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

[UnlinedShoes]

So, er, do you like a challenge or don't you?

- - - Updated - - -


... except player group B can do exactly the same thing.

No they can't. The public players can't compete unless they switch to solo, which isn't the way they want to play.


I think it's funny that the solo players will rightly fight against everyone being forced into Open because they don't want to play that way for whatever reason, but at the same time defend the fact that the Open players have to play by the Solo player's PvP rules. Because, you see, Solo still has PvP *especially* after the powerplay update. (By "PvP", I mean players competing against eachother.)


So I came here just to point out that ya'll are a bunch of hypocrites. The Open players don't want to play PvP against the Solo players and we don't have that option.

 

[Hund]

Take CODE and AEDC for example. AEDC is currently trying to reclaim Leesti from them, but when they tried to fight them in Open, they were struck down pretty hard. Even with their numbers, so they retreated to Private and Solo to grind out missions to effectively kick them out of the system and i mean GRIND. they've done like over 14,000+ missions to get them out, but since players are trading and doing missions for the controlling faction, AEDC still can't kick them out.

CODE is at a HUGE disadvantage, because one of their best ways to defend themselves from huge player numbers, was to stay close and play coordinately to prevent their enemies from doing missions and also protecting their members doing missions from harm. THAT is what the Background Simulator should be about. Having numbers doesn't mean success, planning and strategies mean success.

So what should be a nice and big and open crazy and Dangerous galaxy, isn't possible. Simply put, private groups and solo shouldn't have that kind of advantage, its just simply unfair to retreat from that sort of danger and then have no consequences.

I may be reading this wrong, but it sounded like even by employing the so-called ubertactic of simply switching to solo, AEDDwhoever still weren't able to win back the system? Interesting...

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

I may be reading this wrong, but it sounded like even by employing the so-called ubertactic of simply switching to solo, AEDDwhoever still weren't able to win back the system? Interesting...

Because the trade being done in the system and its population is huge. So it just negated it, though not entirely. when AEDC was in Open, the advantage was clearly to CODE in their ability to stop their enemies from doing missions efficiently. If that population wasn't there, AEDC would have re-flipped the station and the system. That, being unable to see your enemy, is not fair, because when you fail a mission, it does harm to the faction you failed it to. Which was helping them prevent AEDC from having a foothold.

Also Solo should have been offline and irrelevant to all the stuff. It should have been a Single Player Campaign or something.

 

[Hund]

No they can't.

Not can't. Won't.

The public players can't compete unless they switch to solo, which isn't the way they want to play.

Sorry, I'm not taking it as read that they "can't compete". At the very least, if everyone else is unfairly switching to solo to stomp all over the poor PvPers, they should be able to run their own faction boosting missions virtually unhindered in open, and the perceived "advantage" disappears.

I mean, really, what are you ultimately asking for here? The rulesets are identical for each mode at the moment. That's as objectively balanced as you can get. Do you want to make faction missions arbitrarily count for, say, 10% more in open mode to compensate for the perceived "disadvantage'? How can you possibly pick that 10% number in a way that is universally "fair"?

 

[fademist]

Not can't. Won't.


Sorry, I'm not taking it as read that they "can't compete". At the very least, if everyone else is unfairly switching to solo to stomp all over the poor PvPers, they should be able to run their own faction boosting missions virtually unhindered in open, and the perceived "advantage" disappears.

I mean, really, what are you ultimately asking for here? The rulesets are identical for each mode at the moment. That's as objectively balanced as you can get. Do you want to make faction missions arbitrarily count for, say, 10% more in open mode to compensate for the perceived "disadvantage'? How can you possibly pick that 10% number in a way that is universally "fair"?

u think they care about fair? only they want is to have what they want like the spoiled kids ;p

 

[Daffan]

Add a new "Open Only" mode to use with the extra character slot — so the current players can still freely switch between solo, group, and the original Open mode with their already existing character — and I can agree.

4th Option. 2nd Galaxy server Open-only

Or, Signature.

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.....


.

And what if i want top 1 cg or top 10 power-play? off to solo grinding because its 3x easier. that's junk, i don;t want to do that, but i have too.

 

[Asp Explorer]

4th Option. 2nd Galaxy server Open-only

Or, Signature.

Still ways around both of those for someone who wants to play in Open-only yet never see another person.

 

[Daffan]

Still ways around both of those for someone who wants to play in Open-only yet never see another person.

Still talking internet proxy visual basic gui ip tracing babble?

who cares, there is always a group like this - same like their is always a group of hackers.

You CHOOSE to allow competition for the same pile of resources whereas I CHOOSE not to allow competition for the same pile of resources. Our choices do not imbalance the pile of resources. Besides, you would not choose to allow competition if you didn't want it, therefore the COMPETITION IS THE EXTRA REWARD. It's something extra that YOU WANT. It's NOT something extra that I WANT.

sorry everyone. for playing in an MMO with your friends, you get a 300% penalty to bounty per hour

 

[Asp Explorer]

Still talking internet proxy visual basic gui ip tracing babble?

who cares, there is always a group like this - same like their is always a group of hackers.

Indeed - same as there is always a group who wants the game to be changed to satisfy them, away from the original design intentions of the developers that the backers agreed to fund.

 

[SteveLaw]

I would like to do it all in open play

Why? What is so great about Open Play that you would limit yourself to this mode 100% of the time?

(^ That answer = your reward for playing Open.)

 

[SteveLaw]

THAT is what the Background Simulator should be about. Having numbers doesn't mean success, planning and strategies mean success.

Do you really understand what the Background Simulation is actually supposed to be simulating?

It is supposed to be simulating a dynamic, evolving galaxy. Think about it. A dynamic, evolving galaxy. Think of the billions upon billions of people inhabiting the galaxy in the game. All of those people should have an influence on the galaxy. All of them. Office workers, farmers, starport janitors, managers, politicians, spaceship pilots. They should all affect the politics of the station, planet, system where they are, even if their individual effect is infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things.

You are essentially complaining that the actions of relatively tiny number of pilots should have 100% effectiveness on this dynamic galaxy without any external influence, influence that you can't see or effect. Do you really believe that? Don't you find that idea just a little bit stale and artificial?

The thing about politics is that it's unpredictable. You can have strategies to maximise your potential, but you can never guarantee success.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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?

Which game mechanic?

NPCs need to havbe a difficulty level that is not so high (on average) that the game becomes unpalatable for the average / below average skill player. Above average skill players therefore need to seek each other out - NPCs are not going to be made difficult enough (on average) to trouble them all the time.

The question was merely pointing out that asking a multi-part question and demanding a yes/no answer leads to loaded questioning, i.e. "Have you stopped kicking the dog when you are frustrated?"

 

[Bomba Luigi]

the only thing fitting the "litlerally" in "pay to win" would be paint jobs, since it is the only thing you can buy with real money. And it really is poorly done, since they dont help you winning in any way.

 

[SteveLaw]

the only thing fitting the "litlerally" in "pay to win" would be paint jobs, since it is the only thing you can buy with real money. And it really is poorly done, since they dont help you winning in any way.

I would say that any pay-to-win mechanic in this game will always be poorly done because FD forgot to add any win conditions.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Indeed - same as there is always a group who wants the game to be changed to satisfy them, away from the original design intentions of the developers that the backers agreed to fund.

indeed this is the ultimate crux of it. I totally accept some of the reasons why "only" open players do not like mode switching. But it ultimately comes back to what you wrote Asp. This is how the game was, it is how it was marketed, its what a great many of us backed and that is that (I hope).

PvP is a possible but not huge part of the game (according to DB at least) therefore to ruin the rest of it just for that small thing would be madness. Are there a few downsides for the insistant PvPers? sure there are, but this is just the shoe being on the other foot for a change. As a mostly solo and co-op multiplayer I have had to put up with so many of the game franchises I like getting watered down for the PvP types... (hell even Elite has been to a large part). It is so nice however to generally not feel like a 2nd class player in this 1 game for a change

 

[Roland2]

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.

I disagree, we the players have no evidence available to tell us how much of the community play in each mode. You could have 200,000 people all playing in open at the same time, and you'd still only see a max of 31 other people. Because of this, we have no evidence indicating that more players are needed in open.

Those who don't like "player experience" as you put it, would not have more fun, and would not want to play in open more, no matter what incentives were added.

 

[Jockey79]

From the Kickstarter;
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*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
*Play it your way*
Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*

From the forum archives;
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)

Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."

DB on "Griefing" and "Griefers"
(Listen out for the part where FD can move them in to a private group of just each other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M

Rededit Topic on "unusual event for players to come against players" (With Twitch Video)
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangero...ayers_to_come/

Direct Twitch Link; (Note DB use "Occasonial" and "unusual" regarding players interacting)
http://www.twitch.tv/egx/b/571962295?t=69m00s

Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)

Wikipedia;
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.

Oxford English Dictionary (Online);
An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .



More Recent Dev comments;

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by Numi
Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.

Michael

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by Robert Maynard
Thanks for that clarity Michael.

Are you in a position to confirm that group switching between the three game modes will remain as a feature of the game?

We're not planning on changing that.

Michael

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by mosh_er
Hi Micheal

I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?

None are planned at the moment.

Michael

Originally Posted by Alexander the Grape
In the newsletter, it was mentioned that an intersection between a trading power and a military power will result in piracy missions.

Will this make NPC piracy more profitable or will we continue to need to focus on players?

It can be more profitable, and it will apply to both players and NPCs.

Originally Posted by Adept
For fun

That said, it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation.

Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.

Any questions ?

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Any questions ?

What kind of feeling is it to have such a good post and post it over and over again and people are just keep on ignoring it? ^^

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Which game mechanic?

NPCs need to havbe a difficulty level that is not so high (on average) that the game becomes unpalatable for the average / below average skill player. Above average skill players therefore need to seek each other out - NPCs are not going to be made difficult enough (on average) to trouble them all the time.

The question was merely pointing out that asking a multi-part question and demanding a yes/no answer leads to loaded questioning, i.e. "Have you stopped kicking the dog when you are frustrated?"

This is a new one and really strange one they're implementing with the powers. The PowerPlay Commodity Allocation mechanic. Really weird, it's like a softer version of Pay-to-win, instead of real money, its just the game's currency going into the power Instead of loyalty and merit winning the day. I hope they give us more detail on that one. I think they're not explaining some of these really well. I

Shield Cells are a gift from heaven, and a curse for the experienced. The best and worst thing for me is that is basically: They prolong fights in general. I'm really torn between that, I love it and I hate it. Even with the five second delay, It's still a contest of who has more and the better shields and less of "Who is taking advantage of what they are flying"

Whoa now, I just asked if they were balanced fairly. Sure the Rewards are, but the added danger? Well, I'm leaving that to Sarah Jane Avory, who is making the AIs pretty damn clever. Also this is a tough thing to address, because it not only weighs in on how well the player is flying, but what they are flying as well. I'm sure they're taking that into consideration. If they were to start giving players a bit of trouble during specific Community Goals and whatnot, I'd have icing for a cake. (I hope that's the cause, I'd love to see this in Solo and in Private especially. NPC blockades/more interdictions? yesssss please, also the docking computer hnnnngggggg)

I suppose I need more time for some of the decisions they're making, its really creative and thinking out of the box, yet foreign because of the surprising three modes. Especially when other games have essentially one-side Offline and the other Multiplayer. I've made my peace with the tree modes, some bits are weird-ish, but hey I'm only expecting better things in the future.

Edit: Jockey79, I think a large sum of us have been spoiled by just the simple and flexibility of other games when it comes to an offline mode and a multiplayer mode. Let's just see how many people they can make happy. (Also MMO needs sub-definitions or specializations, gets confusing reaaallly fast)

 

[Jockey79]

What kind of feeling is it to have such a good post and post it over and over again and people are just keep on ignoring it? ^^

It's quite a good feeling reposting it and seeing all those folks ignore it, as you know they just want to tell me to [insert insult here], every time I do it
It also shows that some folks are just trolling or trying to derail the game development from what FD are trying to do.
So posting the reminder that FD are making an anti-griefer game is its own reward, just like playing in Open Mode