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

[CMDR Sheehy]

So, player encounters should be interesting, but part of this is the ability to avoid player encounters? And this sounds logical to you?

yes, because being ganked for lulz is not meaningful, hence the ability to escape from 'perceived griefing' is entirely logical.

Now, if they gave us cloaking devices and detection equipment (or whatever lore-friendly alternative) so we can play hide and seek, I'd call that an interesting player-player encounter.

That would be silent running and there's plenty of that going on. The cooler you are the closer you can get to a player and not be on the scanner. It's as good as a cloaking device. It's all about heat management.

But when I'm in Open and you're solo, we have no encounter. Nothing interesting about that.

You can't see me, so I'm ruining your game? That's an old argument. I and my fellow group members achieve many goals together and I play only in solo because of hardware issues. Is it that you being able to 'see' me the only way that is interesting? Or are you going to insult me by saying no?

And my insistence on ED being a PvP game is based on pure facts. I offered them, here they are again:

• open PvP anywhere design - no safe zones whatsoever, except the hangar box
• minimal or nonexistent enforcement of metagaming rules
• player competition is highly encouraged (for example, up until recently players had to fight over bounties, opposing combat goals in Lugh etc.)

• I hand you a gun. Your only choice now is to kill me! True? Just because you can do something does not mean you MUST do something. PvP Combat is possible everywhere, does it HAVE to happen?
• Rules are broken and an update is imminent to make this work better. Now I am allied with factions, the Police turn up so quickly the pirate often turns and runs before I can finish him off...
• Player competition is highly encouraged when it actually means something (as in the war for Lugh.) Dropping out of SC at a station to be two shotted for lulz is not highly encouraged.

That's a PvP game on the level of hardcore PvP games such as EvE or Darkfall. You can be attacked anywhere, there are no rules, there are no failsafes, no safe zones and no enforcement of any kind.

Now that's Open game ruleset. Pure PvP. And if there wasn't an option to freely switch to solo and back, you wouldn't be arguing with me whether ED is a PvP game or not.

Solo exists for more reasons than avoiding other player interaction: You can run it on a minimal internet connection with very little bandwidth use and no requirement for P2P or uPNP. That fact alone means that your entire premise is based on false assumptions.

But there is such an option. And I call it bad multiplayer design, because it tries to force two totally incompatible modes together. We have basically two mutually antagonizing concepts rolled into one. And violating the precise reason why games separate PvE from PvP servers. Because whichever way you turn it, those two crowds do NOT want to play together and have opposing goals in the game. PvE players don't want to be "entertainment for gankers" as you put it, and PvP players don't want invulnerable PvE players frolicking through their battlefields and messing up the score. Friction will ensue.

PvE players often do want to engage with other players, hence the battle for Lugh. Your logic is not unasailable. On the other hand, PvP players do not want PvE players frolicking through open because it does not challenge them, unless they like ganking players of less PvP skill that them. Anyone who engages in the meaningful scenarios know that they are playing the environment as well as other players (in a limited fashion) and so not everyone who is in the scenario will be accessible to the game. The combat on the ground, the spies, the politics, deciding the course of Capitol Ship are all working against you or for you. So what if instancing and mode differences separate a few pilots when there is so much more to it than just you and your ship.

[Edit: Woot! I got 5000. \o/]

 

[Asp Explorer]

I am continually amazed by the ability of some people to see and observe purely what they wish to see and observe, even when presented with incontrovertible evidence that the opposite of their belief is, in fact, the actual reality. What makes it even more amusing, is the sheer outrage displayed because others can do as they please, and the refusal to acknowledge that all play styles and preferences are all equally as valid.

 

[Meritz]

PvE players often do want to engage with other players, hence the battle for Lugh. Your logic is not unasailable. On the other hand, PvP players do not want PvE players frolicking through open because it does not challenge them, unless they like ganking players of less PvP skill that them.

Sounds to me like you never even played a team based PvP game. Can you imagine the uproar if BF4 players were allowed to decide multiplayer matches by playing against bots in their own instance of the map? Because that's what this boils down to.

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

I am continually amazed by the ability of some people to see and observe purely what they wish to see and observe, even when presented with incontrovertible evidence that the opposite of their belief is, in fact, the actual reality. What makes it even more amusing, is the sheer outrage displayed because others can do as they please, and the refusal to acknowledge that all play styles and preferences are all equally as valid.

Talking about yourself again?

 

[Asp Explorer]

It definitely seems I'll have to do another few runs in Open at this Lugh place in a free sidewinder for the lulz, and see how many PvP pros I can get to RAEG and cry grief

 

[Meritz]

It definitely seems I'll have to do another few runs in Open at this Lugh place in a free sidewinder for the lulz, and see how many PvP pros I can get to RAEG and cry grief

It's ok, they won't hurt you much if you stay still.

 

[ianw]

Sounds to me like you never even played a team based PvP game. Can you imagine the uproar if BF4 players were allowed to decide multiplayer matches by playing against bots in their own instance of the map? Because that's what this boils down to.

I don't think the team analogy really works here.

Unless by "your team" you mean all the other players you know nothing about that may or may not be on your side in other time zones and instances whether they be solo/private or open mode.

The reality is that if you, me and everyone else in this thread did - or didn't participate in the Lugh event - even if we all happened to be on the same side - it probably wouldn't make any difference to the result.

It's so far out of your control as an individual or part of a wing I'm genuinely puzzled as to why it bothers you so much.

 

[Meritz]

I don't think the team analogy really works here.

Unless by "your team" you mean all the other players you know nothing about that may or may not be on your side in other time zones and instances whether they be solo/private or open mode.

The reality is that if you, me and everyone else in this thread did - or didn't participate in the Lugh event - even if we all happened to be on the same side - it probably wouldn't make any difference to the result.

It's so far out of your control as an individual or part of a wing I'm genuinely puzzled as to why it bothers you so much.

Completely incorrect, and you would be aware of this if you were participating and paying attention. The background sim does not work as advertised. There is no war simulation that plays itself out regardless of player participation or not. FD have to adjust things such as station ownership, battleship deployment etc. by hand, and they do it based off the community goal results.

Guess who makes those goals happen? Players. Not NPCs. NPCs are, right now, there to be farmed. Nothing more.

So yeah. Players make all the difference.

 

[DaveB]

...And my insistence on ED being a PvP game is based on pure facts. I offered them, here they are again:

• open PvP anywhere design - no safe zones whatsoever, except the hangar box
• minimal or nonexistent enforcement of metagaming rules
• player competition is highly encouraged (for example, up until recently players had to fight over bounties, opposing combat goals in Lugh etc.)

That's a PvP game on the level of hardcore PvP games such as EvE or Darkfall. You can be attacked anywhere, there are no rules, there are no failsafes, no safe zones and no enforcement of any kind....

So, in the face of a direct quote from the leading mind behind FD and ED talking about what their design goal actually was, your response can be paraphrased as "Whatever they say, you can do this, therefore that must be what it's for..." You CAN pound a screw into wood with a hammer, but a screwdriver works better.

• Just because you CAN be attacked anywhere does not mean that it was intended as a wide-open free-for all shooting anyone who crossed your gunsights. You can be attacked anywhere because there are valid in-game reasons that CAN occur anywhere for another ship to attack you. "Because I'm here for competitive PvP" was not one of those reasons during the design phase and has not become one since.
• They are working on the enforcement of metagaming rules - bounties for murder have already been buffed from their ridiculously low initial levels and they are about to become harder to pay off. This will have a negative effect on PvE players, because the occasional bounty for tagging a wacky-flying friendly with your beam lasers in a nav point, RES or combat zone becomes more of a hassle, but it's acceptable because it's clearly part of the design intent - to quote DB again - "to discourage PvP" The more open mode is treated by a subset of players as an open PvP arena the more tweaks to these mechanics to discourage it will be implemented and the harder they will land. To quote one of the favorite lines of the hardcore PvPer "your tears will be sweet"
• Players are encouraged to participate in the ongoing conflicts between factions - whether directly in combat zones or indirectly by supporting a goal that aids one factions cause. That's not the same as "player competition is highly encouraged". If your assertion was correct it would not have been "until recently" that players had to fight over bounties, that mechanic would have been strengthened, not killed.

In short, FD's stated design intent and the changes they have already made or have announced as upcoming to the game mechanics are entirely consistent, they are tweaking the system to make open play the kind of environment they originally wanted it to be. Sure, they are taking it slowly and carefully but their direction is clear. You could also draw some conclusion from FD's stance on the subject matter of this thread, that the modes mechanics and the shared universe are not going to change. If open was intended to be competitive PvP, it would be separate. It never was, so it isn't.

By all means cherry-pick individual aspects of the game mechanics to infer a design completely at variance with the designers stated intent. By all means continue to assume that the existing design not really being appropriate for competitive PvP is due to incompetence on FD's part rather than that not being their design goal in the first place. The rest of us will listen to what FD are actually saying and take note of the direction the game development is actually going.

No offense, but I'll take DB & FD's word over yours as to what style of gameplay any mode of the game is designed to cater for.

I guess there really are none so blind as those that will not see.

 

[ianw]

Completely incorrect, and you would be aware of this if you were participating and paying attention. The background sim does not work as advertised. There is no war simulation that plays itself out regardless of player participation or not. FD have to adjust things such as station ownership, battleship deployment etc. by hand, and they do it based off the community goal results.

Guess who makes those goals happen? Players. Not NPCs. NPCs are, right now, there to be farmed. Nothing more.

So yeah. Players make all the difference.

Well the background SIM does whatever FD tell it to - but that's another matter.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. In a team game you normally know who is on your team - who is on the other team and you all play at the same time in the same conditions with equal numbers.

The way this game is instanced - and with the different time zones you have absolutely no control over anyone else in your "team" - you don't even know who they are and when they are playing and that's before we even start talking about modes.

At an individual level your - and my - input is utterly irrelevant given the total numbers playing the event.

Players on all sides of the event are farming NPCs - not just the players that aren't on your side.

As I said before it's out of our control - before we even start talking about modes..

 

[Meritz]

In short, FD's stated design intent and the changes they have already made or have announced as upcoming to the game mechanics are entirely consistent, they are tweaking the system to make open play the kind of environment they originally wanted it to be. Sure, they are taking it slowly and carefully but their direction is clear. You could also draw some conclusion from FD's stance on the subject matter of this thread, that the modes mechanics and the shared universe are not going to change. If open was intended to be competitive PvP, it would be separate. It never was, so it isn't.

And is, therefore, flawed design. As I said, I don't particularly care about intent. I care about the results, and the design failed to take into account living people. Ideas are easy to design for.

And by the way, they are far from consistent or logical in their design decisions. Take the latest one to put a timer on a bounty before you can remove it. That's great from the Open game perspective, as it adds weight to criminal actions, you can't just rinse off your sins.

Of course, you can go solo and wait it out, perfectly safe from inquiring player bounty hunters. Which is something most people will take advantage of.

So you have a design decision that's good for Open gameplay but will end up driving more people into solo. That's what you get when you try to mix unmixable modes of play.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

And is, therefore, flawed design. As I said, I don't particularly care about intent. I care about the results, and the design failed to take into account living people. Ideas are easy to design for.

And by the way, they are far from consistent or logical in their design decisions. Take the latest one to put a timer on a bounty before you can remove it. That's great from the Open game perspective, as it adds weight to criminal actions, you can't just rinse off your sins.

Of course, you can go solo and wait it out, perfectly safe from inquiring player bounty hunters. Which is something most people will take advantage of.

So you have a design decision that's good for Open gameplay but will end up driving more people into solo. That's what you get when you try to mix unmixable modes of play.

Sooo you are saying that because you see the game being one way *despite* all the actual evidence to the contrary, because that is the way *you* play it, the design is flawed? Have I got that right?

 

[Robert Maynard]

So you have a design decision that's good for Open gameplay but will end up driving more people into solo. That's what you get when you try to mix unmixable modes of play.

*If* the intention of the bounty wipe timer is to reduce "crime" in open then, even if players move to solo to avoid bounty hunters, it will have served its purpose. It might not just be about bounty hunters having more targets with bounties....

.... of course there was a part of the criminality proposal that talked about keeping players with bounties accrued from attacking / destroying other players in open until the bounty was paid / collected....

 

[Meritz]

Well the background SIM does whatever FD tell it to - but that's another matter.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. In a team game you normally know who is on your team - who is on the other team and you all play at the same time in the same conditions with equal numbers.

The way this game is instanced - and with the different time zones you have absolutely no control over anyone else in your "team" - you don't even know who they are and when they are playing and that's before we even start talking about modes.

At an individual level your - and my - input is utterly irrelevant given the total numbers playing the event.

Players on all sides of the event are farming NPCs - not just the players that aren't on your side.

As I said before it's out of our control - before we even start talking about modes..

Have you fought in Lugh in open? It's easy to theorize, but I bet solo players don't have to deal with killer enemy wings that vaporize smaller ships in seconds, or (what happened to me yesterday) player scans tipping off the authorities and slapping you with a ginormous fine when smuggling. Yes, the goals are PvE, but the competition is PvP. It is similar to how a capture the fort defended by NPC guards games work. NPCs are always a pushover. Something to focus player effort around. And when you focus PvE efforts for opposing factions in a PvP area, you get a PvP battle.

It doesn't matter that you don't know your entire team, or that you don't play at the same time - plenty of massive team based games out there with 24/7 wars such as Planetside 2, and there is no ghosting there. The team effort matters, on equal grounds and equal rules, where teams can and do interact with each other. Otherwise it's just a bunch of guys talking to themselves. I agree there are other problems with opposing goals, but that's not the topic here.

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

Sooo you are saying that because you see the game being one way *despite* all the actual evidence to the contrary, because that is the way *you* play it, the design is flawed? Have I got that right?

Of course not, because you don't even try to understand what I'm saying. By the way, I'd like to see that actual evidence to the contrary listed.

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

*If* the intention of the bounty wipe timer is to reduce "crime" in open then, even if players move to solo to avoid bounty hunters, it will have served its purpose. It might not just be about bounty hunters having more targets with bounties....

Well, if their goal is to reduce the number of players in Open and diminish available gameplay content for multiple professions, then I guess it's spot on. Do you think that is their goal?

.... of course there was a part of the criminality proposal that talked about keeping players with bounties accrued from attacking / destroying other players in open until the bounty was paid / collected....

Yes, and we were also supposed to get a whole bunch of other stuff we didn't get. As Americans like to say, talk is cheap. If/when they do all that stuff, I won't complain about it.

 

[DaveB]

And is, therefore, flawed design. As I said, I don't particularly care about intent. I care about the results, and the design failed to take into account living people. Ideas are easy to design for.

And by the way, they are far from consistent or logical in their design decisions. Take the latest one to put a timer on a bounty before you can remove it. That's great from the Open game perspective, as it adds weight to criminal actions, you can't just rinse off your sins.

Of course, you can go solo and wait it out, perfectly safe from inquiring player bounty hunters. Which is something most people will take advantage of.

So you have a design decision that's good for Open gameplay but will end up driving more people into solo. That's what you get when you try to mix unmixable modes of play.

Provably and completely incorrect. By assuming their intent and assessing their design based on that assumption, you draw incorrect conclusions. You very much do care about "intent" because the "results" stand or fall on how well that intent is achieved.

You cannot assess "results" accurately if your presumption of the intent is not correct. The intent is a matter of record, therefore any assessment of results that presumes a different and incompatible intent is wishful thinking at best and certainly fails to be in any way authoritative or reliable.

If the intent was not to provide a competitive PvP platform, complaining about how the design fails to achieve that is irrelevant, because that was not a desired result. I would still criticize FD's design, not because it's a bad design for competitive PvP but because the sheer number of people trying to play it that way in spite of the design demonstrates that it does not succeed in its design goal of discouraging that play style well enough yet.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, if their goal is to reduce the number of players in Open and diminish available gameplay content for multiple professions, then I guess it's spot on. Do you think that is their goal?

As players can group switch between solo, open and private groups on a session by session basis and given that we have all been told to "play the game how you want to", it's not clear if Frontier would be particularly worried about the number of players in open. If they were particularly worried then I would expect that they would offer some form of encouragement to play in open - there's a quote from Michael in the OP that indicates that they are not considering incentivising open play at this time though.

Yes, and we were also supposed to get a whole bunch of other stuff we didn't get. As Americans like to say, talk is cheap. If/when they do all that stuff, I won't complain about it.

Indeed there is a whole load of stuff in the DDF that hasn't been (and may never be) implemented - it's nice to see it being implemented a bit at a time (wings [Alliances], bounty timers). Hoping for lots more as time goes on.

 

[Jockey79]

Sounds to me like you never even played a team based PvP game.

This is the whole motivation and problem with some people. They refuse to grasp (or use to troll);

Elite: Dangerous IS NOT a PvP game.
Elite: Dangerous is a game WITH PvP elements.

If you want a PvP game, BF4, WoT, Robocraft, heck even Clash of Clans would all welcome you with open arms.

Elite: Dangerous is about the player - the individual, exploring the galaxy and exploring there own abilities and limits within the game.
Players are on a journey of self exploration and testing;

Do you have the patients to run a trade route over and over and over?
Do you have the will power to mine millions worth of rock and chase the fragments down?
Can you make it to the other side of the galaxy and back in a single trip without any bad mishaps?

(This list goes on, for a long time.....)

Elite: Dangerous is about the players experience and growth - not mindless pew pew 4 lulz omgwtf i roxxor innit!!!!11!!11.

 

[Meritz]

If the intent was not to provide a competitive PvP platform, complaining about how the design fails to achieve that is irrelevant, because that was not a desired result. I would still criticize FD's design, not because it's a bad design for competitive PvP but because the sheer number of people trying to play it that way in spite of the design demonstrates that it does not succeed in its design goal of discouraging that play style well enough yet.

And do you think it ever will? How do you discourage PvP in a game that has very few rules, no safe zones, and a might-makes-right setup at its very core?

You don't. Not without nuking the base concept. Which means no PvP zones, player invulnerability, consensual PvP only (flagging) etc.

And SC is going to do that much, much better.

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

As players can group switch between solo, open and private groups on a session by session basis and given that we have all been told to "play the game how you want to", it's not clear if Frontier would be particularly worried about the number of players in open. If they were particularly worried then I would expect that they would offer some form of encouragement to play in open - there's a quote from Michael in the OP that indicates that they are not considering incentivising open play at this time though.

It's their game, and their decisions to make. I stated my opinion about some of those decisions. I think they have a flawed approach for multiplayer, and I believe in this day and age, multiplayer is the way to go. Especially sandbox stuff. So yeah, I think they should focus on that. Compliance is not expected.

By the way, judging from the advertisements on the main page and literally every trailer to date, I'd say they're pitching the game to the multiplayer crowd. Perhaps that's the reason why so many people try to play it as such.

 

[Jockey79]

....
And SC is going to do that much, much better.

It took long enough, but I knew it was coming...

SC zealot just here to trash ED, jealous we actually have a game to play and they have a 70 million promise that may or may not come true one day before our sun goes nova.

I'm done, time to take a break now the mask is off.

 

[Meritz]

Elite: Dangerous IS NOT a PvP game.
Elite: Dangerous is a game WITH PvP elements.

And I'm pointing out how those PvP elements are badly designed. Try to actually read what *I'm* saying instead of thinking of what *you're* going to say next.

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

It took long enough, but I knew it was coming...

SC zealot just here to trash ED, jealous we actually have a game to play and they have a 70 million promise that may or may not come true one day before our sun goes nova.

I'm done, time to take a break now the mask is off.

Blah blah blah, put your pitchfork down - I never even touched SC. Backed ED from premium beta. Not that it would matter if I did dare to play that *other game* (GASP!) - I can recognize design strengths and weaknesses of each.

 

[DaveB]

And do you think it ever will? How do you discourage PvP in a game that has very few rules, no safe zones, and a might-makes-right setup at its very core?

You don't. Not without nuking the base concept. Which means no PvP zones, player invulnerability, consensual PvP only (flagging) etc...

Let's see what FD come up with. They may surprise you. There ARE rules, they are just poorly enforced by the game mechanics at present.

Piracy requires non-consensual PvP to work in order to be viable. So does bounty hunting. Since the mechanics you list would destroy two valid professions in the game, FD have to take an alternative approach. They aim to have consequences attached to it tailored in such a way that the "in it to fight and kill other players" play-style suffers those consequences much more heavily than a pirate or bounty hunter does - to the point of it being severely discouraged. The proof of this particular pudding will be the competitive PvPers griping about it (check), switching to a different play-style or just plain quitting to go to a different game that hopefully they will enjoy because it is designed to accommodate their play style, instead of trying to make ED work for competitive PvP where it really is a square peg in a round hole.