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

[Agony_Aunt]

it is? o.0 Doesn't it just mean somebody that wants an easy game with no consequences? I didn't know you couldn't use that term here. Sorry, I didn't read post #1 on this thread.

Its mainly a matter of context and intent. I mean, when you are down the pub with your mates, its quite normal to call each other names as a term of endearment that would get you a punch to the face if you said it to a stranger on the street.

The word carebare on these forums has been repeatedly used as a form of insult by Open proponents for a long time to refer to those who prefer PvE. Therefore it is considered an insult even if not used by that.

In short, people define words by their use in English and meanings can change over time. Its not like the French who have a governing body which says "This is the word and this is what it means". A classic example of this is the word "gay". For non-native speakers you might be interested to know this word initially meant being happy, and if you watch old films or advertisements, you might see someone saying they are gay. Back in the 50s there was a brilliant commercial for something like a washing powder that was called Gay.

The woman in the advert is saying how she gets the house so clean with a little help from her gay friend... which of course to a modern audience is totally hilarious.

Other interesting ones are:

Goodbye: Is a contraction which comes from God be with ye.
Evil: Which initially didn't have the same extent of meaning, and could instead refer to something that was just simply bad or broken, and as a noun in ye olde English to refer to a sickness.
OK: oll korrect (or all correct).
Jeep: Army contraction for General Purpose Vehicle. G.P.

That is your etemology lesson for today

 

[Mouse]

Its mainly a matter of context and intent. I mean, when you are down the pub with your mates, its quite normal to call each other names as a term of endearment that would get you a punch to the face if you said it to a stranger on the street.

The word carebare on these forums has been repeatedly used as a form of insult by Open proponents for a long time to refer to those who prefer PvE. Therefore it is considered an insult even if not used by that.

In short, people define words by their use in English and meanings can change over time. Its not like the French who have a governing body which says "This is the word and this is what it means". A classic example of this is the word "gay". For non-native speakers you might be interested to know this word initially meant being happy, and if you watch old films or advertisements, you might see someone saying they are gay. Back in the 50s there was a brilliant commercial for something like a washing powder that was called Gay.

The woman in the advert is saying how she gets the house so clean with a little help from her gay friend... which of course to a modern audience is totally hilarious.

Other interesting ones are:

Goodbye: Is a contraction which comes from God be with ye.
Evil: Which initially didn't have the same extent of meaning, and could instead refer to something that was just simply bad or broken, and as a noun in ye olde English to refer to a sickness.
OK: oll korrect (or all correct).
Jeep: Army contraction for General Purpose Vehicle. G.P.

That is your etemology lesson for today

Always love confusing people who say certain words to certain people and I ask them if they are trying to be mean why are they calling them Happy bundles of sticks

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Always love confusing people who say certain words to certain people and I ask them if they are trying to be mean why are they calling them Happy bundles of sticks

Ah, the Fa..... word. Yes, that's a good one.

 

[why fi at all]

Obligatory Monty Python https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DfEVsvDLNw

the most profound and relevant comment in this thread.
thank you ziggy.



[oh god am i still reading this endless circle of discussion, and worse i am writing messages here]

back on topic;

it's still a clear case of people chasing people out of open and complaining that they have somewhere to go.

 

[SteveLaw]

Pssst, how?

I don't know yet. You know how it is, us Solo players need Open players to tell us how to play and they haven't quite explained this one yet.

 

[Robert Maynard]

it is kind of pointless to debate them from what I have experienced. we come in with real arguments of how broken the solo game mode is by interfering with an open game world and all we receive is spewed nonsense from the community and moderators

New participants arrive with preconceived opinions of what makes a good game (for them) and expect that pointing out the "obvious" faults (from their perspective) with the game - there seems to be an expectation that the demands for change will be unanimously accepted by the existing player-base without any form of resistance to the demands for major changes.

2) never receiving a real counter to the argument and instead they throw some dev quotes at you of how the game will never change, yet this debate is still allowed to continue.

That change proponents don't consider arguments for the status quo to be "real" is not a surprise - they want changes after all.

3) being accused of trying to take away their choices of gameplay but never looking at it from both sides, very hypocritical of them to demand a pvp'er does not have the choice to intercept them.

We are all told to "play the game how you want to" - that does not require us to present ourselves as targets for those who prefer PvP.

the community is very hostile to constructive criticism and is also very selfish.

Hostile to demands for changes that suit a particular play-style and reduce choice for all players within the game (choices that have formed core features of the stated game design for over two and a half years now) - yes. Selfish? No more so than those who seek changes to a released game to suit their opinions....

 

[SteveLaw]

3) being accused of trying to take away their choices of gameplay but never looking at it from both sides, very hypocritical of them to demand a pvp'er does not have the choice to intercept them.

Let's look at it from both sides.

A) We like to PvP. We want everyone to be available for us to fight. If you don't want to fight then you can keep away from any systems that are populated, interesting, or historic (despite the fact that there is always a possibility that someone else will find you wherever you are). We want to remove people's choice of how they play to support our own play preferences.

B) We would like everyone to be able to choose how they want to play. If you want to PvP then we support you. You are free and welcome to fight anyone who wants the possibility to fight. We also want anyone who doesn't want to fight to have the option to avoid it without having to compromise other aspects of their game.

Which of those is fairest to both types of player? Which of those makes demands of the other? Which is trying to take away choice?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Let's look at it from both sides.

A) We like to PvP. We want everyone to be available for us to fight. If you don't want to fight then you can keep away from any systems that are populated, interesting, or historic (despite the fact that there is always a possibility that someone else will find you wherever you are). We want to remove people's choice of how they play to support our own play preferences.

B) We would like everyone to be able to choose how they want to play. If you want to PvP then we support you. You are free and welcome to fight anyone who wants the possibility to fight. We also want anyone who doesn't want to fight to have the option to avoid it without having to compromise other aspects of their game.

Which of those is fairest to both types of player? Which of those makes demands of the other? Which is trying to take away choice?

That seems to be it in a nutshell.

Frontier decided that they game that they wanted (and have provided to us) satisfies Group B. Group A has argued for change for over two and a half years now with no apparent effect on the game design.

 

[Derath]

It seems to me that, by not forcing all players to stay in the same mode and allowing all players to select a game mode on a session by session basis, Frontier have decided to support player choice rather than removal of same. This was reiterated in DBOBE's interview with Arstechnica at E3 this week - "There are no changes planned to separate solo and online saves, and players will continue to inhabit the same shared galaxy whether they’re in solo or multiplayer—again, continuing with Braben’s contention that there’s no ‘right’ way to play."

Anyway, rather than be leading this topic into a merge, I'll say no more on these core features of the game - should anyone wish to continue the discussion, I'll be in the Solo vs Open vs Groups - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms] thread.

This would be true, except there is "no right way to play" as long as it doesn't involve consequences for pvp, that has no right.

This is one of those classic arguments that misses the whole point of choose, if I want to stop people coming into a system my success doesn't hinge on my actions, it hinges on whether they choose to participate or not. That gives them a choice, while invalidating mine. It isn't even, and it isn't fair - its just choosing to let one person dictate their game and not the other

 

[Jockey79]

This would be true, except there is "no right way to play" as long as it doesn't involve consequences for pvp, that has no right.

This is one of those classic arguments that misses the whole point of choose, if I want to stop people coming into a system my success doesn't hinge on my actions, it hinges on whether they choose to participate or not. That gives them a choice, while invalidating mine. It isn't even, and it isn't fair - its just choosing to let one person dictate their game and not the other

Yes, it is fair - because player blockades have never been part of the game. You want to do something that is unsupported.
Even if EVERYONE played Open, you can only ever see thirty one others if the matchmaking service lets you - so far the record is twelve people.

You are NEVER, EVER, EVER going to be able to set up a blockade under the peer to peer networking system while such low player caps are in place.
Once you understand, the aspect of game play you want, cannot be done - even with everyone in Open - it makes it easier to understand, that there is more to ED than Open mode

 

[Spook]

This would be true, except there is "no right way to play" as long as it doesn't involve consequences for pvp, that has no right.

This is one of those classic arguments that misses the whole point of choose, if I want to stop people coming into a system my success doesn't hinge on my actions, it hinges on whether they choose to participate or not. That gives them a choice, while invalidating mine. It isn't even, and it isn't fair - its just choosing to let one person dictate their game and not the other

Sorry, but you do realise the nature of the games networking infrastructure and the effect this has on the games core design.

You cannot stop people going into a system, and that has nothing to do with their choice of mode. Even if you were both in open, if the matchmaker determines that thier connection quality is detrimental to anyone from your group or you, and likewise anyone from your side is detrimental to theirs, then you don't see each other.

So even worse you wish to impose restrictions to support an illusion of a method of gameplay, which would never work. Not without re-coding the game from the ground up.

 

[Cmdr Cunomaglus]

This would be true, except there is "no right way to play" as long as it doesn't involve consequences for pvp, that has no right.

This is one of those classic arguments that misses the whole point of choose, if I want to stop people coming into a system my success doesn't hinge on my actions, it hinges on whether they choose to participate or not. That gives them a choice, while invalidating mine. It isn't even, and it isn't fair - its just choosing to let one person dictate their game and not the other

All other issues aside - the P2P networking, low player cap, etc - if you were willing to open fire on anyone who comes close to your system, and a guy who refuses to PvP under any circumstances wants to go to that system, why should it be only you who gets to dictate the rules of that engagement? The other side doesn't even want an engagement, yet because you're the one willing to use force, all the power is in your hands. The other guy has no choice but to PvP or leave; he cannot do what he wants to do while you are perfectly free to play how you want to play. What makes your desires more important than his?

As things stand, he has the option to play in solo or group and continue on his merry way to 'your' system with no noticeable effect* on you, while you play in open, blissfully unaware of his existence and continuing your blockade against anyone willing to play on your terms. Do you honestly think that's unfair?

*Obviously, I'm also discounting possible effects in Powerplay; yes, he could be undermining your system or whatever, thereby having a small but noticeable effect on you after all. However, I consider that an issue with Powerplay, not with solo / group vs open and thus not relevant to this discussion.

 

[lysan]

Kill engines so you don't take a murder charge for murdering someone? Not an exploit?
Why are you trolling?

It's clearly and obviously bypassing the laws of the game for an unintended benefit. Slicing someones throat and watching them bleed out is murder.

If people don't play many MMOs they sometimes get it wrong. In DayZ, and that game is without mercy, you can be taken as a prisoner, they break your legs and leave you to the zeds. What is that? well its sick, however it's human nature. I hate when this happens to me, do I want to remove it, no.

Elite Dangerous, should be just that, dangerous.

 

[Cody]

DDSS... g'day, y'all!

 

[Robert Maynard]

This would be true, except there is "no right way to play" as long as it doesn't involve consequences for pvp, that has no right.

This is one of those classic arguments that misses the whole point of choose, if I want to stop people coming into a system my success doesn't hinge on my actions, it hinges on whether they choose to participate or not. That gives them a choice, while invalidating mine. It isn't even, and it isn't fair - its just choosing to let one person dictate their game and not the other

There is "no right way to play" full stop. If you want to stop people coming into a system, they have to want to play the blockade runner game for you to have a chance to stop them. That's even if they are in the same instance (which, due to mutual ping times and QoS of connections, they may never be), play at the same time of day, or even play on the same platform - XBox One players will share the same galaxy state but it is very unlikely that they will crossplay with PC/Mac players - not sure about PS4 players as and when the game is announced / released on that platform.

You nail it in the first sentence of the second paragraph - you do not get to dictate how players play because they can choose not to play with you (or choose to, it's their choice).

Our freedoms to choose how to play the game stop at the point where our choice would require another player to play in a way that they do not want to.

 

[Derath]

You guys are physically incapable of understanding this argument it seems, yes I am aware physical limitations stop you doing any activity that actually matters like blockading however all of you are saying my view matters and yours doesn't, and your view is apparently everyones play is equal (except when it isn't)

"Our freedoms to choose how to play the game stop at the point where our choice would require another player to play in a way that they do not want to." This is solo, you require another player to play in a way they do not want to.

Forcing someone to fight is exactly the same as forcing somebody who wants to not to.

Thats all well and good, it depends what game your trying to make however, much like the combat logging debate it needs to be realised that its a choice to benefit one player type over another nothing else. That is a design choice, but stop denying it or trying to make out that its fair.

 

[SteveLaw]

This would be true, except there is "no right way to play" as long as it doesn't involve consequences for pvp, that has no right.

This is one of those classic arguments that misses the whole point of choose, if I want to stop people coming into a system my success doesn't hinge on my actions, it hinges on whether they choose to participate or not. That gives them a choice, while invalidating mine. It isn't even, and it isn't fair - its just choosing to let one person dictate their game and not the other

Stopping people coming into a system isn't a choice that you are given. Not with 100% success at any rate. It's not necessarily wrong for you to try to blockade a system but it's also not wrong for someone to avoid that blockade by switching modes, or by being not being in Open in the first place. In terms of Power Play, the mechanics are covered by Undermine and Fortify. Shooting down players is outside of the rules of PP, even though you still have the choice to try. Again though, there is no guarantee that it will be successful. It's like complaining that we don't have the choice of killing monsters with swords. It's not part of the game, just like system blockades aren't part of the game. Mode switching, however, is part of the game.

 

[Derath]

Stopping people coming into a system isn't a choice that you are given. Not with 100% success at any rate. It's not necessarily wrong for you to try to blockade a system but it's also not wrong for someone to avoid that blockade by switching modes, or by being not being in Open in the first place. In terms of Power Play, the mechanics are covered by Undermine and Fortify. Shooting down players is outside of the rules of PP, even though you still have the choice to try. Again though, there is no guarantee that it will be successful. It's like complaining that we don't have the choice of killing monsters with swords. It's not part of the game, just like system blockades aren't part of the game. Mode switching, however, is part of the game.

This is yet another argument where you've attempted to disagree with me, yet actually all you've written is that any form of real PvP is removed by open/solo, cause your totally right comparing meaningful PvP to ED is exactly the same as me asking to be able to kill monsters with swords, because they are both fundamentally impossible currently, and always will be as long as solo and open are the same universe.

 

[Mohrgan]

Derath, we understand your stance. But, you have to ask; Why should your desire to PvP trump another player's desire not to? I see your argument like saying 'Elite owes me targets'. No one wants to be a victim. How can you insist that your needs outweigh someone else's? I believe you have to make due with players that want that content. You don't have a 'right' to PvP, you have an opportunity to PvP.

There really is no fundamental way to blockade a system. The game mechanics just don't support it. Yet you insist it be your right to do so. What did Einstein say about trying the same thing over and over, expecting different results?

 

[SteveLaw]

This is yet another argument where you've attempted to disagree with me, yet actually all you've written is that any form of real PvP is removed by open/solo, cause your totally right comparing meaningful PvP to ED is exactly the same as me asking to be able to kill monsters with swords, because they are both fundamentally impossible currently, and always will be as long as solo and open are the same universe.

Any form of real PvP is not removed by open/solo. Non-consensual PvP is removed by open/solo. And that is almost entirely the whole purpose of it. If you want to PvP you can go to Open. Someone will want to PvP with you. You are not able to PvP with someone who does not want you to. Quite rightly. You have no right to decide how I want to play. By not presenting myself for PvP I am not stopping you from enjoying PvP, I am only stopping you from enjoying PvP against me. There are other players for you to PvP against, people with who, like you, also enjoy PvP.

If your claim was accurate then there would be zero PvP in the game. That isn't the case.