If there was less content then why not an offline version of the game? The whole point of Solo is Digital Rights whilst allowing players to play without other human interaction.
- Status
If there was less content then why not an offline version of the game? The whole point of Solo is Digital Rights whilst allowing players to play without other human interaction.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
You do not half pick and choose which posts to ignore.
MP does not necessarily mean PvP. Do you think David Braben was talking rubbish then and does not know how the multiplayer part of the game was to work?
Or do you disbelieve (multiple) interviews where he states that he feels multi player will be primarily co-operative, and that he WANTS the game to encourage us to work together, and that, whilst PvP will not be actively stopped when playing in ALL, it will be discouraged by game mechanics such as police and bounties etc.
Now if anything is not working at the moment it is those mechanics which will discourage PvP outside of certain set places more, not encourage it.
So my question is which is it? do you think DB is wrong and he missunderstands what the MP in Elite is, or do you think I and others are lying and that he never said that killing a member of the pilots federation would be a rare act, and all the more meaning full when it DID happen & that elite would mostly be PvE, regardless of whether playing solo or ALL?
Because if you believe that in the grand scheme of the game as a whole that PvP is meant to be rare, then, surely it makes no sense to spend time balancing a rare activity EVEN when the odd community goal DOES actively encourage a bit of PvP in ALL.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not so much turning it around, more stating one reason why players play solo.
Recognising that there are players who choose to play in each of the game modes does not equate to a need / justification for reducing individual player impact dependent on which game mode they happen to be playing in. I would expect that the primary reason that players play solo is to play a game free of interruption from other players.
If Frontier were to take no action against combat loggers then I would expect that that might indicate that PvP is not really on the list of priorities.
[SUGGESTION] Reward persistant Open play with bonus effect on Influence
Following on from the thread here on results of the opposing Fed vs Crimson state community Lugh missions, there are issues raised by many of the disparity between solo v open play on the outcome of the missions, in that solo players were overwhelmingly able to influence the outcome of the conflict.
This is also an issue in general play in regards the background sim when 2 opposing groups of Cmdrs are competing for ownership of a system by backing opposing factions to increase their influence and in conflict zones when war status is reached, as Solo players also have a big advantage in being able to change influence of a system over those that turn up to dispute ownership of the system in Open.
So what I propose is this:
1/ Keep the effect on influence or community goals for solo/group players the same but introduce a new game mechanic where Cmdrs who persistently play in Open, over time will gradually receive a bonus multiplier to the effects their actions have on influence or community goals above the standard rate, up to a maximum of x 2.
2/ The bonus multiplier will slowly increase from x 1.0 to x 2.0 depending on how many hours the Cmdr has persistently played in Open play (not counting time when docked or where idle in space for more than 5 mins to avoid station/space idling exploiting). Ie it might take 10 hours of open play to increase the bonus multiplier from the standard x 1.0 to x 1.1 and so on up to 100 hours of open play needed to reach the maximum x 2.0 bonus.
3/ The bonus is reset back to x 1.0 if the Cmdr at any point logs in to Solo or Group mode.
Outcome: solo/group players can still contribute to influence / community goals at the same rate they have before, but where there are 2 opposing sides disputing a community goal or influence of a system, the side which has a dedicated team who turn up persistently in Open will always have the edge over the opposing side who choose to do it in solo.
Following on from the thread here on results of the opposing Fed vs Crimson state community Lugh missions, there are issues raised by many of the disparity between solo v open play on the outcome of the missions, in that solo players were overwhelmingly able to influence the outcome of the conflict.
This is also an issue in general play in regards the background sim when 2 opposing groups of Cmdrs are competing for ownership of a system by backing opposing factions to increase their influence and in conflict zones when war status is reached, as Solo players also have a big advantage in being able to change influence of a system over those that turn up to dispute ownership of the system in Open.
So what I propose is this:
1/ Keep the effect on influence or community goals for solo/group players the same but introduce a new game mechanic where Cmdrs who persistently play in Open, over time will gradually receive a bonus multiplier to the effects their actions have on influence or community goals above the standard rate, up to a maximum of x 2.
2/ The bonus multiplier will slowly increase from x 1.0 to x 2.0 depending on how many hours the Cmdr has persistently played in Open play (not counting time when docked or where idle in space for more than 5 mins to avoid station/space idling exploiting). Ie it might take 10 hours of open play to increase the bonus multiplier from the standard x 1.0 to x 1.1 and so on up to 100 hours of open play needed to reach the maximum x 2.0 bonus.
3/ The bonus is reset back to x 1.0 if the Cmdr at any point logs in to Solo or Group mode.
Outcome: solo/group players can still contribute to influence / community goals at the same rate they have before, but where there are 2 opposing sides disputing a community goal or influence of a system, the side which has a dedicated team who turn up persistently in Open will always have the edge over the opposing side who choose to do it in solo.
More likely they can't take any action against combat loggers. That's what you get for going with P2P architecture. Sure, it's cheap and easy to maintain. But your multiplayer game is full of holes as a result.
Bottom line is, I come here asking for equality and validity of all game modes, and the solo/PvE only crowd gets miffed for obvious reasons.
Anyway, as I said, if they want to kill off PvP, they're on a good track. But they better make sure PvE is there to compensate, and compensate well, or this game has no long term future.
But your idea of equality is to make it so that Solo/Groups are disqualified for such things as community goals? How is that equality?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In terms of action that can be taken against combat loggers, I would expect that Frontier will, at some point, introduce retrospective penalties for players who combat log. If a player is a known combat logger then they *could* be sent to the naughty step (i.e. only ever matched with other known combat loggers) for a period of time. Even once any punitive term is served, if a player previously known for combat logging were to re-offend then their ship could be destroyed by the game and the normal kill mechanic could apply.
Asking for two modes to be penalised / reward reduced does not seem to me to be asking for equality - at the moment every kill or tonne of cargo is rewarded equally - the perceived issue is that the rate of return is lower in open.
Not disqualified. I believe that the best course of action would be to:
A) Design community goals in such a way that the disparities between open and solo do not matter. For example, creating a dynamic war campaign that makes repetitive farming far less viable in general. Increasing goal related mission variety, designing the goals themselves so that mass PvE farming is not the only means to an end. And so on.
B) Adjust the ratio at which solo players contribute to Open players. So if you play solo, and don't have to deal with enemy players and such, you can, and you even get your rewards calculated based off on how they would be without scaling, but the score itself scales, giving a fair chance to open players to both rank higher on the community goal and be more effective in achieving them.
This is really a win-win scenario. Solo players contribute - albeit at a lesser rate, but they have increased efficiency to compensate - and they get all the rewards as usual, and Open players get to play the way they like without feeling that they're being punished for not going solo.
The ONLY people who would have a problem with the above are those who want it all. Guess how much I care about their opinions.
Last edited:
Only there is no way for FD to know if a player has a crappy connection or if he is combat logging. So all it takes is one complaint to the customer department to reinstate the player back to open. What are they gonna do? Look at nonexistent logs? You need a central server to keep track of player connections and combat actions.
No game studio to date has taken it upon themselves to arbitrate in such matters, and that's with a central server and all the data you could wish for. You'd need an army of CR people to deal with the flood of complaints, and you'd have no way to know which ones are legit and which aren't.
Don't expect miracles.
Well thanks for the last line. So if anyone disagrees with you they are less than worthy? What are they? Scum, idiots, inferior?
And Solo players have to work hard to achieve the aims? That's implies you want to suggest building in an inequality that's been suggested again and again. It's based on a premise that Open is somehow intrinsically harder than other modes because what, you're hanging around in open to laser their hinney? That's awfully high-minded and assumes that you (or other players) actually have any skill.
And yet again, Solo is not always a choice. When it's not, your suggestion punishes such people who would then have to work harder and, if it was a temporary outage, would simply not play instead because "It's not worth it in solo."
It would seem that the only people who would argue with changing the Open/groups/Solo relationship are those who feel self-entitled and high minded. (Did you see what I just did?
)
Last edited:
Combat logging is perfectly valid in Mobius since the groups is specifically a PvE group (with some PvP in conflict zones only) the players in this thread who stated they went into the Mobius group and attacked players there are the ones FD should take harsh measures against, the rules of the group are there when you sign up and by doing that you are griefing, if you want PvP go to Open.
And perfectly adequate with a coop focus in mind.
Influence does have effect on the game, it can change ownership / allegiance of stations and entire systems & create war zones. See Dukes of Milkunn thread as reference.
FD have previously said they are not going to exclude group/solo players from anything so I think the only solution is to offer an extra incentive for playing in open such as I suggest.
Selfish. I don't deal with selfish people.
Here's a copy from another thread of what I envision a solution to this might be:
That sounds terrible, huh? Oh my what an evil person I am for wishing such horrors upon this game.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Might as well make everyone impossible to kill, because that's what combat logging is.
Good idea with regards to the possibilities of changing the influence of factions in a system. +1 from me
When it comes to community goals I have to agree with cpy. By playing solo or private group you voluntarily remove yourself from the community thus you shouldn't be able to have any influence on community goals either! another +1
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Let's hope they're going to reconsider that policy! If not I'd even vote for increasing the multiplier you're suggesting to x3. No risk should mean less rewards.
When it comes to community goals I have to agree with cpy. By playing solo or private group you voluntarily remove yourself from the community thus you shouldn't be able to have any influence on community goals either! another +1
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Let's hope they're going to reconsider that policy! If not I'd even vote for increasing the multiplier you're suggesting to x3. No risk should mean less rewards.
the rules of a private group probably are not of much concern to FD, they'll likely only ban or take action against players for EULA and T&C violations.. Joining a group and breaking their rules is not covered by that.
You have a short memory - just a few pages back you were posted a David Braben quote explicitly stating that the game was designed with a co-op focus not PvP. To keep claiming that ED is a PvP focused game because PvP is possible anywhere in open mode, when there are other reasons than a "PvP focus" for that, and perhaps the most authoritative voice possible on the game flatly contradicts that conclusion is ludicrous, and at this point you have descended to wilful ignorance.
There's only one person clutching at straws here, and it's you.
It's funny how instead of refuting that anyone who disagrees with you would fall into that category, you just filled in a different adjective than the ones suggested, but then it ends up with an undertone that is just the same.
Any way, I disagree with you and as you won't deal with me any more because that makes me selfish, I will return the favour.
- Status