Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
I understand what you mean, but having one's opinion is one thing, but then forcing that opinion onto others because you have a clear need for Gratification is something else.

Agreed, and I guess that's why people end up getting hot under the collar on the forums as it all ends up feeling like personal attacks and needing to defend your ground.

It's not really worth trying to 'win' the argument over which mode is easier for making money, or whatever, because very likely everyone's mileage will vary. Truly, as long as you have enough to do what you need, which neither mode should give immediately, then you can have fun playing the game. And that's really what it's about, having fun. I'm sorry for the pirates that their fun is curtailed by lack of live prey, but I don't ever see that changing, as being prey is probably only going to appeal to a tiny minority of people.

Anyway, as far as this subject goes, I personally think it highly unlikely (I don't know for sure obviously), that Frontier will change the solo/group/open options for play, and that's fine by me, as it lets me play the game the way I want to play it when I want to play it. :) Oh, and everybody else for that matter too!
 
Agreed, and I guess that's why people end up getting hot under the collar on the forums as it all ends up feeling like personal attacks and needing to defend your ground.

It's not really worth trying to 'win' the argument over which mode is easier for making money, or whatever, because very likely everyone's mileage will vary. Truly, as long as you have enough to do what you need, which neither mode should give immediately, then you can have fun playing the game. And that's really what it's about, having fun. I'm sorry for the pirates that their fun is curtailed by lack of live prey, but I don't ever see that changing, as being prey is probably only going to appeal to a tiny minority of people.

Anyway, as far as this subject goes, I personally think it highly unlikely (I don't know for sure obviously), that Frontier will change the solo/group/open options for play, and that's fine by me, as it lets me play the game the way I want to play it when I want to play it. :) Oh, and everybody else for that matter too!

+1

Its nice to have somebody reply with such dignity and respect, makes a change from the normal stuff in life.

I totally argy that everybody should be able to play the game how ever they want and in which mode they want. Its a bit like religion, I do not care what your faith is, just as long as your not trying to force it upon me.
 
(BTW, it's also an interesting case because Richard Garriott, the creator of Ultima Online, thought the players would police themselves, making ganking nearly inexistent and keeping PvP, as well as "professions" that are shunned in the real world such as robbers and thieves, at a very low level. In a sense that whole idea blew on his face, to the point Origin had to basically make PvP optional in order to finally get the game under control again.)

The problem with Garriots idea was that the bad guys, once killed, didn't stay dead.

I had an idea for an Open mode that I called, "Dead and Gone". Once you killed a player, they would never again spawn in the same instance with you.
 
Open play is ruining my solo play experience. HEHEHE I haven't seen that yet so had to say it. :)
NAH Leave the thread, at least it's just one decent moderated thread now for peeps to vent.
Open discussion never hurts till it gets ugly. :)
 

AJ79

Banned
Well then the players ship should stay put while its counting down regardless of what manner is used to stop the task. Even switchers should be subject to this time constraint. However it does not seem to be working this way completely.

Erm, you cannot "switch" on the fly - you have to "Save and Exit to Main Menu" then come back in - pick your mode, Solo / Private / Open, then load back in to the game. It's not as if someone can just hit solo and carry on.
So, people are not combat switching - they may combat log out, then come back to another mode from the main menu.

But yes, combat log out is a cheap trick - but so is a throw away dumb fire eagle ship set up. Both things need to be fixed somehow.
 
I am up to page 59 now, I will catch up later, I read every post.

forget the trader/miner/pirate/bounty hunter * 3 modes argument, IMHO there are only 2 player types in this thread / have these problems.

KS (paid a lot to get the game made, had input too into the game), Alpha's (bug reporters, with tiny content, tiny world, GG all), PB (more bug testers & people that just want early access, larger world), Gamma & release (the game is now a lot cheaper, more accessible, more people that do not understand the previous, arrive & try to change the game).

TLDR

Some people backed this game at the kickstarter, they did a lot of research before they backed "their dream", Alpha backers joined a bit later and they all tested the "game" as it was.

Then they let us PB / beta players in too. Then it launched & cost a lot less, after launch we see more of these posts from people who do not understand that some of these decisions were made 2 years ago.
.
I know what I bought, I researched it, the youtube videos of real CMDR's (not a marketing video of what it will like be in 6 months) & I thought it looks good, Its not perfect and we know, as do FD as well.

Some people made a mistake, they should have spent 10 minutes researching the game before they bought it.

one group made an informed decision (bought the game, and love it in many modes, with all the problems) etc, the other group bought it with no research & are complaining its not what they wanted
 
I am up to page 59 now, I will catch up later, I read every post.

forget the trader/miner/pirate/bounty hunter * 3 modes argument, IMHO there are only 2 player types in this thread / have these problems.

KS (paid a lot to get the game made, had input too into the game), Alpha's (bug reporters, with tiny content, tiny world, GG all), PB (more bug testers & people that just want early access, larger world), Gamma & release (the game is now a lot cheaper, more accessible, more people that do not understand the previous, arrive & try to change the game).

TLDR

Some people backed this game at the kickstarter, they did a lot of research before they backed "their dream", Alpha backers joined a bit later and they all tested the "game" as it was.

Then they let us PB / beta players in too. Then it launched & cost a lot less, after launch we see more of these posts from people who do not understand that some of these decisions were made 2 years ago.
.
I know what I bought, I researched it, the youtube videos of real CMDR's (not a marketing video of what it will like be in 6 months) & I thought it looks good, Its not perfect and we know, as do FD as well.

Some people made a mistake, they should have spent 10 minutes researching the game before they bought it.

one group made an informed decision (bought the game, and love it in many modes, with all the problems) etc, the other group bought it with no research & are complaining its not what they wanted


Whether your a backer or not, your opinion and entitlement to provide your opinion is just the same as a regular player who bought the game yesterday.

It doesn't mean that if you're a backer, you are politically correct than the the other player who bought the game yesterday and is giving his opinion.

You are making this sound like some sort of buyer's remorse issue, but it isn't. This forum was created so that Devs understand the opinion of players regarding the different mode of play for the possibility of tweaking the mechanics and making the game more balanced in the future.

This is an online game and things do change through the vision of the Devs aligning it with the feedback of the player base.

So whether you are a backer or not is totally irrelevant.

You got your freebie for being a backer and that should be it. don't expect more privilege than other regular players who PAID and invested on the game.

Thiis is a online game and the game evolves through constant improvement. And this can only be done by the devs effectively communicating with the player base. So don't tell everyone that this thread was created as a buyer's remorse issue or "I was expecting a totally different game play because I didnt research enough" argument.
 
Last edited:
Although I agree with you, in general, you are factually incorrect in one or two points.

Whether your a backer or not, your opinion and entitlement to provide your opinion is just the same as a regular player who bought the game yesterday.

It doesn't mean that if you're a backer, you are politically correct than the the other player who bought the game yesterday and is giving his opinion.

Although everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, you are assigning an equality of opinion that is blatantly false. Backers have been involved with the game since its inception. Some of them were even involved with the design decision making process and almost all of them were involved with the Alpha and Beta testing phases. So they KNOW a LOT. In just the same way that I would trust the opinion of an experienced climber, hunter, driver etc over the opinion of someone who has just read a 'dummies guide' so it makes sense to trust the opinion of a backer over someone who has bought the game after little or no research.

You are making this sound like some sort of buyer's remorse issue, but it isn't. This forum was created so that Devs understand the opinion of players regarding the different mode of play for the possibility of tweaking the mechanics and making the game more balanced in the future.

This is an online game and things do change through the vision of the Devs aligning it with the feedback of the player base.

No. Simply untrue. Although some forums are indeed there so that the devs can take on board player feedback, this feedback is not the same as 'opinion'. As for this subject in particular, all the decisions have been made and the Mode issue is working as intended. The important thing to remember is that, unlike some other games where the playerbase have an input into the way the game goes, FD have ALWAYS maintained that they are making the game THEY want. They do not have to listen to the playerbase and haven't on many occaisions, deciding to stick to their guns instead.

So whether you are a backer or not is totally irrelevant.

You got your freebie for being a backer and that should be it. don't expect more privilege than other regular players who PAID and invested on the game.

Thiis is a online game and the game evolves through constant improvement. And this can only be done by the devs effectively communicating with the player base. So don't tell everyone that this thread was created as a buyer's remorse issue or "I was expecting a totally different game play because I didnt research enough" argument.

Most of my response to this this I have answered above. However, the first sentence I will add to. It is so not irrelevant if you are a backer. Case in point being the subject of this thread. There was a storm when FD dumped the offline mode. That would be nothing compared to the faeces heading fanwards should the company renege on their promise to backers about Mode switching.

Oh... the thing I agree with you about. Yeah, this thread is not a buyer's remorse issue... Well, not entirely.
 
Last edited:
Why are we trying to come up for a solution for a problem which to be honest doesn't really exist?

*sigh*

From what you say I guess the problem does not exist for you. Fair enough.

For some others, it does.

Not having a go at you. I notice that a lot of people don't seem to make an attempt to see things from other peoples perspective.
 
No. Welcome to the world of the forgotten, disregarded few...

Oh okay that sounds bad. Now I understand all the bad support rants around the forum. It ruins the game so it should be fixed, but most likely FD got the game released and they got their money and now they don't care about us anymore, I hope it's not true because I like FD but it's been a while since I saw a actual FD dev replying to the comments.
 
Last edited:
If you had followed the conversation you would know why the phrase "freudian slip" was used.


So this guy is sitting at work and he turns to the guy next to him and says...
"Man I did a right freudian slip last night"
His mate just looks at him blankly and asks "A what?"
So the guy says "you know, a freudian slip - where you mean to say one thing but because of your subconscious thoughts something else actually comes out"
"No", says his friend, "explain"
"Right," says the first guy, "so I was at the train station and the woman behind the counter was very well endowed up top, if you know what I mean? Well I meant to say - can I have a first class ticket to Tooting please - but what came out was - can I have a first class y to Tooting please?"
"Ah", says his mate, apparently satisfied with the explanation.
---
---
So the next day the guy's mate says "Hey, I did one of those freudian slip thingies last night."
"Did you?" asks his friend..
"Yea" he replies, "I was sitting at the table having dinner with the missus and what I meant to say was - can you pass me the salt please dear - but what came out was - you ruined my life, you cow!"

Sorry, thought it was time to lighten the mood.

I know why it was used wrongly. Like I said, I know what a Freudian Slip actually is.
 
Such.. what do you call it... confidence?

You forget that switching between solo is not just for the purpose of avoiding PvP. It can be because you are going to spend two weeks in a hotel and want to continue your journey. So that commander has to start from scratch, earn less, just because you and a couple of others decide that Open is a privilege?

Ah comeon. That is just such a silly comment. Look: During christmas i spent a week in hospital and I played elite. With the hotspot of my mobile. And yeah: It was cool that I could play my original save.....but this was an exceptional event. IF you want/have to spet your time, 2 weeks in a hotel. Well either you start a solo save, or you deal with it, that you can NOT PLAY ELITE FOR TWO SILLY WEEKS. Why should the gameplay for the rest of the year be a mess, just because of two ridiculous weeks. SO yes, my "confidence" as you call it, is in my opinion just normal common sense and if you have a look at the gaming world out there, you might have noticed, that having solo and online in the same save is not a common concept - for good reasons.


And btw: Trading is broken at the moment. But you know what? First I don't really care myself, I just go bountyhunt, because I like to do this, instead of stupidly grinding traderoutes. But if you play online and trade, and ONLY can play online, it would be ok to make billions with trading, just like that. Because there are pirates and you would always have the risk of loosing millions of cargo, just in the glimpse of an eye. Now you just go offline, grind you python, go online, and feel strong. This design is just so flawed and the reason is, that the devs just took the easy route. No extra programming, just put yourself in an extra instance. Done. Solo implemented. That is the only reason. They had troubles with the whole "influence the marked". And how data is handled with the servers, they even said it would be to much effort to rewrite all this stuff, just to get solo to work, without internet. And this is understandable, and if the budget is small, I am ok with that. But now to stand here and saying: This concept is good, just because its there, is ridiculous.


Solo is solo. Do the hell you want. Invite friends with your groups. YOu can now play PvE all day long, without ever meeting another hostile player. I am glad they put this option in, but:
Open is open only. Period.
 
Last edited:
Not having a go at you. I notice that a lot of people don't seem to make an attempt to see things from other peoples perspective.

It's not just a matter of perspective, it's a fundamental outcome of the games core technical design that a some, it would seem are unwilling or unable to comprehend.

Infinite Play Map.
P2P Matchmaking.
Vagaries of firewalls, routers, internet connection to other players, internet connections to the cloud servers, reliability of all these.
32 player limit in the bubble.

And lot's lot's more.

Each time a mechanic is asked for there is a price to be paid, FD have to balance that cost.

Player's want huge space battles, to increase the number of players in an instance then in simple terms reduce the data through the pipe. (Optimisation will only get so far.) But many times it's the same players asking for clan tags, clan decals, improved comms which all increase the data load. No win situation, especially when they refuse to consider the "cost" of their demands beyond "I want".

Likewise the cost of moving to a locked open group isn't considered, when the only justification to break the current system would appear to boil down to, IMHO, a perception, a feeling justified in many cases by phrases that amount to little more than "I can see it, if you can't then you're (Insert frustrated semi-insult of choice)."

FD have implemented the grouping for good reason, the core design will have been subjected to a sound business case justification and review long before the the first Dev sat down and typed "if you don't gosub a program loop, you'll never get a subroutine".

There are financial implications, if they switch to a locked - non-consensual PvP open mode then they've limited their customer base even further. In many cases they'd be left chasing fans of currently established IP's. IP's that have players with many hours, months and years and digital wealth locked in. To base the future of a multi-million pound company on poaching the dis-affected, the burned out refugees of another already established niche game is probably not the wisest of choices. Not to mention reneging on a family friendly, casual friendly mechanic would greatly upset a large proportion of their existing customer base, possibly fatality and cause damage to their corporate image amongst the wider gaming community.

Fundamentally the PvP player who is prepared to spend hours between fights, sometimes days is a very small percentage of a subset of the overall gaming population, (Admittedly a loud, passionately vocal subset, but a sub-set of a sub-set non-the-less,). I suspect it's a very small market when compared to the gamers market. If you want PvP to be a core mechanic you design the whole game differently, choke points, limited maps, locked population, ships balanced around PvP. Almost exactly opposite to the vision and game pitched years ago, and since implemented by FD.

The tools have been provided for everyone to implement a gaming style of choice, as long as that choice does not detract more from another player than it gives. Unfortunately locking players into groups takes away more than it gives as FD, amongst others have realised that for the vast majority of gamers time is a limited resource, moods and play-styles can change on a whim so they've implemented a grouping system that facilitates this.

As I posted earlier - it would appear that another long established Games Designer, with just a little bit of experience has also come to the same conclusion.

Interview said:
But you're free to switch between any of the three online modes - SPO, Friends Play Online (OPO) and Open Play Online (OPO).

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...iotts-shroud-of-the-avatar-whats-the-big-idea

Of course all the above is just opinion too :)
 
Ah comeon. That is just such a silly comment. Look: During christmas i spent a week in hospital and I played elite. With the hotspot of my mobile. And yeah: It was cool that I could play my original save.....but this was an exceptional event. IF you want/have to spet your time, 2 weeks in a hotel. Well either you start a solo save, or you deal with it, that you can NOT PLAY ELITE FOR TWO SILLY WEEKS. Why should the gameplay for the rest of the year be a mess, just because of two ridiculous weeks. SO yes, my "confidence" as you call it, is in my opinion just normal common sense and if you have a look at the gaming world out there, you might have noticed, that having solo and online in the same save is not a common concept - for good reasons.


And btw: Trading is broken at the moment. But you know what? First I don't really care myself, I just go bountyhunt, because I like to do this, instead of stupidly grinding traderoutes. But if you play online and trade, and ONLY can play online, it would be ok to make billions with trading, just like that. Because there are pirates and you would always have the risk of loosing millions of cargo, just in the glimpse of an eye. Now you just go offline, grind you python, go online, and feel strong. This design is just so flawed and the reason is, that the devs just took the easy route. No extra programming, just put yourself in an extra instance. Done. Solo implemented. That is the only reason. They had troubles with the whole "influence the marked". And how data is handled with the servers, they even said it would be to much effort to rewrite all this stuff, just to get solo to work, without internet. And this is understandable, and if the budget is small, I am ok with that. But now to stand here and saying: This concept is good, just because its there, is ridiculous.


Solo is solo. Do the hell you want. Invite friends with your groups. YOu can now play PvE all day long, without ever meeting another hostile player. I am glad they put this option in, but:
Open is open only. Period.


I agree to this .. +1
 
I know why it was used wrongly. Like I said, I know what a Freudian Slip actually is.

So you also know why it was in quotes? Stop being antagonistic. Nobody suggested you didn't. Go revisit those pages again but this time follow the entire conversation. Then you will come back with an "oh yea, oops, missed that first time round!"
 
Although I agree with you, in general, you are factually incorrect in one or two points.



Although everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, you are assigning an equality of opinion that is blatantly false. Backers have been involved with the game since its inception. Some of them were even involved with the design decision making process and almost all of them were involved with the Alpha and Beta testing phases. So they KNOW a LOT. In just the same way that I would trust the opinion of an experienced climber, hunter, driver etc over the opinion of someone who has just read a 'dummies guide' so it makes sense to trust the opinion of a backer over someone who has bought the game after little or no research.

Hey, look - someone's made an actual appeal to authority. This is what they look like. Oh man, Robert Maynard is going to be well pleased when he sees this. Textbook.
 
Hey, look - someone's made an actual appeal to authority. This is what they look like. Oh man, Robert Maynard is going to be well pleased when he sees this. Textbook.

I thought you were an experienced debator? :/ There is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority as long as that authority is an actual authority on the subject. A real life example being an appeal to a biologist for evidence regarding evolution or a doctor for evidence regarding a medical opinion. The appeal to authority would only be fallacious if the evidence provided by the authority was incorrect. However, in this case, I am not seeking evidence (an appeal to authority) I am judging the relative merits of opinion. Nice try though, shows you are making an effort.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom