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

[Jockey79]

As some folks, have trouble finding this post - I'll once again repost.
(Mods, am I ok just to automatically post this every time a new page opens on the default layout? As some folks don't read prior pages and miss this info)

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 .



More Recent Dev comments;

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by Numi
Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.

Michael

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by Robert Maynard
Thanks for that clarity Michael.

Are you in a position to confirm that group switching between the three game modes will remain as a feature of the game?

We're not planning on changing that.

Michael

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by mosh_er
Hi Micheal

I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?

None are planned at the moment.

Michael

Originally Posted by Alexander the Grape
In the newsletter, it was mentioned that an intersection between a trading power and a military power will result in piracy missions.

Will this make NPC piracy more profitable or will we continue to need to focus on players?

It can be more profitable, and it will apply to both players and NPCs.

Originally Posted by Adept
For fun

That said, it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation.

Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.

The mechanics of powerplay, particularly the interface between player and power being an almost direct copy of the community goal model, gives the entire experience an MMO-guild type feel to the gameplay.


Is this MMO-style a new direction for Elite: Dangerous? Or will you be still focussing on the single player immersive experience, even if that single player is playing in a universe filled with other players?


Thank's very much to you and the FDev team for all of your efforts. One or two subjective niggles of mine aside the game is the one I've been waiting for for years and I'm totally enamoured with it.

We are supporting multiplayer and the solo experience. Community Goals are carrying on too.

 

[Sikandhar]

That video is in my massive post, Faded Glory quoted it correctly - try watching it and seeing (page 1, post 3).
This is not a PvP game.

It is a PvE game, that you can PvP in - if you want to.

- - - Updated - - -



It's supposed to be rare - the boss said so... watch the video mentioned above.

Where did I say it was a pvp game? Please enlighten me.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Yeah but right now we see that people move into solo and private groups and into PvE "clans". The PvP becomes really rare. I dont expect this game to be like battlefield, but when you need 20-30 minutes to find an opponent in a popular and well populated system - thats just plain wrong.
And about the "friends" argument down there - PvP is different. Specially the competetive PvP. You need a large player base to actually play against different people with different skills and ideas. Playing against a couple of friends is the wrong advice for a PvPler. Playing WITH his friends against a large community is the way to go.

Thene there ar just not enough people who like the same stuff you like in Elite. Thats unfortunate for you, but its neither other Peoples fault that like diffrent things nor is it elites fault that they allow these people to play how the want. you can't force anybody to like the same things you like.

 

[Faded Glory]

Where did I say it was a pvp game? Please enlighten me.

But cryon1cang3l is implying that it was designed that way, with PvP in mind, and in his posts, he explains that he wants to have people to fight. And that is perfectly Ok, he's entitled to want that. What a lot of us are saying is that the game is actually designed in such a way that nobody will be forced to fight with him against their will. That's all.

 

[Sikandhar]

As some folks, have trouble finding this post - I'll once again repost.
(Mods, am I ok just to automatically post this every time a new page opens on the default layout? As some folks don't read prior pages and miss this info)

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 .



More Recent Dev comments;

I've already expressed myself on your post, but what's the point to do it if you don't read it.

I don't understand why it is hard for you all to see that a seperation of the modes would be necessary at some point, and I don't really get the fact that you are complaining about that, as I see how you despite the open play and pvp interactions.
Play solo, have fun, but please do not fake the multiplayer experience of others who are here for that (there is a lot), because yes if you remove the open play feature, I don't really think this game would be as popular as it is now, saying the opposite is pure dishonnesty imo.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

Yeah but right now we see that people move into solo and private groups and into PvE "clans". The PvP becomes really rare. I dont expect this game to be like battlefield, but when you need 20-30 minutes to find an opponent in a popular and well populated system - thats just plain wrong.
And about the "friends" argument down there - PvP is different. Specially the competetive PvP. You need a large player base to actually play against different people with different skills and ideas. Playing against a couple of friends is the wrong advice for a PvPler. Playing WITH his friends against a large community is the way to go.

Let me sum this up for you. This game, for whatever reason has attracted a sizable pve audience, but not so much on the pvp side. While I grant you that kind of bites for you pvp boys, you aren't going to convince the current audience to change its mind. Those that enjoy solo are playing happily solo. Those who enjoy groups are playing happily in groups. From your description, it sounds like you'd better get busy recruiting fellow pvp to the game to populate your preferred game mode, because it's time to face the fact that the those already playing solo or groups won't be joining you.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't understand why it is hard for you all to see that a seperation of the modes would be necessary at some point, and I don't really get the fact that you are complaining about that, as I see how you despite the open play and pvp interactions.
Play solo, have fun, but please do not fake the multiplayer experience of others who are here for that (there is a lot), because yes if you remove the open play feature, I don't really think this game would be as popular as it is now, saying the opposite is pure dishonnesty imo.

While you may hold the opinion that it will be necessary to separate the modes at some point, that does not make it a fact.

The fact that XBox One players and PS4 players will share the same shared galactic background simulation would strongly suggest that separating the game modes on PC/Mac would not achieve what the separationists seek - there will be players on different platforms, sharing the same GBS, that will not be able to be directly opposed, just the same as Solo / Private Group players cannot be directly opposed in the game.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

Play solo, have fun, but please do not fake the multiplayer experience of others who are here for that (there is a lot), because yes if you remove the open play feature, I don't really think this game would be as popular as it is now, saying the opposite is pure dishonnesty imo.

You guys need to sit down and figure out what your story is. Either open is the most popular mode, or it's starving for players. It is not both.

If it's the former, then you have nothing to worry about. You far outnumber the other groups, so their contributions amount to nothing.

If it's the latter, then perhaps you could help our German friend find enough players to populate open to his liking.

 

[Sikandhar]

While you may hold the opinion that it will be necessary to separate the modes at some point, that does not make it a fact.

If you want the MP to be immersive and non faked, it is.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If you want the MP to be immersive and non faked, it is.

I backed a flexi-player game, not a closed-in MP game.

 

[Sikandhar]

I backed a flexi-player game, not a closed-in MP game.

Well that is you.

 

[Jockey79]

I've already expressed myself on your post, but what's the point to do it if you don't read it.

I don't understand why it is hard for you all to see that a seperation of the modes would be necessary at some point, and I don't really get the fact that you are complaining about that, as I see how you despite the open play and pvp interactions.
Play solo, have fun, but please do not fake the multiplayer experience of others who are here for that (there is a lot), because yes if you remove the open play feature, I don't really think this game would be as popular as it is now, saying the opposite is pure dishonnesty imo.

I've read your posts, you are the one who refuses to accept - this game was designed around the core concept of Mode Switching - I've posted it to you TWICE.
Read the information.

There is no reason to lock out the modes from each other. And to be frank, YOU are the reason we have modes to start with. I play this game multiplayer. In a private group and in Mobius.
The multiplayer side is fine, it is the people who want to gank unarmed traders who are out of luck. PvP is to be meaningful - not Call of Duty in space or EVE with cockpits.

Also, you miss how the game actually works... there is only 1 background Sim. Just 1. ONLY 1.
The modes are a layer on top of that - they are nothing more than pretending someone is not there, even though they are.
So the ONLY way to have "separate" modes, with with new background Sims - so you'd better try a kickstarter to fund it - as the last KS only funded 1 BGS.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well that is you.

Not only is it me, it is the game, as delivered, that contains the features that allow it to be flexi-player, i.e. three game modes; a shared galactic background simulation and the freedom to select which mode to play in on a session-by-session basis.

 

[fademist]

Well that is you.

And prolly the majority of the backers...

 

[Jockey79]

And prolly the majority of the backers...

Yup, and they are the reason we have the game to start with.
I thank them for their vision and deep wallets.

 

[Sikandhar]

I've read your drivel, you are the one who refuses to accept - this game was designed around the core concept of Mode Switching - I've posted it to you TWICE.
Read the information.

Again, no you didn't, since I said IMO if multiplayer features will come to be add, the seperation of the modes need to be reconsidered if we want a MP that is not faked by the switching mode, where did you see me arguing about how the game was designed, I never mentionned that.
What I am giving here is an opinion, isn't what's a forum is about? Or maybe I am in the wrong place idk.

 

[fademist]

Again, no you didn't, since I said IMO if multiplayer features will come to be add, the seperation of the modes need to be reconsidered if we want a MP that is not faked by the switching mode, where did you see me arguing about how the game was designed, I never mentionned that.
What I am giving here is an opinion, isn't what's a forum is about? Or maybe I am in the wrong place idk.

and along with that is the point that u missed..they dont any plans to changed it soon or ever...

 

[Sikandhar]

And prolly the majority of the backers...

oh because you are the majority of the backers, you are like a representent or something? Are you really telling me there is no backers that was firstly motivated by the huge MP experience's potential that this game have?

 

[fademist]

oh because you are the majority of the backers, you are like a representent or something? Are you really telling me there is no backers that was firstly motivated by the huge MP experience's potential that this game have?

1st i disnt say i was a backer...
multiplayer is group too ....imagine that...

 

[Sikandhar]

and along with that is the point that u missed..they dont any plans to changed it soon or ever...

Yes you are maybe right, but I am not here for speculating on FDev plans, I am giving my toughts on the game modes switching wich is the subject of the thread if I remember correctly.