Vox Populi: send us your opinion about modes affecting community goals (details in first post)

[Hilight]

Reply to Vox Populi--- Opinion about modes affecting community goals.

I think the CG's and modes are fine as the stand. Changes to CG's on the basis of which mode players are playing in is going would punish some players simply for choosing one mode over the other. I'm quite sure everyone who plays the game in one particular mode has good and valid reasons for wanting to play the game in the way they prefer to. All players should have access the same benefits and rewards regardless of the mode in which the choose to play.

If there is any change at all to the current system, perhaps it should be to spawn NPC's in solo play in such a way that the amount that NPC's in any given instance or system reflects the number of human players present in the corresponding open play instance or system. In this way if there is a great deal of human player activity and danger in open play in a system that has a CG, then those playing in solo in the same system would also experience a similar amount of activity and danger. This would also create a better impression of a galaxy teeming and alive for anyone playing the game regardless of the mode they chose to play in.

 

[Nyres]

Personally for Exploration Community goals I think they should remain the same in rewards for players regardless of what mode a commander contributes from. For Trading and Combat Kill Comunity Goals I think players should get a 25percent bonus for both trading in open play and killing player controlled ships in open play. That way current solo mode players don't feel hurt by the change but people who play in open play get more of a reward for an extra bit of risk to their missions.

Honestly I absolutely love that we can be part of the community in these goals no matter what mode we choose to play and seriously hope that it will remain this way going forward.

 

[_Flin_]

All modes should contribute the same to community goals.

All rewards should be the same.

The galaxy should be in one state, not in many different states.

 

[Jim Chapman]

Another voice in favour of 'all players should contribute the same amount'.

I don't see the point of having special rules for contributions in Open mode. I've seen discussion suggesting that Open mode should offer bigger rewards/contribution because it is harder, and particularly because blockades are possible in Open.

I don't buy it:

Firstly, blockades are not really possible in Open - and you're never going to get EVE-style (or WoW-style) mass action in a game like Elite: Dangerous that is mainly based on client-side instancing, with a small number of PC ships per instance. Player-organised blockades get talked about in the forums, but I've not seen them working in real game play. People who want to play that kind of game should go and play that kind of game - rather than trying to bend the design of Elite into a shape that frankly does not fit.

Secondly, I like the principle that players in all modes get equal access to the game. The truth is, if you create special benefits for Open mode play, you're mainly just incentivising people to hack the game - for example, playing in Open but IP-blocking or IP-DoS-Spamming to knock other players out of your instance when they cause you problems.

Thirdly: Open is not 'harder'. I play Open all the time (except when bugs prevent it), and can easily adjust the amount of PvP interaction by going to busier or emptier corners of the galaxy. Result: Open is as hard as you want it to be. I understand that Frontier had to insist on Open play for the competitions, but in my book that was just about avoiding whingeing (or indeed legal challenges) from the PvP types - it only proves that these people are capable of making a lot of noise, it doesn't prove that they are right.

 

[Arioch]

There should be no difference in contributions or rewards as I cannot see the difference in the following:
A player in Solo being placed in an instance of one.
A player in Group being placed in an instance of one due to network speed/bandwidth/geographical location etc.
A player in Open being placed in an instance of one due to network speed/bandwidth/geographical location etc.
Those who complain it isn't fair should, as far as I can see, be also complaining about players who play in different instances/for longer hours/at different times/with rubbish internet speeds/whenever they're not.

 

[gunzbngbng]

If a player tries to farm in open and makes 500k in an hour, then goes to solo and makes 1mill, then the difference should be balanced. Solo will cry unfair, but only because they have the vantage.

 

[Rednam]

Community Goals...

They need to start some community goals that are for OPEN play only. Just like they have done with the NVIDIA rare trade item.

Have a number of different Community Goals (CG), some for open only, some for all. Keep track of the statistics to see what works and doesnt. Also make sure they are clearly labeled as OPEN/SOLO/PRIVATE.


It comes down to Risk vs Reward in my opinion. There is more risk in OPEN play, so should there be "more" reward as well? Unfortunately I dont think there is a way to make them balanced as far as risk/reward in open compared to that of solo/group, without somehow making them separate.

 

[Flip]

The mode wouldn't need to affect the community goals if the game dealt with pirates, gankers and griefers correctly. At the moment, they can get away with everything they do, even the most idiotic actions, which is why many people prefer solo or private groups. If the "bad guys" didn't have the impunity they currently have, a group like Mobius wouldn't be needed anymore.

- Make the security level of systems meaningful and effective. So they'd be safe in anarchy systems, but not in high security systems.
- Make the bounty values meaningful, so if you have a 400 cr bounty on your head, system security will interdict you and will let you go with a warning, but if you have a 100K cr bounty, they'll hunt you down and kill you.
- Make it so that pirates cannot pay their bounties to the faction that want them. So if they are wanted in the Federation, they'd have to go to an Empire or Independent system to pay their bounties off.
- Make it impossible for them to even dock in a station where they are wanted.
- And make it dangerous for them to even travel through systems where they are wanted.

If these were implemented, many people would be in Open all the time instead of being in Mobius' group.

 

[AndrewF]

All three modes (Solo, Group, and Open) should have the same ability to contribute to the game as a whole to community goals and the same rewards for those contributions.
.
If a player wishes to play in Open, they should do so for Open play itself - the lure of playing with or against other real people, not a financial reward in game.
.
The same applies for Solo players. If they choose to play Solo, they should not be penalised, or rewarded, for doing so.

 

[snotface]

I would like to say this on this subject:

It should not matter which mode you play in, be it Solo, Group or open, all the rewards should be exactly the same. As Frontier Developments did not make a full Off-Line mode it means that people are forced to play on-line. If players are force to play on-line then they should also receive equality within the game no matter which mode they play in. To penalise a person is discrimination.

Discrimination (favoritism, favouritism(noun))
Unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

I play this game in all three modes. Some days, due to medical issues I can only play in Solo mode. Is it fair for me to be openly discriminated just because I may not be well enough to play in open mode?

If Frontier Developments openly discriminate against players who want to play this game in either Group or Solo mode just because they cannot or do not wish to play in Open mode due to medical or personal reasons then it would be seen as totally unfair and therefor discrimination. If there was a totally Off-line version of this game then this discussion would never arise.

The problem with this game is this:
Some people believe they have a right to make others unhappy, force their game play onto others, and make up the rules of the game as they go alone. Solo and Group mode takes away their rights to make everybody else unhappy. Is it fair to give in to these people all the time?

I want to play Elite Dangerous because it’s a great game. I do not want to feel discriminated against just because I cannot play in Open mode. I will not be discriminated against just because I want to play in a group with my friends. And I will fight with tooth and nail not to be discriminated against just because I may not be well enough to play in Open mode. If Frontier Developments wish to discriminate, show favouritism to able bodied players, and make rewards to players who only wish to spread misery and unhappiness then it will be a very dark day for this game.

The question should be:
Why does Mobius have 6000+ members? Is it because players do not wish to engage in player on player killing, and because they all want play the game the way they want to?
Is it fair to penalise 6000+ players just because the very few think it’s their right to kill them?
Is it fair to penalise 6000+ players just because they all do not play in open mode.
Or is it fair for Frontier Developments to hunt down all the cheats who use game exploits, hacks, and cheats in Solo or Group mode. Then once they catch these cheats to ban them to Solo mode? Personally if you catch any player using cheats, exploits or hacks they should be banned from the game totally.

Discrimination is not the way forward. All community goals are for the community and not just for Open players.

Remember if Frontier Developments had kept their word and released a fully working Off-line mode this subject would never of raised its head. Why, because people can play in solo whenever they want and it would never have an effect on on-line modes. Cheats then could be kicked to Solo mode and they would never be allowed to play in the online game again.

I know this is my view on this subject, and I know others will have other views.

 

[Vincent Starson]

I feel that the community goals should remain the same in terms of contribution from different modes, allowing all Commanders to contribute equally.

One problem I feel this community has is the insults aimed at Group/Solo players. There's a superiority complex from Open players, that look down on group/solo players that don't play Open with them. I feel like giving Open players any benefits would just add on to this perception that Open is the only respectable play mode. All modes should be respected.

With that said, I admit it doesn't appear to be fair that Open is more difficult to play in during community goals. The problem is that even if everyone played open, you more than likely would never see any blockade that players might organize. Organizing blockades and killing traders is something you hear about in forums, but likely never see in Open. This is just a limitation of the game design, and nothing will change that short of rewriting a huge piece of the game.

I feel some of the anger at solo/group players should really be aimed at Frontier instead because it is after all their game design that forced those Open players to feel cheated. Players want to blockade systems / stations but can't because of instancing. I think a lot of this anger is just from those who haven't come to terms with this games limitations due to the instancing and are taking it out on solo/group players.

In conclusion, those are my thoughts on the matter and I have complete faith in Frontier to make a good decision. Good luck!

 

[Commander Mr Grey]

I have been playing this game for a very long time, and yes I do read the forums but find it pointless replying to anything. I have noticed over the months that the same people complain and Frontier seem to give in to their complaints.

As a poster above said it is a form of discrimination. Just because I play in any of the 3 modes should I have my game play dictated to me by somebody whose only motive is to cause upset to other players games. By forcing players into open mode to do community events is against the games ethos and therefore not in the spirit of the game. Remember Frontier stated very clearly at the start of this game "We can play in anyway we want to play it". But they also said they would make a true Offline version of the game, which they went back on.

I know that if they openly discriminate against myself and 6000 other members of Mobius by making us have to play in open just to do community based events, (which is for the whole community and not just open players) then this game will not longer be called Elite Dangerous, but something on the lines of Gankers Central.

I want to play Elite Dangerous, not any other game with the same name but made cheaper. I want to have a choice when it comes to my game play, not to be dictated to by people who just want PVP servers. I do not want to be discriminated against just because I do not go around killing other players.

FD make up your minds, then dump these silly ideas about forcing good players into solo just because there are not enough players in Open mode for the Gankers to kill.

 

[Jericho]

I currently play in a Private PvE group called Mobius that allows PvP but only in specific areas (combat zones where you declare a faction).

I would prefer to play in Open, but it is not attractive to me as it stands now because of the level of 'griefing' and unprofessional piracy.

I honestly don't mind piracy, as long as it is modeled like real piracy.

IMO, the problem with Elite is that there are basically no repercussions for acts of aggression to another player. If piracy (and griefing) were at all risky than it simply wouldn't happen as frequently.

One mechanic that might promote 'Real' Piracy and deter Griefing is implementing a system which makes 'aggressive' player pay large fines upon their death. If implemented correctly we'd end up with 2 things:
1) fewer and more cautious pirates (the professionals)
2) a bunch of griefers flying around in stock Sidewinders (the rest)

The fines could scale according to the system or region you're in. There could be Hi-Security and Low-Security areas, similar to Eve, but instead of implementing the baby-sitting security forces like in Eve (which only works because everyone has to use those jump gates) what if the severity of the fines levied against a player depended on how 'strict' the local enforcement was?
For instance, in a Hi-Sec system a fine is 100x higher than in a Lo-Sec system.

Obviously, the game would need to incentivize people to travel to Lo-Sec by providing more lucrative trade routes and resource sites. This allows the trader/miner a choice to play in open yet still have a safe haven if preferred but understanding that there's less profit.

I really don't mind being pirated by a person who is assuming a realistic risk in attempting to do so.......... Piracy belongs in this game. Griefing does not. So let's promote piracy and deter griefing. Be a smart pirate, earn lots of money, otherwise live in poverty with the rest of the mean people.

Also, I do believe that Open play should be rewarded at higher levels than Solo play. There are limited risks in Solo, less risk = less reward... especially if a Hi/Lo-Sec game mechanic were to be implemented.
I'm not even talking about financial rewards either, but the rewards for faction points and flipping systems.
If a group works hard to win control of a system, how do they defend it from another group that simply plays in Solo and never shows themselves as they erode the other team's control?... its simply cowardly and unfair, and nobody likes playing games that promote cowardice and imbalance.

This is my 2 cents worth.

Cheers,
Jericho

 

[Quineloe]

Let's start with a clear premise: If this game had had a true offline solo mode and an online open play mode, offline players would not have been able to participate in Community goals to begin with.

The same logic should apply to online solo play. There have been quite a few community goals now that clearly go against the interests of parts of the player base.

There's been Federation attacks on independent systems, quite a few now, with the goal of changing the allegiance of the systems attacked. There were no counter goals available for players who wanted to oppose, but players still joined the other side for the sake of fighting the Federation.

Then came Lugh, and now the Slavery goal. Two community goals in direct opposition, and both will be decided by whichever side ferries more cargo to the stations. If Side A can win a community goal simply because they have bigger numbers carrying cargo in solo mode and there is nothing side B can do about it, the outcome of these goals is pretty much predetermined.

I think you need to make a clear distinction between pure cooperative community goals such as Yembo, Lambda Andromeda Terraforming and Tsu, and competitive community goals such as Lugh, Synteini, BD+03 2338.

Coop community goals are fine to be done in solo mode. But competitive community goals should be restricted to Open Play. Only Battle weapons you picked up in Open play and never left open play with, such as with the Nvidia things, should have counted for the community goal in Khaka and Lugh. Only Combat bonds earned in Open play should have counted.

Why is it a gimmick marketing event forced open play, yet global politics can be pushed in Solo mode?

 

[clavain]

As many others have said, there should be no difference between the three modes with regard to community goals or influence or any other game/background sim mechanic. Why should someone be penalized because of how they want to play the game they paid for? FD has already broken their design by introducing bonuses for those using Wings, to try to encourage cooperative play, to the disadvantage of pilots like myself who prefer to fly solo (for the record in Open or Group mode with Mobius, mostly as an explorer with some trading/bounty hunting from time to time). They created this problem in some ways by backing out of having an offline mode. If they were to begin to favour one mode of play over another with additional bonuses because of a design decision they brought on themselves and an inability to deal with griefers in Open leading to declining numbers in Open and lack of interest in community goals, I would likely stop playing (although it will llkely be the lack of engaging mission content/broken missions, lack of exploration content, and broken background sim/economy that does me in before then). It would be a signal that the game is largely about PvP, and I believe that a large number of the player base do not want that, as shown by groups such as Mobius, and numbers in solo mode.

 

[Adept]

I think Elite needs to encourage playing in Open. The key there is to have serious consequences for "bad" behavior. Currently bounties are easy to clear, and the consequences of blowing up a trader's Lakon are minimal. The game is in effect balanced in favour of griefing, in a diametric opposition to what DB set as the goal.

The above being said, I think playing in solo or group should have a reduced effect on the galaxy. Maybe 20% impact compared to those playing in Open, or even less. That way, choosing to play solo wouldn't hurt anybody's ability to make money and enjoy the game, but to have full effect on the universe simulation, you need to live in the open sandbox.

 

[adrianvivivi]

i just have to say over the battle of lugh i was playing in private group because thats where my whole group was, i prefer open so finally i got a wing mate to come with me to open for some pvp and the entire system was dead, at a time of war during a slot in the day alot of people are online, so for me solo/ group play is killing the game, i took a break after that and switched to a more competitive game. my group is setting up pvp tournaments, but im not really into that. im looking to fly through space and encounter dangers, and not hard npc g\dangers. its more fun random and theres just something about seeing other people in your game that make it more interesting. and trading in solo they made wings so you can hire people to escort you but if everyone trades in solo what is the point in that. im a combat pilot and i have not once been asked to escort someone.its sad and unfortunate and i would really like to see solo mode become just that, a mode that affects nothing in the universe where other people are doing things. the game was entitled elite dangerous, and it doesnt feel very dangerous without running from pirates or having random encounters with players that you have to ask yourself friend or foe.

 

[Weps]

My main concern about the matter has less to do with solo commanders influencing the outcome of the open universe, but with the way the rewards are being given. All community goals have a tiered reward system and top contributors receive better rewards. IMHO it is easier for commanders to reach the top reward tiers in solo than in open, no matter how well FDEV design the AI. The AI will never coordinate in countering / denying player contributions the way real commanders do. On the other hand, I would not want solo or group commanders to miss out on rewards.

I don't know if it's possible with the way the game works, but I would like to see two different contributions lists for open and not-open. If a player signs up for a goal in open, he is automatically places on the open rewards list. If he at any time leaves open or if he joins the goal in another mode, he is placed in the not-open list and can never move to the open list. Again, this depends on the game's ability to flag commanders which move from open to group or solo automatically, without manually investigating save files.

This means that there will be more commanders reaching the top tiers than before (twice as many), but that's not a bad thing. A commander moving from open to solo may find himself in a completely different rewards tier, but that is not game breaking either, since it happens anyway when commanders move naturally up or down the list.

The global progress for the goal is still influenced by all commanders, since the goal needs to have the same status and end at the same time for all. It is just the rewards list which is split.

 

[Commander Silex]

For me there are two issues:

1) That the separation of game modes allows for easy circumvention of player efforts to cause detriment to the efforts of other players achieving the goal.

This is particularly apparent in the conflicting slave trade goals in Empire space. If players want to create a blockade of some sort to reduce the number of slave traders successfully contributing to one faction over another, they're completely incapable of affecting the player in solo and private groups.

2) Particularly apparent in combat goals, it becomes a detriment to be in Open as the amount of credit for kills is slowed to a trickle thanks to kill stealing. In this case many players will go private or solo and farm AI. The previously mentioned issue also applies here as players in solo can not also be attacked by enemy players.

I think a good way of mitigating this effect would be to either directly increase the rewards for players completing community goals in Open, or alternatively to increase the credit towards the goal said players actions generate. Perhaps there could even be a bonus to the 'percentage of player' tier rewards for completing the goal entirely in Open.

The issue of kill stealing in combat zones may require its own solution, but simply increasing the amount of goal credit a combat bond gives the pilot for collecting it in Open would go some way to improving the situation.

 

[salesninja]

To start with, I think the simple solution to the solo problem with community goals could be simple. Reduce the contributions of a solo player by a percentage, I personally would like to see at least 50 percent. They are avoiding the risk so they should get a reduced reward.

The real difficulty would be preventing the obvious next step with this which is a solo player earns their contribution in solo, then turns around and logs into open play to contribute. I would like to see some kind of system where for example bonds earned in solo play are marked as such.

I really feel there is a lot of frustration on this issue because very few people can honestly say the risk is the same between modes. I think a lot of the passion comes from the fact that it's a great game, and people care.
I know for me personally I do not love the idea of players easily being able to avoida blockade, or a group of people trying to stop the actions of another faction. It flies in the face of what a community goal is. There is no exposure to the community in solo mode, so I don't think they should be able to contribute on the same level.