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

[CMDR Bansidhe]

They wouldn't be less at all, they'd just take a different approach to attacking Solo. Lets be real here, the underlying reason for the complaints about Solo is from the people that want everyone forced into their crosshairs on Open, they just can't outright admit that so they are finding other things to justify their attempts to force people into Open. They know it, we know it, and Frontier knows it, which is why this thread gets pushed into a corner to keep the mess in a tidy place that can be ignored and heavily policed by the mods.

No - this is the strawman that the Solo players have set up to argue against. My main concern, as I have stated frequently, is the ability to make gains in relative safety of solo and then transfer those gains to the open world. I have been quite a frequent poster in this group and so far, in the time I have been playing, I have seen a grand total of four other players and have engaged in PVP with exactly zero of them.

The solo crowd keep setting up this imaginary strawman to argue against despite repeatedly being told they have the wrong end of the stick. That said, I pretty much guarantee you we won't have seen the last of this ridiculous fallacy.

Cue somebody citing the so-called "psychopaths in Lave" who, according to legend are slaughtering helpless traders in their thousands, but who, according to actual research, have, in reality, interacted with very few. But let's not let the truth get in the way of hysteria and hyperbole. Where would be the fun in that?

 

[Oddible]

Confused by Open Play vs Solo... I keep my same stuff in both!??!?!

OK so I've been playing Solo play up to now and bought my first ship, an Adder. But said ok I'll try Open Play... loaded it up and voila I'm still in my Adder!??! I thought the two were separate. So now my questions are:

- Do both Open and Solo share the same persistent world but in Solo you just can't see other players? So the trade resources are dynamic based on other players and the boom/bust, etc?

- Can you gear up in Solo then PvP in Open? So do all your trade missions where it is entirely safe to raise the cash to buy a combat ship then go off to Open to fight?

So both are always the same environment? Very confused right now. So basically Open Play will be a bunch of people who are trying to kill each other and Solo will be a bunch of traders, there is no incentive for traders to be in Open Play. I guess with tiny holds on combat ships there is no real reason to kill traders anyway.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No - this is the strawman that the Solo players have set up to argue against. My main concern, as I have stated frequently, is the ability to make gains in relative safety of solo and then transfer those gains to the open world. I have been quite a frequent poster in this group and so far, in the time I have been playing, I have seen a grand total of four other players and have engaged in PVP with exactly zero of them.

The solo crowd keep setting up this imaginary strawman to argue against despite repeatedly being told they have the wrong end of the stick. That said, I pretty much guarantee you we won't have seen the last of this ridiculous fallacy.

Cue somebody citing the "psychopaths in Lave" who, according to legend are slaughtering helpless traders in their thousands, but who, according to actual research, have, in reality, interacted with very few. But let's not let the truth get in the way of hysteria and hyperbole. Where would be the fun in that?

No-one apart from Frontier actually knows how many players play in open. private groups or solo. Similarly, no-one apart from Frontier knows how much players in each of the modes are making.

Frontier are more than capable of looking at the different credits/hour rates for each player in each mode and, taking location, ship and loadout into account, comparing them.

So, I would contend that the "massive earnings in solo" argument is as valid an argument as "PvPers want everyone locked in open".

 

[Werppa]

OK so I've been playing Solo play up to now and bought my first ship, an Adder. But said ok I'll try Open Play... loaded it up and voila I'm still in my Adder!??! I thought the two were separate. So now my questions are:

- Do both Open and Solo share the same persistent world but in Solo you just can't see other players? So the trade resources are dynamic based on other players and the boom/bust, etc?

- Can you gear up in Solo then PvP in Open? So do all your trade missions where it is entirely safe to raise the cash to buy a combat ship then go off to Open to fight?

So both are always the same environment? Very confused right now.

1: Yeah, same persistent world but you will only see NPC ships in open play. Resources are dynamic, yes

2: You can do that, in fact, it's safer to play solo if the only thing you're doing is trading. You can raise the cash in solo, buy your ship and go open to fight.

Both are the same, only exception is that you won't encounter any players in solo mode

 

[Robert Maynard]

All game modes share the same galactic background simulation. The only difference, as you have surmised, is that the matchmaking system has different settings for each mode, i.e. solo = no other players; private group = only players playing in that private group; open = all players playing in open.

Players can choose to group switch (same commander, same assets) on a session by session basis - therefore players can play the game in whichever mode suits them best.

 

[CMDR Bansidhe]

No-one apart from Frontier actually knows how many players play in open. private groups or solo. Similarly, no-one apart from Frontier knows how much players in each of the modes are making.

Frontier are more than capable of looking at the different credits/hour rates for each player in each mode and, taking location, ship and loadout into account, comparing them.

So, I would contend that the "massive earnings in solo" argument is as valid an argument as "PvPers want everyone locked in open".

I know that's what you would contend. You and the people like you have been hammering away at it since I started on this forum.

1. It isn't what's being said to you. You cannot argue against what IS being said so you setup something that ISN'T to argue with.
2. No it's not a valid argument which is why I haven't seen anyone making it. The only time this argument is raised is by the solo crowd.

All I have ever argued for is fairness and balance. If you have a problem with either of those then I would like to hear it. If you just want to pretend I said something else and then respond to the something that I didn't say then I will ask - "What is the point?"

To a lot of you, the strawman idea, along with the other logical fallacies, are something you once read on wikipedia. I imagine that very few of you spent years, as I did, heavily involved in college and university debating. To me the logical fallacies are as familiar as people's own children are to them. I can spot them a mile off and they are always easy to refute. Why don't you stick to challenging the concepts that have been raised instead of expending all of your efforts on concepts that haven't?

EDIT: Even in your post that I quote you misrepresent my claims. The problem is making gains in safety then transferring to open. WHy did you write that as the problems being "massive gains in solo". The issue isn't "massive gains" it is "safe gains". We are all playing snakes and ladders but in solo there are no snakes. You never lose money. You can never be robbed.

 

[Joe Spivey]

In before the merge.

 

[Nazarene]

The night before last some of the Rangers and I had the most fun interdicting pirate players around Altair who were preying on rare and luxuries traders.

One of the most exciting things has been the ability (although this is somewhat broken at the moment but I believe will be fixed with the advent of 'wings' etc), to drop into another players low frame wake created when a pirate pulls off a successful interdiction. Said pirate then may face multiple well armed ships instead of the 'easy prey' they were looking for.

Heart rate and adrenaline go through the roof.

Top fun!

Peace - Naz

 

[StarTux]

No - this is the strawman that the Solo players have set up to argue against. My main concern, as I have stated frequently, is the ability to make gains in relative safety of solo and then transfer those gains to the open world. I have been quite a frequent poster in this group and so far, in the time I have been playing, I have seen a grand total of four other players and have engaged in PVP with exactly zero of them.

Lets tackle this head on, so what if they do? Saying this another way, "Player A is not good enough to ever play in open and will always be losing ships and credits so often that they be perpetually stuck in a Sidewinder". Player A gets so frustrated he quits permanently or retreats to some silly separate mode never to try multiplayer again, is that what you want? And if he shows up in his nice Anaconda against a players who aren't good he'll rank up a nice bounty and will be an easy meal for someone used to PVP, and if he's not actively doing that then a pirate shouldn't have too much trouble. You do realise how the networking works in this game too right?

And why pick on solo play? Private groups potentially provide even more lucrative rewards, working together always has its benefits.

Sorry, this whole switching from solo to open proving large advantages is in a word pathetic, now grant you if this was more like Eve for example then you'd have a point and I would also be saying how bad it is, but its so a completely different animal that few things are even comparable as Elite is really not anywhere near competitive against other players by design.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I know that's what you would contend. You and the people like you have been hammering away at it since I started on this forum.

1. It isn't what's being said to you. You cannot argue against what IS being said so you setup something that ISN'T to argue with.
2. No it's not a valid argument which is why I haven't seen anyone making it. The only time this argument is raised is by the solo crowd.

All I have ever argued for is fairness and balance. If you have a problem with either of those then I would like to hear it. If you just want to pretend I said something else and then respond to the something that I didn't say then I will ask - "What is the point?"

To a lot of you, the strawman idea, along with the other logical fallacies, are something you once read on wikipedia. I imagine that very few of you spent years, as I did, heavily involved in college and university debating. To me the logical fallacies are as familiar as people's own children are to them. I can spot them a mile off and they are always easy to refute. Why don't you stick to challenging the concepts that have been raised instead of expending all of your efforts on concepts that haven't?

EDIT: Even in your post that I quote you misrepresent my claims. The problem is making gains in safety then transferring to open. WHy did you write that as the problems being "massive gains in solo". The issue isn't "massive gains" it is "safe gains". We are all playing snakes and ladders but in solo there are no snakes. You never lose money. You can never be robbed.

Please drop the personal attacks, attack the argument which is what you're failing to do.

Now you mention safe gains, and again you're in the wrong game . Its made for a wider appeal away from the PVP only audience and as I have said numerous times if they really wanted PVP (sorry to those who PVP when it presents itself) only it would require a much smaller play area (switching to solo vs going out into the sticks achieves similar results) is why it won't change, or at least won't or shouldn't be a drastic change as some people request. A timeout between switching seems reasonable, or if you have a bounty incurred during an attack on a player also should prevent switching. Being chased, escaping, dropping back to the main menu and then dropping to solo or private group immediately also should not happen. Maybe switching should be allowed only in ports or when logged out for a set period?

 

[Joe Spivey]

Edited out because I decided i didn't want to stoop to the same level after all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I know that's what you would contend. You and the people like you have been hammering away at it since I started on this forum.

.... in response to those who seek to restrict player choice by reducing / removing player choice to suit their preferred play-style at the expense of others.

1. It isn't what's being said to you. You cannot argue against what IS being said so you setup something that ISN'T to argue with.
2. No it's not a valid argument which is why I haven't seen anyone making it. The only time this argument is raised is by the solo crowd.

So you have seen no posts expressing the opinion that asset transfer between solo and open would allow players to play in solo up to the point of affording their fully outfitted Anaconda then group switch to open to cause mayhem?

All I have ever argued for is fairness and balance. If you have a problem with either of those then I would like to hear it. If you just want to pretend I said something else and then respond to the something that I didn't say then I will ask - "What is the point?"

What is unfair about every player having the ability, should they so choose, to play the game how they want to - in any mode? Self imposed play-style restrictions do not validate complaints of imbalance, e.g. players trading in open without shields complain about being destroyed.

To a lot of you, the strawman idea, along with the other logical fallacies, are something you once read on wikipedia. I imagine that very few of you spent years, as I did, heavily involved in college and university debating. To me the logical fallacies are as familiar as people's own children are to them. I can spot them a mile off and they are always easy to refute. Why don't you stick to challenging the concepts that have been raised instead of expending all of your efforts on concepts that haven't?

Arguing from authority now?

EDIT: Even in your post that I quote you misrepresent my claims. The problem is making gains in safety then transferring to open. WHy did you write that as the problems being "massive gains in solo". The issue isn't "massive gains" it is "safe gains". We are all playing snakes and ladders but in solo there are no snakes. You never lose money. You can never be robbed.

Not your claims, no - claims that are made in the many threads that seek to buff earnings in open (and specifically not in solo / private groups). If playing outside open was truly safe then players would never lose ships in the other modes. The use of "never" implies that something cannot happen. I would expect that Frontier's game analytics would disprove the contention that players "never" lose money and are "never" robbed in modes other than open.

 

[Darian]

So, I would contend that the "massive earnings in solo" argument is as valid an argument as "PvPers want everyone locked in open".

I would yet have to see an pvp player who does not want everyone forced onto the same server as him.
There where people in Eve complaining even about the core systhems all the time.

 

[CMDR Bansidhe]

Lets tackle this head on, so what if they do? Saying this another way, "Player A is not good enough to ever play in open and will always be losing ships and credits so often that they be perpetually stuck in a Sidewinder". Player A gets so frustrated he quits permanently or retreats to some silly separate mode never to try multiplayer again, is that what you want? And if he shows up in his nice Anaconda against a players who aren't good he'll rank up a nice bounty and will be an easy meal for someone used to PVP, and if he's not actively doing that then a pirate shouldn't have too much trouble. You do realise how the networking works in this game too right?

And why pick on solo play? Private groups potentially provide even more lucrative rewards, working together always has its benefits.

Sorry, this whole switching from solo to open proving large advantages is in a word pathetic, now grant you if this was more like Eve for example then you'd have a point and I would also be saying how bad it is, but its so a completely different animal that few things are even comparable as Elite is really not anywhere near competitive against other players by design.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



Please drop the personal attacks, attack the argument which is what you're failing to do.

Now you mention safe gains, and again you're in the wrong game . Its made for a wider appeal away from the PVP only audience and as I have said numerous times if they really wanted PVP (sorry to those who PVP when it presents itself) only it would require a much smaller play area (switching to solo vs going out into the sticks achieves similar results) is why it won't change, or at least won't or shouldn't be a drastic change as some people request. A timeout between switching seems reasonable, or if you have a bounty incurred during an attack on a player also should prevent switching. Being chased, escaping, dropping back to the main menu and then dropping to solo or private group immediately also should not happen. Maybe switching should be allowed only in ports or when logged out for a set period?

Quote and bold the attack, please.

I have also reported the post you quoted. My own post. If there is a personal attack there the moderators will deal with it.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Arguing from authority now?

Saying I am well versed in logical fallacies is not arguing from authority. Thank you, however, for making my point for me. You would know that IF it was something you had ACTUAL experience with and not just something you read on wiki.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Saying I am well versed in logical fallacies is not arguing from authority. Thank you, however, for making my point for me. You would know that IF it was something you had ACTUAL experience with and not just something you read on wiki.

Stating that an opinion held is the only correct one due to claimed experience is not argument from authority now?

 

[StarTux]

Quote and bold the attack, please.

I have also reported the post you quoted. My own post. If there is a personal attack there the moderators will deal with it.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -




Saying I am well versed in logical fallacies is not arguing from authority. Thank you, however, for making my point for me. You would know that IF it was something you had ACTUAL experience with and not just something you read on wiki.

You do know that you're attacking people who share a different viewpoint and not attacking the argument, this is where I have taken exception to your overly aggressive tone, "To a lot of you, the strawman idea, along with the other logical fallacies, are something you once read on wikipedia. I imagine that very few of you spent years, as I did, heavily involved in college and university debating. To me the logical fallacies are as familiar as people's own children are to them. I can spot them a mile off and they are always easy to refute. Why don't you stick to challenging the concepts that have been raised instead of expending all of your efforts on concepts that haven't?" Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, keep on course with the debate as this reads back as saying, "I have a degree and did well in my debating society, the rest of you suck".

Lets get back on topic?

 

[ianw]

I know that's what you would contend. You and the people like you have been hammering away at it since I started on this forum.

1. It isn't what's being said to you. You cannot argue against what IS being said so you setup something that ISN'T to argue with.
2. No it's not a valid argument which is why I haven't seen anyone making it. The only time this argument is raised is by the solo crowd.

All I have ever argued for is fairness and balance. If you have a problem with either of those then I would like to hear it. If you just want to pretend I said something else and then respond to the something that I didn't say then I will ask - "What is the point?"

To a lot of you, the strawman idea, along with the other logical fallacies, are something you once read on wikipedia. I imagine that very few of you spent years, as I did, heavily involved in college and university debating. To me the logical fallacies are as familiar as people's own children are to them. I can spot them a mile off and they are always easy to refute. Why don't you stick to challenging the concepts that have been raised instead of expending all of your efforts on concepts that haven't?

EDIT: Even in your post that I quote you misrepresent my claims. The problem is making gains in safety then transferring to open. WHy did you write that as the problems being "massive gains in solo". The issue isn't "massive gains" it is "safe gains". We are all playing snakes and ladders but in solo there are no snakes. You never lose money. You can never be robbed.

Okay - lets talk about fairness and balance. As always it comes down to the difference between those that want to see ED as a competition (not talking about race to elite - Frontier have set that up as an optional competition with it's own rule set) and those that see it as an experience.

How on earth do you do balance completely different play styles - trading/mining/exploring/pirating/bounty hunting - so they can "fairly" compete with each other in open?

They are not in anyway comparable - trading for example - I couldn't have earned money any quicker in solo than I have in open - I have had one - failed - interdiction attempt from a player in all that time - that's it.

 

[AgentGB]

needs more aerosmith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EreTeb0ZT6k

 

[Shaamaan]

I was watching a Twitch stream of a pirate late last night. Here are some conclusions that I had:

- To his credit, he was a pirate, not a griefer - he would demand cargo, and if the target escaped, he would use limpets and / or target the cargo hatch. He also didn't wipe his bounty.
- He had a "list of shame", of people who would disconnect (using out-of-game means to avoid getting pirated), while he himself stayed in one of the well-known rare trade hubs... but these hubs are only well known BECAUSE of outside sources (I think it'd be next to impossible to run into them just by pure luck, and if my source is true people only found the rare goods by checking the game files!). If the rare goods didn't exist, then he wouldn't have such a number of target to interdict (and really, there ARE a lot of targets to interdict) - I'd call that being a hypocrite.
- He would not attack anything that could remotely pose a threat - in fact, anything smaller he could probably destroy, while anything larger he could probably outrun = 0 risk
- If he smelled bounty hunters, he would jump to any of the other rare systems. Since there's a bunch, the chance of the same bounty hunter following is very very very slim. Once someone did follow, he accused said bounty hunter of "stream sniping" and called him a cheat for not using in-game tools to find him. WHAT TOOLS?! <facepalm> Wake scanners work for one, perhaps two jumps. After that instancing and simply the fact that the pirate can jump faster make it impossible to effectively find someone in ED. Heck, said pirate said it himself!
- He was pirating in a non-anarchy system and outright called the police forces a joke

So, let's look at the balance. Traders really can't efficiently defend themselves - you can't fit a trade vessel for combat, only for evasion. The police forces are a joke. Evading bounty hunters is (apparently) easy. In fact, there's no reason to be a PvP bounty hunter at the moment. About the only thing that's somewhat balancing this out is the fact that trade is incredibly profitable compared to any other profession (when it comes to the trader - pirate balance, assuming the pirate doesn't stupidly demand ALL the cargo and doesn't blow the trader up). All in all, I wouldn't call that balance.

Above all else, I do find the mentality of the pirate a bit worrying. Again, kudos to him for actually being a pirate (get goods, not kills) and not wiping the bounty, but everything about "outside tools" was just on his part - disconnecting from the game is low, but so is finding out online which are popular trade locations, picking only guaranteed fights and cowardly running away with impunity at the slightest hint of any danger...

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Above all else, I do find the mentality of the pirate a bit worrying. Again, kudos to him for actually being a pirate (get goods, not kills) and not wiping the bounty, but everything about "outside tools" was just on his part - disconnecting from the game is low, but so is finding out online which are popular trade locations, picking only guaranteed fights and cowardly running away with impunity at the slightest hint of any danger...

To be fair, picking "fights" you can win and run when you cant is kind of the number 1 rule for a pirate, and him using the net to figure out popular locations with humans is no worse imo than using the net to find optimal trade routes. I do agree bounty hunters could do with more tools to track however.

Aside from him whining when a CMDR successfully tracked him I can honestly say, IF I get pirated I hope it is by him, because by the sounds of it, if I drop some cans off I will get to live another day.

 

[Iain M Norman]

I would rather see a new mode where switching is not allowed.

The only new mode that might get introduced is Iron Man mode, which is proposed to be forced open with no switching, and with the added risk of perma-death if you don't launch your escape pod in time.

Sandro, back when this was discussed, was against splintering the player-group and more than that.

There's been no word of it for a while though, except for a "not yet" recently. Not even a "soon" *grins*.