Criticism of the Community

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.

currently for high value hauling i go solo in known hotspots of pvp. For everything else i run around online ( when there is stability at the server end) a lot of people find it has mroe lag in open and solo is much more stable. So that is one issue.

Im sure the devs are working on it, but they really add more complex content and other bits ingame to keep the game attractive long term.
 
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.

You are wrong here Titus.

Solo/MP Online mix was promised since day one - David wanted evolving galaxy with everyone playing feeding into feedback cycle. But he knew that many backers, especially older ones, will want to avoid meet trolls and griefers at any cost. That's why he invented this solution.

It wasn't fully decided till DDF discussions however. FD in the end decided that there are not strong arguments against - for the game they wanted to make anyway - to make them separate. You might disagree of course, but decision time has long come and gone.
 
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.

Indeed.....i myself bought ED for the solo play (antisocial git that i am lol) and have zero interest in open or even private groups ( unless the suggestion in my previous post miraculously comes to pass lol) The suggestion earlier in the thread by Titus that only open players are here for the long haul is i feel along way off the mark. If anything i think it will be the private groups which end up being the most populated over the coming months and years.
 
Solid debate and discussion of ideas and ways they might be implmented is great, but its either vital to a games direction and longevity or its pointless, though great fun to have with like minded people. Its vital if FD are involved, not just listening, involved! Its pointless if they are not. I see the design documents, many containing a plethora of great ideas, a lot of which has not (yet) been implemented. That was a community and developer joint activity, at least that is what it was supposed to be, it has for one reason or another led to what we currently have with no sight of what the target is or if, in fact, this is it!

If ED is going to develop and include more than the 'planetary landings' which is pretty much the only vague commitment to an expansion that exists with no timeline or true depth to the concept (yet) then IMO it can embrace many different almost opposite directions (note I do not think for one minute it will or FD could, even f they were so inclined). There is nothing, IMO, stopping corporations coming into existance 'over there' and nothing stopping them being prevented 'over here' in fact, save for the wow factor of a pointlessly huge galaxy, its a great opportunity to use some of that space.

ED is, I think, a game of players v's the simulation, I would like that to actually come alive and a deep and meaningful experience, but i do not see why that has to run contrary to a players v's players v's the simulation game. Right now though I think ED has yet to show its got the chops to deliver what was talked about in the first place, still got time, but I'd like to see some of the vision turn to reality before its called delusion.
 
I'm not complaining about complaining, I'm complaining about tunnel vision. ;)

And I quote: "... the focus of this thread ... to tell people to keep an open mind."

By all means, complain. Complaints are great. I'm complaining about a lack of honest dialog. Instead I usually see people rant at each other without listening or trying to explore the possibilities. While I won't suggest we always side with the fallacy of the middle road, I feel we avoid compromise too much. Reservations about corporations are great, for instance, but they're not a reason to exclude them entirely.

Anyway, people who complain about complaining are mainly annoying as they themselves offer no suggestions on how to solve the problem, taking more issue with complaints than with the underlying cause. I don't believe that's what I'm doing at all.


I'm saying to try and understand all sides (even as I criticize all sides, lol).

I and others have made plenty of thought out detailed suggestions as to how to evolve the game in ways that do not involve players owning anything beyond medium sized ships like they currently do. There are lots of avenues for improvement that dont involve a player controlled economy.

I personally am strongly against players having executive control as DB puts it of any part of the game world or its assets.

Avoid strawman arguments and slippery slope fallacies.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Since your essentially trying to paint all the people who oppose player executive control as being against progress in general which is blatantly untrue, I suggest you start following you own advice.
 
Last edited:
endgame content

And here is the problem, this is not WOW or SWTOR, it is Euro Truck simulator in space, show me the people complaining about "endgame" in ETS. IMO I would say this is not the game for you. Elite Should not have an endgame because that is not what the game is about.
 
Solid debate and discussion of ideas and ways they might be implmented is great, but its either vital to a games direction and longevity or its pointless, though great fun to have with like minded people. Its vital if FD are involved, not just listening, involved! Its pointless if they are not. I see the design documents, many containing a plethora of great ideas, a lot of which has not (yet) been implemented. That was a community and developer joint activity, at least that is what it was supposed to be, it has for one reason or another led to what we currently have with no sight of what the target is or if, in fact, this is it!

If ED is going to develop and include more than the 'planetary landings' which is pretty much the only vague commitment to an expansion that exists with no timeline or true depth to the concept (yet) then IMO it can embrace many different almost opposite directions (note I do not think for one minute it will or FD could, even f they were so inclined). There is nothing, IMO, stopping corporations coming into existance 'over there' and nothing stopping them being prevented 'over here' in fact, save for the wow factor of a pointlessly huge galaxy, its a great opportunity to use some of that space.

ED is, I think, a game of players v's the simulation, I would like that to actually come alive and a deep and meaningful experience, but i do not see why that has to run contrary to a players v's players v's the simulation game. Right now though I think ED has yet to show its got the chops to deliver what was talked about in the first place, still got time, but I'd like to see some of the vision turn to reality before its called delusion.

I think FD involvement could be solved with just good forum post aggregator like http://eft.recoil.org/ which could be searchable and other ways usable. For example Michael confirmed Orrery maps, NPC comms, more persistent NPCs as coming just 2 weeks ago. How many people are aware of this? Very, very few.
 
"If you think about the way people work together in squad-type games like Battlefield 4.."
Wossis working together he mentions? I see no such thing in BF; I see arguing, I see screams of "hacker!" I see screams of "omg I hit you... damn net-code!" I see crying, I see blame, I see shouting, I see complaining.
The only people who work together, are people in the same clans. For everyone else, it's a free for all.
 
This comes up a lot in this forum.
I'll keep this really simple.

Elite has always been about being a pilot (Commander of a ship) - Elite is still about being a pilot (Commander of a ship)

Elite has never been about owning and managing a company or station or planet or 'sector' or a 'Guild'

I don't think Elite ever wants to go down that path, as soon as it does, it no longer is Elite "(Elite has always been about being a pilot (Commander of a ship) - Elite is still about being a pilot (Commander of a ship)"

Nutter
 
I think FD involvement could be solved with just good forum post aggregator like http://eft.recoil.org/ which could be searchable and other ways usable. For example Michael confirmed Orrery maps, NPC comms, more persistent NPCs as coming just 2 weeks ago. How many people are aware of this? Very, very few.

thats a good idea, and there is at least one post I've seen where someone is trying to kep some form of summarised list of dev posts.

But What Michael (not just him but game devs in general) is to 'confirm' something is coming by basically making a statement that just does not completely rule them out, sometimes with some indication of a priority, in itself a somewhat pointless measure as without some means to determine what is high or low priority and where this sits relaitve to that its, again, just dev speak to not dismiss something :)

Having some focal point though would, I think, bring together these posts, it would also neeed stronger moderation to avoid it just becoming a whine fest of my idea is bigger than your idea ner ner ne ner ner!
 
And here is the problem, this is not WOW or SWTOR, it is Euro Truck simulator in space, show me the people complaining about "endgame" in ETS. IMO I would say this is not the game for you. Elite Should not have an endgame because that is not what the game is about.
I complained. I sent an email to the dev's demanding a boss for end-game and raid content. I was very upset ETS2 had no raids. :mad:
 
Valo56, people enjoy arguing and debating. I agree more folks should keep an open mind and maintain a professional demeanor in their posts. The problem is that online provides people with physical disconnectedness and anonymity. Where many folks in these forums would respectfully disagree with each other in a real life, meeting-type situation, online they have little reason to show any respect to anyone; they don't have to worry about being punched in the face, so they can be rude and out-right disrespectful; most folks on here will never meet in real life, so they have no need for your respect or opinion; most folks not only want to be right, but think they are almost always right, therefore your written opinions and accompanying facts are irrelevant to them. In real life, many, many people are like this to a degree, but online frees them of the consequences of their behavior (unless you're doing something illegal, which is beside the point). Of course, I've come across some really good folks in these forums who maintain a respectful demeanor, and often appreciate an informative and challenging debate.

So nearly everyone likes arguing and debating, just many folks either don't know how to behave professionally or don't care to. But, that's life and the internet. Human behavior may not always be logical, but its certainly consistent.
 
Indeed.....i myself bought ED for the solo play (antisocial git that i am lol) and have zero interest in open or even private groups ( unless the suggestion in my previous post miraculously comes to pass lol) The suggestion earlier in the thread by Titus that only open players are here for the long haul is i feel along way off the mark. If anything i think it will be the private groups which end up being the most populated over the coming months and years.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous#project_faq_41800

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous#project_faq_42233

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous#project_faq_42234

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous#project_faq_42235

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous#project_faq_43734 (exclude the UPDATE! part here, that's another can of worms)

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous#project_faq_44169

Outside of that second to last question (which I'll address) and the gameplay questions - the way I always read this is Frontier were focusing on a multiplayer game. Even the second to last question, despite you playing alone it is a more passive form of PvP competing with other players having an effect on the background sim.

Yourself and Pecisk say I am wrong, and on one level you are correct - Elite did have the solo mode stuff from the start. But that doesn't mean Frontier doesn't want to focus on, and indeed sees the money for this game, coming from players who play in open mode.

Like I said, the first two updates to this game are based around multiplayer/open mode features. Community Goals worked in solo for the simple reason that, well it was a simple implementation of "Go here, pick up this, drop here". It was basically a scripted version of Seeking Luxuries.

As for the Wings update, we don't know how that will work with solo (if at all) and the other features mentioned have all been around better ways of communicating with other players, matchmaking, etc. Any new UIs being added will be of little use to anyone outside open/private group play.

For what it's worth I think Frontier have been smiling at Solo players, the whole time with their fingers crossed around their backs. They will only develop features for solo as long as it doesn't imped the development of open mode - because that's the "vision". And until they have external modes of view, why would solo players buy skins?

Of course in a lot of these conversations private groups do get overlooked at little with the focus so much on Solo/Open differences. I think that in the end may be where a core of players end up being - and it wouldn't surprise me if in a few years solo is dropped in favour of moving to Open PvP / Open PvE type environments instead of specific private groups.

Personally I think this would have been the better way to go, and the ability to switch between them. I would then suspect most of the time most players would stick to PvE, and be able to see other players but not shoot them (and it could be explained with a McGuffin like "Weapons are locked against other Pilots Federation ships") but if you want to dip your toes into PvP, or just play more dangerously then you could opt for the Open PvP mode where "Weapons Hot" is the available mode. The same background simulation could have been run in both too and it wouldn't have gimped Frontier's designers into having to make their designs work for all three modes.
 
TItus, don't get me wrong - I am personally proponent of Open Play. But I believe in free choice of player in this matter. If FD and us, active players can make open play bearable for them? Can those modes work together? Call me naive, but I believe they can.

FD are now concentrating on MP part with 1.2 anyway, so they clearly think about open play now.
 
TItus, don't get me wrong - I am personally proponent of Open Play. But I believe in free choice of player in this matter. If FD and us, active players can make open play bearable for them? Can those modes work together? Call me naive, but I believe they can.

FD are now concentrating on MP part with 1.2 anyway, so they clearly think about open play now.

Indeed, I agree with free choice too - I'm just saying I think the idea of solo has limited Frontier themselves in what they can design. It means every feature has to work in all modes, or some features will only work in two modes and the third mode is left to get the scraps.

Either way isn't ideal but it's exactly what we have. All I'm saying is I wish they had gone with a Open PvE/Open PvP mode running the same galaxy in both instances, instead of adding a third tier that is the runt of the litter.
 
So we are all in the same verse but solo is mearly a op in or out of pvp, if you opt out you cannot be hit by another players ship or weapons but we still all see each other

Kinda like ghost racers of previous lap times in racing games.

Sound good to me.
 
Yourself and Pecisk say I am wrong, and on one level you are correct - Elite did have the solo mode stuff from the start.

So just to be clear then. You are now saying that your earlier statement...

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.

... was not true. Never mind the 'on one level' nonsense or all the back pedaling in the second post. You came out with a statement that you knew to be false, yes?
 
Back
Top Bottom