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

[TheSpaceTexan]

And this is why I'm unlikely to ever head to open. I don't fire on other players, and won't accept being fired at by another player, unless we both have agreed beforehand to fight.

I mean, a PvE-only version of open? I would be there in a blink. The current open, where PvP is possible, though? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

It's not about the risk, the loses, whatever. The game could have me respawning for free from the closest station with all my cargo, bounds, data, whatever, intact; the experience would still be unpleasant for me, which means I would still choose to avoid it. I play a lot of PvP, mind, but I can only have fun with PvP when I'm absolutely sure everyone is in there to have fun fighting.

And, thus, why I'm going to defend Solo being equal to open, and having all the content Open gets, until the very end; I was explicitly promised a game where I could just flick a switch and stop seeing everyone else, and it was strongly implied that doing this wouldn't bring any kind of penalty. Not exactly why I backed the game's Kickstart — I did it for the offline mode — but it's the closest remaining thing.

Choice is fine, but again, what is this game trying to be? Why is it trying to be an MMO and then the next moment a Solo game? E-Honor aside, All the player vs player interactions I was in always warranted a justification for doing so. There have only been a few rare cases of the prime definition of Griefing. From what I've noticed, its either "Hey, you want to fight" "Stop pirating/killing our traders" "We're blockading this system", the list goes on. The community of this game, unlike many other, has been really tame and understands the danger and risk of owning an expensive ship. I think players sympathies other players and rarely choose to go out of their way to destroy one another unless it is absolutely necessary.

Having solo players and private groups equally impact the open play style of the game is entirely silly. I thought the whole purpose was "We are tiny and insignificant, our choices essentially mean nothing." Why should one player have insurmountable power as an Open player when there is NO WAY TO STOP THEM.

 

[Jockey79]

I also updated my post you quoted btw;

I really am entirely confused as to what this game is trying to do or be. It wants one thing, but doesn't allow another that would help it be better. I am totally cool with people not wanting to fight or even talk to me, just knowing there are other players out there than the same old faces I see is more rewarding for me.

The ability to influence the background simulation AND ON OTHER PLATFORMS just makes things even more confusing and just overall frustrating. Why should I even go into Open, when I can essentially avoid that blockade made by players?

Its a Space Trading and Combat game sure, but now it has elements that essentially make an MMO. Which is really, really, really confusing and hinders or just downright makes certain things for groups just absolutely harder.

Be better for who exactly?

As for the BGS and other platforms - you can only have 32 people in any 1 instance, so even in open, blockades will never work (unless FD do one).
As for MMO, yes it is sold as one, but people misunderstand the term MMO and what it actually means - that is not FDs fault (though I think they should remove the MMO tag)
And groups of up to 32 can do all sorts of things - just not interfere with anyone else unless they let you

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Be better for who exactly?

As for the BGS and other platforms - you can only have 32 people in any 1 instance, so even in open, blockades will never work (unless FD do one).
As for MMO, yes it is sold as one, but people misunderstand the term MMO and what it actually means - that is not FDs fault (though I think they should remove the MMO tag)
And groups of up to 32 can do all sorts of things - just not interfere with anyone else unless they let you

I think its more or less an Online Role-playing game with a massive multiplayer presence Space simulator and classic multiplayer versus as well as solo elements thrown in for good measure.

Why does it have the ability to let Solo and Private groups basically ignore any sort of challenges that Open play players have? Its just outright weird.

 

[DarkWalker]

The ability to influence the background simulation AND ON OTHER PLATFORMS just makes things even more confusing and just overall frustrating. Why should I even go into Open, when I can essentially avoid that blockade made by players?

Ideally, because you want to test your mettle by running the blockade set by other players? If running the blockade is fun for you, do it; if it's not fun, why complain that you can avoid it? Unless you want to force players that don't find running the blockade enjoyable to still do it regardless, and potentially ruin the game for them, but I don't support those that think like that.

Personally, I see the option to just switch modes and completely ignore any attempt by other players to restrict what I can do as one of the best features of the game, perhaps the single best feature.

And yeah, a player blockade is basically a group of players deciding that they want to prevent everyone else from doing a part of the game's content, kinda like a band of school kids deciding that a specific playground equipment is exclusively theirs and that no one else can play in it. If it's effectively optional, and everyone is in there for that experience, then it's just some variation of a "King of the hill" game; if it's not optional then I equate it to bullying.

Its a Space Trading and Combat game sure, but now it has elements that essentially make an MMO. Which is really, really, really confusing and hinders or just downright makes certain things for groups just absolutely harder.

One of the central aspects of this game, since its inception, is that players would be able to choose who they would play with. Never changed, never wavered, the devs never said otherwise.

 

[Jockey79]

I think its more or less an Online Role-playing game with a massive multiplayer presence Space simulator and classic multiplayer versus as well as solo elements thrown in for good measure.

That has to be one of the best descriptions I've ever seen for ED.

+1

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

That has to be one of the best descriptions I've ever seen for ED.

+1

You see where I'm confused yeah? Don't get me wrong I love the solo option, it just seems conflicting to me and unfair to Open Play. I love the way this game sells the ability to play as you want, but I don't like how it just conflicts with other play styles so badly. I want to see more players and groups in open doing cool things, not just having them secluded to themselves.

 

[fademist]

I think its more or less an Online Role-playing game with a massive multiplayer presence Space simulator and classic multiplayer versus as well as solo elements thrown in for good measure.

Why does it have the ability to let Solo and Private groups basically ignore any sort of challenges that Open play players have? Its just outright weird.

And why open cares what solo/group ppl do? and what challenges open ppl have? ....

 

[SteveLaw]

Why should I even go into Open, when I can essentially avoid that blockade made by players?

If you are not interested in PvP or the task is more important to you then you shouldn't. That's why the other modes are there. If you want PvP more than the task then you wouldn't want to avoid the blockade.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

And why open cares what solo/group ppl do? and what challenges open ppl have? ....

The active of dying to a player or losing their cargo to a pirate or otherwise. The ability to be shot down to prevent an opposing community goal from achieving its goal, etc.

Its just conflicting multiplayer versus aspects that I am just completely confused about. It just really doesn't make sense on the field. It does make sense on Paper however.

 

[Jockey79]

You see where I'm confused yeah? Don't get me wrong I love the solo option, it just seems conflicting to me and unfair to Open Play.

The thing is, it has always been advertised as having the modes - right from the Kickstarter campaign (page 1, post 3, I put the information).
So, before FD even started to code the game, they had this all in mind - it is new, it is weird compared to traditional MMO games and it's going to take some getting use to.

As for "fair", well, everyone has access to it - at no extra charge. You cannot really get any more "fair" than letting everyone have the same choices

 

[Cody]

<peeks out from cupboard> Did someone mention flexiplayer?

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Why does it have the ability to let Solo and Private groups basically ignore any sort of challenges that Open play players have? Its just outright weird.

Why is that weird? Games give people choices and ways to adjust challenge to there liking since forever, not all do it but I would say by far most of them.

Even in ED when you play in open you have a great deal of control over the challenge you face depending on where you go and in what ship you go there.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

The thing is, it has always been advertised as having the modes - right from the Kickstarter campaign (page 1, post 3, I put the information).
So, before FD even started to code the game, they had this all in mind - it is new, it is weird compared to traditional MMO games and it's going to take some getting use to.

As for "fair", well, everyone has access to it - at no extra charge. You cannot really get any more "fair" than letting everyone have the same choices

Okay, so since PowerPlay is just around the corner, what Is essentially going to stop a really dedicated and really coordinate large mass of players from just going into private or solo and completely messing with the influence of a system? These are just basic examples, again, its not a problem of choice, its just a question on a development point of view of it. It seems more or less conflicting.

 

[SteveLaw]

The active of dying to a player or losing their cargo to a pirate or otherwise. The ability to be shot down to prevent an opposing community goal from achieving its goal, etc.

Its just conflicting multiplayer versus aspects that I am just completely confused about. It just really doesn't make sense on the field. It does make sense on Paper however.

And those challenges are also greater on paper than in practice. There are many Open players who don't see any other player for days or weeks, deliberately or otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, so since PowerPlay is just around the corner, what Is essentially going to stop a really dedicated and really coordinate large mass of players from just going into private or solo and completely messing with the influence of a system?

Nothing. What's going to stop another large mass from changing it back again?

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Okay, so let's use Mobius for example, let's say they all decided to be say, Imperial. I don't see any group as massive as them that could potentially stop that.

They use private and solo, so while an observer or their opposition might see influence influxes, there isn't a way to say shoot them if they were doing missions (Which as you know when they fail it, harms the faction they failed it for).

 

[DarkWalker]

Choice is fine, but again, what is this game trying to be? Why is it trying to be an MMO and then the next moment a Solo game?

Because one of the game's central ideas is that you only play with those players you actually want to play with. You aren't forced to play with someone you, for whichever reason, don't want to play with.

It allows you to get into MMO territory by deciding that you want to play with anyone and everyone; it allows you to delve into single player territory by deciding you won't let anyone in your game; and everything in between.

Also, the true MMO aspect of this game is the shared galaxy simulation. Everyone is part of the same universe, and the influence of every player is felt by everyone else, regardless of the choice of mode.

E-Honor aside, All the player vs player interactions I was in always warranted a justification for doing so. There have only been a few rare cases of the prime definition of Griefing.

Griefing is seen differently by different players; things you don't find to be griefing I might consider to be. For example, I consider each and every instance of unwanted PvP to be, if not griefing per see, at least very close.

And thus I find what the devs did here, when it comes to multiplayer and choice of who to play with, exceptionally well thought; players are able to simply avoid anyone they perceive to be griefing. Which means every player can have his or her own definition of griefing, instead of a single definition needing to be created by the devs and pushed to everyone.

Having solo players and private groups equally impact the open play style of the game is entirely silly. I thought the whole purpose was "We are tiny and insignificant, our choices essentially mean nothing." Why should one player have insurmountable power as an Open player when there is NO WAY TO STOP THEM.

If you think the only valid way of stopping other players is to face them in PvP and prevent them from playing, I believe you are playing the wrong game. This (thankfully) isn't EVE with joysticks.

 

[Jockey79]

<peeks out from cupboard> Did someone mention flexiplayer?

Is that the official name for it now?
As I've seen a few call it "flexiplayer" now.

Okay, so since PowerPlay is just around the corner, what Is essentially going to stop a really dedicated and really coordinate large mass of players from just going into private or solo and completely messing with the influence of a system? These are just basic examples, again, its not a problem of choice, its just a question on a development point of view of it. It seems more or less conflicting.

Think of it like a general election - no matter how many people vote for 1 person, if the player base as a whole vote more for the other guy - then that one large group didn't do anything.

See, folks go on about, what if..... well, the entire player base get a vote, so these what if's mean nothing at all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You see where I'm confused yeah? Don't get me wrong I love the solo option, it just seems conflicting to me and unfair to Open Play. I love the way this game sells the ability to play as you want, but I don't like how it just conflicts with other play styles so badly. I want to see more players and groups in open doing cool things, not just having them secluded to themselves.

It all comes back to "play the game how you want to" - there is no requirement on any player to be content for other players. If players want to play against other players then they will - if they don't they won't.

 

[Jockey79]

Okay, so let's use Mobius for example, let's say they all decided to be say, Imperial. I don't see any group as massive as them that could potentially stop that.

They use private and solo, so while an observer or their opposition might see influence influxes, there isn't a way to say shoot them if they were doing missions (Which as you know when they fail it, harms the faction they failed it for).

Mobius is about 2% of the total player base. If the Mobius group were to have such an impact, that would mean the rest of the player base either took a month off, or didn't care enough to take part.

 

[Robert Maynard]

<peeks out from cupboard> Did someone mention flexiplayer?

If not then they should have - it's a perfect description of the way players are permitted to choose which game mode they play in on a session-by-session basis....