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

[Robert Maynard]

Sorry but the game has online and seperating them would make everyone happy i don't see why it wouldn't, its a world economy if you get pirated you gotta figure out how to prevent that loss or make it up, this then stimulates the economy by the hiring of mercenaries as protectors.

EDIT:

I think the idea that you have is childish in my eyes it feels like you treat the world like its all cushy and nice which it isn't people have become blind to this in the western world.

Let's try not to make this personal, shall we?

While separating the modes would undoubtedly please a portion of the player-base, it would equally displease another portion of the player-base - so not everyone would be happy, no.

Who should Frontier listen to? The players who bought the game knowing that particular features allow players certain freedoms or the players who bought the game and want to change it to suit their particular play-style?

Hiring protection requires an element of trust - a player could just as easily be hiring the pirate who will destroy him as soon as they enter an anarchic system.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Sorry but the game has online and seperating them would make everyone happy i don't see why it wouldn't, its a world economy if you get pirated you gotta figure out how to prevent that loss or make it up, this then stimulates the economy by the hiring of mercenaries as protectors.

Hey Deathwatch.

One of the reasons that FD cited as to why they wouldn't separate the worlds was for casual players - by allowing them to switch at will they can be encouraged to dip their toes into open and "have a go". If you force people to make a hard decision then a lot of casual players will pick solo / group and you won't ever meet them, shrinking the population in open. (FWIW I have not even played 1.2 yet)

Given that FD change their minds about things I wouldn't be surprised if they did hard split it, but we shall see.

 

[Bigcheese]

Let's try not to make this personal, shall we?

While separating the modes would undoubtedly please a portion of the player-base, it would equally displease another portion of the player-base - so not everyone would be happy, no.

Who should Frontier listen to?

Not the people who cheese the game by profiting in solo and only play in open once they can kill everyone, that's for sure.

Seems like that's who wants things the way they are now. Everyone else would be far better off.

 

[Jockey79]

So what your saying pirates should be forced to fight npc's and bounty hunters and mercs forced to fight npc's its not fun fighting npc's there bland and weak and aren't that major a challenge. Now when players face off it because a true match of swords.

FDL Vs Type 6 a match of swords?
Wing of Vultures Vs Type 7 a match of swords?

(There are lots of these I could type up)

A match of swords, is 2 combat ships going 1 on 1, anything else is not a match of swords, it's someone picking on weaker targets for lulz

 

[DarkWalker]

Sorry but the game has online and seperating them would make everyone happy i don't see why it wouldn't, its a world economy if you get pirated you gotta figure out how to prevent that loss or make it up, this then stimulates the economy by the hiring of mercenaries as protectors.

The game has always been advertised as one where players can choose who they play with, up to and including choosing to not play with anyone else, by selecting which group the player allows to see them, and that this choice of group could be changed freely and without penalties and limits. It's part of the sales pitch, and many players purchased the game at least in part due to that. Which means you likely have an uphill battle if you want to convince others that mode changing is bad.

A little hint: for the most part what you see as benefits, many players see as disadvantages. Having to hire player mercenaries as protectors in order to be able to fly my ship? Sorry, that is not the kind of game I want to play at all.

Besides, PvP. Always is, and always will be, a divisive topic. For me, a game where other players can force me into PvP isn't worth the electrons used to store it in my computer; a game where I'm not guaranteed to be completely immune to PvP is a game I won't even bother giving a try.

 

[SteveLaw]

1) Not enough players in Open.
2) Separate modes.
3a) Some players choose Solo, love it, stay. Not in Open.
3b) Some players chose Open, hate it, can't change, quit game. Not in Open.
4) Not enough players in Open.

 

[Deathwatch]

Let's try not to make this personal, shall we?

While separating the modes would undoubtedly please a portion of the player-base, it would equally displease another portion of the player-base - so not everyone would be happy, no.

Who should Frontier listen to? The players who bought the game knowing that particular features allow players certain freedoms or the players who bought the game and want to change it to suit their particular play-style?

Hiring protection requires an element of trust - a player could just as easily be hiring the pirate who will destroy him as soon as they enter an anarchic system.

Then you look at things of leaving say a review of a player or small player sub groups which we already have, the game should have risk.

- - - Updated - - -

FDL Vs Type 6 a match of swords?
Wing of Vultures Vs Type 7 a match of swords?

(There are lots of these I could type up)

A match of swords, is 2 combat ships going 1 on 1, anything else is not a match of swords, it's someone picking on weaker targets for lulz

Thats why pirates can either sink or demand now the trader should have escorts whom should then engage the hostiles, your calling the cowards there just doing there job and my job as a merc is to then risk my life to protect your slow ship and eliminate the hostile.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey Deathwatch.

One of the reasons that FD cited as to why they wouldn't separate the worlds was for casual players - by allowing them to switch at will they can be encouraged to dip their toes into open and "have a go". If you force people to make a hard decision then a lot of casual players will pick solo / group and you won't ever meet them, shrinking the population in open. (FWIW I have not even played 1.2 yet)

Given that FD change their minds about things I wouldn't be surprised if they did hard split it, but we shall see.

Yes i understand that but it could be improved by say making security more tight in starting area's allowing people to get a foot down etc.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

the game should have risk.

The game does have risk, just for some it's not hard enough.

 

[Deathwatch]

The game does have risk, just for some it's not hard enough.

The problem is that to make big bucks risks should be hirer but it isn't high because NPC's arent a challenge and thus it causes the roles of BH and Merc to be less entertaining and the role of a pirate to be impossible as you can't request legal cargo drop from a npc and Assassins unplayable as theres so many mission bugs.

 

[Bigcheese]

Hey Deathwatch.

One of the reasons that FD cited as to why they wouldn't separate the worlds was for casual players - by allowing them to switch at will they can be encouraged to dip their toes into open and "have a go". If you force people to make a hard decision then a lot of casual players will pick solo / group and you won't ever meet them, shrinking the population in open. (FWIW I have not even played 1.2 yet)

Given that FD change their minds about things I wouldn't be surprised if they did hard split it, but we shall see.

The reverse ends up happening. When players have to choose, if they want to play in open, they'd choose open. The way it is now players spend a lot of time in safe mode grinding away. Path of least resistance is the rule here. With no choice necessary, solo/private players will choose those modes and occasionally dip into open.

So in action, this setup not only drives more people into private games, people looking for max profit for example, it doesn't bring in solo or group players because open is more pvp heavy than it normally would be, because they relegated a bulk of the pve to private games.

I think lack of multiplayer experience in FD is at work here, because if they didn't know this is how it would end up there's no other explanation.

 

[SteveLaw]

theres so many mission bugs.

The whole mission system is getting a complete overhaul/rewrite for 1.3.

 

[Deathwatch]

The whole mission system is getting a complete overhaul/rewrite for 1.3.

Yes and hopefully that will be fixed for the assassins.

- - - Updated - - -

The reverse ends up happening. When players have to choose, if they want to play in open, they'd choose open. The way it is now players spend a lot of time in safe mode grinding away. Path of least resistance is the rule here. With no choice necessary, solo/private players will choose those modes and occasionally dip into open.

So in action, this setup not only drives more people into private games, people looking for max profit for example, it doesn't bring in solo or group players because open is more pvp heavy than it normally would be, because they relegated a bulk of the pve to private games.

I think lack of multiplayer experience in FD is at work here, because if they didn't know this is how it would end up there's no other explanation.

Yea i see what your saying here and acturly the fact the upper management isn't very multiplayer heavy and whats it to be all huggy huggy is what might cause issues, for example we now have things like code etc which tbh some of those guys are pretty nice guys and some are utter tools.

 

[DarkWalker]

So if players weren't made obvious too you, you wouldn't even notice and that wouldn't matter its only because players are made obvious that you care i bet if players and npc's appeared the same you would find something else to complain about it, just because it happens to be a player you have an issue, if the AI was as good as players then would you complain the AI is too good ?

First, making an AI that will utterly spank any flesh and blood player, in a game where reflexes and precision are important, is actually easy; look at aimbots if you doubt it. Devs tone down the AI in order to control the difficulty; most of the market is made of casual players, people that have no time or inclination to master a game, and given the huge availability of games nowadays many of them prefer to just skip a hard game and go play something else instead of trying to master a particularly challenging game.
(Incidentally, this is why I'm sure any game that can be even a limited commercial success is fine for me, difficulty wise. I've been playing games since Pong, and while my reflexes aren't as good as they once were I'm still reasonably above the typical player. Any game I can't handle will likely be too hard to ever be successful. For context, I don't find games like Dark Souls, Battletoads, or Megaman 2 particularly challenging.)

Second, not wanting to fight players has nothing, at all, to do with difficulty. I don't like fighting people unless we both explicitly agreed to fight, simple as that. If I couldn't differentiate players and NPCs I would never play, but if every ship I fought was guaranteed to be a NPC that was as 'good' as an actual player I would be thrilled.

So, yes, I do have an issue just because my opponent happens to be a player. Always had, always will have. Liking unexpected PvP isn't universal.

 

[DarkWalker]

That's fine and totally understandable. This is why games have different modes, but preserve the integrity of the modes by keeping them separate.

What FD has done here is a mess.

And I'm not against separating, as long as the separate mode is a new one created specifically for it; an 'exclusively open' 4th mode that is different from the already existing open mode, with a separate character save to boot.

But the already existing three modes should stay as they are, including the ability to freely switch between them with a single character.

 

[Deathwatch]

First, making an AI that will utterly spank any flesh and blood player, in a game where reflexes and precision are important, is actually easy; look at aimbots if you doubt it. Devs tone down the AI in order to control the difficulty; most of the market is made of casual players, people that have no time or inclination to master a game, and given the huge availability of games nowadays many of them prefer to just skip a hard game and go play something else instead of trying to master a particularly challenging game.
(Incidentally, this is why I'm sure any game that can be even a limited commercial success is fine for me, difficulty wise. I've been playing games since Pong, and while my reflexes aren't as good as they once were I'm still reasonably above the typical player. Any game I can't handle will likely be too hard to ever be successful. For context, I don't find games like Dark Souls, Battletoads, or Megaman 2 particularly challenging.)

Second, not wanting to fight players has nothing, at all, to do with difficulty. I don't like fighting people unless we both explicitly agreed to fight, simple as that. If I couldn't differentiate players and NPCs I would never play, but if every ship I fought was guaranteed to be a NPC that was as 'good' as an actual player I would be thrilled.

So, yes, I do have an issue just because my opponent happens to be a player. Always had, always will have. Liking unexpected PvP isn't universal.

Why do you feel that players should have to "request" to say pirate you ?

 

[SteveLaw]

Why do you feel that players should have to "request" to say pirate you ?

Consensual vs. non-consensual PvP is not a new concept.

 

[Deathwatch]

Consensual vs. non-consensual PvP is not a new concept.

In an open world game, thats like having pve and pvp servers, its open world thus treats the world like the real world.

 

[PhazonAran]

In an open world game, thats like having pve and pvp servers, its open world thus treats the world like the real world.

Real life analogies are quite ridiculous when we're talking about murders don't you think ?
We simply need meaningful consequences for crimes.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Why do you feel that players should have to "request" to say pirate you ?

Because some players, if you don't interact with them in a way they believe is mutually acceptable, will lulzban you for what they consider unacceptable behaviour so they don't have to bother dealing with you again.

 

[Deathwatch]

Real life analogies are quite ridiculous when we're talking about murders don't you think ?
We simply need meaningful consequences for crimes.

You don't get murdered you ship is destroyed, yes i agree meaningful criminal bounty is needed of course this would mean pirates should then become more active in anarchies and use these as a means to jump into other systems before bugging out etc which i agree with.

- - - Updated - - -

Because some players, if you don't interact with them in a way they believe is mutually acceptable, will lulzban you for what they consider unacceptable behaviour so they don't have to bother dealing with you again.

Which is one reason i also don't like the ignore function as it is a bit cheaty as per say as it instance blocks.