The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Morbad]

While the game design may be a disappointment to Open-only advocates, they didn't buy a game that would support their play-style.

I image quite a few, perhaps the majority, of Open-only advocates only adopted that position once the unworkability of the mode system, largely due to Frontier's inability or unwillingness to implement and enforce mechanisms that could appropriate balance the modes, became clear.

Also to suggest that the optionality of in-the-same-instance PvP "shifts the entire abstraction level away from the one they enjoy" obviously only applies to a subset of players.

Yes.

Given that the statement that all players would affect the shared galaxy was made during the Kickstarter, what did players think that "they were sold on turned out to be largely illusory"?

Essentially the entire Kickstarter description and the bulk of the development plan turned out to be an utter farce.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Only ones that have a major problem with mode system are PVP'rs whose playstyle depends on other players. And specifically certain subgroup of them who prefer having victims rather than semi-equal opponents.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I image quite a few, perhaps the majority, of Open-only advocates only adopted that position once the unworkability of the mode system, largely due to Frontier's inability or unwillingness to implement and enforce mechanisms that could appropriate balance the modes, became clear.

Which seems to presume that the game should be balanced around PvP - if so then that's not an opinion shared by all.

Essentially the entire Kickstarter description and the bulk of the development plan turned out to be an utter farce.

We have the shared galaxy that every player experiences and affects, we have the three game modes (sadly not the fourth one that was added about halfway through the KS pitch then cancelled weeks before launch) - as expected. So while some players' expectations of the game weren't met, the fundamentals were implemented per the design.

 

[Doctor Dread]

To play devil's advocate: Maybe it just doesn't. Has anyone considered that direct PvP might just be... a failure in this game?

Yes I have, and yes it is.

Elite, in it's core, is an offline, single player game. You and the universe and what you make of it, your solo journey, a bit of zen, etc etc. Been in it since 1985 (C64), and in all later versions.

Bringing all that into a MMO world was a business necessity, but is unnatural to the DNA of the core game. That's the root of all Solo vs Open, PvE vs PvP issues.

In the core Elite I'm playing here there's no organic place for gankers and "fun dynamic encounters" of Open. They are irritants, annoyances. Spoil my gaming pleasure and goals, I don't have time for such nonsenses. (while I tolerate, actually enjoy, in Groups, where there's no such nonsenses)

So yes, for me direct PvP in this game is simply a failure. Doesn't belong in Elite.

 

[ethelred]

Only ones that have a major problem with mode system are PVP'rs whose playstyle depends on other players. And specifically certain subgroup of them who prefer having victims rather than semi-equal opponents.

Well, it kind of works both ways - plenty of people complain about joining open and then being killed at CGs or similar.

Many people have said in this thread that they'll never play in Open, or do so with a massive block list.

Or "I would play in Open if...."

So it's not just PvPers that have an issue with the mode system

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Well, it kind of works both ways - plenty of people complain about joining open and then being killed at CGs or similar.

Many people have said in this thread that they'll never play in Open, or do so with a massive block list.

Or "I would play in Open if...."

So it's not just PvPers that have an issue with the mode system

Open itself is not a problem, problem is unwanted PVP. And blocklist does just so, that it removes most of unwanted PVP. Or station trolling and so on...Unlimited membership number social mode without PVP would solve problem nicely. Of course that would leave traditional Open mode to PVP fans, but so what.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, it kind of works both ways - plenty of people complain about joining open and then being killed at CGs or similar.

Many people have said in this thread that they'll never play in Open, or do so with a massive block list.

Or "I would play in Open if...."

So it's not just PvPers that have an issue with the mode system

Indeed - the lack of a game managed PvE game mode in a modern MMO is a disappointment to some players.

 

[ethelred]

Open itself is not a problem, problem is unwanted PVP. And blocklist does just so, that it removes most of unwanted PVP. Or station trolling and so on...Unlimited membership number social mode without PVP would solve problem nicely. Of course that would leave traditional Open mode to PVP fans, but so what.

The problem to which you are referring is that unwanted PvP can happen in 2 of the modes available.

These elements are inherent to either PG or Open - there's nothing that you can use in game to prevent it.

Therefore it seems an issue with the mode - or do you not agree?

@Robert Maynard indeed - the issue with a "true" PvE mode not being part and parcel (however implemented which would easily start a new mega thread) is surprising and disappointing to the majority of players

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Elite, in it's core, is an offline, single player game.

Elite is more a pvp game than an offline singleplayer game, and pvp is just a small side part of it. Pvp mechanics actually exist in this game. There isn't even the existence of an offline mode, or any singleplayer hallmark features. It is not an offline singleplayer game in any sense of the word. Even in solo the presence of others can be felt in the universe.

 

[Rat Catcher]

So, once difficulty is accounted for, the remainder is the social aspect?

No, just disinterest, as previously outlined.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Many people have said in this thread that they'll never play in Open, or do so with a massive block list.

I actually disagree with the block list, in its potential effects on other players, despite agreeing wholeheartedly that it is the only solution for those who wish to play in open as if it was a private group.
My block list is empty (always has been), and will remain so.

 

[Morbad]

Which seems to presume that the game should be balanced around PvP - if so then that's not an opinion shared by all.

It presumes the game should be balanced, full stop.

PvP was a fairly intrinsic consideration of Open for quite some time and all the modes were supposed to be equivalent. Trying to divorce PvP from broader considerations of balance is presuming a game that didn't exist until way after Frontier already had my money.

We have the shared galaxy that every player experiences and affects, we have the three game modes (sadly not the fourth one that was added about halfway through the KS pitch then cancelled weeks before launch) - as expected. So while some players' expectations of the game weren't met, the fundamentals were implemented per the design.

The fundamentals I'm talking about are the underlying game. The whole start with 1000cr and a Sidewinder. Work your way up from nothing in a cutthroat galaxy type stuff. The actual game that was proposed. The game that is still advertised on the Frontier store. The game that was never broadly realized. The game that's only made token attempts to actualize the features that were supposed to define it, largely rendering them moot through runaway rewards, muted consequences, and lack of meaningful agency.

Elite Dangerous - Frontier Store

Elite Dangerous is the definitive massively multiplayer space epic, bringing gaming’s original open world adventure to the modern generation with a connected galaxy, evolving narrative and the entirety of the Milky Way re-created at its full galactic p

www.frontierstore.net

Modes are barely touched on there, and were left vague most of the Kickstarter. Modes aren't gameplay (or at least aren't supposed to be) and aren't particularly fundamental to the design in and of themselves. They have some major implications, but even Frontier didn't have a firm grasp of those at the time. Indeed, those implications evolved considerably as time went on. Many of the reasons floated for a hypothetical Open-only mode would have been redundant or unnecessary in the early game.

No, just disinterest, as previously outlined.

You've lost me again.

Why doesn't PvE combat disinterest you in exactly the same way and to the same magnitude, if not for some social aspect, assuming equivalent difficulty (time to resolve an encounter would fall under difficulty)?

 

[Rat Catcher]

You've lost me again.

That appears to be very easy to do.

As long as you are having fun playing how you wish, that is all that is important in the grand scheme of things, I'd suggest.
I play to suit me, that is all that matters to me, also.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask that still doesn't answer my original question of, "what factors result in a particular disinterest for a PvP encounter vs. an otherwise similar PvE one?"

You claimed earlier that your interest in PvP was (at least in part) unpredictability. That isn't the experience on the other side;
Vs. an NPC you've got a decent chance of evading the interdiction and a decent chance of defeting the NPC even in a ship built for trading.
Vs. a player attempting to beat the interdiction is a waste of time, trying to fight off the attacker is a waste of time, My frame of reference is CG campers and these were utterly predictable to the point we could tell when they'd be logging in. The whole thing was a waste of time so the answer was either to block the campers that turned up week in, week out or join Mobius for the purpose of participating in the CGs, at the same time when I started the CG station would have a range of ships from Cobras to T9s, towards the end of my tiime on console it was essentially wall to wall cutters. Just me and one other commander still using T9s.
Switching to Mobius for CGs is a breath of fresh air.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It presumes the game should be balanced, full stop.

Which first requires a definition of balance in the context of a game where PvP is an optional extra.

PvP was a fairly intrinsic consideration of Open for quite some time and all the modes were supposed to be equivalent. Trying to divorce PvP from broader considerations of balance is presuming a game that didn't exist until way after Frontier already had my money.

PvP is a side effect of each player being able to choose to shoot at anything they instance with. It's hardly intrinsic.

The fundamentals I'm talking about are the underlying game. The whole start with 1000cr and a Sidewinder. Work your way up from nothing in a cutthroat galaxy type stuff. The actual game that was proposed. The game that is still advertised on the Frontier store. The game that was never broadly realized. The game that's only made token attempts to actualize the features that were supposed to define it, largely rendering them moot through runaway rewards, muted consequences, and lack of meaningful agency.

Frontier realised early that players don't enjoy going backwards - as they found out after the bugged NPC loadouts released with enhanced NPC challenge and Engineering in 2.1 - the engineering commodities that NPC were attacking players for were quickly removed and the NPC changes dialed back (much to the chagrin of some players).

Elite Dangerous - Frontier Store

Elite Dangerous is the definitive massively multiplayer space epic, bringing gaming’s original open world adventure to the modern generation with a connected galaxy, evolving narrative and the entirety of the Milky Way re-created at its full galactic p

www.frontierstore.net

Modes are barely touched on there, and were left vague most of the Kickstarter. Modes aren't gameplay (or at least aren't supposed to be) and aren't particularly fundamental to the design in and of themselves. They have some major implications, but even Frontier didn't have a firm grasp of those at the time. Indeed, those implications evolved considerably as time went on. Many of the reasons floated for a hypothetical Open-only mode would have been redundant or unnecessary in the early game.

.... if these bits are ignored I suppose:

A Unique Connected Game Experience

Governments fall, battles are lost and won, and humanity’s frontier is reshaped, all by players’ actions. In an age of galactic superpowers and interstellar war, every player’s personal story influences the connected galaxy and handcrafted, evolving narrative.

Massively Multiplayer

Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous’ vast, massively multiplayer space. Experience the connected galaxy alone in Solo mode or with players across the world in Open Play, where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy. You will need to register a free Elite Dangerous account with Frontier to play the game.

The first decision that every player makes when starting the game is which game mode to play in - in that sense they are core to the player experience. The matchmaking system is fundamental to the design - and it's what facilitates the game modes. Given Frontier's comments around the time of the introduction of PMFs, they understood well the implications of the game modes - and chose not to side with those who prefer PvP.

 

[Morbad]

That appears to be very easy to do.

Especially when I'm getting seemingly contradictory answers.

If it's not difficulty and it's not social, what is even the difference between PvP and PvE to you? How do you discriminate between the two enough for it to skew your relative level of disinterest?

As long as you are having fun playing how you wish, that is all that is important in the grand scheme of things, I'd suggest.
I play to suit me, that is all that matters to me, also.

None of that has anything to do with this forum discussion, or my question. There is not even the vaguest intersection between my enjoyment of the game and my curiosity about how you consciously or subconsciously separate PvE and PvP.

 

[Morbad]

Which first requires a definition of balance in the context of a game where PvP is an optional extra.

In practice, it wasn't an optional extra in Open prior to 2016. Player density was sufficient that most any well known mining area, trade hotspot, rares system, and certainly any CG had significant numbers of CMDRs roaming around at all hours, some of whom would have been hostile. TTKs were short enough prior to Engineering that passively waiting out the log off timer was a dubious proposition. The only people who virtually never had to account for PvP encounters in Open were dedicated explorers, or cheaters.

PvP is a side effect of each player being able to choose to shoot at anything they instance with. It's hardly intrinsic.

PvP was quite intrinsic to the early Open experience. That it flows from the ability to shoot anything one instances with doesn't diminish that. The game would have been radically different without those encounters and without the potential for those encounters, probably unrecognizable.

Frontier realised early that players don't enjoy going backwards

I feel like we've been going backwards since at least Beta 3. Actually, Beta 1 had plenty of stuff that was replaced with inferior versions later. I don't have any hands on experience with anything prior to Beta 1, but I've heard accounts of mechanisms from the Premium Betas and earlier that weren't carried into the final game (e.g. a supply chain simulation) that I'm convinced should have been.

There have been plenty of additions I've enjoyed, but for the overwhelming majority of the game's existence, I've felt like it's been on the decline.

- as they found out after the bugged NPC loadouts released with enhanced NPC challenge and Engineering in 2.1 - the engineering commodities that NPC were attacking players for were quickly removed and the NPC changes dialed back (much to the chagrin of some players).

I'm not sure what that has to with going backwards.

.... if these bits are ignored I suppose:

The first bit doesn't mention modes, the second is the 'barely touched on' part.

Given Frontier's comments around the time of the introduction of PMFs, they understood well the implications of the game modes - and chose not to side with those who prefer PvP.

Even if that were the case, if I wasn't aware of Frontier's designs to undermine the Open experience (which certainly wasn't mentioned in the game's marketing materials), how would more casual players or non-forum participants have known?

A big part of your arguments around PvP and modes has revolved around the idea that players chose the wrong game through their own willful ignorance. I've followed the game fairly closely since late 2013 (not as closely as some certainly--I didn't actually back the game until after the kickstarter and was never part of the DDF or anything--but far more closely than the overwheming majority of the player base) and I was caught largely off guard by Frontier's growing neglect and increasing hostility to Open in general. It wasn't until probably mid-2015 that I fully realized Frontier didn't care much about balance, internal consistency, or delivering what was in the development plan.

 

[angusmadmac1]

Pve I have a chance to win PvP I don't .
A player whose ship is made for attacking and killing against a ship which is made for hauling or even getting engineered? Has little or no chance so my wasting time .
If you do start winning his pals jump in ?
Now a PvPer won't put themselves at a disadvantage so why should I ?
I have managed since 2016 to have very little uncalled for PvP . Most of that time was on console where I met many commanders who didn't shoot first. But I did PvP with friends and folk who asked and allowede time to get my combat ship before handing my bahoochie on a plate .
I don't see the point of blowing up a ship because "( insert reason)" with no Comms. What risk can an unmodified ship or even a trader or explorer be against someone in a G5 combat ship ?

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Pve I have a chance to win PvP I don't .
A player whose ship is made for attacking and killing against a ship which is made for hauling or even getting engineered? Has little or no chance so my wasting time .
If you do start winning his pals jump in ?
Now a PvPer won't put themselves at a disadvantage so why should I ?
I have managed since 2016 to have very little uncalled for PvP . Most of that time was on console where I met many commanders who didn't shoot first. But I did PvP with friends and folk who asked and allowede time to get my combat ship before handing my bahoochie on a plate .
I don't see the point of blowing up a ship because "( insert reason)" with no Comms. What risk can an unmodified ship or even a trader or explorer be against someone in a G5 combat ship ?

Self defeatism isn't an argument.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In practice, it wasn't an optional extra in Open prior to 2016. Player density was sufficient that most any well known mining area, trade hotspot, rares system, and certainly any CG had significant numbers of CMDRs roaming around at all hours, some of whom would have been hostile. TTKs were short enough prior to Engineering that passively waiting out the log off timer was a dubious proposition. The only people who virtually never had to account for PvP encounters in Open were dedicated explorers, or cheaters.

As soon as the game launched with the three game modes PvP was as it remains, an optional extra - that was in late 2014.

PvP was quite intrinsic to the early Open experience. That it flows from the ability to shoot anything one instances with doesn't diminish that. The game would have been radically different without those encounters and without the potential for those encounters, probably unrecognizable.

While it may be considered by some to be intrinsic, it wasn't - as no game feature required it, i.e. it was and is not essential.

I'm not sure what that has to with going backwards.

Losing progress, i.e. credits, due to overwhelming NPC attacks, and the speed with which it was fixed suggests that Frontier looked at the gameplay stats and did not like what they saw.

Reduction in repair costs also probably fall into that category - as it got to the stage at one point where the perceived wisdom was to self-destruct rather than repair the ship.

The first bit doesn't mention modes, the second is the 'barely touched on' part.

The first states who affects the shared galaxy, i.e. everyone (so it's mode agnostic), the second tells players that they don't need to play among other players.

Even if that were the case, if I wasn't aware of Frontier's designs to undermine the Open experience (which certainly wasn't mentioned in the game's marketing materials), how would more casual players or non-forum participants have known?

For the Open experience to be undermined, what was the baseline from which it changed? It's only ever been one of the three game modes on offer at the start of each game session.

A big part of your arguments around PvP and modes has revolved around the idea that players chose the wrong game through their own willful ignorance. I've followed the game fairly closely since late 2013 (not as closely as some certainly--I didn't actually back the game until after the kickstarter and was never part of the DDF or anything--but far more closely than the overwheming majority of the player base) and I was caught largely off guard by Frontier's growing neglect and increasing hostility to Open in general. It wasn't until probably mid-2015 that I fully realized Frontier didn't care much about balance, internal consistency, or delivering what was in the development plan.

Not wilful ignorance, no. That some didn't read or realise the consequences of particular statements in the advertising is clear though.