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

[SteveLaw]

You missed the part with no technical hard-limits.

And you missed the part where you quoted "up to 64". That's an upper limit. It might not be a technical limit but it's practical limit. 64 is a long way from infinity, why do think they use so a tiny number as a typical upper limit?
- - - Updated - - -

You seem to be just too ignorant to accept that a scenario created with PP would benefit from players trying to stop others from unwanted actions.

Power Play: If I want to Undermine a system you Fortify it, I don't make you pay more CC because you stopped me. Doesn't matter which mode we are in, you stop me Undermining. If I want to Fortify, you Undermine, I don't get a free system because you stopped me. Again, works from any mode.

Faction Influence: I do missions in Solo to promote my faction above yours, you do missions in Open to promote your faction above mine. You stopped me.

Same influence on the galaxy. You can affect me just as I can affect you. You can stop me using the tools/tasks that we all have available. You cant stop me with force because I don't want to play that game. FD don't want me to have to play it.

 

[rckstr]

This still doesn't make sense, since I can stop you, even in solo mode, by doing the opposing action as implemented in PP. Just like in the voting scenario given before, I can counter your vote by voting for the other faction. Of course, the opposite is true also, I can support your vote by voting for your faction. The fact that neither of us knows how the other voted has no effect on the outcome. Your definition of "chance to stop me" seams to be shot them. Voting isn't designed to work that way, though it has been tried in the past, and neither is Power Play, though it has been tried.

You describe the scenario that comes with PP just as a simple election. PP is more then that and you just refuse to see it because you want to remain in Solo mode doing hostile actions without giving anyone the ability to stop you from said hostile action. And oh, you would loose a couple of thousand/million hard earned credits. I thought we are playing Eliteangerous where it should be risky to undock and enter space....

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]

Same influence on the galaxy. You can affect me just as I can affect you. Yo can stop me using the tools/tasks that we all have available.

I think he wants to shoot you...

 

[SteveLaw]

I think he wants to shoot you...

He'll miss.

 

[Spook]

Sorry rckstr,

I'm having a hard time trying to decipher exactly what you want.

The game is designed the way it is, for good or evil. Under the implemented design you cannot stop any other player from doing what they want in the game. Irrespective of the group they've chosen. That's down to both technical and gameplay descisions. Even if the gameplay descision was taken, the technical limitation remains.

For what you want to do, I suspect the game would have to be re-designed and re-coded from the ground up.

So you have a number of options:

Accept reality, or continue to rage against the coming of the night.
Found a multi-million pound development studio, have a successful kickstarter and crack on.
Ask FD to throw away two and a half years development, risk potential financial and reputational damage to satisfy a vocal minority of the playerbase, playing their own interpretation of the game they've been given, not the one that's been advertised or actually delivered.

I think you're going to have to throw FD a bone here, they've tried honey pots, they're giving you battle arena's - what else can they do without risking slapping 640000 gamers in the face?

 

[rckstr]

And you missed the part where you quoted "up to 64". That's an upper limit. It might not be a technical limit but it's practical limit. 64 is a long way from infinity, why do think they use so a tiny number as a typical upper limit?

You missed that there are reasonable scenarios delivered with Arma for up to 64 players. That is no hard cap, it is just depending on the scenario.

- - - Updated - - -

For what you want to do, I suspect the game would have to be re-designed and re-coded from the ground up. So you have a number of options:

That is not necessary. You can do what you want and gain what you want in Solo/Group. Shifting influences and pushing powers happens only in Open with all the risks involved. Playing in Solo/Group gives you a quick synced copy of the states achieved in Open.
That easy.

 

[rckstr]

He'll miss.

Honestly i don't get your intentions. In some other threads i saw post's written by you where you describe that you barely play this game because of reasons (gameplay mechanics, etc.)
No i don't understand why you keep on defending a couple of those mechanics and conditions we have in this game

 

[Cody]

<adds ignorant to list> Cowardly, cheating, filthy, casual, ignorant, Solo player! Yes, I rather like that!

 

[SteveLaw]

You missed that there are reasonable scenarios delivered with Arma for up to 64 players. That is no hard cap, it is just depending on the scenario.

So there is no limit, tell me why you think they used 64 in there "typical" example? Why not 100, 1000?

 

[Ghostickles]

Could you use real English please?

Respectfully;
It was a horrible argument for MMO. Awful, but then I think you prefer solo, is this correct? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but if you don't play MMO's you shouldn't be the one trying to define them. MMO players know what MMO's are.
ED was sold as an MMO whether you like it or not, and it is fair to review, discuss, comment and criticize it as an MMO regardless of what you think. MMO's aren't a bad thing, neither are single player games, take the feedback and grow stronger, quit defending FD blindly and commenting on multiplayer topics like you play multiplayer. You don't see me saying 'nerf solo, we don't need solo, solo sux, FD don't waste time on solo'. For me it is not a mode contest, the game has three modes, each should reward the players of that type equally, engage them and fulfill the requirements of an enjoyable game at a similar price point.

 

[Spook]

That is not necessary. You can do what you want and gain what you want in Solo/Group. Shifting influences and pushing powers happens only in Open with all the risks involved. Playing in Solo/Group gives you a quick synced copy of the states achieved in Open.
That easy.

Why limit it to open?

Again you cannot stop anyone from doing anything there, just as if they were in a private group or solo. I know you seem to be having a hard time accepting that but unfortunately it's true.

one more time for luck. - Due to the games technical design implementation, you cannot enforce any action onto another player or group of players, whatever their mode.

 

[SteveLaw]

Honestly i don't get your intentions. In some other threads i saw post's written by you where you describe that you barely play this game because of reasons (gameplay mechanics, etc.)
No i don't understand why you keep on defending a couple of those mechanics and conditions we have in this game

As Cody said earlier, there are some things I don't like about the game. Increasingly there are more of those. The mode system is not one. The mode system is the reason that I bought the game! (No matter how much I loved the originals and wanted to play this one I would not have bought it if it was Open only.)

 

[rckstr]

So there is no limit, tell me why you think they used 64 in there "typical" example? Why not 100, 1000?

Exactly, there is no limit. Bohemia just created a limited amount of scenarios. Those just fit because of their nature up to 64 players. Different scenarios made by the community that suit up to more players are available.

 

[Cody]

<chortles>

 

[SteveLaw]

Respectfully;
It was a horrible argument for MMO.

Incidentally, I have often said that I don't think that it should have been branded as MMO even though it might technically fit the definition it is causing the sort of contention we see here.

However:

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.

Techopedia.com - A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) refers to videogames that allow a large number of players to participate simultaneously over an internet connection.

Dictionary.com - massively multiplayer online game: any online video game in which a player interacts with a large number of other players.

Oxforddictionaries.com - An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly, there is no limit. Bohemia just created a limited amount of scenarios. Those just fit because of their nature up to 64 players. Different scenarios made by the community that suit up to more players are available.

So you don't know. Anyway, it's moot. FD chose P2P and 32 max. They would have to explain why. Jockey probably has a quote somewhere.

 

[Ghostickles]

Incidentally, I have often said that I don't think that it should have been branded as MMO even though it might technically fit the definition it is causing the sort of contention we see here.

However:

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.

Techopedia.com - A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) refers to videogames that allow a large number of players to participate simultaneously over an internet connection.

Dictionary.com - massively multiplayer online game: any online video game in which a player interacts with a large number of other players.

Oxforddictionaries.com - An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously.

...which a player interacts with a large number of other players... but you said.....

There are hundreds of thousands of players (the MM part) all influencing the same shared galaxy (the O part).

Interacting with the galaxy is not the same as player interaction.

 

[Jockey79]

Respectfully;
It was a horrible argument for MMO. Awful, but then I think you prefer solo, is this correct? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but if you don't play MMO's you shouldn't be the one trying to define them. MMO players know what MMO's are.
ED was sold as an MMO whether you like it or not, and it is fair to review, discuss, comment and criticize it as an MMO regardless of what you think. MMO's aren't a bad thing, neither are single player games, take the feedback and grow stronger, quit defending FD blindly and commenting on multiplayer topics like you play multiplayer. You don't see me saying 'nerf solo, we don't need solo, solo sux, FD don't waste time on solo'. For me it is not a mode contest, the game has three modes, each should reward the players of that type equally, engage them and fulfill the requirements of an enjoyable game at a similar price point.

Players are rewarded equally, that is the whole point.

My trade route is worth the same regardless of mode.
My NPC Bounty Hunting site nets me the same regardless of mode.
NPCs are worth 15 Merits per kill regardless of mode.

You are rewarded equally in each mode. The only thing that changes is if you allow others to help or hinder your progress while playing.
And that is YOUR choice, not mine and not FDs. They gave you the choice to Single play, Multiplay or MMO the game.

 

[rckstr]

Why limit it to open?

Again you cannot stop anyone from doing anything there, just as if they were in a private group or solo. I know you seem to be having a hard time accepting that but unfortunately it's true.

one more time for luck. - Due to the games technical design implementation, you cannot enforce any action onto another player or group of players, whatever their mode.

If you would take out Solo/Group mode and the limitations caused by instancing, i could.
I am not having a hard time to understand what we have. I am aware of the conditions. That's why i raise my voice, because i see what we could have with some minor changes. You simply refuse to accept that the experience created with my suggested changes would enrich the game with all the different scenarios caused by it. All you want to is to not having to deal with other players because they "could" shoot you and you would lose credits. You just don't see that there is more then just psychos hunting you down on every corner. If you would accept to socialize a bit, even you would take benefit of it. You simply don't see what you miss, all of the immersive and thrilling situations.
Give me just a single reasonable argument with value and quality for playing in Solo.

 

[SteveLaw]

...which a player interacts with a large number of other players... but you said.....

Interacting with the galaxy is not the same as player interaction.

Read back a few pages, you'll find plenty of complaints from Open players about how we are affecting them from Solo. That's interaction - reciprocal action, effect or influence. Etc.. Please don't make me the guy who quotes dictionaries on the Internet. Just go and look it up, you have the Internet. Trust me, it fits a definition of MMO even if it isn't yours.

 

[Mouse]

You can kill standard Anaconda's with a sidewinder with 2 fixed weapons.

You can kill elite Anaconda's by equipping one single module on a utility hardpoint.

In CZ and RES, you have 20000 allies helping you fight the enemies.

You can win every interdiction unless your flying a Type9. And anything else can just FSD away.

The only chacne of dieing is in the high level USS, but nobody goes there because they are entirely USELESS.

I agree with the guy you are replying too, there is no threat from AI and there is NO Risk in solo/group.



--- Now my additional thoughts

I'm not one for force into open, but a divide between solo/private and open. Or a second galaxy with open only i am totally for.

No, YOU can do this stuff.. does not mean everyone else can. Everyone else is not YOU. And if you believe there is no risk or threat from AI in solo/group then all you are doing is whining