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

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Or I could just have been responding to the quote I er quoted. "There is NO in-game reason to kill a clean, empty player." and then, ten seconds later I provide one.

That is all.

You then agree I was right. So you admitted you were wrong. No harm done.

But you are being obtuse and quoting a small part of my message out of context however just to keep you happy I edited to murder a clean empty player.

a player with a bounty on their heads defending themselves against a bounty hunter would not be murder (in my eyes at least).

Either way please stop it with the pedantry!. Just because you seemingly miss-understand how Elite is meant to work and are now scrabbling as much as you can to make it into a different game, please do not take it out on those of us who knew exactly what we bought into and are happy with offering what was advertised. (despite wanting more content and a few tweaks of course).

 

[Shaamaan]

Or I could just have been responding to the quote I er quoted. "There is NO in-game reason to kill a clean, empty player." and then, ten seconds later I provide one.

That is all.

But you are being obtuse and quoting a small part of my message out of context however just to keep you happy I edited to murder a clean empty player.

Also, there really IS no point in killing a clean player.

IF a trader doesn't comply with a pirates demands, said pirate can still blow up the cargo hatch to get at the goods inside. Doing so he risks killing (something he SHOULD avoid) and the pirate risks death (he would, obviously, also want to avoid that) but even done correctly this will cost the trader ALL his cargo and an extra repair bill.

So... tell me again, what's the reason to kill a clean player? Even if it was a trader and they didn't comply, there is no reason to actually KILL the target.

 

[Amaze]

Also, there really IS no point in killing a clean player.

IF a trader doesn't comply with a pirates demands, said pirate can still blow up the cargo hatch to get at the goods inside. Doing so he risks killing (something he SHOULD avoid) and the pirate risks death (he would, obviously, also want to avoid that) but even done correctly this will cost the trader ALL his cargo and an extra repair bill.

So... tell me again, what's the reason to kill a clean player? Even if it was a trader and they didn't comply, there is no reason to actually KILL the target.

A pirate can kill a clean bounty hunter and that would be self defense.
A good reason in my book.
I agree if you say there is no point in a pirate to kill a clean trader.

 

[Driver]

The game is not balanced ....

Well I think that the game modes are balanced just fine. No changes are needed.

 

[OldSalt]

Personally I would have titled this thread 'lets see what happens when we throw petrol on the fire'. I have got so weary of the on-going arguments over the mechanics of the game modes I would prefer to steer clear but I don't want a vocal minority (whether it be of players, forumites, or both I do not know) chipping away just to have their way.


.
Fundamentally I like the concept of all players being able to enjoy the game as they wish, to not be channelled into sub-groups by game mechanics, and to have the flexibility to pick and choose as their mood suits. I do not accept that this prejudices anybody else's enjoyment of the game beyond some with wounded sense of righteousness that they inflict upon themselves. I also believe that ultimately open play is the future of the game in terms of its success but by ring fencing it from other modes threatens it because putting a wall around that mode keeps people out far more effectively than keeping them in.


.
I play either in a group (Mobius) or open doing the same thing in either, I honestly cannot remember when I last went into solo. Some are saying that it is a false argument that there is equal risks in the different grouping modes, to that all I can say is that I 'live' in a system three short jumps from a starter system and whether in open or group it is quiet there and in the main systems I hunt and do missions within, I maybe see another player every hour or so. That is the same whether I play in group or open to the point where I took a trip over to one of the well know more populous systems where my scanner lit up like a Christmas Tree with hollow targets (i.e. my game is fine). If that is a coincidence it is a long running one because I have been round those parts since 16/12. So, I disagree with the open is hardcore, everything else isn't argument.


.
I did years of PvP in games, combat flight sims, Arma series, Red Orchestra, Iron Front etc. I can do it competently (not brilliantly by any stretch) but I got jaded with it so only do it now when it becomes a requirement. My last PvP encounter in ED was so poor I switched off the game afterwards. I was in a stock Siddey (too lazy to grind credits !) and a Cobra decided to pew-pew but clearly had no idea of manoeuvring thrusters or power management. When he had taken as much punishment as he could stand he combat logged, it was a pointless and empty exercise (although they did have a nice wireframe paint scheme going in their favour) and certainly not the first of differing but similarly stupid acts of aggression I had seen. I just do not think that the game is ready to be judged on its PvP mechanics yet or for players to try and drive others towards it.


.
And lastly (you will be pleased to hear) is that the grouping modes in ED as we see them today were a foundation concept dating back to KS. If anybody didn't understand them before they bought that is tough, the information was there for all to see. For those that did know but decided to buy only then to start complaining about them that is wrong, plain and simple. The mechanics are in, they work as intended and the idea they should be binned is bad on so many levels, for me perhaps the worst is devs taking time over re-writing an established mechanic settled on long ago instead of devoting the time to the new content the game really needs and that everyone wants.

 

[spiralarchitect]

Having read much (but, I admit, not all) of this thread, and others in which similar, not necessarily identical, themes have been discussed, I must confess I am a little concerned by the tone of much of these discussions and the potential effects this may have on the game as it develops. Simply put, I feel that the problem Open has as it stands is that of trying to square the circle of the competing demands and expectations of PvPers and PvEers. In the long run, IMO at least, the best solution for the game's continued health would be to bite the bullet and present players with a simple choice, ie. OpenvE and OpenvP, in addition to Solo and Group, of course. That way, the PvPers get what they want, the PvEers get what they want, everyone's happy. This is crude compared to the status quo, of course, but sometimes simplicity is the way to go. For what it's worth, I sit on the PvP side of the fence. I find it curious that, in a franchise which is and always has been based on spaceship combat (even full-time traders had to be ready to defend themselves against NPC pirates in 1984), so many people complain when they get blown up by another player in the first multiplayer version. Makes no sense to me. But then, that's just my opinion, if you don't like PvP then select a PvE option instead vOv

 

[Robert Maynard]

Having read much (but, I admit, not all) of this thread, and others in which similar, not necessarily identical, themes have been discussed, I must confess I am a little concerned by the tone of much of these discussions and the potential effects this may have on the game as it develops. Simply put, I feel that the problem Open has as it stands is that of trying to square the circle of the competing demands and expectations of PvPers and PvEers. In the long run, IMO at least, the best solution for the game's continued health would be to bite the bullet and present players with a simple choice, ie. OpenvE and OpenvP, in addition to Solo and Group, of course.

When you mention a choice - do you envisage that choice being a one-time locked into one mode choice or a session by session choice?

 

[Knightshark]

Since there is no offline mode anyway, there is also no real reason for solo mode. Basically a PvE group like Mobius and a "everything goes" Open mode is everything needed. For the open mode the most important task for the devs is to fix exploits fast (e.g. avoiding bounties on player kill by ramming, disconnecting to avoid destruction) and to offer a better pvp bounty hunting system (tracking players across systems, getting info on last known position etc.).

 

[Joe Spivey]

Since there is no offline mode anyway, there is also no real reason for solo mode. Basically a PvE group like Mobius and a "everything goes" Open mode is everything needed. For the open mode the most important task for the devs is to fix exploits fast (e.g. avoiding bounties on player kill by ramming, disconnecting to avoid destruction) and to offer a better pvp bounty hunting system (tracking players across systems, getting info on last known position etc.).

What about those players who, for whatever reason, cannot play in open?

 

[Knightshark]

What about those players who, for whatever reason, cannot play in open?

What do you mean? My reasoning was, that a PvE group is basically the same as solo mode is now. It just adds players acting as friendly NPC.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Since there is no offline mode anyway, there is also no real reason for solo mode.

I would expect that players who never want to encounter another player in their game as they have been told to "play the game how want to" will object to any attempt to remove Solo.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

solo uses a few kb of data an hr, it can be used - according to DB himself - on a train tethered to a mobile phone.

its no offline, but for the most part, solo is usable where ever you are so long as you have some form of 3G signal or over satelite broadband with terrible pings, and it should not cost you an arm and a leg even on a PAYG plan.

Group and ALL however are no where near as forgiving on your net.

I have had some experience myself. when my wife works at home, my internet is unusable for me gaming wise (the tunnelling software she has to use to connect to work sucks almost all data bandwidth so much so even surfing is a pain)....... but solo is still ok, outside of a few pauses getting into and out of HS and SC

 

[Joe Spivey]

What do you mean?

Players who, for example, have limited internet connectivity? Enough connectivity so that Solo mode does not strain their connection, but open is just too much to be playable.

 

[Knightshark]

Players who, for example, have limited internet connectivity? Enough connectivity so that Solo mode does not strain their connection, but open is just too much to be playable.

solo uses a few kb of data an hr, it can be used - according to DB himself - on a train tethered to a mobile phone.

its no offline, but for the most part, solo is usable where ever you are so long as you have some form of 3G signal or over satelite broadband with terrible pings, and it should not cost you an arm and a leg even on a PAYG plan.

Group and ALL however are no where near as forgiving on your net.

Ok sure, that's a very valid point. I was just arguing from the gameplay perspective.

 

[Driver]

Since there is no offline mode anyway, there is also no real reason for solo mode. Basically a PvE group like Mobius and a "everything goes" Open mode is everything needed. For the open mode the most important task for the devs is to fix exploits fast (e.g. avoiding bounties on player kill by ramming, disconnecting to avoid destruction) and to offer a better pvp bounty hunting system (tracking players across systems, getting info on last known position etc.).

Solo mode is needed by players with poor internet connectivity. It is also needed by anyone who just wants to play that way.

 

[gary.brain]

I think its a great idea, in other MMO I would rather play alone / group of friends than be surrounded by other players and read chat channels full of rubbish.

Also it gives the ability for a player to choose the environment to play in especially based on the players mood, there is nothing worse than having a bad day then playing a game and getting killed by another player adding to the frustration.




Off the cuff comment, can we get 3 Sub Forums created for each player type so they can just read about their type of play.........

 

[Robert Maynard]

Off the cuff comment, can we get 3 Sub Forums created for each player type so they can just read about their type of play.........

We would, of course, be able to read and post in all of them as we can freely move between them....

 

[Commander Silex]

Also, with racks of dumbfire missiles, people can blow up big and bulky targets with very small fight craft*, risking very little while possibly costing someone else a lot of time and money. There’s very little risk involved for the offenders, currently, as the bounties can be paid off easily and the police forces are a joke. If you consider that a lot of unwanted PvP has taken place in Lave and realize that said system is NOT an anarchy system, you start to see why some people get tired of PvP before it even starts.

I prefer to work WITH others rather than AGAINST others. Judging by the quickly growing number of people playing in the Mobius group, it seems I’m not the only one. In fact, humans in general are far more likely to be cooperative than not. Fighting against a soulless machine (NPCs) is a lot different than fighting another human being, and not merely because of difficulty involved! If I get killed by an NPC, I’ve got myself to blame. If I kill an NPC, I know I didn’t do anyone harm. Neither statement holds true if the opponent is another human. And, just for the record, the first time I engaged an NPC Anaconda in my Cobra and had to run because I was out of shield cells and with my canopy compromised – that still got my heart pumping.

I think part of the problem is the discussion is often slanted when discussing Open, as if the only reason people who engage in PvP go there is to play against other players. There's a significant number of us want to be the foil to those kinds of players in game, and once we can effectively group will no doubt motivate to do so. I think a more accurate manner of describing it is that players in open ought generally to be happy to play for higher stakes. It doesn't mean dying with a load full of cargo to a player has to be an experience that leaves you dancing for joy. It may still suck, but the fact you still have meaningful methods of escape or might instead meet with a pirate wanting to engage in gunboat diplomacy makes the experience more interesting overall. You also mentioned unwanted PvP in Lave. I have to admit, the guys in freagles with dumbfire missiles pose a challenge to anyone, but even they were not impossible to evade in a trading vessel and ultimately players always have the option to avoid such areas until those involved move on or instead simply go to Private group in the short term. This is by design, not simply a blunt argument dreamed up by PvP hungry basement dwellers as it is often implied. There is also an issue that a large number of people want to define griefing by their subjective opinion, when in truth it is already defined by FD (in a fairly extensive post on these forums, in fact) and as such everyone PvP friendly and not has to accept that as the current official definition whether they agree personally or not.

It is more unfortunate to my mind that currently we have few social tools with which to put up a serious offence against attempts at violence in populated systems. There could also perhaps be some fine tuning of the detriment to belligerent piracy, but those detracting from the current system nearly always neglect to consider the significant rep hit piracy will have on players over time. Given long enough those players are quite literally going to be pushed back to the fringes of society, into independant systems. It might be that the in game responses could be ramped up a little but the devs have made it fairly clear they'll not go so far as making playing the 'bad guy' an absolute dead end choice. Lastly, I think the discussion could really do with mentioning much more often that random player killing is not considered griefing by default. (Sandra Sammarco's words, not mine)

 

[xaisis]

This is what I feel it all boils down to. But solo players do not exist to fulfil some PvP fantasy for others and suggestions of incentivizing mode switching is quite frankly insulting to solo players. We are not your unwilling PvP cattle to be incentivized/coerced into joining your PvP dream.

I agree, I did not buy this game to get killed by random players. I play with friends or by myself.

 

[spiralarchitect]

When you mention a choice - do you envisage that choice being a one-time locked into one mode choice or a session by session choice?

The ideal solution - if the current design focus is to be maintained as far as possible - would be a session by session choice. But, as admirable as innovation is, I would repeat that simplicity is sometimes the best approach. As much as I appreciate the sentiment behind the current focus, the problem of squaring the circle remains, so maybe a locked choice would be best. That said, one should always be free to change one's mind. I dunno. I'm both an 84er and an EVE bittervet, I came to ED hoping that it would be (1) true to the original and (2) the game that EVE tries to be. An interesting viewpoint I read in another thread was by a poster who summarised the varying perceptions of what ED should be on a 3-point scale:

(1) Let's all hold hands!
(2) Sensible
(3) EVE Online

The poster concerned said he rated about 2.4 on the scale. I would be approximately that myself. I agree with the current focus that players should be free to play the way they want, I'm just not convinced that the status quo can square the circle. Let the squares be squares, and the circles be circles. Hopefully, that flexibility would attract players of all kinds and therefore allow the game to prosper and grow o7