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

[Drunk Si]

That argument always comes up and I've never understood the logic. A player who grinds up to an Anaconda only in Solo mode is learning to fight NPC's. They'll lose that ship very quickly when they finally switch to Open and meet players who have been learning how to fight other players.

If that Anaconda player has developed no contacts with other players while in Solo mode, he'll also be facing Wings in Open mode soon enough. You don't learn anything about multi-ship tactics in Solo mode.

In short, there is no advantage to getting your Anaconda in Solo mode and then switching to Open for pew pew action.

Only if you're up against another Anaconda or a Python. If you're a solo trader who's jumped into open with his Anaconda and you're up against the most talented Viper pilot in the world unless you really are just absolutely awful I just don't see how that lone viper pilot would be able to break through the anaconda's shields before succumbing to its superior firepower.

I think most people playing the pirate or bounty hunter route generally stick to open, they may have more combat experience but they've also picked the "career path" with the least rewards, at the very best you might see one in an asp, but you're much more likely to see them in Vipers and Cobras. They would get curbstomped by a solo trader in a Python or an Anaconda.

 

[Dabba]

I think most people playing the pirate or bounty hunter route generally stick to open, they may have more combat experience but they've also picked the "career path" with the least rewards, at the very best you might see one in an asp, but you're much more likely to see them in Vipers and Cobras. They would get curbstomped by a solo trader in a Python or an Anaconda.

I don't think thats true. I could have the best outfitted Conda in the world and if you put me up against Morbad or some of the other truly great fighter pilots Im going to get smoked and I know it.

 

[Beetlebum]

This is the point you made that I am addressing. "Hiding in solo at the beginning and switching to open when you have your full fletched anaconda is too meta to me. " My response being that there is no difference between saving up and buying a mega ship in Solo, and saving up and buying a mega ship in a remote part of Open? In neither case will you be disturbed by another player. And in neither case will you even know HOW the player paid for it.

Please respond to this.

I don't like meta ways of escaping dangers, like switching to solo or turning on the PvE-flag. I want people to hide IN the universe. It is ok by me that people play as they like. I don't want the existing modes to be changed. I just want a new mode for people like me. It won't affect you in any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Joe Spivey]

Only if you're up against another Anaconda or a Python. If you're a solo trader who's jumped into open with his Anaconda and you're up against the most talented Viper pilot in the world unless you really are just absolutely awful I just don't see how that lone viper pilot would be able to break through the anaconda's shields before succumbing to its superior firepower.

I think most people playing the pirate or bounty hunter route generally stick to open, they may have more combat experience but they've also picked the "career path" with the least rewards, at the very best you might see one in an asp, but you're much more likely to see them in Vipers and Cobras. They would get curbstomped by a solo trader in a Python or an Anaconda.

One question for you. How do you know how the Anaconda pilot paid for his ship?

 

[Zvanya]

The current setup is fine. I personally would have preferred there not be a solo mode, but realize that pragmatically the game might not have been made if a solo option was not included from the start.

One change comes to mind without seriously affecting a players choices is to redefine "Iron Man" mode.

You can at any time chose to flip the "Iron Man" switch. The effect is to put that character in open play permanently.

 

[Drunk Si]

One question for you. How do you know how the Anaconda pilot paid for his ship?

I don't. What has that got to do with it?

 

[Beetlebum]

It's fine as it is. Nothing "unfair" or whatever about it. Everyone can play the way they like

No, sadly I can't.

 

[Joe Spivey]

I don't like meta ways of escaping dangers, like switching to solo or turn on the PvE-flag. I want people to hide IN the universe. It is ok by me that people play as they like. I don't want the modes to be changed. I just want a new mode for people like me. It won't affect you in any stretch of the imagination.

Once again, you are avoiding my question I'm afraid. You have not even established that there is any meta game going on, due to the reasons I outline in my question to you. Please answer the question: " What is the difference between saving up and buying a mega ship in Solo, and saving up and buying a mega ship in a remote part of Open? In neither case will you be disturbed by another player. And in neither case will you even know HOW the player paid for it."

 

[kungfubiker]

a large number of you seem to assume those of us in solo are going to leap out into open fully tooled up so to speak...........whilst im sure a small few might, i personaly play solo because i want it. i have zero interest in pvp or any other aspect of open play, for me Elite always was solo and that is the sole reason i bought the game. the fact that FD have given us all the choice to choose and play as we, the individual player, like to is a credit to them and we should be grateful its here. any form of coercion/incentivising open/penalising solo will ultimately lead to peaople like myself leaving.....with a heavy heart admittedly but i want no part of it if that happens

 

[Zenicetus]

I feel that there should only be one or two modes - since offline isn't an option anymore:

Option 1: PvP only [unlikely, since not everyone likes competitive games].
Option 2: PvE w/ PvP flags [Yes, just like WoW]

I know this isn't flagged as an MMO anymore, but Wings will make 'Group' mode moot - Apart from Möbius; which would also become moot if we had a PvE server.

The PvP flag could be switched on/off as easily as your Landing Gear being deployed...

No?

I think PvP self-flagging in an otherwise PvE environment is a solution in search of a problem, because the game essentially works that way now. It just requires a log-out and log-in to switch, instead of doing it on the fly.

PvP flagging also adds a few problems of its own. Exploits, for example. Say you're flagged for PvP and I'm not, so you ignore my ship on the scanner. I fly up behind you, hit the PvP flag and pop hardpoints for a nice Alpha strike. PvP flags also break immersion (that dreaded word) because there would have to be separate identifiers for ships you could attack, and ships you couldn't. It doesn't make sense in any realistic sci-fi space scenario that spaceships would be flying around like that... some invulnerable and some not. It's an artificial game mechanic and it looks artificial.

Finally, optional PvP flags can lead to taunting behavior. Or at least it did occasionally in WoW, when I was there. Flagged players will do ridiculous things to try and goad people into flagging themselves for combat. In this game, it might translate into "bumping" or ramming your ship, or verbal taunts on the comms channel. This game doesn't need that.

 

[Taimaru]

I initially played exclusively in Solo, switched to Open Play and now mainly play in Open Play occasionally switching to Solo when sitting at Outposts for more than 10 minutes waiting for a landing pad. I also sometimes play in a Group with like-minded people/friends.

I have played almost every day for at least 2 hours (more during the weekend and Christmas holidays) since 20th November and I know I have less credits or ship upgrades than many who have played for less time. Therefore playing in solo does not give you an advantage, it's how you play which determines your progression.

I like the current mechanic where you can switch between Open Play, Group and Solo without change to the player statistics. It allows one to play according to how they feel at the time using the same Commander. Sometimes one doesn't want to be social, other times you do. Sometimes one doesn't want to fight other players, other times you do. Allowing one to switch is one of the great features of Elite Dangerous.

 

[Joe Spivey]

I don't. What has that got to do with it?

Because if you cannot tell whether the Anaconda player paid for the ship in Solo or in open then the argument has no basis. You whole argument is based on the pilot of the Anaconda having paid for his ship in solo.

 

[Dabba]

I think PvP self-flagging in an otherwise PvE environment is a solution in search of a problem, because the game essentially works that way now. It just requires a log-out and log-in to switch, instead of doing it on the fly.

PvP flagging also adds a few problems of its own. Exploits, for example. Say you're flagged for PvP and I'm not, so you ignore my ship on the scanner. I fly up behind you, hit the PvP flag and pop hardpoints for a nice Alpha strike. PvP flags also break immersion (that dreaded word) because there would have to be separate identifiers for ships you could attack, and ships you couldn't. It doesn't make sense in any realistic sci-fi space scenario that spaceships would be flying around like that... some invulnerable and some not. It's an artificial game mechanic and it looks artificial.

Finally, optional PvP flags can lead to taunting behavior. Or at least it did occasionally in WoW, when I was there. Flagged players will do ridiculous things to try and goad people into flagging themselves for combat. In this game, it might translate into "bumping" or ramming your ship, or verbal taunts on the comms channel. This game doesn't need that.

Just make it so you can only switch your flag status while docked, and only if you are totally clean, with no bounties or wanted status anywhere.

Again we are just coming up with hypothetical solutions for a problem that doesn't actually exist here, but playing along with that game this would work.

 

[Jockey79]

Some of you want to completely ignore how the game was designed (right from the start and advertised as such) and blame your lack of "player interaction" on the game either being "a broken design" or people "hiding in solo".


Did you all miss DB saying "seeing other players will be rare" that does not translate as - I must see 31 other commanders at all time on my scanner, it means we are not supposed to be falling over eachother and having massive docking ques or all out warfare (outside of scripted events).


Plus as has been REPEATEDLY explained on these forums, we are not in different worlds or on different servers - the names of the modes mean nothing to how the game world sees us or how content is accessed, you might as well rename the modes to *Invisible / Partly Invisible / Not Invisible* as the current names seem to mislead some of you on how this is set up to work. What you do to the server, applies to all, so new content is new for EVERYONE.


There are other reasons why people may not see others in open, could be incorrect firewall settings, could be a problem with your ISP, could be the matchmaking server....


How many of the folks asking to force/ persuade/ entince others in to open have posted in the tech support area trying to find out if the fault is in fact a technical reason you are alone not a social one?
As I've been running names through the search engine for the Tech sections of the forums and it's great to see how many people have jumped to the conclusion solo mode is to blame without even trying to find out if there is a tech problem.

 

[SirGirard]

I move between open and group regularly, but I currently do not see a lot of difference as I am a long way from the more popular areas. I think the set up as it is (Open/Group/Solo) is just fine and should be left as it is. I would say however, that as the MMO tools expand/develop the consequences for murder/pirating in open play, particularly in high security areas, needs to be much more severe than it is now IMO. That way a whole lot more people will venture into open play in the future!

 

[CMDR Bansidhe]

Now you are just creating a strawman argument. Please respond to the actual argument. I will reiterate it for you. 'What is the difference between saving up and buying a mega ship in Solo, and saving up and buying a mega ship in a remote part of Open? In neither case will you be disturbed by another player. And in neither case will you even know HOW the player paid for it.

How will you save up for the mega ship in a remote part of the Open galaxy? As I understand things it gets quite unpopulated once you get far enough out to avoid other players. From the exploration threads I have read it would seem that the stations don't exist once you get so far out, so no trading. I have been informed that the NPCs thin out and stop appearing so that would negate bounty hunting and piracy. This leaves only exploration as a career path and in order to sell your data don't you need to come back to explored space?

So no, it isn't as easy as you insist on trying to make it appear.

This is before we even address the fact question of why an open player, who wants other human interaction, should have to go to where other players aren't in order to enjoy the same degree of safety that a solo player would have trading rares in core systems.

If you are going to compare the two modes it is necessary to do it accurately and fairly. So no, it is not accurate to compare the back of beyond to one of the core systems. To get a fair comparison we need to compare the safety of all systems, one-for-one. So this would ultimately lead us to comparing Lave in open to Lave in solo. Are you STILL going to insist there is no difference in safety levels?

In open, a players enemies will include NPCs and other players, in solo there are only NPCs. It is far safer to be among fewer enemies.

Whichever way I address this it is far too easy to show that solo is NOT as safe as open.

Continue with your attempts at sophistry, however, I have always enjoyed refuting such arguments.

 

[Drunk Si]

I don't think thats true. I could have the best outfitted Conda in the world and if you put me up against Morbad or some of the other truly great fighter pilots Im going to get smoked and I know it.

You can think that but it would take an extraordinarily skilled pilot to overcome a player controlled ship which has superior firepower, superior shielding, greater hull integrity and the exact same access to shield cell banks even if that player is nowhere near as good as the fighter pilot. And that's as it should be, a lone Viper should think twice about tangling with a player python or a player anaconda but it just seems ridiculous to me that one can earn that superior firepower in the relative safety of solo without ever once facing any adversity (except from brain dead NPCs) and then bring that technical superiority into open without ever having really cut their teeth in combat before then.

Because if you cannot tell whether the Anaconda player paid for the ship in Solo or in open then the argument has no basis. You whole argument is based on the pilot of the Anaconda having paid for his ship in solo.

Er.... I'm not really sure I follow. It's only unfair to trade in the safety of solo and bring your technical superiority into open after the fact if I'm aware of how you got that ship? What?

 

[Jockey79]

How will you save up for the mega ship in a remote part of the Open galaxy? As I understand things it gets quite unpopulated once you get far enough out to avoid other players. From the exploration threads I have read it would seem that the stations don't exist once you get so far out, so no trading. I have been informed that the NPCs thin out and stop appearing so that would negate bounty hunting and piracy. This leaves only exploration as a career path and in order to sell your data don't you need to come back to explored space?.

You only need to come to the closet station, no need to go in to the heart of populated space. You can quite easily just nip in to a remote station, sell your data and go again without being seen (in open).

 

[Madam Pomfrey]

While I agree that it's awesome to give player choise on how to play, sadly players aren't mature enough and they abuse the system.


From:
- going to solo when they are interdicted;
- going solo when entering/exiting stations full of players;
- making the fortune on the risk-free environment of solo, then coming to online.

Freedom always comes with a price, and I would hate to see either side hurt.

We see here why people don't want to play Open.

All those things are considered wrong but if you ask for some persistent consequences to the players killing others they all jump to oppose the suggestion.


The problem is that some players see this game as a pure PvP game like Battlefield. You spawn, you fight, you die, spawn, fight, die. Which clearly isn't the case, cause then we wouldn't have trading and mining in the game.

I enjoy that type of play in Battlefield, although I prefer CS more, but I didn't bought ED for that type of play. I bought it for a game were your actions should have consequences, even if they are harsh.

If I role play a pirate I role play it they I do it for profit and not to just kill players. I try to stay away from main areas, or if I venture there I expect it to be very risky. I expect the authorities to not allow me to stay there and just go to an outpost and clear bounties between mischief's.

If I role play a psycho I accept the consequences of what that means. No profit, but again I can't do it for long in main areas, or even in Anarchy areas. A psycho is a bad thing for a pirate cause it scares his pray.

If I play a trader I accept the risk of being robbed by some pirate, or even killed once in a blue moon by a psycho, but I do it knowing that the attacker can't just stand there and do it over and over because there are no consequences to him, or that those are almost negligible.


The "action - consequences" relation needs to be balanced in this game if people want non-pvp players in open (those that are willing to even consider open in the first place). Otherwise you will have in open mostly players that want battlefield in space.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Semantics. Even little chance of meeting someone else is still greater than zero chance to meet someone else.

You are just avoiding the point here.

For a start your viewpoint requires players to jump through particular hoops to be safe from player interdiction - namely moving away from the core systems. Playing in solo does not require the same hoop-jumping. It is so easily demonstrable that the two modes are not equatable in terms of safety.

For them to be equatable what one applies to one must also apply to the other. This is simply not the case, regardless of how you try to twist things.

The ability to play the game in each mode is available to all players - we have all been told to "play the game how you want to". The group switching (on a session by session basis) feature has been, with solo, private groups and open, a feature of the stated game design since the beginning of the Kickstarter (over two years ago) and has been included in the released game. It is not a new feature that people should be surprised as to its existence, it is a long standing part of the game design.

If open is, due to player/player interaction, perceived by players to be more risky then some of those players may choose to avoid it - that is their choice granted to them by the game designers from the beginning. The fact that players can group together, albeit in a rudimentary manner so far, means that players can mitigate risks by introducing numerical advantage. As said by others, there is no practical difference between any of the three modes once a player moves to a particularly remote location.

To touch on the nature of the three modes, they are all contained within the same galactic background simulation and are all simply different settings of the matchmaking system with respect to which players an individual may encounter in-game (solo = no other players; private groups = players playing in that particular private group at the time; open = all players playing in open).

Some call for removal of solo and private groups as they hold the opinion that continued existence of these modes is detracting from their game experience in open. Some call for removal of the group switching feature for similar reasons which would necessitate separate commanders for each mode. Both of these would restrict the choice of all players to suit the play preferences of some players - Sandro has previously stated:

The way it's currently standing, players will be able to enter and leave private groups of some sort reasonably easily, so they will be able to control the level of perceived griefing they want to suffer.

I know this is a very contentious issue, which I have been wrestling with since I first came on to the project. The way I see it at the moment is pretty straightforward:

• We have players that want a range of different experiences
• All of those experiences are valid
• Some of those experiences are mutually exclusive

So my answer is to say that we will support all of them but not to the point where one player is happy at the expense of another. And a clean way to do this is by using a grouping system.

The worst case scenario here is that a player who wants to avoid an encounter will vanish into a private group. In this case, the player will be forced to escape conventionally first (via hyperspace, docking or something similar).

In this instance, the aggressor still gets some benefit - they "defeated" their prey, and we can hopefully build on this in terms of rewarding them in various ways: via reputation, which can lead to missions and events, via player bragging rights (perhaps only players that remain in the "all group" can feature in various global news feed articles) and potentially via limited physical rewards.

If players are going to live in private groups, well, that suggests that if we had a single environment they would be playing offline or not at all, so they aren't part of the equation.

Players that dip into the "all group" after farming "private groups"; there are a few things to say about this.

• They are unlikely to have as good player-vs-player skills as those who live in the "all" group day in day out.
• NPCs can and will offer appropriate risks (in fact, it would not be a lie to suggest that we *could* make NPC ships significantly nastier than any human ships in the majority of situations. Not that we will, mind. But we could), so to get a tooled up advantage such players will have been facing a appropriate threat level (basically private groups should not be considered "easy mode").
• Everyone has access to their own private group(s)