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

[[VR] Mad Mike]

EDIT: You know, in the past they decided to not let women vote. Now politicians changed their minds. Do you complain because women right to vote wasn't advertised in the past?

totally incomparable.... you are trying to TAKE AWAY functionality not adding it. you are trying to STOP me playing with friends socially. if we have to use your analogy it would be closer to you saying you want to stop allowing women the right to vote when the initial status quo is them being equal. (given you are trying to STOP players playing in groups other than open from having an effect on the galaxy)

edit for typo

 

[fademist]

You still haven't explained why they won't CHOOSE to go OPEN if there is the choice like now, but with different galaxies.
I will still play OPEN nevertheless.

I will explain that to you when u EXPLAIN TO US WHY WE NEED TO PLAY THE GAME YOUR WAY...

 

[fademist]

I don't want you to play the game my way. But I don't want you to play the game YOUR way and impact MY game.

and the same time U have impact to MY way too so its all good and fair so why u have problem ?

 

[PeachingTony]

The problem is not solo players impacting open players. The problem is solo players impacting open players in an unbalanced way. Community Goals was a good example of that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I was trying to make a point by using a not-perfect example.
It seems you don't understand and just think for your interests in the game.
Please OPEN at least your mind at listen to different view points, without hiding after a "it was publicized like that", "it's been like that for months" and so on.
If something is detrimental, you should change it. And IN MY OPINION, this switch without penalties is detrimental to the game and the players. I'm not the only one thinking this way, I don't believe I am right of course, but at least I'd like a constructive dialogue not just a "I don't care, it's your problem" argument.

You're right, it was not a perfect example.

I have been "listening" to points of view and opinions of those who do not accept the core features in the stated game design for over two and a half years now - this is not a new debate - it's a very old debate that has not changed any of these core features during game development before launch. We are now six months past launch - I expect that it's far too late to remove any of the core features of the game.

I do understand why some players would like to change the game - there are players for whom the ability to play among and affect other players is of paramount importance; there are players who quite like the "atmosphere" of playing in Open but don't initiate PvP (I fall into this category); there are players who want to play with friends only and there are players who play Solo. We have all been told to "play the game how you want to" (not "play the game the way that others want you to") and we have been given core game features to allow us to do so. We do not require to offer ourselves up as content for other players (unless we choose to do so).

As I pointed out earlier, the shared galactic background simulation is unlikely to be split - it is shared between all players on all platforms and in all game modes. We can constructively discuss this game feature for as long as we like - I would be very surprised if Frontier change any of the core game features at this late stage.

 

[fademist]

The problem is not solo players impacting open players. The problem is solo players impacting open players in an unbalanced way. Community Goals was a good example of that.

Funny that all we have the freedom to choose what mode we play session by session right?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Why the people who are advocates for SOLO playing don't explain why the change would impact them instead of just relying to "Frontier pitched the game like this"?

I did! sometimes I play in groups, people I play with play in solo, others play in open but we all like to play together when we are on. indeed as I said a few of them ONLY bought the game because we could play socially as a group (and because I badgered them! ).


The suggestion of many on this thread (*possibly not you - I am not sure if you want to block the solo player from everything to do with the open galaxy or just stop them from playing in powerplay??*) is that if you do not play in open all of the time, you are never allowed to play in open therefore removing the entire social side of this game with friends.

This aside, it aslo means I cant play when travelling, or when my wife is workign from home and she uses all the internet bandwidth.... again, FD advertised the game as using next to no bandwidth if you dropped to solo for those times when your internet was slow.

 

[fademist]

How can I impact your game?
Let's imagine that we pledged opposing powers and we are both trying to prepare a system. I play open, risk my ships against other players. You play solo, with less risks.
Now, due to the less risky nature of your game you can contribute better to your power and consequently get more rewards for it.
So you play like you want and impact my game (I would need to struggle more in OPEN), whereas I take risks to play as I like and still I don't impact your game as much.

What will happen after a few weeks/months after this trend becomes clear? More people will switch to SOLO: less risk, more gain.
If you don't see this as a possibility, or if you see it but just don't bother you because it doesn't affect you directly, I'm sorry but that's your problem..

Funny that all we have the freedom to choose what mode we play session by session right? the same go for you so DEAL WITH IT

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yeah I want basically to TAKE AWAY the functionality to COMBAT LOG, to INFLUENCE SYSTEMS without even showing your face, to EXPLOIT the game by not taking the chances that others take.

The example I made wasn't perfect, but I don't want to take away functionalities - I want to improve the game for everyone!

People playing SOLO will still enjoy a thriving galaxy, they just won't contribute to the one where OPEN players contribute. That's it.
Why this shouldn't be fair? Do you want to avoid getting into a fight? Well, no pain no gain.

Why the people who are advocates for SOLO playing don't explain why the change would impact them instead of just relying to "Frontier pitched the game like this"?

What I was trying to say when I used that stupid example on the right to vote is that SOMETIMES changes are needed for the best of the majority, not maintaining STATUS QUO for just a niche.

With the P2P / Server-Lite network model, there is no way to stop players combat logging. Retrospective penalties may be applied to players who Frontier identify as combat loggers (an inexact science at best) but there is no way to keep a player in-game who does not want to be there (even though Frontier have stated that combat logging is not acceptable).

With respect to the "Do you want to avoid getting into a fight?" question - many don't want to PvP. The game was not pitched as predominantly PvP - the galaxy is too big to guarantee a player density high enough for that.

There's a poll (of many) that, while it does not have a huge number of respondents, indicates that only about 32% of the player-base (that voted) play in Open only. Before seeking to separate progress between game modes it would be wise to consider the implications of that result - if players were suddenly to make a one-time only choice as to where their commander would reside Open may suffer. You are probably correct with respect to the potential Solo / Private group galaxy thriving - it may have more players than Open. Players will not want to duplicate effort in progressing more than one Commander just to be able to play in a different game mode.

An arguably equitable solution (that has been discussed) would be to create an Open-PvE mode (just like some MMOs have PvP and PvE servers) to allow players who are more interested in the PvE aspects of the game the same ability to meet random players without the risk of PvP.

While I play almost exclusively in Open, if I was forced to make a choice of which mode to play in, I would probably choose Private Groups - I would be able to play Solo (by creating a group of my own); in a Private Group (many already exist) and, in time probably pseudo-Open (I expect that a Private Group would be created for players who might like the random nature of Open but without being locked into it). When suffering from significant lag (such that the controls become unresponsive and the game is basically unplayable) in Open, I drop to Solo - rather than stop playing.

 

[Valethar]

I honestly hope that every CMDR who has found issue with the Open Vs Solo disparity contacts the moderation team. Its ludicrous that these continuing issues are disappeared to this black hole of a thread.

It's ludicrous that people continue to whine about Solo players when the Dev team has clearly stated that everyone is equal, regardless of mode. It's not going to change, folks should just break out the Boudreaux's, apply liberally, and play the game.

The Mods are doing exactly what they should be doing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This will be my last post: you are a moderator so I expect a bit more from you than from other users and I'm honestly puzzled of the short-sightedness of some users.

Moderators are unpaid volunteers - we are allowed to have opinions and participate in Forum discussions....

 

[Tuub t Tute]

That door slamming shut must be one of those restaurant kitchen doors, as I swear it keeps opening and closing again... oh well.

I re-read this thread every time I want to make my head hurt and my neck ache by shaking my head vigorously.

I still hold the opinion that Solo = playing the new game in the style of the original, Group = same but co-op with friends, Open = same but choosing to interact with strangers who may help or hinder according to their own ideas.

It doesn't have to get any more complicated than that. Everyone plays and interacts with the same , only the interaction (positively or negatively) with other carbon based bipeds changes with the mode. Whichever flavour you choose, it is because that flavour suits your palate at that given time. Minty choccy chip is no better than chocolate or strawberry

 

[PeachingTony]

Robert, given the choice, I'd rather play alongside 25% of the user base on an equal footing, than 100% of the user base where 75% chooses to play in solo mode in certain circumstances to gain a relative advantage over those playing in open.

You suggest that forcing a choice could mean 75% of the user base would choose to always play in solo. I suggest the opposite - it is more likely those users would not want to lose the option of playing in open.

This open vs solo argument in my opinion is only occurring because of balance problems. Problems of balance in community goals where solo play gains an advantage. Problems of balance in pirating/bounty situations where going to solo is an option to 'hide'. If those balance issues were addressed, it would reduce the requests on here to split the game between solo and open.

 

[Jockey79]

...
You suggest that forcing a choice could mean 75% of the user base would choose to always play in solo. I suggest the opposite - it is more likely those users would not want to lose the option of playing in open.
...

If this were the case, people would be playing in Open all ready.
As people keep coming here saying Open is more and more sparse, that would be down to too many people wanting to be the seal clubbers and not enough people wanting to be seals.
So locking the modes would just ensure that those locked out of Open, join Mobius for social gatherings / play and no one will even look at Open any more as there would only be the seal clubbers left.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And still you haven't addressed the "fairness" on the simulation I was poining out. CGs were an example. PowerPlay will be the same.
Future will tell who were right.

Frontier have not chosen to favour any of the game modes and have given us all a shared galactic background simulation that each individual can affect equally - there is an inference that this is "fair". Players in Open in busy areas may not be as efficient in contributing to CGs or Powerplay however simply due to other players being in the same instance - that's what we get for choosing to play with other players. There was a request for opinions on the topic in the "Vox Populi" thread - everyone has the opportunity to request that their comment is added to it.

P.S. Want to avoid combat log? Add a timer to disconnect / switch mode of 1-2 minute. Other games have it. You want to leave and are in a hurry: launch the disconnect and wait or don't wait. Your ship will still be in the galaxy for 1-2 minute. Easily solved.

There is no central server that would take over the ship - other players' clients could not be trusted - therefore there is no way to keep a ship in-game if the process is killed / cable pulled / etc.. It's a feature of the P2P / Server-Lite networking model. We already have a 15 second "exit-while-in-danger" timer delay that allows graceful exit, even in combat.

 

[fademist]

You suggest that forcing a choice could mean 75% of the user base would choose to always play in solo. I suggest the opposite - it is more likely those users would not want to lose the option of playing in open.

or they just go and spent their money to other games ..is that option too if u take the freedom of choice (and is the more likely to happen)

 

[ianw]

People seem to be forgetting that neither Powerplay nor CGs are the entire game - they are both just parts of the game that are not played by everyone.

Changing the whole game to suit people that play a part of it makes no sense.

Also, where were the open advocates of "fairness" when FD staged the only two real competitions for real money/goods (Race to Elite and Nvidia cards) in open?

Presumably just not the right type of "fairness" in those cases..

 

[Jockey79]

...
As I said: get your head out of the ground. This is an MMO, even if it's different from WoW - it's still an MMO. And you can't have MMO mechanics if players are allowed to just avoid PVP skirmishes.

I was avoiding this, but nope - gotta answer it.

What has "MMO" got to do with anything?

From my wall of information (page 1, post 3);

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 .

MMO has nothing to do with how many people you see while playing. For example;

World of Tanks,
World of Warplanes,
Mechwarrior Online,
Robocraft,
War Thunder,
(this list goes on....)

All labeled as MMOs and most have smaller instance limits than Elite: Dangerous.

Fun game for you to try, goto the Steam store and filter the games to show all games marked up as MMOs. Some of the items there should not even exist, let alone be for sale!

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Moderators are unpaid volunteers - we are allowed to have opinions and participate in Forum discussions....

but only if you play in OPEN

(sorry just trying to lighten the mood )

 

[Robert Maynard]

My point in compairing it to the world's most famous MMO is that in WoW, if you want to be a PVPer, you cannot go in a PVE world and just attack whoever you want.

If there was a separate Open-PvE mode (analogous to a PvE server in WoW), I would expect that there would be less opposition to separating what would become Open-PvP mode from the existing shared galactic background simulation.