Criticism of the Community
- Thread starter Valo56
- Start date
I don't believe my statement was false, I maybe just wasn't as clear in my first one. While the Kickstarter was sold with solo as a feature, I believe it was never truly part of Frontier's vision for the game. Nothing DB has ever said in any interviews, or the way the KS page is written makes me think any different IN MY OPINION ONLY, and with the first two patches being designed around multiplayer features (1.1 just happened to also work in solo because of the simplistic nature of the community goals)
Like I said I believe Frontier wanted the money to make this game, so they smiled at the 84's and said they could have their solo - and maybe at the time they believed the could make it work. But 2 years later - well offline mode has effectively been removed despite the "promise" made on the KS and I see no reason why a few years down the line Frontier wouldn't make a statement to the effect of "We want to meet the vision, with that we will no longer be creating content for solo".
Solo is merely an artefact of an different time in video games and like I also said IN MY OPINION I think it's what will cause issues with the game further down the line, which would not have happened if they went with an Open PvE/Open PVP + McGuffin model.
Example: Thargoid's decide to invade human space. Is a solo player going to single handily defeat an entire invasion force on their own, but at the same time in open/group the expectation is that a wing of Anaconda's is needed to defeat the same invasion force? It just doesn't balance. To balance it Frontier have to make so many concessions in either mode to make it work.
The alternative is that Thargoid's exist in solo mode, but the player never sees them they only hear about the battles through the GalNet - and in that case solo players loose out on one of the gameplay modes.
Effectively by selling solo mode the vision is that there is now two different games, but each also shares the same universe in parallel.
The designers have painted themselves into a corner and I suspect they know it now and regret it.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
In fact here we go:
http://www.pcgamer.com/elite-dangerous-12-preview-flying-together-with-wings/
One little paragraph right and the end "oh and don't forget solo mode".
Edit: The irony is that if players are expected to solo these harder sites then those players in solo mode will actually become better at PvP
Last edited:
Only replying to your first sentence because that is the one answering my question. The rest of your post was just blah blah.
This is your statement... the one you say that you maybe wern't clear in: "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." Seems pretty clear to me, and you were called out on it twice. In you second post you concede that Solo WAS, in fact, present from the start.
So a simple erroneous statement and a simple correction to follow. Now, however, you say that you don't believe your original statement was false... so you believe it was true? You believe that Solo WAS added?
Now I understand that you may be wondering why i am pushing this but, you see, you are a well known name on the forums and in game. So like it or not, what you say carries weight. That being the case then what you say needs to be true, unless of course you are actually trying to deceive, which is why i am trying to get you to be clear on what you want forum readers to believe.
So, was Solo play there from the start or was it added later? Simple question, not asking why or where you think Solo might be going or why it was put in, just, was it there from the start?
Hah, I should have put a bet on the fact you would gloss over the latter part of the conversation: https://twitter.com/titusballs/status/568023730972012544
I believe it might have gone something like this:
25 days later...
*Sigh* Only the first sentence of your reply was relevent to my question: "You came out with a statement that you knew to be false, yes?" Now I have asked a simple question: "Was Solo play there from the start or was it added later?" And again you will not answer. Well, ok, i'm not going to pursue it any further, I have work to do. But your lack of an answer speaks volumes. On a personal note, i am a little dissapointed. I had expected more from you.
No, I was not there during the Kickstarter. I can only see what was there when the campaign finished.
The statement I put out I have confirmed was opinion based on my understanding at the time, I admit I may have confused all solo with solo offline only when I made the specific statement. I still hold the opinion that solo was never really part of the vision though that has always been an afterthought.
Not for one moment do I think that any of the ideas in this post have not been considered by the Devs. I am certain that 'if' features are compatible with the game then they will at some point be released................ It should be noted that we are at the 'start of' a game with a lot of longevity, so I say throttle down a little chaps & enjoy the ride.
Fly Safe/
Fly Safe/
As i see it the Wings update will allow players to form loose associations to complete certain mission types.....the emphasis on "loose" .....not to propel player controlled areas or content or guilds either, as for solo application....tbh it doesnt bother me if it applies to solo or not ( i imagine it would be no different to the current combat zones.....joining a side and either winning or losing although im quite prepared to be wrong on that ) as for the comms updates and the like....thats just fixing whats currently a glitched part of open/group anyway isnt it?
Finally, a little off topic i admit........ whilst i wouldnt normaly interject on the pinball between Titus & Joe beating an already dead animal ( solo vs open threads in abundance guys) i take exception to ageist cracks.....for the record i am over 40 and an original Elite player and a fan too, that doesnt make me blinkered or lacking vision or unable to adapt ( played wow and its ilk for years amongst others) and also i would suggest its precisely the 30 - 40's age group that had the disposable funds to throw at ED in kickstarter phase ( i may be wrong as i know very little about that)
Nutter said it best
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)"
) as for the comms updates and the like....thats just fixing whats currently a glitched part of open/group anyway isnt it?Finally, a little off topic i admit........ whilst i wouldnt normaly interject on the pinball between Titus & Joe beating an already dead animal ( solo vs open threads in abundance guys
) i take exception to ageist cracks.....for the record i am over 40 and an original Elite player and a fan too, that doesnt make me blinkered or lacking vision or unable to adapt ( played wow and its ilk for years amongst others) and also i would suggest its precisely the 30 - 40's age group that had the disposable funds to throw at ED in kickstarter phase ( i may be wrong as i know very little about that) Nutter said it best
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)"
The thing that is important for me is the in-game community. Since it happens to be a multiplayer game, i'm wanting those i play alongside to be decent chappies and chapettes. Not chavs and chavettes!
And this is the rub. Most of those suggestions highlighted tend to appeal to those playing games like Eve... and Eve has a certain reputation when it comes to their playerbase.
So, its not like i'm always against the actual ideas themselves. I worry about what will happen to the in-game community should those features be implemented. I'd like one day to dip my toes into Open, and come out of it with a positive experience involving another player. For the moment, i'm still a little too cautious to try that. Will wait a few months until the most toxic players have moved onto their next game.
And this is the rub. Most of those suggestions highlighted tend to appeal to those playing games like Eve... and Eve has a certain reputation when it comes to their playerbase.
So, its not like i'm always against the actual ideas themselves. I worry about what will happen to the in-game community should those features be implemented. I'd like one day to dip my toes into Open, and come out of it with a positive experience involving another player. For the moment, i'm still a little too cautious to try that. Will wait a few months until the most toxic players have moved onto their next game.
Post moved here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=116013&page=4&p=1803095&viewfull=1#post1803095
It seemed more relevant in that topic.
It seemed more relevant in that topic.
Last edited:
The important word in the first quote is could. It's a bit like soontm in the E|D world.
Indeed it was Deej, everyone seemed normal
The complaining about complainers line has been done to death. I don't mind people having diametric views to me, but usually its the tone and language that is expressed that annoys me.
I never post anything that I wouldn't say to someone's face. Keyboard Warriors on the other hand, would not say the majority of the things they say on the forums, to an actual person.
On another note, do we have to resurrect the online/solo/offline volcano again? Oh ok... Well as stated by others, solo mode was always a part of the kickstarter campaign. I don't agree that it will hinder development of features, having to cater for both modes. I see it as one of Elite's strengths - choice. The point about only multiplayer updates so far, doesn't really worry me. The main reason for Frontier doing this is was because there was virtually no multiplayer at launch. By contrast solo mode worked great. So its understandable that the first couple of updates would address this.
I'm going to draw a line in the sand (or should that be space?) and say that a player will never own a station or outpost in Elite. Which in my opinion is correct. The simple reason is that you shouldn't need to. What I mean by that is, there is a plethora of gameplay and features that you could do, which would be fantastic - Without owning a system/station/whatever. If we do need to own a station to 'spice' gameplay up, then Frontier would have utterly failed.
The idea of crafting I like, on a small scale. Think more, banging a hammer in your shed, rather than a factory. I think that will start to be developed when we can arise from our pilots chair. I mean we would have got up to do something right? Let's hope its not just to make a cup of tea.
The complaining about complainers line has been done to death. I don't mind people having diametric views to me, but usually its the tone and language that is expressed that annoys me.
I never post anything that I wouldn't say to someone's face. Keyboard Warriors on the other hand, would not say the majority of the things they say on the forums, to an actual person.
On another note, do we have to resurrect the online/solo/offline volcano again? Oh ok... Well as stated by others, solo mode was always a part of the kickstarter campaign. I don't agree that it will hinder development of features, having to cater for both modes. I see it as one of Elite's strengths - choice. The point about only multiplayer updates so far, doesn't really worry me. The main reason for Frontier doing this is was because there was virtually no multiplayer at launch. By contrast solo mode worked great. So its understandable that the first couple of updates would address this.
I'm going to draw a line in the sand (or should that be space?) and say that a player will never own a station or outpost in Elite. Which in my opinion is correct. The simple reason is that you shouldn't need to. What I mean by that is, there is a plethora of gameplay and features that you could do, which would be fantastic - Without owning a system/station/whatever. If we do need to own a station to 'spice' gameplay up, then Frontier would have utterly failed.
The idea of crafting I like, on a small scale. Think more, banging a hammer in your shed, rather than a factory. I think that will start to be developed when we can arise from our pilots chair. I mean we would have got up to do something right? Let's hope its not just to make a cup of tea.
Sort of be surprised if that were the case, given a number of their design decisions are extraordinarily counter-intuitive to a title whose apparent vision hinges on multiplayer. I won't bring up the PvP networking again, because it's been beaten like a dead horse, but... well, no, actually it is a dead VALID horse to point out that a multiplayer-centric title that intends to operate on a persistent universe shouldn't really be using that sort of set-up, as it slaps some rather hefty limitations on what it can accomplish. =P If you want to be the next big online-space-game, and presumably therefore wish to compete with that OTHER big-online-space-game that gets mentioned, hobbling yourself right out of the gate in terms of the kind of scale your player-on-player encounters can achieve, (one side potentially having epic wars, all our encounters basically being classroom-sized fisticuffs,) isn't going to help give you a strong headstart.
Then there's the approach to actually getting players together in the first place. Player interaction when in a persistent, shared universe usually carries with it a few requirements so players can always find each other with minimal difficulty. One way is ensuring your region is of a size large enough to serve your purposes, but only JUST large enough; an MMO usually takes place in a great, big world so it won't feel super crowded, but not so large that it feels empty as another player is rarely difficult to find, (creating new servers when the population grows too high in a given server, and combining them when the population declines too much,) whereas Call of Duty's multiplayer maps are deliberately kept small and intimate so players are CONSTANTLY bumping into each other, with predictable pew pew results. In both these cases, the size of the game world serves the purpose of the multiplayer. Elite: Dangerous is just... too big. Way, WAY too big. Don't get me wrong, super impressive, and I'm happy with how big it is, but anyone who wants to have plentiful player interaction does have to be mindful of where they go, as it is incredibly easy to wander off into the Space Boonies. I'm less than a couple of hundred light years from Sol and my traffic report usually only has five or six ship passages except mine.
All only one passage, meaning it's likely just ships passing through as they wander. And I'm not even counting non-populated space (you know, 99% of the galaxy,) which serves no purpose whatsoever except to explore... certainly, no multiplayer purpose. And the kicker is, there's only so much you could do with that much space from a purely multiplayer perspective, because the more interesting stuff you put out there (The Thargoid Doom Empire or the Borg or whatever,) the more your players are going to spread out from their home region to interact with it which, in a territory this big, can get them scattered pretty easily.Second, they have to be able to find each other even if they're in the same general area; not just with effective matchmaking, but also by having mechanics to facilitate finding other like-minded individuals in-game. ('LFG, LFG' in other words.) While Wings will allow players to group together, the 'series of rooms' P2P design and lack of a long-distance general broadcast feature, as far as I can tell, torpedos that sort of 'Cast A Net For Help' option and makes it more difficult for new players without pre-existing social networks within the game to 'jump into' the community. (Yes, they can join the forum, but multiplayer-centric titles don't DEPEND on players joining the forums to make friends reliably.) In this case, even a simple player bulletin board in stations might help, allowing players to post that they're seeking someone to go fighting with, seeking an escort, etc, etc, with contact information so they can be reached using the regular in-game chat. SOMETHING to bridge the gap between individual instances and allow players to reach out to one another.
Even the focus up until launch seemed less about getting multiplayer-focused mechanics up and running, and more on things that, if anything, bolstered Solo a bit more. Botched matchmaking (thankfully improved since then) that made it hard to actually share a space-time continuum with another player? Well, at least that giant galaxy you can explore by yourself is up and running! =D No official form of player grouping? Well, at least you can mine rocks in an asteroid field quietly by yourself!
Don't get me wrong, there are definite chunks missing from the Solo experience as well, but... that's just it, there are big chunks missing from BOTH sides. I don't see multiplayer being this completed, polished gem while the Solo is, in your words, an 'afterthought.' And while I do think that multiplayer is an important factor that the developers are, and will be, pursuing, I don't believe it's the dominant aspect. But I don't think Solo is either. I believe that simply the prospect of space, be it combat, exploration, just being in the void with your wits, some credits and a ship was the original vision. Some would choose to do it by themselves, living out a Firefly fantasy as they zipped around the black; some would choose to do it with others, forming their own little Rebel Alliance or Empire and butting heads for glory.
Reading threads in these forums about player owned stations / factions etc. I think the issue is that the community are divided between people that want to play Elite and everything included in the lore of Elite and others who want to play "Space Station Tycoon" using the fantastic space based game engine which Elite: Dangerous provides.
I am personally in the Elite lore camp and I see having Tycoon type mechanics detracting from the Elite lore vision and I believe Frontier feel the same.
I am wondering if Frontier should think about creating a spin-off game called "Space Station Tycoon" using the Elite engine. It would make sense considering they are well know for other tycoon type games and it would be another avenue for them to make money. They could even offer discounts for people that already own ED. The tycoons would be put on their own server(s) and the 2 different galaxies would not affect each other. Frontier would obviously have to recruit developers to make the game but then they would have to do so to include tycoon mechanics in Elite anyway.
Something else I see are people wanting some kind of Space Battle Arena (continuous fighting) in the game where it doesn't cost you money when you lose your ship. Having this type of mechanic in the game would also detract from Frontier's vision, however, this could be included as a separate mode or alternatively have a few systems scattered throughout the galaxy where you sign up for battle competitions (maybe for a small fee) but it doesn't cost you anything if your ship is destroyed. Competitions could be categorised where ships are more or less matched up so the person winning does so from skill rather than having the best ship.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for what they're worth.
I am personally in the Elite lore camp and I see having Tycoon type mechanics detracting from the Elite lore vision and I believe Frontier feel the same.
I am wondering if Frontier should think about creating a spin-off game called "Space Station Tycoon" using the Elite engine. It would make sense considering they are well know for other tycoon type games and it would be another avenue for them to make money. They could even offer discounts for people that already own ED. The tycoons would be put on their own server(s) and the 2 different galaxies would not affect each other. Frontier would obviously have to recruit developers to make the game but then they would have to do so to include tycoon mechanics in Elite anyway.
Something else I see are people wanting some kind of Space Battle Arena (continuous fighting) in the game where it doesn't cost you money when you lose your ship. Having this type of mechanic in the game would also detract from Frontier's vision, however, this could be included as a separate mode or alternatively have a few systems scattered throughout the galaxy where you sign up for battle competitions (maybe for a small fee) but it doesn't cost you anything if your ship is destroyed. Competitions could be categorised where ships are more or less matched up so the person winning does so from skill rather than having the best ship.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for what they're worth.