PLEASE CAN THE MODS CONSIDER CLOSING THIS DISCUSSION, IT IS A GOOD DISCUSSION UP TO TODAY (08/01/2015) BUT IT IS NOW DESCENDING INTO TROLLING.
I don't think much more can be said, and it would be a shame to have it ruined (is is currently happening from about page 36 onwards)
The main post now summarizes many views posted on the first 20-30 pages.
Updates
09/01/2015
Jockey79 has suggested that the thread is no longer relevant after the updates, and I should add this to the original OP
Response: It has definitely improved, but this really only addresses one point in the original list of discussion points, as such - the thread is very much still relevant, as the thread is much more broad than just looking at the numbers of visible players.
08/01/2015
I've done the final update (Point 14 and 15 on 08/01/2015), trying to put across two sides of the debate, its looking like most of what needs to be said has now been said, so I am considering the discussion resolved constructively, please don't descend into personal them verses us attacks, lets preserve the content so far.
07/01/2015
One concerning aspect is that players seem to judge whether the attacker was human based on whether it was a fair fight, how it felt, or on the premise that NPC pirates don't attack just for the sake of it, and this may be a big issue.
For the record Pirates do attack, do attack in groups, do attack and pick unfair fights, and often run if you show you are ready to defend yourselves, they do attack for no reason, and do ask for your cargo.
NPC's always show as a solid square or triangle, players always show as a hollow square or triangle, if you were attacked by a solid square or triangle it was an NPC and that is absolute.
Original Post
A big selling point in Elite is the ability to play in a real dynamic universe with other human players, much of the criticism comes from not enough contact with a vibrant MMO community, and it seems increasing numbers of players are now playing in Solo mode.
I'm calling on players to play in open play so we can have participation in a dynamic universe, rather than spend most of our time dealing with NPC's, we have a role to play in making the game environment more dynamic and exciting and currently we are not doing it.
I see on average 1-2 players in each system, which pretty much suggests unless there is only a few thousand active players in the populated part of the universe at any one time on Open Play, since most trading takes place in about 2,000 systems.
Discussion Summary
From the comments so far I get that:
I guess the community can become hostile where ideas or posts occasionally conflict with the core experience different people want, and I get that, and it makes sense that those main few experiences are served, I'm sorry for not coming across too well. I get that it has probably been discussed, and very confrontationally in the past.
There are a lot of posts on the forums though, its hard to see everything that's been said, and those who were not part of the beta, we probably haven't seen them
To improve open play:
1. Insurance: the insurance needs to be modified for players who have very large ships to reduce risk (Raised by Jockey79).
Response: more experienced players clearly feel insurance is adequate, but the loan amount could certainly be lifted slightly from 200,000CR to a few million, perhaps with a video tutorial explaining how to ensure you are covered against losses.
2. Docking denied: the stations need to effectively make the stations "bigger on the inside" to alleviate docking concerns (proportional to load and station size) some docking pressure occasionally should be a factor in choosing trade routes (Issue raised by Matt Hawkins first, Rockspider, Draconus, Yokai, BrewerGeorge).
Response: I think everyone agrees in this point.
3. Solo mode should not impact upon the open dynamic story, but solo play can still pull content from the dynamic story, and modify it on the player solo client (Contributed by Draconus)
Response: this has been debated over and over, and is unlikely to be changed, there are a number of strong feelings, but in reality a solo player is not affecting a player in open play in any significant way, on the flip side, those in solo play have asked what are the incentives, well any incentives were included with the solo game, clearly there are none beyond knowing other people out there are affecting a dynamic universe, and for many that isn't important. Frontier may want to do something if they are unhappy with open play numbers.
4. The open play missions/quests and activities are sparse (I'm taking the view that patience is key here that the game features will expand over a decade or so) - (Contributed by tagos, discussed by Striike).
Response: I don't think this is a view anybody disagrees with, this, though the games longevity may not be what some of us home for. (Thanks DCello)
5. Groups and PvE possibilities need to be expanded upon possibly so PvE can play a role in open play more clearly (I'm taking the patient view here again on Frontier delivering incrementally over an extended 10 year lifecycle). Players seem to enjoy PvE but it is presented as a different gameplay option when it could probably be integrated (for those who risk it) into a much better open play experience
Response: the general consensus is No, quite clearly.
6. Players are not impacting the world enough. Perhaps it should be easier for players to form factions and groups which have an obligation to support and defend one another to add security, the building blocks are there but this seems to be something that could be added for the PvE and PvP risk element. Perhaps groups with significant influence could be given the option of their own station in a sparsely populated nearby system for example too, with players rising through the ranks to dictate station policy of the faction, and even influence and take over other stations. (Discussed by Yokai, Leafcutter)
Response: this has been explicitly ruled out by Frontier, and this is fair enough, it was not part of the game plan and that is just the way it is. (Contributed by DaveB)
7. Perhaps Elite should update the conflict zones, and maybe also have something like a matchmaker service at key stations across the galaxy, where a player can compete in what is effectively a sport (where the destruction of the ship is only visual), or with real risks, to satisfy those wanting a multiplayer or team versus experience (or do griefing). With the ability for the same mechanic under a challenge as part of the messaging or transactions screen. (Issue raised by Shads).
Response: this topic still hasn't really been discussed, though Elite is found on quite a specific concept and its fair to expect the game to adhere to the concept, and this may be beyond the scope of the game, but certainly the game was marketed as both a modern version of Elite, and an MMO, and it is not meeting the expectations of those who wanted an MMO at present. Elite seem to have defined a mechanic which has hobbled the MMO development of the game with a very strict authentic Elite experience, though they could maybe release different games within the same universe to meet those needs.
8. Griefing: fines for griefing must be paid off even after complete player reset (at a 10% rate), but only in secure systems or partially secure systems within a few thousand km of major planets and stations/asteroids. Fines for reckless behaviour in stations should be increased, but not without softening the punishment for accidental infringement to a leeway where you have a period of time to pay off small infractions due to accidents, all to ensure players don't zoom in and out recklessly, but NPC's also need to act with more awareness of other ships in stations. (Issue raised by SvennoJ, Jockey79).
Response: griefing has been raised as a serious concern, it seems there is a very mixed set of experiences out there, with some suffering, and others not seeing any at all. It is possible since the game was released behaviour has improved too. It probably needs to be addressed in some way though, and the punishments are unbalanced.
9. Damage due to interdictions: this needs to be more proportional with a safe submit perhaps limiting damage to 1% (Contributed by TheWeasel, Yokai)
Response: this is a genuine issue with big ships, perhaps limiting damage to the FSD drive, and allowing a safe dropout when submitting to interdiction by choice should be considered. There seems to be a contradiction here on the damage if you willingly submit, with some quoting damage and others saying there is no damage.
10. Instancing and network performance: instancing needs to be fixed, so players are visible who are in open play, and performance is maintained.
Response: there isn't much more to say in this, it really needs to be resolved, and work is probably being done.
11. Fix the chat/communications: maybe add local chat groups and an open chat group with local chat groups being permission only to avoid crap, and open being broadcast all. Those open groups could be shared by faction or affiliation or system depending on who created it and what they choose. Voice chat would probably need to be limited to PvP still due to load. (Issue raised by Brad Avidro, Driver, Arc, Abomination, SpaceGoblin, Mengy, Ankhorion, Ko Shiji, SoulStain)
Response: this is obviously important as Frontier are working on a Wings update (Mentioned by DaveB) though clearly open chat options are a huge risk with the way people behave online sometimes.
12. No fire zone issues: correct punishments and fix issues with players shooting into no fire zone if and when it happens (Contributed by Fozz20 and Matt Hawkins, SpaceGoblin)
Response: no disagreements here, should be fixed.
13. Different characters for each mode: add different characters for players in open play from those used in solo play (Contributed by Riepah, Daffan, discussed by TheWeasel)
Lots of conflict on this point, some strong feelings both ways, maybe it could become an option for those who want to benefit from this.
Update 4: Ideas keep coming, but it is starting to descend into trolling now
14. Add a player population map (Contributed by Atonnis)
The risk here though are PVP attackers swarming around the busy area, the conflict zones should technically address this already but they seem to be doing a poor job. (Given that DB said there will be no arenas these zones sound a lot like arenas)
15. Have labelling where a player signals his intent (Contributed by bwf1975)
The risk would be misinformation which would have to be addressed in some way
16. Pirates shouldn't be able to just clear their name by paying off a fine.
Summary
Frontier has two distinct communities that want completely different things, many of the 1980's Elite fans wanted a pure Elite experience, some of us wanted something more progressive. Frontier have probably made an error in trying to sell the game as an MMO as the original backers have got a strong voice, and the game is going to face strong resistance in any attempt to deviate from the original title.
There are some misconceptions about the risks in open play, but also some people want a solo play or group play game, and this should be available, this thread doesn't attempt to convince or force those players into open play, it merely tries to look at ways open play can be made a better experience for those sitting on the fence, whom have had bad experiences, or who see no benefit to open play. People playing in solo play have no real impact on those on open play so it cannot be said they have an advantage.
Unfortunately there is very much a them versus us hostility between the two groups, and this is really quite damaging, hardliners on both groups hold views about the other group that are plainly false (that those in solo play are hiding, or that those who like open play just want PvP targets). The reality is most play solo play because that is the game they want, and nobody should be trying to entice them to open play in this case; equally most of us in open play are not PVPers or griefers, we just like the complex dynamics of knowing real people are playing and affecting the game and story (and have largely also being short changed to some extent with the current experience after the MMO banner was used)If Frontier fixed the instancing issue the lack of players probably would cease to be an issue, space is vast and lonely, and to try to make this something too busy would go against the spirit of the game.
There are also some strong views on the forums that the game is perfect as it is, for most people this is not the case, but the game is still enjoyable and fascinating, and we know more work is being done. Elite is a game that makes emotions run high such was the success of the original game, and hopefully this game while new features are being made available can reach some of those heights too.
Hopefully Elite will do what many companies are doing and release different products around the online Elite universe, this would make business sense, give Elite longevity, and keep everyone happy; it would also explain why the game is online only.
I don't think much more can be said, and it would be a shame to have it ruined (is is currently happening from about page 36 onwards)
The main post now summarizes many views posted on the first 20-30 pages.
Updates
09/01/2015
Jockey79 has suggested that the thread is no longer relevant after the updates, and I should add this to the original OP
Response: It has definitely improved, but this really only addresses one point in the original list of discussion points, as such - the thread is very much still relevant, as the thread is much more broad than just looking at the numbers of visible players.
08/01/2015
I've done the final update (Point 14 and 15 on 08/01/2015), trying to put across two sides of the debate, its looking like most of what needs to be said has now been said, so I am considering the discussion resolved constructively, please don't descend into personal them verses us attacks, lets preserve the content so far.
07/01/2015
One concerning aspect is that players seem to judge whether the attacker was human based on whether it was a fair fight, how it felt, or on the premise that NPC pirates don't attack just for the sake of it, and this may be a big issue.
For the record Pirates do attack, do attack in groups, do attack and pick unfair fights, and often run if you show you are ready to defend yourselves, they do attack for no reason, and do ask for your cargo.
NPC's always show as a solid square or triangle, players always show as a hollow square or triangle, if you were attacked by a solid square or triangle it was an NPC and that is absolute.
Original Post
A big selling point in Elite is the ability to play in a real dynamic universe with other human players, much of the criticism comes from not enough contact with a vibrant MMO community, and it seems increasing numbers of players are now playing in Solo mode.
I'm calling on players to play in open play so we can have participation in a dynamic universe, rather than spend most of our time dealing with NPC's, we have a role to play in making the game environment more dynamic and exciting and currently we are not doing it.
I see on average 1-2 players in each system, which pretty much suggests unless there is only a few thousand active players in the populated part of the universe at any one time on Open Play, since most trading takes place in about 2,000 systems.
Discussion Summary
From the comments so far I get that:
I guess the community can become hostile where ideas or posts occasionally conflict with the core experience different people want, and I get that, and it makes sense that those main few experiences are served, I'm sorry for not coming across too well. I get that it has probably been discussed, and very confrontationally in the past.
There are a lot of posts on the forums though, its hard to see everything that's been said, and those who were not part of the beta, we probably haven't seen them
To improve open play:
1. Insurance: the insurance needs to be modified for players who have very large ships to reduce risk (Raised by Jockey79).
Response: more experienced players clearly feel insurance is adequate, but the loan amount could certainly be lifted slightly from 200,000CR to a few million, perhaps with a video tutorial explaining how to ensure you are covered against losses.
2. Docking denied: the stations need to effectively make the stations "bigger on the inside" to alleviate docking concerns (proportional to load and station size) some docking pressure occasionally should be a factor in choosing trade routes (Issue raised by Matt Hawkins first, Rockspider, Draconus, Yokai, BrewerGeorge).
Response: I think everyone agrees in this point.
3. Solo mode should not impact upon the open dynamic story, but solo play can still pull content from the dynamic story, and modify it on the player solo client (Contributed by Draconus)
Response: this has been debated over and over, and is unlikely to be changed, there are a number of strong feelings, but in reality a solo player is not affecting a player in open play in any significant way, on the flip side, those in solo play have asked what are the incentives, well any incentives were included with the solo game, clearly there are none beyond knowing other people out there are affecting a dynamic universe, and for many that isn't important. Frontier may want to do something if they are unhappy with open play numbers.
4. The open play missions/quests and activities are sparse (I'm taking the view that patience is key here that the game features will expand over a decade or so) - (Contributed by tagos, discussed by Striike).
Response: I don't think this is a view anybody disagrees with, this, though the games longevity may not be what some of us home for. (Thanks DCello)
5. Groups and PvE possibilities need to be expanded upon possibly so PvE can play a role in open play more clearly (I'm taking the patient view here again on Frontier delivering incrementally over an extended 10 year lifecycle). Players seem to enjoy PvE but it is presented as a different gameplay option when it could probably be integrated (for those who risk it) into a much better open play experience
Response: the general consensus is No, quite clearly.
6. Players are not impacting the world enough. Perhaps it should be easier for players to form factions and groups which have an obligation to support and defend one another to add security, the building blocks are there but this seems to be something that could be added for the PvE and PvP risk element. Perhaps groups with significant influence could be given the option of their own station in a sparsely populated nearby system for example too, with players rising through the ranks to dictate station policy of the faction, and even influence and take over other stations. (Discussed by Yokai, Leafcutter)
Response: this has been explicitly ruled out by Frontier, and this is fair enough, it was not part of the game plan and that is just the way it is. (Contributed by DaveB)
7. Perhaps Elite should update the conflict zones, and maybe also have something like a matchmaker service at key stations across the galaxy, where a player can compete in what is effectively a sport (where the destruction of the ship is only visual), or with real risks, to satisfy those wanting a multiplayer or team versus experience (or do griefing). With the ability for the same mechanic under a challenge as part of the messaging or transactions screen. (Issue raised by Shads).
Response: this topic still hasn't really been discussed, though Elite is found on quite a specific concept and its fair to expect the game to adhere to the concept, and this may be beyond the scope of the game, but certainly the game was marketed as both a modern version of Elite, and an MMO, and it is not meeting the expectations of those who wanted an MMO at present. Elite seem to have defined a mechanic which has hobbled the MMO development of the game with a very strict authentic Elite experience, though they could maybe release different games within the same universe to meet those needs.
8. Griefing: fines for griefing must be paid off even after complete player reset (at a 10% rate), but only in secure systems or partially secure systems within a few thousand km of major planets and stations/asteroids. Fines for reckless behaviour in stations should be increased, but not without softening the punishment for accidental infringement to a leeway where you have a period of time to pay off small infractions due to accidents, all to ensure players don't zoom in and out recklessly, but NPC's also need to act with more awareness of other ships in stations. (Issue raised by SvennoJ, Jockey79).
Response: griefing has been raised as a serious concern, it seems there is a very mixed set of experiences out there, with some suffering, and others not seeing any at all. It is possible since the game was released behaviour has improved too. It probably needs to be addressed in some way though, and the punishments are unbalanced.
9. Damage due to interdictions: this needs to be more proportional with a safe submit perhaps limiting damage to 1% (Contributed by TheWeasel, Yokai)
Response: this is a genuine issue with big ships, perhaps limiting damage to the FSD drive, and allowing a safe dropout when submitting to interdiction by choice should be considered. There seems to be a contradiction here on the damage if you willingly submit, with some quoting damage and others saying there is no damage.
10. Instancing and network performance: instancing needs to be fixed, so players are visible who are in open play, and performance is maintained.
Response: there isn't much more to say in this, it really needs to be resolved, and work is probably being done.
11. Fix the chat/communications: maybe add local chat groups and an open chat group with local chat groups being permission only to avoid crap, and open being broadcast all. Those open groups could be shared by faction or affiliation or system depending on who created it and what they choose. Voice chat would probably need to be limited to PvP still due to load. (Issue raised by Brad Avidro, Driver, Arc, Abomination, SpaceGoblin, Mengy, Ankhorion, Ko Shiji, SoulStain)
Response: this is obviously important as Frontier are working on a Wings update (Mentioned by DaveB) though clearly open chat options are a huge risk with the way people behave online sometimes.
12. No fire zone issues: correct punishments and fix issues with players shooting into no fire zone if and when it happens (Contributed by Fozz20 and Matt Hawkins, SpaceGoblin)
Response: no disagreements here, should be fixed.
13. Different characters for each mode: add different characters for players in open play from those used in solo play (Contributed by Riepah, Daffan, discussed by TheWeasel)
Lots of conflict on this point, some strong feelings both ways, maybe it could become an option for those who want to benefit from this.
Update 4: Ideas keep coming, but it is starting to descend into trolling now
14. Add a player population map (Contributed by Atonnis)
The risk here though are PVP attackers swarming around the busy area, the conflict zones should technically address this already but they seem to be doing a poor job. (Given that DB said there will be no arenas these zones sound a lot like arenas)
15. Have labelling where a player signals his intent (Contributed by bwf1975)
The risk would be misinformation which would have to be addressed in some way
16. Pirates shouldn't be able to just clear their name by paying off a fine.
Summary
Frontier has two distinct communities that want completely different things, many of the 1980's Elite fans wanted a pure Elite experience, some of us wanted something more progressive. Frontier have probably made an error in trying to sell the game as an MMO as the original backers have got a strong voice, and the game is going to face strong resistance in any attempt to deviate from the original title.
There are some misconceptions about the risks in open play, but also some people want a solo play or group play game, and this should be available, this thread doesn't attempt to convince or force those players into open play, it merely tries to look at ways open play can be made a better experience for those sitting on the fence, whom have had bad experiences, or who see no benefit to open play. People playing in solo play have no real impact on those on open play so it cannot be said they have an advantage.
Unfortunately there is very much a them versus us hostility between the two groups, and this is really quite damaging, hardliners on both groups hold views about the other group that are plainly false (that those in solo play are hiding, or that those who like open play just want PvP targets). The reality is most play solo play because that is the game they want, and nobody should be trying to entice them to open play in this case; equally most of us in open play are not PVPers or griefers, we just like the complex dynamics of knowing real people are playing and affecting the game and story (and have largely also being short changed to some extent with the current experience after the MMO banner was used)If Frontier fixed the instancing issue the lack of players probably would cease to be an issue, space is vast and lonely, and to try to make this something too busy would go against the spirit of the game.
There are also some strong views on the forums that the game is perfect as it is, for most people this is not the case, but the game is still enjoyable and fascinating, and we know more work is being done. Elite is a game that makes emotions run high such was the success of the original game, and hopefully this game while new features are being made available can reach some of those heights too.
Hopefully Elite will do what many companies are doing and release different products around the online Elite universe, this would make business sense, give Elite longevity, and keep everyone happy; it would also explain why the game is online only.
Last edited:
