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

[Jordan Cobalt]

The problem with just tightening security is, if a player just wants to kill you the cops will have to show up in 15 seconds or less to make a difference. If that happens it will make piracy, a legitimate gameplay style, impossible.

It's a very fine line between cops being useless and cops being too much. It all depends on the what the players intention is with you.

That said, I do like the idea of a high value goods that are basically a free for all around them but, unless they are open-only the new meta will just be to just trade them in solo.

Edit: misunderstood the point of the op, I thought it was about encouraging pvp but it's actually about turning elite into eve with high sec and low sec.

 

[GriM_AoD]

This is like playing something like Halo and demanding that easy mode not only be removed from your own game but from everyone elses too.

There are other difficulties than Legendary?

 

[Han_Zen]

2 ways to fixing this

1. Make NPCs as dangerous as players
2. Make Open more rewarding

Pick one and the job is done

I pick no. 1. with a little extra.

- Make NPCs as dangerous as players (not all but those that are Deadly and Elite)
- Make system security level matter. Hight sec. = full of Elite cops in SC, if you murder they will follow you untiltil one is dead. Anarchy = anything goes. The rest scales in between.

 

[Miklos Atreides]

I don't know if you play open or not FuzzySpider so this might be a question you can't answer, but if they removed the hollow square that represents a commander could you easily tell who was a player and who was the AI?

This can be a great part of the solution because if you do not know if the opponent is human or NPC they are traded equally and the perception is the same.
No need to call for 'Go Solo' or 'Go Open'. Its your decision what mode and style you play today. Maybe tomorrow it will be different but today its this one.

If you go to Open surely you are at risk to be blown up by humans. By whom? You don't need to care and call 'Griefer' or 'Renvenge' because you do not know.
IF you go for Solo you are save against humans as you decided to be. Its fine.

Regards,
Miklos

 

[Derath]

Yes I do, and yes I could.



There has never, not once, ever been an argument presented on these boards to explain why the solo game has to be as difficult as the open game. Nobody has explained why they feel AI has to be as tough as human opponents to those who choose to avoid human opponents.

This is like playing something like Halo and demanding that easy mode not only be removed from your own game but from everyone elses too.

The easy mode is present, enemies spawn on you based on your combat rank and the enemies have gear loadouts and skills tied to their rank in turn, nobody is advocating removing harmless/novice/competent etc the issue is the top is missing, and without the top you have no idea of how you'd have to deal with players if you pvp'd very rarely.

An elite NPC teaches you as much about player combat as a harmless one. the AI is never going to be as difficult as a good player without direct cheats (higher shields, stronger weapons etc). It wouldn't even be possible to make solo AIs as difficult as players.

I also think its a generalization that solo = easy mode, I'm sure there are many solo players who are excellent pilots if it was easy mode it should be called easy mode, it isn't its called solo because that is its purpose.

 

[Tusken]

Every day there seems to be a couple of new threads complaining about Open, whether it be getting killed in the Open universe, not finding anyone in Open, why bother playing Open when you can do the same in Solo - well you get my drift.
.
I will be honest, I am very careful when and where I venture into Open. If I am around the heavily populated areas, I admit, I am staying in Solo. Why risk my ship, my credits and my sanity but exposing myself to players who play the game differently to me, i.e. kill without a reason or just there for their own enjoyment often at the expense of others. So I only jump into Open when I am away from the main areas, I have found the number of idiots drops off dramatically by just a half dozen jumps.
.
But I understand that players want PVP, that is one of the reasons why they bought the game. But they complain they often don't find anyone to interact with. That is one of the inherent problems with a game with a sandbox as big as ED has - players don't have to stay in one spot they can go wherever they want to.
.
Here is my suggestions: an bubble, let's say containing a dozen or so systems of different types that is deemed PVP. Once you enter there it is fair game for all. Increase the trade profit between the systems inside the bubble to encourage traders, have increased Security between some high population systems with no security in anarchy at all - let SJA's minions shine playing the police. I would even go so far to have less NPCs flying around ( except for the Security) but have those NPCs all high ranked with high bounties - yes you will have to earn your credits. Maybe even the player bounties could be reduced within the bubble to mitigate some of the risk of combat.
.
At least this way, players who want to play PVP know they have a good size place to go to and know what they will find there. And on the other side of the coin, players who don't want PVP can just avoid the area - simple really.

Sorry but I got to disagree on this.
If you want interaction with others but no unwanted PvP then there ate pve groups you could join.

Your suggestion would not only severely ruin my gameplay(and many others) its also completely at odds with PP.

Ppl are undermining my powers control system but I can't shoot them down because it happands to be out side the PvP bubble? Just doesn't make sense.

 

[Whiterose]

There is no problem with open. Its working fine as it is. PvP is a game mechanic. I am crap at combat, so when I get interdicted by a player I either run away, or lose my ship. I dont have a problem with either of those outcomes.

 

[Distance]

You can't really say open is full of anti-social types. Open is social by definition and the game encourages killing. The anti-social players are the ones in solo mode (the name gives it away).

The problem is there's no true high and low security areas. Anarchy means nothing. You can go to sol and happily gun down players and only get a slap on the wrist (if there were any players in sol).

 

[Farmboy]

Dealing with antisocial people isn't intractable.

Blocking a user should cause them never to be instanced with you (I've read that this isn't what happens, but it should be). If a given player gets blocked by enough people FD should consider automagically putting them into the 'naughty' group by default - think of it as crowdsourcing behavioural controls.

So over time you eliminate the antisocial players from your Open experience, and only end up in PvP with people whose in-game sense of fair play is acceptable to you.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Dealing with antisocial people isn't intractable.

Blocking a user should cause them never to be instanced with you (I've read that this isn't what happens, but it should be). If a given player gets blocked by enough people FD should consider automagically putting them into the 'naughty' group by default - think of it as crowdsourcing behavioural controls.

So over time you eliminate the antisocial players from your Open experience, and only end up in PvP with people whose in-game sense of fair play is acceptable to you.

And what's to stop the pirates getting tagged as "naughty", simply by the very nature of their profession?

 

[FuzzySpider]

The easy mode is present, enemies spawn on you based on your combat rank and the enemies have gear loadouts and skills tied to their rank in turn, nobody is advocating removing harmless/novice/competent etc the issue is the top is missing, and without the top you have no idea of how you'd have to deal with players if you pvp'd very rarely.

I really think that mechanic should be removed entirely. I think the game would benefit from enemies that spawn randomly depending on the sort of system you're in.

An elite NPC teaches you as much about player combat as a harmless one. the AI is never going to be as difficult as a good player without direct cheats (higher shields, stronger weapons etc)

The thing is that you shouldn't need to learn combat to enjoy the game. Combat is defintely there, but it isn't the only thing to do in the game and remember - there are players who will never be good at combat.

I also think its a generalization that solo = easy mode, I'm sure there are many solo players who are excellent pilots if it was easy mode it should be called easy mode, it isn't its called solo because that is its purpose.

I agree with that. But I don't see why solo needs to be toughened up because human players in open make open tougher. I don't see a logical connection. That's all really.

You can't really say open is full of anti-social types. Open is social by definition and the game encourages killing. The anti-social players are the ones in solo mode (the name gives it away).

They're non-social, not anti-social. People who intentionally target others in a way which they know will cause annoyance or frustration for other players is anti-social.

While Open isn't full of them it only takes one to rule a system off-limits for Open. Look at what was going on at Leesti with the rammers for example.

 

[SteveLaw]

* Plumps up the cushions and refills the nibbles for the inevitable merge approaching. *

 

[Carnster]

It's a big galaxy. It's not really that difficult to avoid idiots imo. I'll always play open because that risk factor and unknown makes the game world feel, well, alive and more real. There's plenty of good people and everything in between. A small slice of humanity directly in your game. Solo is there for those that want to be truly anti-social so I don't get what a lot of people whine at.

 

[Distance]

Dealing with antisocial people isn't intractable.

Blocking a user should cause them never to be instanced with you (I've read that this isn't what happens, but it should be). If a given player gets blocked by enough people FD should consider automagically putting them into the 'naughty' group by default - think of it as crowdsourcing behavioural controls.

So over time you eliminate the antisocial players from your Open experience, and only end up in PvP with people whose in-game sense of fair play is acceptable to you.

That wouldn't work because people have different definitions of grief. To some being pirated is griefing and if all traders blocked all pirates it would kill the profession.

The "modes" are designed to limit who you play with. If you don't want the chance of getting shot randomly then you go to solo or mobius. It really is that simple. That's FD's designed way of dealing with players you don't want to see.

I personally don't think this is good enough as I said above, we need different security areas in space like eve.

(Yes I used the E word and no I've never played eve).

On another note, true griefers like combat loggers, hackers and station rammers should have had their saves wiped a long time ago. That's the way you discourage proper anti social behaviour, not implementing an entire new "speed limit" mechanic that doesn't address the true problem.

 

[Cody]

<nods - sighs>

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

2 ways to fixing this

1. Make NPCs as dangerous as players
2. Make Open more rewarding

You are assuming that players don't play in Open mode because they want lower risk and higher rewards. That might be true for some, it isn't true for others. For some there is a fundamental difference between getting attacked by an NPC and getting attacked by a player - even if NPC and player are equally good. They simply don't want to feel like they are just a game element for others. To get those into Open it would need something that prevents ganking and attacks without obvious in-game reasons (not just RP reasons).


@Derath: Your proposal of a PvP tutorial is quite good. It would certainly help players to get confident in their ability to survive a conflict with an other player and it could increase their combat skills.
I'm thinking about something similar: removing the insurance cost if the ship gets destroyed by an enemy CMDR (and only in that situation). This would allow players to learn PvP without consequences. It would increase the amount of PvP in Open Mode. Maybe add a cargo insurance so traders are willing to trade in open and give Pirate some of their cargo (it's insured after all and they won't loose that much). I think that should make a lot of players happy.


And btw: why isn't this thread already merged with the mother of all threads?

 

[GunnerBill]

Make solo only available upto competent in any discipline?

 

[Cody]

The problem with OPEN

No comment!

 

[Jukelo]

There has never, not once, ever been an argument presented on these boards to explain why the solo game has to be as difficult as the open game. Nobody has explained why they feel AI has to be as tough as human opponents to those who choose to avoid human opponents.

Because fairness. As a solo player you have the same tools to affect the universe and the background simulation as open players, just without the risk.
Remember solo isn't an offline mode, you are playing in the same universe as me, except I can't come and stop you from doing whatever it is I don't like you doing to my game. Now if only you had to actually work and take risk to do that it wouldn't be so bad.

 

[Parmo]

There is no problem with Solo, Open or Group modes of play.
I've played in Solo and Open; the latter 99% of my play time. Not played in group.
I've had no problems with either mode.
And I've never been bothered about other players playing the game in any mode available to them at any time they wish.
I just don't care if actions in Solo mode have a lesser or greater effect than those taken in Open on the outcome of any CG or PP goal. It's the same damn universe.