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

[Jockey79]

Here you go, folks who like and play in Open Mode - they don't seem to have any problems;

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=154467

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Again, show me where "multiplayer" means forcing folks into playing with each other.

You can play WOW and level up without ever going into a team or group. (Same for EQ2 - another game I play on my own).
As I said, Guild Wars I played on my own - the only people I ever seen were in the forced social zones and I ignored everyone.
I spent a ton of time in EVE on my own mining or running their version of dungeons on my own.
Most of my time in Star Trek Online playing on my own - if you exclude the STFs there is no reason at all to team up with anyone in that game. Again, I don't speak to people in the social zones
Forsaken World I played on my own until my Wife started playing it. Once she out leveled me, I was back to being on my own again.


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/multi
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/player

There is the breakdown, please tell me where it says I have to play with someone I don't want to.

- - - Updated - - -



No, you don't see - because you do not have access to the data.
Unless you do, you have the same information te rest of us has - DBOBE saying that "Solo players balance Solo players"

He has the data.

Show me in your little wall of choice where it said solo mode grinding should be preferential for power play and cgs.

If you refuse to accept that some powers will have more solo players than others, I can't agrue with you anymore. It's basic commonssense.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The word multiplayer in mmo tends to imply more than one player. While it's true not every mmo forces you to group up, they certainly aren't single player.

If you want to say fd wishes to do something different, great, more power to them. They just can't advertise multiplayer with one hand while encouraging solo grinding with the other.

Frontier have already done something different - they pitched, had funded, developed and released a game that allows all players to share the same galactic background simulation and a choice of three game modes - we can play alone; in a private group with friends or in open play with others. This has not changed since the beginning.

 

[WlLL0W]

Nothing in the term MMO states people have to play with others.

i agree. there is absolutely nothing in 'massively multiplayer online'

which would suggest that that people have to play with each other....

i would rep you just for having the grapes to post that..

but sadly i'm recovering from a recent sidesplitting incident.
and i cant quite move myself to do it.

 

[Jockey79]

Show me in your little wall of choice where it said solo mode grinding should be preferential for power play and cgs.

If you refuse to accept that some powers will have more solo players than others, I can't agrue with you anymore. It's basic commonssense.

Solo mode isn't "preferential" for anyone who wants to be sociable. Groups or Open modes is.
As for powers having more players - that has nothing to do with the modes, and everything to do with the PP system and the benefits it gives.

People will support who they want to support, regardless of what mode they play in.

Oh, and just for laughs - why not email the worlds most richest people and ask them how they got their money - Being sociable with friends and family or being anti-social and working really REALLY hard (Bill Gates and Richard Branson spring to mind).
(As for those who inherited money, trace it back - bet you find some right anti-social hard working folk along the way who amassed the money.)

 

[Faded Glory]

So if a player is an ex-military who just play solo I am not allowed to say that he is a coward in GAME?
I don't say that they don't have to enjoy playing in solo, I am just saying that their actions shouldn't have consequences in a VIRTUAL world where other people decide to take risks!

Just tell me: if there were two LIVING galaxies, one for people playing SOLO and the other for people playing OPEN, where will the problem lie? SOLO people are playing SOLO so for what matters they shouldn't even know that OPEN players in their same part of the galaxy are preparing a system. They should just be dealing with NPCs or other SOLO players.
Do you understand that having this switch-capability without consequences will harm ONLY the pilots playing OPEN?

EDIT: You know, in the past they decided to not let women vote. Now politicians changed their minds. Do you complain because women right to vote wasn't advertised in the past?

Don't you think it's rather stupid to call someone a coward in a game? Not to mention that it's hardly heroic to sit behind a keyboard and monitor and insult people you do not know.

As to the modes destroying the game, you imply in your first post that even though you fly in Open, you mainly encounter NPCs. Not sure why you think separating the modes is going to improve your PvP / MMO experience. There could well be even fewer players for you to interact with.

 

[Jockey79]

i agree. there is absolutely nothing in 'massively multiplayer online'

which would suggest that that people have to play with each other....

i would rep you just for having the grapes to post that..

but sadly i'm recovering from a recent sidesplitting incident.
and i cant quite move myself to do it.

And as long as the transaction server has more than one person connected, it is indeed a "multi-player" experience.
Even if it is only 2 people and one of them is at Lave, another at Sag A - still "multi-player"

And I have not even begun to deconstruct the word "massive" yet, so far I'm only dealing with the "multiplayer" side of things.

 

[PeachingTony]

You can argue the term 'MMO' from a "technical" perspective but you might as well argue that reading a book is an MMO because lots of people around the world are currently doing so.

The simple fact is a game advertised as an MMO where the most advantageous form of play is in solo mode is not hitting the mark.

Robert can argue that Frontier always intended these various forms of play, but to users expecting an engaging multiplayer experience that involves direct in-game player-player interaction in any form, so far it's a disappointment.

 

[WlLL0W]

And as long as the transaction server has more than one person connected, it is indeed a "multi-player" experience.
Even if it is only 2 people and one of them is at Lave, another at Sag A - still "multi-player"

And I have not even begun to deconstruct the word "massive" yet, so far I'm only dealing with the "multiplayer" side of things.

i would counter that with the elder scrolls online. an MMO.

i would also suggest that the reason you arent deconstructing the term 'massive'
is because in the context of an MMO, the word 'massively' renders your post pointless.

 

[Jockey79]

You can argue the term 'MMO' from a "technical" perspective but you might as well argue that reading a book is an MMO because lots of people around the world are currently doing so.

The simple fact is a game advertised as an MMO where the most advantageous form of play is in solo mode is not hitting the mark.

Robert can argue that Frontier always intended these various forms of play, but to users expecting an engaging multiplayer experience that involves direct in-game player-player interaction in any form, so far it's a disappointment.

In reverse order, Robert does not have to argue anything. Page 1, Post 3 - I have linked all the Kickstarter, DDA infor plus more recent Dev comments.
So, no one on the "defense" side has to argue any point. We agree with the Devs and their vision of what Elite: Dangerous is. It's YOUR side with the problem and needs to argue / prove something.

As for reading books, you do get social gatherings where people read a set book and talk about a set book. So yes, you could indeed label it a massively multi person event.
Groups pick a book, go home and sit on their own (Solo Mode), read a chapter or two, then on a set day at a set time, they all meet up (normally a book store) and talk about the book and read some more together (Open Mode).
Sometimes they meet at someone's home to read and talk about the book (Private Group).

 

[WlLL0W]

You can argue the term 'MMO' from a "technical" perspective but you might as well argue that reading a book is an MMO because lots of people around the world are currently doing so.

The simple fact is a game advertised as an MMO where the most advantageous form of play is in solo mode is not hitting the mark.

Robert can argue that Frontier always intended these various forms of play, but to users expecting an engaging multiplayer experience that involves direct in-game player-player interaction in any form, so far it's a disappointment.

and if the contentions in this and the first thread are anything to go by,
they could be used as a microcosm of the reactions by the wider gaming community.
and if things stay the way they are......when the game is released on xbox one and PS4,

it will get slated.

if its not a true MMO, then dont sell it as one. simple as that.
its easy for gamers..., they will move onto something else...
it will be FD that pay the price in the end.

i'm not saying to force solo players into the open...

i'm saying that FD should sort out the PVP side of things.

did i read right that DB said the background sim could be run from one 2G phone?

maybe get another phone on the go.

 

[Jockey79]

i would counter that with the elder scrolls online. an MMO.

i would also suggest that the reason you arent deconstructing the term 'massive'
is because in the context of an MMO, the word 'massively' renders your post pointless.

The term "Massive" has no set number attached to it - I've left it so far due to how subjective it is.

Robocraft is 10 V 10 (20 total) which is less than the max cap in ED (32) - and Robocraft is "massive".
So no it does not render anything useless, well apart from the argument that it is a "massive" game so you should be able to OMGPWNROXXOR other players.

And again, I've played several games mainly on my own - all with "massive" attached to them. It is how many people can play the game at the same time - not how many have to put up with one.

 

[PeachingTony]

Like I said, taking the "technical" view of MMO is missing the point entirely, but then you appear determined to do so throughout this thread.

You don't seem to have answered my 2nd point above, which says it all.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

You can argue the term 'MMO' from a "technical" perspective but you might as well argue that reading a book is an MMO because lots of people around the world are currently doing so.

The simple fact is a game advertised as an MMO where the most advantageous form of play is in solo mode is not hitting the mark.

Robert can argue that Frontier always intended these various forms of play, but to users expecting an engaging multiplayer experience that involves direct in-game player-player interaction in any form, so far it's a disappointment.

Multiplayer does NOT necessarily mean PvP... indeed DB himself stated that he expected the majority of the MP in elite to be co-op not PvP.... and as it stands right now, if you wing up you get bonuses to your payouts when trading.
on top of that, when winging up you get the option to protect each other (safty in numbers). in solo you do not get the pay bonuses and you do not get to wing up for protection.

IF ED was played as DB envisioned it in the dev diaries then I think you would agree that playing it in a MP environment is indeed potentially easier and more profitable than solo.

 

[Jockey79]

and if the contentions in this and the first thread are anything to go by,
they could be used as a microcosm of the reactions by the wider gaming community.
and if things stay the way they are......when the game is released on xbox one and PS4,

it will get slated.

if its not a true MMO, then dont sell it as one. simple as that.
its easy for gamers..., they will move onto something else...
it will be FD that pay the price in the end.

i'm not saying to force solo players into the open...

i'm saying that FD should sort out the PVP side of things.

did i read right that DB said the background sim could be run from one 2G phone?

maybe get another phone on the go.

WTH is a "true MMO" ?

I've never heard such rubbish in all my life. Sorry, but you are not in charge of what constitutes an MMO.
And judging by Steams list of MMOs, there is no set standard or definition. It seems that as long as more than one person can play it and at some point a server is involved, it gets the MMO tag slapped on it.

- - - Updated - - -

Like I said, taking the "technical" view of MMO is missing the point entirely, but then you appear determined to do so throughout this thread.

You don't seem to have answered my 2nd point above, which says it all.

I have answered, repeatedly. You're just ignoring the answer

 

[PeachingTony]

Mike, that's a fair point. If that was the norm, it would be a reasonable scenario (although it would relatively penalise anyone not wanting to work in a wing).

If it works, we'd start to see wing vs wing in military strike zones in open, and that would be fun, in my opinion.

 

[WlLL0W]

The term "Massive" has no set number attached to it - I've left it so far due to how subjective it is.

Robocraft is 10 V 10 (20 total) which is less than the max cap in ED (32) - and Robocraft is "massive".
So no it does not render anything useless, well apart from the argument that it is a "massive" game so you should be able to OMGPWNROXXOR other players.

And again, I've played several games mainly on my own - all with "massive" attached to them. It is how many people can play the game at the same time - not how many have to put up with one.

there is a difference between being matched with 16, 20, 30 in a lobby to play against them
and an MMO.

what next.... COD is an MMO because you can have 8v8?

'massive' is not about the amount of gamers who bought or play the game.

it is about the amount of players currently in the game environment available to be interacted with.

thats why they originally added the term 'massively' to the terms 'multiplayer online'

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

there is a difference between being matched with 16, 20, 30 in a lobby to play against them
and an MMO.
.

Personally I hated that ED called itsself a massive multiplayer online game NOT because i personally do not think it is one (I think it DOES qualify) but because some people subjectively have a set structure on what it means, which regardless of if may or may not be correct can lead to disappointment..

So with this in mind, when FD updated their front page and removed it, I thought it was a good move.................. only for it to appear back again on the steam page on steam release.

so for me, bottom line, (and this is not really related to the solo/open chat) but I can see why some people are confused if they buy on the MMO tag. That being said, apparently war thunder and World of tanks are MMOs... and yet by the definitions some are stating here, neither of them qualify either.

 

[WlLL0W]

Personally I hated that ED called itsself a massive multiplayer online game NOT because i personally do not think it is one (I think it DOES qualify) but because some people subjectively have a set structure on what it means, which regardless of if may or may not be correct can lead to disappointment..

So with this in mind, when FD updated their front page and removed it, I thought it was a good move.................. only for it to appear back again on the steam page on steam release.

so for me, bottom line, (and this is not really related to the solo/open chat) but I can see why some people are confused if they buy on the MMO tag. That being said, apparently war thunder and World of tanks are MMOs... and yet by the definitions some are stating here, neither of them qualify either.

nice one. thats kinda my gripe as well.

you look at the video's, watch the dogfighting, and see it listed as an MMO.
thats what was presented. its all too easy to buy it based on advertising
only to find that its nothing like its portrayed.

nothing good will come from that situation. especially when released for consoles.

also, not sure about the PC version but i wouldnt call world of tanks an MMO either.

its a 15v15 enclosed PVP game and nothing else.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

nice one. thats kinda my gripe as well.

you look at the video's, watch the dogfighting, and see it listed as an MMO.
thats what was presented. its all too easy to buy it based on advertising
only to find that its nothing like its portrayed.

nothing good will come from that situation. especially when released for consoles.

also, not sure about the PC version but i wouldnt call world of tanks an MMO either.

its a 15v15 enclosed PVP game and nothing else.

Since I have spend well over 100 Hours with the Game without doing any PvP thats obviously not true, there is much more to Elite then PvP.