If you understand the problem, as seen by those of us who want the choice to play in Open AND affect the background simulation with equal weight, then that is enough for me. Whatever the solution ends up being, as long as it's better than what we have now.
- Status
If you understand the problem, as seen by those of us who want the choice to play in Open AND affect the background simulation with equal weight, then that is enough for me. Whatever the solution ends up being, as long as it's better than what we have now.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I don't really understand what you're getting at here.
i think it wasnt to much fuss about it but not so sure though
Then that really piques my curiosity. Why wasn't there more fuss? What changed? And why are people more up in arms about in-game rewards when this contest offered real-world monetary compensation? These are not rhetorical questions. As an academic in a field that adopts methods from ethnography I am genuinely curious about what makes people tick here? I suppose it could be as simple as the people who play in solo don't feel they have enough time to play competitively anyways, so there is no sense in arguing?
maybe cause ppl in solo wasnt so much intrest on that? and lets be fair solo ppl from start dont want to have any interact with open at any way ...but to have game work cut isnt good or fair
Or it could be as simple as many Solo players are not into that type of competitive/race to win stuff?
Javert
Volunteer Moderator
Because most of the people who like to spend a lot of time arguing on the forums know that they wouldn't have time to get to Elite quickly enough anyway
I think one interesting aspect of this is that there are groups of players who have been attempting to change the status of the Lugh system for quite a while using the normal background simulation, giving a lot of feedback on the forums, trying to work out how the community goals work. Then, Frontier have come in and made the whole thing that they were trying to achieve a Community Goal based solely on one value instead of the whole background simulation. This then attracts a lot of new commanders into the area who are just interested in any community goal that comes up and many may be playing in solo. Bottom line, there is a very vocal group interested particularly in the Lugh system because they chose it as a target for their testing of the background simulation a few months back. Therefore they may well have a big personal investment in the situation.
Frontier probably thought it was a fantastic idea to make this a community goal, but actually they might have "trod on the toes" of those who were trying to switch the system using the background simulation and created an unintended issue. I might be talking rubbish here, but since you ask I am just speculating on the underlying motivations.
The race to Elite, I suspect that only a very small number were really seriously trying for it, so maybe there was not much noise for that reason. Most people probably were very well aware that you would have to play constantly for 15 hours a day 7 days a week to have any chance of winning, and then, even if you did win, you would have earned about £7.40 for each hour which is less than the minimum wage I think. Only a very small % of players have any chance of that.
Last edited:
You do realise that a wing of 4 players in open going into a conflict zone and finding no other players is exactly the same as those 4 doing it in solo instead? I'm yet to go into a conflict zone and find another player (probably due to the quality of my internet affecting the matchmaking). You want to nerf the contribution of players in open who simply don't find themselves matched with other players (due to the way instancing works) as well perhaps? This false talk of risk differences is old and just plain wrong when you accept that there are plenty if people in open who also have the same supposedly low risk experience that you accuse solo players of having. You want to extend your same logic to those players too perhaps? Some people need to learn how the game works.
I think a lot of it was this, when I seen the rules (remember, I'm a private group player) - I was just, meh.
If people want to rush the game, let them to it - I'm taking my time, I'm not the one who will moan in a few months about boredom
(fun fact: some people are doing that all ready)
Read that last quote from Frontier again friend. The advantage they speak if is in relation to the Eagle fighter bonus NOT the open mode.
The £1000 prize for First to Elite, was only available to OPEN players............period.
.
They just released "Wings!".......what did they release for Solo players?.....hmmm?...........
.
If you can't see where this is going, I refer you back to all those waiting for their promised "off line mode".........just follow the trail of tears........
You misunderstood my argument. My point was that FD chose to restrict the game mode to maintain a level playing field. The free eagle was the exception, not the rule.
I wasn't at Lugh but I have played in both open conflict at RES and NAV's as well as played in CZ's but mostly in solo.
I can see why someone taking part in a conflict that is all CZ might be unhappy because combat earnings do seem to favor the solo player if there are multiple players going after the same targets. In my experience CZ have fixed rewards. I don't know if players values are fixed too since I haven't fought any in a CZ since beta.
It's in Nav's and res where I think open has an advantage over solo so long as your playing in a wing. I found in my wing excursions that the bounty value went up when playing in a wing. The wanted NPC's were higher caliber and we would typically be attacking 20k - 200k ships as opposed to mostly 3-20k ships with the odd 100-200k ships in a solo situation. In a wing it's much easier to round up groups of ships and take them out faster when fighting as a pack. Even more so when NPC's join in and become useful distractions to the enemy.
If lugh was predominantly conflict zones then I imagine open players in a busy zone consisting of several players would lose out significantly because of the fixed bounties and having to share them where an individual in solo doesn't.
I don't know how players track progress or what data is provided since I didn't take part. But it's feasible that they may have some algorithm they use to calculate the result which isn't as straightforward as people seem to think. I'm sure they have a lot of data logging going on to help them adjust the servers and plan better events later on.
I like the suggestion where results from solo and open play could be collected separately almost like separate conflicts and then the overall result of the event taken from the average when they are both combined.
I can see why someone taking part in a conflict that is all CZ might be unhappy because combat earnings do seem to favor the solo player if there are multiple players going after the same targets. In my experience CZ have fixed rewards. I don't know if players values are fixed too since I haven't fought any in a CZ since beta.
It's in Nav's and res where I think open has an advantage over solo so long as your playing in a wing. I found in my wing excursions that the bounty value went up when playing in a wing. The wanted NPC's were higher caliber and we would typically be attacking 20k - 200k ships as opposed to mostly 3-20k ships with the odd 100-200k ships in a solo situation. In a wing it's much easier to round up groups of ships and take them out faster when fighting as a pack. Even more so when NPC's join in and become useful distractions to the enemy.
If lugh was predominantly conflict zones then I imagine open players in a busy zone consisting of several players would lose out significantly because of the fixed bounties and having to share them where an individual in solo doesn't.
I don't know how players track progress or what data is provided since I didn't take part. But it's feasible that they may have some algorithm they use to calculate the result which isn't as straightforward as people seem to think. I'm sure they have a lot of data logging going on to help them adjust the servers and plan better events later on.
I like the suggestion where results from solo and open play could be collected separately almost like separate conflicts and then the overall result of the event taken from the average when they are both combined.
Agreed. Apologies, I just logged in to correct my response as it dawned on me after logging off that you were actually referring to the level playing field bit. Problem with trying to get out the door to go to work - sorry about that.
The middle point is this: The Open player is more than able to take advantage of Solo. If you feel there is some advantage there, go play in Solo for the advantage. Switch back when you get bored. It's your choice. Open players don't need to nerf another mode in order to get the advantage. All I'm saying is that it's not the same for certain Solo players for two good reasons: Hardware or Disability.
If you ask for a nerf to Solo or a buff to Open as a carrot or a stick to try and get people in to open what you are effectively doing is discriminating against the disabled. In any other circumstances you would be breaking the law. In this discussion you would just simply be ignorant or, the worst choice deliberately trolling disabled people "because you can and the rest of the world can go take a long walk of a short pier for all you care about other people."
Yes, this really needs proper data rather than anecdote. My suspicion is that it's much more efficient to clear a CZ instance in a wing than it is solo, so you really ought to be chewing through a lot more NPCs as part of a wing than if you're solo. Of course, if there is an opposition player in the same instance it gets more interesting. But that's just my experience.
So apologies if this is bad etiquette - but having posted in the vox pop locked thread I'm also going to post my thoughts here 'cos it's nice to have interaction with others
To start my post I hope (and believe) that the dynamics between Open, Group, Solo and those who like to mix it up doesn't have to be as black and white as some people think. Unfortunatley these black and white views do seem prevelvent in both sides of the argument.
Eg (and slightly hypocritcally as I appreciate I am paraphrasing for effect - and that most posts are a bit more nuanced)
"I don't want to be forced into Open as the only thing Open players want to do is PVP gank me"
"Solo players are care bears who just want to use solo to cheat the system to make credits"
"Any positive tweak for one group is discrimination / absolute slap in the face for the other group"
I understand why people have these views - and it often feels that arguments (especially online ones) push people to take one end of the spectrum or other for the sake of strength of argument.
However I genuinely think that in this case with some careful game design (probably tweaks in both solo and open) - both groups (and also those of us who like to have the option of sometimes solo and sometimes open) can be satisfied (and given a better experience).
I say this as someone who has played more Solo than Open - BUT who believes a well implemented Open will be where the most memorable and fun scenarios will be found (and wants the future game design to make open more attractive to both myself and others) - BUT who will still want to be able to drop into Solo for some quiet away from other players (and who also thinks that Solo option is a good one to have so others can build confidence, credit balances or just because solo is what they want).
The main two things I want to avoid / change from the current situation is the feeling that:
1) You are handicapping yourself by doing something in open that can be achieved for same reward but less risk in solo.
2) We are not yet maximising the pleasure that can be had by groups of real people directly interacting in ED e.g. a tug of war between groups via separate community goals is not the same as some of the emergent game play that will evolve if a single community goal can be wrestled with by opposing sides . Eg attack/defend the outpost, escort / blockade traders, find the spy / throw the spy hunters of the scent etc...
All to be achieved whilst giving solo engagements meaning. Eg solo could build an arms dump and defend it from NPC pirates. Open (or mixed) could have the goals of attacking or protecting that arms dump from each other.
So what mechanics can help achieve this?
1) The space we have in the ED galaxy. It should be possible to go somewhere quiet for both trading and NPC solo pew pew AND also have solo community goals with meaning to key parts of the story of the galaxy such as Lurgh. This I think is already broadly achieved and keeps getting better as more varied mission content and objectives are added.
2) The risk/reward balance. At moment it seems out of whack - which drives people to solo that would play open if they didn't feel they could get same reward for less risk. Hopefully it is possible to get some metrics of how much average solo players make (and lose) in an hour versus open - to help inform the balancing. May also need to look at experience levels and how people who mix solo and open do to get the balance right.
3) The ability to segregate events. Open only, Solo only, mixed with same rewards, mixed with varied rewards. This can be a hard one to sell - because I think it is worry over segregation that drives the negative reactions. So hopefully I will sell it a different way - segregation gives you more choice. You want a meaningful community goal with no risk of pvp - you got it. You want a community goal where sides are forced to interact - you got it. You want a quiet place in the galaxy to trade and make credits - you got it. You want to do the same with some added pvp danger to spice things up - without compromising progress - you got it.
4) Forum organisation / galnet news / online groups - all being used positively to drive the events in the galaxy. Again I already see this happening and only getting better as the game matures. Eg I'm having almost as much fun reading about Lurgh / Onionhead / Fed and Empire machinations etc... on train home anticipating logging on as I am in game.
Anyway I'm really glad this is being discussed and given attention and I hope that something akin to my ramblings above is how it goes.
I trust the ED designers to make the right calls in game balance (never easy) and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we the community can see a tweak to one area without calling it out as a nerf elsewhere.
Roll on the constructive conflict!
Cheers,
SR
To start my post I hope (and believe) that the dynamics between Open, Group, Solo and those who like to mix it up doesn't have to be as black and white as some people think. Unfortunatley these black and white views do seem prevelvent in both sides of the argument.
Eg (and slightly hypocritcally as I appreciate I am paraphrasing for effect - and that most posts are a bit more nuanced)
"I don't want to be forced into Open as the only thing Open players want to do is PVP gank me"
"Solo players are care bears who just want to use solo to cheat the system to make credits"
"Any positive tweak for one group is discrimination / absolute slap in the face for the other group"
I understand why people have these views - and it often feels that arguments (especially online ones) push people to take one end of the spectrum or other for the sake of strength of argument.
However I genuinely think that in this case with some careful game design (probably tweaks in both solo and open) - both groups (and also those of us who like to have the option of sometimes solo and sometimes open) can be satisfied (and given a better experience).
I say this as someone who has played more Solo than Open - BUT who believes a well implemented Open will be where the most memorable and fun scenarios will be found (and wants the future game design to make open more attractive to both myself and others) - BUT who will still want to be able to drop into Solo for some quiet away from other players (and who also thinks that Solo option is a good one to have so others can build confidence, credit balances or just because solo is what they want).
The main two things I want to avoid / change from the current situation is the feeling that:
1) You are handicapping yourself by doing something in open that can be achieved for same reward but less risk in solo.
2) We are not yet maximising the pleasure that can be had by groups of real people directly interacting in ED e.g. a tug of war between groups via separate community goals is not the same as some of the emergent game play that will evolve if a single community goal can be wrestled with by opposing sides . Eg attack/defend the outpost, escort / blockade traders, find the spy / throw the spy hunters of the scent etc...
All to be achieved whilst giving solo engagements meaning. Eg solo could build an arms dump and defend it from NPC pirates. Open (or mixed) could have the goals of attacking or protecting that arms dump from each other.
So what mechanics can help achieve this?
1) The space we have in the ED galaxy. It should be possible to go somewhere quiet for both trading and NPC solo pew pew AND also have solo community goals with meaning to key parts of the story of the galaxy such as Lurgh. This I think is already broadly achieved and keeps getting better as more varied mission content and objectives are added.
2) The risk/reward balance. At moment it seems out of whack - which drives people to solo that would play open if they didn't feel they could get same reward for less risk. Hopefully it is possible to get some metrics of how much average solo players make (and lose) in an hour versus open - to help inform the balancing. May also need to look at experience levels and how people who mix solo and open do to get the balance right.
3) The ability to segregate events. Open only, Solo only, mixed with same rewards, mixed with varied rewards. This can be a hard one to sell - because I think it is worry over segregation that drives the negative reactions. So hopefully I will sell it a different way - segregation gives you more choice. You want a meaningful community goal with no risk of pvp - you got it. You want a community goal where sides are forced to interact - you got it. You want a quiet place in the galaxy to trade and make credits - you got it. You want to do the same with some added pvp danger to spice things up - without compromising progress - you got it.
4) Forum organisation / galnet news / online groups - all being used positively to drive the events in the galaxy. Again I already see this happening and only getting better as the game matures. Eg I'm having almost as much fun reading about Lurgh / Onionhead / Fed and Empire machinations etc... on train home anticipating logging on as I am in game.
Anyway I'm really glad this is being discussed and given attention and I hope that something akin to my ramblings above is how it goes.
I trust the ED designers to make the right calls in game balance (never easy) and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we the community can see a tweak to one area without calling it out as a nerf elsewhere.
Roll on the constructive conflict!
Cheers,
SR
Last edited:
Maybe they need a separate community goal open/solo thread as there are two main issues being talked about.
.
1. A Rares Run in Open/Solo...........I go in solo, a few NPCs, no major dramas........a guy in Open has to run the gauntlet of CMDR Pirates.......but, we can both get the Leathery Egg when/if we land...........so, that is ok, and I can take the barbs of being called a "care bear" in solo......
.
2. However.......the Community Goal dynamic is different.......in this, we are both going for the leathery egg, and there is only one up for grabs........I get the Red Carpet treatmen in Solo and arrive on time and unscathed.....the open player loses 3 ships tryuing to get there, and when he does, I have already left with the egg...........THAT is not a fair contest/competition, call it what you will...........frankly I don't see why people would bother with "Community Goals".....as only Solo players can win them.........call them Solo Goals, as that's what people rush to, to "win".............
.
1. A Rares Run in Open/Solo...........I go in solo, a few NPCs, no major dramas........a guy in Open has to run the gauntlet of CMDR Pirates.......but, we can both get the Leathery Egg when/if we land...........so, that is ok, and I can take the barbs of being called a "care bear" in solo......
.
2. However.......the Community Goal dynamic is different.......in this, we are both going for the leathery egg, and there is only one up for grabs........I get the Red Carpet treatmen in Solo and arrive on time and unscathed.....the open player loses 3 ships tryuing to get there, and when he does, I have already left with the egg...........THAT is not a fair contest/competition, call it what you will...........frankly I don't see why people would bother with "Community Goals".....as only Solo players can win them.........call them Solo Goals, as that's what people rush to, to "win".............
Outlaws.
I’ve been thinking about why I play in solo mode. Its because I don’t find it any fun to be attacked by pilots who’s idea of fun is to kill everything in sight.
My next thought was – why do these pilots act like this. The answer is, at least partly, because there are no real consequences apart from a miniscule fine.
I think I may have an answer to this, and it even fits in the concept of a realistic simulation.
Introduce the concept of the “Outlaw”. (this means you have chosen to live Outside the Law – which implies that you no longer have the protection of the law)
The idea is that you would accumulate points from murders. At a certain number of points you are declared an “Outlaw”. This has consequences. All Alliance, Empire or Federal stations, will refuse to allow you to dock – they will actually fire at you. Same goes for any System Authority Ships.
This means you will have to find a base in an independent system somewhere.
You would also find that your insurance company would regard you as “High Risk” and your insurance premium would go up substantially. The more insurance claims you accumulate the higher your premium gets.
Can an Outlaw reform? Probably. By not getting any more murder points for a certain period and paying a significant amount of their assets (50%?) as recompense.
So – there will still be pilots who choose to live the life of an Outlaw, for the fame and notoriety – But there would be real and realistic consequences.
What do you think????
I’ve been thinking about why I play in solo mode. Its because I don’t find it any fun to be attacked by pilots who’s idea of fun is to kill everything in sight.
My next thought was – why do these pilots act like this. The answer is, at least partly, because there are no real consequences apart from a miniscule fine.
I think I may have an answer to this, and it even fits in the concept of a realistic simulation.
Introduce the concept of the “Outlaw”. (this means you have chosen to live Outside the Law – which implies that you no longer have the protection of the law)
The idea is that you would accumulate points from murders. At a certain number of points you are declared an “Outlaw”. This has consequences. All Alliance, Empire or Federal stations, will refuse to allow you to dock – they will actually fire at you. Same goes for any System Authority Ships.
This means you will have to find a base in an independent system somewhere.
You would also find that your insurance company would regard you as “High Risk” and your insurance premium would go up substantially. The more insurance claims you accumulate the higher your premium gets.
Can an Outlaw reform? Probably. By not getting any more murder points for a certain period and paying a significant amount of their assets (50%?) as recompense.
So – there will still be pilots who choose to live the life of an Outlaw, for the fame and notoriety – But there would be real and realistic consequences.
What do you think????
- Status