Because that's how we want to play and if forced to make a choice most of us will be in another mode leaving Open as a small pool of piranha's predating each other.
And wow, does that sound like fun for all involved.
- Status
Because that's how we want to play and if forced to make a choice most of us will be in another mode leaving Open as a small pool of piranha's predating each other.
And wow, does that sound like fun for all involved.
Here is David Braben actually talking about this very issue:
[video=youtube;rOYhoFYIWmw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rOYhoFYIWmw#t=379[/video]
Last edited:
Open -> Solo -> Open - The biggest exploit in all of ED.
Example:
Player 1 hunting Player 2, tracks them to a station.
Player 2 realises they are being tracked, switches to Solo - leaves the station, moves to wherever and them goes back to Open to continue their task(s).
Player 1 Wait I thought this was Multiplayer...
Example:
Player 1 hunting Player 2, tracks them to a station.
Player 2 realises they are being tracked, switches to Solo - leaves the station, moves to wherever and them goes back to Open to continue their task(s).
Player 1 Wait I thought this was Multiplayer...
Hi folks,
Here's some thoughts on the different pros/cons of the different options open to FD on this (that I can see)...happy reading!
In summary, option 1 or 3 look viable.
Five options open to FD are:
1) Keep it as it is
2) Force all into OPEN PLAY
3) Force decision to play Private/Solo or OPEN PLAY at start
4) Force decision to play PVE or PVP at start
5) Undefined other approach…
1) Keep it as is
Short term: est. 1-6 months
Pros
- Expectations of the greater portion of embedded community are kept in line with original sell
- No change or diversion of ED development resources from planned to unplanned work i.e. more in-game content sooner for players
Cons
- Lower overall player base. PVP MMO players disaffected and worst case quit playing (big assumption: smaller group of players)
- Reduced interaction in one of the key pillars for the remainder of players in OPEN PLAY
Medium term: est. 7-24 months
Pros
- OPEN PLAY perceived to be more enjoyable and worth taking risks for. Therefore, significant increase in OPEN PLAY player base.
- New PVP orientated players (or old who decide to come back) join due to new content which opens up new game horizons for all players (i.e. planetary landing / out of ship experience)
Cons/risk
- Stunted potential of ED player base numbers. Star Citizen and other competing games possibly able to retain players through negative feedback on ED. Likely due to general verbose negative feedback from initial PVP player base who do quit ED. Time is precious to all players and those cash rich are generally time poor.
2) Force all into OPEN PLAY
Short term: est. 1-6 months
Pros
- PVP player base increases significantly and lots of happy campers!
- PVP verbose community attracts further players of like mind to join ED – significant increase in player base as a secondary effect of the first.
- Background simulation design unaffected.
Cons
- Solo player loses some key options of previous game play. Limited solo open player movement unless member of unofficial PVP group: Key solar systems and core systems under player domination and lock down.
- Original vision of ED under pressure to change. Ever increasing PVP player base results in ever increasing pressure to introduce unplanned PVP related functions (player guilds, corporates, etc).
- Lower player base as possibly small but not insignificant exodus of PVE style players. Expectations of the greater portion of existing embedded community are let down by FD. (Big assumption: most PVE players will stick it out for planetary landings/out of ship experience to decide whether to continue or quit).
- New content slow down. Diversion of ED development resources re-scheduled from original plan baseline to new PVP orientated functionality development
Medium term: est. 7-24 months
Pros
- ED becomes an intense game for all players producing plenty of positive press.
- Continued growth of PVP orientated players with introduction of new content which opens up new game possibilities.
Cons/risk
- Again, significant stunting of potential of ED player base numbers. PVE orientated players continue to forsake ED as PVP players establish ever growing footholds across Milky Way.
- Design of ED does not resemble original vision. Space is not quiet. You do not feel alone in the void. Space is small for those places that count. Circumspect reviews may pick this up as a ‘failure’ by FD to keep true to their vision.
- Reduced game shelf life as original game ‘uniqueness’ is largely removed. PVP player base possibly starts to lose interest six months after v2.0 arrives (planetary landings…) as they become slowly bored and SC takes off along with other competing games.
3) Force decision to play Private/Solo or OPEN PLAY at start
Short term: est. 1-6 months
Pros
- Significant percentage of player base opt for OPEN PLAY. PVP player base increases reasonably and are reasonably happy campers!
- PVP verbose community attracts further players of like mind to join ED – significant increase in player base as a secondary effect of the first.
- Background simulation design unaffected.
Cons
- Loss of the generalist player, who likes OPEN PLAY as it is today but uses Solo/private at times, loses out on PVP interaction (other than faction wars). Worst case quits game.
- Original vision of ED under pressure to change. PVP player base has greatest direct impact to other players in OPEN PLAY resulting in an ever increasing pressure to introduce unplanned PVP related functions (player guilds, corporates, etc).
- New content slow down. Diversion of ED development resources to enable and manage unforeseen PVE and PVP functional and in game impacts.
Medium term: est. 7-24 months
Pros
- ED becomes an intense game for all players producing plenty of positive press.
- Continued growth of PVP orientated players with introduction of new content which opens up new game possibilities.
Cons/risk
- Loss of players from OPEN PLAY. Haemorrhaging of PVE player types and generalists reverting back to Solo/Private (could be avoided if multiple character functionality is introduced however this comes with additional implications/impacts i.e. players do not want to necessarily split their time across multiple characters and therefore ruining the game for some).
- ED vision at risk. Overall risk of plunging more development resources into PVP aspects of the game to keep the vocal PVP player base satisfied…reducing FD ability to introduce other game design implementations planned. This could lead to frustrations within the the solo/private group player base that they are not being catered to and worst case further players quitting.
4) Force decision to play PVE or PVP at start
Short term: est. 1-6 months
Pros
- PVP player base increases reasonably and are reasonably happy campers! (big assumption: PVP player base happy that folks cannot leap into private/solo modes to bypass them and they can now impact environment).
- PVP verbose community attracts further players of like mind to join ED – significant increase in player base as a secondary effect of the first.
- PVE players can play without unpredictable player driven interventions to worry about.
Cons
- Loss of the generalist player, who likes OPEN PLAY as it is today but uses Solo/private at times, loses out on PVP interaction (other than faction wars). Worst case quits game.
- Background simulation review to determine whether there is a critical need to separate out PVE and PVP into separate instances. Impact analysis on immediate upfront and longer cost implications to implement and sustain. May not be economically viable but at the same time managing Background Simulation unwanted quirks driven by two significantly different styles of game play causes an unsustainable setup.
- Original vision of ED under pressure to change. Ever increasing PVP player base results in ever increasing pressure to introduce unplanned PVP related functions (player guilds, corporates, etc).
- Lower player base as possibly significant number of generalist players quit. Expectations of the greater portion of existing embedded community are let down by FD. (Big assumption: most generalist players want the ability to play in OPEN PLAY as it is today and would not welcome a change forcing them to one style of play or to another). Possible perception that FD are pandering to a ‘minocrity’ and will continue to do so.
- New content slow down. Diversion of ED development resources to enable and manage unforeseen PVE and PVP functional and in game impacts.
Medium term: est. 7-24 months
Pros
- ED becomes an intense game for all players producing plenty of positive press.
- Continued growth of PVP orientated players with introduction of new content which opens up new game possibilities.
Cons/risk
- Implications to PVE environment of PVP driven changes…where does FD focus development time between the two different player bases? ‘Them’ and ‘us’ mentality ripe to grow on Forum etc.
- Significant slowdown on new game content. (Big assumption: Dual designs, development, support required to maintain two separate player styles.) Significantly less work achievable for both player bases as a result.
- Reduced game shelf life as player base becomes frustrated with lack of new content.
Here's some thoughts on the different pros/cons of the different options open to FD on this (that I can see)...happy reading!
In summary, option 1 or 3 look viable.
Five options open to FD are:
1) Keep it as it is
2) Force all into OPEN PLAY
3) Force decision to play Private/Solo or OPEN PLAY at start
4) Force decision to play PVE or PVP at start
5) Undefined other approach…
1) Keep it as is
Short term: est. 1-6 months
Pros
- Expectations of the greater portion of embedded community are kept in line with original sell
- No change or diversion of ED development resources from planned to unplanned work i.e. more in-game content sooner for players
Cons
- Lower overall player base. PVP MMO players disaffected and worst case quit playing (big assumption: smaller group of players)
- Reduced interaction in one of the key pillars for the remainder of players in OPEN PLAY
Medium term: est. 7-24 months
Pros
- OPEN PLAY perceived to be more enjoyable and worth taking risks for. Therefore, significant increase in OPEN PLAY player base.
- New PVP orientated players (or old who decide to come back) join due to new content which opens up new game horizons for all players (i.e. planetary landing / out of ship experience)
Cons/risk
- Stunted potential of ED player base numbers. Star Citizen and other competing games possibly able to retain players through negative feedback on ED. Likely due to general verbose negative feedback from initial PVP player base who do quit ED. Time is precious to all players and those cash rich are generally time poor.
2) Force all into OPEN PLAY
Short term: est. 1-6 months
Pros
- PVP player base increases significantly and lots of happy campers!
- PVP verbose community attracts further players of like mind to join ED – significant increase in player base as a secondary effect of the first.
- Background simulation design unaffected.
Cons
- Solo player loses some key options of previous game play. Limited solo open player movement unless member of unofficial PVP group: Key solar systems and core systems under player domination and lock down.
- Original vision of ED under pressure to change. Ever increasing PVP player base results in ever increasing pressure to introduce unplanned PVP related functions (player guilds, corporates, etc).
- Lower player base as possibly small but not insignificant exodus of PVE style players. Expectations of the greater portion of existing embedded community are let down by FD. (Big assumption: most PVE players will stick it out for planetary landings/out of ship experience to decide whether to continue or quit).
- New content slow down. Diversion of ED development resources re-scheduled from original plan baseline to new PVP orientated functionality development
Medium term: est. 7-24 months
Pros
- ED becomes an intense game for all players producing plenty of positive press.
- Continued growth of PVP orientated players with introduction of new content which opens up new game possibilities.
Cons/risk
- Again, significant stunting of potential of ED player base numbers. PVE orientated players continue to forsake ED as PVP players establish ever growing footholds across Milky Way.
- Design of ED does not resemble original vision. Space is not quiet. You do not feel alone in the void. Space is small for those places that count. Circumspect reviews may pick this up as a ‘failure’ by FD to keep true to their vision.
- Reduced game shelf life as original game ‘uniqueness’ is largely removed. PVP player base possibly starts to lose interest six months after v2.0 arrives (planetary landings…) as they become slowly bored and SC takes off along with other competing games.
3) Force decision to play Private/Solo or OPEN PLAY at start
Short term: est. 1-6 months
Pros
- Significant percentage of player base opt for OPEN PLAY. PVP player base increases reasonably and are reasonably happy campers!
- PVP verbose community attracts further players of like mind to join ED – significant increase in player base as a secondary effect of the first.
- Background simulation design unaffected.
Cons
- Loss of the generalist player, who likes OPEN PLAY as it is today but uses Solo/private at times, loses out on PVP interaction (other than faction wars). Worst case quits game.
- Original vision of ED under pressure to change. PVP player base has greatest direct impact to other players in OPEN PLAY resulting in an ever increasing pressure to introduce unplanned PVP related functions (player guilds, corporates, etc).
- New content slow down. Diversion of ED development resources to enable and manage unforeseen PVE and PVP functional and in game impacts.
Medium term: est. 7-24 months
Pros
- ED becomes an intense game for all players producing plenty of positive press.
- Continued growth of PVP orientated players with introduction of new content which opens up new game possibilities.
Cons/risk
- Loss of players from OPEN PLAY. Haemorrhaging of PVE player types and generalists reverting back to Solo/Private (could be avoided if multiple character functionality is introduced however this comes with additional implications/impacts i.e. players do not want to necessarily split their time across multiple characters and therefore ruining the game for some).
- ED vision at risk. Overall risk of plunging more development resources into PVP aspects of the game to keep the vocal PVP player base satisfied…reducing FD ability to introduce other game design implementations planned. This could lead to frustrations within the the solo/private group player base that they are not being catered to and worst case further players quitting.
4) Force decision to play PVE or PVP at start
Short term: est. 1-6 months
Pros
- PVP player base increases reasonably and are reasonably happy campers! (big assumption: PVP player base happy that folks cannot leap into private/solo modes to bypass them and they can now impact environment).
- PVP verbose community attracts further players of like mind to join ED – significant increase in player base as a secondary effect of the first.
- PVE players can play without unpredictable player driven interventions to worry about.
Cons
- Loss of the generalist player, who likes OPEN PLAY as it is today but uses Solo/private at times, loses out on PVP interaction (other than faction wars). Worst case quits game.
- Background simulation review to determine whether there is a critical need to separate out PVE and PVP into separate instances. Impact analysis on immediate upfront and longer cost implications to implement and sustain. May not be economically viable but at the same time managing Background Simulation unwanted quirks driven by two significantly different styles of game play causes an unsustainable setup.
- Original vision of ED under pressure to change. Ever increasing PVP player base results in ever increasing pressure to introduce unplanned PVP related functions (player guilds, corporates, etc).
- Lower player base as possibly significant number of generalist players quit. Expectations of the greater portion of existing embedded community are let down by FD. (Big assumption: most generalist players want the ability to play in OPEN PLAY as it is today and would not welcome a change forcing them to one style of play or to another). Possible perception that FD are pandering to a ‘minocrity’ and will continue to do so.
- New content slow down. Diversion of ED development resources to enable and manage unforeseen PVE and PVP functional and in game impacts.
Medium term: est. 7-24 months
Pros
- ED becomes an intense game for all players producing plenty of positive press.
- Continued growth of PVP orientated players with introduction of new content which opens up new game possibilities.
Cons/risk
- Implications to PVE environment of PVP driven changes…where does FD focus development time between the two different player bases? ‘Them’ and ‘us’ mentality ripe to grow on Forum etc.
- Significant slowdown on new game content. (Big assumption: Dual designs, development, support required to maintain two separate player styles.) Significantly less work achievable for both player bases as a result.
- Reduced game shelf life as player base becomes frustrated with lack of new content.
Last edited:
If player 1 attacks player 2 and player 2 tries to go in solo mode.
He has a 30 sec timer,so player 1 has enough time to kill or at least do some major dmg by then.
So there is a counter to that as long as the player 1 attacks.
also Gorodd you made that up.thats you're opinion.
Also you say "- Reduced game shelf life as player base becomes frustrated with lack of new content." it's a shared system so pve and open will all see the same things added or updated anyway.
Last edited:
How does Player 1 know what happened to Player 2? Maybe Player 2 logged out to enjoy real life?
In either case it doesn't matter.
If I was player 2 and I really wanted to avoid player 1 but I had to stay in open, then when I docked at station
I would save and log out, wait 20 minutes then rejoin.
If he was still there after 20 minutes then next time I would wait longer.
I might even wait until the next day and get online very early in the morning before work.
If someone wants to avoid contact there is always a way to do it.
In your example, how would player1 know that player2 had even switched to solo? Maybe he just quit for the night.
Hi folks,
Here's some thoughts on the different pros/cons of the different options open to FD on this (that I can see)...happy reading!
In summary, option 1 or 3 look viable.
Five options open to FD are:
1) Keep it as it is
2) Force all into OPEN PLAY
3) Force decision to play Private/Solo or OPEN PLAY at start
4) Force decision to play PVE or PVP at start
5) Undefined other approach…
Sorry, but how are you predicting the future? Otherwise, you have a nicely formatted and well written post.
Player 1 hunts Player 2
Player 2 realizes he is being hunted
Player 2 puts Player 1 on ignore
Player 1 never sees Player 2 again...
So are you also suggesting that the ignore function is an exploit & should be removed?
Last edited:
Then Player 1 didn't know what he had bought then. Player 2, provided he didn't combat log (which is classless), can switch modes whenever he wants.
I didn't say Attack I used the words Hunting / track. Besides your point is moot because in your scenario if player 2 makes it to a station they are home free -> Solo - Move -> Back to Open.
Imagine in a few months with Wings etc and you have a situation of one player group trying to blockade a station <- Impossible with Solo available. The whole opposing force could slip though in Solo mode then reappear behind the blockade. In what other game universe is this even possible?
Hi Driver,
Good question!
This is my view based upon my experience as a very experienced enterprise systems project management perspective (20 years) - although none of the outcomes are hard and fast they are based upon my personal judgement rightly/wrongly.
Thank you for backing up your opinions! +rep.
I still think that FDev are right and that they can pull it off.
The universe where people don't have to be other people's unwilling dynamic content I expect.
Okay this is a nuanced situation - but I just can't think of any reasonable complaint that a Solo player could have of being restricted to Solo mode (or likewise for group mode) for the lifetime career of that commander profile - provided that players were allowed more than one commander/profile (so that they wouldn't have to delete the Solo commander in order to play in Open or Group.) Provisionally allow 3 profiles/commanders per player?
The reason there could be no reasonable complaint is that if a Solo (or group) player wants to play in Open - they can. If that's the game they want to experience - they can. The current option of what is effectively a fourth game mode - switching modes to manage risk/pvp dynamics - compromises the integrity of player vs player (or player co-operates with player) dynamics - and I believe will restrict the development of player created content that would be seeded by these dynamics ( eg. players escorting lucrative trade runs/ guarding prised mining sites/ responding to distress calls - lots more I can't imagine yet...). If players can bypass the risks/needs for these dynamics by switching to non-multiplayer mode, there will be no incentive/dynamics for players to develop them.
Any player that would complain about having to make a decision to choose the lifetime mode of a commander, would be doing so because they intend to switch modes with that profile - effectively employing this fourth 'switching' game mode - which I believe will ultimately have a detrimental effect on the development of the open mode of the game.
I know this is an oversimplified version of the nuanced arguments here, but I guess it comes down to if FD wants to see the mmo aspects of this game develop - ALONGSIDE the other aspects which I am very excited about.
The reason there could be no reasonable complaint is that if a Solo (or group) player wants to play in Open - they can. If that's the game they want to experience - they can. The current option of what is effectively a fourth game mode - switching modes to manage risk/pvp dynamics - compromises the integrity of player vs player (or player co-operates with player) dynamics - and I believe will restrict the development of player created content that would be seeded by these dynamics ( eg. players escorting lucrative trade runs/ guarding prised mining sites/ responding to distress calls - lots more I can't imagine yet...). If players can bypass the risks/needs for these dynamics by switching to non-multiplayer mode, there will be no incentive/dynamics for players to develop them.
Any player that would complain about having to make a decision to choose the lifetime mode of a commander, would be doing so because they intend to switch modes with that profile - effectively employing this fourth 'switching' game mode - which I believe will ultimately have a detrimental effect on the development of the open mode of the game.
I know this is an oversimplified version of the nuanced arguments here, but I guess it comes down to if FD wants to see the mmo aspects of this game develop - ALONGSIDE the other aspects which I am very excited about.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
This one will be, apparently....
.... also, due to the instancing system and 32-player per instance upper limit, blockading will probably not work in open, regardless of the existence of private groups and solo.
Last edited:
Because we don't want to be and we don't have to justify ourselves to anyone.
You got in before I edited 'justifiable' to 'reasonable'!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Hi Driver,
Good question!
This is my view based upon my experience as a very experienced enterprise systems project management perspective (20 years) - although none of the outcomes are hard and fast they are based upon my personal judgement rightly/wrongly.
In your experience, have you direct experience of another game that allows players such freedoms?
I can give you a reason:
I bought into this game because it allowed mode switching with the same character. I knew all about it before I bought into the alpha.
Why should I have to accept something else? Where is the benefit for me?
- Status