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

[Meritz]

I'm inclined to wonder if you've ever actually entered a high intensity conflict zone in Solo mode since the various AI improvements have been made? All it takes is one wing of fresh hostile NPCs jumping in, with you being the closest attackable thing to them, and suddenly you're being focused by half a dozen ships. What's worse is you can often find yourself with no backup, whatsoever, as the friendly NPCs can just all focus a Viper and fly off chasing that while you get shot to bits. No wing to back you up, and certainly no swarm of friendly players to back you up.

Unless AI is different in solo mode and in Open mode where you're the only player around, I beg to differ. I have hunted Open High Intensity instances by myself long enough to rake in about 4 million credits in combat vouchers. And yes, sometimes if you don't pay attention and attack a wing where all ships are close by, you'll get focused. Yes, if your side gets decimated and you're in the middle of the ball, you'll get focused (untill reinforcements arrive).

But in both cases a few quick chain boosts got me out of the jam and back into the action. It absolutely cannot compare with the kind of heat and tenacity you'll face if an enemy player wing, or sometimes even a lone player, attacks you.

Trust me, if they ever make the AI comparable to real players, you won't hear a squeak of complaint from PvPers. You might hear a raging torrent of wailing from solo players though. I imagine entering a High Intensity zone filled with about 30 equivalents of hostile players would be... well, quite difficult to survive. Dark Souls would be dethroned.

 

[fademist]

Unless AI is different in solo mode and in Open mode where you're the only player around, I beg to differ. I have hunted Open High Intensity instances by myself long enough to rake in about 4 million credits in combat vouchers. And yes, sometimes if you don't pay attention and attack a wing where all ships are close by, you'll get focused. Yes, if your side gets decimated and you're in the middle of the ball, you'll get focused (untill reinforcements arrive).

But in both cases a few quick chain boosts got me out of the jam and back into the action. It absolutely cannot compare with the kind of heat and tenacity you'll face if an enemy player wing, or sometimes even a lone player, attacks you.

Trust me, if they ever make the AI comparable to real players, you won't hear a squeak of complaint from PvPers. You might hear a raging torrent of wailing from solo players though. I imagine entering a High Intensity zone filled with about 30 equivalents of hostile players would be... well, quite difficult to survive. Dark Souls would be dethroned.

and that is the biggest lie u have told so far

 

[charognard]

Unless AI is different in solo mode and in Open mode where you're the only player around, I beg to differ. I have hunted Open High Intensity instances by myself long enough to rake in about 4 million credits in combat vouchers. And yes, sometimes if you don't pay attention and attack a wing where all ships are close by, you'll get focused. Yes, if your side gets decimated and you're in the middle of the ball, you'll get focused (untill reinforcements arrive).

But in both cases a few quick chain boosts got me out of the jam and back into the action. It absolutely cannot compare with the kind of heat and tenacity you'll face if an enemy player wing, or sometimes even a lone player, attacks you.

Trust me, if they ever make the AI comparable to real players, you won't hear a squeak of complaint from PvPers. You might hear a raging torrent of wailing from solo players though. I imagine entering a High Intensity zone filled with about 30 equivalents of hostile players would be... well, quite difficult to survive. Dark Souls would be dethroned.

Totaly true !!

 

[Tiwaz]

Let's see.
So PvP people cry that they want solo and group penalized.

Let's say it is done by 10%. Who here HONESTLY thinks it will pull people from solo and group to open?

So PvP people cry more, and once you have started wielding the punishment bat, it is damn hard to stop it, because you have committed yourself to some idea of how game should be.

Until we finally have solo and group players penalized by 99% and players having left long time ago.

 

[Sim Maker]

How about "Solo Community Goals"......hear me out I speak of Han........
.
In Open, maybe you have to get the flights of fighters to the death star.......you have to fight off the waves of Tie fighters.......you have to attack the turrets and fly down the trench....as a group........."Community".....that is their "mission".....
.
A Solo mission, in the same Community Goal, could be like a one off thing, such as Han and the Falcon popping up at the end to clear the way for the shot on exaust port............
.
Give Solo players, their own goals in Community Goals, that more reflect their Solo-ness............

 

[ianw]

The idea of ensuring that there are always opposite goals that people can work against sounds great, but does not appeal to the idea of going out and stopping people completing the opposing goal. So while PvE players applaud it, there is no satisfaction for PvP intent.

Still being ignored is that fact that changes that disadvantage Solo will affect most those who for one reason or other cannot do solo. That may be those with low hardware specs, no joystick, or just simply with little skill and little time to develop the skill needed to not be nothing more than cannon fodder.

One group of people everyone is desperate to ignore is those who are disabled (if that's still the correct definition) who play Elite and do not have the coordination to handle PvP content. Nerf Solo in some way would then disadvantage an already disadvantaged group of people who I know are dedicated to this game.

There would be nothing to stop a PVP wing or two jumping into the opposing event to directly hinder players there - everyone they stop in that case loses combat bonds (and of course the opposition PVP'er teams could do the same to them in the other event).

At some point you have to accept that if you chose to play with others you get a different experience.

A golfing analogy would be that if the objective is to get round the course in the shortest time possible then you do it solo to maximise your chances - if however you want to enjoy the company of an opponent or fellow player it's gonna take longer - that's the price you pay for interaction.

(not entirely sure how relevant that analogy is but I think I could be the first to shoehorn golf into a thread so yay me!)

 

[edgar]

Some people have suggested having alternative CGs to counter opposition one's. This still ignores the problem of gaining unhindered access to resources by playing in Solo.

Also, just saying "up NPC difficulty in Solo" misses the point: the problem isn't the toughness of the NPCs, it's the ability to farm their Bonds and cash them in unopposed in Solo, without the chance of anyone denying you cashing them in to the Goal.

Winning a CG isn't just about your side reaching the Goal first, its also very much about disrupting the opposition's efforts too.

Suggesting just alt-Goals as a solution ignores the completely valid desire to implement community-driven emergent content, and not have it rendered meaningless by exploitative use of Solo as a game mode.

More curated, developer-authored content will not satisfy those of us who want to enjoy tactical and strategic gameplay styles, player collaboration or interesting group role-play.

 

[Stormprooter]

I do sympathise with the issues put forward by the open mode guys (play mostly private group myself), especially when talking about community goals.

Here's a crazy idea, when in open mode instances for combat, perhaps significantly increase the spawn rate of enemy NPCs so there are many more for the open players to go at? In fact significantly increase availability of everything when in open - would that help towards some kind of balance? Is it possible? Is it difficult to implement?

I don't have the answers, but I do hope FD can find some that will work for all.

 

[Commander Debic]

Anyway I think I have had it with this thread for now. Unfortunate that it was merged with solo v open but there you go.
The Devs will do what they wish and if it affects me adversely enough, I will just have to look elsewhere and say a reluctant goodbye. If it doesn't affect me too much I could carry on playing.
I do remember when the kickstarter was going we seemed a lot more forgiving and respectful of each other and each others opinions. Now the forum seems a lot more vitriolic than it was and it seems to infect even reasonable posters, myself included, so we also become more entrenched, acerbic and unforgiving.
My last word Sandro is be it on your own head if you change this game too much from it's original tenet and cause it irrevocable harm.

 

[Tiwaz]

So what if guy in Open does not run into anyone? Just does not appear in instance of anyone else?

Should he be forbidden from cashing in his bounties too because nobody had chance to stop him because of quirks of matchmaking?
"Thou shalt only cash in the bonds if thy are intercepted minimum of one time by player commander!"

 

[Mohrgan]

Some people have suggested having alternative CGs to counter opposition one's. This still ignores the problem of gaining unhindered access to resources by playing in Solo.

Also, just saying "up NPC difficulty in Solo" misses the point: the problem isn't the toughness of the NPCs, it's the ability to farm their Bonds and cash them in unopposed in Solo, without the chance of anyone denying you cashing them in to the Goal.

Winning a CG isn't just about your side reaching the Goal first, its also very much about disrupting the opposition's efforts too.

Suggesting just alt-Goals as a solution ignores the completely valid desire to implement community-driven emergent content, and not have it rendered meaningless by exploitative use of Solo as a game mode.

More curated, developer-authored content will not satisfy those of us who want to enjoy tactical and strategic gameplay styles, player collaboration or interesting group role-play.

Nothing stops you from having all of that how things are now. You just get to do it with the players in Open. Those that are in the game for that type of experience. Should your desire for a certain experience be put above another's? Is your money better than someone's who justs want to play with a select group, or alone? It has to be said here, every now and again that Open is not the default state of the game, it is one of three options built in from the beginning.
.
There can't be a 'danger' tax applied to the Modes, who could measure a silly thing like that? I just spent 3 hours in a bright orange Asp bringing weapons to Khaka in Open. Not a peep out of ya's. I even scanned each and every ship in Lugh and Khaka as I passed through. Nothing. I bet all of the CSG guys are in Solo racking up the Bonds. Just as it should be. If you want balance, there it is. There is no good reason to make everyone who bought this game live by some PvPer's code. The game was made for all, the experience should be for all, and not be dominated by players who insist that their vision of the game is the proper one. This is turning out like a conversation about religion or politics. Rigid dogma on each side. Live and let live. Play and let play. Get over Open, it's no big deal.

 

[Ericlas]

Call me stupid but wasn't the main goal of introducing "Community Goals", to get people working together towards a target?
Since when became it a goal to hinder other players from doing so?

Yes, Solo players can work towards a goal uninfluenced by other players but why is this "exploiting" a mode?
Isn't it still the way this game is meant to be played?

I am confused in which direction this discussion is turning.

 

[Farmboy]

At the risk of contributing to a very long thread a thought which will be buried in people repeating themselves.

I don't much like the idea of Open contributions being worth more than Solo contributions towards Community Goals. If I feel that the result of a goal is likely to be determined by open players more than me, because I can't play in open, I'm not going to feel any attachment for the result - so I can just pick the side (or both sides) and optimise them for credits. That's not really what I want - some goals I'll want to do for the story, not for the reward. Others I may be more mercenary about, but I don't want that to be the only approach.

I think the Lugh goals opened the door for an alternative though. I do think having different types of activity which count is good. Ideally I think the combat for or against the feds should have been mutually exclusive (if you sign up for one, the other shouldn't trust you enough to sign up for that unless you abandon the first - allows for people misreading etc). But also there should be a selection of activities - some might be easier in solo (pulling intelligence out of the convoy zones was harder in open from what i saw on twitch because of competition in the instance - I found the same when I tried to play in group just in a conflct zone). But there should also be activities which are easier in a group. That's what we're currently missing. If there are assassination-type missions associated with the community goal (only chooseable if you have signed up) for which you really do need a wing to accomplish efficiently (A good player might be able to kill 3 elite anacondas, but probably not as quickly or efficiently as a wing could).

Imagine having wings flying around jumping into strong signal sources to kill generals, or blow up well defended weapons convoys, as part of the CG and you get the idea.

And in terms of balance - yes wings could play in private groups to avoid open commanders trying to slow down or prevent them by jumping into their wakes. But doing that frees up those open commanders for constuctive missions. If 4 commanders on each side in open more or less cancel each other out in terms of effectiveness in progressing the CG that seems ok in terms of CG progress balance. I guess in terms of CMDR credit reward you play more PvE than disruptive, but i suspect those who like PvP would accept that tradeoff.

 

[Ericlas]

Don't open-players choose their mode because they want to interact, because they maybe want a stronger feel of danger?
Be it the contributor delivering his good to the CG, or the pirate/ murderer waiting for his chance there.
Isn't it a conscious choice to do it the potential "harder way" as the consequences are clear?

Why is there then a discussion about the value of contribution between the modes?
I really don't get it.

The discussion about 2 parties, one trying to achieve a CG, one trying to hinder the other put aside.

 

[Demiga]

I love your idea of the very hard assasination type missions +1 to you - very good idea - that would be a type that really demands working together (idk about you but I dont think Im good enough to take on 3 elite condas in my vulture by myself lol) - But you would still face the problem that we face with current goals - Open has a Zero-Sum - Every commander I kill I get a bond and I destroy all the bonds he holds - wheras solo/group has a Positive + sum - Every npc I kill gives me bonds, and every npc that kills me doesnt have any bonds to turn in

Long term solution, much harder AI range for all the modes, short term goal (short of completely disconnecting the solo/open goals) is to find a compromise somewhere...I just dont want any of the groups to get short-changed in this

Edit: after reading several pages of comments...its looking like separate goals is what would make solo players happy - I just want everyone to know the only reason I suggested what I did in my original thread was because I thought that massive changes (like making separate goals for each mode instead of slightly altering or adding a new mechanic) would deter most solo players or not appeal to them - I just wanted to offer something that affected everyone very little from the current circumstances....

 

[Riktar]

Don't open-players choose their mode because they want to interact, because they maybe want a stronger feel of danger?
Be it the contributor delivering his good to the CG, or the pirate/ murderer waiting for his chance there.
Isn't it a conscious choice to do it the potential "harder way" as the consequences are clear?

Why is there then a discussion about the value of contribution between the modes?
I really don't get it.

The discussion about 2 parties, one trying to achieve a CG, one trying to hinder the other put aside.

Their are honorable players in open that do play this way.

Their are others who simply "play their way" which involves following the rules they agree with, and conveniently ignore/disregard the ones they don't.

Whats really laughable (as well as sad) are the ones who gloat about their cowardly accomplishments from breaking the rules.

 

[Meritz]

and that is the biggest lie u have told so far

PvP players love extremely challenging AI. Good practice. If they made the AI play on the level of players (a revolutionary achievement) you'd get a LOT of PvP players praising PvE. Unfortunately in most games NPCs are dumb as bricks and therefore of little challenge to PvP players.

 

[Globusdiablo]

By 'pointed out' you mean 'pulled out of his hat'. I would love to see sources for all these opinions and hypothesis that are stated as facts by these people soooo desperate to make an argument from their fears and expectations. If you are going to say something like 'the average lifetime of a PvE player blah blah blah' you better have the figures to back it up.

I always look forward to reading your posts. Colourful and punchy and rarely over the line. Thanks Spivey.

 

[Robert Maynard]

PvP players love extremely challenging AI. Good practice. If they made the AI play on the level of players (a revolutionary achievement) you'd get a LOT of PvP players praising PvE. Unfortunately in most games NPCs are dumb as bricks and therefore of little challenge to PvP players.

The AI global difficulty has to take into account that not all players have finely honed combat skills (i.e. half of players have average or below average combat skills) - otherwise a large proportion of players would simply be put off.

 

[Meritz]

Call me stupid but wasn't the main goal of introducing "Community Goals", to get people working together towards a target?
Since when became it a goal to hinder other players from doing so?

Opposing community goals.

The very idea revolves around hindering the opposition in achieving their goal. Just like in any other team game. Football, for example. It's not only about scoring goals for your team, but preventing the opposing team from scoring as well.

Now imagine if you had a football game where some players were off to the side, having entire fields all to themselves, scoring goals between posts guarded by a scarecrow. That's what it looks like right now.

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

The AI has to take into account that not all players have finely honed combat skills (i.e. half of players have average or below average combat skills) - otherwise a large proportion of players would simply be put off.

I know, which is why I don't think making AI as skilled as players is a good idea, even if they could do it, which I seriously doubt. A better solution would be to flesh out the structure of the community goals and get rid of grinding as the only means to score in them.