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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
We players can "debate" this as long as we like, a fundamental part of the game is being able to swap between solo, private group and open at will, and have all 3 effect the economic data and community goal totals for the entire galaxy.

Elite Dangerous is a networked twitch response (shooter if you prefer) game. I've never played Eve, but my understanding of it is Eve isn't a game played in real time. Elite Dangerous has the same network limitations of a game like Counter Strike has. How many players do you actually have in one game (we could call that an instance) at the same time? Been a while since I played CS but I think 8v8 was max, maybe you can do 16v16 right now, I'd even believe 32v32 but not 128v128. Same goes for team fortress 2, or COD, or whatever real time game you like.

This might seem off topic from the open vs solo discussion, but it isn't.
32 players has been mentioned as the maximum number of players in the same "instance" in Elite Dangerous. Islands seems to be the term used by the developers, and it is different from an instance, but instance is a term that more gamers are familiar with.

If you are in open you can't interact with everyone. You have a maximum of 31 other players. This could be more than all the players in a system at the same time, but not during a community goal. Making everyone play in open wont do what many of the people in this thread want, the ability to not have players "stealth" past them in solo.

Lets say you and 9 people on your friends list want to blockade a community goal station and destroy every trade ship bringing in whatever widgets the cg needs. You can't do that, even if every player is in open. It would be cool if you could, but you cant.

Once you understand the limitation of the "matchmaking" and islands or instances the whole "debate" becomes moot in my opinion.

Just a quick thank you - I've been explaining this since page 3, so have a few others - I gave up around page 150 saying it, as some people just don't get it.

In it's simplest form, yes I am saying that I dislike players bringing their fully upgraded Anaconda's to open. The way they earned the ship changes how they act when in open play with it in ways that I feel are negative. I want open play to be where people play. Not a place for people to only be when they want PVP. In its current state open play is primarily a PVP mode. It lets people defecate where they live, so to speak.

Couple of points;

What you "like" or "dislike" is irrelevant. This is how the game was designed, made, advertised and sold - apart from DB knocking your door, then treating you like an idiot and using small words to describe ED to you. You only have yourself to blame for being part of a game you knew you would not like to start with.

Open Mode was always said to be the place where anything goes, the nutters, crazies, selfish and plain mean (disclaimer = not all open players are like that) - it has always been the case that if you want a set play style, make or join a private group. No one controls open, simple as that - if you don't like it being PvP focused, that is your problem - the only way to try and drive PvP players or the aforementioned crazies is to fight them in PvP..... kinda what they want.

If you want an open world, where you can chill, meet people and not worry about forced PvP - see my sig, you'll be welcomed with open arms :)
 
In it's simplest form, yes I am saying that I dislike players bringing their fully upgraded Anaconda's to open. The way they earned the ship changes how they act when in open play with it in ways that I feel are negative. I want open play to be where people play. Not a place for people to only be when they want PVP. In its current state open play is primarily a PVP mode. It lets people defecate where they live, so to speak.

To this, I'd answer that the problem is the lack of consequences for criminal acts. And I'm afraid the crime update described last week might not be enough...
 
In it's simplest form, yes I am saying that I dislike players bringing their fully upgraded Anaconda's to open. The way they earned the ship changes how they act when in open play with it in ways that I feel are negative. I want open play to be where people play. Not a place for people to only be when they want PVP. In its current state open play is primarily a PVP mode. It lets people defecate where they live, so to speak.

OK, I understand your point. I disagree with it, I also don't think I can convince you to change your mind, who knows? :)

I would like to see as many actual players in open as possible, I believe that allowing people to switch between modes will make some who play primarily in solo and group to try out open. That can't happen if they need to wipe their commander and start with a sidewinder to play in open.

There are many ways to earn money in the game, is it fair that another player has more money than me and they want to fight me? No that isn't fair. I can't argue against that. ED is unfair. Its one of its main features. There is no matchmaking. I think I'm currently ranked Dangerous (might be deadly, whichever one is lower). This isn't a real combat ranking, but its all the game has. I don't only get instanced with other Dangerous players. I usually fly in an FDL. I also am not only instanced with other players in FDLs.

Where do you draw the line on fairness? ED doesn't seem to have a line.
Maybe earning money in "easy" mode is a real concern, lets say it is. What about wings? Flying around with 3 other players and attacking 1 is about as unfair as you can get.

People earning in solo isn't OP, people with friends are OP :)

Just a quick thank you - I've been explaining this since page 3, so have a few others - I gave up around page 150 saying it, as some people just don't get it.
I'm a bit late to this party, I've seen the thread staring at me, but I've avoided it until another thread I posted in was merged into this.
I should have just looked up my beta posts and quoted myself :)
 
In it's simplest form, yes I am saying that I dislike players bringing their fully upgraded Anaconda's to open. The way they earned the ship changes how they act when in open play with it in ways that I feel are negative. I want open play to be where people play. Not a place for people to only be when they want PVP. In its current state open play is primarily a PVP mode. It lets people defecate where they live, so to speak.

Please answer me this. Just how do you even know HOW a particular player earned their ship? Oh and another one... What is the difference between a player trading up in Solo and a player trading up in an area of Open not frequented by other players... which is basically the same as being in solo?
 
To this, I'd answer that the problem is the lack of consequences for criminal acts. And I'm afraid the crime update described last week might not be enough...

Thats thats one of the many issues you will encounter. Imo the Open Play option is useless atm. You dont get rewards out of it. The only thing you will get is griefers. CG´s that way are impossible to participate in and since you have a max. of 31 Players per instance the chances you will find enough help against a wing of griefers kicking around in a CG is quite low.
 
Please answer me this. Just how do you even know HOW a particular player earned their ship? Oh and another one... What is the difference between a player trading up in Solo and a player trading up in an area of Open not frequented by other players... which is basically the same as being in solo?

u can add the player that plays in open with modified firewall for him to answer too :D
 
In it's simplest form, yes I am saying that I dislike players bringing their fully upgraded Anaconda's to open. The way they earned the ship changes how they act when in open play with it in ways that I feel are negative.

It's far from new but I still don't understand this whole argument. How do you know where someone has earned their ship?

Edit: Ah, I was ninja'd. Well played. :)
 
Last edited:
To this, I'd answer that the problem is the lack of consequences for criminal acts. And I'm afraid the crime update described last week might not be enough...

I don't disagree with this. I personally want to see the system become a little more robust. Crime in and of itself isn't a problem in my opinion. It is handled poorly in this game as far as multiplayer is concerned.

What you "like" or "dislike" is irrelevant. This is how the game was designed, made, advertised and sold - apart from DB knocking your door, then treating you like an idiot and using small words to describe ED to you. You only have yourself to blame for being part of a game you knew you would not like to start with.

That's quite brazen, and rather rude of you. It's statements like that that add to negative feelings on topics like this. This is an open forum meant for us to share our opinions. Telling someone their opinion is irrelevant because you don't agree with it is just plain disrespectful. Not only are you making a broad and unwarranted assumption about me as an individual you're also simultaneously suggesting I have a lack of intelligence.

Open Mode was always said to be the place where anything goes, the nutters, crazies, selfish and plain mean (disclaimer = not all open players are like that) - it has always been the case that if you want a set play style, make or join a private group. No one controls open, simple as that - if you don't like it being PvP focused, that is your problem - the only way to try and drive PvP players or the aforementioned crazies is to fight them in PvP..... kinda what they want.

Your description of open mode is exactly what I want from open mode. Forced PVP is a non-issue for me as I enjoy being forced out of my comfort zone and having to react.

I would be beyond happy to move my gameplay to a group mode if groups had the ability to use and require unique saves specific to that group. Then pure-open players like myself can create their own group and we would have one simple rule that everyone in that group wants. Think "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.". This might actually be the best possible solution to the problem, to be quite honest. It literally gives everyone, everything they want without forcing FD to make sweeping changes.

If you want an open world, where you can chill, meet people and not worry about forced PvP - see my sig, you'll be welcomed with open arms :)

I've looked at Mobius. I'm very fond of the idea of the group, interacting with other friendly players. For me however, a game set in a universe like Elite's isn't a complete experience without the risk of forced interaction. The desire for those experiences eliminates my desire to play outside of open. The current Mobius rule set for PVP being limited to CZ's doesn't allow that particular groups rule set to satisfy my particular needs.


The feedback from you two however does have my brain churning as I view something like this thread as a way to end at the most beneficial solution for everybody.

I think the solution to our problem could be a rework of how Elite handles groups. The core functionality of groups should be kept as it is now. Everyone can continue to participate in and create groups. Except instead of a group being tied to a single player, the group is separated into its own entity to enable transfer of group ownership.

Allow groups to the ability to require a unique save be used just for them, and allow groups the ability to automatically accept requests to join. At this point a "Pure-Open" group could manifest itself, and exist without a need for moderators, providing players like me the mode we want.


There's also the tidbit of information gleamed from todays dev update in terms of the account system supporting multiple instances of the galaxy. If they can bite the bullet and get the hardware to support a second galaxy simulation, a "Pure Online" mode being added that just runs on a seperate simulation all together would be a nice choice to add to the plate.
 
.....


There's also the tidbit of information gleamed from todays dev update in terms of the account system supporting multiple instances of the galaxy. If they can bite the bullet and get the hardware to support a second galaxy simulation, a "Pure Online" mode being added that just runs on a seperate simulation all together would be a nice choice to add to the plate.

Erm, either I don't get what you mean, or you don't get how the game works and misunderstood the update.

There is only 1 simulation, and from what I gather - as it stands now, there only will ever be 1 simulation.
"Instance" (also known as "Island") and the use of "Shadow Ban" in the Dev up is used to describe how they can just fence people away from each other within the one simulation. So if someone is being a pain, they can and will either move them to a private group play with other like minded pains, or just outright ban them from the game.
 
Erm, either I don't get what you mean, or you don't get how the game works and misunderstood the update.

There is only 1 simulation, and from what I gather - as it stands now, there only will ever be 1 simulation.
"Instance" (also known as "Island") and the use of "Shadow Ban" in the Dev up is used to describe how they can just fence people away from each other within the one simulation. So if someone is being a pain, they can and will either move them to a private group play with other like minded pains, or just outright ban them from the game.

Actually in this case the shadow server is a separate instance that does not effect and is not effected by the real universe.
 
It's far from new but I still don't understand this whole argument. How do you know where someone has earned their ship?

Edit: Ah, I was ninja'd. Well played. :)

Haha, usually because they talk about it. I especially notice this mindset when people die in Open and talk about going solo to recoup their losses after PVP. Occasionally I also see the "You didn't stop me, I'm going to play solo!" taunts but that's not nearly as common.

In fact, the only reason it's difficult to get past it is because people talk about it in game so frequently.
 
Actually in this case the shadow server is a separate instance that does not effect and is not effected by the real universe.

Just went back and re-read it.
I completely missed the use of the word "server" in that update!

Sorry Aidan - my fault, perhaps I should wake up before reading things ;)

Now, that is an interesting development. They have a static server that people can be put on - hmmmmm.
 
I would be beyond happy to move my gameplay to a group mode if groups had the ability to use and require unique saves specific to that group. Then pure-open players like myself can create their own group and we would have one simple rule that everyone in that group wants. Think "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.". This might actually be the best possible solution to the problem, to be quite honest. It literally gives everyone, everything they want without forcing FD to make sweeping changes.

I have said similar myself. Better group management and advertising would go a long way to resolving some of the issues but I still do not understand the whole separate save issue.

Sometimes I might want to play Solo, sometimes I might want to play an open PVE, sometimes PvP. It depends on my mood and which computer I'm actually playing on. I do not have the time or motivation to build up three or more separate positions. And I still fail to see the reason that I should have to.
 
Erm, either I don't get what you mean, or you don't get how the game works and misunderstood the update.

I simply don't think I was communicating effectively. What I was trying to say is that the following statement illustrates that the games underlying programming has the ability to assign a Commander to one of multiple versions of the galaxy simulation.

We also have the concept of a shadow ban. A shadow ban will allow an player to continue playing Elite: Dangerous but will put them on a separate server that won’t affect any of our honest players; or the galaxy simulation. A player can be shadow banned for a day, a week or permanently depending on severity of the action and if the player repeatedly performs prohibited actions.

Basically with that my understanding is that they could, if they so desired, dedicate hardware to running another galaxy simulation and giving players the ability to participate on both seperately, but one could be dedicated to pure-open play. This however is unrealistic to the promise made by FD to the playerbase and backers on one universe.

This again, points me back to the idea of simply enhancing groups to the point where a private group would be able to operate like their own restricted "This is our version of the "rules" of the universe" version of the game.

This also opens the door for multiple commander saves being a function the game can handle. This can only mean more positive impact on available choices to players.
 
Haha, usually because they talk about it. I especially notice this mindset when people die in Open and talk about going solo to recoup their losses after PVP. Occasionally I also see the "You didn't stop me, I'm going to play solo!" taunts but that's not nearly as common.

In fact, the only reason it's difficult to get past it is because people talk about it in game so frequently.

They could be bluffing. But okay, let's take that at face value. What is the actual difference between the ships earned on different modes? Are solo ships faster? More armour? More guns? Obviously the answer is they are not different at all. So why do you worry about the differentiation between identical ships?
 
I have said similar myself. Better group management and advertising would go a long way to resolving some of the issues but I still do not understand the whole separate save issue.

Sometimes I might want to play Solo, sometimes I might want to play an open PVE, sometimes PvP. It depends on my mood and which computer I'm actually playing on. I do not have the time or motivation to build up three or more separate positions. And I still fail to see the reason that I should have to.

If advanced group functionality were to allow people to create their own version of Open, as Mobius has done, you would not be requiredto participate in my group. Just like I'm not required to play with Mobius.

Again I really just have to go with my gut on what's "right" for this situation, and that's giving the group functionality an overhaul.
 
If advanced group functionality were to allow people to create their own version of Open, as Mobius has done, you would not be requiredto participate in my group. Just like I'm not required to play with Mobius.

Again I really just have to go with my gut on what's "right" for this situation, and that's giving the group functionality an overhaul.

I still might want to join different groups at different times. Not everyone wants to limit their gameplay experience to only one play style all the time.
 
They could be bluffing. But okay, let's take that at face value. What is the actual difference between the ships earned on different modes? Are solo ships faster? More armour? More guns? Obviously the answer is they are not different at all. So why do you worry about the differentiation between identical ships?

I worry about the differentiation in risk during acquisition. For me an MMO, especially an open world PVP MMO like Elite is if you only play open. For me as an individual I receive my PVP satisfaction from my level of personal success in the game world when compared to the norm. The act of surviving in the game world is where I get my satisfaction but when I look at the jumpers, I can't help but to feel like I'm not playing the same game.
 
I worry about the differentiation in risk during acquisition.

Let's explore deeper then. To bring back a question Joe made earlier (it's not a new question) what about the Open player who earned their ship by trading and Bounty Hunting in a handful of system far from the core worlds. They didn't ever come across another player all the time they played. What about the Open player who plays during a quiet timezone? But even less extreme, what about two players, playing the same systems at the same time. They each encounter different players and therefore different risk even though they all in the same play mode. Someone having to fight me may well be getting off more lightly than fighting some of the NPCs. "Risk" is not measurable, certainly not by which game mode we play in.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom