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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But it is perfectly acceptable that solo players' action dictate what I have to do. That is a lovely solution.

It's a consequence of the decision that Frontier made to allow all players to participate in CGs and Powerplay and, at the same time, select which game mode to play in on a session-by-session basis.
 
But it is perfectly acceptable that solo players' action dictate what I have to do. That is a lovely solution.

That's always been the case before and after release. If you don't like that why did you buy the game? Likewise your actions affect* Solo players, many of which would prefer an individual offline mode, but there isn't one. We all deal with the compromise.

* They affect, not dictate. You are the one wishing to be able to dictate the actions of others, the Solo player does not dictate your actions.
 
Last edited:
That's always been the case before and after release. If you don't like that why did you buy the game? Likewise your actions affect* Solo players, many of which would prefer an individual offline mode, but there isn't one. We all deal with the compromise.

* They affect, not dictate. You are the one wishing to be able to dictate the actions of others, the Solo player does not dictate your actions.

Before Powerplay solo actions had no consequence on my play.
 
Last edited:
Hey Guys!

I wanted to say that IT is DANGEROUS out there... Like the Title of the Game. I can not believe that i am fighting ( for Example ) in powerplay against Enemy- CMDR and earn merits and Other players fit out their Ship in Solo and come into Open when "their Time is right " you know?!

if you want to play Solo, IT should not have effect in "my "Open - Mode... Whether in powerplay or elsewhere... Solo is too easy...
the title of any game doesnt mean anything....i want to see my conda to constript hes opponents not shoot them lol
 
No solo player undermined anyone in Community Goals. It was a level playing field. You could go solo and do what the solo player was doing (farming res point, conflict zone or drop cargo off). In powerplay a solo player can come into your area and farm your friendly ncps, with no come back.
 
The idea that you can create an instance of 32 players and cart them around from system to system, supercruise to normal space, without some serious hacking on the network side, is absurd.

Don't need to be 32. Roybe was testing it, and it seems to be currently impossible to put more than 12 players on the same instance, so if you can bring just three wings you are guaranteed to never see an opponent player even on Open. Heck, if you can bring two wings you are guaranteed to outnumber your opposition at least 2 to 1 if you ever meet someone.

ED was never meant to be a MMO in the conventional sense, so it picked a network architecture whose main disadvantage is that it doesn't allow the game to behave like a conventional MMO, but at the same time offers some very interesting advantages in reducing running costs and lag.

In an ideal world there wouldn't be multiple instances for each area of space, but the fact that there could be multiple instances shouldn't stop the game from working from the premise that there shouldn't be unless capacity or network demands dictate it.

Ideal world for you. For my part, I only got this game because I had a strong guarantee that I would be able to simply ignore any player that wanted to shoot at me.

It wasn't designed with Powerplay in mind, either.

For what you think Power Play is, true, it wasn't designed for that. The game was made to allow players to choose who they play with, the experiences they want, without being penalized for it. Players being able to choose who they play with, including the choice to never meet another player, was at the core of the whole ED concept from the start. Which is likely why they chose a networking model where blockades can never work, for the game they had in mind this wasn't a disadvantage.

Could it not set that if you are in hostile territory you have to be in open?

Only if Frontier is ready to face the fallout of breaking long-standing promises again, and perhaps even a lawsuit for false advertisement; not only Frontier has been repeating since over two years ago that you only meet other players if you choose to do so, they even explicitly sold ED as a single-player game on Steam.

So why don't people go in open for this type of activity? Because there is a chance that they may be challenged for doing something they shouldn't.

Or, for many players, simply because they don't enjoy playing in Open, or don't feel like playing in Open at that specific moment. The fact you enjoy Open doesn't make it enjoyable for everyone else.

That's fair enough. Give me my own solo game, uneffected by other players and I'll stay there, I think you'll find most Solo players wouldn't mind either.

Just to complement: unaffected by any other player except the "owner" of that specific instance. Which means running one galaxy simulation for each player in Solo.

It's what many of the players that purchased ED for the offline mode wanted. Without that, I, at least, want to have something that is as close to it as can be done within the framework of the game: a solo mode where I have access to all content and every reward, including being able to influence anything just like players in Open.
 
Could it not set that if you are in hostile territory you have to be in open?

I think all jgm and I are saying is that players from other factions should not be able to undermine in the ananimoty of solo, because you can't stop them. I also think that if I go to another power I need to be visable if I am hostile so members of that faction can stop me, kill me or talk to me or whatever. If you are in your own power or unclaimed space then you can get on by yourself in solo.

You could just play in Solo yourself and do the same. :) See? Balance.
 
Ok, how about a compromise. Going into hostile territory should be like going to a Strong Signal Source. (ETA: and I don't mean the wedding banquet)
 
Last edited:
Ok, how about a compromise. Going into hostile territory should be like going to a Strong Signal Source. (ETA: and I don't mean the wedding banquette)

thats a compromise?
i have a better one accept the game with the mechanics he has...u will be more happy then than now anyway;)
 
thats a compromise?
i have a better one accept the game with the mechanics he has...u will be more happy then than now anyway;)

The current game mechanics made me sit around for a few hours to get some stuff to drop off because a controlled system in my power is being undermined by an invisible enemy. You know that's not sounding much fun is it.

ETA: The strong signal source is a great compromise, people don't need to go open, but they need to really consider if it is worth going to hostile territory.
 
Last edited:
The current game mechanics made me sit around for a few hours to get some stuff to drop off because a controlled system in my power is being undermined by an invisible enemy. You know that's not sounding much fun is it.
Your entire faction has an entire week to fortify your systems. The game mechanics didn't force you to do anything, you chose to do it.

ETA: The strong signal source is a great compromise, people don't need to go open, but they need to really consider if it is worth going to hostile territory.
I wouldn't mind something like this. Hostile space should be hostile. Not overwhelmingly, 'need a fleet to even consider it' levels of hostile, but enough that it's a noteable risk.
 
The current game mechanics made me sit around for a few hours to get some stuff to drop off because a controlled system in my power is being undermined by an invisible enemy. You know that's not sounding much fun is it.

ETA: The strong signal source is a great compromise, people don't need to go open, but they need to really consider if it is worth going to hostile territory.

and still SSS is suicide for a solo player and thats why isnt even near a compromise ...
 
You get 1 merit for dropping off 1 bit of propaganda etc. You get 15 merits for shooting npcs dropping stuff off in an enemy control area

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=154676

Just thought i'd pick up on this point, because it was stated that there is a 15 to 1 ratio between supporting and undermining.

As I saw in beta you need a lot more merits to undermine than you do to fortify. So that shifts the 15 to 1 down a bit.

Also, keep in mind, fortifying is a lot easier than undermining. You might get attacked by an enemy when fortifying (PC or NPC), but more likely not, and if in trouble, you have a greater chance of help coming. When undermining then you will be attacked by hostile forces (NPC or PC) and at best you will have wingmen with you to support you. So undermining is riskier.

So i think it balances well.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom