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

[AndyC77]

No, they're cheaters. Simple as that.

Look, I don't care about people playing the game solo. But community goals MUST be made Open only. It's like a soccer game, only some players are allowed to score goals on an empty field and that somehow counts.

Umm, no!

 

[Sly]

Calling people cheaters for using intended game mechanics is absurd, but the soccer analogy is apt in the context of heavily contested community goals.

 

[Jorlin]

Like i said earlier: add another goal that is "open only" next time. This way still everybody can contribute and those that seek competition between "their kind" can get it. Maybe even let it add more to the outcome of the war, i personally wouldn't care.

 

[ViciousMink]

Like i said earlier: add another goal that is "open only" next time. This way still everybody can contribute and those that seek competition between "their kind" can get it. Maybe even let it add more to the outcome of the war, i personally wouldn't care.

That's probably one of the fairest and most expedient ways to handle it.

Which means it's going to get ignored. =P

 

[Meritz]

Calling people cheaters for using intended game mechanics is absurd, but the soccer analogy is apt in the context of heavily contested community goals.

Not really absurd. Consider what most cheaters do. They exploit bad or bugged game mechanics. Opposing community goals that allow for players to avoid the community part are an obvious bad design decision. Therefore, those who use said game mechanics are exploiters.

Doesn't matter if FD says its ok. The rules of sportsmanship say it's not ok. FD could also put instakill gimballed multicannons on sale for 1cr and say its ok to use it - you use it, you're a cheater.

I don't even care about ordinary community goals, since most of the time it's PvE anyway and there is no real competition going on. But anyone who fought in Lugh war in Open knows that enemy commanders are never too far away. Playing in Solo makes it MUCH easier, and worse, the opposing team has no way to counter. Where's the fairness in that?

 

[Sly]

Like i said earlier: add another goal that is "open only" next time. This way still everybody can contribute and those that seek competition between "their kind" can get it. Maybe even let it add more to the outcome of the war, i personally wouldn't care.

I could live with this if the additional impact on the war is roughly commiserate with the additional risk of open (I don't claim to know exactly how much riskier it is).

 

[Jorlin]

Not really absurd. Consider what most cheaters do. They exploit bad or bugged game mechanics. Opposing community goals that allow for players to avoid the community part are an obvious bad design decision. Therefore, those who use said game mechanics are exploiters.

Doesn't matter if FD says its ok. The rules of sportsmanship say it's not ok. FD could also put instakill gimballed multicannons on sale for 1cr and say its ok to use it - you use it, you're a cheater.

I don't even care about ordinary community goals, since most of the time it's PvE anyway and there is no real competition going on. But anyone who fought in Lugh war in Open knows that enemy commanders are never too far away. Playing in Solo makes it MUCH easier, and worse, the opposing team has no way to counter. Where's the fairness in that?

oh, te rules of the game don't matter and we make our own...
then my rules of sportmanship tell: ganking loners in a wing of four is cheating.

 

[Sly]

Not really absurd. Consider what most cheaters do. They exploit bad or bugged game mechanics. Opposing community goals that allow for players to avoid the community part are an obvious bad design decision. Therefore, those who use said game mechanics are exploiters.

Doesn't matter if FD says its ok. The rules of sportsmanship say it's not ok. FD could also put instakill gimballed multicannons on sale for 1cr and say its ok to use it - you use it, you're a cheater.

I don't even care about ordinary community goals, since most of the time it's PvE anyway and there is no real competition going on. But anyone who fought in Lugh war in Open knows that enemy commanders are never too far away. Playing in Solo makes it MUCH easier, and worse, the opposing team has no way to counter. Where's the fairness in that?

It's grossly unfair, but that was not my point. Cheating, by definition, is playing against the rules; not taking advantage of ill-conceived but intended rules. A bad design decision is not equivalent to a bug. Those playing in solo just to gain an advantage are not honorable in my book, but simply don't fit the definition of cheaters.

 

[Meritz]

oh, te rules of the game don't matter and we make our own...
then my rules of sportmanship tell: ganking loners in a wing of four is cheating.

Nope. Loners have ways of reacting. If they're really good, they can gank your entire wing - it happened. Now, if your wing was invisible and invulnerable, then it would be cheating.

The point here is that opposing teams should be able to interact. Does not matter if the odds are stacked on one side. What matters is that they can play and compete, even if it ends up a steamroller because one side is more popular than the other. I've been on the underdog side for years in EvE, and again in Planetside 2 and never did we feel cheated because the other guys were more numerous. If anything, winning was more sweet.

But hell, I feel cheated here.

 

[Asp Explorer]

But community goals MUST be made Open only.

Urm, nope. To do so would be to say that all players are not part of the community. After all, ALL players are equal, but OPEN players are more equal than others.

 

[Jorlin]

Nope. Loners have ways of reacting. If they're really good, they can gank your entire wing - it happened. Now, if your wing was invisible and invulnerable, then it would be cheating.

You brought up the "sportmanship" to define "solo" as cheating.
Every solo player is playing the game within the rules and how the game is intended to be.

That there is a problem in regards of the community goals i already agreed to.
But i won't let me be cut off from game content because of this.

So: What are your constructive ideas?

 

[Meritz]

Urm, nope. To do so would be to say that all players are not part of the community. After all, ALL players are equal, but OPEN players are more equal than others.

Sorry, if you're an invisible ghost, you're not part of the community. You don't have to socialize. But you have to be *present*. What a ludicrous idea, that a solo player playing in their own instance of the entire universe, is somehow part of the Open community.

 

[Sly]

Urm, nope. To do so would be to say that all players are not part of the community. After all, ALL players are equal, but OPEN players are more equal than others.

Considering that SOLO/PG players are getting the same rewards as OPEN players for less risk, I'd say they're the ones being treated as more equal than others.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Sorry, if you're an invisible ghost, you're not part of the community. You don't have to socialize. But you have to be *present*. What a ludicrous idea, that a solo player playing in their own instance of the entire universe, is somehow part of the Open community.

What a ludicrous idea, that a solo player playing in their own instance of the entire universe, is somehow part of the Elite community. What are you going to suggest next, that Mobius's group isn't a community? That their community isn't part of the larger Elite community? That all these alleged Solo and Group players never ever click Open now and then for the fun of it?

 

[Meritz]

You brought up the "sportmanship" to define "solo" as cheating.
Every solo player is playing the game within the rules and how the game is intended to be.

That there is a problem in regards of the community goals i already agreed to.
But i won't let me be cut off from game content because of this.

So: What are your constructive ideas?

Simple. Opposing community goals must be made exclusive to Open. For solo players, low-impact community goals can be introduced, so they can get their content and credits but have very little actual influence of the Open game.

Alternatively, since there is no player economy as such, solo players get the credits, but their score is not counted at all.

 

[Lithari]

Well, it depends really, pvp can be interesting when its fair.....but in this day and age, fair is never part of the game, its only 'who wins' that tends to matter, which is why i tend to play solo or in the mobius group.

I mean if i was trading and i got jumped by a lone player, telling me to drop some of my cargo or die and i do that and they fly off after scooping it up, its fine, but when they just interdict you to just kill you, without a bounty on my head is just pointless.

 

[Bigskill]

Technically is more a glitch than a bug, you use a coding error to gain an advanttage on someoneelse.
The solution is simple, like they did in the past with the people that were bilionaire useing another glitch, simply frontier took the money they gained back.....

In this case is not just matter of money, because they influence changed a lot due to this, so they will need to adjust things a bit to balance.
At least give us the possibility to attack them but being able to play in solo or group these community goal sucks, come on, whats the point?
If you want to trade in private or solo fine, but if you want to participate to the galactic sivil war you need to go open play.Thats it.
Im pretty sure frontier and Braben are discussing about this, but who knows what they will decide....

 

[damj256]

OMG is this thread still going??

Sorry, been spending my time playing the game instead of whining about it. Right! wait till I go and get a beer and some popcorn, there ain't much on TV tonight.
.
.
.
.
.
Right I'm back

now GO......

 

[Jorlin]

Simple. Opposing community goals must be made exclusive to Open. For solo players, low-impact community goals can be introduced, so they can get their content and credits but have very little actual influence of the Open game.

Alternatively, since there is no player economy as such, solo players get the credits, but their score is not counted at all.

Let me think about it....

NO

I paid for the game like you did, maybe even more (don't know). It is also my universe. I take actions, make decisions and so i make a difference (as small as it might be).
But your attitude is one of the reasons i prefer not to play open.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Simple. Opposing community goals must be made exclusive to Open. For solo players, low-impact community goals can be introduced, so they can get their content and credits but have very little actual influence of the Open game.

Alternatively, since there is no player economy as such, solo players get the credits, but their score is not counted at all.

Sorry but I got a good laugh out of that. Say I log on to Open, and my instance has such awfully low bandwidth/high latency that the matchmaking server never puts anyone into it - and trundle about in Open doing whatever I please - what is the actual difference between that and Solo?