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

[DaveB]

<pantomimeMode>

Oh no you didn't

Oh yes he did!
</pantomimeMode>

 

[Robert Maynard]

But to make a game where two can meet, and then give each the means to tweak the game to their advantage (same problem exists with pirates and THEIR predators, the bounty hunters), results in a predictable mess. Solo and Group play, I believe, were never intended as trump cards for Open gameplay, but rather, as choices to be made in advance, so that players can enjoy the game as they like. Alas, human nature was not considered. When you're "making the game you want to play" there is always the danger you will not consider that others may not play it the way you would.

Maybe human nature was quite carefully considered and the ability to switch modes was included to avoid players leaving the game (in an imagined scenario where there was no mode switching) if they created their commander in open which subsequently became too toxic for them to be able to enjoy the game and they did not want to start from scratch in solo or private groups. When humans consider that prey has no way out they can be quite cruel indeed (even if it is just in-game cruelty and not actually happening one-to-one in RL).

 

[Erogenous Zones]

This presupposes that, on average, one mode is significantly more difficult than the others - outside of the player populated areas it is difficult to tell the difference between open and solo.

It is my opinion that the benefits of group switching with respect to freedom of choice for the individual player outweigh the disadvantages to some players who consider it to be a tactical tool.

It is human nature to mitigate risks that are considered to be "not worth it". Some player seek out combat, an inherently risky pastime, others run from it.

Not everyone is playing the game to be emotionally stimulated to the degree that some players seem to get when engaged in combat.

ok, so by defining the area outside the play populated areas as not harder or easier, can I infer that you are accepting that in the player populated area (where most players, by definition, are) there is a difficulty disparity?
by freedom of choice, do you mean freedom to exploit game mechanics? Do you have some boundaries over what choice should be available? Should players be allowed to choose how many credits they start with? or choose for their identical ship to be faster, or more powerful than someone else? Do you see a line where there could be too much freedom of choice?
combat can be seeked, or run from, but enacting a change to the fabric of the universe to avoid it?

 

[Asp Explorer]

When you're "making the game you want to play" there is always the danger you will not consider that others may not play it the way you would.

Exactly - which is why there exist three modes to enjoy the game in The only thing we are seeing here is those players with a propensity for violent and unconsenting PvP combat not wanting to play the game as it was envisioned, and instead attempting to have Elite changed into "the game WE want to play", and those that do not share that philosophy are somehow lesser beings that should be punished by having their preferred game mode removed or made less enjoyable. It is as simple as that.

 

[fademist]

ok, so by defining the area outside the play populated areas as not harder or easier, can I infer that you are accepting that in the player populated area (where most players, by definition, are) there is a difficulty disparity?
by freedom of choice, do you mean freedom to exploit game mechanics? Do you have some boundaries over what choice should be available? Should players be allowed to choose how many credits they start with? or choose for their identical ship to be faster, or more powerful than someone else? Do you see a line where there could be too much freedom of choice?
combat can be seeked, or run from, but enacting a change to the fabric of the universe to avoid it?

and he already explain to you that only combat logging is exploit....

 

[Erogenous Zones]

I got it, but there are always going to be ways to get an advantage, and there are obvious ways in solo. Doesn't mean you should punish a large portion of the player base for the actions of a few.

If you have buddies in open you can find sneaky ways to sacrifice one another for bounties and make use of quick and easy profit too. And though not in a CZ, if you hunt for bounties in open you have the potential to make millions from collecting a single bounty where in other modes it's rare that anything exceeds 200k. So you do get exponentially higher rewards for high risk activities in open that don't exist in solo and to some mostly PvE groups too.

totally agree that there are many other exploits available. But this particular one seems to being abused beyond the point where it is affecting the entire structure of the game.
I've yet to speak to anyone who actively switches from solo to open because ethey think open is easier, and there are greater rewards. Perhaps gameplay rewards, but not financial.

 

[ianw]

Bob has made a mistake. He brought a slow hauler into a known pirate haunt. Or perhaps Bob has made the mistake of not learning about that system in advance. He knew there were plenty of rare goods to be had, which should have told him that it would be a popular system with traders - as well as people who prey on traders.

In short, Bob did not prepare well. So what now?

Well, he can wait for pirates to leave. He can maybe wait for them to focus on another trader and slip by while they're busy.

He can load up with heat sinks, drop his temp real low, engage silent mode and pray they're not paying attention.

He can bait them into shooting at him while he's in the no-fire zone, thus provoking the station to open fire on them.

He can try and hug the station to put it between himself and his pursuers, though that would probably not work.

He can give them cargo.

And he can get himself blown up.

Putting Neckbeard on his ignore list and logging in and out is also gaming the system. The point is, if you choose to play in Open, you have to deal with the consequences of player interaction, good or bad. And FD gave all players multiple ways NOT to do that, thus defeating the main premise of Open gameplay, choice and consequence. They tried to force two incompatible concepts together. The results were really predictable.

Bob could do all those things you suggested - if he's in the mood - or he could just say "sod it - I'm playing my game on my time for me." And do whatever the game allows him to do to carry on playing his game.

And let's face it - that's what we're all doing - playing how we want to in the best way the game allows.

The pirates could say - "well he's not up for it, let's find someone who is."

You don't sign a contract when you go into open - you're not obliged to be there for someone talk to them or play with them - unless you want to. That's not how the game was made - if it was we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But I do agree that the roles are fundamentally incompatible with each other at the extreme ends of the argument - and there really isn't much they can do about that now.

We all bought the game knowing what it is - now some people want to change that - you can't blame people who like it the way it is for resisting that change.

 

[Robert Maynard]

ok, so by defining the area outside the play populated areas as not harder or easier, can I infer that you are accepting that in the player populated area (where most players, by definition, are) there is a difficulty disparity?
by freedom of choice, do you mean freedom to exploit game mechanics? Do you have some boundaries over what choice should be available? Should players be allowed to choose how many credits they start with? or choose for their identical ship to be faster, or more powerful than someone else? Do you see a line where there could be too much freedom of choice?
combat can be seeked, or run from, but enacting a change to the fabric of the universe to avoid it?

Players come in all different skill levels, in all different ships - the thing that sets them apart from NPCs is that they can and do act irrationally - so, yes, heavily populated areas can be more difficult.

By freedom of choice I mean the freedom to use the game features provided by the developers to "play the game how you want to".

To an extent, players did choose how many credits they would start out with dependent on which pledge tier rewards were included in their KS pledge - with enhanced ship options too.

Players can choose to upgrade modules in ships to make them travel faster, jump further, be more resilient in combat, pack a punch, etc. - however that is all within the framework that Frontier have designed. Some players are, however, using hacks to multiply damage on targets and other shenanigans - hopefully Frontier will start banning them soon.

Allowing a player to arbitrarily change their bank balance and ship capabilities outwith the game design, is not acceptable, in my opinion.

Of course there is such a thing as too much freedom - but I don't think that mode switching is too much freedom. YMMV.

 

[fademist]

Players come in all different skill levels, in all different ships - the thing that sets them apart from NPCs is that they can and do act irrationally - so, yes, heavily populated areas can be more difficult.

By freedom of choice I mean the freedom to use the game features provided by the developers to "play the game how you want to".

To an extent, players did choose how many credits they would start out with dependent on which pledge tier rewards were included in their KS pledge - with enhanced ship options too.

Players can choose to upgrade modules in ships to make them travel faster, jump further, be more resilient in combat, pack a punch, etc. - however that is all within the framework that Frontier have designed. Some players are, however, using hacks to multiply damage on targets and other shenanigans - hopefully Frontier will start banning them soon.

Allowing a player to arbitrarily change their bank balance and ship capabilities outwith the game design, is not acceptable, in my opinion.

Of course there is such a thing as too much freedom - but I don't think that mode switching is too much freedom. YMMV.

that is other problem that need to be fixed ASAP

 

[iain666]

Bob has made a mistake. He brought a slow hauler into a known pirate haunt. Or perhaps Bob has made the mistake of not learning about that system in advance. He knew there were plenty of rare goods to be had, which should have told him that it would be a popular system with traders - as well as people who prey on traders.

However, if it's a high security system like Lave then Bob should expect that any well known pirates hanging around near the station will have only small windows to pirate in when system security isn't hassling them, and he should have a short wait for one of those. Except he won't because "high" security doesn't really result in player pirates getting the attention from security that it really should. That's a broken mechanic right there that the pirates are taking advantage of. Bob is simply taking advantage of an alternative mechanic to avoid them.

Throw in enough players and high sec stops being safe when it shouldn't. High sec should be a place where only the very best can get away with pirating, not a honey pot that attracts them like ants.

 

[Meritz]

Maybe human nature was quite carefully considered and the ability to switch modes was included to avoid players leaving the game (in an imagined scenario where there was no mode switching) if they created their commander in open which subsequently became too toxic for them to be able to enjoy the game and they did not want to start from scratch in solo or private groups. When humans consider that prey has no way out they can be quite cruel indeed (even if it is just in-game cruelty and not actually happening one-to-one in RL).

I would suggest that if the intent was good business (preventing players from leaving the game), then FD really didn't consider the full ramifications of their design choices. What they created, instead of a system encouraging each player to choose the way they want to play, is basically an integrated cheating/trolling system. That is used to cheat. And troll. A lot. Not just by traders. Only the most ardent and sportsmanlike players will stick with Open rules come hell or high water, and often suffer for it because others sure won't.

That too can drive your players away.

That's why other games have timers on such things. So you can choose the way you want to play, but ad-hoc switching according to conditions of the game is not possible. If that was implemented from the get-go, I don't think we would be having this 420+ page thread about it.

 

[Cmdr Clade]

Exactly - which is why there exist three modes to enjoy the game in The only thing we are seeing here is those players with a propensity for violent and unconsenting PvP combat not wanting to play the game as it was envisioned, and instead attempting to have Elite changed into "the game WE want to play", and those that do not share that philosophy are somehow lesser beings that should be punished by having their preferred game mode removed or made less enjoyable. It is as simple as that.

Just something to think about....

The players who have "a propensity for violent and unconsenting PvP combat" can play this way because there are no real consequences.

AFAIK this game is supposed to be a simulation that is as close to reality as possible.
In reality - if you murder someone you don't pay a 5000cr fine and walk away. The consequences are real and life-long.
and -
If you are killed - you are DEAD - insurance money doesn't bring you magically back to life.

Perhaps we could have different consequences for actions in different areas. Like trade routes or CZ areas.

To me, some of these "kill everything that moves" types are a little like playground bullies - "I can beat you up because I'm bigger than you"
I've found a safe place to play - solo mode - and now the bullies want to punish me coz they can't beat on me anymore.

If solo mode gets nerfed, I'm afraid I'll be looking for another game.

 

[Meritz]

However, if it's a high security system like Lave then Bob should expect that any well known pirates hanging around near the station will have only small windows to pirate in when system security isn't hassling them, and he should have a short wait for one of those. Except he won't because "high" security doesn't really result in player pirates getting the attention from security that it really should. That's a broken mechanic right there that the pirates are taking advantage of. Bob is simply taking advantage of an alternative mechanic to avoid them.

Throw in enough players and high sec stops being safe when it shouldn't. High sec should be a place where only the very best can get away with pirating, not a honey pot that attracts them like ants.

This, I agree with completely. As I mentioned earlier, I believe choice and consequence to be the basic idea behind Open gameplay, and right now FD has to deal with two issues to make that happen:

1. Consequences are too weak.
2. Rampant gaming of the system.

 

[Erogenous Zones]

Players come in all different skill levels, in all different ships - the thing that sets them apart from NPCs is that they can and do act irrationally - so, yes, heavily populated areas can be more difficult.

By freedom of choice I mean the freedom to use the game features provided by the developers to "play the game how you want to".

To an extent, players did choose how many credits they would start out with dependent on which pledge tier rewards were included in their KS pledge - with enhanced ship options too.

Players can choose to upgrade modules in ships to make them travel faster, jump further, be more resilient in combat, pack a punch, etc. - however that is all within the framework that Frontier have designed. Some players are, however, using hacks to multiply damage on targets and other shenanigans - hopefully Frontier will start banning them soon.

Allowing a player to arbitrarily change their bank balance and ship capabilities outwith the game design, is not acceptable, in my opinion.

Of course there is such a thing as too much freedom - but I don't think that mode switching is too much freedom. YMMV.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that tactical mode switching is endemic. I believe that it provides real, and significant advantages. And that it vastly reduces the scope of gameplay mechanics available to the design team.
If FD want to create a diverse universe, with regions and pockets of varying danger and risk, it must all be performed through npc, as cmdrs can just be avoided. But, they have to also cater for the same environments where cmdrs directly affect one another. This makes everything a headache, and will ultimately lead to a poorer experience for everyone.

 

[Sim Maker]

Make losing FUN!!!!........
.
Ok, I am getting desperate, but you know what they say..........
.
I play solo ( I repeat it so people know where I am coming from).......here it is.........the reason traders trade in Solo, is because the loss can be too great.....in time, effort and maybe emotions.........it is just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too harsh when you die.
.
Think about it. PewPew Camper blows away a trader........he gets a fine and pays it off, no big deal.......the trader, loses his ship, which can be 10s of millions....he loses his cargo, which can be 10s of millions...and whoa, harsh forums aside, if he has no insurance, he could lose a couple months of game effort..............THAT WOULD SUCK!!!!!..........Who the hell would want to do that?......So.....make it "Fun".......and here is how....
.
IF a trader gets wacked by Pirates or some Murdering SleezeBall..........PAY HIM FOR IT!!!...How crazy is that? No loss on Ship, some sort of Sympathy Scheme.......some sort of Government Reward to cover cargo losses..........and make it so that people who get ganked by human players, lose a few mins of travel time rather than months of gameplay..........
.
The ide is very rough around the edges, and I am sure everyone will hate it......but at the moment, I do "get it".....the loss is just too high for most, and made worse when it is to a "human". So somehow, FD needs to change the Mechanic so we can say "Well played sir" at the end of it and shake hands.....not come on here and cut each others throats...........

 

[Erogenous Zones]

This, I agree with completely. As I mentioned earlier, I believe choice and consequence to be the basic idea behind Open gameplay, and right now FD has to deal with two issues to make that happen:

1. Consequences are too weak.
2. Rampant gaming of the system.

agree too. but the very fact we have these different modes means there is less incentive to fix the underlying mechanics.
There should be necessary due diligence before jumping to a system - get security reports, check government status, then make a decision if it's worth the risk.
If it is a safe area, it should be pretty safe. Dangerous systems, scary. This is where the game can develop depth, and cater for different needs. Take the long safe route, or the quicker, but more dangerous one?

 

[ianw]

Make losing FUN!!!!........
.
Ok, I am getting desperate, but you know what they say..........
.
I play solo ( I repeat it so people know where I am coming from).......here it is.........the reason traders trade in Solo, is because the loss can be too great.....in time, effort and maybe emotions.........it is just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too harsh when you die.
.
Think about it. PewPew Camper blows away a trader........he gets a fine and pays it off, no big deal.......the trader, loses his ship, which can be 10s of millions....he loses his cargo, which can be 10s of millions...and whoa, harsh forums aside, if he has no insurance, he could lose a couple months of game effort..............THAT WOULD SUCK!!!!!..........Who the hell would want to do that?......So.....make it "Fun".......and here is how....
.
IF a trader gets wacked by Pirates or some Murdering SleezeBall..........PAY HIM FOR IT!!!...How crazy is that? No loss on Ship, some sort of Sympathy Scheme.......some sort of Government Reward to cover cargo losses..........and make it so that people who get ganked by human players, lose a few mins of travel time rather than months of gameplay..........
.
The ide is very rough around the edges, and I am sure everyone will hate it......but at the moment, I do "get it".....the loss is just too high for most, and made worse when it is to a "human". So somehow, FD needs to change the Mechanic so we can say "Well played sir" at the end of it and shake hands.....not come on here and cut each others throats...........

That's a better approach - more carrot - less stick!

ETA - and congratulations on being post # 6400 in this thread..

 

[Erogenous Zones]

Make losing FUN!!!!........
.
Ok, I am getting desperate, but you know what they say..........
.
I play solo ( I repeat it so people know where I am coming from).......here it is.........the reason traders trade in Solo, is because the loss can be too great.....in time, effort and maybe emotions.........it is just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too harsh when you die.
.
Think about it. PewPew Camper blows away a trader........he gets a fine and pays it off, no big deal.......the trader, loses his ship, which can be 10s of millions....he loses his cargo, which can be 10s of millions...and whoa, harsh forums aside, if he has no insurance, he could lose a couple months of game effort..............THAT WOULD SUCK!!!!!..........Who the hell would want to do that?......So.....make it "Fun".......and here is how....
.
IF a trader gets wacked by Pirates or some Murdering SleezeBall..........PAY HIM FOR IT!!!...How crazy is that? No loss on Ship, some sort of Sympathy Scheme.......some sort of Government Reward to cover cargo losses..........and make it so that people who get ganked by human players, lose a few mins of travel time rather than months of gameplay..........
.
The ide is very rough around the edges, and I am sure everyone will hate it......but at the moment, I do "get it".....the loss is just too high for most, and made worse when it is to a "human". So somehow, FD needs to change the Mechanic so we can say "Well played sir" at the end of it and shake hands.....not come on here and cut each others throats...........

It is the very lack of risk in solo that is causing the problem.
Trading should auto-regulate itself. The more expensive your ship and cargo, the more profit you can make. But the more danger, and risk, you face.
But the rarity of risk in solo has broken this balance. Providing huge profits at little risk. This had a knock on effect of making all the other careers seem under rewarded, hence the recent boosting.
At the end of the day, the game should be fun. Being repeatedly destroyed in what seem one-sided encounters is not going to be fun. But there are better ways to fix this than just removing these encounters entirely.

 

[Schpam]

Three Modes for the CMDR Pilots under the sky,
One for the PvP Kin and the stars they roam,
One for PvE Men grouped to fly,
One for the Solo Lord on his cosmic throne
In the Land of Elite where the Dangers lie.
One Mode to rule them all, One Mode to find them,
One Mode to connect them all and on the network bind them
In the Land of Elite where the Dangers lie.

 

[Erogenous Zones]

Three Modes for the CMDR Pilots under the sky,
One for the PvP Kin and the stars they roam,
One for PvE Men grouped to fly,
One for the Solo Lord on his cosmic throne
In the Land of Elite where the Dangers lie.
One Mode to rule them all, One Mode to find them,
One Mode to connect them all and on the network bind them
In the Land of Elite where the Dangers lie.

You're on. Let's have mordor mode to rule them all...
no insurance at all.
npcs x4 tougher
docking fees in stations
no switching. One does not simply switch from mordor.
you die, you're dead.