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

[SteveLaw]

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.

Certain promises haven't been held in way that you interpreted them. That's not the same thing.

 

[rckstr]

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.

Where has all of this ever been mentioned to be developed? Where do you see an official statement about not having these features because of multiplayer?
Stop fooling yourself and dodging reasonable arguments. You have what you wanted, the only group that has to deal with sacrifices are the ones in open, those that would have a different experience if the where disconnected from solo/group influence.

 

[SteveLaw]

Stop fooling yourself and dodging reasonable arguments.

Haha, that's ironic. And again with the "no danger, no risk, no sacrifice."

 

[Ghostickles]

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).

It would be wasted. There would be Players in two Open modes and both would experience less population. This is a bad idea.

 

[SteveLaw]

It would be wasted. There would be Players in two Open modes and both would experience less population. This is a bad idea.

And a less dynamic universe.

 

[rckstr]

Are you the only player left in Open?

No I am not the only one. But we are a minority. And you just don't see a reason to accept that the open world would be more crowded if there was open only though it has instances. What if everyone in solo/group would fit the empty space I have in front of me, because he is at the same location? Chances would be higher, You just admit it.

 

[PhazonAran]

No I am not the only one. But we are a minority. And you just don't see a reason to accept that the open world would be more crowded if there was open only though it has instances. What if everyone in solo/group would fit the empty space I have in front of me, because he is at the same location? Chances would be higher, you are just to ignorant to admit it.

Those people don't want to meet you. Period.

 

[jonny taco]

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).

I think you've straw manned what I'm talking about in terms of improvements to net code... I'm not talking about specifically server side stuff which is the option with by far the most prohibitive costs. I'm talking about cleaning up the p2p netcode and possibly looking at other supportive technologies... As you've stated, there is no way a server side model would be financially viable w/o a sub which is something that won't happen. One thing that is extremely likely to happen however is general improvements to our current network model... The specifics as to what these improvements are I'm not sure, but It's naive (not saying you're naive) to assume that Fdev has not noticed the large number of complaints focused around netcode and are not coming up with solutions accordingly. This is what I'm suggesting needs to take place before the idea of a separate open only server is feasible...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No I am not the only one. But we are a minority. And you just don't see a reason to accept that the open world would be more crowded if there was open only though it has instances. What if everyone in solo/group would fit the empty space I have in front of me, because he is at the same location? Chances would be higher, you are just to ignorant to admit it.

He responded to your claim you were promised to meet other entities than NPCs. You made the absolute statement.

Steve pointed out that since you're not the only one, that promise still holds. You can and will meet other entities than NPCs.

So Steve is not ignorant, it's much worse than that. He's right.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Where has all of this ever been mentioned to be developed? Where do you see an official statement about not having these features because of multiplayer?
Stop fooling yourself and dodging reasonable arguments. You have what you wanted, the only group that has to deal with sacrifices are the ones in open, those that would have a different experience if the where disconnected from solo/group influence.

LOL seriously?

double standards much?

I am at work and do not have the time to search back 3 years for the info - but there are a bunch here who have been following this game since it was called Elite 4. All the features I listed above WERE in elite 1, 2 and 3 and reasons for them not been in the newest game HAVE been said because they are incompatible with MP, either due to the fact you cant pause or accelerate a "live game" and that external views imbalance PvP (a point which I do agree with for the record.......... ) I just do not have the time to fine the links so if you want to think I am a liar and accelerated time has never been a thing in the Elite universe, then be my guest.

 

[SteveLaw]

No I am not the only one. But we are a minority. And you just don't see a reason to accept that the open world would be more crowded if there was open only though it has instances.

How do you know you are a minority?

I haven't yet been given a reason to accept that open would be more crowded. Let's take your assertion at face value (even though you have no possible way to know) and agree that Open players are a minority.

Why are they a minority? - What makes players not play in Open?

What would change with that reason if Open was Open Only?

"Chances are"? What chances? What reasons? And you call me ignorant?

 

[rckstr]

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.

You would just have to use the servers that are used right now for open and disconnect them from solo/group influence. Kaboom.

And if a poll displays that only 32% play in open I think it is reasonable to complain about the weak multiplayer experience as a multiplayer, no matter what intentions I have

And just to add. How many of those who are left in open take benefit of jumping into Solo/Group, just to avoid resistance by other players?

Now come again and tell me that i can enjoy my multiplayer experience.

 

[telperion]

And a less dynamic universe.

That was the first thing that occurred to me too. In the current setup the universe is made more dynamic by all those people in all 3 modes who are actually doing things to change the underlying model. If you had a "pvp open only" the people on it would primarily be interested in pvp so would do far less of everything else. You run the risk of the server becoming somewhat stagnant.

 

[Mosait]

At this time I am playing solo, but I frequent open as well. Sometimes I need space from the ats who only target players. And I understand the arguments for playing in open, such as, other players being a greater challenge than npcs. However, that is also a disingenuous argument.

Frequently I've seen in playing open, and in forum posts, is players boasting about and only going after low end new players, or easy targets. That's not a challenge. In CZs I've seen player pythons, fdl's, and condas go after singular eagles and Sidewinders only bc they were cmdrs, when not far away there are competing npc condas and pythons with far higher credit and rank scores.

An interesting experiment, and I'm not recommending the game change to this, would be to see what would happen if you had no way of knowing if that target is a cmdr or not, and how likely griefing would occur.

The only real argument I have seen by those that believe it should only be open is for the opportunity to blow up other players for no other reason to grief them. Also to meet them....some are friendly. Not everyone is an at.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think you've straw manned what I'm talking about in terms of improvements to net code... I'm not talking about specifically server side stuff which is the option with by far the most prohibitive costs. I'm talking about cleaning up the p2p netcode and possibly looking at other supportive technologies... As you've stated, there is no way a server side model would be financially viable w/o a sub which is something that won't happen. One thing that is extremely likely to happen however is general improvements to our current network model... The specifics as to what these improvements are I'm not sure, but It's naive (not saying you're naive) to assume that Fdev has not noticed the large number of complaints focused around netcode and are not coming up with solutions accordingly. This is what I'm suggesting needs to take place before the idea of a separate open only server is feasible...

Apologies if I misinterpreted your comments about the netcode. Of course we can expect that Frontier will try to improve the multi-player experience, however I would expect that the biggest stumbling blocks are our consumer internet connections - these are not under Frontier's control to influence and they have to make the best of a bad lot (in some cases).

As we are hardly likely to see a wholesale replacement of internet infrastructure, I would expect that it will be up the netcoders to make tweaks to the netcode to improve our game experience - that, or if that's not possible, reduce the size of instances to a point where they can be consistently accommodated by our internet connections.

 

[SteveLaw]

You would just have to use the servers that are used right now for open and disconnect them from solo/group influence. Kaboom.

So what happens to our dynamic universe in Solo?

 

[Derath]

That was the first thing that occurred to me too. In the current setup the universe is made more dynamic by all those people in all 3 modes who are actually doing things to change the underlying model. If you had a "pvp open only" the people on it would primarily be interested in pvp so would do far less of everything else. You run the risk of the server becoming somewhat stagnant.

Other than powerplay though, which is untried currently (might have a huge effect, will wait and see) do players really have any impact on the model? I've seen very little sign of it, various groups have tried and certainly FD have endeavored to help the persistent ones as they should but its not exactly like the games changed since say release, a few flags have changed above provinces and thats about it.

 

[Viajero]

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.

Let´s stop the forum poll argument nonsense. Only FDEV has the data. I can as easily quote you a number of polls that show things like 70% prefering to play in OPEN:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/39w6yn/poll_pvp_interest_and_powerplay_impact/
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1l2...-J895P1rHidA20/viewanalytics?usp=form_confirm

 

[rckstr]

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.







Your response





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

How the game has been promoted and how the reviews i have seen did not bring up a reason to have a doubt about what the game is going to deliver.
Or shall i read each and every single review that is available on the web?

 

[SteveLaw]

Other than powerplay though, which is untried currently (might have a huge effect, will wait and see) do players really have any impact on the model? I've seen very little sign of it, various groups have tried and certainly FD have endeavored to help the persistent ones as they should but its not exactly like the games changed since say release, a few flags have changed above provinces and thats about it.

Before Power Play that "very little" impact was one of the main "justifications" for the same Open Only, separate servers and related arguments.