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

[Cpt.Badger]

So it's somehow the games or the developers fault that you failed to do any kind of due diligence? You purchased a product based purely on its own advertising website, without even exerting a little google-fu to determine exactly how it lives up to that advertising or exactly how the features you saw advertised were implemented?

I will use caps here. So you don't miss the point. Yes, it is the DEVELOPERS FAULT that the game launched without BASIC FEATURES such as GROUPING. Yes, it's the developer's fault that even when I choose GROUP PLAY me and my friend are put in a SEPARATE INSTANCE.

Yes its FD's fault that there are bugs. Who's else fault would that be ? Mine or the fairies ?

 

[Traven Mayhem]

Do you know these many thousands of gamers and their wishes personally?

Are you absolutely certain there aren't many thousands more who will like it exactly as is/with the improvements that are in the pipeline?

Really?

Yea I do actually, have a pretty good idea of the temperature of the 'internet spaceship gaming community' . I've helped run a 500 man alliance in EVE-O for the last 5 years, and have spoken at great length about ED with many other members of that community. they are very excited about ED as E-O is essentially done to death. Most are chomping at the bit for a new game to come along that gives us a similar experience.

Sadly, the industry has done nothing but let us down year over year (black prophecy, STO, both flopped for similar design reasons -- no meaninful player interaction that gives people reason to keep playing longer than 3 months)

 

[ianw]

I will use caps here. So you don't miss the point. Yes, it is the DEVELOPERS FAULT that the game launched without BASIC FEATURES such as GROUPING. Yes, it's the developer's fault that even when I choose GROUP PLAY me and my friend are put in a SEPARATE INSTANCE.

Yes its FD's fault that there are bugs. Who's else fault would that be ? Mine or the fairies ?

Clearly it is FD's "fault" and responsibility to fix. And they are working on it.

The point is that the state of the game wasn't/isn't a secret to any prospective purchasers.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Yea I do actually, have a pretty good idea of the temperature of the 'internet spaceship gaming community' . I've helped run a 500 man alliance in EVE-O for the last 5 years, and have spoken at great length about ED with many other members of that community. they are very excited about ED as E-O is essentially done to death. Most are chomping at the bit for a new game to come along that gives us a similar experience.

Sadly, the industry has done nothing but let us down year over year (black prophecy, STO, both flopped for similar design reasons -- no meaninful player interaction that gives people reason to keep playing longer than 3 months)

Okay - I don't doubt that you and many of the people you know want similar things.

But it seems to me that this PVE/PVP thing has been going on for ages - how can you be sure that if the game ends up not being what you want that that doesn't actually result in more sales - because maybe - more people prefer it the way it's going?

The PVP or nothing preference certainly seems to be in the minority on the boards here. It's a big part of the playerbase but it seems to me that it isn't a majority.

 

[Traven Mayhem]

Again

- I'm not asking for PVP or nothing, I'm asking for meaningful PVP, and mechanics to support that. I've got no issues with solo/group play, but it needs to be handled properly. The current system doesn't really (but could be made to with tweaking)
- Many space sim games that aren't EVE online have released with a primarily PVE focus over the last 10 years, which treat PVP as 'opt-in'. Every single one of them has been a financial disaster and has failed to produce any staying power. EVE is the only one that has been a success -- there are sound reasons for tht, most of them come down to its sandbox nature and certain gameplay mechanics. Player interactions in EVE are meaningful, PVP or otherwise
- Some aspects of EVE's PVP mechanics are counter productive. The ones everyone seems to have a problem with are suicide ganking, and corp wardecs. I have stated numerous times that I am opposed to mechanics like those -- add to this that 'suicide ganking' is already a mechanic that is IN elite dangerous. Any decent player can kill you in most locations of secure space if they are willing to take a bounty hit.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Again

- I'm not asking for PVP or nothing, I'm asking for meaningful PVP, and mechanics to support that. I've got no issues with solo/group play, but it needs to be handled properly. The current system doesn't really (but could be made to with tweaking)
- Many space sim games that aren't EVE online have released with a primarily PVE focus over the last 10 years, which treat PVE as 'opt-in'. Every single one of them has been a financial disaster and has failed to produce any staying power. EVE is the only one that has been a success -- there are sound reasons for tht, most of them come down to its sandbox nature and certain gameplay mechanics. Player interactions in EVE are meaningful, PVP or otherwise

If by "tweaking" you mean "separation of the background simulations for open, private groups and solo" and "players should not be able to group switch" - those are not minor tweaks. The former would require three sets of servers running the galactic background simulations while the latter would restrict player choice to suit a subset of the player-base.

Please correctly me if I am interpreting your post incorrectly but you seem to be using the "if feature X is not changed / deleted then the game will fail" trope.

 

[DaveB]

Sympathy for what exactly? I'm not complaining about my purchase. I'm putting my thoughts about the direction of the game into a thread where the player base has been asked to do so. Get off your high horse. I get it, you disagree and you want PVPers to essentially get kicked to the curb and given little of what they want. You are free to hold that opinion. Don't start wagging your finger at me. 50 bucks is lunch money. I bought this game because I love spaceships, and MMO's and it is the only contender in the space to come along in almost 14 years -- I want to see it turn into a great game, not just remain a mediocre one. Cope.

I apologize, I'm not wagging my finger at you. The fact remains, however, that you are arguing to change a fundamental game mechanic that was designed into the game for a legitimate reason. I get it that you may not like it, there are parts of the game mechanics that I don't like either. I researched the game before buying in (during premium beta) and concluded that the things I liked far outweighed the things I didn't.

We may not agree on that. That's fine, I can still respect your opinion even though mine differs.

I don't want PVPers "kicked to the curb" - I've enjoyed every fight I had with another player, whether I won or lost, and anticipate that experience to continue. I just don't consider ED to be a PvP-focused game, and in that opinion I find myself in alignment with the games developers and the CEO of the company. So I'm playing the game as it is, according to the rules as they currently exist, and having fun doing it.

If I couldn't have fun in the game I'd write off the "lunch money" cost of it and simply not play. Thankfully I do find the game to be fun and so yeah, I'm posting counter arguments to folks arguing for changing it into something it's not and was never intended to be. You still haven't shown any evidence to back up your assertion that the current mode mechanics diminish your experience in any way, by the way, other than "I don't like it so it's wrong." You will, I hope, forgive me for placing a lesser weight on your unsupported opinion as a result, although if you don't that's ok too and no plating off my hull.

 

[Traven Mayhem]

I'm not here to change the minds of a few people in the player base. I've said my piece, in the hopes it will be read and discussed at a dev level -- which I'm sure it already is .. They can likely see the future cracks that offline influence will have against the online portion of the world and the people who want to participate in it.

Hard headed CEO's who will cling to idealogical design fundamentals are nothing new -- and they are never good.

Ultimately, we'll see what happens. Obviously I'm having fun under the current game mechanics as well -- or I would not be here, typing this.

 

[DaveB]

..,Obviously I'm having fun under the current game mechanics as well -- or I would not be here, typing this.

Then we have at least one point of agreement. See you out there in the black. commander

 

[Numinosum]

I'm not here to change the minds of a few people in the player base. I've said my piece, in the hopes it will be read and discussed at a dev level -- which I'm sure it already is .. They can likely see the future cracks that offline influence will have against the online portion of the world and the people who want to participate in it.

Hard headed CEO's who will cling to idealogical design fundamentals are nothing new -- and they are never good.

Ultimately, we'll see what happens. Obviously I'm having fun under the current game mechanics as well -- or I would not be here, typing this.

Traven - I am an advocate for restricting the ability to switch a commander profile between Open and other modes - as, like you, I am concerned about the integrity of mechanics in Open mode that would generate meaningful PvP. However I think asking for an entirely separate background simulation - completely separate worlds (if that is what you are asking for) is probably asking a lot - I'm no expert but I guess it would require a very large amount of resources to do this. Are you concerned that just restricting switching would lead to players having an ALT commander or a corportation or group of players having members that would work in Solo or Group mode to influence the same things you are trying to influence in Open? I feel that it's unlikely that people would want to play that way. If you are a player who likes PvP and wants to participate in the dynamics of multi-player - I imagine you would get pretty bored not being able to see or interact with your enemies?

 

[DarkWalker]

m8 stop splitting hairs in some effort to 'prove me wrong'. this is a multiplayer game, with built in open world PVP mechanics, like it or not. We're just asking for those mechanics to make sense and be meaningful. Every review I read of the game while it was in beta spoke at length about 'open world PVP' happening everywhere, and group play coming.

There exists here a golden opportunity to create a living, breathing universe where players interactions are meaninful, and we're literally standing on the first step of a long stairwell up. It would be a crying shame if the devs took what exists here, and just made it into some PVE only freelancer clone.

Let's go back a few posts, shall we? You pointed at a number of game systems and professions as proof that the game was PvP focused (systems that are used in PvE, and a profession that is also possible in pure PvE, mind); then DaveB noted that there have been public statements by DB and Frontier about PvP not being the game's focus; you then pointed that you never saw any such statements; I quoted a number of such statements taken from the game's Kickstart page; and you countered with statements from the game's web page that, sincerely, don't seem to indicate the presence of PvP in the game.

The only thing in which I'm trying to prove you wrong is your assertion that the game is PvP-focused. It's not. Never was, and this was clear ever since it was first revealed, at least to all those that noticed that choosing who we would play with was a major part of its multiplayer element, mentioned whenever the multiplayer mechanics were. You just wish it was about PvP, likely because you can't conceive how a game can be enjoyable long term without non-consensual PvP.

Well, there are other points of view. A common one is that a game can't be enjoyable, neither short term nor long term, if it has non-consensual PvP. Seems like Elite: Dangerous was made to cater to those players, while leaving open the possibility of PvP happening between those players looking for it.

 

[Asp Explorer]

You simply have to love it when the mindless pew-pew crew cry about not enough mindless pew-pew.

It's absolutely delicious. You can always form a private group with like-minded players and have all the pew-pew you could ever wish for. You can do this instantly, and with zero effort. It's a guaranteed source of interactive and meaningful combat in a pure player vs player instance.

So how come none of these bleating pew-pews do it? Simply because - not a single one of them wants to be the seal. Their ego would simply not allow that. That is all there is to it.

 

[ianw]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1578293#post1578293

^^ new dev comment from another thread - wotth a look for anyone who hasn't seen it.

 

[Numinosum]

while leaving open the possibility of PvP happening between those players looking for it.

Why would you look for it if it doesn't mean anything? If the extent of PvP in ED is going to be just testing out each others combat skills - but with no greater sense of purpose behind it (because players can influence the same game objectives you're fighting for from an invisible mode) - I think PvP in this game won't be nearly as exciting as it has the potential to be.

You can always form a private group with like-minded players and have all the pew-pew you could ever wish for. You can do this instantly, and with zero effort. It's a guaranteed source of interactive and meaningful combat in a pure player vs player instance.

Again...meaningful????

 

[Cpt.Badger]

The point is that the state of the game wasn't/isn't a secret to any prospective purchasers.

The information on the MAIN PAGE is misleading. They claim I can play with friends (I can't). They claim I can be a pirate (I can't).

Do I really need to go on ?

 

[OBoile]

Lots of posts of people saying if you weren't allowed to switch into solo from open mode - that this means effectively they are 'forced' into either solo or open.

Suggestion:

If FD implements having at least 3 multiple commander profiles you can have a commander in each of the game modes - you are not forced into any mode.

Players that have already built up a commander could be given 2 clones of their current commander at the time of this change in mechanic - so that they could choose to progress in whatever game mode they want from now on - all of them if they want to!!!, without having to 'grind' a new profile.

New players could have a trial switching period of say 10 switches, so that new players can try out the different game modes. (Or they could just create 3 new profiles and try the game modes that way).

As a player you would still be able to switch between Open and other modes - but not with the same commander. A commander would be 'forced' to inhabit one game mode, but as a player you can switch game modes as you please.

I realise this is a cost to people who want the switching mechanic as it is - but imho it is a small price to pay for the benefits in game mechanics that I believe would be generated in Open mode.

Just to re-iterate - with multiple commanders, as a player you can play any mode you want at any time. If you like SOLO play - no-one would be forcing you into Open mode. If you like Open mode no-one would be forcing you into Solo mode. If you want to play different modes as your mood dictates, you can. If you are an experienced player who has built up a commander you could be given clones of your current commander that you could continue developing in all the modes should you choose - you would not have to 'grind' a new commander.

One final point which I just want to stress - none of these changes would have any impact on any players that just want to play ED as a single player in solo, or with a group of friends in Group, or who want to play in different modes as the mood takes them. The only groups of players these changes would effect would be those who want to switch between modes with the same commander - AND - imho, ANY player who would want to play one of their commander profiles in open - because imho it would create a much better open mode for them to play in....whenever the mood took them

I disagreed with this the first time you proposed it. I disagree now. Locking people into a certain mode will reduce the numbers in open. Switching between modes does not greatly affect the game.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Don't knock it. This is an important discussion. how FD decides to see open world PVP, grouping, conflict and mutiplayer gameplay out will ultimately decide the fate of this game -- many, many thousands of gamers are waiting for the next couple patches to decide if they are going to purchase this game or not, and the thing they are most interested in his how multiplayer, PVP and open vs closed pans out -- if they mess it up, the initial christmas sales spike is the last they will ever see.

If they get it right, you can probably expect to see another 300,000 units sold after 1.2 patch hits over the next year.

FD has already decided. Hence, this discussion really isn't that important.

 

[OldSalt]

Bro, where do you think those people who farmed 200 million in credits and than sit out Lave no fire made their money?

The rare runners in the Lave loop, do you think those people play open? Do you think pirates can actually pirate with no people in open?

I think it's un fair to force solo players to play open. But to say the experience is not diminished is just solo player arrogance talking.

Its like most of the people who hate pvp or other players never played a normal mmo before and wonder why ppl are confused about the MMO here.

Hi Dafan, the point I was trying to make is that if there was an obvious issue I would feel differently about it but personally I do not see it. It amazes me just how much time other players get to put into the game when in a good week I might get 2-3 hours. Open, solo, group, it won't matter if a player can put a solid 6 to 8 hours a day in, they will have tens of millions and all the gear because it isn't that hard to make money in this game.


What you say about solo players and a diminished experience, if a player did rustle up a fortune in solo and then took to open I would say the only player who may have a diminished experience is them but that's their loss, not anyone else's playing open ? So many of these arguments seem to me to revolve around open players being prejudiced by other players ability to swap as they please. I personally don't see it unless it is a PvP centred desire to generate more player targets. If it's that I think it should just be said instead of a load of old blarney about enriching the game.


Anyway, nice to have some civilised debate. S~

 

[Numinosum]

I disagreed with this the first time you proposed it. I disagree now. Locking people into a certain mode will reduce the numbers in open. Switching between modes does not greatly affect the game.

Locking people into a certain mode isn't what I'm proposing - Locking each commander profile (of multiple profiles each player could play) into a certain mode, is.

 

[Antmax]

If your clean and get murdered, have the murderer pay your insurance. They already get no benefit from killing you and just need an incentive to follow the rules. ( Killing clean traders has no reward, no kill goes towards their pilot ranking, no bounty because of clean status)

If you are interdicted and you shoot first then you probably won't be clean anymore and the pirate will get a bounty as intended.

If you want to PvP for the fun of it, thats what conflict zones, bounty hunting and to some extent anarchy are for.


I don't bother with rares, but I think rares were put in to help some people submit to their greed and stick them up as bait for pirates. Since the systems with the rares or en route are more likely to be camped at.

Locking people into a certain mode isn't what I'm proposing - Locking each commander profile (of multiple profiles each player could play) into a certain mode, is.

Most people don't want multiple profiles. The game is perfect the way it is now for the vast majority of players.

 

[Cpt.Badger]

Locking people into a certain mode isn't what I'm proposing - Locking each commander profile (of multiple profiles each player could play) into a certain mode, is.

This is an obvious win-win solution that I also proposed. I can't really see any downsides to it other than "now I can't carebear in safety" arguments.

 

[Traven Mayhem]

Traven - I am an advocate for restricting the ability to switch a commander profile between Open and other modes - as, like you, I am concerned about the integrity of mechanics in Open mode that would generate meaningful PvP. However I think asking for an entirely separate background simulation - completely separate worlds (if that is what you are asking for) is probably asking a lot - I'm no expert but I guess it would require a very large amount of resources to do this. Are you concerned that just restricting switching would lead to players having an ALT commander or a corportation or group of players having members that would work in Solo or Group mode to influence the same things you are trying to influence in Open? I feel that it's unlikely that people would want to play that way. If you are a player who likes PvP and wants to participate in the dynamics of multi-player - I imagine you would get pretty bored not being able to see or interact with your enemies?

That is def one of my major concerns.. People want to affect system influence. Combat zones are a big part of this, as is interdicting mission runners and traders. havin to just 'grind standings' to combat a bunch of people grinding the opposite faction standings in solo/group mode seems pretty dull to me -- he who grinds the hardest in offline group mode wins. boring.

.. As with the ability to simply 'disconnect' from open and reconnect to be safe from some hostile commander chasing you. I feel this should be limited. I 'get' the issue with multiple background simulations is challenging (though let's be honest, with 15 million in the bank, a second background simulation server is not completely unrealistic as an option).. Other options could be to limit how often someone can switch from open to solo, or let them only do it at a station (i don't really mind if it's a viable way past a station camp, as that is bordering on griefing/un-fun gameplay for the hunted) but if you made the decision to jump into an anarchy system with a load of pricy cargo, it should be up to the pilot to find safe haven without an easy way out; imo

It'll be an issue moving forward. So much of this game is going to resolve around factions trading space -- not implementing features because 'well people will just grind it in solo mode and it will be broken' seems realld dumb to me. How will we handle player owned structures if they are to implement them? Will the guys who hate you just blow it up in an offline group giving you zero recourse to defend? It starts to break down as the mechanics scale up; IMO. Of course this is guess work - we have no idea what they really have in store for us.

edit: it's pretty funny that people are coming in here and calling us the 'mindless pew pew crowd' when in fact we are basically saying that we want more to PVP than what we have now: what we have now is mindless pew pew -- we just want it to actually mean something to both parties. if we're just trading paint, i might as well be playing battlefield 4