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

[SteveLaw]

And more players can "deplete", for lack of a better word, the amount of npcs in any given combat zone.

That's other players again.

 

[W0OCQCK]

This'll be the final time I address this crappy subject. I never got into EVE, where the game was real money and ASSETS were at stake, this game doesn't have that WHICH IS GREAT!! I don't care if you're a former goon or not and again, though you should know as former goon, that a single game should not define you or anyone except the community of that game. This is especially when its a bad game or event, so get that redundant mentality out of this discussion and stop trying to make this about us, when it is really about the entire community of this game (No one cares if you're a goon or not, seriously stop bringing that to the table its silly).

Anyways, that is entirely irrelevant to what we're discussing, where we have really and seriously backward motion game mechanics that is trying too damn hard to appeal to everyone and not doing well to do so. There are some really genuine and bad decision making on their end that makes one mode better than the other. If you really cannot see that, I really don't what to tell you. Aside from that, I really am Pro "Play however you want", so long as all the sides have some sort of leveled playing field, which as of now, there isn't and its really easy to fix.

tl;dr : Hush, this isn't EVE, WoT, WoW, PS2, MWO, etc. It's a new community and an entirely new game. But, from a developer point of view, they should be looking at what failed and didn't work in those games and see what works BEST with their game. Also, whatever happened in those communities before, get over it and don't go on a witchhunt because of what one group did in the previous game. Especially when you know how big our forums are.

I'll pretty much say my opinion as I see fit. That was my opinion, it is valid, no matter what you feel you need to say. I will always encourage you to do the same, your opinion is every bit as valid as mine. But it doesn't mean your opinion is any more valid than mine, ya need to get use to the idea, it's just how it is.

As for your ideas and recommendations, I like some, and disagree with some. I think FD has built a really cool game here, I actually think it's pretty spectacular. I like the mode switching, and the modes, I've often suggested that the CG's just simply need to be moved over to OPEN, and let us get rid of those pesky things in solo & group. I personally don't need them in the least, as I never do them.

Fact: your part of the community, I'm part of the community, IE us!

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Like I said man, some things are just flat out conflicting and don't make much sense. The Background Simulator would benefit from being in Open, but that is my opinion. Overall this game is great.

 

[Razeth]

Why increase or give incentives to this? The ability to interact is your incentive for playing open. If it's not enough incentive for you, don't play open. It's your choice.

As for group not wanting interaction, what do you think "group" means? granted, you could have a "group" of one, but I think most people when they talk about groups, are referring to more then one player, therefor player interaction.

Your idea 1, "Increase group profits/missions" contradicts your last paragraph stating that "solo/group play should be left alone"

Increase incentives to make people want to play in open which as you so rightly state is about player interaction. If your a solo player who enjoys solo, why go into open? There needs to be some reasons.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Think about it from the open mode player's perspective. We want more people to play in open so that we ALL have more fun. A million people have stated that they don't find it "Fun" to have their cargo stolen or get interdicted by player pirates. They want to grind their way to whatever ship they are going to get and thats that. So why not offer them incentives to make open player experiences more fun? I personally don't care about the CG or background simulation I find it incredibly fun to play the role of a pirate and interdict people.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
That said, my statement of solo/group play should be left alone is referring to solo mode and private group mode which are in essence the same thing. Open play should be changed to try and attact more people to that game mode. That way it is more fun for everyone. So there isn't really a contradiction, increasing open play incentives means leaving solo/private group play alone.

The real point is the PLAYER EXPERIENCE. We need more of it, we need people to want to play in open mode. Right now there is simply no incentive for your average player without friends playing to jump into open play. Unless they like running from space pirates and making less money then they would in solo....but not many people like that do they.

 

[Asp Explorer]

As has been mentioned many times, if Open were to have any "bonus" other than the interaction with random people - everyone would be playing "Open" with the ability to meet other people circumvented, and get the bonuses anyway.

You can't give one mode something the others don't have, apart from the ability to meet people.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Welcome to the wonderful world that is Compromise.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Welcome to the wonderful world that is Compromise.

If the game modes, shared galactic background simulation and mode switching can be called a compromise then that compromise took place within the Frontier initial game design meetings, before the Kickstarter was even launched - all of these game features date from the beginning of the Kickstarter, over two and a half years ago, and exist in the game some six months post launch.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

I'm being very lenient on the fact that this is their first MMO project, yeah. that's cool.

But its pretty damn hard to have a functional multiplayer world when the private and solo instances have the same effect on the world that the Open has. I mean they went from being on certain topics "We're considering this" on a lot of topics except the shield cell ones and I suppose this one.

There is so much detail put into this game, into ships and the galaxy. Yet there is a clear Multiplayer related aspect that a lot of players want, which isn't there.

 

[Asp Explorer]

What's not functional about the multiplayer, given the limits of the networking model? Open and Group players are just as valid as Open players, because they are all the exact same thing - and can choose to be whichever they want any time they like.

Saying otherwise, and suggesting that those who play with views different from your own are somehow lesser gamers, is simply something awful.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm being very lenient on the fact that this is their first MMO project, yeah. that's cool.

But its pretty damn hard to have a functional multiplayer world when the private and solo instances h ave the same effect on the world that the Open has. I mean they went from being on certain topics "We're considering this" on a lot of topics except the shield cell ones and I suppose this one.

There is so much detail put into this game, into ships and the galaxy. Yet there is a clear and lacking Multiplayer related aspect that a lot of players want, which isn't there.

If the game had been designed from the outset as *only* an MMO then I might agree - it was not, therefore, I don't.

Players who want to play in Open, will. Players who don't, won't. It really is that simple. The existence of Solo / Private Groups and their effect on the shared galactic background simulation does not stop the multi-player aspect of the game functioning, however their continued existence stops all players being locked into Open for the more combative players to shoot at.

If the players who want multi-player all played in Open and restricted themselves to a relatively small portion of the galaxy then they might achieve a sufficiently high player density to satisfy their needs. The fact that the galaxy is enormous does not positively affect player density - would any of us seriously advocate reducing it's grand scale for this reason?

 

[fademist]

I'm being very lenient on the fact that this is their first MMO project, yeah. that's cool.

But its pretty damn hard to have a functional multiplayer world when the private and solo instances have the same effect on the world that the Open has. I mean they went from being on certain topics "We're considering this" on a lot of topics except the shield cell ones and I suppose this one.

There is so much detail put into this game, into ships and the galaxy. Yet there is a clear Multiplayer related aspect that a lot of players want, which isn't there.

they already have it ....but they want to dictate how other ppl play style....

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

If the game had been designed from the outset as *only* an MMO then I might agree - it was not, therefore, I don't.

Players who want to play in Open, will. Players who don't, won't. It really is that simple. The existence of Solo / Private Groups and their effect on the shared galactic background simulation does not stop the multi-player aspect of the game functioning, however their continued existence stops all players being locked into Open for the more combative players to shoot at.

If the players who want multi-player all played in Open and restricted themselves to a relatively small portion of the galaxy then they might achieve a sufficiently high player density to satisfy their needs. The fact that the galaxy is enormous does not positively affect player density - would any of us seriously advocate reducing it's grand scale for this reason?

Can you truly say with a straight face that "Yes, at this time, All three modes are fair and finely balanced when it comes to the Background Simulator, Local and regular Community goals, and eventually Power Play and other game mechanics that are based on Player/Group Input or contribution".

If those were properly balanced, then I'd have absolutely no reason to bring this up. Also Combat Logging. Shameful display.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

As has been mentioned many times, if Open were to have any "bonus" other than the interaction with random people - everyone would be playing "Open" with the ability to meet other people circumvented, and get the bonuses anyway.

You can't give one mode something the others don't have, apart from the ability to meet people.

Define "everyone" because despite your insistence of it, being so easy a caveman could do it, I doubt even a sizable amount of the players in solo would/could do it. It might become the new hack of choice, but I couldn't see it becoming popular among people who don't already cheat or exploit.

There's also bonuses that have to do with fighting, killing or escaping players, that couldn't be bypassed.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Can you truly say with a straight face that "Yes, at this time, All three modes are fair and finely balanced when it comes to the Background Simulator, Local and regular Community goals, and eventually Power Play and other game mechanics that are based on Player/Group Input or contribution."

If those were properly balanced, then I'd have absolutely no reason to bring this up. Also Combat Logging. Shameful display.

The only things affecting balance between the game modes are the players that people in Open want to play with and therefore choose to do so.

 

[Asp Explorer]

That is because you are looking at things through a PvP oriented lens. As for combat logging, I agree with you there.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

The only things affecting balance between the game modes are the players that people in Open want to play with and therefore choose to do so.

Don't evade the question. It is a simple yes or no question. Because what I'm asking isn't to eliminate any of the groups, it is a matter of a balancing issue with the system they chose to side with when they began development of this game.

That is because you are looking at things through a PvP oriented lens. As for combat logging, I agree with you there.

It is not. It is an entirely general point of view. This also includes missions, Personal Roles, etc. This is looking at EVERYTHING this game has to offer. Not just PVP.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Don't evade the question. It is a simple yes or no question.

Have you ever escaped from jail and gone on the run? It's a simple yes or no question.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Have you ever escaped from jail and gone on the run? It's a simple yes or no question.

Well the backstory of my SUPER AWESOME RP is where I was in a Federation owned Prison Colony in the Federation space, forced to mine as a prisoner for a crime I did not commit. They forced us to eat Lavian rats. Eventually, a stranger found me, helped me escape and his boss gave me enough money for a Sidewinder and a few parts.

I am literally the Count of Monte Texos. So YES! So yes, as of right now, with the current mechanics, it is entirely safe to say that the way the game mechanics currently are, that the game is NOT balanced properly with all three modes (Open, Private, Solo).

Most of the Problems boil down to Development Decisions that conflict with other mechanics of the game. Especially now, where most of 1.3's stuff is sound, but the Power Play element is now an endless CG grind, regardless of modes (And like I said, it still isn't fair for all the modes on the board). Also one of their game mechanics is LITERALLY A POORLY IMPLEMENTED PAY-TO-WIN MODEL. The vision they're going for now is kinda blurry.

Edit: Also,Shield cells are perverse as a game design element. Also, they are boring and never needed to be in the game to begin with. Shield Boosters I can understand, THAT is useful to have and own. They really make the game too easy, like toooooo easy.

Also really? an Arbitrary question? Really?

 

[snuffem]

I'm confused as to why this is so complicated. More work/risk should = more reward so those who partake in open world where there is MUCH MUCH higher risk should receive a MUCH higher reward. I have not logged in for a LONG time because solo/group play is NPC only and Open play seems like a bad idea because why in the world would you risk more to gain the same.

So either increase the risk in solo/group mode to be equal to that of open world (honestly, probably can't be consistently done) or increase the reward for those in open world. I mean everything, trading routes, mining etc all across the board.

We are all humans and humans will take the path that is perceived to be of less resistance when trying to accomplish a goal. So the way the game is setup right now could be views as ENCOURAGING solo play and penalizing open world play.

The long term interest in a game is from human interaction (sooo how many people still playing half-life, and how many playing counter strike?). You can only create so much "content" from a developers side and to discourage your players from participating in open world by making it PvP and significantly increasing the risk without any increase in reward doesn't really sit well in my personal opinion.

Think of it this way:

Bank of America offers you 5% interest on your savings here in the USA.
Local bank in Uganda offers you 5% interest on your money as long as it is in their local currency of Uganda Shillings.

Who in their right mind would put a single penny of their investments in the Uganda bank? Risk/Reward - same basic thing applies here.

 

[fademist]

I'm confused as to why this is so complicated. More work/risk should = more reward so those who partake in open world where there is MUCH MUCH higher risk should receive a MUCH higher reward. I have not logged in for a LONG time because solo/group play is NPC only and Open play seems like a bad idea because why in the world would you risk more to gain the same.

So either increase the risk in solo/group mode to be equal to that of open world (honestly, probably can't be consistently done) or increase the reward for those in open world. I mean everything, trading routes, mining etc all across the board.

and here we go again on the more risk open...YOU CHOOSE to play at open others CHOOSE to play solo others CHOOSE to play group ....and that was decided long time ago....

us for the rewards already open have more rewards.....

- - - Updated - - -

Most of the Problems boil down to Development Decisions that conflict with other mechanics of the game. Especially now, where most of 1.3's stuff is sound, but the Power Play element is now an endless CG grind, regardless of modes (And like I said, it still isn't fair for all the modes on the board). The vision they're going for now is kinda blurry.

and like i said before the only ppl that get hurt is the casuals ....