Game loses something by not forcing Open play
- Thread starter Archaegeo
- Start date
- Status
Correction, they go into open once they have a good ship so they can credibly at least TRY to defend themselves when attacked by human players. When I get myself a Cobra I'll probably play in Open most of the time, unless that particular night I just don't feel like dealing with other people, whom Sartre once misanthropically cited as the definition of Hell. But I'm not going to go out there and try to kill n00bs in Sideys and Haulers, which is just cheap [EDIT follows] garbage.
Last edited:
I have yet to successfully haul goods and explore without having to defend myself, or at least have to flee, but somehow neither cargo containers nor system scanners helped me fight. No matter how you deny it, combat plays a huge part, and it's about time you open your eyes.
Neither being an "Elite" trader nor an "Elite" explorer will save you from missiles.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Combat is still the cement that holds everything together. Don't think I say this like I like it, I avoid interdictions as much as anyone else, but it's the truth. Combat is important in this game, and there would be no point trading if there weren't pirates hunting you, nor fun exploring if you never ran into Thargoids: it is completely transversal.
Still, it's not only about targets, it's about the balance of the community. If PvE players isolate themselves, open play will turn into a PvP mode. It's not about being a "target", and even then, it would still be laughable as PvP and PvE are so similar, but about limiting the PvP population. You seem to think a PvE player is only a target, when in fact, a good PvE player can pose a serious threat to a PvP player, even more so a griefer. And especially, again, in a game that merges PvP and PvE: if you have a ship big enough to shoot down any NPC, PvPers won't annoy you.
They're only in a position of strength if you let them.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
May I point out again that PvP and PvE are very, very similar?
While the idea that PvP is just a feature added at the last minute is questionable, no need to even question it, because about all elements of the game are used both for the PvP and the PvE part.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone it saying that they don't want PvP. I think really to clarify it, people don't want Elite Dangerous Open mode to be an Arena. The game is an RPG and designed like that. PvP in the style of an Arena actually does not pay due to the game mechanics. In the end the odds stack up against that kind of play.
(There, I just hit the dead donkey again... Can't help it...
)
(There, I just hit the dead donkey again... Can't help it...
)
I don't - Seperated databases please!
Vectorman
Banned
I agree with the OP solo play is almost a cheat mode to level faster without the extra risk of encountering other human players. Everyone could just leave the open play servers empty for the first month or so and then jump in with thousands of people owning anacondas because they played solo mode and had no major threats to worry about.
Bad game mechanic IMO
Bad game mechanic IMO
Apparently you're ignoring the 8,000 tons old god known as "GTAV" and its 34 MILLION PLAYERS shooting each other with 340 MILLION GUNS, and reaching this new record in A FIFTH OF THE TIME IT TOOK WOW TO PEEK AT 12 MILLION
WoW is the most successful MMO, not the most successful online game. And then, you should probably stop comparing Elite: Dangerous with a MMO, it's much more like GTA on many aspects.
They're not really that similar though, are they? NPC's are programmed for combat against players that is consistent with FDEV's intentions for how the game should play. PC's on the other hand, are very good at finding exploits and behaviors that an NPC will never do.
For example, a player with a clean record out mining an asteroid might expect to have an NPC pirate jump them. But no NPC pirate is going to sneak up and intentionally fly through the miner's laser beam to tag the player with a bounty on top of the kill. A player though, will do that (and have done it).
That's the kind of thing that players in Solo and private Groups would like to avoid. If it turns out that exploits like this are closed off, then maybe more players will join All Online. It's too early to tell yet, because some of these exploits are still out there. And you and I both know that some players in All Online will do their best to find every one of them.
Your premise is based on a 1v1 encounter. Even without the Wing mechanic, players in All Online will be more likely to fly in small groups, an option not open to Solo players. We may eventually get NPC wingmen but the FDEV's haven't even mentioned the status of that feature yet, and it sure won't be here on release.
If a player doesn't already have a group of friends to fly with in All Online, that's another possible reason why some would like to avoid All Online. It means a player won't have to deal with fighting groups of other players at once, where any single ship, even an Anaconda, is at a severe disadvantage.
You might counter that this player should just get with the program and find some friends to form up with. But some players don't want to do that, at least not all the time. Sometimes people just want to play vs. the environment and not be forced to team up. Or alternatively, look for some teammates when they do feel like it. Play the way you want to on a given day, without having to make a permanent choice. The ability to do that was a selling point in this game from day one.
This hits the nail on the head. "Play Your Way" is exactly how they're marketing this game (http://www.elitedangerous.com/about/playyourway/). Anything they do that would detract from that key selling pitch would, imho, devalue the game. Decisions being driven by MMO-like pvp concerns (e.g. external view of craft) are already questionable. Lets not get into the whole offline debacle
It wasn't you I was replying to, and apparently you missed the point.
But if you want a reply, I could start by saying those games are either "not really a MMO" or "not really solo play" as players still need to get out of their instance at some point, and regardless, instances remain highly controversial as they are nothing but a cheap way to reduce server load, and make up for the lack of sensible "massively" oriented game design, prodiving an overall inferior upon which the majority now frowns. And then, their communities are nothing to be proud of, they're disaster on that aspect. And that's still not really the way any of those games is really played. And that still wasn't the point, we're talking about entirely different kinds of players here.
And then:
1) I'm not telling you what to do, I'm not protesting either. I'm only questionning the reasons to play solo and in groups, and warning of the consequences of your actions, hence you responsibility. I have yet to read a reply about that, because no matter how much you protest, you're still responsible.
2) Just like WoW seems to be a single player trading game. You should read that Kickstarter page some day.
3) I worry about the community.
All I'm asking for is that we all team together to make open a nice place for everyone. It's funny how you say you refuse to submit yourself to my rules when I should apparently submit to yours, and how you claim I'm seeking my own enjoyment. BUt I'm not the one opposing others, I'm advocating that we should all play together, and you can't possibly take an invitation to play a game as an obligation nor an attack in any way.
You're on the wrong side of the barrier to make use of that kind of argument.
the original poster stated that he wanted solo mode basically removed and open play "forced". the thread has been hijacked by other people with other agendas. with that in mind you have 0 chance of that happening. with the current system people that want to pvp can do that in open play. people that want to pve can join private groups, and people that want to be left alone can go solo. we have 3 different community's playing the game their way. the devs wont "force" players to play a certain way. thats exactly why eve never made it big. it does appeal to a small niche market that are very loyal and passionate, but it never made the millions of subs of other mmos. the fact is alot of people dont like pvp and when forced into it will leave, costing the company money. if you want eve go play eve, this is a game that supports all 3 communitys not just the pvp community.
For the moment, I am still thinking there is a good chance I will play open from the start, but :
If we look at past experiences of rather complex games with a steep learning curve (like for instance flight sims) allowing to play either solo or multiplayer, we can estimate a good half of the people who will buy Elite Dangerous will play solo and stay there. Forcing everyone to play open online would mean for Frontier a loss of half of the sales. I don't see them doing this, they probably already lost a big chunk by not offering an offline game.
After reading this forum for some time, I would think from the remaining 50 % , at least a good half will play in private groups where they will communicate through TS3 servers or other similar software, specially when the "wings" function will be implemented. And that will leave around 20 to 25% in the open play with some people going back and forth.
And as usual 90 % of the players will never read a forum and totally ignore what we are talking about...
Wait and see !
If we look at past experiences of rather complex games with a steep learning curve (like for instance flight sims) allowing to play either solo or multiplayer, we can estimate a good half of the people who will buy Elite Dangerous will play solo and stay there. Forcing everyone to play open online would mean for Frontier a loss of half of the sales. I don't see them doing this, they probably already lost a big chunk by not offering an offline game.
After reading this forum for some time, I would think from the remaining 50 % , at least a good half will play in private groups where they will communicate through TS3 servers or other similar software, specially when the "wings" function will be implemented. And that will leave around 20 to 25% in the open play with some people going back and forth.
And as usual 90 % of the players will never read a forum and totally ignore what we are talking about...
Wait and see !
Last edited:
I think you misunderstood, my reply makes sense to me. Maybe you should read again.
As for PvP and PvE being essentially the same thing, I've said it a dozen times already, so maybe you should actually read.
I don't care how it was "designed", you seem to automatically assume that because it was done that way, it must be good. That's what I'm questionning, because to me, it isn't good design.
I don't want to make my own rules, I want rules that suit everyone, which happens to be a requirement of multiplayer games. I don't think about me, but about the community, and that includes you, and it's funny to see you attack the benevolence I have for you. I'm pretty much impervious to personal attacks, as I mostly talk about the community, and I've rarely ever mentioned, in this thread or elsewhere, what kind of thing I do in Elite: Dangerous, nor what I'll plan to do after release, not only because it matters not, but also because it would denature my arguments. But I'll give you a sneak peek: it doesn't really include PvP.
What I'm saying is precisely that we should tackle PvP so it doesn't overruns the game. I am, in fact, as it stands, against PvP. That's what I've been saying since the beginning, thing is, the solution is not in avoiding it, but facing it. So you can eat back your attacks, they only seem to apply to you.
Indeed.
But while that seems to me to be the proper solution, I have no real solution to "how do we make this solution real?". I mean, aside from telling them that open play right now is the exact same thing as solo, that after all, PvE and PvP are very similar, and that their presence will ward off what they don't want. But apparently, those reasons aren't enough.
The other solution is removing solo and group play altogether. Regardless, if the solo/group population is significant enough, open play is very likely to turn into PvP/griefing/ganking general.
Well good luck with that as its impossible. You can only come up a with a ruleset that you think or rather hope will suite more people that it doesn't. I don't think the perfect game has ever been written.
I want to play my game.
As it stands, with solo and open switching I can and will be able to do so.
That is now written in stone from what I see.
End of!
Brilliant. Design goals met. Well done FD.
So we're down to that point I just can't seem to understand. Well, the AI isn't exactly as that of a player and wouldn't pass the Turing test, but it's still quite close, and I just don't see it as something big enough to exclude myself entirely from others.
At least, I'm glad someone said it, usually people calls me names when I say they just don't like losing to people, and occasionally say they're "sore losers", so I'm happy I don't have to say it for once. But hey, at least I can respect that, much more than those that are still trying to justify themselves as they just won't admit it.
Amusing thread no longer amuses me.
Did I miss where you paid for my copy of the game?
If not, I owe you nothing.
I will play the game I bought in the way I want.
There is absolutely no obligation on me to turn up in your game and sit there so you can shoot me.
The idea that there is completely bizarre.
Last edited:
- Status