No, it would not. All the universe data would be the same. No new server needed.
- Status
No, it would not. All the universe data would be the same. No new server needed.
If they are like minded why would they? If your idea has support then prove that is the case.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
One could not - there are no modes that players are locked into. It would have to be on trust for the likeminded players inhabiting the group.
No one can control whether the rules will be broken.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I trust nobody.
So you don't care about the background sim and want an "Open Only" matchmaking option that would only allow you to see other players that have also only ever played in Open and are also selecting the Open only matchmaking option.
I suppose that probably is possible, they must have a way of flagging the Open only people for the purpose of their race to elite competition, although I suspect you'd find it far far more empty than the regular Open and so Im not sure it would really benefit you.
However you should suggest that matchmaking option in the suggestions forum to have any chance of seeing it, Im fairly certain nobody from Frontier is reading this thread except the mods and only then if they get dragged in unwillingly by someone reporting someone else.
Last edited:
What's happening here is the same thing I remember from last Summer's Beta period. One of the PvP-oriented players wanted to know if they could set up a Private Online Group for PvP, and the sticking point was that they wanted to insure that people could never switch out of that group into Solo, other Groups, or All Online. They wanted to know that everyone in the group was playing by their rules, and didn't want to just trust the players in the group to keep their word.
AFAIK, it never took off. That pesky freedom of choice option in this game...
Kickstarter said:
Kickstarter said:
Kickstarter said:
Kickstarter said:
Kickstarter said:
Choice is fundamental. Where the application of that choice impacts on two diametrically opposed playstyles then I would guess the playstyle that is impacted the least is the one who has to give up the ground.
In a game with a finite number of players, spread over, to what is as near as damn it is an infininte play area then it's seems to me to be a fairly logical choice.
In a game where removing the playerbase's choice to decide how they want to play as the mood takes them will have profound negative effects on the population of open, as players will choose to remain with the commander in which they have invested the most time. It seems to me to be a fairly logical choice.
FD made a choice. Over $2300000 was pledged in the full awareness of that desicion. FD have since implemented game design based on that choice. FD have explained this choice in the DDF.
Where is the problem again?
Last edited:
@Beetle
I can only reach one conclusion as to why you are not willing to try this as a group with your rules and like-minded players, and you are not going to like it!
The 'I have no control' argument is devoid of any merit, surely like minded players would not 'cheat the system' - surely, by definition you would all have the same values and want the same thing? Your reluctance to even consider the possibility of this as an option to test the water either in favour or against you speaks volumes. I have to come to the conclusion that there is not widespread support for this idea from your replies, if there is not widespread support it is not a big issue, if it is not a big issue it does not need to be addressed as one, and thus Frontier do not have to spend development time on it currently.
I love Elite Dangerous to bits, I really do, but look at it, it needs some serious meat on the bones, wings are coming, waling around, planetary landing are coming, comms need work, missions need work, supercruise could do with some too. This 'issue' is tiny in comparison. It would be like me coming to your house, seeing there is no furniture, the roof is leaking, there is no hot water and pointing out that your skirting board has a chip in it - madness I tells ya!
I can only reach one conclusion as to why you are not willing to try this as a group with your rules and like-minded players, and you are not going to like it!
The 'I have no control' argument is devoid of any merit, surely like minded players would not 'cheat the system' - surely, by definition you would all have the same values and want the same thing? Your reluctance to even consider the possibility of this as an option to test the water either in favour or against you speaks volumes. I have to come to the conclusion that there is not widespread support for this idea from your replies, if there is not widespread support it is not a big issue, if it is not a big issue it does not need to be addressed as one, and thus Frontier do not have to spend development time on it currently.
I love Elite Dangerous to bits, I really do, but look at it, it needs some serious meat on the bones, wings are coming, waling around, planetary landing are coming, comms need work, missions need work, supercruise could do with some too. This 'issue' is tiny in comparison. It would be like me coming to your house, seeing there is no furniture, the roof is leaking, there is no hot water and pointing out that your skirting board has a chip in it - madness I tells ya!
You are joking right? Fairly well known too who?
I'm sick of people that prefer open mode being classed as 'pvpers'. In all, most of the people i have seen with similar views to my own that they prefer open mode, have been much like me in their choice of play. The view that pvp is just one aspect of the game, to be tackled if and when it crosses your path. Not to be keenly sought after or focused on.
I have seen very few pure pvper's on any of these threads. However i have seen a great many people going on and on about how much they love solo mode and want nothing to do with other players. Thats fine, but im just making the point. So while i respect your views, i feel your comment is largely flawed and inaccurate and gives the wrong impression of only two real sides in this debate. There are three. I also in fact feel there is a 'secret' 4th group.
1) Trader/solo/private group enthusiasts.
2) Open and MMO enthusiasts
3) Open and PVP enthusiasts
4) Solo and open enthusiasts that want to accrue enough assets in solo mode, to have a powerful setup and only then join open mode. (Which is fine as the design of the game allows for it, however again just making the point that this group also exists in my opinion)
People that by and large prefer open mode, just generally prefer the chance for the option of human interaction in their travels. At least as far as i can tell from my interactions with various threads on this topic. Its also what modern gaming is all about. Some don't dig it, don't feel like or are shy/worried to interact with people they don't know, especially in voice chat and i get that, its fine. However people that try to play down other people wanting more players in open mode need to understand that the reason for this is that a lot of gamers have been playing lots of current and recent MMO games or other online persistent titles for many years. As a result many have grown accustomed to having other players in their games. In fact, sometimes solo games just don't feel as satisfying as a result.
While i know that doesn't account for as many Elite fans here as other games, ED is somewhat of an oddity in that it is targeted and supported by a much more mature playerbase than a lot of games. I think the main clash of this whole topic is largely to do with that fact, in that a lot of loyal elite fans may not be regular gamers otherwise and so unused to interacting with other players with the frequency of more worldly gamers. Not necessarily age related but perhaps it is. Not that it matters, again just saying it for people to consider.
I have argued with various people about the topic in hand, yet after much debate and heated exchange, including some warnings and infractions (ahem), my view now sits with how the game has been designed. Leave it as it is, its not worth all this drama. Let FD develop it as they see fit and see how it progresses. Hopefully the game can be fleshed out and all parties will find themselves contented without need for any changes. Right now, whether people care to admit or not, the game is lacking substance in a lot of areas and people are getting bored and looking for things to blame. In actual fact there is nothing to blame but a lack of worthwhile activity once the initial awe at the solid in-cockpit experience and immersion wears off slightly, or you just cant take any more trade runs over and over. And over.
This will all no doubt change and improve with future injections of features and content, so i just put it out there that maybe we should all just be patient.
Last edited:
There is no difference.
That is why solo mode is completely redundant, solo mode players could get exactly the same experience in open as they do in solo just by avoiding a handful of systems.
No, there is no difference in the 'where was the ship obtained' scenario but there is a difference to the player that, for his/her own reasons wants to play solo. There is for those who have flaky internet connections, there is for those that want to RP in solitude, there is for those that want choice, and that is a good thing.
That would be with people who either;
A) Do not understand how the P2P matchmaking works and blames solo players for their lack of targets - as it could be their own internet causing the perceived lack of players, not everyone flooding solo mode or group mode.
B) Do not like the simple fact, we do not have to be their entertainment and can enjoy the game without them (proven by how popular private PvE groups)
C) People who are bored and want to stir the pot by attacking the obvious game design with controversial statements saying it is "broken" when it is working as intended (as you've proven).
Judging by the repeat names in the threads created for this topic, and the lack of those names near any form of technical help section here - I'd go with "C" as the main reason the mods are keeping this topic pinned in one place (don't blame them) as those people are keeping this non issue alive.
Solo mode is not always a choice. It is useful for when hardware cannot keep up or you are running on satellite internet/non-uPNP Capable routers. It does actually provide a mechanism for that. This is a point that is often missed in these discussion and it makes such people dependant on it feel like small.
Thanks so much.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Does there really need to be another official statement though? Bear in mind that the principal official statement has already been quoted in this thread (and many others on the topic) - the Kickstarter pitch itself.
Need is a strong word, no they don't really need to communicate with us at all if they don't want to. It certainly can't hurt though to clarify their stance on the issue now that we have passed the official launch, especially considering how often it gets brought up and how contentious the issue is.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I would have thought that the game being launched with three online play modes and the ability to switch between them on a session by session basis was a fairly clear statement as to Frontier's position on the matter.
I'd hazard a guess that if they could change the background game that much now - the offline play backers would be back in full force demanding the game they backed in KS (as it would show as being possible).
Any major change to how the modes work would be a massive nightmare for FD now.
That may describe part of the audience for this game, but you're ignoring another type of gamer -- the air combat and flight sim enthusiast. Some of us actually knew what "HOTAS" meant before showing up for this game.
We're the ones who played the precursor space games for years, not just Elite but Wing Commander, Tie Fighter, and all the rest. That genre went through a long dry spell for many years, so we moved on to air combat games and flight simulators while still dabbling with the few remainders like the X series. Flight Simulator always supported multiplayer from the early versions on, although it was mostly 1v1 until recent versions and things like VATSIM came along (real humans running virtual air traffic control). Many of the more recent air combat sims like Rise of Flight and DCS support a combination of singleplayer and multiplayer options, but they're not MMO's like WoW or EvE. There is a choice in how you play, you're not locked into multiplayer or singleplayer modes.
To the extent that ED not only shares a history with these games but actually feels more like an air combat sim than an MMO in many respects, I think it's not out of place to offer similar choices in gaming modes. It's not just that we're old (some of are, including Yours Truly), it's that we've experienced different ways to do things, and don't think the full-on MMO game model is the only possible way to make a game like this. Apparently David Braben doesn't think so either, because many aspects of ED seem intentionally designed to avoid the standard MMO design concepts.
I can certainly get behind all of that, and I agree we're all in need of some patience to see how this develops.
There'a a time and a place for reasonable comments. The time is not now and the place is never the internet.
Begone.
Well, here you go - FD on the current mode design of the game;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends as you choose. *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Play it your way*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At no point have FD said or hinted that you will ever be forced to put up with random strangers while you play.
And if people try to throw "MMO" at you like it is some sort of holy grail to social interaction remember;
- A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet.MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.
At no point does the definition of MMO state you have to be social or interact with others either.
So by intent or by definition - nothing about ED has ever lead anyone to believe we will be forced in to another players gun sights.
- Status