Avoiding those things should be fairly easy, since FD say that they do not fit with the game they want to make. Many are happy with that, many are not. Good luck on getting FD to shift their point of view.
Criticism of the Community
- Thread starter Valo56
- Start date
Avoiding those things should be fairly easy, since FD say that they do not fit with the game they want to make. Many are happy with that, many are not. Good luck on getting FD to shift their point of view.
I wish they would release numbers on solo vs open. I'm of the belief that Private Group and Solo outnumbers Open player time.
i believe
many use both modes at the moment because it is convenient sometimes...
some use 1 mode exclusively
I'm not sure however that this mixed/hybrid and the way it is implemented is a big succes.
Seems some pieces of the chain are missing to truly create some balance because open mode now serves as some kind of 'safe heaven' and is a way to block all human players...
I can understand that people don't want human interaction but in all fairness this makes it much harder for the people who always stay in open.
Human players will be always harder to beat then pc's and i'm not sure how we can remove the 'connotation' of 'easy mode' for 'solo'.
f.e.
It would seem logical to me that solo-mode was attached to one background server.
and open mode had it's own independant background server.
All players should have the ability to create a commander for open and one for solo.
I would think that solo-players were happy in their universe where everybody played within the same rules and open players were happy this way.
The downside is more server/maintenance costs for FD ...
btw +1 for the OP. Point is well made and adds common sense into the whole debate.
Last edited:
Thanks and rep for the OP. I rarely think it's inappropriate to exhort forum members to keep the quality of debate up as high as they can. I noticed a distinct dip in quality around relase time but maybe it can be clawed back. In any case this is still a far better and more interesting community then 99% of other game forums I have visited.
What are YOU trying to say? Please just read what you just posted and speak it loud - does it sound like weighted opinion or maybe you are just forcing it on others who might disagree with you?
There are NO apparent lack of features, this is how you view this game. I personally disagree. That's whole point of OP post. All people is complain about stuff that wasn't planned there in first place.
If goal is to force FD to do something, you really don't know these guys then, do you. They won't bend to forum wits or politics.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
It is obvious that it is about group think and forum politics. There are people clearly thinking that massaging their points day after day in forums will make FD wanna to add it into the game.
And it is a bit painful as I know it's not gonna happen, if it doesn't align with their dev plans, and it will happen, if it does (and forum barter will be little if anything to do with that).
My criticism is heavy use of hyperbole. Either it's Internet thing (I assume it is, because lot of people posts things they wouldn't say or write in real life), or 'gamer entitlement', but trashing devs, accusing of lies, engaging in toxic behavior - no respect from me.
You're just super late to the party, OP.
Your post boils down to a complaint about bickering, which flares up, and has, to varying degrees as time goes on. This is pretty universal a property in regards to forums, but I must say that your first post comes across as a heady mix of naivete and moral high-roadiness. Getting tired of the polarization? Yeah, who isn't. An appeal to the community to stop lashing out at each other won't change anything, especially considering factors such as topic changes, people who stop visiting, new people coming in, and anything else that can cause a sudden increase in discussion about a "controversial" subject. None of what you described is new to this community (anyone remember early beta?) and it's not any worse now as it was then, it seems to sort of rollercoaster between times of relative "peace" and "infighting."
Your message at the end of the day is "can't we all just get along and have mature discussion?" And while I think it does happen more often than you believe it does, as negativity sticks out to us humans moreso than anything else, saying that just comes across as...I'm not sure what, really. Shallow? Pandering? Neither of those are the right words. It's like watching a Miss America get on stage and plea for world peace or something, that's my point. Nothing against world peace, it's just not how our species operates.
Your post boils down to a complaint about bickering, which flares up, and has, to varying degrees as time goes on. This is pretty universal a property in regards to forums, but I must say that your first post comes across as a heady mix of naivete and moral high-roadiness. Getting tired of the polarization? Yeah, who isn't. An appeal to the community to stop lashing out at each other won't change anything, especially considering factors such as topic changes, people who stop visiting, new people coming in, and anything else that can cause a sudden increase in discussion about a "controversial" subject. None of what you described is new to this community (anyone remember early beta?) and it's not any worse now as it was then, it seems to sort of rollercoaster between times of relative "peace" and "infighting."
Your message at the end of the day is "can't we all just get along and have mature discussion?" And while I think it does happen more often than you believe it does, as negativity sticks out to us humans moreso than anything else, saying that just comes across as...I'm not sure what, really. Shallow? Pandering? Neither of those are the right words. It's like watching a Miss America get on stage and plea for world peace or something, that's my point. Nothing against world peace, it's just not how our species operates.
Some valid points but when a war is going on... our species is also able to find solutions because fighting hurts... and people become willing to work together.
Somehow we also need a 'shallow morale' to believe in in order to get us a bit further. We are animals in essence but even animals coöperate from time to time if it is beneficial for the survival of the group.
Speeking with one voice can change things faster... If we are unable to speak with one voice it is harder to listen. (sorry for stating the obviuous again)
Last edited:
Separate saves aren't needed. It's funny that the 33rd person in Open won't see any of the "danger" in a particular area but the Solo player is taking the "easy" route. The way the game is setup and the absolute imbalance in PVP only stress this point. If you go separate saves the population would decline drastically. But only FD has those numbers so it's just my opinion.
It all comes down to differences in tastes, which is natural. Not everyone likes the same things.
I've played video games all of my life, since Jet Set Willy (another 84 gem) on Spectrum to Shadows of Mordor. But here is the thing, I've NEVER found games like WoW and EvE appealing to me, I tried. It's just not my thing. So naturally I will be against of WoWisation or EvEastion of Elite.
I know Elite D lacks features, but I also know that the game hasn't even matured yet. I would rather have the Devs concentrate on making Wings work, planetary landings, better communications system, and MOST of all prevent exploits/cheats. There are scripts out there that people are running to make easy money (leaving ships in warzone to farm for credits). With holes like that, I wouldn't want to see player owned anything!
I've played video games all of my life, since Jet Set Willy (another 84 gem) on Spectrum to Shadows of Mordor. But here is the thing, I've NEVER found games like WoW and EvE appealing to me, I tried. It's just not my thing. So naturally I will be against of WoWisation or EvEastion of Elite.
I know Elite D lacks features, but I also know that the game hasn't even matured yet. I would rather have the Devs concentrate on making Wings work, planetary landings, better communications system, and MOST of all prevent exploits/cheats. There are scripts out there that people are running to make easy money (leaving ships in warzone to farm for credits). With holes like that, I wouldn't want to see player owned anything!
I've kind of gone back and forth on the game since I started playing it. Initially loved it when I was learning the mechanics on the go, growing in experience and etc. Then not so much when I hit the inevitably plateau and realized I'd pretty much done everything I was every going to be able to do in the game, with my trading becoming more an in-advance preparation for when it became more feature-rich than an actual enjoyment of the game itself. (Basically, I wanted to be able to take advantage of new features when they released, without having to do the inevitable grind when the time came; the plus side being that whenever ship interiors become a thing, I have a big roomy Anaconda to explore.) Now I'm kind of in mild fondness, if that makes sense... I pop it on to do some light trading, maybe pew pew a little, but usually have a podcast or something else in the background that takes up most of my attention, and I inevitably play something else when I want to have a 'focus-intensive' kind of game. Overall great atmosphere and ambiance, being out in space and such, so it's a really fun place to DO things... there's just not a great variety in fun things to do. 
Again, if that makes sense.
And while I try not to dwell on what the game will never have, particularly the sort of epic multiplayer that a less P2P structure can provide, I do occasionally get wistful. I know that the idea of player-owned worlds and such are extremely unpopular, but the kicker is, Eve has, what, less than 10000 stars? Number I hear is 5000, with another 2500 wormhole-accessible ones. Sure, it's a big number, but it's still EXTREMELY finite. And of course it is, PvP is a big element to it, competition, etc, etc, so scarcity of resources is an inevitable requirement to keep people fighting over lunch money, which of course leads to the kind of stuff that turn a lot of people off to Eve at all, dominant corporations and whatnot.
But Elite Dangerous has 400 billion. The vast, vast, vast majority of which just kind of sits there and looks pretty, and might never actually be seen by more than one player looking for explorer cred if we're talking statistical probability. While I'm all for keeping the kind of player corp machinations away from the core regions, (Federation, Alliance, Empire and Independent worlds, basically regions with strong pre-existing government presence, and anywhere within say a two hundred light year distance of that area, just to keep players NOT interested in new civilizations from getting hounded by Emperor PWNAGE of the Hufflepuff Empire,) it is a bit sad that I'll likely never be able to load up a T9 with supplies, form a convoy with some friends Oregon Trail style, and lumber out to seek new worlds for colonization and the establishment of a truly independent, self-owned utopian society. =P Incredibly time-consuming, incredibly difficult, highly risky, and dear God so worth it if one succeeded. @_@
Honestly, I'm hoping that sooner or later someone else develops their own 400 billion star galaxy, only makes it more of a 4X strategy game with multiplayer elements, maybe like a Sins of the Solar Empire on steroids. Some guys were making an early build of a game that looked promising called Flagship, but unfortunately they failed to get the funding they sought, so it's slowed their progress down considerably and is likely going to cut back on the ancillary features they hoped to have, (such as, funny enough, walking around inside your giant capital ship.)
Also other minor things. For one, this is silly, but I think the Outfitting screen (also known as the Lookit How Awesome Your Ship Looks Window) would be a million times better with dynamic camera control. Rotating, zooming in on cool details... just nom. @_@
Again, if that makes sense.And while I try not to dwell on what the game will never have, particularly the sort of epic multiplayer that a less P2P structure can provide, I do occasionally get wistful. I know that the idea of player-owned worlds and such are extremely unpopular, but the kicker is, Eve has, what, less than 10000 stars? Number I hear is 5000, with another 2500 wormhole-accessible ones. Sure, it's a big number, but it's still EXTREMELY finite. And of course it is, PvP is a big element to it, competition, etc, etc, so scarcity of resources is an inevitable requirement to keep people fighting over lunch money, which of course leads to the kind of stuff that turn a lot of people off to Eve at all, dominant corporations and whatnot.
But Elite Dangerous has 400 billion. The vast, vast, vast majority of which just kind of sits there and looks pretty, and might never actually be seen by more than one player looking for explorer cred if we're talking statistical probability. While I'm all for keeping the kind of player corp machinations away from the core regions, (Federation, Alliance, Empire and Independent worlds, basically regions with strong pre-existing government presence, and anywhere within say a two hundred light year distance of that area, just to keep players NOT interested in new civilizations from getting hounded by Emperor PWNAGE of the Hufflepuff Empire,) it is a bit sad that I'll likely never be able to load up a T9 with supplies, form a convoy with some friends Oregon Trail style, and lumber out to seek new worlds for colonization and the establishment of a truly independent, self-owned utopian society. =P Incredibly time-consuming, incredibly difficult, highly risky, and dear God so worth it if one succeeded. @_@
Honestly, I'm hoping that sooner or later someone else develops their own 400 billion star galaxy, only makes it more of a 4X strategy game with multiplayer elements, maybe like a Sins of the Solar Empire on steroids. Some guys were making an early build of a game that looked promising called Flagship, but unfortunately they failed to get the funding they sought, so it's slowed their progress down considerably and is likely going to cut back on the ancillary features they hoped to have, (such as, funny enough, walking around inside your giant capital ship.)
Also other minor things. For one, this is silly, but I think the Outfitting screen (also known as the Lookit How Awesome Your Ship Looks Window) would be a million times better with dynamic camera control. Rotating, zooming in on cool details... just nom. @_@
You say the 33th person wouldn't see anybody inhis instance. Shouldn't it make sense to apply decent instancing criteria. In this simple case a 16 vs 17 split instead if 32 vs 1.?
Last edited:
I don't disagree with you, you're probably right.
The problem is from the get go on the Kickstarter this game was always multiplayer, and solo (and offline) modes were added to appease backers and get the game over the line. So a lot of the earlier backers off the bat didn't care about multiplayer.
As the game has gone on, more people have joined and more and more like solo, but as you've seen from 1.1 and 1.2 - Community Goals and Wings are very much multiplayer features, but having to also be adapted to work in solo mode. It's a pattern I'm sure we'll see across development.
The problem is I worry they won't be able to achieve these in a meaningful way for solo players (private groups are sorted on this one) pushing these players away as the game gets gradually more boring for them.
This is what I mean by eventually I believe solo mode might be killed off, especially if Frontier release a snapshot of the universe for players to run locally - then what's the point of ever connecting online??
Now there is another idea with legs on it.....although it makes more sense as expanding a certain government type ( Fed, Imperial or Alliance....possibly independant system) than to be directly player controlled, this would be a true "community goal" and also easily (sic) applied to private group and solo [hiring of npc's?] the idea of risking our own millions to establish a new settlement for a huge reward....ie being able to re-name the system, have the main station named after you and to take a finincial reward ....maybe a percentage of station profits over time would give all concerned a huge sense of immersion/interaction /ability to influence the game as a whole . The idea of player owned stations frankly makes me shudder, i can see the attraction, but then you spend your time managing it not actually out there flying and influencing
and the Dynamic camera?? yes please!
I ought to point out that i play exclusively in solo but this type of "goal" would certainly make me look seriously at joining a private group....and possibly (gasp!) play in open although id want to try and complete it solo first of course ^^
as the OP says.....considered responses achieve much more than the continual harping/flaming etc so +1 for raising a thread for reasoned debate, been some interesting points made, and i look forward to reading alot more
Last edited:
I try not to think of the political parties in the US. I find it scary that NONE of the presidential candidates will even come close to saying that evolution is a done deal. And by 'scary' I mean finger on the nuclear trigger scary. Last words broadcast before the world went black "Gawed told me to do it!"
Anyway, back to the post. No ruffled jimmies here (must look that up later) I like your thinking, however, I can imagine that a goodly percentage of the forumites will read your response paragraph with eyes slowly glazing over. Far from garnering support for your point, or even exciting meaningful debate you will just invite further simplistic knee-jerk reactions which would be likely to spiral downwards and derail the thread.
Ok, that sounds very elitist... Sorry.
Tragically, the rep fairy won't deliver to your house today, so have an imaginary +1 instead.
People who want "better things" on this forum, usually met with old people who only wants space truck simulator 2000. Which is sad. This game could be a lot better than it is right now.Many people have said it and the every time they said it they met with truck simulators
And that's complete nonsense. I am quite new, thank you, and I don't want just doing cargo runs. And in fact I don't, I do all kind sort of things already in game. In fact, biggest clash is that "better things" people seem to be very toxic, pushy and rejective towards game. Nothing to do with picture you would like to paint.
Constructive "I want this and this should be in" is always welcomed.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The option to play in solo / group / open mode was stated from the outset. Solo online was not added later. Indeed, a lot of players, from the outset, may not care too much about the multi-player aspects of the game.