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

[Jockey79]

I worry about the differentiation in risk during acquisition. ...

If you go back through the thread, this was covered in great detail.

Here is the short version;

What is the difference between a ship earnt in Solo, to one earned on the fringe of Open where the CMDR has never seen another player since release?
Both CMDRs have seen zero other humans, both CMDRs have had only NPCs to interact with.

And from personal experience, I started in Aiabiko - played mainly a small private group, but one day I did a play session in Open. I never seen a single soul all the time I was in Open, so are the credits worth more or less that session?
Just look how many people in this very thread complained that they play Open Mode and never see anyone, so does that mean they cannot use their ship in busy systems should they come back to the core worlds?
After all, why not do 30+ jumps away from Lave (for example), earn a ship in peace, jump back and go on a killing rampage - no one else knows you didn't get it in Solo, no one else knows where you went when you left and where you came from when you returned. How is that any different to just jumping to Solo?

Edit : Ninja'd by Steve !

 

[Arsen Cross]

I still might want to join different groups at different times. Not everyone wants to limit their gameplay experience to only one play style all the time.

Nothing would require you to. Can you honestly say that you'd join my group if I had the rules set to you couldn't use your save in any other group/mode? Probably not, because you want to be able to traverse the modes freely with the same data. How would you deal with that? I would assume you wouldn't join my group. Just like I haven't joined Mobius because they don't offer what I'm looking for.

If you did join my group, it would be because of the fact that you wanted to try out that style of play. At that point, how would it be at all fair to the players of that group if you got a free pass and could bring your existing stuff in?

The reason that I feel enhancing the groups system to allow this is the best way is because you're allowing the "pure-open" community split into a natural sub group like Mobius has.

Mobius is a 7900 member strong PVE powerhouse that from the looks of it has the desire to work the galaxy simulation. They have the ability to play together online and completely prohibit PVP as a rule set upon threat of removal from the group.

So what's wrong with allowing a group to exist for players who only want to play with other like minded players in an EVE like atmosphere? Elite won't stop being Elite. It won't devalue it.

Adding the functionality just adds one more choice. You don't HAVE to be there. Arguing that giving a private group the ability to require a unique save specific to that private group forcibly takes away your power of choice is a little silly. After all, you're getting in the grounds of telling a private group what they can and can't do. Like telling Mobius they have to allow PVP.

 

[Lestenio]

I still might want to join different groups at different times. Not everyone wants to limit their gameplay experience to only one play style all the time.

Totally agree. I normally play solo or group but at the moment I am exploring on the out rim in open.
I have no intention of playing in open once I get back to the core systems, but for the time being, I'm more than happy to see and engage with other open players.

In my opinion the only real solution is you have millions of instances but you are locked for ever more with the same 32 players. That way if you are doing a community goal, you know you are competing against the same 31 players each time and if they are participating,they will always be in your instance. Obviously its never going to happen, but then neither its restricting game modes.

 

[SteveLaw]

Nothing would require you to. Can you honestly say that you'd join my group if I had the rules set to you couldn't use your save in any other group/mode? Probably not, because you want to be able to traverse the modes freely with the same data. How would you deal with that? I would assume you wouldn't join my group. Just like I haven't joined Mobius because they don't offer what I'm looking for.

I have actually joined Mobius but I mostly play Solo or a private group with a couple of friends. I don't really want to play Open where I might encounter some of the more toxic players - that is not the sort of person I want to share my leisure time with. If the group system was better organised and managed then some days I might want to play a RP heavy group, sometimes a casual group, sometimes I'd still want to just play with my friends or alone. One day, who knows, I might feel like open free-for-all PvP.

However, if you get your wish and each group gets their own separate save and I cannot take my assets with me from one to another you are telling me, and players like me, that I must start again each time I want to try a different group. That is not how Elite works. I bought Elite on the basis of the freedom of choice of play mode, play style. I am not alone. You are proposing to change one of the core principles of the game we all paid for (yourself included) because of how you and players like you want to play.

 

[Arsen Cross]

After all, why not do 30+ jumps away from Lave (for example), earn a ship in peace, jump back and go on a killing rampage - no one else knows you didn't get it in Solo, no one else knows where you went when you left and where you came from when you returned. How is that any different to just jumping to Solo?

Edit : Ninja'd by Steve !

The differentiation is obvious in my opinion. In your example of going out 30 jumps into nowhere as the player you are using the available game environment to address a challenge. When you go into a private mode to achieve the same thing you're simply bypassing part of the multiplayer portion of the gameplay.

The act of bypassing that integral part of the multiplayer gameplay discourages players from moving about the available play area in natural ways. The result is we have a lot of hot spots of player activity instead of players spreading out naturally and being part of the game world.

The compression of the population undoubtedly results in a less realistic behavior, detracting from the experience as a whole while playing online.

 

[Lestenio]

However, if you get your wish and each group gets their own separate save and I cannot take my assets with me from one to another you are telling me, and players like me, that I must start again each time I want to try a different group.

Hey Steve, join my group and we'll go explore the galaxy. Response, sure, give me 6 weeks to grind up from a sidewinder to an explore asp and I'll be right with you.

Let's ignore the fact that it would be a pretty pointless exercise because all the discoveries we make would be for that save/instance only.

 

[Jockey79]

...Like telling Mobius they have to allow PVP.

Actually, the misconception here is that PvP isn't allowed - it actually is, but there is guidelines and rules.
What isn't allowed is: Non-consensual forced interactions on other players - the only exception is Combat Zones, once you've picked a side.

If 2 people consent (oh er) and take it away from everyone else - it's a non issue.

The idea is: if you want to - where open mode is more: if they want to.

 

[Arsen Cross]

However, if you get your wish and each group gets their own separate save and I cannot take my assets with me from one to another you are telling me, and players like me, that I must start again each time I want to try a different group. That is not how Elite works. I bought Elite on the basis of the freedom of choice of play mode, play style. I am not alone. You are proposing to change one of the core principles of the game we all paid for (yourself included) because of how you and players like you want to play.

I never said I want all groups to have their own save. The group itself should be able to choose that. Use the universal save, or a unique save. You want to play your way? Then you simply only play in groups that don't require a unique save. Believe me, there will be plenty of them!

 

[Joe Spivey]

The differentiation is obvious in my opinion. In your example of going out 30 jumps into nowhere as the player you are using the available game environment to address a challenge. When you go into a private mode to achieve the same thing you're simply bypassing part of the multiplayer portion of the gameplay.

The act of bypassing that integral part of the multiplayer gameplay discourages players from moving about the available play area in natural ways. The result is we have a lot of hot spots of player activity instead of players spreading out naturally and being part of the game world.

The compression of the population undoubtedly results in a less realistic behavior, detracting from the experience as a whole while playing online.

Poppycock! Your answer in no way answers the actual question. Let me post it again for you:

What is the difference between a ship earnt in Solo, to one earned on the fringe of Open where the CMDR has never seen another player since release?
Both CMDRs have seen zero other humans, both CMDRs have had only NPCs to interact with.
And from personal experience, I started in Aiabiko - played mainly a small private group, but one day I did a play session in Open. I never seen a single soul all the time I was in Open, so are the credits worth more or less that session?
Just look how many people in this very thread complained that they play Open Mode and never see anyone, so does that mean they cannot use their ship in busy systems should they come back to the core worlds?
After all, why not do 30+ jumps away from Lave (for example), earn a ship in peace, jump back and go on a killing rampage - no one else knows you didn't get it in Solo, no one else knows where you went when you left and where you came from when you returned. How is that any different to just jumping to Solo?

There, try again. I even put the relevent part in bold for you.

Edited to help you identify where your 'answer' falls over.

You said: "The act of bypassing that integral part of the multiplayer gameplay discourages players from moving about the available play area in natural ways." This is mere opinion. It is also incorrect because all three modes form part of the 'available play area'.

You said; "The result is we have a lot of hot spots of player activity instead of players spreading out naturally and being part of the game world." This is an unsupported conclusion based upon this incorrect opinion.

You said: "The compression of the population undoubtedly results in a less realistic behavior, detracting from the experience as a whole while playing online."" This is an assertion that is not supported by any actual evidence.

 

[SteveLaw]

I never said I want all groups to have their own save. The group itself should be able to choose that. Use the universal save, or a unique save. You want to play your way? Then you simply only play in groups that don't require a unique save. Believe me, there will be plenty of them!

Ah, well then I apologise. It wasn't originally clear that it was an per-group option. I have no issue with that, I've even suggested similar myself.

 

[Arsen Cross]

Poppycock! Your answer in no way answers the actual question. Let me post it again for you:



There, try again. I even put the relevent part in bold for you.

The answer is perception. It's obvious that there is no gameplay difference in the ships based on how they were earned. Latching onto that to counter the opinion of someone else doesn't accomplish anything.

It's quite obvious that this combat zone has a stacked team that is more interested in telling people like me why we are wrong instead of trying to figure out how we can all be happy.

It's almost like being the victim of alternating ganks. Oops! You ninja'd me! I'll get the next kill! Better set my forums to solo... Oh wait... The only way to participate in community based feedback is to interact with the community.

On a serious note though I've said my piece and my continued participation in this thread will be moot as at page 586, apparently noone is actually genuinely trying to fix the problem as a group anymore.

 

[BL1P]

However, if you get your wish and each group gets their own separate save and I cannot take my assets with me from one to another you are telling me, and players like me, that I must start again each time I want to try a different group. That is not how Elite works. I bought Elite on the basis of the freedom of choice of play mode, play style. I am not alone. You are proposing to change one of the core principles of the game we all paid for (yourself included) because of how you and players like you want to play.

If Solo and Group used the same Galaxy Save and Open used another then this isnt as big a problem as you make out, yet it keeps the core values you mention.

What is a problem is that, when PowerPlay comes out players in solo can damage the power of a Faction/Power/Group with complete safety from players belonging to the Faction/Power/Group they attack.
If a group wanted to annex off a system station because they wanted to drop its influence.
Because of Solo and group effecting Open they cannot.
Another small example:-
I could go to a Groups station in a system they are guarding in Open and attempting to increase that Stations Influence and accept and Fail all missions by the station owners they are trying to increase. All done in the safety of Solo or Group where they cannot stop me.

I feel this is a large error in the design of the multiplay.

 

[ianw]

On a serious note though I've said my piece and my continued participation in this thread will be moot as at page 586, apparently noone is actually genuinely trying to fix the problem as a group anymore.

The difficulty is that what you consider a problem to be fixed others consider a promised feature , honoured by FD and desirable to be kept.

 

[SteveLaw]

On a serious note though I've said my piece and my continued participation in this thread will be moot as at page 586, apparently noone is actually genuinely trying to fix the problem as a group anymore.

Thing is though, "the problem" is subjective. You see a problem that is the game's fault and want to change the game, we see it as a problem with perception of the game and want to change perceptions. We are looking at different problems. That's the problem.

 

[Jockey79]

If Solo and Group used the same Galaxy Save and Open used another then this isnt as big a problem as you make out, yet it keeps the core values you mention.

What is a problem is that, when PowerPlay comes out players in solo can damage the power of a Faction/Power/Group with complete safety from players belonging to the Faction/Power/Group they attack.
If a group wanted to annex off a system station because they wanted to drop its influence.
Because of Solo and group effecting Open they cannot.
Another small example:-
I could go to a Groups station in a system they are guarding in Open and attempting to increase that Stations Influence and accept and Fail all missions by the station owners they are trying to increase. All done in the safety of Solo or Group where they cannot stop me.

I feel this is a large error in the design of the multiplay.

What a load of rubbish.

This has nothing to do with what any game mode wants and everything to do with what a majority of players (regardless of where they are) want.
If more players want to defend a system faction than those who want to remove one the system faction won't change.

 

[PhazonAran]

What is a problem is that, when PowerPlay comes out players in solo can damage the power of a Faction/Power/Group with complete safety from players belonging to the Faction/Power/Group they attack.
If a group wanted to annex off a system station because they wanted to drop its influence.

Didn't David Braben explained that when 2 powers will be in conflict, each power will have a "goal" of its own ? If so, in order to help your power you'd have to actually do your mission instead of trying to prevent your enemies to do theirs, because the mission would be the only way to really help your power. And there will probably be solo players working for your power too.

Of course, it wouldn't work if your mission is to blockade a station, but not only I'd be very surprised if there were such missions, how would you measure your progress ?

 

[Joe Spivey]

On a serious note though I've said my piece and my continued participation in this thread will be moot as at page 586, apparently noone is actually genuinely trying to fix the problem as a group anymore.

You are assuming a problem where there is none and the fact that it does not fit in with your view of the game does not make it one. Also, as it was you who raised the objection to ships being earned in Solo I fail to see how us 'latching onto' that fallacy doesn't accomplish anything. It has accomplished the objective of getting you to say openly that there is no difference and therefore your objection was unfounded.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

All done in the safety of Solo or Group where they cannot stop me.

And? You basicily talk aobut how you cannot do a blockade on a Station, which is something the Game does not want you to be able to do, Solo/Group be there or not.

What does look to you like an error in the design is for others like me very good design. Its not really an error, you just don't like how the Game is designed by the Devs. Thats allright, we don't all like the same stuff but when you buy a Game that is designed in a way you don't like you kinda have to make your piece with it.

Its not bad design, just like the way Eve works is not bad design. I don't like how eve works but thats allright, thats why I play ED and not Eve.

 

[SteveLaw]

If Solo and Group used the same Galaxy Save and Open used another then this isnt as big a problem as you make out, yet it keeps the core values you mention.

This is exactly the issue that I was making out. You change the game from the game I bought, one where I can change modes freely, keeping my assets and progress across them all, to one that forces me to start again if I change. It doesn't matter if I, personally, do not ever play Open, I bought the game on the provision that I could freely swap. (And many players do play all modes.)

What is a problem is that, when PowerPlay comes out players in solo can damage the power of a Faction/Power/Group with complete safety from players belonging to the Faction/Power/Group they attack.

First of all, Power Play isn't out yet and we do not know the details of how it will work. From the preview pictures, Power Play looks like it will offer Tasks to complete to support your Power and Counter Tasks to complete to oppose another power. You don't oppose a Power by stopping it's supporters, you oppose it by participating in the Counter Task. Some players will choose to play these out in Open and some will play them out in Solo.

However, what you seem to be missing is that while there may be players opposing your Power in Solo there will also be players supporting your Power in Solo. They will count against each other. Solo takes care of Solo, you just take of Open in whichever way you prefer - actually perform the counter task or prevent others performing the task. Or instead of trying to oppose them you focus on supporting yours. Strategy and choice.

It's perfectly fair and balanced because one action in Solo or Open is worth exactly one counter action in Solo or Open.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

It would be nice if there was at least one open only mission type in powerplay. It could be something like:

Faction A hires traders to run commodity M into station Z. The traders get paid for every ton of caego they bring in. Traders are given the mission commodity, they don't have to purchase it. It would disappear if the player switches away from open, or cancels the mission.

Faction B hires pirates or even random mercs to stop the traders from getting to the station. The pirates get paid for each kill and/or a small bonus for every ton of mission cargo removed from the trader.

Faction A also hires mercs for a protection mission. They are paid for each kill of anyone in faction B. That way it's not just a trader slaughter. There will be protectors too.

These ideas are optional but I think could add to the mission.

1. Players taking part in the mission for both sides could have part or all of their insurance paid for.

2. There could be a corresponding solo/group only mission of running the commodity to the station where the open traders receive it. Kind of like a relay race.

3. There could be multiple commodities, some worth more than the others, but they all pay the trader the same. The idea is that it won't all be massive profits for the pirates. Sometimes they might catch a palladium ship, sometimes a copper ship.