And that's why it is perfect the way it is regarding the game modes
It's a guarantee that i don't, ever, have to meet another CMDR if i don't want to.
Negative implications like the problems with CGs have to be solved in some other way.
- Status
And that's why it is perfect the way it is regarding the game modes
It's a guarantee that i don't, ever, have to meet another CMDR if i don't want to.
Negative implications like the problems with CGs have to be solved in some other way.
Sorry rekina, you're dead wrong; David Braben has said in different interviews the game is not Pvp centric. This is a fact.
Play smarter?
I've took cargo from them in the "Seeking Luxuries" contacts and spent time cargo scanning at Nav points - made a decent living out of it, though not as much as I have trading or bounty hunting NPCs
I know you are good Jordan, I've fought you before. However, making a living off NPC's is a different issue. It would be trivially simple for FD to change the RND cargo loadout, or introduce a method of asking NPC's to drop cargo, or simply add more of the fat trader ones for you to pick on. Their AI is, we are told, still being worked on. However, I would prefer to see more "relevant" NPC's actually doing real trade runs, carrying believable and location-adjusted cargo, and actually serve a purpose.
You may not make enough out of them to buy a Bentley, but you could certainly run a BMW
I know...me too...Im getting a headache - everyone wants to die defending "their mode" - no one will budge an inch - an inch...thats all thats needed by both sides...budge an inch for the time being...compromise just a tad bit - wait for ameaningful fix....it is sad - because FDEV was right...this community goal was supposed to bring players together...not drive us to different sides
i put put out a compromise that doesn't change the modes.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=130446&page=6&p=2002275&viewfull=1#post2002275
Seriously can we get behind this? This at least solves the community goals issue.
It is YOUR choice to play in Solo mode.........so if they decide there should be greater rewards or impact for Open play then it is YOUR choice to stay in SOLO and not try for them!..........
no doubt this will get swallowed up in this single behemoth of a thread (censorship by information overload?)
.
There are a lot of reasons why someone who is only playing open will have misgivings about other players who switch, purely because they think the task they are performing will be easier. These reasons are not just because they are pvp psychopaths who need to feast on poor defenceless traders, no matter how many times this same strawman argument is posted. Do those who keep repeating this mantra not find it ringing a little hollow yet?
.
One of the biggest issues is that this mode switching unbalances the game, and doesn't provide any incentive for FD to address and fix each issue. Traders hide in solo, pirates hunt in vain in open (to continue the stereotype). If there was no solo to hide in, FD would have to bring mechanisms to keep both sides happy. Instead a valuable interaction is lost. Trading is at it's most fun when you are filled with fear. When you have to make decisions, and balance risk and reward. That doesn't mean you get blown up, or lose your cargo all the time, but there is a palpable sense of impending doom, if you choose to take the risks.
.
Community goals are by their nature competitive. There are advantages to tackling these goals in solo. This means that if you want to try and compete for these goals, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage by not switching to solo.
Unless Frontier's objective is to encourage cmdrs to move to solo, something should be done.
.
A big part of the issue is the ability to swap modes at a whim. This means it can be used for a tactical advantage. I feel some mechanism to make this a more considered decision would help with the issue. At the same time, there is clearly a plan to not put a barrier between the two modes. So some middle ground is required.
.
A few suggestions for this:
.
Something as simple as a decal, or paintjob which is lost forever if you switch to solo or private group. This won't directly address the problem, but it would give some credit for those who are proud to not take the easier route.
.
The opposite - some mark or badge that shows someone has used solo or private group. No doubt this will illicit mouth foaming, spittle spraying rage, from some of the solo community (I mentioned it once before and was immediately compared to hitler - godwin's law in action)
.
There could be cost attached to switching. Whether this is a % of credits earned since the last switch, % of total assets, or a fixed cost. This is likely to be unpopular, and would be difficult to balance, as it has to have an effect, but shouldn't become a huge barrier.
.
The switch could only happen a certain portals in the galaxy. maybe even just one. This wouldn't add any cost, but would stop people from being able to switch without traveling to the portal. It would also have a likely effect of increasing the percentage of open players further from the portal. It would also make it possible to perhaps have some areas which were solo only, and some open only.
.
I can understand why there is a wish to allow this free-switching. It means you can play in solo when you want, and open when you want. But I think some considerations for the reasons people are making the switch is needed. How many of these switches are occurring due to each individual's sociability at that time, and how much of it is tactical. I would guess (and I don't have evidence to back it up) that a significant proportion of regular switchers are doing it for tactical reasons. I don't believe that was the plan for the mode at conception.
.
Unfortunately, by banishing this subject to a single thread, reasoned discussion is impossible (This is definitely not a suggestion that the previous discussions across many threads were better, but at least there was more possibility of discourse).
.
There are a lot of reasons why someone who is only playing open will have misgivings about other players who switch, purely because they think the task they are performing will be easier. These reasons are not just because they are pvp psychopaths who need to feast on poor defenceless traders, no matter how many times this same strawman argument is posted. Do those who keep repeating this mantra not find it ringing a little hollow yet?
.
One of the biggest issues is that this mode switching unbalances the game, and doesn't provide any incentive for FD to address and fix each issue. Traders hide in solo, pirates hunt in vain in open (to continue the stereotype). If there was no solo to hide in, FD would have to bring mechanisms to keep both sides happy. Instead a valuable interaction is lost. Trading is at it's most fun when you are filled with fear. When you have to make decisions, and balance risk and reward. That doesn't mean you get blown up, or lose your cargo all the time, but there is a palpable sense of impending doom, if you choose to take the risks.
.
Community goals are by their nature competitive. There are advantages to tackling these goals in solo. This means that if you want to try and compete for these goals, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage by not switching to solo.
Unless Frontier's objective is to encourage cmdrs to move to solo, something should be done.
.
A big part of the issue is the ability to swap modes at a whim. This means it can be used for a tactical advantage. I feel some mechanism to make this a more considered decision would help with the issue. At the same time, there is clearly a plan to not put a barrier between the two modes. So some middle ground is required.
.
A few suggestions for this:
.
Something as simple as a decal, or paintjob which is lost forever if you switch to solo or private group. This won't directly address the problem, but it would give some credit for those who are proud to not take the easier route.
.
The opposite - some mark or badge that shows someone has used solo or private group. No doubt this will illicit mouth foaming, spittle spraying rage, from some of the solo community (I mentioned it once before and was immediately compared to hitler - godwin's law in action)
.
There could be cost attached to switching. Whether this is a % of credits earned since the last switch, % of total assets, or a fixed cost. This is likely to be unpopular, and would be difficult to balance, as it has to have an effect, but shouldn't become a huge barrier.
.
The switch could only happen a certain portals in the galaxy. maybe even just one. This wouldn't add any cost, but would stop people from being able to switch without traveling to the portal. It would also have a likely effect of increasing the percentage of open players further from the portal. It would also make it possible to perhaps have some areas which were solo only, and some open only.
.
I can understand why there is a wish to allow this free-switching. It means you can play in solo when you want, and open when you want. But I think some considerations for the reasons people are making the switch is needed. How many of these switches are occurring due to each individual's sociability at that time, and how much of it is tactical. I would guess (and I don't have evidence to back it up) that a significant proportion of regular switchers are doing it for tactical reasons. I don't believe that was the plan for the mode at conception.
.
Unfortunately, by banishing this subject to a single thread, reasoned discussion is impossible (This is definitely not a suggestion that the previous discussions across many threads were better, but at least there was more possibility of discourse).
If they change rewards to favour any mode - the game will be unbalanced. No honest and decent person wants an unbalanced game.
At the moment it's fair, but people are blaming others for picking the wrong mode to play in to hammer out credits - sorry, but I ran out of sympathy and will never support unfair changes to the game.
I know...me too...Im getting a headache - everyone wants to die defending "their mode" - no one will budge an inch - an inch...thats all thats needed by both sides...budge an inch for the time being...compromise just a tad bit - wait for ameaningful fix....it is sad - because FDEV was right...this community goal was supposed to bring players together...not drive us to different sides
"their mode"?
.
I have been playing in Solo since day 1........but come on, it is OBVIOUS that the game mechanic is broken, when you have competitive tasks..............Some are arguing for common sense, others are arguing the "I want my cake and eat it too" line......
.
"SOLO" play should have minimal impact on COMMUNITY events.......Its like Rugby or American Football.....the Community are in teams, one team has to get the ball across the line, the other has to stop them....but no, wait...there is an empty stadium next door, and a lone player just walking across the line over and over and over again racking up the score......and if you tell him he is not playing right or his effort is not "real", he blubs and stamps foot and demands to get same rewards.......
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
The game IS unbalanced....it is harder in Open than in Solo............it is time to make Solo a LOT harder....especially around "Community events".......if they are facing Blockades in Open, then the Devs should set up NPC blockades in Solo........
For the same reason as, the python nerf, the sticky bounty change that's coming, and shield cell change, balance. One choice should not be the correct choice, compared to the others.
As it stands right now, open play community goal blockades, are completely useless. The goals are supposed to bring us together, or put us in competition. That is completely undermined by people who have no desire for community competition.
And for an MMO, it's less social in solo than open - no one talks to me at all in solo
So, for fairness, chat must be removed from open as no one talks to me in solo.
Now doesn't that sound silly - just like you complaining you picked Open mode, despite not being happy with it due to others being there.
If you don't want social interaction in your CG instance, don't pick open - not really rocket science is it.
You've had your answer to blockades - they have never been a part of the game - this is not EVE.
But it's more complex than that isn't it?
The player with better skills finds it trivial to beat a player with lesser skills.
A player with superior weaponry/shields etc. finds it trivial to beat a player with the same skill level but an inferior ship or loadout.
A player that accidentally shoots someone in a combat zone (someone who often flies through their firing arc deliberately) gets vapourised in seconds by everyone who ganks them.
To say it is always harder for every player in open is just not true and we know the lead AI programmer is working very hard on improving AI - and according to many it seems to be working.
People that aren't dedicated combat players will find AI much harder in any case, it's all relative to the individual player and the situation - a blanket statement that open is harder than solo just doesn't stack up.
Wait what? Just because it wasn't planned dosn't mean it shouldnt be looked at as a viable gameplay mechanic. Sometimes you just have to let the players create the gameplay and stop trying to enforce artificial mechanics on everything. Given proper tools a community can create much more than devs ever could.
And stop the EVE hate already. No one wants this game to become EvE 2.0, that dosn't mean we can't take good ideas from the very successful game that EvE undisputably is.
All of this "It wasn't part of the original design decisions so it can't be part of the game" bull is not helping. We have much more insight into the game now then anyone back then ever had. Stop living in the past and be open to the future please.
Last edited:
I dont fully understand how the Mobius group operates, so I don't know if I can answer the question accurately.
Obviously I think they constitute a community, even being a community within the greater community.
If the group exists solely as a network for players to find and organize Private Group games, then that is more the same effect as what Solo mode has on community goals. They should be weighted in a similar way if we start making distinctions between which modes contributions were generated from.
To me, Cooperative gameplay is the best form of multiplayer so I can see the appeal of being part of the Mobius community. However, even more rewarding is Cooperative PvP gameplay. Nothing can generate the sense of accomplishment and thrill of surmounting the challenge another group of players can bring to the experience. Even when not through direct confrontation, but just having them share the same game area with a dissimilar goal to your own group.
The universe is 400 billion stars... I would think there is plenty of territory in the game for a group of players to carve out their own little piece of it and enforce what ever social custom they want by sheer force of peer pressure. I think that is the definition of a sandbox world at its best. If 6000 players want to band together and declare a region of stars where the unwritten rule of law is that CMDR's do not actively attack other CMDR's, then that should be possible through the sheer power of community enforced behaviors. If someone breaks the rule, then the local group excerizes their influence to make it right, or at least unprofitable so that it discourages further unwanted behavior.
Obviously that might be overly idealized given how the reality within the game currently operates, but I think its something to strive for. Less focus on establishing glass walls that segregate the community into isolated individual experiences and more collaborative efforts to bring every member of the community together under one connected virtual universe.
One day it would be nice to just have one game mode for the community that served everyone and their desire for fun.
It would be titled simply, "Play Elite Dangerous".
Last edited:
It's only viable in your instance. In all other instances, the blockade doesn't exist, even in Open. Oh, and right on que, here comes Territorial Warfare - long time no see!
Last edited:
I don't understand your argument??
you seem to be saying that some players find combat harder than others. But how does this relate to open/solo? Someone who finds solo hard will find open harder. Someone who is a crack combat pilot with all the kit, will find open harder than solo... The only time this would not be true is if the ai becomes significantly better than the average player. We are a long way from that.
Ah my mistake, I didn't know that community goals are only about out grinding the other team. When a goal comes up I want to prevent, and it doesn't have an opposing goal, what exactly can I do? Get out my voodoo doll and hex them?
To be fair - part of Eve's success hinges on a lack of decent competition.
Luckily it's possible for other people who are blockading to be in that instance. In solo that chance is zero.
I do vaguely recall a "like the sound of it" type reply from Sandro to a comment by someone that suggested a player blockade get recreated in other instances by AI - but I guess that's on the sometime/maybe/never wishlist with all the other stuff..
- Status