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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
We've reached the point in the debate where it has degenerated (again) into name-calling, which is the end of all civilized discourse.

Its not name calling. People are actively saying that they don't want to face the consequences of PvP but still want to affect players who partake in PvP.

I don't want to play Solo play, but I do want to be able to blow up people who play in solo play. Maybe if I shoot a solo player-template in open play, it will blow you up in solo play, that seems fair based on your perspectives. I am going to force how I want to play upon your game mode.
 

Did you make that yourself? Could you talk us through it please?

- - - Updated - - -

Its not name calling. People are actively saying that they don't want to face the consequences of PvP but still want to affect players who partake in PvP.

I don't want to play Solo play, but I do want to be able to blow up people who play in solo play. Maybe if I shoot a solo player-template in open play, it will blow you up in solo play, that seems fair based on your perspectives. I am going to force how I want to play upon your game mode.

You seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that the game is about shooting other players. Oh dear. No wonder you're so unhappy with it.

Incidentally Open players affect the universe in exactly the same way that Solo players do so you are already "forcing how you want to play on our game mode". We can't shoot you but hey, we're okay with that. We don't expect to be able to control the entire galaxy by shooting at it.
 
Last edited:
Its a game, people. I honestly don't know what it is that sparks so much vitriol over the course of discussion in this particular topic. I get the Open-Only viewpoint but I can't comprehend the phanaticism behind it. Its not trying to force gameplay on others, it's actually more akin to saying "Its our game, and as far as we are concerned there is only one type of player that is allowed to play it." Dave1235's counterpoint puts everything in perspective though - Its the game you bought. If you don't like how it has turned out for you, perhaps you should have bought something else. Open/Group/Solo is not going away, nor is the common universe, so perhaps Open Only advocates should try to change their recruiting tactics a bit instead of becoming more and more condescending with each new contributor to this thread to try to get more people into open. I can tell you one thing: I'm not sharing any amount of space, Open or otherwise, with anyone that considers themself the only "real" players.
 
Who's afraid of PvP? I'm sorry to inform you that none of the "Solo players" posting in this thread appear to be afraid of PvP in the slightest. It just isn't what we want from Elite: Dangerous. Partly, in some cases, because it clearly isn't really designed for that primarily. It's not a PvP game why would we want to play it as a PvP game all the time? Clearly it's very unsatisfying if you do that, look at this thread and the one before it.

The intention was that the multiplayer would be mostly cooperative with rare but meaningful PvP. That was David's vision and that's what the majority of design decisions have been based on. Think about it. Look at the game as competitive PvP and then look at it as cooperative multiplayer. Not which you would rather it was, look at what it actual is and isn't. Which has the fewest "balance" issues? Which makes the least sense or needs to most changes to make it work?

Excellent SteveLaw! This is exactly what DB is after.
 
Its a game, people. I honestly don't know what it is that sparks so much vitriol over the course of discussion in this particular topic. I get the Open-Only viewpoint but I can't comprehend the phanaticism behind it.

You can see here the Pyro is playing Solo while everyone else is playing Open. They're jealous, obviously. ;)

[video=youtube;WUhOnX8qt3I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUhOnX8qt3I[/video]

Edit: I'm not implying that I ever play TF2, that would be a PvP game and I'm afraid of those, apparently.
 
Last edited:
Its not name calling. People are actively saying that they don't want to face the consequences of PvP but still want to affect players who partake in PvP.
I don't think anyone is saying that, and truthfully we are not affecting Open Players, but merely the background simulation. Open/Group is doing nothing that directly impacts you as a player. This whole cumulative ten-thousand post diatribe is based solely on the theory that Open players cannot participate in community goals with the same efficiency that solo players can. Which theory, by the way, has yet to be substantiated by anything other than more theorization and anecdotal evidence.

I don't want to play Solo play, but I do want to be able to blow up people who play in solo play. Maybe if I shoot a solo player-template in open play, it will blow you up in solo play, that seems fair based on your perspectives. I am going to force how I want to play upon your game mode.
This is sarcasm? I hope this is sarcasm. If not, it really unmasks alot, and I'll just let that one be because it really speaks for itself.
 
Great, awesome, let the people afraid of PvP not affect real CMDR's. Let them play and affect the galaxy for other people afraid of PvP, but not affect real players.

Afraid, no. It's just that, for me at least, that kind of unwanted PvP is about as pleasant as shoveling manure.

And, in any case, you don't get to define what makes for a "real player".

BTW, players being able to choose who they play with was a core design element from the very start. This is how the game's multiplayer was described in its Kickstarter page:
Multiplayer: 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 as you choose. This technology is already working, using a combination of peer-to-peer (to reduce lag) and server connections.

It has never been changed. This thread wasn't the first, and likely won't be the the last, where a handful unhappy players argue that the only way forward would be to force everyone to play together, but thankfully Frontier never wavered in its choice to allow players to choose who they play with.
 
You picked the wrong character. Solo would be the Spy, running around without anybody able to see him...

Well I'm sorry that you missed the joke. It's the Solo player who doesn't see the Open player but the Open player who fears the Solo player. Ironic really.
 
Last edited:
Its a game, people. I honestly don't know what it is that sparks so much vitriol over the course of discussion in this particular topic. I get the Open-Only viewpoint but I can't comprehend the phanaticism behind it. Its not trying to force gameplay on others, it's actually more akin to saying "Its our game, and as far as we are concerned there is only one type of player that is allowed to play it." Dave1235's counterpoint puts everything in perspective though - Its the game you bought. If you don't like how it has turned out for you, perhaps you should have bought something else. Open/Group/Solo is not going away, nor is the common universe, so perhaps Open Only advocates should try to change their recruiting tactics a bit instead of becoming more and more condescending with each new contributor to this thread to try to get more people into open. I can tell you one thing: I'm not sharing any amount of space, Open or otherwise, with anyone that considers themself the only "real" players.

It's the same cyclical forum fight that happens in the forums of most MMOs, with PvPers and PvE players fighting — or, rather, those that want everyone to be forced into PvP and those that want PvP to be by choice only. I've seen this raging for over a decade. The funny thing is that devs have increasingly been changing sides; a bit over a decade ago they were mostly on the "PvP should be forced" camp, nowadays they are mostly on the "PvP should be by consent" camp.
 

atak2

A
Well I'm sorry that you missed the joke. It's the Solo player who doesn't see the Open player but the Open player who fears the Solo player. Ironic really.

I certainly didn't. I found it amusing and disturbing that he affects the world while thinking he is in another one. Especially the skipping freaked me out.
 
What about the player for 6 weeks who sees no one while exploring in deep space, then turns up at the Galaxy centre and gets Killed by another player, Losing 6 weeks of data and hard work , Solo players only risk is falling asleep out there as they avoid such risks?

Nice evasion, but please answer the question.

Why should someone who plays in open, but sticks to less populated areas and rarely...IF AT ALL...ever sees another human commander get the same rewards as someone who flies in high risk systems? Just because it's open?

Piffle. Oh, and in case you didn't know....you're only ever going to be able to interact with 31 other players because the way instancing works it limits instance size to 32. That's like many multiplayer combat games out there. There are several of those type games that offer a "training mode" where the rewards are exactly the same for killing the AI as it is for killing another player. Precedence set.

The REWARD for playing in open isn't increased money....it's the PLAYER INTERACTION. Otherwise, why play open?

Oh...and if you're going to complain about "there's nobody to interact with"....well...the only cause for that is in the mirror. Cause and effect, my good man/woman. Consequences for the actions. It happens in every game with PvP servers. Eventually there is nobody left but the gankers and then they too go home, leaving just the digital tumbleweeds.

In case that last part is unclear....IT'S YOUR VERY ACTIONS THAT ARE CAUSING THE PROBLEMS YOU PERCEIVE. Change your actions and watch what happens.



*DISCLAIMER*
In the above post, any term that could be construed to single out any one person is not meant to do so. I am using singular pronouns to refer to a broad range of people that share a particular style of interaction within the game.
 
Its not name calling. People are actively saying that they don't want to face the consequences of PvP but still want to affect players who partake in PvP.

I don't want to play Solo play, but I do want to be able to blow up people who play in solo play. Maybe if I shoot a solo player-template in open play, it will blow you up in solo play, that seems fair based on your perspectives. I am going to force how I want to play upon your game mode.

I really shouldn't say anything here;...but I'll say It's sad to see someone so resentful of a games design.

Thankfully this resentment is a sad small minority...
 

atak2

A
Nice evasion, but please answer the question.

Why should someone who plays in open, but sticks to less populated areas and rarely...IF AT ALL...ever sees another human commander get the same rewards as someone who flies in high risk systems? Just because it's open?

Piffle. Oh, and in case you didn't know....you're only ever going to be able to interact with 31 other players because the way instancing works it limits instance size to 32. That's like many multiplayer combat games out there. There are several of those type games that offer a "training mode" where the rewards are exactly the same for killing the AI as it is for killing another player. Precedence set.

The REWARD for playing in open isn't increased money....it's the PLAYER INTERACTION. Otherwise, why play open?

Oh...and if you're going to complain about "there's nobody to interact with"....well...the only cause for that is in the mirror. Cause and effect, my good man/woman. Consequences for the actions. It happens in every game with PvP servers. Eventually there is nobody left but the gankers and then they too go home, leaving just the digital tumbleweeds.

In case that last part is unclear....IT'S YOUR VERY ACTIONS THAT ARE CAUSING THE PROBLEMS YOU PERCEIVE. Change your actions and watch what happens.



*DISCLAIMER*
In the above post, any term that could be construed to single out any one person is not meant to do so. I am using singular pronouns to refer to a broad range of people that share a particular style of interaction within the game.

Thank you - that was actually a good post. Will rep you.

What about a system that gives a bonus based on the number of hostile players a player meets per task or per unit of time (10mins, 30mins etc)?

If in that time a player meets no hostile player they get no bonus at all compared to solo/group?
 
....

It has never been changed. This thread wasn't the first, and likely won't be the the last, where a handful unhappy players argue that the only way forward would be to force everyone to play together, but thankfully Frontier never wavered in its choice to allow players to choose who they play with.

For reference, feel free to quote my post on page 1 (3rd down) to highlight your points.

I'll repost here;

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 .
 
I certainly didn't. I found it amusing and disturbing that he affects the world while thinking he is in another one. Especially the skipping freaked me out.

We all do that in Solo, the skipping. And the maniacal laughter while we mess up your universe. All while we cower in fear of PvP.
 
It's the same cyclical forum fight that happens in the forums of most MMOs, with PvPers and PvE players fighting — or, rather, those that want everyone to be forced into PvP and those that want PvP to be by choice only. I've seen this raging for over a decade. The funny thing is that devs have increasingly been changing sides; a bit over a decade ago they were mostly on the "PvP should be forced" camp, nowadays they are mostly on the "PvP should be by consent" camp.

I've noticed this also.
 
Thank you - that was actually a good post. Will rep you.

What about a system that gives a bonus based on the number of hostile players a player meets per task or per unit of time (10mins, 30mins etc)?

If in that time a player meets no hostile player they get no bonus at all compared to solo/group?

You say that as though interaction with other players is a bad thing that should be compensated for.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom