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

[Elgered]

Before they dropped a mode, I would suggest drop PvP...no friendly fire. Or a new switch to opt out of same. Turn the whole game into a PvE only game.

...Or give us two realms with two bg-sims: A PvP enabled and a PvP disabled realm. Give it a try - it won't work for long because there wont be any targets for griefers (other griefers are a much too high risk for the most). There would be nearly no player influence on the PvP BG-sim, because most players doing mostly PvE, would stay on the PvE realm.

That's where CQC comes in. If it was not a separate game mode but a separated area in our galaxy, giving a visible "Arena"-ranking and profitable rewards, it could work. But there is no reason to go there, if it is not connected to the game, doesn't give any advantages.

PS: All Elite players I know, associate Elite with PvE, most of us play in private groups, some strictly solo. None of us wants to participate in PvP, wants to disturb another's gameplay or be disrurbed.

 

[jonny taco]

Erm... Which of these actually represents your view?

They were making a point that one can look at a poll, in a particular manner and get a desired result and then claim some unreasonable "irrefutable fact". The truth, as he pointed out, is that only fdev has any real meaningful information as to population of each mode and any "irrefutable fact" based on these polls is 100% speculation.

 

[Mouse]

...Or give us two realms with two bg-sims: A PvP enabled and a PvP disabled realm. Give it a try - it won't work for long because there wont be any targets for griefers (other griefers are a much too high risk for the most). There would be nearly no player influence on the PvP BG-sim, because most players doing mostly PvE, would stay on the PvE realm.

That's where CQC comes in. If it was not a separate game mode but a separated area in our galaxy, giving a visible "Arena"-ranking and profitable rewards, it could work. But there is no reason to go there, if it is not connected to the game, doesn't give any advantages.

PS: All Elite players I know, associate Elite with PvE, most of us play in private groups, some strictly solo. None of us wants to participate in PvP, wants to disturb another's gameplay or be disrurbed.

I kind of find it interesting that there are PVP advocates who seem to be apposed to the CQC. I wonder if it is because those that oppose it don't like the possibility of it being a fair fight?

 

[Faded Glory]

I kind of find it interesting that there are PVP advocates who seem to be apposed to the CQC. I wonder if it is because those that oppose it don't like the possibility of it being a fair fight?

Surely not Mouse. Surely not.

 

[DarkWalker]

That's where CQC comes in. If it was not a separate game mode but a separated area in our galaxy, giving a visible "Arena"-ranking and profitable rewards, it could work. But there is no reason to go there, if it is not connected to the game, doesn't give any advantages.

Actually, the very reason I'm looking at CQC with interest is because it neither influences the rest of the game nor is influenced by it. If it was somehow tied to player progression, or if the results of it could influence the galaxy, I likely wouldn't be interested.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Which Mod is that then ?

Its an upgrade only available to Orca pilots.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Actually, the very reason I'm looking at CQC with interest is because it neither influences the rest of the game nor is influenced by it. If it was somehow tied to player progression, or if the results of it could influence the galaxy, I likely wouldn't be interested.

So what's your opinion on Power Play?

 

[Cody]

What is this 'powerplay' of which you speak?

 

[relayer]

Originally Posted by Derath 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.

I dunno; I am Mostly Harmless for combat because I really haven't done a thing for it. I'm flying a cargo-rigged Asp; no weapons whatever. Playing Solo.

In the last three days, I've been interdicted by:

1. Anaconda; didn't look for the combat rating. He was shooting before I even came to a stop.
2. FDL - same as above
3. Another FDL
4. Cobra, Cobra, combat-armed Asp. Pretty much same as above.

The AI was not "easy" - these ships knew what they were doing. 1 & 2 broke my shields & 44% hull while I was trying to get to SC or high wake out. And I have boosted shields.

 

[Roland2]

I think it needs a pvp guide actually, griefers are almost exclusively the worst pvp'ers and avoiding them safely shouldn't be as awkward as it is now.

But the game offers absolutely no training in practical combat skills versus players, as even a bad player is currently vastly superior to the AI.

The OP's suggestion is very similar to traditional mmos, but I really don't think it belongs here, needs to be addressed in other ways.

By your definition, I must be a very very bad player, because I am not vastly superior to the AI. Though which AI are you referring to? The novice ones, I'm superior to one on one. One on three, I might be concerned. The Elite ones, I run away from, because they kick my butt.

You may be vastly superior to the AI, that doesn't mean everyone is. And the AI is getting better.

 

[Derath]

Originally Posted by Derath https://forums.frontier.co.uk/images.blackout/buttons/viewpost-right.png 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 dunno; I am Mostly Harmless for combat because I really haven't done a thing for it. I'm flying a cargo-rigged Asp; no weapons whatever. Playing Solo.

In the last three days, I've been interdicted by:

1. Anaconda; didn't look for the combat rating. He was shooting before I even came to a stop.
2. FDL - same as above
3. Another FDL
4. Cobra, Cobra, combat-armed Asp. Pretty much same as above.

The AI was not "easy" - these ships knew what they were doing. 1 & 2 broke my shields & 44% hull while I was trying to get to SC or high wake out. And I have boosted shields.

My response doesn't really make sense in the thread its been merged into lol but i'll try and comment,

1.3 did hugely buff the lower ship ranks which is what could have caused your problems, they seem to have gone from bad low rated equipment and no shield to reasonable loadouts and decent ships. Its already been stated by the AI master that shes going to tone down the lower ranks because they've been overbuffed, something I completely agree with infact as 1.2 to 1.3 harmless NPC's got like 300% harder, and elite NPC's like 10% lol.

They also could have changed the spawn system, but I don't believe they have - I think its very loosely tied to system security and your ship but I still believe enemy combat ranks are tied to your own rank, If any of the list of ships that attacked you above were above say competent i'd be very surprised. However they could have changed it in which case i'm just wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

By your definition, I must be a very very bad player, because I am not vastly superior to the AI. Though which AI are you referring to? The novice ones, I'm superior to one on one. One on three, I might be concerned. The Elite ones, I run away from, because they kick my butt.

You may be vastly superior to the AI, that doesn't mean everyone is. And the AI is getting better.

Most of the reply to this is same as my post above, though if 1vs3 only concerns you you are still vastly superior to the AI , you would be better at chasing me than the AI, you probably use better loadouts - yes you might be worse than an elite AI in a straight up fight, but pvp is very rarely about straight up fights.

Edit: For example If i was in a T7, and you or an elite AI were in an Asp, which would I rather have chasing me? The elite AI, everytime. That is what I meant about players being vastly superior to the AI.

Again don't really understand why this particular thread got merged, the same words were used sure, but in different ways :/

 

[Kaeldian]

Just want to reiterate something I said a long time ago because it keeps coming up with the new PP....

In every adversarial game mechanic being contesting control, there are solo players on both sides. Sure, somebody you can't find will be undermining you, but there are solo players on your side of the fence working against the guys you can't see.

So you really can't claim it's "unfair".

 

[relayer]

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.

As an Open player you have the same tools to affect the universe and the background simulation as Solo players, just with more risk. FTFY.

<snip>

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.

"except I can't come and stop you from doing whatever it is I don't like you doing to my game."

Yes, you can. It's called Fortifying, Exploiting & other PP elements. You have just exactly the same tools and effects that Solo players do. The sticking point seems to be that you can only think of one way to stop other Power's players: shoot and kill.


RL politics goes on mostly "in the dark" - at any time, you do not know exactly what your opposition is; you can only see surface ripples. In that way, I think FD has done that right with PP (although I do not pledge to any Power, being a trader; I need to be at least not-hostile to run my business).

 

[relayer]

It's the same damn universe.

Giving you +rep

 

[PavelKCZ]

...Or give us two realms with two bg-sims: A PvP enabled and a PvP disabled realm. Give it a try - it won't work for long because there wont be any targets for griefers (other griefers are a much too high risk for the most). There would be nearly no player influence on the PvP BG-sim, because most players doing mostly PvE, would stay on the PvE realm.

That's where CQC comes in. If it was not a separate game mode but a separated area in our galaxy, giving a visible "Arena"-ranking and profitable rewards, it could work. But there is no reason to go there, if it is not connected to the game, doesn't give any advantages.

PS: All Elite players I know, associate Elite with PvE, most of us play in private groups, some strictly solo. None of us wants to participate in PvP, wants to disturb another's gameplay or be disrurbed.

Ehm, can you tell me just one reason, why FD should pay another server room and another staff just to maintain two Universes ??

And the second thing. Why the hell should be some crazy CQC (basically a virtual reality game in computer game) have any influence on normal game ? I can imagine that there is really a huge number of players which are not interested about PvP at all and they will never play the CQC.

So, why there should be any in-game advantage for those, who like mindlessly shoot others in CQC ?

 

[Mouse]

Ehm, can you tell me just one reason, why FD should pay another server room and another staff just to maintain two Universes ??

And the second thing. Why the hell should be some crazy CQC (basically a virtual reality game in computer game) have any influence on normal game ? I can imagine that there is really a huge number of players which are not interested about PvP at all and they will never play the CQC.

So, why there should be any in-game advantage for those, who like mindlessly shoot others in CQC ?

Maybe they watched Gladiator and felt they could have an impact outside the arena *Shrug*

 

[FuzzySpider]

I dunno; I am Mostly Harmless for combat because I really haven't done a thing for it. I'm flying a cargo-rigged Asp; no weapons whatever. Playing Solo.

In the last three days, I've been interdicted by:

1. Anaconda; didn't look for the combat rating. He was shooting before I even came to a stop.
2. FDL - same as above
3. Another FDL
4. Cobra, Cobra, combat-armed Asp. Pretty much same as above.

The AI was not "easy" - these ships knew what they were doing. 1 & 2 broke my shields & 44% hull while I was trying to get to SC or high wake out. And I have boosted shields.

Well you'd benefit from my suggestions; if high tech, corporate, and core worlds were all safe and saw regular and rapid patrols of military specced Anacondas, Pythons, Vultures and FDLs you'd be ok, as long as you obeyed the law. It's when you step outside of those regions tougher enemies would spawn.

That would feel less arbitrary than enemies getting progressively tougher as your rankings improve.

 

[rckstr]

To see the scale of a problem and what it is causing you have to identify it. If numbers would expose the scale it would be a benefit to have them.
Numbers that show the quantity of Open/Group, Solo and "jumpers" would be extremely helpful. Someone in the position to ask the development team or community management about those numbers and the permission to publish them (as raw numbers, percentages, ratio) would help both parties. If we don't have them we, we can just refer to the impressions that the Open players have. To make this short- the impression is that there is a low amount of players in open and this impression would change if there would be a bigger amount of players in open (the quantity of players in Solo/Group).

The amount of voices raised to this topic should be reason enough to take this "problem" seriously and should encourage us on finding a solution.

What follows are my impressions of the current situation containing opinions and views of people i have talked to through in game Chat and other sources.
I also wanted to point out that the in game talks resulted while participating in PP with people pledged to other factions and we started out of RP talk. Our opinions covered and i can't remember that i have talked to someone who didn't have the same impression.
There might be people of both "factions" (pro Solo/Group and Open) that at agree or disagree with a couple of points. Those points are also from a multi player/RP view.

• The galaxy feels empty while in open play.
• "We" do not insist on a pure PvP environment. We would love to play the game with its features (trading, bounty hunting, piracy, etc) with more, or even all owners of the game.

CQC will cater the pure PvP supporters, is appreciated and a welcome addition.
​

• "We" don't want just meaningless pew-pew. (see above)

• "We" feel in a disadvantage. "We" don't want to deal with just the consequences of performed actions. "We" want to have opportunities to stop actions before they inject a consequence and yes we are aware that because of instancing and different time zones this wouldn't be possible at any time, but it would give as a chance.

Let's pretend that during the end of a cycle there is just a tiny bit of systems left where influence can be made that would change the outcome of "fail or succeed", of "win or loose" and you can expect that the situation gets heated up in those particular systems "we" want to be able to infringe hostile actions, or expect resistance that tries to stop us from hostile actions.
*edit* Those should be scenarios where the "rare and meaningful" skirmishes happen.
Based on the number of sold copies and possible participants chances should be high enough to encounter such skirmish. Yet i haven't heard of this though i checked different sources where this would be made public. Also people i have talked to did not make this experience. This creates the impression that this just doesn't happen because of the fragmentation in the different modes.​

• "We" have the impression that enough people, organized or not, take abusive advantage of jumping between modes, or even stay during their actions untouchable out of open play to bypass the risk of being stopped.

This exposes when you can observe the "unwanted" bar/numbers raise but your instance is (mostly) empty. The only chance you now have is to counter this with raising the "wanted" bar/numbers, but you can not stop the cause for the bar/numbers raising. Thus the impression of disadvantage.
"We" have the impression that that same happens to certain systems and their BGS.​

• "We" have the impression that under the current situation achievements made in the galaxy become meaningless and tedious because of above "problems".
• "We" have the impression that mechanics should be adjusted. BGS and PP feel to be influenced less by reasonable actions, but more by "grinding" and "burning credits". (This might be another topic)

I hope that i didn't offend anyone with above impressions and observations.
Also i would like to add some ideas based on expressions of both parties that might solve "our" problem. Some of them might sound harsh and i don't want to feel anyone offended by those ideas.

• Split Solo/Group and Open. Use the current saves without rolling something back and give the players the choice where they want to use their cmdr. To keep it fair for both worlds, cmdr's can not be copied over after that. Just that nobody get's a bad surprise add a certain time in in game hours as a time of consideration and point out the consequences of the choice.
  • To make it even more fair. People will be able to claim two copies of their Cmdr just to not force them to start from scratch if they change their mind. Progress made in Solo/Group will not take influence on Open and vice versa.
  • Both worlds won't affect each other any further.
• *edit* Solo gets a "difficulty slider" based on the setting of the slider the quantity of higher ranked NPC's can be adjusted. An option to disable hostile NPC's will also be available.
• *edit* Groups can be created in open. The purpose of Groups in open is to add a way to identify cmdr's by a Group's Tag added to their name. With this addition tools or spreadsheets with Blacklist's/Whitelist's are no longer needed.
  • *edit* Groups get a bulletin board to support in game communication and organization.
  • *edit* A Group page will be added. In this tab all created groups with a min value of XX members are listed.
    • *edit* Groups that remain a certain time without enough active members to maintain the min value to appear on the list will disappear. Reactivation is possible if the min value to appear on the list is exceeded over a certain time span.
  • *edit* Date of creation/ total number of members/ contact person/ alignment/ etc. are visible.
  • *edit* The creator of the group can determine up to XX member who will get the ownership of the group by will/ time inactive/ leaving the group.
  • *edit* Groups can be open to join/ require permission or invite/ have requirements (rank, pledge status, etc).

• Threshold values might need adjustment to fit on the quantity of players.

I think this is, though technically not easy to realize, the easiest solution to make everyone happy. Since i have the impression that Solo/Group players don't care if we exist or not, if we take influence on their galaxy or not, the won't miss the Open players and (at least my impression) vice versa.

Following ideas shall not give you the impression that any of the modes stop existing:​

• Adjustments to the matchmaking server. Determined by the "skill level" of a cmdr/wing starters will not be matched with higher "skilled" cmdrs. Algorithms would be complicated since a lot of values would be needed (system type/profession rank/playtime/faction rank and reputation/credit balance/ship value/cargo value/security level/etc).
• cmdr traders/explorers have the same appearance on the radar like NPC's and vice versa.
• Depending on Algorithms (system type/profession rank/playtime/faction rank and reputation/credit balance/ship value/cargo value/security level/etc) traders/explorers spawn additional random ships/authorities when there is "enemy" presence.
• Traders/explorers can hire depending on Algorithms (system type/profession rank/playtime/faction rank and reputation/credit balance/ship value/cargo value/security level/etc) security in form of wing members or as as additional presence in SC that will act when necessary. Hired security varies on Algorithms (see above) in quantity/skill/ship type/load-out/loyalty/etc.
• Adjustments to interdiction attempts (an already (un)successful interdicted ship gets small safety cooldown/ interdicting a ship more then once in a short time span will be more difficult).
• Traders/explorers can hire cmdr support. A BB mission will be created and remains XX minutes after undocking. Supportive cmdrs can activate "availability" in the ship's functions tab.
  • Available cmdr's will get a notification about a support request and can accept or decline. Depending on the value, route (system types/distance) and other algorithms a price will be estimated.
  • Rules need to be added (supporters are not allowed to attack the client for example)
  • Depending on events, supportive cmdr's might get additional payment through the pilots federation.
  • *edit* Depending on events and demand, traders might see a slightly increased sell value.
• *edit* Since the risk acting in Open is unpredictably higher Open actions/earnings are increased (credits/merits/progression/influence on BGS/etc.)

I imagine there is even more potential that might get us closer (if you agree to a certain point that i wouldn't be too bad)
I hope that we might all get happy with a solution that doesn't separate us even further and i hope no one feels offended by this.
I would like to post this in the vox populi thread but i don't know if i will edit or add some points. If you agree with me (to a certain point) and have suggestions that i should add, tell me.

 

[Jockey79]

Just want to reiterate something I said a long time ago because it keeps coming up with the new PP....

In every adversarial game mechanic being contesting control, there are solo players on both sides. Sure, somebody you can't find will be undermining you, but there are solo players on your side of the fence working against the guys you can't see.

So you really can't claim it's "unfair".

David Braben has said exactly this regarding Power Play.

The Open advocates apparently don't trust anyone from Frontier Developments, otherwise that comment from the guy in charge would have ended this.

 

[SteveLaw]

The amount of voices raised to this topic should be reason enough to take this "problem" seriously and should encourage us on finding a solution.

How many voices? A dozen? A couple of dozen? Out of over half a million players. Hardly significant. And there are just as many on both sides of the debate. The rest don't appear to feel strongly enough about it to raise the issues.

What follows are my impressions...

I'm not going to respond to every point, we'd be here all night, and it's too hot for that.

1) Why does the galaxy feel empty in Open? You assume that it is because everyone is in Solo/Group. Why do you never consider that people are just spread out over 400 billion systems?

2) & 3) are the same and conflict with 4)

4) We understand that you want a game that is about direct action but this is not it. In order to change the game to be what you want you would have to remove Solo/Group from your galaxy. This will require twice as much storage space, a separate GalNet, separate Community Goals, more Dev time to monitor/manage the data, write the narrative, and keep track of everything. That means less development and more costs. Now everyone is at a disadvantage, just because you want to change the game to something that you want.

Your solution does not make everyone happy despite what you think. It makes you happy and people who think like you. It would make lots of other people very unhappy because you have changed fundamental core features of the game that they bought. How would you feel if I changed the colour of your car without your permission because I like a different colour better? You would be a little annoyed I would expect.