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

[Andrew Sayers]

Because the question of community goals has lead to some interesting and important arguments, the mod team have made a special thread to state one opinion per person. The solo vs. open vs. groups thread will still be the place to discuss ideas, but we hope that will become a one-stop shop for people to get an overview of the topic.

We're aware the recent merge was controversial, and if the new thread works out, hopefully it will give us a halfway option between merging and having to manage parallel conversations.

 

[ianw]

I agree with what you are saying and I dont think FD will be influenced by the whining minority, at the time they should be listening to the players, some of whom do make good points and come up with good ideas, but FD should then make their own judgements as I'm sure they will, the changes FD have made to the game up to now, I believe have been correct and have benifitted the game immensly.
I play in OPEN but I believe the status quo should remain regarding the three modes of play.

I would have agreed with you about FD not being influenced according to their oft stated "were making the game we want to make" until the recent massive price drop - which you'd be hard pressed to describe as a "tweak" - on the Vulture and FDL which looked very much like a response to the outcry in the forums.

Interesting times...

ETA - well look at that post that appeared above this one as I was typing...

 

[Loriath]

I agree with what you are saying and I dont think FD will be influenced by the whining minority, at the time they should be listening to the players, some of whom do make good points and come up with good ideas, but FD should then make their own judgements as I'm sure they will, the changes FD have made to the game up to now, I believe have been correct and have benifitted the game immensly.
I play in OPEN but I believe the status quo should remain regarding the three modes of play.

I hope you are right. I am open to adjusting things to make it fair to all players.

The bounty changes as an example are great. Make it viable for those who play that style. Mining needs help. That needs to be balanced as well. Trading is fine. Exploring got a boost as well as it should have. Now we almost have balanced earning potential in all the major parts of the game. Almost, but not quite.

I have seen the changes they have made to this point as positive steps in making a game that can go on for a very long time. I want it to continue, regardless of what mode anyone plays.

 

[Parmo]

(mod hat off)

I could be wrong, but I think the opposition thing actually changes the maths of community goals quite significantly. Open play by definition tends towards zero-sum, whereas solo play (even against NPCs with exactly the same stopping power) tends towards positive-sum. Imagine you and I fight each other in open, while Mike Evans fights NPCs in solo. The same amount of action will occur in both places, but because Mike has generated NPCs out of thin air, his profit per person is twice as high as ours. And for a combat-oriented goal it's even worse - NPCs that kill him will disappear back into thin air instead of cashing in their bounty, so there's less downside for him playing on when it would be prudent for us to withdraw and deny each other an easy kill.

I generally play in open but avoid community goals etc. because I don't want to either spend my time making nice with strangers or feeling like I've somehow cheated the system (more detail in a DDF post). A general reduction in solo profitability would further encourage me to play "open" but stick to areas that are solo in all but name. On the other hand, an evidence-based correction would make me more comfortable getting involved in community goals. For example, if the telemetry showed that solo players were X% more profitable on average than open players, an X% reduction in progress towards a community goal would make me more comfortable getting involved.

And players in Open don't kill NPCs? And players in Open don't killed by NPCs? And players in Private Groups don't kill NPCs? And players in Private Groups don't killed by NPCs?
You are in Open and kill an NPC. Your profit is what? By your argument? And just what is data from 'telemetry' on the numbers of NPCs killed by players in Solo, Open, or PG modes?
And how do you know that NPCs don't cash in their bounty for a goal? assuming that they survive the slaughter. Let's face it NPCs are just cannon fodder; the individual NPC has a very limited life span! Not much chance of redeeming their bounty is there? Come on, what's the percentage of NPCs spawned as enemies survive a Conflict Zone? And why assume NPCs are allowed a bounty? They might be just a permie Security Pilot with no bonus! Players, well, basically they're all private contractors, entrepreneurs! Do players get a regular income being an 'officer' in any Navy or faction?
And how does wings affect the numbers? Players in Solo, (by definition?) cannot be in a Wing but NPCs can. So they cannot partake in the sharing of a Wing's profit and they are have increased risk.
[]
You seem to be mixing up a players profit with that of a player's contribution to a goal. The profit of a player, is expenses such as fuel, ammo, repairs etc. against the money they obtain by doing a 'contract'. Is this not the same for every player? No matter what mode that are in? Your post uses only the killing of NPCs as a basis for player profit but does not mention how that contributes to a Community Goal which may have several components to it.
Yet you link the two together directly by saying that a players contribution to a goal should be reduced on some view of their profitability by virtue of any profit being realised in Solo mode.
[]
Do you have any solid data to formulate statistical evidence for your 'zero-sum' and 'positive-sum' conjecture? Or as you prefer to call it a 'definition'.
When a player sits down to play this game they should know that what they see is what every other player sees regarding game mechanics. If a player sees a different game mechanic depending on their choice of play mode then you have 2 separate but linked games and a mixed up customer base: as you say ' but stick to areas that are solo in all but name'.
[]
I play in Open mostly. Sometimes I play in Solo. Never played in a Private Group.
What ever my choice, I want to see the same game mechanics, same Missions, Community Goals, etc. no matter what mode I choose to play in: it is the SAME Universe.
I would be very uncomfortable if FD does not keep to this.

 

[Wicz]

Because the question of community goals has lead to some interesting and important arguments, the mod team have made a special thread to state one opinion per person. The solo vs. open vs. groups thread will still be the place to discuss ideas, but we hope that will become a one-stop shop for people to get an overview of the topic.

We're aware the recent merge was controversial, and if the new thread works out, hopefully it will give us a halfway option between merging and having to manage parallel conversations.

It's closed after two or three posts?

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's closed after two or three posts?

If you read its OP it explains how to get a post added to the thread by the Moderation Team.

 

[Cody]

It's closed after two or three posts?

It's permanently closed - to post, use that post's report function.

 

[Scimiter]

I would have agreed with you about FD not being influenced according to their oft stated "were making the game we want to make" until the recent massive price drop - which you'd be hard pressed to describe as a "tweak" - on the Vulture and FDL which looked very much like a response to the outcry in the forums.

Interesting times...

ETA - well look at that post that appeared above this one as I was typing...

Do you not think the FDL and Vulture were way overpriced in the first place?
I think the FDL at 50 million is about right now, the Vulture at 6 million is a bit cheap, I think 10-12 million would have been better, but that is only my opinion.

 

[Wicz]

If you read its OP it explains how to get a post added to the thread by the Moderation Team.

Fair enough, although I didn't see much point opening it to look with it being closed

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

It's closed after two or three posts?

Read the instructions.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Do you not think the FDL and Vulture were way overpriced in the first place?
I think the FDL at 50 million is about right now, the Vulture at 6 million is a bit cheap, I think 10-12 million would have been better, but that is only my opinion.

I am gonna sit on the fence of this.

I think the ship prices on anything below the T7 are currently too low. ESP for any of the sub 1 million c ships, which are mentally cheap imo.

BUT I think we should have a sliding scale, where, IF we are allied AND we do a set number of missions working towards a ship, then we could get these prices

BUT I would start off with prices maybe 50% higher than they are now (certainly for the cheaper than T7 ships), then get a 10% discount for being friendly with that system, a 10% discount for being Allied, and then a further discount on top of that for completing some missions for the station selling the ship that you want.....

so best case scenario we could maybe get them at approaching the price we pay now, but to get that we need to work for it. If you want the ship there and then then you pay more.

I see no reason why EVERYONE should not spend their 1st 10 - 15 hrs or so cutting their teeth in the sidey. (for the record I spent way more time than that in mine over my ED adventure)

 

[Andrew Sayers]

If you read its OP it explains how to get a post added to the thread by the Moderation Team.

Background: the forum software doesn't have built-in support for "one post per user", so we're (ab)using the report system to make it happen. We figured a good plan today was better than a great plan tomorrow, but if it works out we can begin the search for a better solution.

 

[ianw]

Do you not think the FDL and Vulture were way overpriced in the first place?
I think the FDL at 50 million is about right now, the Vulture at 6 million is a bit cheap, I think 10-12 million would have been better, but that is only my opinion.

I didn't really pay enough attention to the stats to have an opinion on the price either way.

My point was that FD decided on the pricing based on presumably whatever formula they use and then slashed it hugely after the outcry.

So either the pricing was afflicted by two typos, some other error or they just caved in to pressure.

 

[Demiga]

Okay, here is my post version 2.

My original argument, here, was to add a "weighted" value to the final contributions between the modes - cash payouts, ranking (top 70%, 40%, 15% etc), and everything else remains the same. Except a final overall goal effectiveness feature would be introduced - This is where the weighting would take place - Solo players turning in 100k as bounty would get 100k in cash and ranking and everything else, but it would only count as 80% (or whatever) towards the overall goal - whereas open, would be exactly the same except it would count as 100%

Now, before I move on - The whole reason I suggested this is NOT to FORCE solo/group minded players into Open - It was more of an incentive for the open players to not want to switch to solo, because yes, it is easier for me to make 1million in bonds in solo than it is for them in open. And seeing as how I can grind out 100% faster than an open player can ( in this particular case), a 20% decrease (or whatever) doesnt make that much of a difference to me. This was the primary reason 1

Reason 2 - This very small compromise, in my mind, is a much better solution than NUKING any of the modes. All it does is add another mechanic - Take for example: Right now, many Fed players were shocked to see that CSG is making a comeback - they thought they had this goal in the bag. Whether or not a weighted mechanic is introduced, having an Overall Goal effectiveness, which would measure how far along the goal is and who is "winning", to me is a much needed feature either way.

Now, Ive seen some really good ideas - This one is...well its an evolution of my original thread - Basically, instead of weighting the contribution values and reducing for one group, you would just make it so that player kills are worth much more overall. Being that a player is much harder to kill, I can get behind that. It essentially is the same thing as what I am saying, but more focused. So, in the end, solo/group players are not penalized in any way, the only thing is that it becomes worth it to actually kill a player over an npc. This can appeal to both crowds, Open gets the "more" they need to effectively do this in open, Solo, well we opted out of PVP - so it really shouldnt affect any of us AT ALL - The original post for this idea can be found here

Another Idea that I have seen - And I really like this one myself - Is to make conflicting goals - original post found here - Instead of 2 separate groups at war, both groups requesting the SAME thing, make the goals competing goals. Completely different in how to actually accomplish the goal. But keep the reward structure the same, the payouts the same - but make it so that completing the goal for one side, fed, will hinder the other side. And same vice versa. This would actually solve the problem some people have with "war profiteers" - A war profiteer splitting his time right down the middle for both conflicting goals, will actually cancel out his own contribution for each side with something like this implemented. It will also make it so that solo players can be hindered just by people doing the other sides CG and vice versa. Which is one of the bigger arguments by Open players. This will actually give greater interaction between the modes

Other ideas have been posted such as copy/paste the background sim/environment and make it so solo has their own. Well, how is this different from offline mode besides needing a server connection? - this would obviously never happen.**

Another idea is to completely get rid of solo/groups ability to affect the community goals. This will also never happen.** I, and many others, enjoy being able to play in a group and be apart of the same universe. There are many of us who dont really care for pvp combat. I play in mobius because I have always been a Co-op player. I enjoy playing WITH other CMDRs, not so much against (directly) - Some have brought up the point that since I chose solo, I "opted" out of player interaction and from doing these goals and whatnot. No, we choose solo/group because we opted out of direct pvp and direct player interaction. I know that many in solo/groups dont care one bit for CG's - But many of us do care about them and want to be able to affect the course of the universe we are in and not have it be some separate entity from the other modes. This also ties into the fact that MANY like to be able to switch between the modes at will....

**I say these will never happen because FD has been very clear on both these matters. They wont exclude an entire group from this. This is just my opinion on these 2 matters**

Now, many have brought up the point of just making the AI MUCH harder - While I do agree somewhat, FD cant just make them all insanely hard because there are many players who arent very good at combat. You cant make the AI all "elite" status because a solo player has to be able to beat them - If done in group/open modes then yes, you could get a wing and do it. But one of the suggestions asked if we would be okay to make all NPC's "insane" status to reflect the missing CMDRs - That defeats the point of solo almost...Dont get me wrong I see the appeal in something like that - but the devs would really have to implement something like that based off of...idk Combat ranking - the higher your combat rank, the harder the range of AI that spawns in your instance.

Anyways, any changes to AI still need to be within the capabilities of the average player no matter what mode he plays.


All in all, I just want to state, we ALL play this game. We are All (well mostly all) here because we care about the game. If you Strongly disagree with my views, then give a constructive argument as to why you dont like them, or what the disadvantages are and offer a solution.

One final thing. Sit down...truly sit and think about the state of the game. Look at it from EVERYONEs point of view, try to understand where others are coming from. And ask yourself, would it really hurt to make concessions here and there. Would it really make that much of a difference if everyone could give...just a little, to make everybody happy? Im not saying anything I have posted here is the solution to sit and think about...but just in general think about what would make this game great. This statement is meant for BOTH sides of this issue...heh...sides...there shouldnt be SIDES We should be a community working together to create an awesome game...not sniping each other for our choice of playstyle....

 

[Rykzon]

We don't need to punish people for playing solo, neither do we need to reward people for playing open. What would fix most of the open/solo problems is a lock on your mode. Almost all of the problems people have with the modes stem from others hopping between modes. If there was a timer of a few hours locking you into one mode after changing modes that wouldnt be possible anymore. Solo players wouldnt be effected, since they only play solo anyway, and open players wouldn't be able to quickly jump to solo to avoid some unfavorable encounter.

So this is what I would to.

On your first login you can freely choose between Solo/Open/Group.
After you picked one, you cannot change this for say 24 hours.
When the timer reaches 0 and you login again you can now choose a mode again.
Solo and Group could share the same timer to not punish PvE Groups.

 

[Robert Maynard]

We don't need to punish people for playing solo, neither do we need to reward people for playing open. What would fix most of the open/solo problems is a lock on your mode. Almost all of the problems people have with the modes stem from others hopping between modes. If there was a timer of a few hours locking you into one mode after changing modes that wouldnt be possible anymore. Solo players wouldnt be effected, since they only play solo anyway, and open players wouldn't be able to quickly jump to solo to avoid some unfavorable encounter.

So this is what I would to.

On your first login you can freely choose between Solo/Open/Group.
After you picked one, you cannot change this for say 24 hours.
When the timer reaches 0 and you login again you can now choose a mode again.
Solo and Group could share the same timer to not punish PvE Groups.

Your post is somewhat contradictory - you open by saying that "We don't need to punish people for playing solo" and finish by saying that "After you picked one, you cannot change this for say 24 hours.". What reason would there be for introducing a timeout other than as a form on disincentive to mode switch?

 

[Cosmos]

Wings full of FDLs and clippers flying around pirating are not really taking any inherent risk. Maybe make security more prevalent in higher populous systems, make interdiction harder, allow people to higher NPC protection, make a module for cargo haulers to make interdiction more difficult, or increase the penalties for murder or stolen cargo. It currently feels like there are groups doing this just to attack newbs. Some of us come to the game to relax and get away from jerks we all deal with in daily life, not to be constantly inundated by them. Please do not take away solo mode.

I hear the feeling from peeps who want a chilled out experience and all. How can I tell you, having had a stressful day at the office, that you should come home and be further stressed in a game? I don't wanna spoil your day. Thing is I'd suggest that we could be having epic amazing encounters..

Yet to me I imagine a game without solo and private group.. yes you go to a major hub area you'd expect it to be relatively safe but if thats going to be the case then venturing out to sell those rares from the Lave area, for example, should require some risk.

In my experience the game becomes alive when I am playing with and fighting against players. Those experiences are light years a head of what Frontier are likely to ever be able to produce, short of Bill Gates dropping a few hundred mil on the project..

The depth of this game and its success and its full potential will always be in the hands of the player base. If you couldn't hide away I could offer my services to you.. Escorts against the Bandits.

No bandits, solo and private group.. its not gonna happen and I won't hear anyones distress call either (if ever implemented).. Can't be a hero if there is no one to rescue. I think Frontier need to have some faith in the playerbase.. we aren't all out to behave like a douchbag you know

 

[Rykzon]

Your post is somewhat contradictory - you open by saying that "We don't need to punish people for playing solo" and finish by saying that "After you picked one, you cannot change this for say 24 hours.". What reason would there be for introducing a timeout other than as a form on disincentive to mode switch?

I may have worded that poorly then. Lets try again. Most people pick a mode and stick to it, those people would neither be rewarded nor punished, they probably wont ever notice the timer.

The only people effected by the timer are the ones trying to "game" the modes to get an advantage. Lets take an example:

I play Open most of the time because I love player interaction. Now I could change to solo to gain an advantage in a certain CG but couldnt play open for some time anymore. Even with the advantage of solo I probably wouldnt do it, because I like my favored mode too much.

What I was getting at with my opening sentence was the people asking for a bonus or malus on CG rewards for open/solo respectively.

Mode switching like we have it right now does more bad than good, like I said, most people pick one and stick to it, but we have a few people exploting it to gain an advantage(CG for example or escaping from a pirate)

 

[W0OCQCK]

I hear the feeling from peeps who want a chilled out experience and all. How can I tell you, having had a stressful day at the office, that you should come home and be further stressed in a game? I don't wanna spoil your day. Thing is I'd suggest that we could be having epic amazing encounters..

Yet to me I imagine a game without solo and private group.. yes you go to a major hub area you'd expect it to be relatively safe but if thats going to be the case then venturing out to sell those rares from the Lave area, for example, should require some risk.

In my experience the game becomes alive when I am playing with and fighting against players. Those experiences are light years a head of what Frontier are likely to ever be able to produce, short of Bill Gates dropping a few hundred mil on the project..

The depth of this game and its success and its full potential will always be in the hands of the player base. If you couldn't hide away I could offer my services to you.. Escorts against the Bandits.

No bandits, solo and private group.. its not gonna happen and I won't hear anyones distress call either (if ever implemented).. Can't be a hero if there is no one to rescue. I think Frontier need to have some faith in the playerbase.. we aren't all out to behave like a douchbag you know

I disagree completely! I have 0% faith in the player base, and will always feel this way. The collective behavior of the human race is worst than that of the common stink bug. If I wanted to play with other players I would invite them to play with me!

Yes you may be a decent person, I do not deny that. But the mode switching option is meant to give us a tool to filter out the others that are rotten to the core, and avoid the raging debate to define "Rotten to the core players".

 

[Robert Maynard]

I may have worded that poorly then. Lets try again. Most people pick a mode and stick to it, those people would neither be rewarded nor punished, they probably wont ever notice the timer.

The only people effected by the timer are the ones trying to "game" the modes to get an advantage. Lets take an example:

I play Open most of the time because I love player interaction. Now I could change to solo to gain an advantage in a certain CG but couldnt play open for some time anymore. Even with the advantage of solo I probably wouldnt do it, because I like my favored mode too much.

What I was getting at with my opening sentence was the people asking for a bonus or malus on CG rewards for open/solo respectively.

Mode switching like we have it right now does more bad than good, like I said, most people pick one and stick to it, but we have a few people exploting it to gain an advantage(CG for example or escaping from a pirate)

.... or players who normally play in one mode who wish to wing up with friends who normally play in another mode;
.... or players who are travelling and might just get away with playing solo (in terms of network throughput) in their hotel.

So, "the only people effected by the timer are the ones trying to "game" the modes to get an advantage" is demonstrably not the case.

Of course, players will try to exploit the game mode switching - this is a difficult issue as it has to be balanced with the existing ability for players to mode switch on a session by session basis (as was stated in the original stated game design, over two years ago).