Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

[Meritz]

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.

Braben said a lot of things. I am interested in what they do, not what they say. And the Open game is PvP centric. It's more hardcore in that regard than renowned PvP games such as EvE Online. We don't even have Concord here.

Besides, we could argue forever about this. Take a look a few posts up and see what I envision as a solution to imbalance issues. I'd rather we discuss ideas how to improve the game than argue ad infinitum about who said what and when.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Selfish. I don't deal with selfish people.

So you don't deal with selfish people, but you selflessly suggest 'improvements for your vision of what the game should be' that would be detrimental to people not as fortunate as yourself to have such a good internet connection or hardware. I just know you don't see the irony in that...

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.

Your imagination is good. And some form of that sounds marvellous. Now re-write it without the anti-Solo bias and I would support you all the way. PvP only goals? You mean goals that only PvP players would take an interest in? An Interest that you in particular are fond of?

Are we touching on that selfish gene again that you hate so much?

So again I ask, why should *your vision* of the game mean that other less-fortunate people playing this game should be penalised for not playing it your way?

 

[Meritz]

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.

Please elaborate with what exactly you disagree in the following:

Imagine, for example, that a combat goal is not just "bring in 100 000 dogtags".

Imagine it is "demoralize the enemy". How do you demoralize the enemy?

Kill their generals. Destroy their supply convoys. Win sorties - not the kind of static, going-on-for-two-weeks dogfights, but dynamically created battles with a beginning and an end. Battles themselves are not just meaningless furballs in the middle of nowhere, but have structure, objectives. Harass a cap ship. Destroy a dockyard. Hunt for enemy patrols. Take spy pictures of enemy installations without being detected.

And it's all split into lots and lots of such small objectives. Completing those takes playing the game, not sitting afk atop a cap ship and raking in credits. Solo or open, doesn't matter so much because there is no farming, and farming is how solo players get that huge advantage over open.

If further balance is needed, PvP only objectives in the lieu of territory control or offense/defense scenarios could be introduced, with appropriate impact on the overall goal.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Still under the impression that solo is a farm fest?

 

[Janichsan]

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.

…which is at the end of the day the same thing: "nerf" solo/groups, keep open the same – solo/groups are disadvantaged; keep solo/groups the same, "buff" open play – solo/groups are disadvantaged. It's just semantics.

 

[Meritz]

So you don't deal with selfish people, but you selflessly suggest 'improvements for your vision of what the game should be' that would be detrimental to people not as fortunate as yourself to have such a good internet connection or hardware. I just know you don't see the irony in that...



Your imagination is good. And some form of that sounds marvellous. Now re-write it without the anti-Solo bias and I would support you all the way. PvP only goals? You mean goals that only PvP players would take an interest in? An Interest that you in particular are fond of?

Are we touching on that selfish gene again that you hate so much?

So again I ask, why should your *vision* of the game mean that other less-fortunate people playing this game should be penalised for not playing it your way?

PvP only goals would not be the ONLY means to accomplish a goal. Solo/group players would have plenty variety to choose from. It's literally scenarios designed for PvP, like battlefields in other MMOs. Just like Strong Signal Sources are scenarios designed for groups of players - and are you seriously going to tell me you feel it is unfair that you need wings to do *some* of the stuff in this game? Don't you think stuff like destroying a heavily armed and defended space dock should be something requiring a wing of starships (or a really incredibly skilled solo player)?

It is a multiplayer game after all. Don't you think it should have some multiplayer content included?

And variety of content is good. More the merrier. Not interested in PvP? Do PvE objectives instead. Not interested in PvE? Do PvP goals instead.

Everybody gets to play and enjoy the game and be equally effective at what they're trying to do. No bias, whatsoever.

 

[Stormprooter]

Still under the impression that solo is a farm fest?

I wonder sometimes if the PvPers honestly think those of us who play solo/group are just a huge number of "sleeping" griefers....
Quietly 'farming' credits and experience ready for the day when we all switch to open play in 4-strong wings of Anacondas armed and armoured to the teeth, targeting the first 'hollow' contact on the radar and repeatedly killing them, over and over.

Perhaps I have an over-active imagination?

 

[Joe Spivey]

I wonder sometimes if the PvPers honestly think those of us who play solo/group are just a huge number of "sleeping" griefers....
Quietly 'farming' credits and experience ready for the day when we all switch to open play in 4-strong wings of Anacondas armed and armoured to the teeth, targeting the first 'hollow' contact on the radar and repeatedly killing them, over and over.

Sadly, for a lot of the PvP players that is closer to the truth than you might think. The reason is simple enough, they can't even envisage another alternative because that is what THEY would do.

 

[wilkie79]

Like the idea of incrementing a bonus for each hour you play in Open Play as the OP states, but instead of resetting any bonuses made; decrement them instead, for each hour a player plays in Solo. Any bonuses gained whilst in Open Play, gradually decreases to a zero bonus. +1

 

[Traven Mayhem]

I wonder sometimes if the PvPers honestly think those of us who play solo/group are just a huge number of "sleeping" griefers....
Quietly 'farming' credits and experience ready for the day when we all switch to open play in 4-strong wings of Anacondas armed and armoured to the teeth, targeting the first 'hollow' contact on the radar and repeatedly killing them, over and over.

Perhaps I have an over-active imagination?

no, we don't. but we wish you were, it would be an improvement.

 

[Stormprooter]

no, we don't. but we wish you were, it would be an improvement.

Top answer! +1 rep

Personally, I do play open from time to time, but usually in something cheap like an Eagle or Viper. I never combat log, but I do run away when out-gunned or out-classed (which happens quite often).

I know it's a very contentious issue, but if there were some kind of 'separate' PvP arena mode - I would play that a lot.

 

[arxerisdam]

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.

but is only their personal perception, because for any weird reason most pvpers think they are special and need to have something better for them and crush everyone else is the norm with those guys, not all but the most of them are like that.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

PvP only goals would not be the ONLY means to accomplish a goal. Solo/group players would have plenty variety to choose from. It's literally scenarios designed for PvP, like battlefields in other MMOs. Just like Strong Signal Sources are scenarios designed for groups of players - and are you seriously going to tell me you feel it is unfair that you need wings to do *some* of the stuff in this game? Don't you think stuff like destroying a heavily armed and defended space dock should be something requiring a wing of starships (or a really incredibly skilled solo player)?

It is a multiplayer game after all. Don't you think it should have some multiplayer content included?

And variety of content is good. More the merrier. Not interested in PvP? Do PvE objectives instead. Not interested in PvE? Do PvP goals instead.

Everybody gets to play and enjoy the game and be equally effective at what they're trying to do. No bias, whatsoever.

Being able to join an NPC wing is something in the pipeline iirc, it's just not fit for wings 1.2. So, like many other things, it's on its way. So no, I have not got a problem with wings because it fits in with the game as a whole and will eventually scale out to Solo players. Even now I can take on a Wing of NPCs and test my metal. Of course, groups can already fully take advantage of wings.

But to specifically write in a PvP goal *specifically* rules out a subset of players who choose (or for some reason are forced) Solo. So that I would have a problem with. That, in my mind, is the selfish suggestion of someone who has a problem with other players playing it their way.

You still don't see it the logic of it do you?

 

[Robert_loblaw]

Low Bandwith

I am so glad there is a solo play. I tried to playing online with everyone but my internet connection can not support this game. I also wanted to that when I buy another copy for my wife, if we can play as a wing in solo mode together?

Thank you for making a solo mode for the people with very little bandwith.

 

[Seonid]

if we can play as a wing in solo mode together?

Not Solo, you would play Private Group with just the two of you, assuming you are both on the same home network, the bandwidth requirements should still be very low.

 

[DaggerSnake]

There is a good discussion on this topic on the latest Lave Radio Conclave podcast. Several leaders of the large groups involved in Lugh and Milkunn talking about how Open and Solo can really break the faction meta-game in ways I didn't realize could happen.

Open and Solo certainly need attention regarding community goals and participation.

 

[Meritz]

Being able to join an NPC wing is something in the pipeline iirc, it's just not fit for wings 1.2. So, like many other things, it's on its way. So no, I have not got a problem with wings because it fits in with the game as a whole and will eventually scale out to Solo players. Even now I can take on a Wing of NPCs and test my metal. Of course, groups can already fully take advantage of wings.

But to specifically write in a PvP goal *specifically* rules out a subset of players who choose (or for some reason are forced) Solo. So that I would have a problem with. That, in my mind, is the selfish suggestion of someone who has a problem with other players playing it their way.

You still don't see it the logic of it do you?

No of course I don't, because the logic is that of a person which wants to have everything.

It's content tailored for a specific type of gameplay. It's a tiny fraction of stuff you could do in order to achieve the overall goal. It doesn't exclude you from anything. It doesn't prevent you from achieving the overall goal, for example winning a war in a given system. It doesn't prevent you from playing what you like to play. It doesn't prevent you from getting rewarded for your efforts.

But no. It's PvP. It should not exist, right?

You're on a crusade here, and that's pathetic. I'm done with you.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You're on a crusade here, and that's pathetic. I'm done with you.

It seems to me that those seeking change are on the crusade - those resisting are defending the status quo.

 

[CMDR_Jason_A_Pastman]

I like the Idea. Let those not able, interested in pvp, or, like me, find partying up without a que system too tedious or non-viable to play solo and benefit from the credit rewards and enjoy the game play mechanic/grind while letting the pvp wings, who probably have the most interest in the outcome, decide the war.

 

[Stormprooter]

It seems to me that those seeking change are on the crusade - those resisting are defending the status quo.

I've got the impression that the arguments for change surrounding PvP and open play are a result of "baggage" brought from other games.
I would have thought that PvP fans (and there are plenty of them) would naturally play open all the time and get their PvP kicks from fellow, like-minded players, in which case, where's the big problem?

/confused