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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
This entire debate stems from an unfortunate design choice on top of a very rudimentary law system (read consequences for unlawful actions). There is a very simple way out of this and it's been used with success in many on-line games. For ED that would translate in introduction of a multi-verse (or dual-verse if you will) system. Two separate mirrored galaxies, one yin and one yang for a full circle. Yin galaxy used for the solo and private mode and yang for the open mode. Players may chose what version they wanna play in at any-time but their actions would have effect only in the corresponding galaxy for that gaming session. Will rehash for clarity that they should be able to switch at their leisure between modes.
I've been following this thread for some time now and I'm well aware of FDevs stance on the matter but I honestly don't think that there is another way to resolve this so both sides of this debate will be satisfied.
Also it's worth mentioning that the, above mentioned, law system needs a lot of improvement or open mode would become a ghost town.

This comes from a car..(oups sorry mods ;)) avid solo player that have done just a few incursions in open but does realise that you can't play tennis alone at the concrete wall and pretend to be recognized as no. 1 ATP tennis player :p.

Or you could take inspiration from another game which should not be named here and area separate people with different play-styles but that would mean only one mode and I bet you'll have quite a stormy forum if you go that way.

Or you could just let it be and play it out :D.
 
Good point. I suppose if that's your main concern, the above solution doesn't directly solve that.

However, doesn't that issue exist regardless whether the system change is by a community goal or through the general background simulation as well? It's always been the case that anyone trying to influence the political state of a system might be able to do it more easily in solo.

If the system change is being directly triggered by the final results of the community goal, then you could still use a similar method, but any large scale change of system allegiance, the result could possibly be influenced by some factor according to solo / open in a non obvious way. Frankly, do we even know that isn't the case today? I think FD have refused to reveal the inner workings of the background simulation, so do we even know for sure whether playing in solo vs open has no impact on the general simulation of faction influence and so on?

In other words individual rewards would follow my proposal above, but any large scale macro change would be balanced somehow.

The point here is that under my idea the minute to minute game play would be no different for anybody, only the calculation of the result after the fact.

My other thought here is that the current system is still fair to both sides either way - anyone trying to influence the results either way has the choice to play in solo or not.

I guess the crux of this is that some players want to run a blockade to prevent players supporting the other side from delivering their cargo, and don't want solo players to slip under the blockade? I'm afraid I don't have a magic answer to that, except to say that PVP combat was I think always envisaged to be an optional part of the game. You can still run a blockade, but you will only meet other commanders who are willing to participate in that part of the role play.

I'm concerned about the slippery slope of applying differences to what happens in solo vs group, but I do admit that I find it hard to justify why a community goal that is basically framed as a war between warring factions should not reward running a blockade in open play in some way.

Edit: Finally, there is also the very good point I've seen made by others that given the architecture of the game, even when you are in open play, you could still mess about with your network router to minimize the chance of being instanced with players, so I feel taht any balancing in this area would have to be somehow based on what you really did in open play, rather than just the fact that you are in that mode. This possibly shoots myself in the foot for my original argument, but the point still stands that the result of the community goal split by mode is a pride thing, and does not affect anybody's ability to get profits or whatever. Even the change of ownership of a system doesn't really impact anyone's ability to progress in the game.

Forget blockades. Forget PVP. Here's the simplest way I can explain this: 4 CMDR's playing in Solo mode compete against 4 CMDR's in Open mode to flip a system from one faction to another. Opposing Community event says, whichever side cashes in more combat bonds measured BY VALUE, wins control of the system.
.
The 4 Solo CMDR's each head to their Conflict zones and fight in them by themselves. They have no shortage of targets and get full bounty value for every kill or "tag".
.
The 4 Open CMDR's each head to their Conflict zones, and matchmaking says, "you're all in one instance". The 4 CMDR's in Open SHARE the same quantity of enemies that EACH CMDR in Solo gets. To make things worse, if one CMDR "tags" a target while in a Wing, the bounty value is shared equally. So not only do the 4 CMDR's in Open have less to shoot at, but the value of each destroyed enemy ship is a fraction of their Solo counterparts.
.
To provide some numbers: Assume each instance has a fixed earning potential of 1000 bounty credits per hour. Both groups fight for one hour.
.
The Solo CMDR's each earn 1000 Credits, totalling 4000 Credits toward the Community Goal.
.
The Open CMDR's each earn 250 Credits, totalling 1000 Credits toward the Community Goal.
.
Solo CMDR's win the Community event. Not because they were better players. Not because the coordinated better. Because they got 4x the earning potential over Open. That was 4x in my completely hypothetical example. The truth, as tested by player groups like the Dukes, have shown that earning potential is more like 6 to 8 times higher in Solo.
.
So, we "all have the same choices", right? If I want to win the Community Event, that will flip ownership of the background simulation, which can't be different between Solo and Open, then my choice is "play in open and lose, or play in solo and maybe win". That is not CHOICE. That is like flipping a coin to decide an outcome, and me saying, "I call, you choose: Heads I win, Tails you lose!".
.
There is too much hypocrisy in this thread by people who want the status quo. The main argument for pro-Solo players is, "if you buff Open, you're going to make our choices for us, and devalue us as customers." Yet the EXACT situation exists RIGHT NOW in the game: By having SOLO being a safe haven to maximize "gameplay" while minimizing "risks", the game is saying "we are making the choice for you, we don't value you as a customer." Stop being hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
They do understand it, but they think behaving like children in the back of the car going "are we there yet?, are we there yet?, are we there yet?, are we there yet?" etc.. validate their all ready poor and debunked arguments they make.

Over 400 pages of telling people, open players are not better or more valued than solo / group and do not deserve more than other players - they know the score all ready.

Hypocrite. "Open players are not better or more valued than solo", yet the game says "Solo players are more influential and better rewarded than Open". As you are fond of saying, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
Hello Commander jp josh!

We've hopefully got a fix for Capital ship farming exploits lined up (provisionally for 1.3, but no guarantee).

What I took from Commander Demiga's suggestion was that there might be a consensus that activities carried out in solo mode are "safer/unfair" as there is no chance for other Commanders to oppose them.

I'm not going to take a side at the moment, because I'd like to consider it more.

It could definitely be seen as an attempt to entice folk into playing open, though if the personal rewards remained unchanged I'm not sure that this would be an utter evil.

Fundamentally, Community goals are about Commanders working together, in concert or in opposition. It does not seem completely unreasonable that for such elements we might encourage direct interaction more.

On the other hand, I'm wary of the precedent this might set, and want to make sure that solo mode always fulfils all the requirements it needs to, remaining the completely valid option that it is.

So this is something we would not consider lightly.

Ok Sandro, It would be (much better) for your goal in making Open play more enticing; to use features of Open play to improve, NOT damaging Solo/group mode.:(
 
...
To provide some numbers: Assume each instance has a fixed earning potential of 1000 bounty credits per hour. Both groups fight for one hour....

That is a false assumption right there.

As soon as you run out of targets to shoot, the instance spawns more - 4 people can clear the instance faster than 1 person can, a lot faster.

I've never had to wait for more than 5 seconds for more NPCs to spawn in a combat zone, either solo or with friends.
 
That is a false assumption right there.

As soon as you run out of targets to shoot, the instance spawns more - 4 people can clear the instance faster than 1 person can, a lot faster.

I've never had to wait for more than 5 seconds for more NPCs to spawn in a combat zone, either solo or with friends.
.
All I can say, is from MY personal experience, that is not true. I have personally stopped sharing (grouping up in Wings) in RES sites and Conflict zones. If even ONE more Commander joins, stuff dies faster than it respawns. Alone in a Conflict zone, you are never short of targets unless you stray away from the thick of it (chasing a fleeing target). With other Commanders there, you DO end up in situations where you wait for stuff to spawn.
 
That is a false assumption right there.

As soon as you run out of targets to shoot, the instance spawns more - 4 people can clear the instance faster than 1 person can, a lot faster.

I've never had to wait for more than 5 seconds for more NPCs to spawn in a combat zone, either solo or with friends.

Precisely this. I played with a group last night and we tried our damndest to clear out a warzone but they kept coming. There is no end to the npc enemies.
 
I disagree. Most traders would stop playing all together.
I paid the same price for the game as you did, I don't expected to be treated like a second class citizen when I play it.

Why would having an opportunity to earn more than today be seen as "second class citizen"?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I disagree. Most traders would stop playing all together.
I paid the same price for the game as you did, I don't expected to be treated like a second class citizen when I play it.

Why would having an opportunity to earn more than today be seen as "second class citizen"? It is the usual "more effort/more reward" type of mechanism.
 
Why would having an opportunity to earn more than today be seen as "second class citizen"?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



Why would having an opportunity to earn more than today be seen as "second class citizen"? It is the usual "more effort/more reward" type of mechanism.

I think part of the problem is that they are extremely risk adverse so they are against any kind of risk vs reward balance.
 
BUT... you chose to be in open because you like playing with other people and having the excitement of being able to shoot at other players. That is your choice. This is a circular argument and will go on forever.

The problem is that the people that think they should get more for being in open consider themselves to be more important than the background simulation. You have no real knowledge of how much, if any, real effect the players have on the background simulation. There are certainly things that the players have no control of.

If you think of it like a roleplaying game it makes more sense. You're a hero but there are billions of other people out there that aren't real people but have a real effect on the world/universe. Saying that you should have overriding effects on the entire galaxy whereas someone else shouldn't is flawed in any game environment that isn't single shard and based entirely on the players. ED isn't that. The stories in ED aren't all about the players. Most are about the background simulation.

You can't make any changes to the background simulation unless Edev let you and even those are extremely limited. That is why this is a moot argument. This is why it'll be circular and forever. Those that think that open should be a different universe and that open should get bonuses to community events (and other things that have been suggested) don't understand what ED is, what DB and the FD team have stated it is.

It's like those people on the forums saying "We won the Lugh war". They haven't. They've completed a few community events which have triggered prearranged roleplaying story points. EDev are writing that roleplay and they haven't finished. Whether we actually have an effect in the end or not, none of us currently know. They might have already decided to let Lugh secede or they might have already decided that the Federation will eventually take Lugh back. We simply don't know.

So arguing over this is a tad pointless as people are making comparisons to other games which ED isn't and frankly, I for one am happy that it isn't. I find the concept of a roleplaying game of this magnitude with GMs running things behind the scenes fascinating. I don't care if they have decided on the outcome of this little bit already. It's a background simulation not a "players rule what happens in the universe".

At least, this is how I see it.

You are wrong on 2 major points.
.
First point: Open players don't want to get "BETTER" treatment than solo players, they want the "SAME" treatment. Right now, we are treated as lesser because we have to share everything with other Commanders. We have to Share the quantity of targets to shoot at. We have to share the value of the targets that we share. That forced sharing devalues Open play with respect to Solo play in the eyes of the background simulation.
.
Second point: the background simulation can absolutely be affected by players. It has been documented, it has been done successfully already. In some systems, things got broken (factions that expanded to other systems break and can't progress), but in the absence of those cases, systems do get flipped as a direct result of player influence. In the case of Lugh, the developers used the player generated content to create a storyline for everyone. But everywhere else, the systems flip quietly without fanfare.
 
.
All I can say, is from MY personal experience, that is not true. I have personally stopped sharing (grouping up in Wings) in RES sites and Conflict zones. If even ONE more Commander joins, stuff dies faster than it respawns. Alone in a Conflict zone, you are never short of targets unless you stray away from the thick of it (chasing a fleeing target). With other Commanders there, you DO end up in situations where you wait for stuff to spawn.

You must be having a bad experience then, Conflict zones respawn when im in group or open and cant see why it would be different for you.
 
Precisely this. I played with a group last night and we tried our damndest to clear out a warzone but they kept coming. There is no end to the npc enemies.

RES point with friends, been doing that the past week - as fast as we killed them they spawned more.
It was more the NPC police that were the problem - we have to refresh the instance every hour or we just end up with a massive cloud of them kill stealing and getting in the way.
 
Precisely this. I played with a group last night and we tried our damndest to clear out a warzone but they kept coming. There is no end to the npc enemies.

They do keep coming, but there are downtimes between the spawns. The rate doesn't speed up because there are more Commanders. I don't know what your group was doing, but if your group is killing one target at a time, then yeah, you'll never deplete the spawns. But if you have 4 or 8 or 12 or more commanders all shooting their own separate targets (when there are that many to shoot at), then it's EASY to deplete a conflict zone and be stuck waiting.
 
Why would having an opportunity to earn more than today be seen as "second class citizen"?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



Why would having an opportunity to earn more than today be seen as "second class citizen"? It is the usual "more effort/more reward" type of mechanism.

another pro open player with illusions i assume right?
 
I have said this before (and in other threads) and will say it again, but all those points, while valid, are for reasons involving trading. Do you think the risk that involves firing on a non wanted ship should also involve more "risk" or consequence? Because shooting a clean ship (regardless of reason) and paying a minimal fine to "cleanse" your record the next time you dock doesn't seem like much of a risk either,,,,,,,,,

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Or not so much "fair" either.

I see it as entering into an engagement which is potentially beneficial to you as the interdictor, where you can select the target. Some other aspects of this "matchup" should stay hidden, ie whether you as a trader are having escorts or not, so that the engagement is not just so one sided as it looks like at first. This would encourage coop behaviour on both ends which may be seen as a positive in the long term game development wise as well.

The other part of the matchup is that trading simply requires less effort and pays better, so that is the "price" - if you chose a pirates life, it is likely a lot less profitable endeavour which balances the two acts out. You also need more work - trying to find busy hubs, worthy targets etc, as opposed to just scan some goods and fly from A to B and back.

Finally, with my proposal, traders will always have the option of falling back to safe routes, if they find more profitable routes in the open stressful, as in current solo mode, where you can rack up the credits without risk in principle, but an option (extra credits) should be given to incite them into Open play, other than the existence of risk itself.
 
Precisely this. I played with a group last night and we tried our damndest to clear out a warzone but they kept coming. There is no end to the npc enemies.

you are wrong.
some warzones may respawn quicker than your group were killing them. In this example you posted. This is not true for all occasions.
The convoy beacon for instance would include regular waits for respawns. Even if you were alone. But if there are a group of you, the spoils are shared.
 
RES point with friends, been doing that the past week - as fast as we killed them they spawned more.
It was more the NPC police that were the problem - we have to refresh the instance every hour or we just end up with a massive cloud of them kill stealing and getting in the way.

This is actually an important point as the abundance of security everywhere are one of the biggest reasons solo farming is so effective. You just fly around getting hits in before something dies and it's stupid it's like that to begin with. It's not really that different from the cap ship scenario, just look for the beams converging and collect your reward.

Fixing that would make solo farming less efficient, especially in the starter ships.
 
You must be having a bad experience then, Conflict zones respawn when im in group or open and cant see why it would be different for you.

Lol, it's not just me. Do a search on the forums for Conflict zones and Lugh and Community Events. Look for all the summaries. I am not the only person reporting conflict zones in open EMPTY of enemy targets. I didn't even participate in the Lugh events, my personal experience is just in normal quiet conflict zones with "regular" CMDR traffic. Same applies to RES sites. I no longer Wing up to fight in RES sites, it creates too much downtime and reduces what I can earn.
 
They do keep coming, but there are downtimes between the spawns. The rate doesn't speed up because there are more Commanders. I don't know what your group was doing, but if your group is killing one target at a time, then yeah, you'll never deplete the spawns. But if you have 4 or 8 or 12 or more commanders all shooting their own separate targets (when there are that many to shoot at), then it's EASY to deplete a conflict zone and be stuck waiting.

My friends and I have never experienced that in a CZ, we split up and still never had to wait long before the next wave.

Granted however, it was before wings (we had some issues to get 4 of us in the same instance) - so unless things have changed since, no idea why you'd have problems. Same with the RES points, been doing them all week just fine with friends.

If that is the main problem, then perhaps tweaking the spawn rates in open then.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Why illusions, noone will take solo trading away from you, ultimately give you more if you go into the open.

What is the problem with a carrot like that?

That is an old, stale carrot :p

We want the new "murder has real consequences" carrot that really makes people think twice about killing other players for no reason or no rewards. That is a big, fat, juicy carrot :D
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom