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

[Jockey79]

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. Unless it involves real money, the expression does not apply. Misusing the term looks like a desperate way to slate the game. In game currency is never used for "pay to win" examples. No one "pays" for it and EVERYONE has it for free with a bit of effort.

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? Which is by choice. The reason players choose it, is they like and want it - it does not require any extras - as it is the extra. 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. The modes were there from the KS, so how is it "surprising" for anyone who read what they were buying? - nevermind, got the answer

Edit: Jockey79, I think a large sum of us (Numbers? Define large, as my social group is larger than the group of people complaining on the forums and we are all happy with it (Not including Mobius Group) ) 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.Not a single game has made 100% of players happy, so I'm not expecting that here - but there are less unhappy people here compared to other games forums I've been on (Also MMO needs sub-definitions or specializations, gets confusing reaaallly fast)

Answering the points in the quote - in red/ bold.

Also, plenty of things that show what "Pay-to-Win" is.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/02/should-videogames-let-you-pay-win
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pay-to-win
http://www.gamesradar.com/free-play-still-pay-win/

 

[W0OCQCK]

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.

I disagree at length. But I don't feel, no I'm certain there are many, many players that feel otherwise. Fact is we enjoy the way we choose to play, and will not do otherwise, even if you do manage to get FD to drink your cool aid, by your meta blitz here in this forum.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

That one is just a personal opinion W0OCQCK, as it stands if the AIs are getting better and really involving themselves with the players, then all is well. I think it boils down to taste preferences and that should be preserved, which is what its looking to be and THAT is good.

Also Jockey, the pay to win one is tough to word (Because I believe for a fact, we aren't being told the full story as to how it really really works and if there are limits), but I think its more or less : a In-game Currency based Pay-For-Convenience for your Powers to grow(?). You gain 10 energy every half hour, but have the option of buying more 'energy' with your credits. There's something going on with that mechanic we aren't being fully told and I don't want to comment on that until we have more information.

And the comment on 'a large sum of us' I am basically saying those who are arguing the whole debate of Open,Private, solo and come from different games as well, where there are Open Multiplayers and Offline modes. I am Pro-three-modes yo, and just believe some need tweaking here and there, but that is my own opinion. If NPCs got in your way the same way Players do, there that's it. No more discussion. Every argument about "Risk/Reward" gets thrown out the window. Though I guarantee someone is going to say 'but the npcs AND players are harassing me now!', which all that needs to be done is tone the NPC spawn rate by like a very small margin or really, not at all. Just have have them 'act' like players. (Boost more to catch you when you try to run, Ram you when you're too close depending on your ship, evade you a little more often, etc.)

Yeah, Its just boiling down to choice, rewards are exceptionally fine across the board. Though I would like to have something with the simulator and CG really tell us what's going on with it more than it is now. Because as of now with the background simulator, its not telling us who is opposing who and I suppose that's were the real problem lies. Also with CGs, the Lugh one, there was no consequences for switching sides to basically grind it out for money. (This one impacted the storyline of the area too) Which they kinda fixed when they made Capital Ships stop contributing to your combat bond intake when you damaged a ship. If the ships shot you more or interdicted you for switching over then that is fair. That would make CGs a whole lot better and it prevents it from being a stale grind. I hope the same thing happens with trade CGs where NPCs try to sway you away (Text or shooting) from helping a certain CG. Basically, Previous Community Goals should follow you and your future choices and punish or reward you for new making decisions for future Community Goals. This is where I think Players in Open have it nailed down with Blockades and other cool gimmicks; if NPCs can do that, then my friend, we have an end to the dull risk/reward argument. The same can be applied to Power Play.

Edit: I believe that is might be my personal and fairest solution. Keep the rewards the same, but make the AIs give you more opposition. (I would love love love this for Private and Solo especially)

Personal Opinion: Out of all the things I'd like to see, it would be the severs being made better to have Private groups and Open have a lot more people to play with in one instance-island.

 

[W0OCQCK]

And that's the ENTIRE point. Greater risk should have greater reward.

I think hiding behind the word choice is an absolute copout to the argument. Can I choose not have players in solo play (safe mode) not contribute to the open goal? No, nobody in open can choose that and BECAUSE of that very issue it makes unravels the choice argument. If solo play did not carry over into open play, nobody would care but because that CHOICE was taken away and then the added risk IS NOT REWARDED people are unhappy.

I disagree. I find you utterly and completely disingenuous. I believe if FD gave you a completely isolated and separate set of CG's and a completely separate back ground simulation, You'd be right back here making a fuss about anything you could get a handle on for no other reason than to impose your will on other players.

 

[W0OCQCK]

I want you to reread your statements here in these exact posts. Because you literally just said "The game is balanced as it stands. Wait, jk, it actually isn't."

Also, all they have to do with the Combat Logging thing literally the moment you disconnect, have an NPC take your place and try to jump to the nearest station it can and dock.

I believe this game is balanced just fine. FD have said repeatedly they are working on the combat logging issue, how bout a little patients.

But I think the game is balanced beautifully, for all types of players. Why don't you just go in your chosen mode, then simply ignore the other two modes? It really is this simple, your trying to make big issues for ulterior motives. I feel like you're trying your best to just make FD feel like the game is simply broken, even though more and more people are purchasing it every single day. This is a fact! Even with the horrible imbalances in the modes??? I suppose they're just not reading the details eh? Do you think there may be a few people buying it with the intention of getting to play a really cool space game, isolated from players like yourself You know that's exactly why I purchased it. Or do you just think that every single player that happens to think differently than you are just simply stupid, and have no idea what were talking about? I opt for "Stupid". I guess because I don't hyper analyze this game. moan and complain, and just keep going on & on about every little detail, that I'm simply stupid.

You know I really like this game, and I do know the difference in what I like and what I dislike. I don't need you to explain this to me, or continue to lecture me on how I need to understand this and that. I know what I like, I like this game. I know it's balance beautifully, and I know your types of players have a really hard time with this. I think they should give you the CG's, and a 150% pay increase across the board for open. Basically to shut you up, but ya know that's really not gonna do it is it? Because once you get what you want, and most players still don't want to go there, you'll be right back here groping for new straws.

Let me share one of my theorys. I fully believe this game is going to attract a whole lot of PVE oriented players because of these modes, and mode switching. Why? Because they can play with family and friends, and virtually guarantee some one like you won't come swooping in and bury your foot in there ars, when there just trying to figure out how to mine. Say a guy, his wife and maybe his 10 year old daughter, no interest in PVP, or even player interaction other than just there family unit. Why do you think ED's doing so well? Because of players like yourself? I hate to break it too you, but there doing well largely because of the PVE players, not the PVP players that want the same old decade old crap, "Drama in Space". They support modes that attract PVE players in mass, and there doing so.

I personally despise people that think they have to hyper analyze every single thing, including games, that every intention was made to strive for excellence in there produce. You notice I said excellent, not perfection, as this game is like all the others in the sense that. "IT WILL NEVER BE PERFECT FOR YOU OR ANY BODY ELSE"!

So you just go right ahead and proceed with your kind of Meta Game here. Then FD will figure out the same lesson CCP learned with your type of emergent game play or emergent game development. LOL

 

[fademist]

So you just go right ahead and proceed with your kind of Meta Game here. Then FD will figure out the same lesson CCP learned with your type of emergent game play or emergent game development. LOL

sorry but ccp dint learned anything

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

sorry but ccp dint learned anything

I wish i could empty quote this. From what I've read, yeah, they really didn't learn anything. At least Frontier is actively listening to its community.

 

[W0OCQCK]

sorry but ccp dint learned anything

Sad but true.

 

[DaggerSnake]

If there was visible data in community goal contributions between SOLO, GROUP, and OPEN players per side we would have something to work with. If the numbers are balanced, then the meta game is fine. If there is a significant skew, then there is something worth talking about. All we have is 1000+ pages of opinion, speculation and hot air.

I play all modes happily. But do feel they should be seperate CMDR saves.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

words words words

That one is just a personal opinion W0OCQCK, as it stands if the AIs are getting better and really involving themselves with the players, then all is well. I think it boils down to taste preferences and that should be preserved, which is what its looking to be and THAT is good.

Also Jockey, the pay to win one is tough to word (Because I believe for a fact, we aren't being told the full story as to how it really really works and if there are limits), but I think its more or less : a In-game Currency based Pay-For-Convenience for your Powers to grow(?). You gain 10 energy every half hour, but have the option of buying more 'energy' with your credits. There's something going on with that mechanic we aren't being fully told and I don't want to comment on that until we have more information.

And the comment on 'a large sum of us' I am basically saying those who are arguing the whole debate of Open,Private, solo and come from different games as well, where there are Open Multiplayers and Offline modes. I am Pro-three-modes yo, and just believe some need tweaking here and there, but that is my own opinion. If NPCs got in your way the same way Players do, there that's it. No more discussion. Every argument about "Risk/Reward" gets thrown out the window. Though I guarantee someone is going to say 'but the npcs AND players are harassing me now!', which all that needs to be done is tone the NPC spawn rate by like a very small margin or really, not at all. Just have have them 'act' like players. (Boost more to catch you when you try to run, Ram you when you're too close depending on your ship, evade you a little more often, etc.)

Yeah, Its just boiling down to choice, rewards are exceptionally fine across the board. Though I would like to have something with the simulator and CG really tell us what's going on with it more than it is now. Because as of now with the background simulator, its not telling us who is opposing who and I suppose that's were the real problem lies. Also with CGs, the Lugh one, there was no consequences for switching sides to basically grind it out for money. (This one impacted the storyline of the area too) Which they kinda fixed when they made Capital Ships stop contributing to your combat bond intake when you damaged a ship. If the ships shot you more or interdicted you for switching over then that is fair. That would make CGs a whole lot better and it prevents it from being a stale grind. I hope the same thing happens with trade CGs where NPCs try to sway you away (Text or shooting) from helping a certain CG. Basically, Previous Community Goals should follow you and your future choices and punish or reward you for new making decisions for future Community Goals. This is where I think Players in Open have it nailed down with Blockades and other cool gimmicks; if NPCs can do that, then my friend, we have an end to the dull risk/reward argument. The same can be applied to Power Play.

Edit: I believe that is might be my personal and fairest solution. Keep the rewards the same, but make the AIs give you more opposition. (I would love love love this for Private and Solo especially)

Personal Opinion: Out of all the things I'd like to see, it would be the severs being made better to have Private groups and Open have a lot more people to play with in one instance-island.

My words words words. Changing the rewards is stupid and really doesn't match up to their vision. I think many people in this thread have been looking at it wrong and haven't took into consideration what Frontier is actually willing and right now, able to do. Making the NPCs mimic and do more than what the players are doing now is the best solution and an end to risk/reward arguments.

 

[DarkWalker]

Personal Opinion: Out of all the things I'd like to see, it would be the severs being made better to have Private groups and Open have a lot more people to play with in one instance-island.

The "instance server" is your computer, or the computer of someone else in the same instance. It's what the game being peer to peer means. Frontier's servers handle just the galaxy simulation and game saves, everything else is done by the players' computers.

So, no, Frontier can't make the servers better, not in the way you want. They could, of course, optimize the part of the game that serves as the instance server, but they have no control over which hardware it runs on or the kind of Internet access it has.

It's why they can't easily make the ship linger on after disconnect, or have an NPC take over; doing so would open the game to exceedingly harmful exploits involving seeing if you are the server and, if so, blocking other specific players in order to leave their ships a sitting duck, with the target unable to do anything. Scripts to disconnect other players like that already exist in the wild, the only thing preventing them from being more harmful is the fact a disconnected player instantly vanishes.

 

[Lestenio]

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, you haven’t logged in a long time but you are still trying to impose your terms on people that play every day? Why is there a much higher risk with open? Other posters tell us that open is no more dangerous than solo or group but you are telling us its a MUCH MUCH higher risk. I don’t avoid open because of risk, I avoid because I don’t like that style of play.


I wish open players would first agree on whether open is more dangerous or not, it’s very confusing when you can’t agree with yourselves.

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.

I’m assuming that you are not going to grind out in solo. So why do you think other - dedicated - open players will? There is a choice, either you switch or you don’t. Those that switch probably switch between modes all the time and need no encouragement to play their way. Those that don’t switch probably never will. Fair enough to both groups.

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.

I couldn’t agree with you less. I not at all interested in long term human interaction. I take it when I feel like, but not when you feel I should have it. My definition of human interaction and content is not existing as a blip on your scanner just to make your gaming experience more enjoyable

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.

Why not think of it this way. I paid the same price for the game as you. I’m not a 2nd class game citizen and my mode of play should not be treated any different just because you think your mode of play is better. If you don't like the rewards on offer for open play, don't suffer, don't play open. Oh... wait I forgot you don't even play the game any more.

 

[Jockey79]

If there was visible data in community goal contributions between SOLO, GROUP, and OPEN players per side we would have something to work with. If the numbers are balanced, then the meta game is fine. If there is a significant skew, then there is something worth talking about. All we have is 1000+ pages of opinion, speculation and hot air.

I play all modes happily. But do feel they should be seperate CMDR saves.

DBOBE Did state (quoted in my wall) that Solo players, balance Solo players......

 

[W0OCQCK]

My words words words. .

Ya know I've actually been down this road many times before. They'll dial the NPC's up, then when it becomes to hard for the casual gamer, and they stop playing, they'll dial it back down again. History some people never reflect it.

LOL, ya know I'm pretty damn certain they're going to broaden that player cap, just as soon as they can. I think that ones pretty obvious.

 

[SteveLaw]

DBOBE Did state (quoted in my wall) that Solo players, balance Solo players......

Unfortunately with what I've seen of Power Play this doesn't make any sense. PP is reward by ladder, worse even than CG. I see things going in a distinctly different direction to what we all believe.

Supporters of a Power compete against each other. Solo doesn't balance Solo, they compete to take away precious %rewards from everyone else.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Ya know I've actually been down this road many times before. They'll dial the NPC's up, then when it becomes to hard for the casual gamer, and they stop playing, they'll dial it back down again. History some people never reflect it.

LOL, ya know I'm pretty damn certain they're going to broaden that player cap, just as soon as they can. I think that ones pretty obvious.

You do know the AI is now smarter yeah, Sarah Jane Avory has been doing an excellent job so far keeping the balance pretty fair. This looks like it isn't going to be a problem. Its a thing that is supposed to be from their own works to make it more dynamic and an unpredictable galaxy. I think that is what I want the most from Private and Solo. I don't think it'll harm Casual Players as much as you think it will at all.

Edit: But getting rid of the rewards is by far the most horrible mistake they can make. Like I stated in that big post above, there are better alternatives that still flows fluently with their great game.

Also the newsletter is out.
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=dcbf6b86b4b0c7d1c21b73b1e&id=347cbf826e

 

[Robert Maynard]

Personal Opinion: Out of all the things I'd like to see, it would be the severs being made better to have Private groups and Open have a lot more people to play with in one instance-island.

To reiterate a reply I made in the "Guilds in Elite Dangerous" thread regarding the number of players in an instance:

The P2P/Server-Lite networking model was selected by Frontier from the outset. It has a hard limit of 32 players per instance but a "realistic" soft limit (affected by QoS of the connections) much lower than that. The number of connections varies exponentially with the number of players in an instance with the total number of concurrent connections CC = (N x (N + 1))/2 for N players. So, for N=2, CC=3; N=3, CC=6; N=4, CC=10; N=16, CC=120; N=32, CC=528. To increase the maximum number of players in an instance would probably require Frontier to totally re-write the netcode to use a more conventional Server/Client model - at significantly increased cost as the Servers would be dishing out a whole lot more information to each player.

 

[W0OCQCK]

You do know the AI is now smarter yeah, Sarah Jane Avory has been doing an excellent job so far keeping the balance pretty fair. This looks like it isn't going to be a problem. Its a thing that is supposed to be from their own works to make it more dynamic and an unpredictable galaxy. I think that is what I want the most from Private and Solo. I don't think it'll harm Casual Players as much as you think it will at all.

Also the newsletter is out.
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=dcbf6b86b4b0c7d1c21b73b1e&id=347cbf826e

Yea we went thru this with "Firefall". We had the "Chosen"(Strongest NPC's in Firefall) amped up so much it took 2 or 3 very skilled players just to kill one of em. Since they showed up in numbers always exceeding a half a dozen or so everyone was getting killed every time player would engage, most would die.

 

[DarkWalker]

Griefing is really subject to whomever you ask really and depends on the game, this game has some pretty good filters to prevent griefing which we really haven't been doing.

Exactly. And we have to preserve those good filters, instead of proposing ways to undermine them by penalizing the players that make use of those filters (or giving bonuses to those that don't, which is exactly the same thing).

But let's be honest here and ask the real question(Because I really would love to know your input on this, I like your constructive criticism and input), How do you classify griefing within this game?

(Examples: If a pirate kills a trader in open is that griefing? If a Trader combat logs to prevent a Pirate from robbing him, Is someone roleplaying as a 'Psycho' a griefer? How about a group of players working to undermine a Community goal by Blockading, etc.)

It's not that simple.

A pirate, acting within his role, isn't technically griefing. But, for me at least, it results in an experience that is just as bad as mindless griefing, an experience that I would rather stop playing than face in a game.

It's similar to what happens in other open PvP games. Even if little of what is happening in them can be said to be griefing, the whole unwanted PvP thing tends to drive many players away.

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

The way I see it, you are saying that PvP prowess alone should determine the results. Thankfully it isn't so, as I have absolutely no interest in the kind of PvP this game currently offers.

Not all the decisions developers make are always right. Let me tell you about other games that tried Multiplayer aspects and failed horribly. What they think might believe works on paper, doesn't work on the field in the long run.

Quite. I've read more than one scientific paper about MUDs that gave players freedom to engage in PvP, whose opperators erroneously thought players would self-police themselves; with very few exceptions, the end result was, instead, that PvPers/PKers drove enough players away to force the game to close. On the MMO front, Ultima Online itself was a case study on the law of unintended consequences, as was everything that had to do with large scale PvP in WoW, TOR, and a bunch of other games.

It's not even just the large scale multiplayer games. Watch Dogs comes to mind; a few months after launch it completely removed any and every penalty for defeat in PvP because players were simply disconnecting every time their game was invaded, ruining the experience for those that sought the game's PvP.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

To reiterate a reply I made in the "Guilds in Elite Dangerous" thread regarding the number of players in an instance:

The P2P/Server-Lite networking model was selected by Frontier from the outset. It has a hard limit of 32 players per instance but a "realistic" soft limit (affected by QoS of the connections) much lower than that. The number of connections varies exponentially with the number of players in an instance with the total number of concurrent connections CC = (N x (N + 1))/2 for N players. So, for N=2, CC=3; N=3, CC=6; N=4, CC=10; N=16, CC=120; N=32, CC=528. To increase the maximum number of players in an instance would probably require Frontier to totally re-write the netcode to use a more conventional Server/Client model - at significantly increased cost as the Servers would be dishing out a whole lot more information to each player.

Yeah, its a shame, but hey, let's hope for the best. 32 in my opinion isn't giving the game much justice.