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

[Flying Scorpion]

So if I notice that a small, independent faction has control of 3 star systems that are all next to eachother... I could get a bunch of friends together, go over there, and flip the systems back over to some other faction. What if that was a solo player who put in tons of work to get those systems the way they were? I guess that solo guy just has to deal with it.

This is why I think solo players and private groups should get their own copy of the universe, with it's own influence ratings.

 

[spiralarchitect]

I don't think it qualifies as "zealotry" to simply point out that this is the game the developers said they were going to make, and the game the Kickstarter backers supported, where mode switching hasn't changed since Beta and the game was released this way. It's right there in Yaffle's OP, describing how the game works.

I rather think "zealot" would describe someone who couldn't accept the game design, and who wants it to be something completely different. The rest of us are just playing the game that was described to us, and having fun with it.

And I wouldn't disagree at all with the sentiments you express. If you want to PvP, you can, if you don't, the tools are there to enable you to avoid it. My accusations aren't related to the game modes, quite the opposite, they relate to those who demand 100% PvP on the one hand and those who demand 0% PvP on the other o7

 

[Zenicetus]

So if I notice that a small, independent faction has control of 3 star systems that are all next to eachother... I could get a bunch of friends together, go over there, and flip the systems back over to some other faction. What if that was a solo player who put in tons of work to get those systems the way they were? I guess that solo guy just has to deal with it.

Yep, that would be the result (although I think we're still trying to figure out exactly how this flippin' business works).

The Solo player will know that's a risk, and frankly I don't know why a Solo player would try to do that on their own without friends. But the option is there to try anyway.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The a Moderator should just close the thread and stop it continually going around and around.

No, because:

I'm beginning to see why they consolidated this whole argument into this one thread. The zealots on both sides of the PvE vs PvP fence are wrong. Here's hoping the game achieves and maintains a happy balance as it develops

Exactly.

that might be a little tricky as i'm only seeing 31 pages in this thread right now...

.... and I can only see 13 pages....

If you are trying to help an NPC faction expand, and there are solo players trolling your efforts (by going to your system, and running missions for the other faction or by sabotaging your faction) - there's no way to combat this, short of farming harder than they are. I know that solo play is fair in one sense, because if they can do it, so can I .... but this is actually pretty lame. Wouldn't Elite Dangerous be a much more interesting game, if say.... I could actually fight off the players who are trolling my efforts? Currently, if they are in solo mode or in a private group... they're untouchable... and it's basically a grindfest, where whoever spends the most time grinding wins.

That's lame man. Like super lame.

I had visions of hosting fleets and bringing my friends together to fight off players who are screwing with our factions control. But that just isn't going to happen unless our enemies actively make the choice to play in open mode. Players who are using solo or private group mode to spoil the efforts of other players are impregnable. And it's frustrating. And it seems trollish and lame to me.

I think the best solution is to simply make it so that you cannot affect influence ratings unless you are in open mode - or, give people who play in solo or private group, their own copy of the game universe, with it's own influence ratings that don't affect the open world that the other players are on.

I think a good analogy to what I'm saying is this: Imagine you are on a beach building a sandcastle. And some kid comes over and dumps a bucket of water on it. Now in reality, there's multiple ways you can deal with this... you can rally your friends together and get that kid to shove off... you can call a parent over to deal with him.... you can stand up and throw water back in his face... but the bottom line is this - you have direct and effective options to resolve the situation. With the way the game is currently, it's like the kid's pouring water over my sandcastle...and he's invisible! So the only way for me to deal with this is to either abandon my creation, move to another part of the beach, or start trying to throw sand onto my creation and rebuild it faster than my opponent is throwing water on it. Can you honestly quote this post and write to me that this isn't lame?

All players affect the single galactic background simulation. As individuals we do not have any greatly magnified effect on the background simulation (like in some other games). We're all attached to the same group of servers but may have different settings applied to the matchmaking system to enable us to see no other players; only other players playing in the same private group; all other players playing in open. It could equally be said that your efforts are affecting those of the players that you have assumed are in solo - it is equally likely that those players may simply be in other instances in open (max 32 players in one instance) or are playing in a different timezone (presuming that you are not playing 24/7).

As to hosting fleets - not sure what you mean by this - we are single pilots in single ships - there are no drone ships under player control. We can consciously try to play in the same instance as friends.

While your proposal to separate the game modes would suit your agenda, it is not consistent with Frontier's vision of the game and the game has been released with these long standing game design features in place.

 

[AJ79]

So if I notice that a small, independent faction has control of 3 star systems that are all next to eachother... I could get a bunch of friends together, go over there, and flip the systems back over to some other faction. What if that was a solo player who put in tons of work to get those systems the way they were? I guess that solo guy just has to deal with it.

This is why I think solo players and private groups should get their own copy of the universe, with it's own influence ratings.

You can try to "flip" a station or system, but as was posted in another thread...

1. That hasn't been determined yet, but off the top of my head we'd look at the activity on the borders and see where expansion would make sense based on that activity. It would also play into players getting involved to help make the expansion happen.

2. New stations are not added automatically.

3. Stations cannot change themselves automatically.

Michael

So it is irrelevant how many players do anything regarding rep - the final say on if it flips is with FD. And I'd think they would not let it get flipped back too easily, if they went to the bother of converting whatever it is they need to do.

 

[Robert Maynard]

My accusations aren't related to the game modes, quite the opposite, they relate to those who demand 100% PvP on the one hand and those who demand 0% PvP on the other o7

Two of the three game modes allow players who desire 0% PvP to play that way - solo exists and a private group could be created with only one member. The players who desire 100% PvP are probably never going to get to play that way - the galaxy is too big for that and NPCs outnumber players by a dramatic margin.

 

[Flying Scorpion]

I want just one person on this forum to explain to me very clearly why the way I play this game has anything to do with them?

Do I hurt them, does the way I play cause them any personal pain or injury?

Do I cause there game play to be affected in any way that would breach any game rules?

The answer to all of those questions is no. But just because the answers to those questions is no, doesn't mean that there isn't a problem. If there wasn't a problem, this thread wouldn't be 40 pages long.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The answer to all of those questions is no. But everyone knows that just because the answers to those questions is no, doesn't mean that there isn't a problem. If there wasn't a problem, this thread wouldn't be 40 pages long.

For many, there is no problem - for some there is. The only problem is that there is no agreement that there is a problem in the first place and without that agreement, no remedies are necessary as there is no problem.

 

[Dabba]

If there wasn't a problem, this thread wouldn't be 40 pages long.

Not sure I agree with that. Im probably responsible for 15 of the pages all by myself, and as I see it the only problem is those that can't see that there isn't a problem. If you pick this thread apart 90% of it is comprised of less than 10 people, and 70% of those 10 think things are fine the way they are.

 

[Flying Scorpion]

For many, there is no problem - for some there is. The only problem is that there is no agreement that there is a problem in the first place and without that agreement, no remedies are necessary as there is no problem.

I'm going to tell you a story right now and them I'm done with this discussion for awhile.

A few years ago my family and I went to Disneyland. My brother waited 40 minutes in line to get Goofy's signature. When he came back, I said to him "you know that's just a kid in a goofy costume right?" and he said "Nope, pretty sure that's the real Goofy right there!" You can't argue with that logic.

 

[AJ79]

A few years ago my family and I went to Disneyland. My brother waited 40 minutes in line to get Goofy's signature.

How many people in that line tried forcing a conversation with others in the line that didn't want to talk to random strangers?
And should Disney build another park for those who only want to talk to family while on a day out?

 

[birdman]

It's probably because in Solo, the instance is always created when you get there and the police ships spawn at a set location in a group. In Open, the instance might have been there for a long time. Police ships will have been on patrol for a while and spread out, they might be busy with other ships or other players, or maybe they've even been destroyed.

Makes sense. I guess it also makes sense to do any smuggling in Open and not Solo, unless you like a challenge!

 

[spiralarchitect]

Two of the three game modes allow players who desire 0% PvP to play that way - solo exists and a private group could be created with only one member. The players who desire 100% PvP are probably never going to get to play that way - the galaxy is too big for that and NPCs outnumber players by a dramatic margin.

Indeed. From my standpoint, all I want for this game is for me to be able to PvP when I want to, and PvE when I don't. I've just noticed, in the three days I have been a member of this forum, that not only is there a very vocal, excessively pro-PvP party, but also a very vocal, excessively anti-PvP party. Like I said in a previous post, both are wrong, IMO at least. I think it would be very sad for the game going forward if either party got their way, especially when, as you have pointed out already, the tools for both to get what they want exist already. No offence guys, but I really believe this thread has gone as far as it can go, for me at least. I'd rather spend my time in space. Here's hoping we can all get what we want. Fly safe, and see you in space o7

 

[SENTER]

Personally I don't even bother with the open game. I just play in solo mode. I loved the original game and I don't see the point in going into an open universe to get abused by idiots, blown up by morons that either deliberately crash into me or destroy my ship "just because I can" as one Cobra pilot put it just before he anhiolated my hauler. Nor do I see the point in waiting an hour to get into a station especially if I am on a timed mission.

I do however see how some are upset about people jumping between online and solo when it suits them. Solo is an easier option currently due to the simple fact that the human pilot is capable of thinking whereas an AI pilot cannot, making the human pilot a much more deadly adversary.

I have no interest whatsoever in this idiot filled online hell pit that you have created but I am thourghly enjoying the game as it was back in the eighties. On my own in space making cash!

I think that solo and open play should be two separate saves. Your open progress should be separate from the solo because if you are into the open play then you have chosen that world. You should not be allowed to duck out of a fight or jump a queue by naffing off to solo. It is effectively a form of cheating when you pick at its bones.

 

[Space Dandy]

Not sure what there is to debate really?

There are three play modes which is great IMO as it allows everyone to have fun in the manner they feel like at the moment.

win/win for everyone methinks.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed. From my standpoint, all I want for this game is for me to be able to PvP when I want to, and PvE when I don't. I've just noticed, in the three days I have been a member of this forum, that not only is there a very vocal, excessively pro-PvP party, but also a very vocal, excessively anti-PvP party.

.... and the feature set of the game as released allows you to do both of these things (if you can track down players in open, that is).

There is also a fairly vocal "resisting proposals to reduce / remove player choice" party.

 

[Dabba]

Indeed. From my standpoint, all I want for this game is for me to be able to PvP when I want to, and PvE when I don't. I've just noticed, in the three days I have been a member of this forum, that not only is there a very vocal, excessively pro-PvP party, but also a very vocal, excessively anti-PvP party. Like I said in a previous post, both are wrong, IMO at least. I think it would be very sad for the game going forward if either party got their way, especially when, as you have pointed out already, the tools for both to get what they want exist already. No offence guys, but I really believe this thread has gone as far as it can go, for me at least. I'd rather spend my time in space. Here's hoping we can all get what we want. Fly safe, and see you in space o7

Not sure Id classify it that way. I see it more as a Pro-Choice party, and an Anti-Choice party. Im not anti pvp, I like the rules on Open for the most part just how they are. Granted I think they could do a bit more to encourage more traders to feel safer in Open to expand on the trader / pirate / bounty hunter dynamic that people are looking for, but for the most part it should be the wild west out there. Im just not in favor of forcing people into that play style that don't want to do it. Not anti-pvp at all, just pro choice.

This argument has been circling the proverbial drain without going anywhere for months now. I just do this on my other screen for kicks while I fly my space cow back and forth making my millions.

 

[Uueerdo]

.... and the feature set of the game as released allows you to do both of these things (if you can track down players in open, that is).

There is also a fairly vocal "resisting proposals to reduce / remove player choice" party.

Yep, I have yet to notice an "excessively anti-PvP party", just an anti-forcedPVP party.

 

[Faded Glory]

.... and the feature set of the game as released allows you to do both of these things (if you can track down players in open, that is).

There is also a fairly vocal "resisting proposals to reduce / remove player choice" party.

Absolutely right, and this game is supposed to be about choice.

Although I'm not a pirate or even much of a bounty hunter, (and when I do bounty hunt it's for NPC's because I don't think there are many wanted CMDR's I would want to take on ) I can understand why they want to have real victims, but can also completely understand why players don't want to be victims. I do play in both modes, and frankly, for me, the most irritating thing about open is constantly getting smashed into by live players in and entering and exiting stations. Many seem to be late for something, and don't care which side of the tunnel they use. It get's tedious after a while. Only ever seem to get interdicted by NPC's.

 

[icavan]

I think its quite amusing how many threaten the game developers with "I will never play again, you will never see any more money from me".

That being said, here is my opinion:

From what i gathered here there is a kinda big party that wants to play solo, I would count myself to them. I like flying around, trading and absolutely hate the idea of a pvp player - who is of course much better equipped and skilled in PVP than I am - to disturb my experience. I wouldnt mind having a single player game with my own universe, but I guess that is out of the question. I dont even want to know what kind of computing power I would need to run this universe the way its run on the servers. I am pleased with the state of the game of course, as there are no real disadvantages for me at the moment. For me that would change if there were benefits for playing open, as I would feel pressured to do something I dont want to do. The "extremists" in this group would consider stopping to play the game if solo mode were no longer availabe.

Second group would be open players. Some are in it for PvP only, some like a challenge from time to time, others like community based games and try to make friends I guess. The pvp players dont seem too pleased with the state of the game as there is just not enough PvP for them. The discussion was also most likely started by PvP players. The arguments are unfair advantages by being able to switch from solo/open and lack of players in open in general. They seem quite sure it would fix their problems if the choice was either not there or everyone was forced to play open. I guess some are already considering to stop playing if nothing is changed.

Third party would be the guys actually switching modes regularly. There are of course advantages to this. Its easier to grind credits by trading, no question about it. Its also nice to play the way you want or what you are in the mood to do. These guys wouldn't appreciate a change too much, as it leaves only pretty options open for them. They could play open only, something they seem to fear or consider too hard/dangerous in some situations or they could play two accounts, one for solo one for open. Thats not a real option in most cases though I guess. The open account would either starve as they wouldnt do much trading there or they would have to invest a lot of time to get both accounts to a level they feel comfortable with. I guess it would force most of them to play open (good for the pvp players) but as they might be bad at taking big losses some might quit the game altogether after losing a big haul or two.

I dont think there is much to gain by changing the way open/solo is handled. If it is changed other players will be unhappy and there is no way to tell (at least for us) what the majority of the players are doing.. I dont think the situation for PvP players would change too much by removing the ability to change modes. Removing solo mode completely would be unacceptable for me and other players (especially considering offline mode was canned already). PvP players would be happy for some time I guess. I dont think this would last though.

It will certainly not stop the discussions.

In my oppinion this is no solution to the problem. It would be better to try to make the pvp players happy some other way. Lets have the imperials host the grand galactic arena games or something to please them. That might actually help.

PS: Maybe roleplaying pirates are worth mentioning, too. I guess some (or a lot?) want more loot and might like easy targets. I think the major flaw with pirating is that the npcs cant punish them. As I understand it, there is absolutely no chance that a skilled player is shot down by npcs while pirating at the moment. If open was forced there should be done something about this as well. The authorities should have a way to engage these players with a decent chance of success. A military that cant even hunt down one pirate who destroyed dozens of ships in their jurisdiction is kind of bad, isnt it? I am thinking about something like interdictor cruisers with small, fast fighter crafts you cant easily run from.