Our group has had numerous 10v10 type fights.
- Status
Our group has had numerous 10v10 type fights.
When I say that a game is alive, I don't mean that it has a playerbase. It must have a playerbase sufficiently large to warrant further development. Original Elite is by that definition done and gone, as are all later iterations.
But I'm not comparing single player games and MMOs. FD stated they have a ten year plan for this game. The game will not be around for ten years unless they treat it as a MMO. Reason being, single player games just don't have that kind of lifespan, which is why most companies focus on franchises, rather than single titles. ED is a enormous game, if you take the full scope of what is planned into account. If they wish to put all that content and features in, they will have to work on it for years on end.
Take a look at the DDF forums. ED launched with maybe 15% of what was discussed. I'm not saying FD is under any obligation to put all those features in, but that is what they planned. Features do get simplified or cut, but do it too much and you risk having what ED is right now: an ankle deep ocean.
And those DDF goals are just for space flight part. FD plans to add planetary landings, and walking in ships, and outside of them. That alone is pretty much a whole new game. And the thing is - even though some people think SC is vaporware, the technology does allow for games of such scope to exist, and they are being worked on. We don't know what FD is working on as far as avatar play and planetary landings are concerned, but if you take a look at this:
[video=youtube;sbZLbb0_RBI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbZLbb0_RBI[/video]
You will see that other companies are making strides in that direction. I'd say the gaming industry is slowly changing. We're moving away from genre games and into hybrid territory.
BUT, as I said - to make a hybrid game of the scope and magnitude FD would like to, they need both time and money. Which they cannot get if they push ED into single player territory. Only a healthy MMO-esque game with a loyal multiplayer audience can give them what they need.
I believe there are design solutions, some of which I offered myself (and frankly none of them are so ingenious that an A-grade dev team wouldn't be aware of them) which could help even out the field. Making Open viable should be #1 priority for FD. That's what's going to keep their game alive.
Try to look at this from an unbiased, business-like perspective. To keep developing the game, FD need resources that they can get only in two ways: siphoning revenue from their other projects (bad), or generating revenue with their flagship product (good). And for that, a rich and solid Open play experience is key.
Last edited:
Interesting - and it does surprise me TBH.
The 10v10 stuff seems to work fine if you are all at an instance where there are not many other people. Places where it falls apart and we get the 'i can't see anybody' issue is always in really busy places where probably 2-3 instances do exist, for example leesti or lave supercruise..
but get a 10 man gang to some random station whrere there is nobody else, and another 10 man and it generally works. there are always a couple pilots who can't see a couple pilots though -- hopefully that will get fixed soon.
but get a 10 man gang to some random station whrere there is nobody else, and another 10 man and it generally works. there are always a couple pilots who can't see a couple pilots though -- hopefully that will get fixed soon.
from the first comment, you have very thin skin, yeah you think thats rude? he is only pointing out taht what you are describing (in a very sentimental way) is exactly how the Eve online works. The famous blockade.
The problem the more i read this is that you want to own your own system, a "home"...
Well this isnt eve online it doesnt work that way, the only way for you to have your own system and station to call your home (but to say the true the stations belongs to the political forces Fedes, Empire and alliance (in which you people should be catalogue)), is if the developers create a dlc to allow you to own and build your own starport and if that happens then the most probably is that starport will be place in its own instance because if its place in the nomal instance it can happen that you guys take a system which is the only entry point to x or y place (that depending on the ly jump you can make actually) and start harassing anyone who arrive to such system or worst just start pirating like crazy and Pkilling other players out of the blue.
So what you need to understand is YOU DONT OWN anything YOU HAVE NO HQ, YOU HAVE NO HOME in this universe because the feature hasnt been implemented, you are acting by your own or by contract and not in the name of any political force because every commander is a mercenary, we all do x o y mission for the credits in their designated zones,nothing more, nothing else if you have your preference for any political force well thats good and thats your problem but if the federal Force (the npc or developers or DM etc etc) hasnt create any blockade what gives you the player the rigth to do so? and worst if you blockade the other faction starport, because the game doesnt have any mechanincs to deal with that, because is ilogical you have a group of bandits destoying ships outside the no fire area "oh thats normal let them have thier fun... how weird no cmdrs arrive with what we need to win the war..... mm oh well c'est la vi! wheres my chocolate?!"
You are exploiting the game!
the game is meant to be played in a certain way, without changing whims of those who want to kill and harass other players, who for some reason think they have a right to it.
There is no blockading anything in this game, except at simulation level. Even if there were no modes a blockade wouldn't work because of the instancing system. But that is besides the point. All that waffle you say about sidestepping fleets and players in solo and private 'controlling the systen' or whatever. Absolute tosh, because you can do it too! The playing field is level!
Braben wanted to do a new Elite for ages, everybody said him "theres no space for a Game like this, if you drasticly change it you can have money but only then". He said no, he kept on looking for a way to make the Game he wants and after many many Years Kickstarer came along and he did go there and asked if there are enough people out there who want a new Elite like he wants to do it, and people said Yes. And he finaly got the money he needed to make the Game.
Its kinda sad when you then see People comoing along saying exactly what Braben had to listen to all those Years "Theres no Space for a Game like this, you need to change it". After he finaly proofed that there is Space for a Game like this and after all these nice People gave him money to do this Game, these nice People who now should according to some get screwed over "Because theres no space for a Game like this"
I'm sorry, but there is space for a Game like Elite Dangerous, theres is space for all kind of Games (even god damn Goat Simulator. God damn Goat Simulator!). And yes, there also is space for Games like what People like Meritz want. Theres nothing wrong with what you want, and when theres nothing on the horizon to do that then that is sad, but its not Elites fault or Problem and certainly not the problem of People who want a Game like Elite.
There are much, much more Games out there who don't do what I want, and thats allright. Not every Game can be design to my liking. A very easy and very simple truth.
And really, after all those Years where Braben refused to change his Vision for Elite in order to get the Money to make it I doubt he will do it now where he actually could do it. And the Game as of now is doing pretty good on the Business side and user Base is growing, so no need for panik-reactions.
Will it always do good? I don't know, but the thing is nobody does unless someone has a Time Machine.
Its kinda sad when you then see People comoing along saying exactly what Braben had to listen to all those Years "Theres no Space for a Game like this, you need to change it". After he finaly proofed that there is Space for a Game like this and after all these nice People gave him money to do this Game, these nice People who now should according to some get screwed over "Because theres no space for a Game like this"
I'm sorry, but there is space for a Game like Elite Dangerous, theres is space for all kind of Games (even god damn Goat Simulator. God damn Goat Simulator!). And yes, there also is space for Games like what People like Meritz want. Theres nothing wrong with what you want, and when theres nothing on the horizon to do that then that is sad, but its not Elites fault or Problem and certainly not the problem of People who want a Game like Elite.
There are much, much more Games out there who don't do what I want, and thats allright. Not every Game can be design to my liking. A very easy and very simple truth.
And really, after all those Years where Braben refused to change his Vision for Elite in order to get the Money to make it I doubt he will do it now where he actually could do it. And the Game as of now is doing pretty good on the Business side and user Base is growing, so no need for panik-reactions.
Will it always do good? I don't know, but the thing is nobody does unless someone has a Time Machine.
Last edited:
Why don't you take a big expensive hauler to Leesti or Lave? You know, the hunting grounds of Mr. Itchy and his pals. They'll kill you free of charge.
Or not.
Wanna take your chances?
That's what a blockade is. Not an airtight denial. But a threat - that if you go there, chances are good something bad will happen to you. And it is absolutely possible to blockade whole systems in ED.
There's over 6000 players at least in one group that will never see that blockade, but you know that just as well as I do, which makes your statement a little strange.
"This" as the hip cats say these days.
Look, ED is not going to be for everyone, and it's not going to be alone. Vendetta Online has been around for a long time, Drifter is going well and I <3 it, EVE Valkyrie is coming to Beta soon-ish and Star Citizen is progressing and Descent just hit Kickstarter like a Mack truck. I am NOT saying "Dur hur, go play something else!" because that's mean and unhelpful. I am asking that people accept that there is room for a variety of games. Making them all the same is exactly what the "brown-grey military FPS", "Zombie Horde Survival", and "Minecraft-alike" all did and now you can't throw a duck without hitting several of each. ED, SC, Valkyrie, Descent... let each stand on its own. I have nothing against recommendations for making it better, but changing core components of gameplay and design ethos shouldn't happen. Accept ED, and by all means make recommendations, but recognize that it may not be the precise kind of gameplay you're looking for. That's all.
Mobius? They don't exist for me. Might as well be playing Star Citizen for all I care. I was commenting on Joe's statement that it is impossible to blockade systems even in Open because of the instancing. It's not.
Aye, mobius effectively doesn't exist for people who play open and i'm fine w/ that.
they have *chosen* to exclude themselves from the larger game because :reasons: .. What is completely ludicrous is that they can continue to effect the economy, sovreignty, and community goal outcomes of the open server even though they want absolutely nothing to do with it.
they have *chosen* to exclude themselves from the larger game because :reasons: .. What is completely ludicrous is that they can continue to effect the economy, sovreignty, and community goal outcomes of the open server even though they want absolutely nothing to do with it.
Many solo players don't realize it works both ways.
My source of weapons for my community goal has just dried up ...
Think about that for a second - open affects solo as well. Are you solo players 100 certain you want to be in the same simulation?
I don't mind it myself, but just tossing it out there.
My source of weapons for my community goal has just dried up ...
Think about that for a second - open affects solo as well. Are you solo players 100 certain you want to be in the same simulation?
I don't mind it myself, but just tossing it out there.
And here is the thing: We don't know. We don't have precise data, instead relying on hearsay, anecdotal evidence, and the few numbers that MMO devs let out. We have little enough data that we are left to personal interpretation.
And my own interpretation of the available data is that, as far as keeping a large and stable player base goes, promoting non-consensual PvP — for example, by giving bonuses to activities done while under threat of it happening — is the riskier way, only viable for small niche games. EVE is kind of a counter example, of course — but EVE, compared with nearly every other game that goes that way, is as out of proportion as WoW among the other PvE-centric MMOs, and just like with WoW most MMOs that tried to copy EVE's model crashed and burned. And even EVE doesn't allow the kind of lawless environment ED allows; yeah, suicide ganking exists, but targeting anything that can tank even a little bit comes with a fairly high cost, and before long suicide gankers need to stop to grind back reputation in order to not be shot down on sight in high-sec.
The issue is not PvP per see, of course; fully consensual PvP thrives, as the FPS and MOBA genres prove. And some countries do seem to enjoy non-consensual PvP, looking at which MMOs, locally-made and imported, have the largest player base there; Brazil, most of Asia (Japan being a huge exception), and a couple European countries come to mind. But, for a game meant to be sold mostly in the west, non-consensual PvP not only doesn't seem to be a big draw, it seems to drive away more players than it brings unless the game is meant just for the niche of open PvP lovers.
Atop that, ED has penalties for failure I consider inconsistent, counter-intuitive, and that for a new player might even feel random and arbitrary, particularly so after the tweak to repair costs. Being shot a lot carries no penalty until the shields are gone; it costs peanuts while the ship wasn't destroyed yet; and, when the ship is destroyed, the penalty can be 5% of the ship's value if the player has banked money, or 100% if the player hasn't, which means those that can afford the larger penalty actually get the smaller one. Also, it is a game that allows players to suffer actual setbacks when they die; games with penalties like this tend to quickly go through the available player base, soon becoming empty unless they manage to continually attract fresh blood. Those "I quit" posts we see here from players that couldn't cover the buyback cost? The vast majority of players that quit never post those, they just stop logging and leave the game (which, in a way, is even worse for the devs, as they don't get to know what drove those players away).
I do believe both of those are already issues for ED; other games with similarly free PvP and harsh penalties that posted player retention stats had serious issues keeping players in the game, and I have no reason to suspect ED would be any different. Solo and group modes mitigate those issues somewhat, but not completely, as Open being the default mode might make players feel like open is what the game is meant to be, and make them leave the game if they don't enjoy open even if they would have liked solo or a group like Mobius.
And no, I don't think open is the most important mode for ED's future. Every game that allows players to choose between playing alone or with others that I've seen release player preference statistics had far more players alone than in multiplayer. If that is the case here, far more important for ED's future is that players in solo and private groups don't feel like they are getting the short end of the stick.
Now, to be fair, I do think we both have issues with confirmation bias. I, for one, can't even understand how someone can find non-consensual PvP enjoyable; being attacked by another player when I've not opted for PvP isn't just unenjoyable, it often ruins my day, even if I wiped the floor with my would-be attacker, so I really can't see how it could be fun for others. As such, I have a hard time figuring what would be enjoyable for those players. What I can say is that anything that makes me feel like PvPers are getting special treatment, makes me feel like people that refuse to ever open themselves for PvP are being penalized, would sharply reduce my willingness to play, and reduce even more my willingness to purchase anything more from the game's store.
of course we realize this. the difference is we don't want to affect their sim. the fact that we do is simply because we are forced to.
What I find funny, is they are blockading away and there are hundreds if not thousands going in and out of that system in solo lol
I'd like "solo mode shouldnt exist" posts to stop...
Seriously, it annoys people. Solo has every right to do community goals - Yes, I get that there is an "unfair advantage" for solo players working a community goal VS. an open player.
Its a very easy fix by FDEV - Make it so that when a Solo/Private Group player turns in a bond for 30k (example) they get 30k in cash, but it only counts as..15k towards the community goal
Wheras the Open players can turn in the same 30k Bond, Receive the same 30k in cash, but it counts as 30k towards the community goal.
Its not so much about not letting this group do that with this, but just make the values weighted differently. Open, it is much harder to make that 30k than it is in solo, so it should be worth x times as much for the goal.
Is this a viable solution for anyone?
For anyone that can see my signature, I am an avid player of Solo/Group - but I really do hear, understand, and mostly agree with what the solo players are saying. I do want to start playing in open at some point. If anyone can give me a good reason as to why this wont work or help, then please explain...
P.S. I say very easy fix by FDEV, but honestly I have no idea. The concept is simple though
Edit - Sorry if anyone was offended by my tone or by the wording I used - had just read a very.....anger inducing thread about completely removing solo mode - Wont happen again - also - I want to reiterate that I fully support both SOLO and OPEN modes, and I believe there can be a great solution so everyone is happy in the end - aka this solution
Edit 2 - Again - I need to reiterate to everyone - This doesnt hurt anyone's personal finances, everyone will still make the same amount when they turn in a bond, everyone will still rank up within the community goal the same (top 70%, top 40%, top 15% etc) - The only thing this does is add a separate advantage to players who want to play in open - This allows them to affect an overall goal better than a solo player. This goal would be a NEW feature added in game if something like this goes through - It doesnt hurt the "advantage" of playing solo either - It really is a WIN-WIN compromise - I believe and fully support all 3 modes....
Seriously, it annoys people. Solo has every right to do community goals - Yes, I get that there is an "unfair advantage" for solo players working a community goal VS. an open player.
Its a very easy fix by FDEV - Make it so that when a Solo/Private Group player turns in a bond for 30k (example) they get 30k in cash, but it only counts as..15k towards the community goal
Wheras the Open players can turn in the same 30k Bond, Receive the same 30k in cash, but it counts as 30k towards the community goal.
Its not so much about not letting this group do that with this, but just make the values weighted differently. Open, it is much harder to make that 30k than it is in solo, so it should be worth x times as much for the goal.
Is this a viable solution for anyone?
For anyone that can see my signature, I am an avid player of Solo/Group - but I really do hear, understand, and mostly agree with what the solo players are saying. I do want to start playing in open at some point. If anyone can give me a good reason as to why this wont work or help, then please explain...
P.S. I say very easy fix by FDEV, but honestly I have no idea. The concept is simple though
Edit - Sorry if anyone was offended by my tone or by the wording I used - had just read a very.....anger inducing thread about completely removing solo mode - Wont happen again
- also - I want to reiterate that I fully support both SOLO and OPEN modes, and I believe there can be a great solution so everyone is happy in the end - aka this solution Edit 2 - Again - I need to reiterate to everyone - This doesnt hurt anyone's personal finances, everyone will still make the same amount when they turn in a bond, everyone will still rank up within the community goal the same (top 70%, top 40%, top 15% etc) - The only thing this does is add a separate advantage to players who want to play in open - This allows them to affect an overall goal better than a solo player. This goal would be a NEW feature added in game if something like this goes through - It doesnt hurt the "advantage" of playing solo either - It really is a WIN-WIN compromise - I believe and fully support all 3 modes....
Last edited by a moderator:
No, not the larger game, just some of the people in it. That's what choice means, it's not to spite you personally you know.
In before mega-thread merge!
- Status