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

[Derath]

First off, what argument? I was providing information, not arguing. Specifically addressing your comment "I'd just have liked it even more on an Ironman server or something similar." that I quoted.

If your Ironman mode comments are not relevant to solo/group/open, why are you making them in the solo/group/open thread?

No your right argument was the wrong word, what I should have said is I don't really understand what relevance this has, as you provided information though I don't know where from, but the info didn't really play into Ironman or not mode switching has nothing to do with Ironman.

As to why there are Ironman comments don't ask me, I didn't bring it up just responded to some people earlier that were discussing it, could be because the principles are fairly similar between open only and Ironman, though different rulesets obviously.

 

[PhazonAran]

And please don't reject my argumentation simply with "because that's how Fdev has created it". Because that would be beyond any logical sense.

Yet it makes sense. They are the devs. They make the game. You can't dismiss that just because you don't like it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And please don't reject my argumentation simply with "because that's how Fdev has created it". Because that would be beyond any logical sense.

Rejecting the argument "because that's how Fdev has created it" is a quite reasonable response simply because Frontier successfully sought Kickstarter funding on the basis of the stated game design, have advertised the game with these core features in place and players have bought the game with these core features in place - to change those core features now would probably create as big a public relations problem as the removal of Offline mode (if not bigger).

To expect a game to be changed quite so fundamentally after release (over six months ago), after over two and a half years of development, to suit the particular play-style of a (probably) relatively small subset of the player base would be, I expect, a futile endeavour.

 

[rckstr]

The only way Solo can affect Open is through indirect influence. Open affects Solo in EXACTLY the same way.

Open works for a faction, the faction influence goes up for Solo players. Solo Undermines a system, Open fortifies a system. The Open action cancels the Solo action. Open saturates a market, Solo market is ruined.

No, Open players can't shoot Solo players, but Solo players can't shoot open players either. There is no difference in how players influence each other in either mode.

I don't want to be affected by indirect influence. I don't want to live with the conditions created with it. I don't want to be forced to counter indirect influences with indirect influences. I want to make an influence directly, i want to blaze my own trail, but i can't.
If the only concern that Soloist's have are the psychos that kill you without any given reason, without a in game, lore related reason, then it is up to Fdev to make changes about that situation. Then Fdev should implement things that encourage to build and maintain a healthy environment. But they didn't. They have taken the easy route.
Would it be such a great loss for the soloists if everybody would recognize that a soloist can not make such a great impact on the economy and thus should be able to achieve everything the game has to offer but would have to accept the he is unable to make a change in influence or power standing, because is impact is just too low?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I don't want to be affected by indirect influence. I don't want to live with the conditions created with it.

Then why did you buy Elite, a game which advertised these exact features.

it would be like me buying iracing and complaining that there is no solo mode with a career structure and AI!.

For the record PERSONALLY I would not be that bothered if solo had less of an impact on say PP than open did. The ONLY thing I would throw my toys out of the pram for would be if i was unable to change modes with my CMDR and play with mates whenever i want without restarting.

BUT

That is just me. I do not speak for others who may enjoy powerplay and having an influence on it, but for what ever reason cant play in open. The game was advertised with 3 modes where all have an impact on the background sim. to change that is a very slippery slope imo.

 

[Cody]

I don't want this, I don't want that, I don't want...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Would it be such a great loss for the soloists if everybody would recognize that a soloist can not make such a great impact on the economy and thus should be able to achieve everything the game has to offer but would have to accept the he is unable to make a change in influence or power standing, because is impact is just too low?

We all affect Community Goals and Powerplay equally - regardless of which mode we play in. That's the way that Frontier have decided that these game features are played and is consistent with the philosophy of every player, in any game mode and on any platform affecting the same shared galaxy state.

We all bought a game where all players affect the same galaxy state - to change that now would seem, again, to be too much of a change from the game we all bought.

 

[SteveLaw]

If the only concern that Soloist's have are the psychos that kill you without any given reason, without a in game, lore related reason, then it is up to Fdev to make changes about that situation.

Again, not the only reason but they offered us Solo so we can choose not to have to encounter other players for whatever reason. Why do they need to make more changes? Because you don't like a feature that was in the game when you bought it?

"Because that's how FDev created it" isn't good enough but "because I don't want it", is? Again, if you don't want to be affected by indirect influence why did you buy a game in which you are affected by indirect influence? I don't want to play a game where I have to encounter other players so I bought one that allows me to choose not to do that.

Would it be such a great loss for the soloists if everybody would recognize that a soloist can not make such a great impact on the economy and thus should be able to achieve everything the game has to offer but would have to accept the he is unable to make a change in influence or power standing, because is impact is just too low?

How can we have a great impact and an impact that is too low? Who are you to decide how relevant our contributions should be? While you are all shooting each other we are performing the tasks that do actually influence the galaxy. It's your impact that is too low because you spend your time on things that don't have any impact. Stop worrying about shooting us to stop the Undermine and do your Fortify chores.

 

[rckstr]

Yet it makes sense. They are the devs. They make the game. You can't dismiss that just because you don't like it.

Rejecting the argument "because that's how Fdev has created it" is a quite reasonable response simply because Frontier successfully sought Kickstarter funding on the basis of the stated game design, have advertised the game with these core features in place and players have bought the game with these core features in place - to change those core features now would probably create as big a public relations problem as the removal of Offline mode (if not bigger).

To expect a game to be changed quite so fundamentally after release (over six months ago), after over two and a half years of development, to suit the particular play-style of a (probably) relatively small subset of the player base would be, I expect, a futile endeavour.

No, this is not reasonable. This is just blindly accepting and defending a developer decision.
You would not agree with a condition if it wouldn't suit you. You would bring up arguments with the intention to show everyone why this decision is bad. This is what i am doing here and what others before me have tried.

"Our galaxy. Its an awe inspiring, beautiful, vast place; with billions of star systems, planets, moons and asteroid fields just waiting to be explored, and exploited. The triumverate superpowers of the Empire, Federation and Independents dominate their core system volumes and constantly skirmish to outmaneouver one another on their frontiers. Outside their influence, in the vast majority of the galaxy, anarchy reigns supreme and spectacular discoveries await the bold.
Its dog-eat-dog out there – you need to keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Your second-to-second actions could have you taking the roles of trader, pirate, bounty hunter, leader, team player, opportunistic assassin, grand schemer, and more. You are at the centre of the action any time, any place and any way you choose – each action has a consequence, and influences the galaxy around you."

This is out of the kickstarter campaign. Where do i have this features? Where is the skirmish to outmanouver one another? Do you call the mechanics we have acting in Solo against each other a skirmish? Where is the dog-eat-dog that has been promised? Where are the friends that i have to keep close and the enemies that i have to keep even closer?
Where i am the centre of action when there is nothing around me to make action? Where does each of my actions have a consequence? I can roam in hostile territory and perform hostile actions without those promised consequences.

"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".

This statement alone excludes the promised things above to work in a healthy and entertaining way.

- - - Updated - - -

Then why did you buy Elite, a game which advertised these exact features.

The answer is simple. Because i didn't expect that this feature would have such a great impact on my gameplay experience. I really thought that the majority would share my opinion a do all the promised things in Open. There, where it is reasonable to make changes and to be affected by others influence.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

No, this is not reasonable. This is just blindly accepting and defending a developer decision.
You would not agree with a condition if it wouldn't suit you. You would bring up arguments with the intention to show everyone why this decision is bad. This is what i am doing here and what others before me have tried.

.

No... I just wouldnt buy it in the 1st place!

point in question. Star Wars Battlefront. I was hugely looking forward to a star wars game, then I found out there is no single player campaign, so I am out. What I wont do is buy it and then moan about it and demand the devs put a solo game in there!.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No, this is not reasonable. This is just blindly accepting and defending a developer decision.
You would not agree with a condition if it wouldn't suit you. You would bring up arguments with the intention to show everyone why this decision is bad. This is what i am doing here and what others before me have tried.

"Our galaxy. Its an awe inspiring, beautiful, vast place; with billions of star systems, planets, moons and asteroid fields just waiting to be explored, and exploited. The triumverate superpowers of the Empire, Federation and Independents dominate their core system volumes and constantly skirmish to outmaneouver one another on their frontiers. Outside their influence, in the vast majority of the galaxy, anarchy reigns supreme and spectacular discoveries await the bold.
Its dog-eat-dog out there – you need to keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Your second-to-second actions could have you taking the roles of trader, pirate, bounty hunter, leader, team player, opportunistic assassin, grand schemer, and more. You are at the centre of the action any time, any place and any way you choose – each action has a consequence, and influences the galaxy around you."

This is out of the kickstarter campaign. Where do i have this features? Where is the skirmish to outmanouver one another? Do you call the mechanics we have acting in Solo against each other a skirmish? Where is the dog-eat-dog that has been promised? Where are the friends that i have to keep close and the enemies that i have to keep even closer?
Where i am the centre of action when there is nothing around me to make action? Where does each of my actions have a consequence? I can roam in hostile territory and perform hostile actions without those promised consequences.

"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".

This statement alone excludes the promised things above to work in a healthy and entertaining way.

Apart from the last sentence from the Kickstarter pitch that you quoted, where does it mention that any of the actions in-game will be against other players?

Which definition of "healthy and entertaining" are you using?

 

[rckstr]

No... I just wouldnt buy it in the 1st place!

point in question. Star Wars Battlefront. I was hugely looking forward to a star wars game, then I found out there is no single player campaign, so I am out. What I wont do is buy it and then moan about it and demand the devs put a solo game in there!.

A singleplayer campaign is something completely different than this mashup we have caused by "everyone takes influence on everyone, we share the same galaxy".
This is what i am pointing at, all the time. I can not make the influence i want. I can not stop anybody from doing what he does because it is against my ethos, neither can i support someone because it fits my ethos. The is no encouragement to do so.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The answer is simple. Because i didn't expect that this feature would have such a great impact on my gameplay experience. I really thought that the majority would share my opinion a do all the promised things in Open. There, where it is reasonable to make changes and to be affected by others influence.

If players want to play in Open they will (I do, most of the time, except when I am suffering from lag bad enough to adversely affect control of the ship). There is no "right" way to play the game - DBOBE re-stated that in his recent interview with Arstechnica at E3. If players choose to ignore Open then that is up to them.

Like any other multi-player game, the population is dependent on the number of players playing at any given time. The difference with E: D is that players can choose to play alone or with friends rather than with the rest of the population.

 

[rckstr]

Apart from the last sentence from the Kickstarter pitch that you quoted, where does it mention that any of the actions in-game will be against other players?

Which definition of "healthy and entertaining" are you using?

Oh, please excuse that i have expected to do those promised things in a multiplayer environment against others than npc's...

 

[telperion]

How can we have a great impact and an impact that is too low? Who are you to decide how relevant our contributions should be? While you are all shooting each other we are performing the tasks that do actually influence the galaxy. It's your impact that is too low because you spend your time on things that don't have any impact. Stop worrying about shooting us to stop the Undermine and do your Fortify chores.

This is so true. So very true.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Oh, please excuse that i have expected to do those promised things in a multiplayer environment against others than npc's...

My point is simply that there is no requirement for any player to be content for other players - Frontier have given us all the freedom to choose if we want to play with other players, or not as the case may be.

 

[telperion]

Oh, please excuse that i have expected to do those promised things in a multiplayer environment against others than npc's...

You are excused. However, you can do that. No one is stopping you from playing it all in a multiplayer environment. All Fdev have done is stop you from FORCING others to play how you want them to. They've allowed everyone to play how they want to.

I would have thought that by now people would have realised that the core of the game isn't going to change and Fdev, to their credit, won't be swayed by the incessant complaining and demanding of the few players who are still at it.

I guess those still banging on that drum need a little more time for it to sink in.

 

[Viajero]

No... I just wouldnt buy it in the 1st place!

point in question. Star Wars Battlefront. I was hugely looking forward to a star wars game, then I found out there is no single player campaign, so I am out. What I wont do is buy it and then moan about it and demand the devs put a solo game in there!.

Well I would not quite put it as "moan about it and demand..."

I think many of the requests or ideas for an improvement in the Open and PVP mechanics are quite calm and constructive, even if you do not agree with them.

FDEV has come around or changed on the fly many game design decision in the last 2.5 years. And there will be many more. You can simply see it by looking at the DDA.

I dont think the Solo vs Open discusion is an exception nor is it special in this regard.

Going forward what matters to FDEV is new sales since there is no P2W or subscription model, and FDEV is going to have to take a look at the market. To some extent FDEV also needs to retain the current player base so to leverage economies of scale and any positive externalities of volume. If the market opinion suggests that the Open vs Solo issue may need to be rediscussed I am sure FDEV will have to at least consider it.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

A singleplayer campaign is something completely different than this mashup we have caused by "everyone takes influence on everyone, we share the same galaxy".
This is what i am pointing at, all the time. I can not make the influence i want. I can not stop anybody from doing what he does because it is against my ethos, neither can i support someone because it fits my ethos. The is no encouragement to do so.

The point still stands.

like it or not the whole thing is a compromise, and solo players have had to compromise a LOT for the potential of some people to be able to have competative MP.

time acceleration to see sunsets, external views, pausing the game, reloading saves, modding and not to mention the dev time needed on the MP side which could have been used elsewhere and the whole notion of having to try to "balance" all the ships for fear of a possible advantage .

all of the above would have been fine for a solo game but all had to be junked for the possibility of MP.

 

[SteveLaw]

This is out of the kickstarter campaign. Where do i have this features?

Our galaxy. Its an awe inspiring, beautiful, vast place; with billions of star systems, planets, moons and asteroid fields just waiting to be explored, and exploited.
- Any objection with that?

The triumverate superpowers of the Empire, Federation and Independents dominate their core system volumes and constantly skirmish to outmaneouver one another on their frontiers.
- Was only vaguely true before but you can't argue that with Power Play, right?

Outside their influence, in the vast majority of the galaxy, anarchy reigns supreme and spectacular discoveries await the bold.
- A little bit of hyperbole perhaps but we can't say it isn't true. Only a tiny fraction of the galaxy has been explored so far.

Its dog-eat-dog out there – you need to keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
- Any issue with this one?

Your second-to-second actions could have you taking the roles of trader, pirate, bounty hunter, leader, team player, opportunistic assassin, grand schemer, and more.
- They could, do you disagree?

You are at the centre of the action any time, any place and any way you choose – each action has a consequence, and influences the galaxy around you.
- Again, which part of this do you have issue with? Each action has a consequence and it influences the galaxy.

Where is the problem? Which of those features don't you have?