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

[Jockey79]

I enjoy the discussion, I learn a lot from this forum, unfortunately I still do not see what he/she is getting at, to be fair though the last few months in solo and groups might well have taken their toll on my IQ .

he/she mentioned being born into the games industry, and said was big into research before buying games too, OCD was mentioned also.

If someone born into the gaming industry, with an addiction to research + OCD can't find what this game is about we are all doomed, FD must address this now, lets start a poll, no damn it, its more serious than that, we need an open letter or a COBRA meeting.

It could be a conspiracy to undermine FD, I blame google & the FD forums, they must be suppressing this stuff, damn did I just blow my cover by admitting I know some facts here, I am sleeping in the bunker tonight just in case.

Well, to borrow the version of the conversation from another forum user;

I had suggested an open only mission. Which was how that whole analogy came into being. I made the suggestion, someone else said they'd bypass it, I compared it to crashing mobius pve.

If you strip all the EULA stuff out of the recent posts, it is the same thing - overly dressed up. But in essence, the whole chat has been asking for Open only missions that people cannot mess about with and do Solo/Group.
At least with Jordans version - the answer of, "people will just bypass Open Mode" was simple enough - Jacob however, wanted a legal defense based within the EULA and local laws regarding "cheating" and trying to figure out if those who were to do that, would end up shadow banned.

Same conversation - 2 different angles.

 

[Dave1235]

As is going into open with your router settings changed. Which was the point I was trying to make originally.

They both go against the spirit of the game mode.

As with many of your posts, I agree with you to an extent, but one does no harm to another player, the other might make a pve only player quit, they are not equal.

Also this was mentioned specifically relating to something being present in open but not other modes (which I hope wont happen), opposed to a couple of people who decided to go **** with someone for shiggles which did happen, two different things.

 

[xkjacob]

Does this mean we all agree?
PvP crash mobious?

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

As with many of your posts, I agree with you to an extent, but one does no harm to another player, the other might make a pve only player quit, they are not equal.

Also this was mentioned specifically relating to something being present in open but not other modes (which I hope wont happen), opposed to a couple of people who decided to go **** with someone for shiggles which did happen, two different things.

Do you really insist on arguing about it? Its a pretty good analogy. They both go against the spirit of the game mode, they both hurt others (one directly and one indirectly), they both are invading a place they don't want to play in, just for cheap thrills, they both are misguided, they both are/will be done by people with control issues.

I would even say router blocking would be worse than invading pve. Router blocking is cheating the game, invading pve, is not against the rules of the game but just being a jerk.

Ps: is it really so wrong for one group to have it's own content? If FD were to add group or solo content I wouldn't care. If people want to think up or suggest solo only missions I wouldn't oppose them.

 

[Dave1235]

We are of course assuming FD isn't terrified of class action lawsuits and their player base coming after them at the slightest hint of disappointment.

Your friend who doesn't know that oops! He blocks people doesn't have the intent to qualify for 3c. With the 4 section they would need to add a qualification for bad connection and either 1. Track spotty connection behavior for abuse or 2. Force them into solo play.

Let me give you an example of what you can do with p2p blocking.
You interdict me and 3 of your friends pop in. I block your three friends connection, making it 1v1. I kill you, unblock one of your friends making it 1v1 and kill him, so on and so fourth. You can control the encounter by blocking different people. This would be the sort of behavior to track, if at all possible.

I think where people think the witch hunt is that "I have a router and I'm exploiting". Well no.
It is more about tracking behavior and watching for those scenarios or admiting we can't track scenarios, working with people to improve their connections and in worst case scenarios, for performance limiting their multiplayer exposure in the most immersive method possible.

Monitoring should work with combat logging, other stuff not so easy.

Example

1) Player A has 30 disconnects in a month, each time he is not in combat, half the time he is in solo, half of those he is docked, none of the disconnects were then engaged in a fight. I would say innocent.
2) player B has 30 disconnects in a month, each time he is in combat, Mmmm I wonder.

3) player C has a "I don't like you button" & uses it in open every time they get shot at or feel in danger, would be obvious.
4) player D has a dodgy router that wont work with ED, has a good router that's "incorrectly" set up, or it could be someone blocking all p2p on their router, every time it will be the same, no connection.

Honest guvnor, every time it gets a bit windy my internet goes down and the router resets, I have to manually switch the upnp back on again, yeah I know, their support team are confused too.

People dropping out will set patterns, people that never drop out as they are never connected in the first place, I would guess that would be harder to make an informed decision about how to deal with, unless they offer to send you a preconfigured router (which your ISP wouldn't like) there is not much they can do.

 

[xkjacob]

Do you really insist on arguing about it? Its a pretty good analogy. They both go against the spirit of the game mode, they both hurt others (one directly and one indirectly), they both are invading a place they don't want to play in, just for cheap thrills, they both are misguided, they both are/will be done by people with control issues.

I would even say router blocking would be worse than invading pve. Router blocking is cheating the game, invading pve, is not against the rules of the game but just being a kinda a jerk.

Ps: is it really so wrong for one group to have it's own content? If FD were to add group or solo content I wouldn't care. If people want to think up or suggest solo only missions I wouldn't oppose them.

This entire thread has been about arguing about trivial things.
Gosh!
Hell, I got to waste a judges time and his kronies. I do mean waste.
Ahh well.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I would even say router blocking would be worse than invading pve. Router blocking is cheating the game, invading pve, is not against the rules of the game but just being a kinda a jerk.

I'd respectfully disagree here. Joining a known PvE group, where you ask for permission to join and are subsequently granted it, are still a guest of the host. You have to act with respect towards the rules of that host to remain within your welcome. If you went to a house party, and decided to tinkle in the twiglets for the lulz, would it be unreasonable for the host to kick you out?

 

[Dave1235]

You're a lil behind! Check my last response, you actually agree with me.

Sorry if I missed it, can't be bothered to look for it, can you post a link for me please (joke).

We are of course assuming FD isn't terrified of class action lawsuits and their player base coming after them at the slightest hint of disappointment.

Your friend who doesn't know that oops! He blocks people doesn't have the intent to qualify for 3c. With the 4 section they would need to add a qualification for bad connection and either 1. Track spotty connection behavior for abuse or 2. Force them into solo play.

Let me give you an example of what you can do with p2p blocking.
You interdict me and 3 of your friends pop in. I block your three friends connection, making it 1v1. I kill you, unblock one of your friends making it 1v1 and kill him, so on and so fourth. You can control the encounter by blocking different people. This would be the sort of behavior to track, if at all possible.

I think where people think the witch hunt is that "I have a router and I'm exploiting". Well no.
It is more about tracking behavior and watching for those scenarios or admiting we can't track scenarios, working with people to improve their connections and in worst case scenarios, for performance limiting their multiplayer exposure in the most immersive method possible.

No company wants to be sued or have bad publicity.

I agree that people manipulating the game in any way including the selective targeting method you mention would be cheating, a router that constantly refuses to connect you with other players, whilst it may be over protective is not. One can be used to abuse other players, the other cant, very different things.

 

[BL1P]

I'd respectfully disagree here. Joining a known PvE group, where you ask for permission to join and are subsequently granted it, are still a guest of the host. You have to act with respect towards the rules of that host to remain within your welcome. If you went to a house party, and decided to tinkle in the twiglets for the lulz, would it not be unreasonable for the host to kick you out?

That double negative is annoying me.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

I'd respectfully disagree here. Joining a known PvE group, where you ask for permission to join and are subsequently granted it, are still a guest of the host. You have to act with respect towards the rules of that host to remain within your welcome. If you went to a house party, and decided to tinkle in the twiglets for the lulz, would it not be unreasonable for the host to kick you out?

I'm not saying It's not a jerk move, and they are well within their rights to toss you out. It's just not cheating. To use your analogy, compare it to going to a house party and stealing something, one is a jerk move, but the other illegal.

 

[Asp Explorer]

That double negative is annoying me.

lol yup sorry

 

[BL1P]

lol yup sorry

Totally fine, just woke up drinking coffee.
Reading this and had to read that last sentence 10 times
Mornings are BAD !


Yay you fixed it

Love you

 

[Dave1235]

Are you new to the Internet? Forums are 20% complaining about the things in the game, and 30% complaining about things that aren't in the game and 50% complaining about the complaining.

+1 rep for the smile.

You obviously are new too, anyone who really understands the internet knows 146% of quoted figures are made up on the spot, yours add up to 100% so must be wrong.

You also proved your ignorance in such matters by not including cute pictures of kittens or similar in the numbers

 

[Dave1235]

Do you really insist on arguing about it? Its a pretty good analogy. They both go against the spirit of the game mode, they both hurt others (one directly and one indirectly), they both are invading a place they don't want to play in, just for cheap thrills, they both are misguided, they both are/will be done by people with control issues.

I would even say router blocking would be worse than invading pve. Router blocking is cheating the game, invading pve, is not against the rules of the game but just being a jerk.

Ps: is it really so wrong for one group to have it's own content? If FD were to add group or solo content I wouldn't care. If people want to think up or suggest solo only missions I wouldn't oppose them.

Again so close but so far.

The damage from a pvp player killing a pve player in a pve group is measurable, it has a consequence, a cost, and yes whilst not against the rules its done by jerks, it might make someone quit, there's a real hurt.

Explain the hurt you experience indirectly or directly due to another player NOT being there, how do you know if they are there or not there, what is the cost to you, what did you lose?, would you feel hurt if you missed another player because they were in another instance, solo or groups or is it only if they are in open and you can't see them?

I am going to bed now but as I only play in solo & groups right now it should be ok, phew if I was in open they might need counselling that I am not online right now .

 

[Dave1235]

This entire thread has been about arguing about trivial things.
Gosh!
Hell, I got to waste a judges time and his kronies. I do mean waste.
Ahh well.

I don't consider it an argument anymore, nor the "things" trivial, if you want to see the arguments I would look earlier in this thread, from page 1 to maybe 30, go to 50 if you have time, that's where the discussion & arguments took place (well that and the other hundreds of threads about the same stuff before that made this thread the place to be merged into).

Past page 50 you subscribed to a lecture, its mainly new people with great new ideas, unfortunately for them the ideas are neither new or great. It sometimes comes as a shock that every single angle about their great new idea has already been discussed to death, and the many reasons why the great new idea wont work are mentioned, it is a sad but regular cycle.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Again so close but so far.

The damage from a pvp player killing a pve player in a pve group is measurable, it has a consequence, a cost, and yes whilst not against the rules its done by jerks, it might make someone quit, there's a real hurt.

Explain the hurt you experience indirectly or directly due to another player NOT being there, how do you know if they are there or not there, what is the cost to you, what did you lose?, would you feel hurt if you missed another player because they were in another instance, solo or groups or is it only if they are in open and you can't see them?

I am going to bed now but as I only play in solo & groups right now it should be ok, phew if I was in open they might need counselling that I am not online right now .

Fine, you do wish to argue about it.

Hypothetically assuming the open only mission worked as i said, messing up the balance of a tug of war mission, by using what amounts to an invisibility cloak, is what is hurting me indirectly. It completely undermines mine or anybody else's actions and would ruin the whole mission balance. if you cant see how undermining someones actions, and wasting their time and effort, can hurt them, then I don't know what else to say. In fact, that's another thing they have in common undermining someones time and effort. Insurance rebuy and/or cargo costs are just someones time and effort wasted.

 

[zodicus]

couldnt you use fraps or the like? thats how i take my screen shots?

 

[SteveLaw]

Hypothetically assuming the open only mission worked as i said, messing up the balance of a tug of war mission, by using what amounts to an invisibility cloak, is what is hurting me indirectly.

You also have players on your side who have an invisibility cloak. Balance restored.

 

[Cmdr Irenicus]

I mean if your internet connection worked like that... It doesn't by the way.
No having a bad connection and maxing it out probably won't breach game play.
Purposefully throttling may however. That you would have to work out with your ISP, JUST LIKE I DID! Because... EULA
An internet connection will be required to access Online Features. You are responsible for all internet and other connection charges associated with your access to and use of any Online Features.

I like that you disagree with my facts.

One does not need to work anything out with one's ISP in order to throttle one's connection

- - - Updated - - -

couldnt you use fraps or the like? thats how i take my screen shots?

FRAPS be obsolete...well for videos anyway. I just use steam overlay (having it as a non-steam game).

 

[fademist]

You also have players on your side who have an invisibility cloak. Balance restored.

Isnt on hes favor and he forgets to mention them