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

[Roland2]

So, hiding Solo / Group in the main menu from selection is more work than creating a paint for EVERY ship in game?

Don't have much experience with programming do you ?

Well, it is true the last time I did any programming, we didn't have color monitors, ok, they were green or yellow, but you didn't have any major programming options.
I would think a find/replace would work though. Find "color (colour if you prefer) x" replace with "color y"

However, I was under the impression Frontier was planning to make skins for all ships in the game. Is this no longer true?

As for how easy either option would be you are right, I wouldn't know.

 

[Majinvash]

Im not so sure.

We DO have games dealing with that today and they manage fine. Yes, it's mostly ground based combat and they DO have bullet physics but at the same time, MOST ships in Elite use beams or other hitscan weapons.

So what info needs to be related.

64 players locations delivered to 64 players = 4096 messaages
64 players damage states to 64 players = 4096 messages
64 players actions to 64 players = 4096 messages
64 Players need information about artifacts in system = 64 messages

The above is not what the PLAYER needs, the above is what the SERVER would needs to handle.
A player would need the above from 64 players and 1 from system status = 64 X 4 +1 = 257 pieces of data
The current Peer-to-Peer solution makes a player essentially a server and sends information to every other player. That would be like having a server with severe hickup where information is delivered in random speeds depending on ping of the other party.

In the CURRENT system that wont work because our computers are forced to be the servers AND players.
If FD actually had good server solution of networked servers each handling a different aspect of the data it could be done - but that cost money.

Yes, additional messages woudl bee required the more ballistic weapons are used but hell, a 64 player battle in Battlefield or ARMA has more artifacts, bullets and crap going on between players than Elite will ever have.

Problem is what this game needs to really make it flourish is more money.

We know that they chose the P2P route for cheapness of deployment.
To go the route the game would need in terms of hardware and maintenance alone, you are looking at a subscription base game or a chargeable content pack every 4 months.
This is what the triple A games do to provide enough servers to host thousands of players and provide the experience they expect.
More importantly to keep them engaged.

This again whenever mentioned is shouted down by many because they paid their £40 and they expect 10 years of gaming for that input.

A true measure of this games audience will be when the first chargeable expansion comes out.

The longer they leave it, the less people are going to be around to pay for it.

Majinvash

 

[Robert Maynard]

Are you suggesting I said or implied otherwise? This is your interpretation so please don't imply it's mine just because I used a particular phrase in an entirely different context.

Some respect people who choose to play in self-imposed ironman mode but that doesn't imply shame for anybody who doesn't.
Some would see the "Murderer" tag as shameful.
Some see hopping to solo as shameful or cowardly. Some see it as a perfectly valid choice.
Are you suggesting we try to enforce on people how to think and make moral judgments based on your own standards?

That you used the words "honour" and "shame" in the discussion relating to elective mode restriction on the one hand and mode switching on the other, it seemed not unreasonable to assume that they were in some way related to those activities. As it would seem that my assumption was incorrect, I apologise for the misunderstanding.

No idea what you even mean by this as it seems wholly irrelevant to anything I said.
Nobody is "allowing any player to tell others how to play the game", they would be choosing. It's about more choice, not less.

You said:

No, some people are not able to play the game how they want at the moment, hence the suggestion.

My response was based on my interpretation of that statement - at the moment, any player can choose to restrict themselves to a single mode, therefore they can play the game how they want to by not switching modes. I understand now that one aspect of the proposed elected mode restriction would be a way for players to deny themselves the opportunity to mode switch at any point after giving up the option to mode switch.

If playing the way they want to requires the mode restricted player to be playing among others who have also elected to restrict themselves to a single mode then that relies on others to choose to do so and be playing in the same area at the same time - nothing the player could do could make this happen, it would be entirely up to others - so there would be no guarantee that a mode restricted player would meet other mode restricted players in-game.

This is why I suggested a separate Open-Only mode as an alternative - every player encountered in that mode would be mode restricted.

You can talk all you like about what you think Frontier wanted and the core features. My suggestion doesn't affect this unless you regard voluntarily choosing to give up the "session-by-session" basis as somehow undermining it. If so then please provide your reasoning for us all to discuss.

If players wish to give up the option to mode switch with their commander then that is, of course, their choice and good luck to them - it will be interesting to see if Frontier elect to add game mechanics to accommodate that wish - although I would be somewhat surprised if they were.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Problem is what this game needs to really make it flourish is more money.

We know that they chose the P2P route for cheapness of deployment.
To go the route the game would need in terms of hardware and maintenance alone, you are looking at a subscription base game or a chargeable content pack every 4 months.
This is what the triple A games do to provide enough servers to host thousands of players and provide the experience they expect.
More importantly to keep them engaged.

This again whenever mentioned is shouted down by many because they paid their £40 and they expect 10 years of gaming for that input.

A true measure of this games audience will be when the first chargeable expansion comes out.

The longer they leave it, the less people are going to be around to pay for it.

Majinvash

Well after backing it with a total of 200£+ (including beta and paintjobs) for what was mainly at kickstarter a single player gamee that then "gained" multiplayer DRM due to "background sim" I honestly couldnt care less about multiplayer.

It was not in the kickstarter pledge and a huge dissapointment.

As I said, that would be the requirement for me to play in open, otherwise it's useless for me.

Hell, to have the option to completely play offline would be a blessing even if I had to make a new CMDR to do it.

 

[CMDR Malkov]

Ok I can understand the misunderstanding based on comments I made earlier in the thread so I also apologize for once again failing to be clear. It's something I am criticized for a lot tbh as I often assume that people will understand a statement in the same way as I do.

So just to clarify - by Badge of Honour I meant this kind of interpretation:
"A personal choice to apply something intrinsically neutral or even negative in a positive way, often in defiance"

My response was based on my interpretation of that statement - at the moment, any player can choose to restrict themselves to a single mode, therefore they can play the game how they want to by not switching modes. I understand now that one aspect of the proposed elected mode restriction would be a way for players to deny themselves the opportunity to mode switch at any point after giving up the option to mode switch.

If playing the way they want to requires the mode restricted player to be playing among others who have also elected to restrict themselves to a single mode then that relies on others to choose to do so and be playing in the same area at the same time - nothing the player could do could make this happen, it would be entirely up to others - so there would be no guarantee that a mode restricted player would meet other mode restricted players in-game.

This is why I suggested a separate Open-Only mode as an alternative - every player encountered in that mode would be mode restricted.

A separate Open Only would certainly address the issues more comprehensively, yes, although not all of them unless it was a separate universe. I offered my suggestion as a compromise because it doesn't require much work or exclude anybody.
It wouldn't entirely rely on other people making the choice but perhaps focus it to some extent.

Sure there is still no guarantee you will find somebody but at the very least it guarantees you have some chance to. Players who chose this would have some kind of persistence in the galaxy, as opposed to NPCs and players who can disappear at will.

 

[Jockey79]

Your nievity is shocking

You could package a turd with a star trek logo and it would sell on brand strength alone.

There have been some tragically awful starwars games, which are proof of that.

Sure the game in its current state with a few other ways to grind and some other shiny NPC's to shoot is going to make this game flourish.

Wake up

Majinvash

How self absorbed are you?

Plenty of Star Trek games have failed or just been awful.
There are even ST games I've never heard of until I Googled this list for you just now

http://www.metacritic.com/feature/best-and-worst-star-trek-videogames

Again your chest thumping, calling me "naive" and telling me to "wake up" just shows you are not willing to even discuss things.
I'm not going to keep trying to shift through your attitude for decent discussion points, when you actually want to talk about ways to improve the game, let me know.

Problem is what this game needs to really make it flourish is more money.

I will however point out, people keep throwing money at Star Citizen - not really helping though is it
One day they may get in to Alpha, around the 100 million mark I think - won't that be nice

 

[Majinvash]

Ah Jockey

Ha your link proves my point

Look at the users scores.

They might be terrible games but I bet they still paid their way.

If we are going to use Metacritic. Elite got 80 from the critics and 6.5 user score.

And star citizen is by all accounts being managed by chimps, so yeah great example.

The reason you chose that is because there are so few games out there you can even base compare ED to.
That is part of the reason there are people playing it for as long as they are, even in its mostly empty form.

Mostly the reason why Battlefield 3 and 3.5 ( BF4 ), sold so well.
If you wanted to play soldier, play with vehicles and have fun doing it, you had that or Arma.
There were a few others but they were terrible. COD doesn't have vehicles.
The Battlefield franchise took a dive after BF2/2142 and the reason they are hyping so much on Battlefront preorders, is because as pretty as it looks, its going to be broken as hell on launch.

If Star Citizen even gets its stuff together, I very much expect a good share of ED players will jump ship.

I expect that to happen way before ED reacts.

I await some examples to disprove everything I have just said, so enjoy doing that.

Majinvash

 

[Jockey79]

Ah Jockey

Ha your link proves my point

Look at the users scores.

They might be terrible games but I bet they still paid their way.

If we are going to use Metacritic. Elite got 80 from the critics and 6.5 user score.

And star citizen is by all accounts being managed by chimps, so yeah great example.

The reason you chose that is because there are so few games out there you can even base compare ED to.
That is part of the reason there are people playing it for as long as they are, even in its mostly empty form.

Mostly the reason why Battlefield 3 and 3.5 ( BF4 ), sold so well.
If you wanted to play soldier, play with vehicles and have fun doing it, you had that or Arma.
There were a few others but they were terrible. COD doesn't have vehicles.
The Battlefield franchise took a dive after BF2/2142 and the reason they are hyping so much on Battlefront preorders, is because as pretty as it looks, its going to be broken as hell on launch.

If Star Citizen even gets its stuff together, I very much expect a good share of ED players will jump ship.

I expect that to happen way before ED reacts.

I await some examples to disprove everything I have just said, so enjoy doing that.

Majinvash

Had to +1 just for the chimps comment, glad I wasn't drinking any tea at the time I read that lol
Also, I agree with it as well

I think you're right about some people are only playing Elite: Dangerous because there is nothing else for them.
I'd imagine folks are bored of the X: Series of games, Freelancer is a relic now and EVE Online does not allow you to actually fly your ship.
There is Vendetta Online I suppose, if people want to pay a monthly subscription fee and it is cross platform as well.

I never really followed the BF range, I do have 2 of them and got bored with them very quickly.

However, I think you've put too much faith in SC. It will also have ways for people to play without ever having to see you or interact with you - it is another game not forcing PvP on everyone.
Once it has a Beta on the go I think we will see the forums light up over there as the realization hits that with private servers (updating from the PU) and a PvP encounter slider to reduce / Limit interactions - it will feel just as empty as ED, with fewer systems and a higher price tag.

Only time will tell on that last one though. I'll be watching there forums to see if I am right

 

[gumbie]

Unfortunately reading the whole thread would be really time consuming.

Could a solo advocate please post the myriad of ways in which mode switching and even the very existence of solo mode make Elite Dangerous a better game.

Thank you.

 

[StarTux]

Battlefield series is not necessarily the best example, you know its predomonitly a PVP game, that's where its focus is. Elite, is more PVE with the ability to PVP, but its not the main design.

Sometimes I think Frontier maybe trying to please too many diverse groups (perhaps they can over time?) which leads to the extremes not being satisfied, what I mean by that is the competitive PVP player will not currently find much to satisfy them. Some good ideas are being banded around though, so not going into much detail here.

 

[Janichsan]

Unfortunately reading the whole thread would be really time consuming.

Could a solo advocate please post the myriad of ways in which mode switching and even the very existence of solo mode make Elite Dangerous a better game.

Thank you.

Three words: Freedom. Of. Choice.

 

[Majinvash]

Battlefield series is not necessarily the best example, you know its predomonitly a PVP game, that's where its focus is. Elite, is more PVE with the ability to PVP, but its not the main design.

Sometimes I think Frontier maybe trying to please too many diverse groups (perhaps they can over time?) which leads to the extremes not being satisfied, what I mean by that is the competitive PVP player will not currently find much to satisfy them. Some good ideas are being banded around though, so not going into much detail here.

No you are quite right but it is also a big indication of the money involved in the PVP scene that ED is trying to tap into with CQC.

Your point about trying to cover to many bases, is I think going to be the games biggest let down and fundamentally stump it from being a truly great!

 

[Jenner]

Things are a little borderline in this thread vis-à-vis inflammatory posts. Let's all try to keep some perspective. People can and will have differing viewpoints and that needs to be respected. Derogatory rhetoric just sours the conversation.

So...a plea to 'be cool to one another' please.

Thank you.

 

[DarkWalker]

Im not so sure.

We DO have games dealing with that today and they manage fine. Yes, it's mostly ground based combat and they DO have bullet physics but at the same time, MOST ships in Elite use beams or other hitscan weapons.

So what info needs to be related.

64 players locations delivered to 64 players = 4096 messaages
64 players damage states to 64 players = 4096 messages
64 players actions to 64 players = 4096 messages
64 Players need information about artifacts in system = 64 messages

The above is not what the PLAYER needs, the above is what the SERVER would needs to handle.
A player would need the above from 64 players and 1 from system status = 64 X 4 +1 = 257 pieces of data
The current Peer-to-Peer solution makes a player essentially a server and sends information to every other player. That would be like having a server with severe hickup where information is delivered in random speeds depending on ping of the other party.

In the CURRENT system that wont work because our computers are forced to be the servers AND players.
If FD actually had good server solution of networked servers each handling a different aspect of the data it could be done - but that cost money.

Yes, additional messages woudl bee required the more ballistic weapons are used but hell, a 64 player battle in Battlefield or ARMA has more artifacts, bullets and crap going on between players than Elite will ever have.

Without a deeper knowledge of the code, and what info is sent exactly between players, it's a bit hard to tell; it depends on the optimizations, the concessions Frontier made, etc.

I'm not sure 32 x 32 would be an improvement, though. There's a size beyond which fights become too chaotic, too unpredictable, and for many people stop being fun. For a flight sim (or a space sim with flight sim mechanics, like ED and, well, most space sims) I believe the upper limit for a single engagement to still be fun is about 16 x 16.

BTW, FPS games can manage much more than just 64 players, and could since a long time ago. They just, for the most part, don't bother implementing it because, apart from the larger number being more impressive, it doesn't help the game.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Unfortunately reading the whole thread would be really time consuming.

Could a solo advocate please post the myriad of ways in which mode switching and even the very existence of solo mode make Elite Dangerous a better game.

Thank you.

It allows you to avoid playing the game with other players when you don't feel like it.

To introverts, shy people, people with iffy internet connections, people who want immersive PvE without running into CMDR l)4th v4l)3r!!1!, that is a gigantic advantage.

 

[Faded Glory]

Finding fault with proposals is a natural consequence of reading them....

Oh dear. I really, really wanted to rep this.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would it matter if it was? How would that stop you or anybody else from playing their way?
A tag would simply denote a choice. Any honour or shame associated with it would come from players opinions, not from the mechanics.



No, some people are not able to play the game how they want at the moment, hence the suggestion.
Some people want to play a more adversarial game, where fights and skill and daring have real meaning and cannot be circumvented by jumping modes.
This was a suggestion that might add a little of that, for the players who want it, without damaging the experience of others.

But people can already do this, and if they are 'honorable', to use your terminology, they will presumably do all of it in Open anyway.

Is it really necessary to take this to primary school level where you need a gold star for doing something? Is it that important to you that everybody else needs to know how you (or anybody else) plays the game?

 

[Jockey79]

No you are quite right but it is also a big indication of the money involved in the PVP scene that ED is trying to tap into with CQC.

Your point about trying to cover to many bases, is I think going to be the games biggest let down and fundamentally stump it from being a truly great!

I'd +1 you if I could.

100% agree.

 

[Jockey79]

...
Is it really necessary to take this to primary school level where you need a gold star for doing something? Is it that important to you that everybody else needs to know how you (or anybody else) plays the game?

Is it "that" important people know who is a backer and who is not?

Someone on my friends list comes up as "backer - " then a long number. Should they be forced in to changing their name?
And, As I've stated - what about backer only decal and paint, should they be removed?

People want to show off their skills, their play styles, their affiliations - it won't have any impact on your game play, so what do you gain by saying no?
If they get all high and mighty in chat, you block them - job done. Life goes on.

If you want to throw the whole "Is it really necessary..." - I could throw that over to the "hardcore mode" people, after all, you can do that yourself as well.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
600000 or so registered ED Players ( We know it’s much lower than that and probably dropping daily but as discussed before no one is going to confirm or deny )

I believe that this might count as an official word on the ED player base.

I wanted to reply to this honestly if I may.

I'm not going to be talking about active player numbers explicitally but I can tell you without question that the game has a very healthy and thriving community who enjoys hours upon hours of Elite. You really don't need to worry on that point.

It's from this thread, as I've just snipped the relevant quote. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=165393&page=4&p=2523971#post2523971

 

[Jockey79]

It's from this thread, as I've just snipped the relevant quote. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=165393&page=4&p=2523971#post2523971

Great find !

+1

Would you mind if I add that to my ever growing wall?