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

[Mr_Blastman]

Given that the three game modes, shared galactic background simulation and the ability to select which mode to play in (with a single commander and assets) on a session-by-session basis has been part of the published game design for over two and a half years now, despite vigorous opposition to their inclusion in the game, the game has now been successfully launched and we are now six months in, expecting the third content update, I would expect that it is unlikely in the extreme that mode switching will be limited / removed or that the modes would be given separate background simulations - especially as in the XBox One announcement, DBOBE states that XBox players will share the same background simulation and contribute to the same CGs and Power Play and also that all three game modes will contribute to Power Play.

While it might be published as such it in no way means it was a good decision. There are plenty of reasons why it should be re-thought and addressed to ensure longevity of the game. Open play depends on player population. If you reward players to play in solo mode, the open population suffers as a result. Since risk in solo is far far less, players naturally will flock to solo to avoid the risk of money in open, thus hurting open, thus hurting future sales.

Games with an open mode depend on active support and balance of that open mode. Allowing accumulation of wealth in solo (risk free) and transferring it to open ultimately ruins the balance of open and breaks the whole game.

 

[ianw]

While it might be published as such it in no way means it was a good decision. There are plenty of reasons why it should be re-thought and addressed to ensure longevity of the game. Open play depends on player population. If you reward players to play in solo mode, the open population suffers as a result. Since risk in solo is far far less, players naturally will flock to solo to avoid the risk of money in open, thus hurting open, thus hurting future sales.

Games with an open mode depend on active support and balance of that open mode. Allowing accumulation of wealth in solo (risk free) and transferring it to open ultimately ruins the balance of open and breaks the whole game.

How do you know who is earning what in each mode?

 

[W0OCQCK]

There's no need to be condescending. I never said that. But whatever, you don't get it.

Keep what you earn in the mode you earn it in. That way the level of effort and risk required in each mode is similar to each player.

I wasn't being condensing, you were. I was just responding. Besides the game was advertised since day one to have three modes, and mode switching at will. I support this decision 100%, and feel it was a brilliant decision.

I don't believe for one second it will hurt future sales, I believe it will actually stimulate it. FD is taking a stand of the average gamer, and there is a lot more of them, than you guys that like to live your lives in a game.

 

[Jockey79]

I decree that the maximum capacity of stations and 'island' instances be improved and doubled/tripled. More players, more NPCs, THE WORKS.Also more diversity and cool stuff in the Community Goals and more Events overall.

I think, if it were possible - even up to 64 per instance - could really help those looking for massive fights etc...
Pre arranged dust ups 32 per side would be amazing !!!

No you should all get some more credits. Take Diablo 3. It works perfectly in Singleplayer. But if you join multiplayer, monsters will get more difficult every time someone joins. Also rewards get a little bit higher. Cuz you know, now you can get 1 shot from minions, but you also have friends to ressurect you. Is it that hard ? I have not ever in my life seen this type of game(ED). I mean if you have parties, give them some reason to actually play as a party. Every MMO ever does it. Diablo does it and pretty much every game where you have to PvE with friends does it. Party=better rewards=harder fights for those rewards

The only way that could apply here is with wings, so if in a wing (see that applies to groups and open) you'd get base value + % due to having to share the bounty. Trade was taken care of already with the trade vouchers.
Not sure how I feel over a Wings bonus to bounty vouchers, but I do get the idea you are looking at (I loved Diablo 2)

Probably not. What he can do though is leave the game. Many will eventually do that too if they share his opinions. Then FD will realise their game is empty and they will be changing some stuff i bet you that. Humanity only changes on the edge of the vale. Never before.

Doom and gloom, doom and gloom.

People come and go from games all the time. Just because you don't like something, does not mean a game will fail - there are lots of people, not like you
I certainly hope there is no one else out there like me

Funny how the 'bottom feeders at ccp' have been able to make a much more balanced game with clear design goals. What scumbags.

CCP made a game, for a different kind of gamer than what FD are making a game for - CCP fans, should go back to CCP games

 

[Robert Maynard]

Regarding the posts in this thread, I've taken their opinions into consideration and if you've read my posts, I have answered most of them with equally constructive criticism and points. There are bits unfair to the Open Players and things unfair to the Private and Solo players. Simple as that, a compromise should be made. That's all. Simple.

It's not quite that simple - while a compromise towards some of the suggestions *could* be made, it is entirely for Frontier to decide whether any changes *should* be made. Given that this debate has been going on for well over two years, I do not expect any significant changes at this late stage.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

I wasn't being condensing, you were.

Yes, you were. And it was quite rude.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

It's not quite that simple - while a compromise towards some of the suggestions *could* be made, it is entirely for Frontier to decide whether any changes *should* be made. Given that this debate has been going on for well over two years, I do not expect any significant changes at this late stage.

You have to see the folly of basically even having this entire discussion up, if it doesn't even provide a hint of constructive feedback to them.

 

[Faded Glory]

It's not quite that simple - while a compromise towards some of the suggestions *could* be made, it is entirely for Frontier to decide whether any changes *should* be made. Given that this debate has been going on for well over two years, I do not expect any significant changes at this late stage.

You have to see the folly of basically even having this entire discussion up, if it doesn't even provide a hint of constructive feedback to them.

The likelihood that FD need feedback on whether their design is working from the forums, when they know how many people are playing, and in what mode, is pretty remote.

My guess would be that they do not want to lose any of their player base, and it seems that for them, the three modes as equal is the best way that they can think of to do so.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You have to see the folly of basically even having this entire discussion up, if it doesn't even provide a hint of constructive feedback to them.

The quoted posts from Sandro in the OP were made in the first part of this thread - that's the last we have from Frontier on the topic.

This thread is also merge target for the numerous threads that pop up on a regular basis on this topic - I doubt that that will change.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Hopefully not the last on the topic, if not this would all be irrelevant. Also, I fear for your sanity, because I'm pretty sure its going to continue for as long as the game is around. The same can be said about nerfs, buffs, the latter.

Praise be to the moderators for cleaning up the mean streets.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Note to all: please stop criticising other game developers, their games or telling people to "get back to <insert game name here>" - it's not pleasant, nor will it be tolerated.

 

[W0OCQCK]

Note to all: please stop criticising other game developers, their games or telling people to "get back to <insert game name here>" - it's not pleasant, nor will it be tolerated.

Yea the Mods are all excellent folks, I respect every single one of them.

I sincerely believe that FD has situated it's self pretty good by it's decisions regarding the modes, and the mode switching. I think the thing that frightens some play styles, is what the heck are they going to do if this type of thing starts catching on to other games, and starts to spread to other devs. I think by this decision it will attract a wide variety of PVE type players from all sorts of other games, just wait and see.

 

[fademist]

Funny how the 'bottom feeders at ccp' have been able to make a much more balanced game with clear design goals. What scumbags.

CCP only do what the X null lords commands them to do nothing more nothing less

 

[Jockey79]

..... I think the thing that frightens some play styles, ....

Dude, I have tons of respect for you - I do honestly like you, but you got something very very wrong with this bit I've quoted.
FD have not done anything to frighten any "play styles" - in fact they have enhanced all honest types of play and play styles to match.

They have however, frightened... no, that is not quite strong enough. FD have scared the daylights out of "unfriendly" players (aka bullies).
In a world where you can bypass the bullies and completely invalidate them - the only thing a bully has is power over someone, here they have no power at all.

It must drive them crazy

 

[Libluini]

While it might be published as such it in no way means it was a good decision. There are plenty of reasons why it should be re-thought and addressed to ensure longevity of the game. Open play depends on player population. If you reward players to play in solo mode, the open population suffers as a result. Since risk in solo is far far less, players naturally will flock to solo to avoid the risk of money in open, thus hurting open, thus hurting future sales.

Games with an open mode depend on active support and balance of that open mode. Allowing accumulation of wealth in solo (risk free) and transferring it to open ultimately ruins the balance of open and breaks the whole game.

Suddenly, I'm getting the feeling you think the decision was bad only because it is one you personally happen to disagree with. Maybe you should mentally step back and think about how the entire situation changes if your assumptions are wrong.

Case in point: Solo-mode isn't risk-free. If your assumptions are based on wrong facts like that, your conclusions will all be wrong, too. Which probably explains why Frontier ignores your opinions for now 2,5 years and counting.

 

[Erasmus Boone]

Going to raise my head above the parapet, I think that mode switching is one of the best features of ED.
Sometimes I just want do my own thing in solo, other times I want something different in a p' group or open.
I trust that FD are fully aware that their are lots of players like myself, and don't get brow beaten by those who want forced mode selection.

 

[Jockey79]

Case in point: Solo-mode isn't risk-free. If your assumptions are based on wrong facts like that, your conclusions will all be wrong, too. Which probably explains why Frontier ignores your opinions for now 2,5 years and counting.

I REALLY wish this forum had a button marked "over 9000" right now.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

Suddenly, I'm getting the feeling you think the decision was bad only because it is one you personally happen to disagree with. Maybe you should mentally step back and think about how the entire situation changes if your assumptions are wrong.

Case in point: Solo-mode isn't risk-free. If your assumptions are based on wrong facts like that, your conclusions will all be wrong, too. Which probably explains why Frontier ignores your opinions for now 2,5 years and counting.

Oh please, that's a poor argument. "You're wrong because you disagree with something." Come on.

Solo IS risk free compared with Open. In solo you have to worry about AI. And AI is a non-issue. It is pathetically easy to beat or contend with. With humans you never know what is going to happen and unlike AI, humans can take you down, hard. There's very little risk when dealing with AI adversaries.

I never once get worried against an AI opponent. Humans on the other hand, can make me soil my drawers.

 

[Jockey79]

I trust that FD are fully aware that their are lots of players like myself, and don't get brow beaten by those who want forced mode selection.

The problem is, the other team, while smaller - is louder.

500,000 copies sold. Less than 100 complainers.

Even few people on the forums saying how great the game is

Fd can only go by the feedback they get - if more of it is complainers, then FD will think the game needs "fixing".

 

[fademist]

Oh please, that's a poor argument. "You're wrong because you disagree with something." Come on.

Solo IS risk free compared with Open. In solo you have to worry about AI. And AI is a non-issue. It is pathetically easy to beat or contend with. With humans you never know what is going to happen and unlike AI, humans can take you down, hard. There's very little risk when dealing with AI adversaries.

I never once get worried against an AI opponent. Humans on the other hand, can make me soil my drawers.

If u say so then try to do a SSS with 4-5 angry vultures aalone and tell us how easy is