Why why do you care? Your not in competition with anyone.
when it comes to CG - maybe the rewards can be based upon group mode - a ladder for each game mode. If you switch, only the mode that you've contributed most only applies.
- Status
Why why do you care? Your not in competition with anyone.
when it comes to CG - maybe the rewards can be based upon group mode - a ladder for each game mode. If you switch, only the mode that you've contributed most only applies.
Why didn't you post the rest? How the "UGLY" contained points that compared Solo and Open, and found Open to be at a disadvantage? Let me selectively quote too:
.
Link to the thread:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=130446&highlight=walt
as I have said. I have never suggested that buffing or nerfing is the solution. I do have problems with people dismissing the option out of hand though. It may be a valuable tool, and shouldn't be discounted. It also can be very powerful and could have unforeseen consequences, so needs careful consideration.
My problem is exploiting out of game mechanics. One of the biggest examples of this is tactical switching. This is only happening because there is such an advantage to switching.
changing spawn rates, farming exploits etc are all part of the current disparity between modes. If these (and other issues) can be tweaked, so there isn't such a gulf, it should reduce the amount of tactical switching.
I am open to all possible solutions.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter if there is a small difference between zones. it is only when the difference is so great that people (and this is nearly everyone, not just people who usually try and exploit games) are encouraged to switch.
Right now, if you have a particular objective (whether this is saving up for a new ship/upgrade, or contributing to a community goal) you are crazy if you don't use solo (and this is coming from someone who has never used solo).
Because he's quoting another good the bad and ugly post from reddit that is eerily similar to mine. The guy from reddit left my instancing stuff in but removed that part.
If we all take a step back, and are HONEST!.......this is just ridiculous......
.
Report above says that he made 7x to 9x more combat bonds in Solo, than he did in Open..............and here is the Punchline.....
.
It seems, that the ONLY way to "win"....a "COMMUNITY" goal.....iiiiiiiiis........to play on your own........LOLOLOL.......
.
Brilliant........hehehe
.
Report above says that he made 7x to 9x more combat bonds in Solo, than he did in Open..............and here is the Punchline.....
.
It seems, that the ONLY way to "win"....a "COMMUNITY" goal.....iiiiiiiiis........to play on your own........LOLOLOL.......
.
Brilliant........hehehe
Good point. I think so many of these arguments / discussions are happening because there simply isn't enough to do (yet) in this vast sandbox of a game. I can combat, trade or explore, and these will progress my rank towards Elite in all those areas while earning me credits so I can buy... Another ship. I can do missions, and basically at the moment they are all about combat or trade, require little or no more thought than just combating or trading for myself, and other than faction reputation, after a fairly short time the only point of doing these missions is... Well, nothing other than what I would be doing by combat or trading. I can bounty hunt at Nav Beacons or RES, although why in space a wanted pilot would show up there is logically beyond me, so I (and others) just hang around and blow them up and then go home again, and my advancement is as above. I don't need to think about it, and since friendly fire has been made tolerable to a point, I don't even have to work too hard at being a skilled pilot / fighter, although personally I still do. I could take part in CG's, which are really just more of the same, although I accept that here there is a chance to join a winning team here. Personally that's not why I play this game, so I haven't done it.
I hope that as the game progresses there will be more involved content, then we can all spread out and do our own thing or group up with others if that is the way we want to play. There's plenty of room in this galaxy for everybody, just not enough to do yet, hence why people feel they are being interfered with, and I really hope that FD's efforts to balance the unbalanceable do not interfere too greatly with them coming up with more interesting and varied missions and objectives. Just my opinion.
If we all take a step back, and are HONEST!.......this is just ridiculous......
.
Report above says that he made 7x to 9x more combat bonds in Solo, than he did in Open..............and here is the Punchline.....
.
It seems, that the ONLY way to "win"....a "COMMUNITY" goal.....iiiiiiiiis........to play on your own........LOLOLOL.......
.
Brilliant........hehehe
It probably would be 5 times if I redid it knowing what I do now. I spent so much time rolling with a group and trying to set up a wing and coordinate between EG and my group that it probably significantly threw off my efficiency.
I only tested this on the first day and I rolled with a wing of eight. Sometimes we ran into EG and had 12 allies in our instance on the same side at one time. Other times we were skirting the edges waiting for our buddies to come because their were so many feds. We could probably do it much faster the second time around.
Last edited:
Probably because I never saw the one your referring to before. The one I looked at was on reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/30c26s/the_war_for_lugh_a_postmortem/
I don't actually know anything abouy lugh since I never took part. But since the above was on reddit I was curious to see what it was about and what someone thought about it.
I posted the ugly part because I thought it interesting that someone felt they were forced to go to solo sometimes in order to get reasonable performance in supercruise.
For me the community goals aren't important because they aren't really something I'm interested in taking part in. Only reason I looked at all is because this topic drifted to the lugh. I primarily play in a private group and only go to open to occasionally meet up with old war thunder squadron mates who aren't members.
Last edited:
It's not much better trying to organise my real life friends,
1 constantly going AFK
1 with music up so loud he cannot hear teamspeak, so all you get is "what?" every 2 minutes
and 1 who gets fed up waiting after 10 minutes of sitting waiting for the first 2, logs to do other stuff (don't actually blame him tbh)
I solo at times so I can get more done
(also why I'm in a dropship and everyone else in type 6s or cobras - despite starting at the same time)Yeah, sorry. My bad.
Javert
Volunteer Moderator
OK so now I understand your concern.
Firstly, do you have any links or sources with actual data rather than a made up example? Judging by the subsequent replies some people are disputing whether it's really true that a wing in open mode has less combat earning potential than a solo player. I'm not saying you're incorrect, I would just like to see whether there is any proper data on top of the anecdotal statements on both sides.
Secondly, I'm not sure I buy one part of your argument about being in a wing. I would assume that all members of the wing would join the community goal, so if they all destroy the same number of enemies together, they would have achieved the same as a single solo player. OK that's still a potential issue, but I don't see they you're bringing the split of bounties across the wing into it.
Thirdly, I'm still not sure I would look to implementing obvious and transparent differences in bounties or instant rewards between solo and open to re-balance this situation, especially given that even players in open play may not be instanced with anybody else (either by purposeful intervention or by living at the top of a mountain), which is one point you didn't directly address.
Rather, I would first challenge whether the way the community goals were put together is maybe not correct. If having the community goal based solely on total value of combat bounties leads to this kind of unfair situation (assuming that's correct based on the data obtainable), maybe the rules of the community goal need to be changed to minimize the perceived unfairness of this to use different criteria, or a combination of criteria.
I would then challenge how the respawn system is working for the NPC players. All other things being equal, you could state that in a combat zone, which I assume is where this is happening, NPC ships should respawn as fast as they are being destroyed, and that therefore there should be enough ships for all players in the instance.
I might also challenge whether community goals are the right method to decide the controlling faction of a star system - this seems to me somewhat in conflict with the overall background simulation in that it overrides the normal way this is supposed to work. I do have a suspicion that Powerplay will actually be something to do with this whole area, so I guess we will see what happens with that.
That all assumes that the goal is to have equal fairness between wings of players and single players. You could argue also that in the real world, why would it be that if four of you turn up in a particular place at a particular time, there would magically be 4 times more targets to kill. I could argue that if you choose to travel in a wing, with the additional security that this gives, you shouldn't necessarily expect 4 times more targets to shoot at. You might assume that with your mutual protection you have more chance of surviving the battle and therefore more time in the combat zone.
This also leaves aside the fact that you I suspect that none of us have access to all the data of everyone who participated in any event, so you will never really know whether it was the fact that you were in open or solo that made any material difference to the outcome.
I'm not yet convinced that there needs to be a radical difference between how open and solo are behaving, but it seems that some balancing might be needed. It might well be achievable without making an obvious distinction between play modes.
I also seem to remember FD making statements in the past that they were not that interested in players being able to make major changes in the politics politics of the galaxy, and they didn't see that as a major part of the game, so to me it seems that they are rethinking some aspects based on the evolving game.
Let's ask FD how this game works:
So apparently there is a difference between the risk and difficulty between solo and open, otherwise FD wouldn't have mandated the use of a specific mode to maintain a level playing field (their words, not mine) Certainly FD did not imply which mode is more challenging, or difficult -- and I won't put words in their mouth. However, FD clearly do not consider the modes equivalent.
Last edited:
and who knows if the ones dont had some firewall thingie to prevent other cmdrs to be in their instance? or any other way to make open solo?
You'd have to ask FD. I didn't set the terms of the contest.... but I know they looked at logs before announcing winners. Maybe they considered suspicious connection failures as part of their determination of valid entries?
still some of the ways to do it cant be traced with p2p system
dont get me wrong is just a thought
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... or maybe they simply made the competition in open only to forestall any questions regarding how a particular player reached Elite and subsequent complaints should the player have used solo or private groups.
An interesting perspective. That would show that they are really well tuned to their audience. Still, (and I wasn't around at the time), I have to guess that solo players were vocal when those rules were announced. Maybe their strategy was to front-loaded the complaints rather than dealing with them after the fact.
Why should it matter if FD are treating all as equal?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Any fuss will probably be contained in the thread you quoted above. With respect to dealing with complaints at the outset rather than afterwards - I agree - not good if a competition is ruined by acrimony after the winners have been announced.
- Status