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

[Herik]

I think no. Those of us who backed the game and who chose to play the pve solo or group mode, were never informed that our contribution to the game to actually get the kickstarter funded enough to make the game, would be treated in some way differently to those who wish to choose open play.
I constantly see additions and tweaks, also unfortunately whines from the open play crowd about how they want more, and many many calls for group play to be separated at it is always claimed to be unfair. This idea is yet another nail in the pve coffin. Our money was as good as any others to get this game going in the first place so why should we not receive equal shares, payouts and contributions.
So Sandro I should think you should listen less to the open play PVP players. They paid no more than I or many other PVE players and in a lot of cases, a lot less. The only unfairness I see here is treating PVE players as some kind of second class who do not deserve as much as open players.

I concur Commander Debic, There (now) seems to be a strong drift of certain Devs; apparently pushing player content and gameplay favoring PvP play vs. Solo/group play. I'd be very disappointed to see this take place; I love this game, and for me, far prefer playing Solo...

I have to believe DB is watching the direction the game is drifting; and will step in as well. If so, we Solo/group players will have little to worry about; there will be balance.

 

[Faded Glory]

Ok. People have been talking about Community Goals being a shining example of why the different modes are either wrong or should at the very least be separated, claiming that those people busying themselves in solo / group in a CG are somehow cheating or working invisibly away against the goals of the PvP community.

Firstly, a disclaimer, I haven't partaken in a CG. My reasons for playing solo or group are that I don't really want interaction with other people when I am playing a computer game. I get that social interaction elsewhere in my life. Perhaps that's just me.

However, the argument that solo players are ruining CG's for the open community isn't very strong. Firstly, there are presumably two sides in any CG, and presumably, just as open players choose those sides, so do solo / group players. Who knows, perhaps they even each other out. Additionally, the often discussed instancing issues which mean that a player in open might very well be invisible to other players in open surely weakens or even negates this argument, as a player in open will never know whether there are invisible players working against them, either in solo or in open. And finally, there are also lots of NPC's on each side too, and presumably the quantity of such NPC's is determined by FD according to how the CG is progressing, so solo group players are still not getting a free and presumably unobstructed ride either.

So, Ok, you can win a CG, it's not truly dynamic, FD have said that they choose the outcome based upon player input, and presumably they base that on all modes, not just open. If it's more fun for a person to play open, they should do so, and likewise, if it's more fun for a person to play in a group or in solo then they should do so. As for sharing the same background sim, I'll say again what I said a very long time ago in this thread. All the players in open are affecting my game too, the difference seems to be that I don't spend all my time complaining about it.

 

[Joe Spivey]

I concur Commander Debic, There (now) seems to be a strong drift of certain Devs; apparently pushing player content and gameplay favoring PvP play vs. Solo/group play. I'd be very disappointed to see this take place; I love this game, and for me, far prefer playing Solo...

I have to believe DB is watching the direction the game is drifting; and will step in as well. If so, we Solo/group players will have little to worry about; there will be balance.

I hope you are right, I really do.

 

[YoBuck]

Agreed. I don't know if a more thematic/immersive approach would solve the main contention (illustrated by the blockade issue) but it would make it feel more accessible to more players. I haven't taken part in any community goal yet because of exactly that - they feel like an artificial competition shoehorned into the game and I'm not a competitive player so it's clearly not aimed at me (is how I feel).

To be fair if you get involved, keep in with Galnet, chat to other players it's really cool. You might want to dip a toe just to see how it fits you

 

[Herik]

I hope you are right, I really do.

Thanks Joe for the rep;..It seems we Solo/group players will have to be ever vigilante, and vocal.

 

[Jorlin]

I concur Commander Debic, There (now) seems to be a strong drift of certain Devs; apparently pushing player content and gameplay favoring PvP play vs. Solo/group play. I'd be very disappointed to see this take place; I love this game, and for me, far prefer playing Solo...

I have to believe DB is watching the direction the game is drifting; and will step in as well. If so, we Solo/group players will have little to worry about; there will be balance.

Pushing CMDRs to open will not work. And if it works, it might be not in the favour of the people demanding it.
Try to "encourage" me into open by... whith whatever punishment of not playing open you can think of.
I have two choices:
a) accept the punishment
b) playing open.

Now b) has several more options for me.
The most important: My network is not under FDs control.
I can do whatever i want in my net.
There already have been ideas by double NATing... but that's not even necessary.
If don't even have to block other commanders (in case this would be checked by the servers).
I'll just use my traffic shaping software, which already has a rule to priorise ED servers, and add another rule that limits any other traffic caused by ED to 10kb/s, add 800ms latency to every outgoing packet and maybe drop every second packet sent to you.
This would be even worse than never meeting me in an instance...
And all the way i'm connected and reachable... you just won't have fun with me in open, not at all

NOONE can tell me what is acceptable traffic in MY net.
If i call a connection to your client "unwanted" or "spam" i can shut it down. As simple as this.
I used the software for business to simulate bad connections... but even the free version can hold three rules. and you only need two

 

[YoBuck]

Pushing CMDRs to open will not work. And if it works, it might be not in the favour of the people demanding it.
Try to "encourage" me into open by... whith whatever punishment of not playing open you can think of.
I have two choices:
a) accept the punishment
b) playing open.

Now b) has several more options for me.
The most important: My network is not under FDs control.
I can do whatever i want in my net.
There already have been ideas by double NATing... but that's not even necessary.
If don't even have to block other commanders (in case this would be checked by the servers).
I'll just use my traffic shaping software, which already has a rule to priorise ED servers, and add another rule that limits any other traffic caused by ED to 10kb/s, add 800ms latency to every outgoing packet and maybe drop every second packet sent to you.
This would be even worse than never meeting me in an instance...
And all the way i'm connected and reachable... you just won't have fun with me in open, not at all

NOONE can tell me what is acceptable traffic in MY net.
If i call a connection to your client "unwanted" or "spam" i can shut it down. As simple as this.
I used the software for business to simulate bad connections... but even the free version can hold three rules. and you only need two

they might call physco players griefers but that's plain odd ball behaviour.

 

[Zugsturm]

The idea that you can play solo mode is fine. That begin said with the insanely easy trading's the only real solution is to keep the assets in what ever game mode you earned them.

 

[DarkWalker]

they might call physco players griefers but that's plain odd ball behaviour.

What, showing the devs that forcing players into open is a bad idea?

If I ever feel forced into open — which can happen if there is any kind of bonus for playing in it — I will likely do something similar. If in a good mood, make myself unreachable; if in a particularly bad mood, keep myself visible but manipulate my net to lag pretense attackers into oblivion.

 

[Jorlin]

they might call physco players griefers but that's plain odd ball behaviour.

why?
i don't skip open play because of "griefers", "risk" or PvP.
i just don't want to play with you... and yet be part of the galaxy.
if i have to enforce this "no interction" rule on plain udp packets... be it.
my playtime isn't worth less than yours.
if i want to interact i will... and even in open play. oh, i forgot, that's cheating. just as solo play as a whole is cheating.
doesn't have open play bigger problems? some that really mess up with your gameplay?

and like i said: my network, my rules

 

[Zugsturm]

What, showing the devs that forcing players into open is a bad idea?

If I ever feel forced into open — which can happen if there is any kind of bonus for playing in it — I will likely do something similar. If in a good mood, make myself unreachable; if in a particularly bad mood, keep myself visible but manipulate my net to lag pretense attackers into oblivion.

all the more reason to keep earned assets separate based on where you acquired them. Also adding a simple code to detected lag over 400 and booting the player wouldn't be a bad option. You can always play solo mode with what every "lag" you want.

 

[Jorlin]

all the more reason to keep earned assets separate based on where you acquired them. Also adding a simple code to detected lag over 400 and booting the player wouldn't be a bad option. You can always play solo mode with what every "lag" you want.

you know, that every player in australia or south america has a ping >500 to me?

 

[Zugsturm]

you know, that every player in australia or south america has a ping >500 to me?

sounds like solo mode to me. The idea that I should have to deal with a situation that is out of the control for the majority of players in turn to fit and benefit a small number of players is insane.

 

[Jorlin]

sounds like solo mode to me. The idea that I should have to deal with a situation that is out of the control for the majority of players in turn to fit and benefit a small number of players is insane.

not a problem lately, since i wouldn't get "matched" with them if better choices are there.
and this is for making MP even possible.
it's P2P, more local connections get to get together more likely.
now i just have to chose that i'm located on mars and everything is fine

and the majority/minority thing is really overused.
noone has numbers, but i think a third of players/time is located in solo/groups.
a third is no minority that can be neglected... and even if you try, i already pointed out that it can't work.

 

[SteveLaw]

all the more reason to keep earned assets separate based on where you acquired them.

This keeps coming up again and again and it's just plain nonsense. What is the different between someone who has 200M Cr after six months play in Open and someone who has 200M Cr after four months play in Solo?

If it's unfair to gain credits quicker in Solo (which not everyone does) then isn't it equally unfair for some players to have been gaining credits for longer in Open? We should devalue all assets of everyone who has been playing longer than anyone else. After all, it was easier for them because there were fewer players then.

Some players played from the first day of release so they got to earn money in super easy Open mode when trade routes hadn't been depleted with fewer players to compete with and when no-one yet had a fully outfitted Anaconda. It was so easy for them, I want them to be forced into a new mode - Early Mode - and for their assets to be kept separately to mine because it's not fair that they got it so easy and I didn't.

 

[Jorlin]

This keeps coming up again and again and it's just plain nonsense. What is the different between someone who has 200M Cr after six months play in Open and someone who has 200M Cr after four months play in Solo?

If it's unfair to gain credits quicker in Solo (which it isn't) then isn't it equally unfair for some players to have been gaining credits for longer in Open? We should devalue all assets of everyone who has been playing longer than anyone else. After all, it was easier for them because there were fewer players then.

Some players played from the first day of release so they got to earn money in super easy Open mode when trade routes hadn't been depleted with fewer layers to compete with and when no-one yet had a fully outfitted Anaconda. It was so easy for them, I want them to be forced into a new mode - Early Mode - and for their assets to be kept separately to mine because it's not fair that they got it so easy and I didn't.

forget it... it's just "because"

i had more assets than 95% of the players in beta when "solo" didn't even exist.
assets are just a matter of playtime.
solo is just a matter of not getting annoyed by random player interaction (where 90% of them is people trying to communicate with me... neglecting the chance that i might just don't answer because i don't want to).

 

[SteveLaw]

forget it... it's just "because"

i had more assets than 95% of the players in beta when "solo" didn't even exist.
assets are just a matter of playtime.
solo is just a matter of not getting annoyed by random player interaction (where 90% of them is people trying to communicate with me... neglecting the chance that i might just don't answer because i don't want to).

Yeah, I know this.

I honestly don't care. I really don't want that stuff above but it's the same basic argument as the Keep them Separate argument. It means nothing, it's nonsense.

 

[Jorlin]

Yeah, I know this.

i know that you know.
but how could i know if you know they don't know?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

all the more reason to keep earned assets separate based on where you acquired them. Also adding a simple code to detected lag over 400 and booting the player wouldn't be a bad option. You can always play solo mode with what every "lag" you want.

i bought a game where i could play with my sociable mates in open when ever i want, and play with my introvert mates in private when i want. the ability to switch was an advertised feature. I would be interested to see the smegstorm which would ensue if every account which had ever logged into solo or private was for ever banned from all.

accept it, its an advertised feature many of us love and it is not going to go anywhere. and before you suggest it, those of us with other commitments barely have enough time to develop 1 character, let alone one for different modes.

 

[SteveLaw]

i know that you know.
but how could i know if you know they don't know?

There's no way to know what they know or don't know just based on what you know or I know, I know.