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

[Robert Maynard]

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.

I'll agree to differ on that one - the flexi-player nature of the game was certainly a major positive when I was considering whether or not to back the game to the level that I did. It has been a constant of the stated game design from the outset, i.e. three game modes, shared galaxy state and mode switching at will.

Of course, if sales tank then Frontier will need to work out how to attract more - I would not necessarily expect that that would be achieved by removing core features from the game though.

 

[SteveLaw]

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.

It seems to me that market may actually be what's influencing the Selective Multiplayer trend. Shroud of the Avatar has a similar system, *cough* Star Citizen *cough* has a PvP-PvE slider to opt in and out of PvP. Maybe it's people sick of being forced into multiplayer everything who stopped buying games and the market wants them back.

 

[Viajero]

I'll agree to differ on that one - the flexi-player nature of the game was certainly a major positive when I was considering whether or not to back the game to the level that I did. It has been a constant of the stated game design from the outset, i.e. three game modes, shared galaxy state and mode switching at will.

Of course, if sales tank then Frontier will need to work out how to attract more - I would not necessarily expect that that would be achieved by removing core features from the game though.

"if sales tank", "removing core features" ...

Why go to the extreme? Things do not need to go to extremes to be modified. I personally think there could be a number of ways, including partial compromises, that could go a long way to change the Open and PvP mechanics of the game without "removing core features" at all.

FDEV has probably access to most of the figures they need to establish trends and market behaviour to support any decisions required.

It seems to me that market may actually be what's influencing the Selective Multiplayer trend. Shroud of the Avatar has a similar system, *cough* Star Citizen *cough* has a PvP-PvE slider to opt in and out of PvP. Maybe it's people sick of being forced into multiplayer everything who stopped buying games and the market wants them back.

May be so indeed. I dont know. The only ones with actual data that can be analyzed to conclude either way is FDEV.

 

[SteveLaw]

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

Are you the only player left in Open?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why go to the extreme? Things do not need to go to extremes to be modified. I personally think there could be a number of ways, including partial compromises, that could go a long way to change the Open and PvP mechanics of the game without "removing core features" at all.

FDEV has probably access to most of the figures they need to establish trends and market behaviour to support any decisions required.

When you wrote ".... the Open vs Solo issue may need to be rediscussed" there was no implicit limitation on the potential discussion, therefore the extremes are possible (however unlikely). If Frontier do decide that changes need to be made then I would hope that they can come up with an ideal compromise that every player is equally happy with then that would indeed offer a mutually acceptable solution - however, as that would seem to be an impossible task, it is more likely that a working compromise that upsets / annoys every player equally would be found.#

Frontier certainly have all of the data - what they will draw from it is anyone's guess.

 

[jonny taco]

I would not necessarily expect that that would be achieved by removing core features from the game though.

How is a separate open only simulation "removing core features from the game though". What I see is a lot of hyperbole in the form of "it would cost so much to run another background simulation", "it would be too much work to write a few more news articles a week" as a means to "defeat" this idea. The truth is that allot of people want a more closed sandbox experience which another open only simulation with a separate character would absolutely achieve.

 

[SteveLaw]

How is a separate open only simulation "removing core features from the game though".

You are removing the feature where all players influence the same shared galaxy. Depending on who's version of the request you listen to of course and this is part of the problem.

There are several different "required" solutions to various perceived problems - which one should be implemented? Whichever it is it won't please everyone. So why should FDev go to the bother and expense of making changes to the game to go from not pleasing everyone to not pleasing everyone. From their POV what have they changed? This debate will continue because the other groups of lobbyists won't have got what they want.

 

[Viajero]

When you wrote ".... the Open vs Solo issue may need to be rediscussed" there was no implicit limitation on the potential discussion, therefore the extremes are possible (however unlikely). If Frontier do decide that changes need to be made then I would hope that they can come up with an ideal compromise that every player is equally happy with then that would indeed offer a mutually acceptable solution - however, as that would seem to be an impossible task, it is more likely that a working compromise that upsets / annoys every player equally would be found.#

Indeed, there is no such thing as a compromise that pleases everyone.

The question is if the current state of affairs with the Open community vocally requesting changes could either lead to a reduced player base and/or lower future sales due to the game being perceived as having a somewhat broken system wrt PvP or not. And that is irrespective if the perception is real or not.

And, would that theoretical reduction in player base and sales be more significant than the potential loss of player base and sales due to compromises affecting negatively Solo/Private?

I think there are a few game design options out there available to funnel or facilitate PvP to an extent that the Open game feels meaningful enough to Open players, without undermining (pun intended) Solo/Private.

But overarching all this is the P2P discussion. It may very well be that even if FDEV wanted to implement some modest changes or compromises they really still cant. What good is to incentivize Open play or PvP if the netcode cant deliver?

 

[Robert Maynard]

How is a separate open only simulation "removing core features from the game though". What I see is a lot of hyperbole in the form of "it would cost so much to run another background simulation", "it would be too much work to write a few more news articles a week" as a means to "defeat" this idea. The truth is that allot of people want a more closed sandbox experience which another open only simulation with a separate character would absolutely achieve.

I have not tried to infer that the addition of a locked completely separated Open-Only mode would be removing core features. It would, however, require a separate galaxy state to be curated by Frontier and supported by additional servers - that costs money.

It would be interesting indeed to know how many players would willingly lock their commander into that mode. The most recent polls on the subject of which mode(s) players play in would suggest that only about 32% play in Open only.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed, there is no such thing as a compromise that pleases everyone.

The question is if the current state of affairs with the Open community vocally requesting changes could either lead to a reduced player base and/or lower future sales due to the game being perceived as having a somewhat broken system wrt PvP or not. And that is irrespective if the perception is real or not.

And, would that theoretical reduction in player base and sales be more significant than the potential loss of player base and sales due to compromises affecting negatively Solo/Private?

Overarching all this is the P2P discussion. It may very well be that even if FDEV wanted to implement some modest changes or compromises they really still cant. What good is to incentivize Open play or PvP if the netcode cant deliver?

Indeed there is not.

As to how many players would be gained / lost if there were changes made - it would be as well to simply toss a coin. It should also be borne in mind that when the next great PvP space game comes along we may well lose players regardless of the efforts put in by Frontier.

Taking that into account and also the fact that DBOBE is on record as considering that PvP should be rare and meaningful (as well as the out-of-game PvP arena that will be delivered the release of Close Quarter Combat), I don't expect that PvP will necessarily be incentivised in-game.

 

[Viajero]

..DBOBE is on record as considering that PvP should be rare and meaningful...

That is the part that does not seem to have been delivered yet, especially in Powerplay.

I think there are a few game design options out there available to funnel or facilitate PvP to an extent that the Open game feels meaningful enough to already existing Open players (p2p permitting), without undermining (pun intended) Solo/Private.

 

[Cody]

I think there are a few game design options out there available to funnel or facilitate PvP to an extent that the Open game feels meaningful enough to Open players, without undermining (pun intended) Solo/Private.

I think there are a few game design options out there available to funnel or facilitate PvP to an extent that the Open game feels meaningful enough to Open players (p2p permitting), without undermining (pun intended) Solo/Private.

And now in stereo!

 

[Viajero]

And now in stereo!

Maynard was too quick for my edit!

 

[Lestenio]

I was hugely looking forward to a star wars game, then I found out there is no single player campaign

Star Wars Battlefront just lost another customer now you gave me a heads up that there is no single player campaign. That ruined my day.

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

Your response

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.

Seriously, what an attitude.
You didn’t properly research the game before you bought it, and now you spent your money you want to inconvenience a group of people who are totally happy with the game and force THEM to change how THEY play just to make yourself feel better.


Shakes head and wonders

 

[Cody]

Maynard was too quick for my edit!

<grins> The slayer of pirates is pretty fast, yeah. <sniggers>

 

[Robert Maynard]

That is the part that does not seem to have been delivered yet, especially in Powerplay.

I think there are a few game design options out there available to funnel or facilitate PvP to an extent that the Open game feels meaningful enough to already existing Open players (p2p permitting), without undermining (pun intended) Solo/Private.

Care would need to be taken, if such changes were to be considered, that players who have no interest in PvP (but prefer to play in Open) are not disadvantaged / forced to participate in PvP.

While PvP is possible in Open, it is not the only play-style and it should be remembered that Open is the only game mode that allows players to meet up with random players - Open belongs to all players, not just those who wish to engage in PvP.

 

[rckstr]

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.

Any other game with that participation on the true multiplayer environment compared to it's sold copies would be called a fail.
I think "Don't starve" would fit good into my next example. The single player part has been sold X times. Now there is a multiplayer part that will get sold X times. Anyone who buys the muliplayer part has no advantage of the sold copies of the singleplayer part (despite more money for development).
And this is what happened here too. My gameplay experience will not be richer because anyone bought the Solo part. And if you take a look at what was promised and what we have those promises haven't been held, though the game sold so well and they got enough money to start development with kickstarter.

 

[jonny taco]

It would be interesting indeed to know how many players would willingly lock their commander into that mode. The most recent polls on the subject of which mode(s) players play in would suggest that only about 32% play in Open only.

I personally don't think that poll is really relevant to the proposed idea but I suppose it's the best we have. I'd advocate another poll with a yes or no question, would you or would you not play a new character on an open only simulation or something along those lines.


As for the major obstacles with an open only simulation... It's all speculative atm but one thing that has been stated by FDev is the limited amount of "horse power" required to run the background simulation. Now there is of course far more that goes into hosting another server state but specifically in regards to the comments about the "Cost" of running another background sim, they seem rather baseless... Now what I see as the major technical hangup with such a proposed server is that the current net code would be less than satisfactory which would rob from the potential enjoyment and goal such a game environment would support. As far as I'm concerned, as it stands now, networking issues cause more problems for the "open crowd" than any perceived unfairness in regards to the topic of this debate. Once this is deemed in an acceptable state, the feasibility of an open only server becomes far more realistic imo.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Any other game with that participation on the true multiplayer environment compared to it's sold copies would be called a fail.
I think "Don't starve" would fit good into my next example. The single player part has been sold X times. Now there is a multiplayer part that will get sold X times. Anyone who buys the muliplayer part has no advantage of the sold copies of the singleplayer part (despite more money for development).
And this is what happened here too. My gameplay experience will not be richer because anyone bought the Solo part. And if you take a look at what was promised and what we have those promises haven't been held, though the game sold so well and they got enough money to start development with kickstarter.

There is no separate solo part or multi-player part - both game modes are simply different settings of the matchmaking system. If the richness of your gameplay experience depends on other players then you are rely on other players to want to play in Open. If Open becomes a place that most players do not want to play, at least they have the choice to play in Private Groups or Solo rather than stop playing the game at all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Now what I see as the major technical hangup with such a proposed server is that the current net code would be less than satisfactory which would rob from the potential enjoyment and goal such a game environment would support. As far as I'm concerned, as it stands now, networking issues cause more problems for the "open crowd" than any perceived unfairness in regards to the topic of this debate.

In other words what is being requested is effectively a separate set of galaxy state servers with a different, more expensive, networking model, that happens to use the same game assets as E: D?

Sounds like a not insignificant amount of development time / cost and running costs - I doubt that it would be supported subscription free (and Frontier have ruled out subscriptions for E: D).