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

[Lestenio]

When I travel I cant always get netflix, so what.. Should netflix make a special version for me?

And here you are demanding that FD do exactly that for you. Do you not see the irony here?

Retention is something FD is currently not doing very well.

So says you. I happened to think they are doing a reasonable job. I play as often as I can and I am not bored. This is despite 2 releases that added no content for my particular style of play.

Retention would be a serious issue to me if the game was changed to favour your style of play

 

[Roybe]

Retention is something FD is currently not doing very well.

I would point out that retention and concurrency are useless measurements in this, and most BtP games.

What they want to know is how many people will purchase dlc/expansions.

A very different set of numbers. This would likely be based off % of people that have purchased from the store. BtP companies desire people to buy, play to satiation, and stop.

 

[kryptic57]

And here you are demanding that FD do exactly that for you. Do you not see the irony here?



So says you. I happened to think they are doing a reasonable job. I play as often as I can and I am not bored. This is despite 2 releases that added no content for my particular style of play.

Retention would be a serious issue to me if the game was changed to favour your style of play

Take a look at this http://steamcharts.com/app/359320#All

Claiming retention is not an issue is just plain wrong. Why do you think they are spending so much effort to push out CQC and Xbone version? They are hugely suffering player loss.

Unfortunately thinking CQC is going to keep around people is a misstep. Player Agency and interaction is the only thing that will give longevity to this game and for some unknown reason FDEV are completely against it. Solo mode will kill this game in the long run, and ironically that's what those players want.

 

[Mouse]

however they choose..? interesting choice of words, seeing as your entire argument is about dictating, and changing a players right to interact as they choose.

Very well said.. boiled down their entire argument is them upset because they can't shoot others anytime they please. That we should all be available for destruction at their whim.

Take a look at this http://steamcharts.com/app/359320#All

Claiming retention is not an issue is just plain wrong. Why do you think they are spending so much effort to push out CQC and Xbone version? They are hugely suffering player loss.

Unfortunately thinking CQC is going to keep around people is a misstep. Player Agency and interaction is the only thing that will give longevity to this game and for some unknown reason FDEV are completely against it. Solo mode will kill this game in the long run, and ironically that's what those players want.

Sorry, but a chart from Steam is inaccurate data, for the hugely important fact that many of the core players and others, never bought it through Steam, They got it through the kickstarter or from the company directly. As was stressed before the only people who have data like that is FD. Not steam, not reddit, not polls on these forums. Also how many of those Steam numbers are those that bought the game and realized how complex it was and got their money back, which you can do now on Steam and it started in May if I remember correctly or left?

 

[MegaJohnny]

Take a look at this http://steamcharts.com/app/359320#All

Claiming retention is not an issue is just plain wrong. Why do you think they are spending so much effort to push out CQC and Xbone version? They are hugely suffering player loss.

Unfortunately thinking CQC is going to keep around people is a misstep. Player Agency and interaction is the only thing that will give longevity to this game and for some unknown reason FDEV are completely against it. Solo mode will kill this game in the long run, and ironically that's what those players want.

Solo mode is not the problem with this game. It's pretty clear from both the design of the game and word from the devs that no matter what mode you're in, NPCs will be the bulk of what you interact with. That is what isn't up to snuff here - the progression is horribly monotonous and grindy, and the NPCs provide nothing in the form of emergent gameplay to spice things up. It makes little sense to focus on something that will only ever be a small minority of the fun people have with the game.

 

[Roybe]

Take a look at this http://steamcharts.com/app/359320#All

Claiming retention is not an issue is just plain wrong. Why do you think they are spending so much effort to push out CQC and Xbone version? They are hugely suffering player loss.

Unfortunately thinking CQC is going to keep around people is a misstep. Player Agency and interaction is the only thing that will give longevity to this game and for some unknown reason FDEV are completely against it. Solo mode will kill this game in the long run, and ironically that's what those players want.

You are confusing retention with concurrency. And neither of these is important to a BtP game. Loyalty is what is needed. Walmart doesn't care if you shop at Sears. They just want you to spend your money at WalMart rather than Sears, when the need arises.

All a BtP game wants to know is how many 'boxes' it needs to sell to break even. Once they have that number, they would like an estimate of profitability. This isn't based on retention (how many players are currently playing their game) or concurrency (how many are online at a given moment). They want to know who will buy the game updates to ride the ride one more time. There are arguments that there is not enough customer service and loyalty building activities occurring.....but I would conjecture many (50%+) to most (a much higher number than 350K) will buy one update (I understand this is an estimate..but based on a normal distribution curve it would be a solid guess) How actual sales stack against this vs. the required money to break even IS a guess. The paid update will be the next large injection of cash for the game..and it's development.

Since the game is ahead of projected sales...then the business plan as laid out by the principles of the business are proceeding as planned. Whether the income is sustainable...will still have to be proven.

 

[SteveLaw]

Player Agency and interaction is the only thing that will give longevity to this game and for some unknown reason FDEV are completely against it.

You are wrong. FDev are not against player interaction. For example:

On behalf of Sandro.

... it might encourage much more interaction between the powers, and potentially commanders – something we really want. ...

They are not against player interaction, but they are against forcing everyone to have to interact with other players. They are pro-interaction just as they are pro-choice.

 

[whipdiddywhip]

You are wrong. FDev are not against player interaction. For example:



They are not against player interaction, but they are against forcing everyone to have to interact with other players. They are pro-interaction just as they are pro-choice.

so they want interaction but aren't smart enough to put a simple powers "chat channel" ..bodes well

 

[Asp Explorer]

so they want interaction but aren't smart enough to put a simple powers "chat channel" ..bodes well

They display smartness by not having a simple Power "chat channel". Do you have any idea at all of what is involved in pushing through multiple boundaries with probably 99% involving NAT?

 

[DarkWalker]

They display smartness by not having a simple Power "chat channel". Do you have any idea at all of what is involved in pushing through multiple boundaries with probably 99% involving NAT?

Going off-topic, but that is why some games use a different networking architecture for chat. As a crude example, Frontier could run an IRC-like server with a client built into the game, like WoW does.
(WoW needs to do this because each instance — which is to say, at the very least every dungeon or raid group and every continent — is a different server, so without separate chat servers they would have a lot of trouble providing cross-instance chat, including guild chat.)

Some games are even going further, making this kind of global/faction/guild chat available from the launcher, before even starting the game. Both to provide a quick way of getting in touch without launching the game proper, and because with chat available on the launcher the player can still communicate with his group if the game crashes for any reason.

 

[Mohrgan]

Almost 500 pages in this thread and still, not one attempt to answer the question at the root of this debate. Why should one set of gaming ethics, i.e. Open-only, dictate how the whole should play? If this cannot be answered, the entire attempt to change core design is pointless. It points to the argument that why should FD change anything, that can't be cogently debated?

I dare a representative from the Open-only crowd to attempt an answer.

 

[whipdiddywhip]

Almost 500 pages in this thread and still, not one attempt to answer the question at the root of this debate. Why should one set of gaming ethics, i.e. Open-only, dictate how the whole should play? If this cannot be answered, the entire attempt to change core design is pointless. It points to the argument that why should FD change anything, that can't be cogently debated?

I dare a representative from the Open-only crowd to attempt an answer.

i guess the closest i can come up with is that solo isn't really "solo" play if your effecting everyone else in elite with your actions, therefore its more of a "i'll keep the bad ppl away while you effect the powers" type of mode


a true solo mode would have its own universe on it, like the offline mode that was scrapped

 

[Asp Explorer]

As a crude example, Frontier could run an IRC-like server with a client built into the game.

That could work very well. Mind you, how many people these days know what an IRC client even is? I would love to see Elite send it's server status out on IRC, would save a whole heap of nonsense on a web-page that does not reflect reality, and it would even potentially be in real-time

 

[Lestenio]

Take a look at this http://steamcharts.com/app/359320#All

Claiming retention is not an issue is just plain wrong. Why do you think they are spending so much effort to push out CQC and Xbone version? They are hugely suffering player loss.

Unfortunately thinking CQC is going to keep around people is a misstep. Player Agency and interaction is the only thing that will give longevity to this game and for some unknown reason FDEV are completely against it. Solo mode will kill this game in the long run, and ironically that's what those players want.

All that chart tells me is the number of Steam players remains consistent. It doesn't say the game is suffering a loss. And if it did, it wouldn't infer towards Open/Solo. I don't play via steam.

CDQ wasn't added to keep people people happy, it was added as part of roadmap for console support and would have been planned/worked on for some considerable time.

I don't subscribe to the view that solo mode will kill the game. A number of people here have said that they only bought the game because it supports solo. As someone posted a few days back (forget who sorry) solo mode is required for the PEGI rating

Personally I never play multiplayer games. If it doesn't say solo on the box, I don't open my wallet. But I will continue to support the game through skins and DLC. Assuming the DLC is for solo too.

 

[Roybe]

Almost 500 pages in this thread and still, not one attempt to answer the question at the root of this debate. Why should one set of gaming ethics, i.e. Open-only, dictate how the whole should play? If this cannot be answered, the entire attempt to change core design is pointless. It points to the argument that why should FD change anything, that can't be cogently debated?

I dare a representative from the Open-only crowd to attempt an answer.

Well obviously there MUST be an answer you will find acceptable...how about giving it to us? Why try to start the merry go round one more time when the agreeable and proper answer is "FDev isn't going to change this, regardless of the perceived validity of an argument. This game will live or die based on this design decision and the acceptance of the gaming community towards it."

Those that argue on the Solo side do out of an apparent distrust that FDev might actually listen to the Open players. Honestly, this thread has reached Pythonesque silliness levels.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Those that argue on the Solo side do out of an apparent distrust that FDev might actually listen to the Open players. Honestly, this thread has reached Pythonesque silliness levels.

There are also those that argue for both sides. Solo is perfectly legitimate for those whom desire it. Open is perfectly legitimate for those whom desire it. Just keep peeps able to choose as they like, and everything is good. Forcing people into one or the other simply leads to lulzbanning and disappointment.

 

[Mouse]

There are also those that argue for both sides. Solo is perfectly legitimate for those whom desire it. Open is perfectly legitimate for those whom desire it. Just keep peeps able to choose as they like, and everything is good. Forcing people into one or the other simply leads to lulzbanning and disappointment.

^This^. One's game play should not be dictated to by others who want to play a different way.

 

[DarkWalker]

Its not about looking down, its frustration of people abusing a system.

They are not abusing the system, merely using it in the intended way. Your frustration is because you have a different idea of what the game should be about, an idea that many players reject, as the size of the Mobius group attest.

If you choose to play only part of the game that is fine, but it shouldn't effect the players that want to play all of the game.

A core concept of ED is that every player, regardless of mode or preferred play style, effects the galaxy simulation in the same way; it's even part of the advertisement. It's not even something new, this was an important part of the whole crowdfunding drive over two years ago.

That effect could and has make it pointless for a lot of things in open.

Only for those players whose idea of fun is preventing others from engaging part of the content. You can't exclude other players from any content, no matter what you do, and this is one of ED's best features.

This is competitive game play. Anyone who argues it isn't, is truly kidding themselves.

ED can be played competitively. At the same time, players can completely ignore the competitive aspect without any downside. Not sure what else you could expect of a game where the devs have repeatedly said that there is no right way to play.

Its like playing a football match when you can only tackle half some of the players.

You mean, like playing a sport that directly pits players against each other but doesn't allow physical contact? Like Baseball, Volleyball, Tennis, every track and field sport, etc?

When I say football I mean soccer, the game where you kick the ball with your foot for the majority of the game.

You are aware that players are not allowed to tackle anyone in Soccer, and that a single intentional tackle means being expelled from the game, right? Not only in Soccer, but the vast majority of team sports, for what matters; most often the only thing you are allowed to hit, push, throw, etc, is the ball.

---

That could work very well. Mind you, how many people these days know what an IRC client even is? I would love to see Elite send it's server status out on IRC, would save a whole heap of nonsense on a web-page that does not reflect reality, and it would even potentially be in real-time

They wouldn't need to know what it is, only that the chat would work across instances/modes/whatever — which is why it worked for WoW, and its casual, non-technical player base

 

[Asp Explorer]

^This^. One's game play should not be dictated to by others who want to play a different way.

Indeed - but I have to say, temporarily lulzbanning and IP redirecting a bunch of pew-pew's is one of the funniest things I have ever seen.

Just to be clear - I didn't do it, merely observed, but I laughed so much I was spilling my beer!

 

[askavir]

The problem with open vs solo is simple: open has more difficulty, yet both yield the same reward, which is not fair especially in activities like community goals. In CG's, traders in open face player pirates, bounty-hunters have to share targets with other players, making it harder to get to top tiers, while solo players enjoy a walk in the park and the reward is the same.