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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Aye, mobius effectively doesn't exist for people who play open and i'm fine w/ that.

they have *chosen* to exclude themselves from the larger game because :reasons: .. What is completely ludicrous is that they can continue to effect the economy, sovreignty, and community goal outcomes of the open server even though they want absolutely nothing to do with it.
 
Many solo players don't realize it works both ways.

My source of weapons for my community goal has just dried up ...

Think about that for a second - open affects solo as well. Are you solo players 100 certain you want to be in the same simulation?

I don't mind it myself, but just tossing it out there.
 
Try to look at this from an unbiased, business-like perspective. To keep developing the game, FD need resources that they can get only in two ways: siphoning revenue from their other projects (bad), or generating revenue with their flagship product (good). And for that, a rich and solid Open play experience is key.

And here is the thing: We don't know. We don't have precise data, instead relying on hearsay, anecdotal evidence, and the few numbers that MMO devs let out. We have little enough data that we are left to personal interpretation.

And my own interpretation of the available data is that, as far as keeping a large and stable player base goes, promoting non-consensual PvP — for example, by giving bonuses to activities done while under threat of it happening — is the riskier way, only viable for small niche games. EVE is kind of a counter example, of course — but EVE, compared with nearly every other game that goes that way, is as out of proportion as WoW among the other PvE-centric MMOs, and just like with WoW most MMOs that tried to copy EVE's model crashed and burned. And even EVE doesn't allow the kind of lawless environment ED allows; yeah, suicide ganking exists, but targeting anything that can tank even a little bit comes with a fairly high cost, and before long suicide gankers need to stop to grind back reputation in order to not be shot down on sight in high-sec.

The issue is not PvP per see, of course; fully consensual PvP thrives, as the FPS and MOBA genres prove. And some countries do seem to enjoy non-consensual PvP, looking at which MMOs, locally-made and imported, have the largest player base there; Brazil, most of Asia (Japan being a huge exception), and a couple European countries come to mind. But, for a game meant to be sold mostly in the west, non-consensual PvP not only doesn't seem to be a big draw, it seems to drive away more players than it brings unless the game is meant just for the niche of open PvP lovers.

Atop that, ED has penalties for failure I consider inconsistent, counter-intuitive, and that for a new player might even feel random and arbitrary, particularly so after the tweak to repair costs. Being shot a lot carries no penalty until the shields are gone; it costs peanuts while the ship wasn't destroyed yet; and, when the ship is destroyed, the penalty can be 5% of the ship's value if the player has banked money, or 100% if the player hasn't, which means those that can afford the larger penalty actually get the smaller one. Also, it is a game that allows players to suffer actual setbacks when they die; games with penalties like this tend to quickly go through the available player base, soon becoming empty unless they manage to continually attract fresh blood. Those "I quit" posts we see here from players that couldn't cover the buyback cost? The vast majority of players that quit never post those, they just stop logging and leave the game (which, in a way, is even worse for the devs, as they don't get to know what drove those players away).

I do believe both of those are already issues for ED; other games with similarly free PvP and harsh penalties that posted player retention stats had serious issues keeping players in the game, and I have no reason to suspect ED would be any different. Solo and group modes mitigate those issues somewhat, but not completely, as Open being the default mode might make players feel like open is what the game is meant to be, and make them leave the game if they don't enjoy open even if they would have liked solo or a group like Mobius.

And no, I don't think open is the most important mode for ED's future. Every game that allows players to choose between playing alone or with others that I've seen release player preference statistics had far more players alone than in multiplayer. If that is the case here, far more important for ED's future is that players in solo and private groups don't feel like they are getting the short end of the stick.

Now, to be fair, I do think we both have issues with confirmation bias. I, for one, can't even understand how someone can find non-consensual PvP enjoyable; being attacked by another player when I've not opted for PvP isn't just unenjoyable, it often ruins my day, even if I wiped the floor with my would-be attacker, so I really can't see how it could be fun for others. As such, I have a hard time figuring what would be enjoyable for those players. What I can say is that anything that makes me feel like PvPers are getting special treatment, makes me feel like people that refuse to ever open themselves for PvP are being penalized, would sharply reduce my willingness to play, and reduce even more my willingness to purchase anything more from the game's store.
 
Many solo players don't realize it works both ways.

My source of weapons for my community goal has just dried up ...

Think about that for a second - open affects solo as well. Are you solo players 100 certain you want to be in the same simulation?

I don't mind it myself, but just tossing it out there.

of course we realize this. the difference is we don't want to affect their sim. the fact that we do is simply because we are forced to.
 
Why don't you take a big expensive hauler to Leesti or Lave? You know, the hunting grounds of Mr. Itchy and his pals. They'll kill you free of charge.

Or not.

Wanna take your chances?

That's what a blockade is. Not an airtight denial. But a threat - that if you go there, chances are good something bad will happen to you. And it is absolutely possible to blockade whole systems in ED.

What I find funny, is they are blockading away and there are hundreds if not thousands going in and out of that system in solo lol
icon10.gif
 
I'd like "solo mode shouldnt exist" posts to stop...

Seriously, it annoys people. Solo has every right to do community goals - Yes, I get that there is an "unfair advantage" for solo players working a community goal VS. an open player.

Its a very easy fix by FDEV - Make it so that when a Solo/Private Group player turns in a bond for 30k (example) they get 30k in cash, but it only counts as..15k towards the community goal

Wheras the Open players can turn in the same 30k Bond, Receive the same 30k in cash, but it counts as 30k towards the community goal.

Its not so much about not letting this group do that with this, but just make the values weighted differently. Open, it is much harder to make that 30k than it is in solo, so it should be worth x times as much for the goal.

Is this a viable solution for anyone?

For anyone that can see my signature, I am an avid player of Solo/Group - but I really do hear, understand, and mostly agree with what the solo players are saying. I do want to start playing in open at some point. If anyone can give me a good reason as to why this wont work or help, then please explain...

P.S. I say very easy fix by FDEV, but honestly I have no idea. The concept is simple though ;)

Edit - Sorry if anyone was offended by my tone or by the wording I used - had just read a very.....anger inducing thread about completely removing solo mode - Wont happen again :D - also - I want to reiterate that I fully support both SOLO and OPEN modes, and I believe there can be a great solution so everyone is happy in the end - aka this solution ;)

Edit 2 - Again - I need to reiterate to everyone - This doesnt hurt anyone's personal finances, everyone will still make the same amount when they turn in a bond, everyone will still rank up within the community goal the same (top 70%, top 40%, top 15% etc) - The only thing this does is add a separate advantage to players who want to play in open - This allows them to affect an overall goal better than a solo player. This goal would be a NEW feature added in game if something like this goes through - It doesnt hurt the "advantage" of playing solo either - It really is a WIN-WIN compromise - I believe and fully support all 3 modes....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sandro Sammarco

Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
Frontier
Hello Commander Demiga!

This is something that I'm considering.

There won't be any changes in the immediate future (our time is fairly booked up right now), but on face value it certainly seems plausible and maybe reasonable to me. I'll need to chew it over some more, obviously. I *believe* a change like this would be possible though (again, I'd have to verify that with team server).

Comments on this would be welcome.

Oh, but obviously, Commander Demiga, let's try and keep the temperature at a reasonable level :) . Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, as long as they do so politely.
 
Last edited:
how bout no....

i would like npc in wings to coordinate better in solo and wings of them be more common/hire our own wing to with our spare ships before we take your idea (for combat oriented goals)

for trading make pirates not just interdict but wait for you outside the station again we need to flesh out wings and ai a bit more.

exploring still exploring i don't want to see any type of reduction for explores community goals.

however i am open to the idea of boosting open play bonuses (when in that mode you get a 25% boost to all round profit but the number contributed stays the same)

id also like more range of community goals. (smuggling) where bigger ships are more of a hindrance than helpful so that way players in early ships can actually help rather than add pocket change. (friend tried to help in lugh even though all he had was a adder)
 
Last edited:
If I choose to play solo then I expect my contribution towards the goal to be 100% (regardless of whether I receive the full amount). Contributing half sounds like an attempt to punish solo players and coerce them into open IMO, and it also has a whiff of a two-tier ED.
 
Last edited:
how bout no....

i would prefer if npc's were in wings we could hire our own wings and npc wings coordinated rather than take your idea.

and as for the afk cap ship farming i make more actively hunting than doing the afk turret.

or should we make a t9 only count for 1/9th of its cargo haulage in community goal because its unfair to the new players in haulers, adders, cobras?
Wat? All he said what the contributed value is smaller towards the community goal. The rest is the same.
|
I dont have an issue with this personally. Then again, i would like to have 2 characters (1 in open and 1 in solo).
 
Last edited:

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Hello Commander Demiga!

This is something that I'm considering.

There won't be any changes in the immediate future (our time is fairly booked up right now), but on face value it certainly seems plausible and maybe reasonable to me. I'll need to chew it over some more, obviously. I *believe* a change like this would be possible though (again, I'd have to verify that with team server).

Comments on this would be welcome.

Oh, but obviously, Commander Demiga, let's try and keep the temperature at a reasonable level :) . Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, as long as they do so politely.

Great news! For a bit more details on this type of idea see also:

Based on our recent experience in Lugh the issue about players going into SOLO mode to avoid blockades etc (especially traders contributing in Khaka or Balandin to the weapons import missions) has come up again, so I would like to propose a small change to the progress tracking of opposing Community Goals:

I personally dont have any issue with players deciding to play in SOLO and getting the same Cr. and rewards that players in OPEN do. Player development in terms of Cr. per hour per ship is probably about the same in OPEN or in SOLO. That is likely a non issue.

For me the issue is in Community Goal related opposing missions where player blockading is possible. Because I dont think NPC can set up and prepare blockades as agressively and coordinatedly as players can.

I would like to propose a change in the way these Community Goals work so to align this issue:

Opposing Community Goals would have two separate progress trackers, a tonnage/bonds one (like currently) and an actual "effectiveness" one:
1 - A standard volume progress tracker for actual absolute tonnage or bonds contributed much like we have today, so Cr. can be awarded much like today to both SOLO and OPEN players nornmally
2 - A actual Community Goal "effectiveness" tracker that would be the one actually used to decide the actual fate or resolution of opposing Community goals, like the ones in Lugh. Under this second header the "effectiveness" of a SOLO player contributing to the Goal would be reduced, say, in half.

Both trackers should be displayed in parallel in the Mission screen so players can see them both and then decide if they want to play in SOLO or OPEN to better contribute to it.

This system, or a similar one, would keep SOLO players whole in terms of Cr. progress and rewards based on tonnage / bonds, but would at the same time make blockading and escorting activity much more meaningful in the case of opposing Community goals. These will in turn also incentivize wings of escorts gameplay etc.
 
Last edited:
No, not the larger game, just some of the people in it. That's what choice means, it's not to spite you personally you know.


they have chosen to exclude themselves from 'some people in the greater game' however they still have the ability to affect the economy, sovreignty and community goals those players they have chosen to ignore are playing for and towards.

They maintain economic control of any system they want to, and military control in that they control the space completely and cannot be challenged. Open players have the same level of economic control, but are at a severely uneven fotting with regards to the military control since they can be attacked and/or blockaded in it. Choosing to play 'in open' puts you at this military/force disadvantage against any player group who chooses to play in closed or open.

Does this sound like fair, equal footing to you? Of course not.

the only argument the closed/solo players have come up with is 'well you can play in closed and choose to have the same economic/military advantage/disadvantage ratio', except that forces me to change my gameplay away from my preferred method to achieve equal footing with another player group, thus not allowing me to play the game 'the way i want to' .. This goes against the core design principle of the game.
 

atak2

A
Seriously, it annoys people. Solo has every right to do community goals - Yes, I get that there is an "unfair advantage" for solo players working a community goal VS. an open player.

Its a very easy fix by FDEV - Make it so that when a Solo/Private Group player turns in a bond for 30k (example) they get 30k in cash, but it only counts as..15k towards the community goal

Wheras the Open players can turn in the same 30k Bond, Receive the same 30k in cash, but it counts as 30k towards the community goal.

Its not so much about not letting this group do that with this, but just make the values weighted differently. Open, it is much harder to make that 30k than it is in solo, so it should be worth x times as much for the goal.

Is this a viable solution for anyone?

For anyone that can see my signature, I am an avid player of Solo/Group - but I really do hear, understand, and mostly agree with what the solo players are saying. I do want to start playing in open at some point. If anyone can give me a good reason as to why this wont work or help, then please explain...

P.S. I say very easy fix by FDEV, but honestly I have no idea. The concept is simple though ;)

Hello Commander Demiga!

This is something that I'm considering.

There won't be any changes in the immediate future (our time is fairly booked up right now), but on face value it certainly seems plausible and maybe reasonable to me. I'll need to chew it over some more, obviously. I *believe* a change like this would be possible though (again, I'd have to verify that with team server).

Comments on this would be welcome.

Oh, but obviously, Commander Demiga, let's try and keep the temperature at a reasonable level :) . Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, as long as they do so politely.

how bout no....

i would like npc in wings to coordinate better in solo and wings of them be more common/hire our own wing to with our spare ships before we take your idea (for combat oriented goals)

for trading make pirates not just interdict but wait for you outside the station again we need to flesh out wings and ai a bit more.

exploring still exploring i don't want to see any type of reduction for explores community goals.

however i am open to the idea of boosting open play bonuses (when in that mode you get a 25% boost to all round profit but the number contributed stays the same)

id also like more range of community goals. (smuggling) where bigger ships are more of a hindrance than helpful so that way players in early ships can actually help rather than add pocket change. (friend tried to help in lugh even though all he had was a adder)

Hello Commander jp josh!

We've hopefully got a fix for Capital ship farming exploits lined up (provisionally for 1.3, but no guarantee).

What I took from Commander Demiga's suggestion was that there might be a consensus that activities carried out in solo mode are "safer/unfair" as there is no chance for other Commanders to oppose them.

I'm not going to take a side at the moment, because I'd like to consider it more.

It could definitely be seen as an attempt to entice folk into playing open, though if the personal rewards remained unchanged I'm not sure that this would be an utter evil.

Fundamentally, Community goals are about Commanders working together, in concert or in opposition. It does not seem completely unreasonable that for such elements we might encourage direct interaction more.

On the other hand, I'm wary of the precedent this might set, and want to make sure that solo mode awlays fulfils all the requirements it needs to, remaining the completely valid option that it is.

So this is something we would not consider lightly.

No, definitely not. Play your own way they said. Well if they punish me for playing my own way then I'll be very irritated. Why should I have to do twice as much to qualify for goal awards just because I choose not to expose myself to being mugged by Johnny McPewPew for my lunch money.

Seriously Sandro. Stop considering this. Very many of your players choose to play in solo and in groups. You'll be upsetting a very large section of the player base.

Hello Commander Jerakeen!

Possibly I could attempt a counter that suggests at the moment it is unfair against open play mode - you have more risks and challenges but only get the same rewards.

I take your point though.

Possibly, community goal thresholds, when it came to determining where each player sits, could be adjusted to ensure that solo players' actual amounts were considered, which I *think* would prevent any loss of goal rewards.

Like I said though, we'll need to chew over this some more when we get the time. Nothing is going to happen right away.

Sandro - Please read my edit in the original post regarding the tempurature - I apologize for that...was very heated atm lol

Thanks for the reply though - its just if you look at the core of all these issues,its that open mode is harder, so what is the incentive for a CMDR to play in open when they can farm in solo? Well, obviously, you cant make the bounties worth different amounts, that would absolutely enrage everyone.

So why not - in your Personal opinion, what would be some reasons as to why this wouldnt work?

Hello Commander Demiga!

Don't worry, no harm, no foul, it was just a helpful reminder!
smile.png


I can't give you my considered opinions just yet because, well, I need a little more time to consider them!
smile.png


But this is clearly an interesting debate, on both sides of the fence, so we will revisit it at a later date.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=130649
 
Last edited:
Maybe changes presented here are not exactly what i would like to see, but it is good start.

Althroug i tnink modes should be separaded for different cmdr slot, OR what could be better and obey separation problem (crowd may be angry) - there should be a cooldown time betweent changing a slot.

For example, you playing solo and want to play open - you can wait for example two hours.
I do not know it is good or bad solution, and what consequences this should make, however better will be to make switching modes make more harder.
 
Last edited:
If I choose to play solo then I expect my contribution towards the goal to be 100% (regardless of whether I receive the full amount). Contributing half sounds like an attempt to punish solo players and coerce them into open IMO, and it also has a whiff of a two-tier ED.

Yet if you have 100% contribution it punishes open players and coerce them into solo, because it's about 2x more efficient.
 

Sandro Sammarco

Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
Frontier
Hello Commander jp josh!

We've hopefully got a fix for Capital ship farming exploits lined up (provisionally for 1.3, but no guarantee).

What I took from Commander Demiga's suggestion was that there might be a consensus that activities carried out in solo mode are "safer/unfair" as there is no chance for other Commanders to oppose them.

I'm not going to take a side at the moment, because I'd like to consider it more.

It could definitely be seen as an attempt to entice folk into playing open, though if the personal rewards remained unchanged I'm not sure that this would be an utter evil.

Fundamentally, Community goals are about Commanders working together, in concert or in opposition. It does not seem completely unreasonable that for such elements we might encourage direct interaction more.

On the other hand, I'm wary of the precedent this might set, and want to make sure that solo mode always fulfils all the requirements it needs to, remaining the completely valid option that it is.

So this is something we would not consider lightly.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom