Game loses something by not forcing Open play

[Betelgeuse]

I'm not familiar with Portalarium nor with Richard Garriott so he does not represent the unquestionable figure of authority to me. I never advocated the ability to see each commander on one server. What I'm against is the gathering of wealth in solo and returning to gank in open. This model does not discourage ganking, but does quite the opposite.

Do not expect any changes to the instancing system at this late stage. In any case the game is specifically designed to not to force players to play with others if they don't want to.

The game is identical for me in open or solo because of my internet connection I rarely get grouped with anyone else so any changes you propose will not affect me. However, any perceived benefit to playing in solo is available to all players, if they believe that.

I think there is more advantage playing grouped or open for reasons already discussed, but sadly not for us internet paupers yet.

 

[Colonel Kenney]

sigh...but you see, the opposite is also true. It means that sociopaths can spend their time in solo, building ships beyond their skills, which they can then take into open play to cause their supposed grief. How can there be balance there? Why should I be forced into playing two types of game, just to keep up?

So... who cares how someone built up their wealth? Why do you care about what others have done? The Galaxy is a big place! They could have gone to a remote area. I played online for quite some time and never encountered a person.

It all boils down to what I said. People just whining because they want more weak targets to prey on.

 

[Jarek Storm]

So whats wrong with being allowed one commander in each game mode - solo - open - group. You then get to choose which commander you want to play, so you still have the choice.

Nothing, but there'll be A LOT less players in Open if that were the case. You'd divide the community into 3 parts permanently. Very few people are going to have time to grind out 3 separate characters, one for each mode.

If you want 1/3 less players in Open, then by all means, segregate everyone. I'm solo only anyway, so it matters not, but that doesn't seem a very healthy design for the Open players.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

There is a big segment of Elite Dangerous market interested in PVP activities or what you called "ganking". I can see them eager to engage with each other in sidewinders as soon as they undock from their station. I don't envision this approach as the crime against the gaming community. While I understand that some players would want to play in solo mode as they're not interested in nonconsensual PVP, I'd not go around bashing PVP community with the message that my religion is the only righteous one.

I have no problem with people who want to PvP, as long as they do their PvPing with others who also want to PvP. As I understand it, the main claim from PvPers is that they want to test their mettle against human players for a real challenge. This could be the defining difference between gankers, who just look for the win, and "pure" PvPers who want the challenge.

Unfortunately, those of us who do not want to PvP, if we are playing in the same instance as a PvPer have no way to avoid that conflict should the PvPer take an interest in us. How many will open comms and ask "Do you want to PvP?" before blasting? How many would agree to back off once they established the other person did not want PvP?

Surely for the "pure" PvPer, its in their own interest to establish this first? Because going against someone who is not interested is not going to give you the challenge the PvPer claims to be seeking. How can you have a good battle and test your skills against someone who isn't intersted in the fight? In other words, the "pure" PvPer is acting little differently than the ganker.

I think this whole mess with Open/Group/Solo could have easily been solved if instead of this system there was a simple toggle you could set. Perhaps only once per profile, or only when docked, that basically set whether you could be harmed by other players or not. If you had this set (ie: No PvP) then you wouldn't be able to harm other players yourself. The main issue that this brings is in the war type events that go on, where players might find themselves on opposing sides. It could still work, but in that case it would be up to NPCs to do the killing on non-PvPers, so i think it would have to be that non-PvPers could not take part in such events. Either accept PvP for the duration of those events, or stay out of it (ie: non PvPers would not be able to enter any instance where such things are going on). It might work. Or maybe there are issues i'm not considering.

 

[Wescott]

I had a post yesterday asking why use open play, and it turns out the only reason is to gank or be ganked.

But the fact you can advance in the game running solo only, imho, really makes the game lose something.

A lot of the fun of Eve is the fact that the risk is always there, and the level of risk is reflected in the level of reward.

But in ED, you can go do everything with no risk. (Interdiction by NPC's isn't a risk, its easy to avoid).

I really wish you could only advance in Open play, or that Open money/ships/reputation were separate from Solo money/ships/reputation.

Yes, I know some don't want to have to deal with other players, great, there is a solo mode.

But the fact that solo and open are tied together means you can play in complete safety, get your uber ship, then jump into open.

Really feels like the game is losing some of its potential by having a 100% safe mode.

Why force it on everyone, its not as if anyone one is preventing you personally from playing in "open play" and er, enjoying being ganked too death I am sure there are those who will happily blow you up for sh**s and giggles if you don't find any one willing to gank you, try advertising when and where you will be someone may be interested enough to oblige.

 

[ianw]

I didnt say it's "unfair". What I say it's the poor gaming designing turning the open world mode into pvp arena. I dont want arena, I want the vast dangerous world, not the boxing match.

Right - well in that case I seem to be arguing the wrong point with the wrong person. So unless you can think of something we can argue about I bid you good day sir!

Now - who was it rattling on about unfairness??

 

[RobinsonUK]

absolutely agree with you solo play should not affect open , if you cant accept the risk then you should not be able advance or affect open play .

What nonsense. If you want to be "the winner" and view playing this game as a competition and not a leisure activity you engage in for a bit of escapism and enjoyment, knock yourself out. But don't insist that I have to play that way too. My money is just as good as yours. I don't see why I should lose some game dynamics as a punishment for not playing it with the same attitude you do.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

So... who cares how someone built up their wealth? Why do you care about what others have done? The Galaxy is a big place! They could have gone to a remote area. I played online for quite some time and never encountered a person.

It all boils down to what I said. People just whining because they want more weak targets to prey on.

It's actually more like fear. They're attributing their own motives to people who want to play solo.

Their fear is that they'll get beaten up.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

I played mmo's for about 10 years, from UO to EQ to SWG to WoW to Lotro. I have raided at the highest levels and led guild raids. I'm not missing them.

That's not the point of my post though, but a nice try at changing the subject. The point is that everyone now has the same choices, open or solo as they see fit. What you want is to remove player choice, so everyone must play as you prefer, which is unacceptable.

You can play solo if you think that's somehow an advantage, or choose not to. Nothing in the games mechanics is stopping anyone from doing so, but that's your choice. Everyone has that choice at any time. It is perfectly fair as is, though some want to remove that choice and demand everyone play their way, or they'll take there toys and go home. It's a very childish and selfish attitude. My way or the highway.

I believe you're missing my point here. I'm all pro-choice. You want to play solo play solo, you want to play open-world go ahead. All I'm suggesting is the different credit balance for each instance. This not forcing anyone to play I prefer. I just don't think transferring your WOW gold balance into ED open world will benefit the game either.

 

[vonFelty]

If its any consolation, solo players are being griefed by the NPCs. Sometimes next to black holes and lights years from anything in the middle of no where.

 

[Tar Stone]

It was the first of its kind, being first is not always the best, but they saw first hand the results of ganking/griefing.

And the MMO formula is indeed old, which is why they've come up with a similar system and called it selective multiplayer...

It was a disaster because he tried to keep the classic mmo setting where everyone sees everyone else, and then have little locked instances going on in the middle of it all. It was a total mess.

So by not breaking away from the done and dusted mmo formula he couldn't achieve anything really new.

It had nothing to do with griefing and ganking. There were players on 24/7 farming npc spawn areas. And ENJOYING it.

 

[murraypaul]

So whats wrong with being allowed one commander in each game mode - solo - open - group. You then get to choose which commander you want to play, so you still have the choice.

Because then people in PvP groups would complain that other players have also been playing in PvE-only groups. Open vs solo on a smaller scale.
So would you need a character per group?

 

[Cosmos]

That is also true of other Open players though. This isn't an MMO. There may be many different instances of each system, so someone could be flying right past a blockade, for example, without you ever seeing them.

Nah, it is an MMO and an instance size of 32 players seems fine when we consider the size of the play area. True if an area is bustling with players I might not be matched with some but with solo and pirvate groups its certain I wont be matched with any of them.

 

[FX2K]

I believe you're missing my point here. I'm all pro-choice. You want to play solo play solo, you want to play open-world go ahead. All I'm suggesting is the different credit balance for each instance. This not forcing anyone to play I prefer. I just don't think transferring your WOW gold balance into ED open world will benefit the game either.

It work's for GTA Online and that is a small map in comparison to what we have here.
I don't see how splitting it (two saves) will benefit the game.

 

[Gulskjegg]

If I wanted deathmatch, I would play Unreal Tournament.

 

[Brandon31]

Nothing, but there'll be A LOT less players in Open if that were the case. You'd divide the community into 3 parts permanently. Very few people are going to have time to grind out 3 separate characters, one for each mode.

If you want 1/3 less players in Open, then by all means, segregate everyone. I'm solo only anyway, so it matters not, but that doesn't seem a very healthy design for the Open players.

The universe is so big the number of players is of little consequence, unless the numbers start to run into tens of millions. Most people I know when playing a mmo end up having two or three different characters anyway, so its pretty much the same idea really. I think the current setup is more liable to encourage people to "level up" their character in solo mode and then take it into open mode later when they feel more able to cope, and maybe better armed. I do not really think this is a good premise for a game either, it just feels wrong. But that's just my opinion, and I have respect for the fact others hold a different view, I guess time will tell how it all pans out in the end.

 

[StarTux]

It had nothing to do with griefing and ganking. There were players on 24/7 farming npc spawn areas. And ENJOYING it.

From your perspective, not the perspective of those ganked/griefed and never returned, of course you didn't see them all that was left were those enjoying it. Thanks for proving my point .

 

[murraypaul]

I believe you're missing my point here. I'm all pro-choice. You want to play solo play solo, you want to play open-world go ahead. All I'm suggesting is the different credit balance for each instance.

Splitting credit balance wouldn't do anything, you could just stock up on expensive cargo/equipment in solo and sell it in open.
You could even buy entire ships just to switch over and sell them.
It is all or nothing, single commander solo/open or separate commanders solo/open.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

The universe is so big the number of players is of little consequence, unless the numbers start to run into tens of millions. Most people I know when playing a mmo end up having two or three different characters anyway, so its pretty much the same idea really. I think the current setup is more liable to encourage people to "level up" their character in solo mode and then take it into open mode later when they feel more able to cope, and maybe better armed. I do not really think this is a good premise for a game either, it just feels wrong. But that's just my opinion, and I have respect for the fact others hold a different view, I guess time will tell how it all pans out in the end.

Is that such a bad thing? From a PvP perspective, is it better to meet people who feel prepared, or random noobs?

 

[StarTux]

Splitting credit balance wouldn't do anything, you could just stock up on expensive cargo/equipment in solo and sell it in open.
You could even buy entire ships just to switch over and sell them.
It is all or nothing, single commander solo/open or separate commanders solo/open.

Yep, and at this late stage another broken KS promise or perceived promise could be and would be very damaging, so its going to be tricky to change without massive justification for doing so which I am not seeing here.