ED.
personally i define it as those who are part of the MMO aspect of the game. its not beyond logic, or narrow to suggest that those who wish to depart
from the MMO in order to form their own private groups have actually seperated themselves from the community, in order to form their own.
and the idea of one person playing solo but engaged in community goals borders on madness imo.

imagine a football match with both teams playing at home!.

if i had set up a platform which had activities designed to bring a community together, only when it actually happened,
i found that people had ended up in seperate places having no contact with each other, i would feel that the exercise had failed.

if you take my way to its logical conclusion, you end up with a thriving community all in the same MMO instances
actually engaged in the event, taking the risks, reaping the rewards and quite likely meeting new people and making new friends.

if you take your way to its logical conclusion you end up with an empty arena with people playing behind closed doors having no contact with each other,
and an almost perverse defintion of what a community actually is.

to me, your defintion of community is narrow because it lacks the qualties one would usually associate with an actual community.

and so it comes back to where i started...., a private group, is an offshoot of the community.
it is NOT, the actual community. the ACTUAL community is the one you left before joining a private group

and that will remain the case no matter how much people try to argue against it.

the truth is, if it hadnt have been for the real community, you would never had made the decision to join a private group.

and as for the xbox thing....

i'm fairly sure that it wont even have a solo mode. dunno about groups though.

 

[WlLL0W]

Hey WILLOW, you ever heard of a game called Free Lancer? Did you know that you can only still play this game on private servers, which is essentially a private group hosted on private hardware. Yes that game is still very much alive, but only with private groups. FYI

I'm of the opinion Private Groups are just as valid a way to play this game, as in open. I personally don't agree with your off shoot idea. I look at my group as just a different group of like minded folks, and I feel very much part of that community. I do not feel the overall community of ED is in any way shape or form my community.

dont get me wrong, i'm not trying to take anything away from private groups in terms of respectability. i'm really not.
but from a systematic viewpoint, having seperate groups makes a mockery of the communtiy goals aspect of the game.

that said i would like to sort out the main MMO sitaution. it would be nice if things could get to a stage where no one felt it necessary to seperate themselves.

 

[W0OCQCK]

dont get me wrong, i'm not trying to take anything away from private groups in terms of respectability. i'm really not.
but from a systematic viewpoint, having seperate groups makes a mockery of the communtiy goals aspect of the game.

that said i would like to sort out the main MMO sitaution. it would be nice if things could get to a stage where no one felt it necessary to seperate themselves.

No worries, I can respect your opinion. But I respectfully disagree with you on this one.

 

[WlLL0W]

No worries, I can respect your opinion. But I respectfully disagree with you on this one.

all good mate... nice one

 

[Fire70]

Why is it everything from you is about force? In this case it is about being forced to stay in open if you start in open. I don't know how many times it can be said, but you cannot force people to be your content. If the other guy wants to switch, he's going to switch, and you're just going to have to live with that. Hell, if you want to switch, you can switch. If there is anything to be learned from Frontier's design and decisions to date is that the company is loathe to force players into anything. Everything that's been implemented thus far stands as a shining testament to that philosophy.

My first line was "Yep that is right if you want to play solo go ahead, nobody is saying otherwise".

All about force I agree.

Really I can see how popular my opinion is in this thread but least try to read what I say if you are interested and put forward your ration responses (like DarkWalker did).

 

[SteveLaw]

One thing I have learn't with "the internet" is there will be plenty of whining no matter what.. I don't necessary think they need to try to encourage more players into open for CG's but they need to ensure that mode swapping in order to force a result.

I have no idea why solo players are against this idea (I'm looking at you Steve) as it wouldn't affect you game at all.. All it is going to affect is the player who has decided to do the CG in open but realised they are losing so they switch to solo.

I'm against you stopping people from being able to swap modes at will, that's a core design element that makes this game a little different to the crowd. I'm not against some kind of theoretical separation of scores in CGs. Everyone should be able to compete equally but you can have separate leaderboards. So that the top 15% of Solo are measured separately to the top 15% in Open And the top 15% in Group. No problem with that. But same prizes.

 

[Fire70]

I'm against you stopping people from being able to swap modes at will, that's a core design element that makes this game a little different to the crowd. I'm not against some kind of theoretical separation of scores in CGs. Everyone should be able to compete equally but you can have separate leaderboards. So that the top 15% of Solo are measured separately to the top 15% in Open And the top 15% in Group. No problem with that. But same prizes.

Where have you been? That was ages ago!!!

 

[Cowboy Bats]

that said i would like to sort out the main MMO sitaution. it would be nice if things could get to a stage where no one felt it necessary to seperate themselves.

See, that's the problem. I didn't buy an MMO. I made sure it had single player before I bought it. Now if Frontier were to take CG's and PP away from me, that's the half the game. It's not a threat, just statement of fact that I'd leave the game. What earthly reason would I have to stay? What possible reason could the 8400+ Mobius members have to stick with the game? So they could read about all the new content that they'll never play in the newsletter? C'mon, you're smart enough to realize this would drive players from the game, create bad publicity, and otherwise not benefit Frontier at all.

 

[WlLL0W]

I'm against you stopping people from being able to swap modes at will, that's a core design element that makes this game a little different to the crowd. I'm not against some kind of theoretical separation of scores in CGs. Everyone should be able to compete equally but you can have separate leaderboards. So that the top 15% of Solo are measured separately to the top 15% in Open And the top 15% in Group. No problem with that. But same prizes.

thats another thing...

so if you have a trading based 'community' goal and a player realises that the most profitable way is the one that has no opposition
its unfair on those taking all the risks and having their progress slowed by being blown up...

how can that possibly be fair?

my bedtime i think.

 

[SteveLaw]

Where have you been? That was ages ago!!!

I'm generally asleep at quarter to one in the morning on a Monday. Tuesday. Whatever. If you didn't want me to respond then don't direct it at me.

- - - Updated - - -

thats another thing...

so if you have a trading based 'community' goal and a player realises that the most profitable way is the one that has no opposition
its unfair on those taking all the risks and having their progress slowed by being blown up...

how can that possibly be fair?

my bedtime i think.

How is it possibly fair that some players don't bother taking part in the actual CG goal but spend the time blowing up other players who do want to take part? Again though, everyone is able to swap if you don't like the risk/reward ratio of your current mode. That's your call to make every time you click play.

 

[Fire70]

See, that's the problem. I didn't buy an MMO. I made sure it had single player before I bought it. Now if Frontier were to take CG's and PP away from me, that's the half the game. It's not a threat, just statement of fact that I'd leave the game. What earthly reason would I have to stay? What possible reason could the 8400+ Mobius members have to stick with the game? So they could read about all the new content that they'll never play in the newsletter? C'mon, you're smart enough to realize this would drive players from the game, create bad publicity, and otherwise not benefit Frontier at all.

I don't think he is saying any mode should be missing out on anything. Just that the differing modes shouldn't be competing.

You have hit the nail on the head you brought this as a single player game as alot of players did. Others like myself brought it on the basis of it being a MMO. Now normally this shouldn't be a problem as it caters for both but because the modes are interrelated and the actions in one affect the other which is pretty strange from my experience.