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

[Commander Debic]

And you get to enjoy the game just as everyone else. No special treatment. Just to make it clear, I am all for options and believe giving players a separate group or solo mode to choose from is probably the best choice that doesn't really exclude anyone or intrude on their gameplay preferences.

But the playing field must be level. As it is now quite obvious that FD are aware of the problem and are considering what to do about it, I am content to leave it their hands.

As for the kickstarter, that was in the past. The "Open play crowd" is what will largely finance this game in the future.

No the open play crowd will only finance this game in the future if FD continually cater to their whining for more. As with your earlier comments in this thread you make statements based on your own opinions and expect others to treat then as facts.
The real fact is that if solo and group players are, because of their choice of PVE play, getting an advantage in community goals then you too can get that same advantage by switching to group or solo mode when you go after community rewards, instead of attempting to set a lower value on the PVE players contributions.
Your right, it was the Kickstarters like myself who did contribute in the past to get this game made. So it is pretty galling to find relative newcomers coming along and attempting to influence the Devs to change the games modus operandi to suit Jonny come Latelys .

 

[WiseDuck]

It's shame this got merged, it was sensible debate and I was thoroughly enjoying some really constructive chat. now it's merged there seems to be a lot of anger.

I see no issue with what was being proposed and am somewhat miffed to see the solo players getting so angry over something that, really, does not change their experience. The proposed change would leave no one short changed? There is no need to throw threats of 1000's of players walking away from the game. Mostly, because 90% of them ("them" being those who do not frequent these forums) don't even care about the finer details that are being talked about here. For them, so long as there ship does not become a banana and they can still enjoy themselves these arguments about the minute statistical changes of a huge galaxy are just farts in the wind.

EDIT: Why are people also using the fact that they parted money for the game as a reason for nothing to evolve or change?

 

[Cody]

I cant find my original post....

Is this it? It shouldn't have been merged.

 

[Distance]

My community goal thread did not get merged.

lol be happy, I cant find my original post....

It was Demiga's thread that was merged which was a sensible thread with dev input spoiled by a few solo players who thought it was a "pay players more in open" thread because they couldn't take two minutes to actually read what was being discussed.

 

[Demiga]

It's shame this got merged, it was sensible debate and I was thoroughly enjoying some really constructive chat. now it's merged there seems to be a lot of anger.

I see no issue with what was being proposed and am somewhat miffed to see the solo players getting so angry over something that, really, does not change their experience. The proposed change would leave no one short changed? There is no need to throw threats of 1000's of players walking away from the game. Mostly, because 90% of them ("them" being those who do not frequent these forums) don't even care about the finer details that are being talked about here. For them, so long as there ship does not become a banana and they can still enjoy themselves these arguments about the minute statistical changes of a huge galaxy are just farts in the wind.

I know - its funny, because I didnt even bring up the switching Open Vs Closed argument - I didnt on purpose - other people brought it up and now it got merged lol - oh well - hopefully FD can find my original post and read it before it gets lost in here....anyways Anyone in Mobius - feel free to hit me up!

 

[Andrew Sayers]

What I took from Commander Demiga's suggestion was that there might be a consensus that activities carried out in solo mode are "safer/unfair" as there is no chance for other Commanders to oppose them.

(mod hat off)

I could be wrong, but I think the opposition thing actually changes the maths of community goals quite significantly. Open play by definition tends towards zero-sum, whereas solo play (even against NPCs with exactly the same stopping power) tends towards positive-sum. Imagine you and I fight each other in open, while Mike Evans fights NPCs in solo. The same amount of action will occur in both places, but because Mike has generated NPCs out of thin air, his profit per person is twice as high as ours. And for a combat-oriented goal it's even worse - NPCs that kill him will disappear back into thin air instead of cashing in their bounty, so there's less downside for him playing on when it would be prudent for us to withdraw and deny each other an easy kill.

I generally play in open but avoid community goals etc. because I don't want to either spend my time making nice with strangers or feeling like I've somehow cheated the system (more detail in a DDF post). A general reduction in solo profitability would further encourage me to play "open" but stick to areas that are solo in all but name. On the other hand, an evidence-based correction would make me more comfortable getting involved in community goals. For example, if the telemetry showed that solo players were X% more profitable on average than open players, an X% reduction in progress towards a community goal would make me more comfortable getting involved.

 

[Parmo]

Hello Commander jp josh!

We've hopefully got a fix for Capital ship farming exploits lined up (provisionally for 1.3, but no guarantee).

What I took from Commander Demiga's suggestion was that there might be a consensus that activities carried out in solo mode are "safer/unfair" as there is no chance for other Commanders to oppose them.

I'm not going to take a side at the moment, because I'd like to consider it more.

It could definitely be seen as an attempt to entice folk into playing open, though if the personal rewards remained unchanged I'm not sure that this would be an utter evil.

Fundamentally, Community goals are about Commanders working together, in concert or in opposition. It does not seem completely unreasonable that for such elements we might encourage direct interaction more.

On the other hand, I'm wary of the precedent this might set, and want to make sure that solo mode always fulfils all the requirements it needs to, remaining the completely valid option that it is.

So this is something we would not consider lightly.

Your on dangerous ground here.
There might be a consensus? in other words you don't know. You have all the players' email addresses: email them with a survey or something. Get concrete data.
It could definitely be seen as an attempt to entice folk into playing open?
OR
It could definitely be seen as an attempt to FORCE folk into playing open. On which consensus?
[]
'to make sure that solo mode always fulfils all the requirements it needs to' - whose requirements?
[]
Yes, be very wary.

 

[Zmidponk]

Just a quick idea off the top of my head, but if it's the contribution to the duelling community goals that's the issue, even ignoring the fact that there will probably be Solo commanders on both sides, why not leave how the contributions are tallied exactly as they are - but add additional ones that, by their very design, MUST be completed in Open? For a combat one, for example, have one to kill as many as possible opposing Commanders. That way, those who want to be dedicated PvPers can go for those, and those who want to contribute to the community goals whilst switching between Solo and Open as the mood takes them can still do so without being penalised for choosing to play Solo, in whole or in part.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Ah well, I'll continue to play and enjoy myself.

However, the day anything like this is implemented will be my last. We ALL knew how the game worked when we put our hands in our pockets to buy it.

I play in the mobius group to avoid the rubber banding, exploiting griefers and combat loggers. I do miss the honourable pirates, but it's a small price to pay to avoid the rest of it.

You can't offer me any incentive to get me to swap the experience I get in group for what is on offer in open, and after paying the same as everyone else who bought the Merc edition, I will not be punished ( not on any level ) for choosing to play my way, just no.

It'll be a sad day, a very sad day actually, but I have other games.


The guy I have quoted below also makes a good point.

How is less impact in anyway a punishment? Youre still making the same amount of money.

If anything it would be balancing out the impact. Open players spend more time fighting each other then they do completing the goals. On the other hand, solo players can just grind away completely unharmed. With open being more valuable, it would allow blockades to have at least some effect on the outcome.

 

[Demiga]

Is this it? It shouldn't have been merged.

Ahh, nice thanks for finding that - Yes, I agree shouldnt have been merged - all I was looking for was a sensible debate on this particular issue - but some people couldnt understand that It was going to benefit everyone, without changing anything - But thanks for finding that +1 to you!

 

[Lestenio]

No, definitely not. Play your own way they said. Well if they punish me for playing my own way then I'll be very irritated. Why should I have to do twice as much to qualify for goal awards just because I choose not to expose myself to being mugged by Johnny McPewPew for my lunch money.

Seriously Sandro. Stop considering this. Very many of your players choose to play in solo and in groups. You'll be upsetting a very large section of the player base.

Totally agree, the fact that FD are even considering it is beyond disappointing.
Favoring one group over another is the start of a slippy slope.

 

[Joe Spivey]

That's what a blockade is. Not an airtight denial. But a threat - that if you go there, chances are good something bad will happen to you. And it is absolutely possible to blockade whole systems in ED.

Stop making up your own definitions. A blockade is exactly what it says it is. But I do go there, often, in solo. See how effective your blockade is? And no it is absolutely IMpossible to blockade whole systems. Oh and as for your preamble, the whole macho 'hunting grounds' thing. As I use an unarmed type 6 then yes I bet they would kill me, heaven forbid they would attack someone who *gasp* might beat them.

 

[Wicz]

How is less impact in anyway a punishment? Youre still making the same amount of money.

If anything it would be balancing out the impact. Open players spend more time fighting each other then they do completing the goals. On the other hand, solo players can just grind away completely unharmed. With open being more valuable, it would allow blockades to have at least some effect on the outcome.

Money??

I'm not here to make money, I'm here to be a part of the game and have the same influence as anybody else does on how the background simulation is directed.

 

[Majinvash]

Wings full of FDLs and clippers flying around pirating are not really taking any inherent risk. Maybe make security more prevalent in higher populous systems, make interdiction harder, allow people to higher NPC protection, make a module for cargo haulers to make interdiction more difficult, or increase the penalties for murder or stolen cargo. It currently feels like there are groups doing this just to attack newbs. Some of us come to the game to relax and get away from jerks we all deal with in daily life, not to be constantly inundated by them. Please do not take away solo mode.

The risk is that another team organises and go after them. *Bounty Hunters*

THERE is the risk.... And that is the exciting future that Elite promises, IF people play in Open.

If there is no risk, excitement.... the game will fail.... The majority of long lasting games carry risk and excitement... That is what keeps people coming back. ( Yes there are games which also carry none that also succeed, but they don't to my knowledge carry the word Dangerous on the box.
Players running space truck sim 1.2, will get bored when there are no more ships to buy and move on.

The major upset comes from they aren't good enough or organised enough to oppose stronger players. So class anyone who upsets their risk free idea of how a game should be as griefing.
If the NPC's were actually a challenge, they would complain about them and request them to be nerfed to what they are at the moment.

Majinvash

 

[EUS]

(mod hat off)

I could be wrong, but I think the opposition thing actually changes the maths of community goals quite significantly. Open play by definition tends towards zero-sum, whereas solo play (even against NPCs with exactly the same stopping power) tends towards positive-sum. Imagine you and I fight each other in open, while Mike Evans fights NPCs in solo. The same amount of action will occur in both places, but because Mike has generated NPCs out of thin air, his profit per person is twice as high as ours. And for a combat-oriented goal it's even worse - NPCs that kill him will disappear back into thin air instead of cashing in their bounty, so there's less downside for him playing on when it would be prudent for us to withdraw and deny each other an easy kill.

Again, this would actually matter if credits/awards/elite rankings were finite.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sandro's posts (up to now) in this thread have been added to the OP, along with the posts that he was directly responding to, for ease of reference.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Money??

I'm not here to make money, I'm here to be a part of the game and have the same influence as anybody else does on how the background simulation is directed.

Yes and I'm trying to do the same. If i'm trying to stop a community goal, because i find it disagreeable, I can't stop you. during conflicting goals, you even have more of an impact than any single person in open, just because you can not be stopped.

 

[tmw2442]

The risk is that another team organises and go after them. *Bounty Hunters*

THERE is the risk.... And that is the exciting future that Elite promises, IF people play in Open.

If there is no risk, excitement.... the game will fail.... The majority of long lasting games carry risk and excitement... That is what keeps people coming back. ( Yes there are games which also carry none that also succeed, but they don't to my knowledge carry the word Dangerous on the box.
Players running space truck sim 1.2, will get bored when there are no more ships to buy and move on.

The major upset comes from they aren't good enough or organised enough to oppose stronger players. So class anyone who upsets their risk free idea of how a game should be as griefing.
If the NPC's were actually a challenge, they would complain about them and request them to be nerfed to what they are at the moment.

Majinvash

Are there enough people around to keep them in check? Right now it doesnt seem like there is enough of a opposing force to keep them in check. It has nothing to do with how "good" I am

 

[Majinvash]

Are there enough people around to keep them in check?

Well if the people came out of Solo and Private, one would dearly hope so.

 

[tmw2442]

So your answer is a No