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

[Distance]

I'm not discounting op but the fairest way would be to have separate community goals for solo and open if there's a war going on and then total up the results of both solo and open goals to decide it.

This way you could actually have blockades without people switching to solo and everyone can contribute and "play their way".

Most of the people unhappy with the community goals are quite happy for the current mode switching to take place in general game play but are only frustrated when they're given a goal that can't be opposed due to mode switching.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

I like the idea, it's a good compromise. Solo makes it impossible to effectively blockade systems and prevent goals you oppose. At least if a lot of players switch to solo you at least can slow the progress which might be enough.

Edit: it would need some way to prevent players from switching over to open to turn in bounties/cargo only to switch back to solo before you leave.

 

[Cody]

A good word, is precedent... ho-hum!

 

[Zephyriel]

I play open and solo depending on the mood, and I'm in favor of this idea. Obviously it is harder to make money in open, and moreover you take much more risk to accomplish the goals, so it's only fair that your efforts count for more. However as proposed, the personal earnings should remain the same so as not to hinder the individual progression of solo pilots.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Demiga!

Don't worry, no harm, no foul, it was just a helpful reminder!

I can't give you my considered opinions just yet because, well, I need a little more time to consider them!

But this is clearly an interesting debate, on both sides of the fence, so we will revisit it at a later date.

 

[AlianAnt]

I'll say this. As someone who hops back and forth between solo and open, depending on my mood that night, open and solo have vastly different risk levels as well as experiences. For instance, in SC in Solo I'm just moving from one place to the next but in open my mind is aware and fully engaged, keeping an eye on the radar looking for an empty triangle sliding in behind me.

My point is twofold: 1.) Considering the insanely higher risk and threats that other players present, I wouldn't be opposed to any kinds of increases or decreases in rewards of any type depending on the mode. The fact is Open is much much more dangerous than Solo. It wouldn't be unfathomable for there to be different reward levels between the two.

2.) It's not like it's never been done before. Nothing in particular springs to mind but to say that this is a crazy idea that shouldn't be done simply on principal is a relatively weak argument, in my opinion.

In any case I'm sure FD will come up with something most of us will, at the very least, accept.

 

[JosiahD]

they have chosen to exclude themselves from 'some people in the greater game' however they still have the ability to affect the economy, sovreignty and community goals those players they have chosen to ignore are playing for and towards.

They maintain economic control of any system they want to, and military control in that they control the space completely and cannot be challenged. Open players have the same level of economic control, but are at a severely uneven fotting with regards to the military control since they can be attacked and/or blockaded in it. Choosing to play 'in open' puts you at this military/force disadvantage against any player group who chooses to play in closed or open.

Does this sound like fair, equal footing to you? Of course not.

the only argument the closed/solo players have come up with is 'well you can play in closed and choose to have the same economic/military advantage/disadvantage ratio', except that forces me to change my gameplay away from my preferred method to achieve equal footing with another player group, thus not allowing me to play the game 'the way i want to' .. This goes against the core design principle of the game.

You do realise it also works in reverse don't you? Actions in open affect those in solo and private groups too you know. The impacts flow both ways, so it's nowhere as unfair as you state. People complain that trading in solo unfairly affects markets in open for example, but trading in open in turn affects the markets in solo too. And add to the fact that combat balancing to suit any PvP wants will affect a disproportionate amount of the playerbase (ie the hardcore PvP crowd are in the minority here whether you like it or not) who are in solo or private groups and I think this notion of fairness is nowhere near as skewed as you think, and if anything skewed towards open players if you take things like the race to elite competition into account.

 

[xslam]

Devs can't make us all happy. As "we" and solo players cant live in the same world, we have completely opposite goals and one will lose, the other will survive.

But i hope that they choose our, open play side.

 

[Egan]

As a solo player that plays solo for no other reason than I'm not interested in the shared universe stuff or spending my leisure time with other people, and one that hasn't ever taken part in a community goal (i've been out amongst the void since 1.1 arrived) I admit to being interested to see where Sandro takes this. For myself the key word in his last post was 'precedent'.

And, yeah, solo mode would still be needed regardless. Some of us actually enjoy it.

 

[Mortifa]

Hello Commander Demiga!

This is something that I'm considering.

There won't be any changes in the immediate future (our time is fairly booked up right now), but on face value it certainly seems plausible and maybe reasonable to me. I'll need to chew it over some more, obviously. I *believe* a change like this would be possible though (again, I'd have to verify that with team server).

Comments on this would be welcome.

Oh, but obviously, Commander Demiga, let's try and keep the temperature at a reasonable level . Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, as long as they do so politely.

One thing that would encourage players to play in open is maybe, having them earn credits for damage done if they get killed, Which along with the idea of SOLO players only contributing a smaller portion to the goal would add balance and remove some, not all, of the risk of playing in open.

 

[Seonid]

And then you have to balance the Private Groups, which themselves vary from PvE to PvP to "anything goes" to RP and so on. At this point the phrase Achtung Minen pops up in my mind.

 

[Darth Ender]

There is no community in solo, by definition. There is a lopsided community in private groups. So I propose the following change.

Different campaigns in the different modes. Open and private group would have nearly identical campaigns and goals but private groups would be weighted different compared to open. There's no real fair way to handle private group weighting since each group has different rules regarding risk from violent pvp. It would have to be something less than open but how much is kind of arbitrary.

Solo would have a different campaign and goal altogether. More aligned with a single player doing something and weighted far differently than group and open.

They would all be related to the same event but not requiring the exact same thing and not have the same effect on the overall event.

 

[Cosmos]

Hi Sandro,

We've sort of been here through the years, and I've pulled my hair out and attempted to point stuff out, things get said.. its all from a desire to see ED do well. I think you're one of the good guys at Frontier

I just imagine a game where we can't hide away from everyone else, one that when I'm going to a hub I might ask a friend,' hey I need to go to Lave with a batch of rare goods, can you escort me?'.. Even, DB imagined this scenario during KS. In my experience the game comes alive when playing with friends and engaging with other players.. and thanks for Wings, its truly revived the game for me as something I enjoy playing.

Yet whats happening now is people will play solo, private group and all those experiences are lost. I don't get to meet so and so, they don't say to me can you help.. I'm being attacked, they don't require my services to ward off the bandits.. So I can't be a hero.. and so much of what is great about the game is lost.

Sometimes though I look back at all the discussions and how can I tell some guy whos has a stressful day at work that he can't find enjoyment in ED without having his experience 'spoilt' by other players.. I wanna say to that guy, surely in 400 billion star systems, 70K of which I believe are populated, you can't find somewhere to have that experience without removing yourself entirely from the game?

If you guys want ED to be a stellar success I really think solo and pg needs to go..

 

[Viajero]

No, definitely not. Play your own way they said. Well if they punish me for playing my own way then I'll be very irritated. Why should I have to do twice as much to qualify for goal awards just because I choose not to expose myself to being mugged by Johnny McPewPew for my lunch money.

Just a quick note to state that according to the idea presented in this thread you would not have to do twice as much to qualify for awards. You would qualify for rewards in the same manner and speed. It is just the overall effectiveness of the mission for background simulation purposes that would be reduced. There would need to be 2 progress trackers for the community mission, one tracker for bonds / tonnage (much like today) and another for "effectiveness" of the overall goal. Your Cr. and rewards net would be the same either way because it would still be based on bonds / tonnage, just the overall mission may not be as successfull with regards to background simulation impact: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=130649&p=2000291&viewfull=1#post2000291

 

[obliterator]

they pay the same amount of money like you ...so whats ur issue ?

i smell if half income for solo will come some will lose income ;p

Go to a conflict zone for 30 mins in solo, then do the same in open and compare the results. You'll see.

 

[Majinvash]

Seriously, it annoys people. Solo has every right to do community goals -

This is my favourite irony post of the day.

Solo has no community... because.... IT'S SOLO!!!

So it shouldn't have any effect on a community goal because you choose to play... SOLO

Its bad enough you play in Mobius, which carries absolutely NO risk to anyone who is awake at their computer.

But for SOLO players to want to effect something in Open is just special.. Super Special!

Play in Solo or Play in open. Both is fine but it shouldn't be the same outcome for a community based goal.

 

[Entilzar]

any in game compromise to entice players in solo or group out into open play is fundamentally wrong, the only reason folks that play in open want more people in open is to pirate/player kill them, people who have no interest in being player killed for giggles shouldn't be punished on gameplay features as a result of wishing to remain in a quieter game mode for them. FD have always maintained that all 3 modes are viable game modes and wouldn't inflict a system where players were disadvantaged by not being in open play.

Enty

 

[Egan]

There is no community in solo, by definition. There is a lopsided community in private groups. So I propose the following change.

Different campaigns in the different modes. Open and private group would have nearly identical campaigns and goals but private groups would be weighted different compared to open. There's no real fair way to handle private group weighting since each group has different rules regarding risk from violent pvp. It would have to be something less than open but how much is kind of arbitrary.

Solo would have a different campaign and goal altogether. More aligned with a single player doing something and weighted far differently than group and open.

They would all be related to the same event but not requiring the exact same thing and not have the same effect on the overall event.

Do you know what? I like that line of thinking. It's an elegant idea that treats all players as equals regardless of what mode they choose to play. I suspect, however, it would be a lot of work which FD would be reluctant to undertake.

 

[Caylo]

I feel there certainly is a problem here, and I think it should be tackled from two sides at once - a pincer move, if you will.

The idea to reduce contribution efficiency for pilots circumventing the added risk and interaction in Open is an excellent start, though I am not sure whether cutting it by half is enough. If I were Frontier, I'd probably decide this based on the metrics of how many players participate in which mode. Notably, this should not only apply in Solo but obviously Group mode as well, considering how otherwise players would merely move into mini-Groups to circumvent this restriction.

That being said, Darth Ender had an even better idea here. Separate goals for Solo/Group would be even better, as they would remove that nagging feeling of a campaign being conducted "unfairly".

Simultaneously, it must become more attractive to play in Open. Additional incentives such as a percentage bonus to any activities, similar to how it works with Wings and trading might be the way to go. Needless to say, this would only work if we also reduce instances of combat logging to prevent exploitation of this perk (and I still think disconnected players should be replaced by AI copies).

Furthermore, right now Conflict Zones are punishing players in Open by minimising their rewards due to the last hit mechanic. To my shame I have to confess that I currently migrate into Solo when I'm doing CZs wingless, simply because I don't see why I should risk my ship when it's not guaranteed that I get combat bonds for enemies I helped to take down. This is very sad, and certainly the opposite of what the devs must have had in mind? The solution here would be to "link" all allied players in a Conflict Zone and reward combat bonds to everyone who participated, just like how it works in a Wing.

 

[fademist]

Go to a conflict zone for 30 mins in solo, then do the same in open and compare the results. You'll see.

still my point stands .... u and solo players payed the same amount of money