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

[Robert Maynard]

Not if bonuses are only given for actually interacting with other players.

.... which would force rather than encourage players to interact when participating in Community Goals. If something has to be forced then it's going to be unappealing to a proportion of the player base.

I don't buy that for a second. Say it takes a cluster of 25 systems to maintain the background sim. Ok, they can easily rent another 25 from Amazon (at considerable cost perhaps). But this is totally doable. And they can manually intervene in each... again incurring additional cost, but still tractable.

Possible does not necessarily mean desirable - I would suggest that you read Michael's quote on separation of the background simulation in the OP.

I think that all three game modes are valid gameplay choices, and they each have their place. Perfect. Don't get rid of anything. Just don't mix them -- it's bad news.

You say, "Don't get rid of anything." - except, of course, the ability for all players to choose which game mode they play in on a session-by-session basis that has been a core feature of the stated game design since the beginning?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I think that all three game modes are valid gameplay choices, and they each have their place. Perfect. Don't get rid of anything. Just don't mix them -- it's bad news.

I love ED, but I am worried that mode jumping and related hijinks will be a major issue going forward. Other MMOs have solved the problem: separate worlds for separate modes, and no force on earth allows a PvE transfer to PvP.

It is not going to happen (I hope) but hypothetically if FD did this, do you think that anyone who backed - often to the sum of 100s of £s on the basis of mode switching should be able to get a refund then?

blocking mode swapping would ruin the game for many people. I must admit personally it would not completely ruin it for me and I would not be asking for a refund, I would just never go in ALL again, but I certainly would not have thrown as much money at it as I did if I had known that for me the game would not have supported co-op PvE with my friends. (which is what you are in effect asking to happen, becasue I know for a fact given the choice some of my mates would choose ALL, some would choose solo and others would choose private group and you suggestion actively stops us playing together)

As it stands now, I can play with all of my friends when my internet is good, and I can play alone when my internet is bad, or I am having one of my days where I have no interest in human interaction.

I accept for some the game is currently broken, but can you not see that for others the game is working as advertised and any "fix" is actually ruining the game for them, and as such I would sympathise if such a player asked for their money back.

So it ultimately falls back to the thing of, there are loads of games which only offer 1 mode, there are very few like elite. Elite was advertised as allowing mode switching, so,

Caveat emptor and all that.

edit... For the record I think i need to add, I have a stinker of a hangover today so any added grumpiness in my posts is not intended to offend

Damn the Cambridge Blue pub......... and double damn Köstritzer Black Lager

 

[Stormprooter]

.... or maybe they simply made the competition in open only to forestall any questions regarding how a particular player reached Elite and subsequent complaints should the player have used solo or private groups.

I was under the impression that FD wanted to encourage open play as their preferred mode for people playing the game. Odd as that may seem in this thread, FD's vision has always been to encourage open multiplayer (as far as I can tell).

My own 2p....
Personally, I think more is needed to be done to make PvP (especially piracy) and PvE co-op better in open play (I'm sure FD are looking to make improvements too), however, I do not agree with nerfing or excluding players in private group or solo play - the idea is to encourage open play by making it compelling though gameplay (not necesarily reward credits), this is where PvP and PvE co-op need *something* to make them more compelling.

 

[SiriusSeven]

You say, "Don't get rid of anything." - except, of course, the ability for all players to choose which game mode they play in on a session-by-session basis that has been a core feature of the stated game design since the beginning?

Yes. Exactly. I wrote what I meant.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes. Exactly. I wrote what I meant.

Then what was written is contradictory - on the one hand "Don't get rid of anything." and at the same time say "don't mix them" (meaning the three game modes).

The modes are intertwined and have been from the beginning - simply different settings on the matchmaking system that places all players into the same galactic background simulation - and all players have the ability to switch between the three game modes as they please.

 

[SiriusSeven]

stuff

I get, and I trust that mode switching was discussed early in the KS -- though, to be honest I'm not sure I've seen the quote that specifically deals with session by session mode switching with the same CMDR (and not by switching to an alternative CMDR persona). But, you guys have been around longer, I do trust that it's there.

That doesn't impact how I feel about this feature. Now, before you yell "do your research before buying", consider 3 things: (1) I did. I read the official description. I read many reviews. I watched all the tutorial videos and some let's play videos. This issue was not discussed. (2) it's hard to realize how such a detail impacts things until you play for a while and get a sense of the issues. (3) Yes. It's a minus, but it doesn't undo all the great work FD have done. It's still a "buy" in my opinion.

 

[SiriusSeven]

Then what was written is contradictory - on the one hand "Don't get rid of anything." and at the same time say "don't mix them" (meaning the three game modes).

The modes are intertwined and have been from the beginning - simply different settings on the matchmaking system that places all players into the same galactic background simulation - and all players have the ability to switch between the three game modes as they please.

I should have phrased that more defensively. I'm sorry. The "do not change anything" was intending to refer to and be contextualized by the previous sentence praising the existence and role of the 3 modes. I don't want any mode closed. I don't want any mode buffed / nerfed. Leave everything *except* mode switching as is.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I should have phrased that more defensively. I'm sorry. The "do not change anything" was intending to refer to and be contextualized by the previous sentence praising the existence and role of the 3 modes. I don't want any mode closed. I don't want any mode buffed / nerfed. Leave everything *except* mode switching as is.

To "just" remove mode switching is major change, in my opinion, as it constitutes a core gameplay feature of the game. From the outset we have been told to "play the way you want to", whether that be alone, only with friends or in open play - and we have been told that we will have the ability to change modes "at will". From the Kickstarter FAQ (my emphasis):

How does multiplayer work?

You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) some of the other ships you meet as you travel around are real players as opposed to computer-controlled ships. It may be a friend you have agreed to rendezvous with here, or it may be another real player you have encountered by chance. All players will be part of a “Pilot’s Federation” – that is how they are distinguished from non-players – so you will be able to tell who is a player and who is a non-player easily.

You will be able to save your position in certain key places (probably just in space stations, but possibly while in hyperspace too, if we feel it is needed). A save-and-quit option will be freely available at those points, as will the subsequent reload, but there will be a game cost for a reload following player death. Your ship will still be intact in the condition it was when the save occurred, but there will be a game currency charge (referred to as an insurance policy) for this. This is to prevent the obvious exploit of friends cooperating and killing each other to get each other’s cargo. If you can’t pay, then it will accumulate as an in-game debt, and the police may chase you!

There are no multiplayer lobbies, and the game will be played across many servers, augmented by peer-to-peer traffic for fast responses. Session creation and destruction happens during the long-range hyperspace countdown and hyperspace effect (which is a few seconds only), so is transparent to the player.

We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.

Last updated: Wed, Nov 14 2012 12:52 PM +00:00

As the quoted text makes no mention of a requirement to create a new commander for each mode, it is perfectly reasonable to take from it that one's commander is portable (complete with assets) between modes - indeed, that inference has been proven to be correct as that is how the feature works in the game as launched.

 

[SiriusSeven]

As the quoted text makes no mention of a requirement to create a new commander for each mode, it is perfectly reasonable to take from it that one's commander is portable (complete with assets) between modes - indeed, that inference has been proven to be correct as that is how the feature works in the game as launched.

Thanks. As I said, I trusted that it was there.
It also says that each group/mode can have different rules, which might give them the leeway they need to tweak some of the major fallout (like community goals). Interesting.

 

[CMDR John Casey]

Who honestly knows what mode they want to play in until they have experienced the game?
What happens when a open player (or solo for that matter) wants to team up with his friends in a private group for a bit of fun?

I didn't talk about groups. I'm fine with that.

Non starter.

Not many people would want to start a new game just to change modes.

This actually wouldn't get more people into Open, if that's your goal.

My goal is to have a fair game, not to eliminate a mode or boost another one. For me, gaining advantages (as money, or any other way) in one mode (no matter if solo or open) to use them in the other should be considered as cheating. Period. I don't want to bring people in open neither eliminate a mode of play, I'm just saying we should separate careers.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Thanks. As I said, I trusted that it was there.
It also says that each group/mode can have different rules, which might give them the leeway they need to tweak some of the major fallout (like community goals). Interesting.

Indeed it might. However it also says that there "They can be private groups just your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer" which is even more interesting as we only have one open group at the moment - this would open up the possibility of other open group(s) with different rulesets - PvE only, maybe.

 

[Joe Spivey]

I didn't talk about groups. I'm fine with that.



My goal is to have a fair game, not to eliminate a mode or boost another one. For me, gaining advantages (as money, or any other way) in one mode (no matter if solo or open) to use them in the other should be considered as cheating. Period. I don't want to bring people in open neither eliminate a mode of play, I'm just saying we should separate careers.

You say it should be considered cheating and that we should separate careers. What you haven't said is why... sorry if that is in an earlier post but this is where I came in.

 

[fademist]

I didn't talk about groups. I'm fine with that.



My goal is to have a fair game, not to eliminate a mode or boost another one. For me, gaining advantages (as money, or any other way) in one mode (no matter if solo or open) to use them in the other should be considered as cheating. Period. I don't want to bring people in open neither eliminate a mode of play, I'm just saying we should separate careers.

and is cheating useing the choices game gives you?

 

[SiriusSeven]

Indeed it might. However it also says that there "They can be private groups just your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer" which is even more interesting as we only have one open group at the moment - this would open up the possibility of other open group(s) with different rulesets - PvE only, maybe.

now that gets me excited

too much of my fun, and that of 5000 others, now depends on 1 CMDR sticking around: Möbius

a frightening single point of failure

 

[chagnampra]

And just to follow up on that, in case it wasn't clear:

I think that all three game modes are valid gameplay choices, and they each have their place. Perfect. Don't get rid of anything. Just don't mix them -- it's bad news.

I love ED, but I am worried that mode jumping and related hijinks will be a major issue going forward. Other MMOs have solved the problem: separate worlds for separate modes, and no force on earth allows a PvE transfer to PvP.

I am also a Mobius player, some of the time, and I agree that Community Goal mode jumping needs to be addressed, either with separate goals or alternative rewards.

HOWEVER, I enjoy dipping into each game mode for my own reasons, as I'm sure do many others. Everyone has different life circumstances; not everyone can play the same way, everyday. One day I may feel up for some Open / Private Group PvP and another day I may fancy some Private Group / Solo sedate trading or exploring - and why the heck shouldn't I be allowed to do that? As long as I'm having fun and not harming anyone else's experience, there is NO reason why not. "Infinite freedom to play the way you want", Frontier said.

Tweaking the mode jumping in Community Goals is all that's needed, IMO.

 

[CMDR John Casey]

You say it should be considered cheating and that we should separate careers. What you haven't said is why... sorry if that is in an earlier post but this is where I came in.

Well my experience in CG shows that: Combat Zones are more profitable (and enjoyable) in solo than in open - no problem with that. Just in Lugh, combat farming in solo allowed profits at least 4 times those in open. The problem arises in a scenario like the following one: commander X and Y have the same ship. X plays in open and is struggling to afford good weapons/shields/engines. Y goes to solo, farms and then come back to open with a better equipped ship in the same time. I think this is not fair.

Another example: faction A (I'm talking of players group that do role playing) tries to blockade a space station where faction B tries to deliver some cargo. Players in B pass to solo to elude the blockade. The result of the CG is therefore independent from the effort by faction A.

it seems that the problem is related only to CGs anyway, so probably that is what should be fixed and not the modes of play.

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

and is cheating useing the choices game gives you?

If the exploit you found is unfair and probably was not foreseen by the game designers, yes.

 

[Stewart_]

I didn't talk about groups. I'm fine with that.



My goal is to have a fair game, not to eliminate a mode or boost another one. For me, gaining advantages (as money, or any other way) in one mode (no matter if solo or open) to use them in the other should be considered as cheating. Period. I don't want to bring people in open neither eliminate a mode of play, I'm just saying we should separate careers.

Since commanders aren't in competition with each other for the most part, what do you consider cheating?

 

[SiriusSeven]

I am also a Mobius player, some of the time, and I agree that Community Goal mode jumping needs to be addressed, either with separate goals or alternative rewards.

HOWEVER, I enjoy dipping into each game mode for my own reasons, as I'm sure do many others. Everyone has different life circumstances; not everyone can play the same way, everyday. One day I may feel up for some Open / Private Group PvP and another day I may fancy some Private Group / Solo sedate trading or exploring - and why the heck shouldn't I be allowed to do that? As long as I'm having fun and not harming anyone else's experience, there is NO reason why not. "Infinite freedom to play the way you want", Frontier said.

Tweaking the mode jumping in Community Goals is all that's needed, IMO.

That's a reasonable compromise

I say compromise because we are both entitled to our own equally valid opinion.

I ask, not to be argumentative, but honestly curious: would your playstyle be satisfied by having multiple CMDRs. If not, then ok. I'm just trying to appreciate the ramifications of my suggestions

 

[Stewart_]

Well my experience in CG shows that: Combat Zones are more profitable (and enjoyable) in solo than in open - no problem with that. Just in Lugh, combat farming in solo allowed profits at least 4 times those in open. The problem arises in a scenario like the following one: commander X and Y have the same ship. X plays in open and is struggling to afford good weapons/shields/engines. Y goes to solo, farms and then come back to open with a better equipped ship in the same time. I think this is not fair.

Another example: faction A (I'm talking of players group that do role playing) tries to blockade a space station where faction B tries to deliver some cargo. Players in B pass to solo to elude the blockade. The result of the CG is therefore independent from the effort by faction A.

it seems that the problem is related only to CGs anyway, so probably that is what should be fixed and not the modes of play.

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



If the exploit you found is unfair and probably was not foreseen by the game designers, yes.

Since there is a high level of instancing there is also a high probability of avoiding blockades any way in open. Elite really isn't designed for Eve type strategies such as blockades.

 

[Jockey79]

, and no force on earth allows a PvE transfer to PvP.

You may want to Google that and revise this part - took me 10 seconds to find a list of game that let you level up in PvE then move to PvP
(for a fee of course, but you can do it as often as you want to pay)