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

[Asp Explorer]

Take that advice to heart if they decide to adjust the influence solo/group players have on community goals.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of Solo players don't give the slightest about community goals. I know that I have never participated in any of them, even in Open. A completely pointless exercise to me, but obviously everyone else has their own opinions, and I'm sure many enjoyed participating in them.

 

[StarTux]

But the game exists, and has been released with the design philosophy that you have to wonder - as there is absolutely no metric to monitor mode useage apart from FD's internal systems. Removing the freedom of choice to play in whichever mode someone desires at any given time, renders the whole design philosophy irrelevant - it essentially is a demand for a whole new game mode. One mode to rule them all, if you will.

One hard and fast metric, 6089 members in the PVE Mobius group alone at time of writing and when I compare it to the latest Lave radio broadcast where a member of a player PVP group mentioning a thousand potential members they are outnumbered 6 to 1....Frontier will have better metrics, including those who play in solo mode alone. I suspect those who want these changes seem to be in a small niche, however they should and do raise points where perhaps compromise "maybe" needed, but fundamental major design changes do not seem likely imho.

 

[Meritz]

I'm pretty sure that a lot of Solo players don't give the slightest about community goals. I know that I have never participated in any of them, even in Open. A completely pointless exercise to me, but obviously everyone else has their own opinions, and I'm sure many enjoyed participating in them.

Yeah, they're pretty popular and do engender some fierce competition between player groups. All the more reasons to make sure that at the end of the day everyone feels the game was fair. To be honest, this goes beyond just making sure scoring is even for all game modes. A lot of Fed players right now are confused by this turn of events in favor of CSG. I think FD could also make goal impact and progression a bit more clear to players, overall.

 

[Asp Explorer]

One hard and fast metric, 6089 members in the PVE Mobius group alone.

Indeed - but still those numbers are only meaningful on FD's systems, as there is no telling how many of the Mobius group purely play in Private Group, or dabble with Open or Solo. I'm in Mobius, and I don't think I've ever actually logged into the private group itself. I know of the broadcast you mentioned, but I haven't listened to more than a few minutes of it, but I assume it is filled with those promoting group play above that of other modes, about how the game needs to pander to their needs as they are the dominant force of players, and to ignore them will end the game. I've literally been through this whole thing dozens of times - and it never changes. The will to pew-pew and dominate is strong amongst the weak-willed, and I can confidently say that is what is going on here too.

Please, prove me wrong - and I will happily (and apologetically) retract that statement. Either that or I'll get banned lolol

 

[Demiga]

What other thread?

it weas very clear he was talking about open play vs solo.

and yeah it is very disheartening to see a lead designer already decide to nerf solo mode.

Actually, no- the thread he was referring to was here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90583&page=384&p=2000191&viewfull=1#post2000191

 

[Jockey79]

If they mess up the PvP portion of the game, they nuke Open. Simple as that.

That is pure speculation and to be frank, horse hockey.

Mobius is growing due to people who do not want forced PvP encounters (current open mode), if a ton of PvP players leave (or move to their own private groups), then PvE players can return to open (and would) and make it a more sociable place.

Just going through the forum history, you can see how many people have posted in anger due to being killed in open for no other reason than "lulz" for someone else - and most of the threads / posters state, once the "idiots" leave, they will go back to open.

So, no, PvP players leaving wont kill open - they'd barley be missed by the PvE crowd who flock back to it.

(just so you know, in all games I've played I have shown support for PvP - for the main reason, NPCs cannot tell you if something is over powered or under powered. PvP crowds in my experience, are great at helping figure out what the balance is for items in a game - it's the narcissistic, self important, ego manics I cannot stand who demand the games to suit them - those folks I'd not miss when they leave )

 

[xzcion]

I'd rather see the difficulty of open play increased through better AI.

Alter CZ spawn rates depending on how well player ships are doing so open players aren't starved for targets. Alter them so much that CZ's actually get harder and harder the better you (and your wing mates) do over time.

Alter AI behaviour to support overwhelemed players in CZ's. (i.e. 4 v 1 becomes 4 v 1+4 npcs)

Alter AI behaviour in solo so interdictions in solo ~= interdictions in open including CMDR interdictions.

Stuff like that.

 

[Antmax]

For me personally since I'm not opposed to combat. The best solution might be to increase the difficulty of AI by 10-15%. Even in open, meeting other players is still quite rare outside of community goals. And combat rarer still.

In solo you have the disadvantage of not having wings and a potential numbers disadvantage should the enemy gang up on you. Though anyone in a wing has a significant advantage of someone playing solo regardless of which mode it is in.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I'd rather see the difficulty of open play increased through better AI

A completely sensible suggestion - however I can see it being unpopular with certain proponents of Open play as many of them seem to be of the notion of "Players Only, or it doesn't count!", and if someone were to suggest that they preferred fighting AI as opposed to real players (to avoid causing them losses, or it's seen as rude or disrespectful) they are usually met with derisory shouts of "LULZ gt bak 2 Solo n00b" etc, from those same people

AI in Elite can be quite weird. It's either doing something utterly random, providing a challenge, or can be safely ignored. I don't fly in a way to consistently win against AI - but then I try strange things out on purpose, and fly badly anyway At heart, I'm still more of a tester than a determined combatant.

 

[JackWeaver]

Firstly sorry I don't have time to read the whole thread.
These are my thoughts;
I am not in favour of any game play or profitability differences between the mode.
I would like to see AI that represent a challenge equal to players.
I would like to see player activity influencing AI activity in offline mode.

What I mean by this is, that if system has comparatively little player activity then it have a reduced amount of AI activity. However more importantly, if trading, bounty, hunting, pirating etc is being carried out by players in a system then substitute AI commanders should replace them in other modes with less players.

The end result of this should be that if a system is heavily pirated by players in open, then it should be heavily pirated by AIs of similar rank in solo/group. I don't want to make the game too hard. But equally I don't want solo/group to be seen as the easy mode.

 

[Meritz]

That is pure speculation and to be frank, horse hockey.

Mobius is growing due to people who do not want forced PvP encounters (current open mode), if a ton of PvP players leave (or move to their own private groups), then PvE players can return to open (and would) and make it a more sociable place.

Mobius is tiny compared to the whole playerbase (or this game is in serious trouble). And as has been pointed out in this thread, the average "lifetime" of a PvE player in a game is about two years. Compared to a much, much longer lifetime of a PvP player. By the time everyone in Mobius is bored to tears of PvE in this game, we'll still be around fragging each other and having a blast. And buying paintjobs.

Well - unless they make it totally unfun to do that.

Ideally I'd like to see them do rich content for both the PvP and PvE crowd, since many of use do both, myself included. So your attitude of "PvE good, PvP bad" is kinda weird, especially since you keep on insisting they shouldn't change the base design of the game. Well, that includes Open mode with unrestricted PvP. So which one is it? Can't have it both ways.

 

[arxerisdam]

oooooohhh

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

Actually, no- the thread he was referring to was here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90583&page=384&p=2000191&viewfull=1#post2000191

didnt see that post sorry

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

Firstly sorry I don't have time to read the whole thread.
These are my thoughts;
I am not in favour of any game play or profitability differences between the mode.
I would like to see AI that represent a challenge equal to players.
I would like to see player activity influencing AI activity in offline mode.

What I mean by this is, that if system has comparatively little player activity then it have a reduced amount of AI activity. However more importantly, if trading, bounty, hunting, pirating etc is being carried out by players in a system then substitute AI commanders should replace them in other modes with less players.

The end result of this should be that if a system is heavily pirated by players in open, then it should be heavily pirated by AIs of similar rank in solo/group. I don't want to make the game too hard. But equally I don't want solo/group to be seen as the easy mode.

I like that idea

 

[Asp Explorer]

So your attitude of "PvE good, PvP bad" is kinda weird, especially since you keep on insisting they shouldn't change the base design of the game. Well, that includes Open mode with unrestricted PvP. So which one is it? Can't have it both ways.

It's Schroedingers PvPE. The game is both PvE and PvP until you inspect the contents of your instance. Sometimes it can be PvEvP, or EvP+P, or P+EvP, or EvP+P, and a whole host of other possibilities.

The only part restricting player participation are some segments of the PvP group, who instinctively feel that any player not in their group - is an enemy combatant and must be fired upon under any and all circumstances. Not all PvP players are like that of course, but they are the ones presenting the Pro-PvP argument in the worst light possible.

 

[Daffan]

Mobius is tiny compared to the whole playerbase (or this game is in serious trouble). And as has been pointed out in this thread, the average "lifetime" of a PvE player in a game is about two years. Compared to a much, much longer lifetime of a PvP player. By the time everyone in Mobius is bored to tears of PvE in this game, we'll still be around fragging each other and having a blast. And buying paintjobs.

Well - unless they make it totally unfun to do that.

Ideally I'd like to see them do rich content for both the PvP and PvE crowd, since many of use do both, myself included. So your attitude of "PvE good, PvP bad" is kinda weird, especially since you keep on insisting they shouldn't change the base design of the game. Well, that includes Open mode with unrestricted PvP. So which one is it? Can't have it both ways.

On your first point, i will give an EVE example. Different game diferent setup but same principle in a SANDBOX

50% quit eve in 2 months

40% do missions and PVE and quit in <12 months

10% do corporations, groups and proper sandbox activities (Craft/pvp/market pvp) and last 3+ years. (Source: EVE Dev conference 2014)

PVE is garbage for retention, its gamed, no diversity, not as competitive, automated, scripted. WoW needs constant raids to keep PVE alive for example or else people start dwindling fast, as any Singleplayer PVE story game would.

 

[Anton Cano]

I feel that trying to please both groups (Solo/Group vs. Open) will result in a lackluster solution that will please nobody.

Solo and Group players have a common goal: to limit unwanted player interaction. Solo players don't want player interaction at all (either at the moment or in general), while Group players want specific player interaction all or some of the time.

Open players want player interaction all of the time, be it friends, strangers, friendly, or enemy.

Solo and Group play have inherently lower risk than Open simply because of the absence of other players. Players are by far more dangerous than any AI currently in the game, and as such playing strictly in Open is much harder, especially when running trades in an unarmed trade vessel or participating in community events that don't involve cheesing easy kills with a capital ship present.

The simplest solution in terms of fairness is to completely split the save profile and background simulation (galaxy) for the two modes. Frontier should clone our current saves and the current galaxy status and create a new server for strictly Open play. This would mean that the save you use for Open will not be usable in Solo/Group play. You will have a different save to use for those modes.

This allows Solo/Group play to influence their own galaxy with other players with a similar game-play mindset without having to muddle the ruleset and have those modes influence the galaxy less, or have lower quality rewards for participating in events. Open players will be able to have their own galaxy without having to worry about their hard-fought, higher risk efforts being undermined by invisible actors that they can never interact with.

The only players this harms are those who switch back and forth between the modes to minimize risk and maximize profit in whatever activity they are undertaking.

 

[StarTux]

<snipped>

The only players this harms are those who switch back and forth between the modes to minimize risk and maximize profit in whatever activity they are undertaking.

Not necessarily, there are those who switch between open, private and maybe solo for reasons of managing how much they interact with others at a given time, although personally I don't mind if an extra bit of honey as the merged OP had stated is there to entice players into open, coupled with stronger consequences.

Splitting into separate galaxies is probably the least likely solution though, based on what I have read so far from FD, especially concerning the Xbone release...

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

On your first point, i will give an EVE example. Different game diferent setup but same principle in a SANDBOX

50% quit eve in 2 months

40% do missions and PVE and quit in <12 months

10% do corporations, groups and proper sandbox activities (Craft/pvp/market pvp) and last 3+ years. (Source: EVE Dev conference 2014)

PVE is garbage for retention, its gamed, no diversity, not as competitive, automated, scripted. WoW needs constant raids to keep PVE alive for example or else people start dwindling fast, as any Singleplayer PVE story game would.

PVE in EVE is woeful, if it wasn't for the PVP/Corp's Eve isn't likely to have survived. Wow is completely geared for tight mission structures and isn't (or wasn't) open world nor sandbox.

Elite is a massive predominately PVE galaxy with full open/sandbox style play and isn't anything much like Wow nor Eve. People still like to play Frontier or its clones, same with Elite (Oolite) and if computer technology hadn't increased and obsoleted so fast, well who knows.

 

[Evyl Minkey]

The simplest solution in terms of fairness is to completely split the save profile and background simulation (galaxy) for the two modes. Frontier should clone our current saves and the current galaxy status and create a new server for strictly Open play. This would mean that the save you use for Open will not be usable in Solo/Group play. You will have a different save to use for those modes.

I don't really fit into any of the general descriptions you give but I mostly play open. I switch to solo when I'm out exploring to get some high res pictures using the debug camera the community demanded. So this idea would force me out of open play since PvP is a tiny insignificant part of why I play the game. I like to team up up with friends but I won't be able to with this "solution" because I simply don't have time to run two characters.

It would be better to leave things as they are and accept the fact that no matter how violent or aggressive you want to be you are never going to get to meet everyone in your town/city.

 

[StarTux]

Indeed - but still those numbers are only meaningful on FD's systems, as there is no telling how many of the Mobius group purely play in Private Group, or dabble with Open or Solo. I'm in Mobius, and I don't think I've ever actually logged into the private group itself. I know of the broadcast you mentioned, but I haven't listened to more than a few minutes of it, but I assume it is filled with those promoting group play above that of other modes, about how the game needs to pander to their needs as they are the dominant force of players, and to ignore them will end the game. I've literally been through this whole thing dozens of times - and it never changes. The will to pew-pew and dominate is strong amongst the weak-willed, and I can confidently say that is what is going on here too.

Please, prove me wrong - and I will happily (and apologetically) retract that statement. Either that or I'll get banned lolol

That was my take on it too . They seemed to think they're the ones who will "save the game and bring finances in", yet it is likely to just as much be the other way around. It is worth listening too when you have the time.

 

[Asp Explorer]

That was my take on it too . They seemed to think they're the ones who will "save the game and bring finances in", yet it is likely to just as much be the other way around. It is worth listening too when you have the time.

I will eventually drudge through the whole thing, but if they have said they will "save the game and bring finances in" - that is an expected part of the meta. These groups want to appear powerful, and hinting at the endless rivers of gold they can throw at FD if their needs are met can be quite a temptation. I have seen endless "business development managers" and "profitability experts" fall foul of this sort of nonsense over the years. Large groups wanting concessions in exchange for a guaranteed playerbase seems sensible. But, at the end of the day, it's a large playerbase with no cash, who have already spent all their jobseekers allowance on joining guild forums and McDonalds, who then attempt to play whichever game they are told to play on some supermarket Celeron, in the vain hope that they will be in "The Big Gang" and be all-powerful, feared, and respected.

It's simply depressing.

 

[Jerakeen]

No I dont. The idea clearly says what it says, chief among which is the principle that there will still be the same Cr. and tier awards for both OPEN and SOLO. We are not discussing "the next demand".

No, but it's a slippery slope. Now it's influence on goals, next it'll be combat rankings, then it'll be earnings. The "open is the only way" crowd just want rid of us "carebears" and as Evyl Minkey says they've failed to get us outright banned so now they're trying to chip away at us bit by bit. Give in to this and set us apart as a lesser bred of players and you let the rot set in.

I think this whole unfair influence thing is a complete red herring anyway. So a couple of groups wanted to blockade the system but it didn't change the course of the war. Well boo hoo. War is like that.

Besides, are you seriously telling me that these butt-hurt openeers haven't qualified for awards on the other side too? Has everybody who fought for the feds in the first place gone from Lugh or are they all busy pushing their way up to CSG goal too for all those extra millions? I think if we saw a list of names of people who turned in bonds I think you'd see an awfully large crossover.