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

[FuzzySpider]

Isn't this the reason for going with P2P in the first place? Client side processing. I could be wrong of course, but that was my thinking. Obviously it still places more stress on the client instead of the server.

I can't imagine that's the case. I think the P2P model is there to reduce server costs on the part of FD. A dedicated server model would have been better as if all of those ships in the RES or CZs were handled by the server then there wouldn't be a problem of someone, for example, on a mountain in Trinidad during a tropical storm with a dodgy router having their computer deal with a lot of the game data and then tell 32 other clients around the world what they are supposed to be doing.

Well the actual size of RES and CZ in my proposal would be up for debate, and the regular player caps per instance would still apply. The core idea is that when multiple players are in the same RES or CZ, the other players shouldn't automatically be detrimental, especially not in CGs. You can't expect a healthy cooperative atmosphere when the arrival of even just a 2nd player automatically means either you just found yourself a nemesis if the player is a pirate or fights for the other side, or the number of kills, credits etc. you will gain will now be significantly lowered due to the competition.

When I do RES hunting in Open Play I tend to invite other players into a wing, and sometimes it works out and it is quite fun working together in an ad hoc wing, but while eliminating kill stealing issues etc., it's both awkward due to the target-tagging situation inside wings, as I mentioned, and it does reduce your rate of profit significantly because you don't really have sufficient numbers (or difficulty) of enemies to fight. But even ignoring that, it then just takes a single player in a powerful ship who rejects the wing invite to screw everyone up, and make it all about killing blow competition and even further target starvation.

I know. I don't have an issue with your idea as far as gameplay is concerned, I think it's a fantastic solution to a big problem. I am just wondering if it's actually feasable. I feel that this problem is more to do with the respawning/instancing mechanics rather than anything to do with Open/Solo though.

 

[KestrelPi]

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.

Well, respectfully earlier in the thread some people WERE saying otherwise.

I'm not necessarily totally against locking CGs to a particular mode once they've been joined by a player. My only worry is that it might be a little bit overkill to fix the stated problem.

I can imagine scenarios where I'd want to switch which are totally benign. I'm not ruling out ever playing Open but right now I tend to play on a mixture of Solo, Mobius and my own private group with a smaller group of friends (after setting that last one up, I usually play that, in fact).

But I could easily imagine a scenario where I take a CG on Mobius and then later one of my friends who doesn't play on Mobius wants to join me, so I move over to my other group. Or even a scenario where I was doing a CG solo but my trader friend who prefers to play open wants me to play escort for them as they do the CG there, so I switch to a craft with some weapons/cargo space and carry on the same CG on in a wing. Or I'm playing on Open and then I go away for the weekend to somewhere where my connection isn't so good so I decide to switch to Solo to mitigate any connectivity troubles I might have. And so on - none of these things dealbreakers, but all of them legitimate inconveniences to having the CGs stick to one mode.

So to me this still slightly damages the fundamental point of changing between modes freely, which is enabling the player to choose freely who they play with and when.

 

[KestrelPi]

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.

In follow up to my above post, I think this sort of thing is much more sensible, but I feel like it would be meaningless unless handled correctly. For example what about the case of someone who does the entire CG in Solo, and then switches to Open at the last moment on the assumption that they'll be higher on the scoreboard in that mode.

If switching is possible then carring over progress from one mode to the other should also be possible, so how to guard against that behaviour? Not impossible, just bears thinking about a little.

 

[SteveLaw]

In follow up to my above post, I think this sort of thing is much more sensible, but I feel like it would be meaningless unless handled correctly. For example what about the case of someone who does the entire CG in Solo, and then switches to Open at the last moment on the assumption that they'll be higher on the scoreboard in that mode.

If switching is possible then carring over progress from one mode to the other should also be possible, so how to guard against that behaviour? Not impossible, just bears thinking about a little.

How about a "mixed mode" leaderboard as well? When you sign up to the CG it saves a flag of which mode you are in and each time you log in it checks the flags of each active CG. If the mode is the same the flag stays the same, if it's different the flag changes to 0 - mixed mode, don't change again. Your personal score/total follows you but it's rank is calculated on which ever mode your CG is currently registered to.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

How can that be accomplished though? I haven't seen a viable suggestion yet.

I thought of a decent way. What if community goals required both players in solo/group and open to complete the Goal. For example, each mode has it's bucket to fill and the goal won't get completed until both sides finish it.

Obviously you'll only be able to add to that modes goal, if you're playing in that mode. Each mode's goal will start low, then increase the more players join it, so it's not forcing one side to wait around for the other. At least, in the case where they finish first, because they have more players.

Or maybe even after one side is done, they can help fill the others at a 50% rate. That might require only being able to complete the Goal in the mode you started out in tho.

FD would also be able to adjust, open's base goal amount if it seems solo is always waiting on it.

 

[SteveLaw]

I thought of a decent way. What if community goals required both players in solo/group and open to complete the Goal. For example, each mode has it's bucket to fill and the goal won't get completed until both sides finish it.

Obviously you'll only be able to add to that modes goal, if you're playing in that mode. Each mode's goal will start low, then increase the more players join it, so it's not forcing one side to wait around for the other. At least, in the case where they finish first, because they have more players. Or maybe even after one side is done, they can help fill the others at a 50% rate.

FD would also be able to adjust, open's base goal amount if it seems solo is always waiting on it.

That's a novel approach. I'm not sure if it would solve the issues but it would at least highlight the CG mode split. It would certainly remove my hesitation from joining in, even though they do feel a little clunky thematically.

Something I just realised though. Community Goals are only taken up by a few thousand players. Mostly less than 5k some only had a hundred or so players. Only the Lugh ones went much over 5k and they still had less than 10k. Any solution has to be relatively easy and relative cheap because it's only a relatively very small proportion of the player base who even take part.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I thought of a decent way. What if community goals required both players in solo/group and open to complete the Goal. For example, each mode has it's bucket to fill and the goal won't get completed until both sides finish it.

Obviously you'll only be able to add to that modes goal, if you're playing in that mode. Each mode's goal will start low, then increase the more players join it, so it's not forcing one side to wait around for the other. At least, in the case where they finish first, because they have more players.

Or maybe even after one side is done, they can help fill the others at a 50% rate. That might require only being able to complete the Goal in the mode you started out in tho.

FD would also be able to adjust, open's base goal amount if it seems solo is always waiting on it.

Given that each transaction is entered into the database and applied to the relevant goal, if mode were also to be taken into account then that would just be one more piece of data in the transaction (possibly even just two bits - 0 = solo; 1 = private groups; 2 = open; 3 = shadowban group ). That way commanders could contribute as now, from any game mode, the only difference would be in the attribution of contributions to mode totals.

On reflection, I expect that the game mode in which a transaction is made is already recorded - otherwise, how would Frontier have been able to scrutinise the winners records for the Race to Elite and Titan Black competitions.

 

[Cody]

... it's only a relatively very small proportion of the player base who even take part.

<nods sagely>

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

That's a novel approach. I'm not sure if it would solve the issues but it would at least highlight the CG mode split. It would certainly remove my hesitation from joining in, even though they do feel a little clunky thematically.

Something I just realised though. Community Goals are only taken up by a few thousand players. Mostly less than 5k some only had a hundred or so players. Only the Lugh ones went much over 5k and they still had less than 10k. Any solution has to be relatively easy and relative cheap because it's only a relatively very small proportion of the player base who even take part.

You ever hear of, you can have it done, well, quick, or cheap but not all three?

A flat increase for one side in a cg would be the easiest but that didn't go over well. That would be quick and cheap but not done well.

Next would be increasing the ai difficulty, fixing the spawns, increasing the bond amount for players, and maybe adding an npc blockade in solo. That won't be quick tho.

 

[gary.brain]

Why can we have an Ignore list that means "Ignore, never see again, good riddance....", then just add the people who don't play the way you want too and be done with it.

 

[SteveLaw]

You ever hear of, you can have it done, well, quick, or cheap but not all three?

My point was that a big fuss is being made for something that only effects a relatively small number of players. The response should be proportional.

 

[FuzzySpider]

I've been playing in Open for about the last hour and a half. A mark 3 Cobra has been sitting on the same docking pad for the entire time I think. He's there, not moving, and every time I bring slaves back to the station (Krylov Ring) he's still at the back of the station taking up a docking pad.

If you want to blockade a station just get everyone of varying ship sizes to park on all the spaces.

Or alternatively, FD, log someone out of open and into solo if they're on a pad for more than 15 minutes.

 

[NeilF]

CMDR slots - Will they become Online & Solo/Group only?

Do you think there a chance the reason we haven't been given multiple slots yet is that there's still the chance of the radical move to each slot being allocated to Online or Solo/Group? ie: When you create a slot you make your choice, and that's it!

I do feel the idea that people can flit between these two modes isn't condusive to the game.

 

[CMDR DoubleSkulls]

...
My counter proposal is this:

• RES:

Some really good, positive suggestions there. One thing that irks me about RES is the way in which the level of piracy seems to be randomly set when the first player enters the RES. I'm not sure if the proposed changes to RES in 1.3 will address this, but if not then something needs to be done because of the way that setup interacts with Open. In Solo I get to change when to roll the dice on RES difficultly... in Open I need everyone to leave before it can reset.

Personally I'd prefer for the RES difficulty to be determined by the system conditions (government type etc.) and this controls the spawning frequency for both security and pirates, as well as the type of pirate (so more hostile RES get more and bigger pirates, with fewer security).

 

[Ancipital]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

 

[Baton]

When you create a slot you make your choice, and that's it!

This is fine assuming they will fix the incredible lag I'm getting in combat zones when in Open, one of few reasons I prefer to do fighting there in solo/group. A the moment I do not even need to look at the sensors, the moment npc start jumping around I know a player has join the location

 

[Dave1235]

Sigh.. Why even bother again like Jockey you think the game is perfect in your eyes and if any one suggests something you disagree with you throw the whole founder blerb out there.

It gets old mate.. You want a discussion of opposing views get off the high and mighty argument..

It wouldn't get old if you answered the question, but that's your prerogative.

Silly me I thought we were having a discussion, and no I do not think ED is perfect, there is a long way to go before it would even be close to perfect but I do like it, its really close to what I expected after doing my research.

I will ask one last time "what is so broken right now that you need to fix for all of us all and why can't some of us see the problem?", this is not "founder blerb" its a question, now if you answer it we will be having a discussion. This is my last attempt as if you still cant or wont answer there is no point in trying to rephrase it to make it clearer.

 

[NeilF]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

LOL! You're probably right!

- - - Updated - - -

This is fine assuming they will fix the incredible lag I'm getting in combat zones when in Open, one of few reasons I prefer to do fighting there in solo/group. A the moment I do not even need to look at the sensors, the moment npc start jumping around I know a player has join the location

I used to get that issue after a time period in combat zones back in Alpha/Beta, but I'm sure it was resolved.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

My point was that a big fuss is being made for something that only effects a relatively small number of players. The response should be proportional.

Well cgs are relatively unadvertised so I doubt the avg person even knows about them. Unless powerplay uses something else, we're about to get a massive boost to number of players who do them.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

-- Deleted --