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

[Jordan Cobalt]

Always tought thats funny, without any numbers or evidence that you need to go to Solo in order for Goal to be completed People just go to solo for doing it and saying then "look we all did it in Solo and we reached the Goal!" A nice little self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's past experience, try going to a combat zone with 3 others and you'll be waiting for npcs to trickle in. Not a problem with 1 person in solo. Try delivering cargo in open, to a cg and see how often you're stopped. Now try the same in solo.

 

[atak2]

Here's an idea. If these debates are so one-sided and unfair, what you should do is join in and present your side of the argument.

I have on a few occasions left my opinions on the Guild matter and Open Vs Solo in the relevant threads. Unlike The Forum Gankers I don't try to drown out dissenting opinion.

 

[SteveLaw]

No they do not. A 4 player wing in a cz in open will not make the same as 4 players in solo. 1 trader in open will not make the same as 1 trader in solo. Solo is the correct metagame mode to win a goal in. A single solo mode player is worth double what an open mode player is worth.

Are we still talking about Powers? There are players for and against each Power in each mode. Solo players for the Power are equal to Solo players against the Power. Open Players for the Power are equal to Open players against the Power.

If Power A 10 has players in Open and Power B has 10 players in Solo then yes your argument may have some merit. However, Power A may also have 10 players in Solo, so Power A's Solo players balance out Power B's Solo players. And unless Power B has as many or more Open players as Power A then Power A wins.

- - - Updated - - -

I have on a few occasions left my opinions on the Guild matter and Open Vs Solo in the relevant threads. Unlike The Forum Gankers I don't try to drown out dissenting opinion.

Oh well, better luck next time. Maybe you could try calling them names instead?

 

[Bomba Luigi]

It's past experience, try going to a combat zone with 3 others and you'll be waiting for npcs to trickle in. Not a problem with 1 person in solo. Try delivering cargo in open, to a cg and see how often you're stopped. Now try the same in solo.

And? you and all other People in open can still contribute enough to complete a Goal. Could be true that you can do more in Solo but that doesn't mean what you do in open is not enough to complete the Goal.

But I guess completing a goal and helping a Faction/Power/whatever is not really what most people care for, its about "I am on top, I am the best!". And I hate to say that, but when you go at something with a purley competitiv mind where everything have to be win/maxed its in most cases not the most fun way to play a Game.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Are we still talking about Powers? There are players for and against each Power in each mode. Solo players for the Power are equal to Solo players against the Power. Open Players for the Power are equal to Open players against the Power.

If Power A 10 players in Open and Power B has 10 players in Solo then yes your argument may have some merit. However, Power A may also have 10 players in Solo, so Power As Solo players balance out Power Solo players. And unless Power B has as many or power Open players as Power A then Power A wins.

Are you sure they'll attract the same amount, because I'd bet money they won't. A combat oriented power will naturally attract more open players, and a peaceful trade oriented power will attract more solo and pve players. Imperial supporters seem more combat oriented in general, im sure they'll attract more open players.

- - - Updated - - -

Mind showing me the math behind this conclusion?

Because I did trade rares in both open and solo. And the difference I experienced was not the fact that it was double the worth, but the added hassle of having to avoid interdiction about 1 or 2 times more often in a days trading.

I meant towards cg and in combat zones.

 

[atak2]

Oh well, better luck next time. Maybe you could try calling them names instead?

"Ganking" and "Griefing" seem to be acceptable terms for in-game descriptions. I think they are accurate descriptions for the groups actions on the forum.

 

[SteveLaw]

Are you sure they'll attract the same amount, because I'd bet money they won't. A combat oriented power will naturally attract more open players, and a peaceful trade oriented power will attract more solo and pve players. Imperial supporters seem more combat oriented in general, im sure they'll attract more open players.

I'm sure different types of Power will attract different types of players, that's what they are for. The fact remains that Solo and Open contribute the same amount of influence to the powers. If you do your tasks, whatever they are, in Open or Solo it counts the same.

- - - Updated - - -

"Ganking" and "Griefing" seem to be acceptable terms for in-game descriptions. I think they are accurate descriptions for the groups actions on the forum.

Jolly good.

 

[Joe Spivey]

Exactly. Same thing is going on with the Guilds thread. The Forum Gankers are doing their best to derail and drown it.

You keep saying this sort of thing but all that is happening is that we are correcting your misconceptions and not allowing your propaganda to continuously spread these misconceptions until less knowledgeable players start believing your nonsense. The fact that you cannot create a solid argument against the facts does not seem to stop you, you just go on and on and now... playground insults. Really, you're just showing yourself up you know.

 

[Robert Maynard]

"Ganking" and "Griefing" seem to be acceptable terms for in-game descriptions. I think they are accurate descriptions for the groups actions on the forum.

.... naming and shaming rules apply to reports of in-game behaviour. I would expect that "insulting other member" would be used on the forums when a user opines that the behaviour of another user is equivalent to either of the behaviours in your quote.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

And? you and all other People in open can still contribute enough to complete a Goal. Could be true that you can do more in Solo but that doesn't mean what you do in open is not enough to complete the Goal.

But I guess completing a goal and helping a Faction/Power/whatever is not really what most people care for, its about "I am on top, I am the best!". And I hate to say that, but when you go at something with a purley competitiv mind where everything have to be win/maxed its in most cases not the most fun way to play a Game.

Of course open players can power through, but what if the number of players is close. It will come down to who has more players in solo.

I don't care about winning or losing, I care about fairness. I care about nit being forced out of my mode just to have a fair chance.

 

[SteveLaw]

Of course open players can power through, but what if the number of players is close. It will come down to who has more players in solo.

Or possibly who does better in their tasks maybe?

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Of course open players can power through, but what if the number of players is close. It will come down to who has more players in solo.

I don't care about winning or losing, I care about fairness.

Which is just a theory btw, not a fact. I also have a Theory: If its close the side where the average playtime of the supporters is higher will win.
And I'm sure there can also be some more theorys but I fear only FD will ever now which one is true. Its also possible that which theory is true can vary from case to case.

Fairness is a tough thing to find the perfect balance. What you will need is a lot of Data and Facts (we both don't have) and even then you probably won't ever achieve 100% fairness in a complex construct like ED. The problem is even when Open is normaly harder then Solo that does not mean its always like that.
Let us take the "Give open a Bonus" Idee, People in open shoiuld get more Money and or Influence. After all, all the PvP, right? Well, what when you then play in open one Day do some stuff without getting attacked? it may be unusual, but sometimes it may not happen for a while. All the while someone in a Group with PvP had to deal with being attacked by other player.
And yet, you playing open getting a Bonus and the poor guy in Group who had it more dangerous not? Hows that fair?

Thing is, no mode is always this and this difficult, it can vary based on many factors. In some cases you can have it harder in Solo then in open, that can really be possible if you want to believe it or not. I once said it in the Vox Populi Thread: A Bonus for extra Risk is fine, but tie that Bonus to the actual extra Risk and not a mode. When PvP is the extra Risk, give Bonus for that. Because PvP is not a Open only thing.

 

[S.P-A.]

Imperial supporters seem more combat oriented in general, im sure they'll attract more open players.
I meant towards cg and in combat zones.

If you have substantial proof of this point please show it. In the other case it's a subjective view which can also be false. There is no reason to think that there is more players in open supporting a given faction. All thing being equal solo/open balance themselves whatever your choice of playing style.

Seriously, the best way to see this is to play the way you want and let the others too.

 

[atak2]

Tell me dear Sir, how would you describe your last few posts?

Fruitless but at least I tried.

 

[Globusdiablo]

Whether a group of forum users is being constructive (or not) is, of course, a matter of opinion.

What? You mean all is relative?...

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

If you have substantial proof of this point please show it. In the other case it's a subjective view which can also be false. There is no reason to think that there is more players in open supporting a given faction. All thing being equal solo/open balance themselves whatever your choice of playing style.

Seriously, the best way to see this is to play the way you want and let the others too.

I don't work at FD, I can't give you the breakdown of the faction alignment to open numbers. What I do have is experience in open and anecdotal evidence. Also if you check the number of empire aligned groups with a combat leaning you'll see they out number the either the feds or alliance.

 

[atak2]

What was your goal?

To highlight the forum behaviours which in my opinion makes some threads a miserable slog to read. I'm finding it hard to find the good points from fresh viewpoints amongst the detritus.

 

[Robert Maynard]

To highlight the forum behaviours which in my opinion makes some threads a miserable slog to read. I'm finding it hard to find the good points from fresh viewpoints amongst the detritus.

You will find it hard indeed - it's been a while, in my opinion, since any "new" points have been raised in this debate - a debate that has been ongoing for well over two years now.

 

[atak2]

Ok. Shall we see how you tried to accomplish this?












Sorry I couldn't be bothered to order them. But would you agree with me the content of what you posted had a great deal to do with the fruitlessness of the goal you set out to achieve?

Would you also not agree that these post can accurately be described as: the sort of behaviour which makes some threads a miserable slog to read.
Which would attribute to your problem of: finding it hard to find the good points from fresh viewpoints amongst the detritus.

So my question becomes, why are you complaining about a problem you're a part of?

You are correct. I have been part of the problem today but considering the low number of posts I make I have only gunged up one thread today to highlight various people who continue to do it in many threads - all day, every day. To avoid further building up detritus I am done with my posting today.

 

[Jockey79]

You are correct. I have been part of the problem today but considering the low number of posts I make I have only gunged up one thread today to highlight various people who continue to do it in many threads - all day, every day. To avoid further building up detritus I am done with my posting today.

If you have a problem with what people post or how often - I'd suggest taking it up with the Mod team.
Making accusations of "forum griefing" and name calling "forum gankers" are not the way to prove a point, only provides proof that you are trolling and forces Mods to have to moderate you.

Whether you like or dislike the modes, is no longer relevant. This topic, like Robert said, has been going on for 2 years.
FD made the game with modes and mode swapping in mind and other games are starting to follow with the same idea.
Chances are, this may be the new face of MMOs.