Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].

[Jorlin]

In the beginning I feel the game was designed for space trucking (as Jorlin calls it). I believe the developers then realised that they could tap into a larger market by giving the game more elements to appeal to PvP players which started with Wings and now Powerplay which will certainly attract the PvP market. So now the game is in a kind of limbo - do the developers prefer their PvE audience or their PvP audience?

i don't think so.
"wings" were early on discussed in the DDF as a feature (and planned).
better NPC interaction, "quests" and dynamic factions were planned early too.

just because it wasn't present when the alpha testing began doesn't mean it was just pulled out of the air a few weeks ago... because FD "changed their mind".
all of this was planned with the concept in mind we see today.

i don't see any special appeal to PvP players here.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Look at the wording of Community Goals. Help. Assist. Aid. Contribution. Community Goal - a goal for the community. The higher the tier the more rewards everyone gets. They are designed for cooperation. Not competition. Yes they have a leaderboard and higher rewards for higher contributions because they are the people who have helped the community reach the goal the most. Well done to those people, you've done us proud. Work together not against each other and everyone benefits.

You can't count PP for the reason I said. We don't know yet which way it will actually lean. It's guesswork.

c.f.: Prisoner's Dilemma / (ok, FDs forums doesn't allow the T word because it can be used to refer to a female part of the anatomy, but its the one that goes with tat)-for-tat.

 

[atak2]

Look at the wording of Community Goals. Help. Assist. Aid. Contribution. Community Goal - a goal for the community. The higher the tier the more rewards everyone gets. They are designed for cooperation. Not competition. Yes they have a leaderboard and higher rewards for higher contributions because they are the people who have helped the community reach the goal the most. Well done to those people, you've done us proud. Work together not against each other and every one benefits.

You are quite right there SteveLaw. I at this point do not know ED's direction. Somethings concur with my beliefs, some things concur with yours.

I would really like a definitive statement from Frontier about the direction they want to push the game. I would accept it whatever they say and move on if they are not appealing to my player demographic or stay if they are.

As usual this is completely anecdotal but a lot of my gaming group also hangs on the periphery waiting to see what ED's direction is. Do they buy the game or look elsewhere for the type of PvP experience they hoped ED would provide?

I'm sure there are also PvE players waiting to see whether the game will be one for them.

 

[SteveLaw]

c.f.: Prisoner's Dilemma / (ok, FDs forums doesn't allow the T word because it can be used to refer to a female part of the anatomy, but its the one that goes with tat)-for-tat.

That looks at how people behave it doesn't address how the game was designed. The point being that if people are calling for changes to make better something that goes against the original intent, then it's likely that that request will be denied.

 

[Jorlin]

I'm out for now... see you tomorrow

 

[atak2]

i don't think so.
"wings" were early on discussed in the DDF as a feature (and planned).
better NPC interaction, "quests" and dynamic factions were planned early too.

just because it wasn't present when the alpha testing began doesn't mean it was just pulled out of the air a few weeks ago... because FD "changed their mind".
all of this was planned with the concept in mind we see today.

i don't see any special appeal to PvP players here.

You could be right Jorlin. The game might have unintentionally drawn in an unexpected player demographic.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm out for now... see you tomorrow

Have a good sleep.

Edit: Off to bed myself. Night all.

 

[Jockey79]

I at this point do not know ED's direction.

Yes you do know - you just refuse to admit it to yourself.
Here you go, information - from the Devs;

From the Kickstarter;
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*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,*

From the forum archives;
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)

Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."

DB on "Griefing" and "Griefers"
(Listen out for the part where FD can move them in to a private group of just each other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M

Rededit Topic on "unusual event for players to come against players" (With Twitch Video)
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangero...ayers_to_come/

Direct Twitch Link; (Note DB use "Occasonial" and "unusual" regarding players interacting)
http://www.twitch.tv/egx/b/571962295?t=69m00s

Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)

Wikipedia;
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.

Oxford English Dictionary (Online);
An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .

The first step, is admitting your wrong about ED

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Yes you do know - you just refuse to admit it to yourself.
Here you go, information - from the Devs

This part has always bothered me about your "little wall of choice".

"Your reputation is affected by your personal choices.Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin -the choice is yours to make."

These two don't have anything to do with mode switching.

 

[Dave1235]

Such a wonderful example of a Solo/Group advocate behaviour. What a fantastic human being...

Easy Tiger!, Fire70 and I have a little bit of banter going on here that you might have missed, did you see what I was replying to? "You actually play?? I thought you spent all you time in this thread....", I read that with a smile, I was not offended, I am pretty sure he will understand where I am coming from as my words mostly relate back to previous conversations (trying to paraphrase him as best I can), and I am pretty sure he will take it as it was meant, although reading it again a smiley or two wouldn't have hurt.

I like the guy, he is certainly tenacious, obviously enjoys the same game we all do, but we disagree on one part of it, that does not exclude me from liking him, I also agree with people I argue with on other points, and support & +1 rep them where we agree. Fire70 asked me to block him early on in this thread and I said I no (he had done nothing I found offensive and was free to block me if he wanted to, as he still is) I said I would prefer to continue the conversation, I am glad I did, or I would just remember him as someone I used to disagree with.

I will leave the "What a fantastic human being" part alone if you don't mind.

<Snipped too for same reason> "example of a Solo/Group advocate behaviour.", I am not adverse to open, I used it pretty much exclusively from PB to mid Gamma , I have never said I will not play open ever again (apart from in reply to people telling me I need to start a new CMDR from scratch to do it, etc). There are people here I would go into open to meet in a heartbeat, Jorlin being one of them, I tried to meet him in Beta but I was always online too late, one day maybe I hope .... Vipers at dawn Mr Rabbit .

I am not going to link every post so far and explain it, but I will explain the first one I can think of as an example. Fire70 said "don't worry Dave I will add you as a friend, you will never be lonely again", I replied "Not sure if that's a threat or a positive lol, I will give you the benefit of doubt though". I mentioned if he did add me I would PM him and ask for the lottery numbers (my CMDR name is not forum name ) etc, a bit of banter.

Fire70 is one of maybe a dozen or so people I would actually come into open to meet, anyway it's all a mute point, If Fire70 took offence he is welcome to PM me and we can discuss it, if I believe he was genuinely offended by my post I will be happy to offer an open apology, and mean every single word of it, I don't come here to offend people, I come here to discuss the a game I enjoy playing.

 

[fademist]

This part has always bothered me about your "little wall of choice".

"Your reputation is affected by your personal choices.Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin -the choice is yours to make."

These two don't have anything to do with mode switching.

mode switching is under the choice ...
cause to do that u need to choose to doit

 

[Jockey79]

This part has always bothered me about your "little wall of choice".

"Your reputation is affected by your personal choices.Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin -the choice is yours to make."

These two don't have anything to do with mode switching.

Play the game your way:

It's a heck of line isn't it. It is as broad as it is wide.
It is a sentence, that includes everyone, while excludes everyone at the same time.

In the realm of English literature and the realm of English language - it is the most stupid sentence ever created by mankind.
In the realm of advertising however - it is one of the most clever and devious lines I've ever seen.

The sentiment behind it, says we can all get what we want...... this thread, and the other threads before it - prove otherwise.

My "little wall" as you put it, is the Devs words, not mine. If you do not get the "intent", then you are left with the words, and lets face it - words without intent, are meaningless.

 

[Dave1235]

I refer you to the first 70 pages of the old thread, where open advocates behaved so badly, people quit the forums to never post again - down to the direct insults and personal attacks Open advocates got away with.
And as you're not paying attention, that is satire - something Dave and I both do. Again, something Open advocates did early on in the old thread.

lol, I refer you to the 10,000 page thread of Solo/Group advocates behaving badly so people quit the thread and never post again. Its not satire - its passive-aggressive insults.

Ignore the typo, "page = post". And the "Its not satire - its passive-aggressive insults". Nothing positive will come from discussing any of this.

OK I am sorry I created this little storm in a teacup, I tried to make a quick and witty response, to someone I enjoy debating with a little during my lunch hour (well more lunch 10 minutes today actually).

"I refer you to the first 70 pages of the old thread" = "I refer you to the 10,000 page thread". Its the same thread , the parent of the one we are using right now to discuss (this is not an invite to get into a "quoting competition", please remember Mods have feelings too!)

Me: "The cost to the forum and mods sanity might not be worth it though, I would imagine there would be a lot of annoyed and vocal people refusing to take responsibility for their own choices."

@Jockey79,

I want to comment... but laughing too hard at the last part !!

Thanks, again I was smiling as I posted. I found it amusing, it would appear that makes 2 of us in total (well 3, I think I got a +1 as well).

Anyway gotta run I need to go "terrorise" the "mobius" group, I did threaten to say hello to everyone I meet tonight, and I always carry out my threats, you have to do it!, they need to know who is in charge or they wont respect you, well something like that anyway. If I am being honest I just heard I am missing out on a lot of fun and want to see what Lave & Leesti look like in Mobius.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Play the game your way:

It's a heck of line isn't it. It is as broad as it is wide.
It is a sentence, that includes everyone, while excludes everyone at the same time.

In the realm of English literature and the realm of English language - it is the most stupid sentence ever created by mankind.
In the realm of advertising however - it is one of the most clever and devious lines I've ever seen.

The sentiment behind it, says we can all get what we want...... this thread, and the other threads before it - prove otherwise.

My "little wall" as you put it, is the Devs words, not mine. If you do not get the "intent", then you are left with the words, and lets face it - words without intent, are meaningless.

Wow.........really? Hahahaha ok then.

 

[Dave1235]

I would actually like the mods to be more heavy handed on this thread even if it included myself getting sanctioned.

+1 Rep, I agree with every single word you said (in this post)!. Thank you for helping to show how we can both agree and disagree at the same time on different parts of the game and its discussion.

 

[FuzzySpider]

You can have some fun and strange encounters in Open and thats why I like it. Recently I was playing late at night and got interdicted by a pirate. Instead of issuing demands he started typing the lyrics of Miley Cyrus's Wreaking ball. Through conversation he eventually asked to join the teamspeak server I was using. It turns out there are several russian people that randomly join teamspeak servers and/or games and sing to players. These russian guys sang songs to me on teamspeak I requested (Ziggy would like this - I got them to do Life on Mars).

Yes, because as we all know Miley Cyrus fits in so well to the Elite atmosphere.

One again an advocate for Open play sells Solo really well.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Yes, because as we all know Miley Cyrus fits in so well to the Elite atmosphere.

Of course she does! She looks like a classic onionhead victim.

 

[SteveLaw]

This part has always bothered me about your "little wall of choice".

"Your reputation is affected by your personal choices.Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin -the choice is yours to make."

These two don't have anything to do with mode switching.

How does having a choice to play the game your way exclude the choice to switch modes? If I choose to swap modes then that's the the way I play the game. How does the ability to switch modes - programmed into the game code, available from the game menu with just a couple of clicks - suggest to you that mode switching isn't intended?

 

[Aimeryan]

The point being that if people are calling for changes to make better something that goes against the original intent, then it's likely that that request will be denied.

I agree with this. I think, however, there is a general misunderstanding involved here; people like myself would like to improve the game from our point of view without affecting how the game plays for those at current. Is this difficult? Yes, oh yes. Is it to be ridiculed and sniffed at for trying? No.

However, as has been discussed, FD's intent is incredibly important here - perhaps more so than any thing else (even whether things are feasible; with some thought there may be workarounds). All we are talking about is pointless if FD does not care about making some part of the game is some way (that doesn't affect what currently exists) a direct competitive interaction (with meaning) amongst players.

As atak2 said, there are numerous ways in which the game is preceding in a direction towards conflict between players being meaningful. For example, taken from Newsletter #72:

"Players choose which system their Power targets," Sammarco says. "At the end of the week the target will be chosen and objectives will be created. If your Power tasks you to conquer a system, there will always be an opposing mission for the other side.

"One of my favourite parts of Powerplay is how the objectives match the faction's ethos," Sammarco continues. "For example, if a major economic Power sends in their traders for a financial takeover against a military powerhouse, the other side may be tasked with piracy missions to destroy or loot their cargo.

That would suggest to me a PvP element (along with PvE elements). How could the players working for the military powerhouse destroy or loot the economic players' cargo if the economic players are all in Solo? Does not compute. Is this meant to be a PvE task only or not? Because that is what it will be with the current system. If it is not, something has to change (but, not affect those who enjoy Solo).

- - - Updated - - -

I would actually like the mods to be more heavy handed on this thread even if it included myself getting sanctioned.

Indeed, I would too. There are two posters in here in particular that fouled the pleasant debate and discussion I was part of some pages ago.

 

[Rolfandor]

I think mode switching is just fine.

 

[TartanDragon]

@ Aimeryan

At no point does your quote of devs say anything about attacking other players. If fact I suspect that the two opposing missions will be in different systems, seperated by quite a distance. Just because it says piracy and looting do not assume that it means PvP, as it has also been stated that PP is for all modes.