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

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Who please point me to WHO is saying Solo/Groups should go away. Honestly we should all ignore this comments from now on. Nobody is asking for Solo gone. All I see is split them or make Open more meaningful. Nobody is asking for Solo gone.

You haven't looked hard enough. And these are just a few asking explicitely to remove solos/groups.

indeed.... this kind of sums up the amount of research made by some people before stating such "facts"...... which is kind of what got them in this mess in the 1st place with them not being happy with the game they purchased

but this will not the claims and people attempting to change history sadly

 

[Derath]

I see your point but would suggest that it is *much* easier to support there being "no right way to play" than it would be to balance professions. The latter would seem to be an impossible task as there are a huge number of permutations of role / ship / modules / weapons / etc. - balancing the roles in one ship would be difficult enough....

I'm sure thats true, there are a huge number of permutations but the only one that scales between vessels and produces significant wealth is trading, combat produces an enormous amount as soon as you reach a viper increases rationally towards a vulture then basically flatlines and the other 3 are just rubbish flat out. I really don't think even with as many variables as they have that they couldn't have done better, It feels to me like they barely tried on a principle I think effects the game 10x more than mode switching

Sorry thats really off-topic I just have a hard time with DBOBE quotes it seems.

 

[Jockey79]

While I agree with your statement I can't help but point out that one forum goer recently posted a dev video where DBOBE stated he didnt' want the professions to be unbalanced so that everyone ends up doing one, I think taking his words like the ten commandments probably isn't the best idea as he he's either making it up because he thinks its what we want to hear, or he hopelessly missed the mark (about professions not there is no right way to play)

I think that last comment about covers it.

Mining is a lot better since drones came out, but it does not matter if I mine an a Type 6 or a Type 9 (yes, I tried) the rate at which I earn remains the same, the only thing that changes is how often I have to dock - once each play session, or once every couple of play sessions.

However, there is a massive difference between a 6 and 9 in my trade runs.

The idea is, should they get the balance right - is for every profession to be a viable way to earn credits.
I'm not sure if trading was too good to start with and now the others are playing catch up, or if the others were okay to start with and trading needs a nerf to bring it in line with the others.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I think that last comment about covers it.

Mining is a lot better since drones came out, but it does not matter if I mine an a Type 6 or a Type 9 (yes, I tried) the rate at which I earn remains the same, the only thing that changes is how often I have to dock - once each play session, or once every couple of play sessions.

However, there is a massive difference between a 6 and 9 in my trade runs.

The idea is, should they get the balance right - is for every profession to be a viable way to earn credits.
I'm not sure if trading was too good to start with and now the others are playing catch up, or if the others were okay to start with and trading needs a nerf to bring it in line with the others.

mining has 1 option to easily fix. (sorry this is way OT here now but Jockey mentioned it so.....)

have a mining drone which you deposit on an asteroid and leave for 10 mins, then come back and collect. if it can burrow to the centre of a roid it could get much more "stuff" from 1 asteroid, that lasers simply cant get to... however make this equipement very heavy and only START to become avalable with a size 6 slot (1 device) or type 7 (2 devices). IF they topped out at say 10 tons each, this, along side normal mining may give the bigger ships the boost you are after;

so when you come accross that juicy roid with platinum or panite, after you have emptied it with your lasers you then drop your mining drone, and come back to it in 10 mins time. (asuming you are not attacked and have to run away in the mean time )

 

[Jockey79]

mining has 1 option to easily fix. (sorry this is way OT here now but Jockey mentioned it so.....)

have a mining drone which you deposit on an asteroid and leave for 10 mins, then come back and collect. if it can burrow to the centre of a roid it could get much more "stuff" from 1 asteroid, that lasers simply cant get to... however make this equipement very heavy and only START to become avalable with a size 6 slot (1 device) or type 7 (2 devices). IF they topped out at say 10 tons each, this, along side normal mining may give the bigger ships the boost you are after;

so when you come accross that juicy roid with platinum or panite, after you have emptied it with your lasers you then drop your mining drone, and come back to it in 10 mins time. (asuming you are not attacked and have to run away in the mean time )

Funnily enough, mining is the one profession that has an advantage in Groups play or Open, but not in Solo.

Tested this the other day with a friend when we were both mining, I was in an Asp with 2x miner 2s and he was in a Type 6 with 2x miner 1s - I was prospecting and threw a limpet at his rock so he could see when it was going to run out, but the content of the rock never dropped, even when he could not get any more out of it. Yet when I went over, I could mine it and my prospector showed a decrease in ore suddenly, until I emptied it.
Now I thought it was down to me using miner 2s on it, but it's not. Each rock seems to have a player allowance to it, so a whole wing of 4 can mine the same rock, taking it in turns until each person makes it "empty", then next can do the same.

How is this an advantage I hear you say, well as it turns out, no matter who mines a rock, collector limpets will pick it up. At one point, I was mining for my friends drones to collect - so imagine if you will, you go mining with a friend as bodyguard but they fit a mining beam. You find those nice rare metal rocks, mine your allowance, and your bodyguard can then mine his allowance for your drones to collect - so you get twice as much from that rock than someone in Solo doing the same rock. The bodyguard gets his bounties and the miner gets way more rare metals in less time.

So there is a profession that benefits Wings / Group play more than doing it Solo

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Funnily enough, mining is the one profession that has an advantage in Groups play or Open, but not in Solo.

Tested this the other day with a friend when we were both mining, I was in an Asp with 2x miner 2s and he was in a Type 6 with 2x miner 1s - I was prospecting and threw a limpet at his rock so he could see when it was going to run out, but the content of the rock never dropped, even when he could not get any more out of it. Yet when I went over, I could mine it and my prospector showed a decrease in ore suddenly, until I emptied it.
Now I thought it was down to me using miner 2s on it, but it's not. Each rock seems to have a player allowance to it, so a whole wing of 4 can mine the same rock, taking it in turns until each person makes it "empty", then next can do the same.

How is this an advantage I hear you say, well as it turns out, no matter who mines a rock, collector limpets will pick it up. At one point, I was mining for my friends drones to collect - so imagine if you will, you go mining with a friend as bodyguard but they fit a mining beam. You find those nice rare metal rocks, mine your allowance, and your bodyguard can then mine his allowance for your drones to collect - so you get twice as much from that rock than someone in Solo doing the same rock. The bodyguard gets his bounties and the miner gets way more rare metals in less time.

So there is a profession that benefits Wings / Group play more than doing it Solo

this is really good to know. So basically 4 turreted combat mining ships in a hi intensity RES, huddled together would be a wicked combo!

Thanks

 

[Yaffle]

It is very possible to track.
That link that shows how many posts people have done in the thread - click the number at the end of each line and it filters that persons posts.
All you need to know is are they pro open or pro choice - quite easy to tell once all their posts are in order in front of you.

That is how I know, the top 17 people who post, only 3 are pro open.

I'm asking Yaffle (or any Mod) - as they may have been tracking it all ready or have some sort of magic tools they use to keep an eye on the thread etc..
But anyone can get a rough idea by doing it themselves.

I just went here - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=145309 then counted the number of screens and I know how many names per screen. Hence the 'about 400' answer. I don't know of any easy way of saying how many pro/anti/whatever split.

 

[DarkWalker]

Players killing other players "just because" may make the targets leave Open. NPCs doing the same may make players leave the game. It would not expect that it is in Frontier's best interests for NPCs to mimic all types of player behaviour.

Quite.

It's part of why NPC encounters in games — or, at least, in well-made games — are fundamentally different from encounters with players. NPCs, ultimately, have just one objective, one reason for existing: making the game enjoyable for the players.

Particularly, while not even near the top when it comes to skill, I have a far higher tolerance for difficult gameplay, and adversity, than the average player (well, as long as other players aren't involved). Hence why I don't fear that the NPC difficulty tuning might drive me away; before it gets to that point, it would likely have sent packing most of the players that aren't in the game for the PvP, and even a fair number of those that are in for the PvP (as you can't turn off NPC attacks).

---

I never understand why people write "I quit" postings or comment about a game they stopped playing. Guess it's just me.

I write "I quit" posts if I care about the game, but for some reason it didn't work for me; and in those posts I try to point why it didn't work, why I'm leaving the game.

If I'm truly angry about a game I won't be posting on its forums, where the info I give can be helpful to the devs; I will be, instead, engaging other people I can influence regarding which games they purchase and trying to convince them to avoid the game and/or steering them towards one of its competitors.

---

Didn't take a read on offline, but without intentions to offend anyone.
How can I expect a game where I'll take influence on one shared galaxy to be offline?

The offline mode wouldn't have a shared galaxy. Or, rather, it would optionally download updates to the galaxy based on what the other players were doing online, key word here being optionally.

Which would suit me just fine. What I really want is to have my own, exclusive galaxy, that only I can influence; I don't really want others messing with what I'm doing, for me it just detracts from the whole experience.

Plus, modding, pausing, cheating, and all the other little things that the game is forced to prohibit in order to be played online. There's a reason I avoid most online-only games, despite the fact my home is served by a very fast and stable fiber broadband connection.

Let me show you this on battlefield as example. Xx copies sold, but 80% stick to play campaign only. You could call mp a fail.

Question is, what can be done to incite more people into playing multiplayer without driving those that have no interest in it away? Most players seem to have little interest in the multiplayer aspect of most such games.

I'm typically one such player; apart from a few MMOs (PvE only, except for Planetside 2, which I enjoy playing because it has no PvE whatsoever), and games without any kind of power progression (think Starcraft, Mario Kart, Street Fighter, and other such games where everyone is always on a level playing field), I tend to simply not play anything that involves strangers in any shape or way. What's more, push me into playing with others — for example, with exclusive rewards that can only be obtained in multiplayer — and I will leave the game instead; I either play with others by choice, or else I don't play at all.

---

I hope you use "you" as a plural because he is not alone here. Just go on any other forum or Reddit or Youtube or any comments section that is not moderated like this one is. You will understand how many people simply never wish to play the game again and think they wasted their money here.

If you looked only at Reddit or Youtube, you would think WoW should have closed down years ago...

 

[rckstr]

Equally, you could assume that players are playing elsewhere in Open (the galaxy is rather big, after all), at different times of day, in places where your mutual ping times stop you being instanced together.... As has been mentioned quite a few times recently - Frontier do have the statistics as to who plays where and when - also, as DBOBE is on record as holding the opinion that "there is no 'right' way to play the game", I would be somewhat surprised if major changes were made to favour a particular game mode.

I'll call an ingame mechanic that prevents me from meeting others (without taking modes or timezone) a fail, or design error. Because i thought that a client/server architecture with regions was dismissed because they didn't want to separate those regions?

Similarly, there are doubtless players who quite like the current conditions who have stopped participating in (or have never participated in) these discussions....

I agree on that. But the opinion of a couple stated that i would be the "only one" here complaining. My turned around example was just to prove (and i made that clear in the same post) both opinions on this are wrong because of missing participants. *edit* maybe not in the same, but in another shortly before or after that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'll call an ingame mechanic that prevents me from meeting others (without taking modes or timezone) a fail, or design error. Because i thought that a client/server architecture with regions was dismissed because they didn't want to separate those regions?

It's not an in-game mechanic (unless you mean the size of the galaxy - and that's a core game feature) - Frontier are not responsible for mutual ping times between players (because they are not in control of our consumer internet connections) and cannot ensure that all players play at the same time (because of time-zones / geography).

 

[rckstr]

You want to compensate for Open's 'failing' by forcing people who have no interest in Open play it. As the devs have said, there is no plans to do that. It doesn't matter how many forum posts get added to this threadzilla.

If 80% of Battlefields customers are playing solo campaigns only, then if I was the developer I would spend my time adding new solo campaign content. The would seem very little point in trying to get 80% of the players to do what the other 20% want them to do.

I just want to point out that a part (SP/MP) can be called as a "fail" just because of its participants. I don't one to compensate the success of one with the dump of the other. I even made suggestions that would just encourage using one mode more often and even made clear that i would prefer that changes happen that encourage this scenario. I never said that i want Open to be dumped.

- - - Updated - - -

For me the choice is the important thing.

I only play open but I wouldn't want the opportunity to try Mobius for example or switch to solo/private to dock at a busy platform to be taken away from me.

I made suggestions that cater that. Being unable to dock at a station or port could because it is at maximum capacity could be prevented with instances and i guess that a large dock has more free docks than an instance has maximum players.

 

[rckstr]

"Failing" depends on the actual goal of open.

The goal of player encounters, if you recall, was that they be "rare and meaningful". This was never supposed to be an arena type shooter with big player engagements. Open, if anything, fails because certain areas are too full of people, thus become no-go areas for those who RP or PvE and want to play in Open.



Maybe. As I've said before I think the game was marketed badly. But not every game needs to have multiplayer and in the case of Elite it can be to the detriment of the game.

The rare and open would happen if at the end of a cycle skirmishes about a system occur. That would be meaningful at the end if you succeeded or not. Bringing a system into cancellation is no succes, it is just a prevention of fail, it is just a compromise. The ability to experience a true success or fail has been sacrificed to be able to cater all modes, though it at the current standing it would be possible with a single mode or separate modes.

- - - Updated - - -

They are so meaningfull that barely anyone plays open anymore

I just can agree with this. unfortunately i ran out of rep's i can give away. Thank you for this.

- - - Updated - - -

In your opinion, of course, as there are no reliable statistics available to tell us who plays in which mode....

There are. Either Fdev refuses to publish them, or isn't aware of the demand to such statistics.

- - - Updated - - -

Who please point me to WHO is saying Solo/Groups should go away. Honestly we should all ignore this comments from now on. Nobody is asking for Solo gone. All I see is split them or make Open more meaningful. Nobody is asking for Solo gone.

Thank you again.

- - - Updated - - -

Splitting the modes would still be removing the freedom of choice that each player has as to which mode to play in on a session-by-session basis with the same commander as we can now.

That is true, but it would please both parties more (including my suggestions) if this gets adjustments.

 

[Jockey79]

I made suggestions that cater that. Being unable to dock at a station or port could because it is at maximum capacity could be prevented with instances and i guess that a large dock has more free docks than an instance has maximum players.

I think the big stations have about 5 large parking spaces, 2 - 10 - 24 - 25 and there was another number I've forgotten (I want to say 16, but not sure).
Not sure on medium pads now, but I think it was around 5 again. Never really looked at the small pads.

At a stab, despite the weird landing pad numbers I'd guess at about 20 landing spaces - depending on the station, as I've seen some that lost landing spaces for parks / trees and other pretty things.

 

[rckstr]

First off, open isn't the only multiplayer part. Both group, which has direct multiplayer, and solo, which has indirect multiplayer (we all affect the same galaxy). If you want to say open is failing because your not seeing enough players, I could see your point, but wouldn't agree. Neither MP or open mean PvP. Your idea of PvP might be failing, but since direct(pew,pew) PvP wasn't one of the major goals for the game, that's fine. Direct PvP is supposed to be "rare and meaningful". Since Frontier haven't defined either of these terms for this game, it is up to them to decide whether or not it is happening, and make changes as needed.

I have the feeling you misunderstood my suggestions.

 

[ianw]

I made suggestions that cater that. Being unable to dock at a station or port could because it is at maximum capacity could be prevented with instances and i guess that a large dock has more free docks than an instance has maximum players.

Well that was just an example for docking - mostly I'm dealing with large stations which is rarely an issue.

It still comes back to the same old thing - taking away an advertised choice - the ability to switch at will that has been in game from the start. I know - have met personally - quite a few people in Mobius (including Mobius himself.

I might fancy joining them sometime from time to time - who knows - but I wouldn't be happy if I found that choice restricted in some way to satisfy the demands of some to change something just to make them feel better about how other people play the game.

And as has been pointed out many many times it still wouldn't change the instancing limit, different play times and vast size of the game that cause exactly the same perceived "problem" that some people have with mode switching.

 

[rckstr]

This is a long thread, search it for instances where that subsection of players have called for solo to be removed, prevent mode switching, or separate galaxies. The answer is still the same. FD said no.

Currently FD doesn't have plans to make changes regarding this "issue". History itself is a prove that just because there are no current plans, this will never change. If it would have always been like some people in charge decided it to be, we would live in a very different world.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There are. Either Fdev refuses to publish them, or isn't aware of the demand to such statistics.

I stand by my point that there are no reliable statistics *available to us* to tell us who plays in which mode.

That is true, but it would please both parties more (including my suggestions) if this gets adjustments.

I think you are misunderstanding what would please the party that opposes the splitting of the game modes.

 

[rckstr]

People tend to complain when there is a problem, the fact they are not here agreeing with you is quite telling.

I guess most of them are happily playing the game.

You mentioned "We" a lot in one of your previous posts, where are all these people that agree with you? are they shy?

Maybe some are shy, maybe some are to busy to take such an effort on this that would be needed. Others again did contribute here but stopped. Again others aren't even aware of such a discussion going on. The amount of participants doesn't represent a valid number- on both sides.

 

[rckstr]

How about the Mobius forum, that has over 2000 members all happy with the current system?
or the 9700+ members in the group who are happy with the mode system.

Mobius started growing at around 1000 members per month - they are quite enjoying the ability to use what ever mode they want, when they want.
Or some just use the Mobius group and enjoy a game with only consensual PvP.

Just because FD created the ability to "jump" between modes, they maybe expected different numbers of "separation" that we currently have? Maybe (though they have no plans on changing things at the momemn) FD would have created a different environment if the knew or expected such numbers we currently have. And i'll make the imprudent guess that still more people would have sticked with the game instead of leaving it, when FD would have changed their minds during development regarding the modes and mode switching.
Also i have the impression that groups like mobius in reality are unhappy with the game and it's features. Because if i would be happy with the feature of maybe encountering an enemy player, why would i choose to dodge this?

 

[Faded Glory]

They are so meaningfull that barely anyone plays open anymore

There could be a number of reasons you don't see other players in Open even if they are there, but even if it is because you think everyone realizes that Solo is the best way to achieve PP goals, (and you feel that is wrong), then that's still an indication that most players are happy playing the game as it is. It doesn't necessarily imply failed design or a failing game.

The rare and open would happen if at the end of a cycle skirmishes about a system occur. That would be meaningful at the end if you succeeded or not.

So you want PvP in PP. We get that, but it seems that FD do not want PP decided by PvP, players shooting and killing other players.

There are. Either Fdev refuses to publish them, or isn't aware of the demand to such statistics.

Or just possibly the figures that FD certainly have point to a continuance of the status quo. That would certainly seem to be the case based upon the statements they have made.