Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Imperial Guard]

All previous incarnations of Eiite were single player games, played on your front end only.
Elite Dangerous is now a multiplayer online game.
They didn't offer a single player offline mode this time around.
Instead to pander to those, the crafted a switchable solo mode which totally undermines online open play.
I have said elsewhere, a lot of the issues people bring up are all a result of the current confused mechanics and modes.
The online OPEN concept is fine.

PVP is also a massively misused term. It suggests everyman for himself and everybody is out to get you.
Not true. There is as much CO-OP in online play as anything else. And most combat outside the odd pit of piracy is legitimate action between enemy PP factions.

 

[Mouse]

All previous incarnations of Eiite were single player games, played on your front end only.
Elite Dangerous is now a multiplayer online game.
They didn't offer a single player offline mode this time around.
Instead to pander to those, the crafted a switchable solo mode which totally undermines online open play.
I have said elsewhere, a lot of the issues people bring up are all a result of the current confused mechanics and modes.
The online OPEN concept is fine.

PVP is also a massively misused term. It suggests everyman for himself and everybody is out to get you.
Not true. There is as much CO-OP in online play as anything else. And most combat outside the odd pit of piracy is legitimate action between enemy PP factions.

Ok I laughed... "the Online OPEN concept is fine" ... so fine that many people have left it utterly. Solo doesn't undermine Online Open play.. the ACTIONS of some of those in open undermine online open play. In fact many of us are pushing for an OPEN PVE server.. that is where Player with Player type play can happen.. you know.. the Co-op you tried to say was part of PVP.

 

[Faded Glory]

All previous incarnations of Eiite were single player games, played on your front end only.
Elite Dangerous is now a multiplayer online game.

Yes, it has the possibility to play it as a multi-player game. It's also got an awful lot of PvE content, so to say that it is a multi player online game and imply that that means it is a PvP game is stretching it a bit.

They didn't offer a single player offline mode this time around.

Because it would not have been possible to maintain the persistent galaxy and BGS with an offline mode. Would have had to be a separate game.

Instead to pander to those, the crafted a switchable solo mode which totally undermines online open play.

I don't think it's fair to say that they are pandering to players who don't want to play with others. They are simply making it possible. Perhaps they are pandering to players who want to play PvP?

I have said elsewhere, a lot of the issues people bring up are all a result of the current confused mechanics and modes.
The online OPEN concept is fine.

So why all the complaints? If Open is fine, get on and play it, but stop trying to insist that everybody comes and plays with you.

PVP is also a massively misused term. It suggests everyman for himself and everybody is out to get you.
Not true. There is as much CO-OP in online play as anything else. And most combat outside the odd pit of piracy is legitimate action between enemy PP factions.

Nobody objects to consensual PvP. The result of trying to change the modes would be to impose non consensual PvP on players who don't want it.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

one comment,

every single version of elite with the exception of elite dangerous has been a pure pve game. just because pvp has been added to the current version of elite doesn't make it a pvp only game.
<SNIP>

I don't think it counts as pve if it's an offline single player game. Maybe I'm wrong but isn't it only called pve in a multiplayer environment? Otherwise It's just called single player.

 

[Mouse]

I don't think it counts as pve if it's an offline single player game. Maybe I'm wrong but isn't it only pve in a multiplayer environment?

If it is just you against the game.. that is Player vs the Environment

 

[Khelder]

crafted a switchable solo mode which totally undermines online open play.
I have said elsewhere, a lot of the issues people bring up are all a result of the current confused mechanics and modes.

As you can see from my posts, I agree that there is an issue here (even if it isn't much more than a perceived issue). I think it's just going to have to be something you learn to live with. Would be nice if FD would provide some proper communication around it though.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think it counts as pve if it's an offline single player game. Maybe I'm wrong but isn't it only pve in a multiplayer environment?

I think technically PvE would include consentual combat too. I don't think comparing ED to older Elite varients really matters other than noting that they have stepped into a whole new arena with all the social/technical issues that come with it.

 

[Mouse]

As you can see from my posts, I agree that there is an issue here (even if it isn't much more than a perceived issue). I think it's just going to have to be something you learn to live with. Would be nice if FD would provide some proper communication around it though.

- - - Updated - - -



I think technically PvE would include consentual combat too. I don't think comparing ED to older Elite varients really matters other than noting that they have stepped into a whole new arena with all the social/technical issues that come with it.

if it is a perceived issue than it isn't really an issue with the game, but in how someone looks at it

 

[Khelder]

Personally, I prefer kitten manipulation.

That's going to be one unhappy kitten if it ever gets through that shielding!

 

[Cowboy Bats]

I want to pose a theoretical question. This is not something I necessarily want or believe should happen. Just curious.

If ED was Open PvP only (not specifically a free-for-all, just that there were no Solo/Group modes), would you still play it? Leave aside the "It was supposed to be that way from the start", "Genius design", "FD promised", "*whatever*", arguments. Just based purely on the content that you would still enjoy - trading, exploring, big big space, landing on planets soon - would you turn your back on all of that if there was no Solo?

No, I would uninstall and completely write off the purchase including the lifetime pass. I might be bitter as hell over such a loss, but I wouldn't play for a moment longer. Frontier and I would be so done at that point.

 

[W0OCQCK]

No, I would uninstall and completely write off the purchase including the lifetime pass. I might be bitter as hell over such a loss, but I wouldn't play for a moment longer. Frontier and I would be so done at that point.

I would be right there too, as I think many, many others. I believe the largest part of the player base of this game by far does not indulge in open play, but that's just what I think, me, uno.

I wouldn't be bitter, I just don't care, lol. I've seen and experienced so many thick gaming company's utterly and completely blow up, because of simply being idiots. They would simply become another one, and I will move on to my next game to try, till I find one I like, and stay a while.

I will say this though. You take just about anyone of those so called pro pvp'ers in here. the ones that want to take away, or limit our choices here, to play the way we choose to play. The ones that want to provide a better gaming experience for themselves at the expense of others. Those folks.

Then arrest them, chain them on a buss, force them to spend the day shoveling fresh horse crap. Then ask them if they would have liked to have a choice in the matter?

They would indeed have a little real world prospective about how totally silly they sound here. I'm sure FD gets it.

 

[DaveB]

Some of the long term players/original backers feel the game is not what they bought into...and as time goes by...some are leaving disillusioned...and some are staying...of those staying some are fighting against any more change that makes the game something they did not expect...and are summarily being ignored by the devs...which means some more will leave...and some more will stay...and eventually those that stay will just sit in the forums telling everyone else how great the game could have been, letting people know of all the broken promises, and how the game needs this and that and it will almost be what was promised.

Oh...and age really has nothing to do with all this.

Roybe, this may be just my opinion but it seems to me that you are one of the most respected posters on these forums, a respect which I can unhesitatingly share. However it seems to me at the same time that you are WAY off-base with this opinion. The 100lb gorilla in the room here is that FD have repeatedly stated their vision for the game and reiterated that they are not going to change it. In large part that vision is in line with the "old Elite" ethos, with ragged edges dictated by the move to the current multiplayer architecture. I hesitate to provide yet another feed-line to Jockey's wall of text but at the end of the day, it genuinely is what FD want it to be. I'm not saying they made it to be what *I* wanted it to be, they didn't. If they'd made it another way I'd have likely been long gone before I ever bought in but thankfully (from my personal viewpoint) they made it the way they did and I'm an enthusiastic supporter. Us "Old '84s" have no special rights when it comes to the current iteration of Elite. But if it IS an iteration of "Elite" and it IS in compliance with FD's vision for it to preserve as much as possible of the original Elite ethos.. well, I say all power to them and will continue playing it in that spirit.

 

[Mouse]

I would be right there too, as I think many, many others. I believe the largest part of the player base of this game by far does not indulge in open play, but that's just what I think, me, uno.

I wouldn't be bitter, I just don't care, lol. I've seen and experienced so many thick gaming company's utterly and completely blow up, because of simply being idiots. They would simply become another one, and I will move on to my next game to try, till I find one I like, and stay a while.

I will say this though. You take just about anyone of those so called pro pvp'ers in here. the ones that want to take away, or limit our choices here, to play the way we choose to play. The ones that want to provide a better gaming experience for themselves at the expense of others. Those folks.

Then arrest them, chain them on a buss, force them to spend the day shoveling fresh horse crap. Then ask them if they would have liked to have a choice in the matter?

They would indeed have a little real world prospective about how totally silly they sound here. I'm sure FD gets it.

I would think you'd see one of the largest evacuations of players from an MMO since SWG's infamous NGE switch 2 weeks after Trials of Obi-wan went live and the amount of money Sony Entertainment ended up giving back to players over the fiasco.

 

[Hempstead]

Player B + C...

Player Ɐ comes to the forum and throws a tantrum that he can't blokcade a system and it's the developers' fault. Then demands the developers force Player B & C to be annihilated by player Ɐ, by claiming guild leadership.

Player B & C laughed their rear ends off offline at the upturned A, who doesn't even know which direction his head is pointing to, and there are actually players Ɐ1, Ɐ2, ..., Ɐn following the orders of player Ɐ.

 

[Mouse]

Player Ɐ comes to the forum and throws a tantrum that he can't blokcade a system and it's the developers' fault. Then demands the developers force Player B & C to be annihilated by player Ɐ, by claiming guild leadership.

Player B & C laughed their rear ends off offline at the upturned A, who doesn't even know which direction his head is pointing to, and there are actually players Ɐ1, Ɐ2, ..., Ɐn following the orders of player Ɐ.

As Obi-Wan asked, "Who is more foolish? The fool or the fools who follow them."

 

[Julissa Silver]

Elite Dangerous is now a multiplayer online game.

Apart from all the times that it's a single player online game, you mean?

They didn't offer a single player offline mode this time around.
Instead to pander to those, the crafted a switchable solo mode which totally undermines online open play.

So... they did offer a single player mode, but it happens not to be offline? By which you appear to have deduced that open mode is the only way to play?


Really, you assume that your view point is "THE WAY", but you've established no reasons for why your perception of "THE WAY" is right, intended or suitable to be the exclusive domain of proper players. Everyone can play the way that they choose, there's no testing or subscriptions or special editions limiting any mode from any player but it is clearly, demonstrably intended that no player has the right to impose DIRECT actions onto the experience of any other player. The game that we have now allows everybody the same GAME EXPERIENCE within the software presented by FDev. The only differences within the modes are those which the players bring in, with the intent of it being by consenting choice, themselves.

All the game needs is a) Strong warnings about random murder and PvP actions for the current "open" mode and b) a PvE only open mode, or better administrative tools for private group owners. Two things that improve a player's ability to assert explicit consent to the game experience they choose to have.

 

[Sylveria]

All the game needs is a) Strong warnings about random murder and PvP actions for the current "open" mode and b) a PvE only open mode, or better administrative tools for private group owners. Two things that improve a player's ability to assert explicit consent to the game experience they choose to have.

*gasp* But...but...that would scare off all the fish!!!! The barrel would never be filled again!

Totally agree and /signed

In lieu of FD really revamping the crime system/bounty mechanics I really think it would provide the best solution in the interim.

Group mode comes *close* to being OK- but without proper tools to prevent misuse of the groups it's not quite "Open PvE" just yet.

 

[hunvagy]

I missed the kickstarter back then, only entered the fray around premium beta. BUT the only single reason I bought two premium beta copies was the fact that they offered a mode where I could decide who to play with (private group). Open world PvP is the single worst idea in MMO history ever. Some games thrive on it and it's always the playerbase there that tries to say that a) they are a majority and the carebears should be quiet and b) it is the holy grail and only valid way to play the game.

In my humble opinion both of those points are utterly idiotic. Oh and fyi, this same idiocy is going on on the Shroud of the Avatar forums, because surprise, surprise, that MMO will also offer Single player and group modes aside from the open mode. A game that is a spiritual successor to UO decided it was not a good idea to have open only. You think about that for a minute.

 

[Sylveria]

I missed the kickstarter back then, only entered the fray around premium beta. BUT the only single reason I bought two premium beta copies was the fact that they offered a mode where I could decide who to play with (private group). Open world PvP is the single worst idea in MMO history ever. Some games thrive on it and it's always the playerbase there that tries to say that a) they are a majority and the carebears should be quiet and b) it is the holy grail and only valid way to play the game.

In my humble opinion both of those points are utterly idiotic. Oh and fyi, this same idiocy is going on on the Shroud of the Avatar forums, because surprise, surprise, that MMO will also offer Single player and group modes aside from the open mode. A game that is a spiritual successor to UO decided it was not a good idea to have open only. You think about that for a minute.

And then there's "that other game", which is based entirely and prided itself on open-world "non-consensual" PvP is dying slowly with less and less people logging in and playing- with the majority of players actually playing and basing themselves in high security systems rather than the lower or non-security systems.

If that isn't "evidence" to what the majority of players are actually interested in and what they're not, I don't know what is. It's pretty demonstrative- and over a period of 12 years, this is the result- but no amount of facts will ever change the closed-minded.

It would definitely behoove FD to watch and learn from the mistakes of other developers and plan accordingly- history really does have a way of repeating itself.

 

[Robert Maynard]

CMDRs are the environment in OPEN one could argue, so...

You *could* try to argue that point except for the fact that other players make up the "multi-player" aspect of the game and are not part of the environment (i.e. they can come and go as they please - the environment doesn't log off at the end of its game session).

I want to pose a theoretical question. This is not something I necessarily want or believe should happen. Just curious.

If ED was Open PvP only (not specifically a free-for-all, just that there were no Solo/Group modes), would you still play it? Leave aside the "It was supposed to be that way from the start", "Genius design", "FD promised", "*whatever*", arguments. Just based purely on the content that you would still enjoy - trading, exploring, big big space, landing on planets soon - would you turn your back on all of that if there was no Solo?

I would not have backed the game to the level that I did, maybe only to the "Digital Download" pledge tier (includes all future updates), i.e. c.27% of my total pledge.

All previous incarnations of Eiite were single player games, played on your front end only.

Indeed.

Elite Dangerous is now a multiplayer online game.

.... with, as published in the stated game design at the outset of the Kickstarter, the ability to play alone or with friends only.

They didn't offer a single player offline mode this time around.

Not initially in the Kickstarter, then it was added to the scope, then Offline mode was cancelled before the game was launched.

Instead to pander to those, the crafted a switchable solo mode which totally undermines online open play.

Not the case. The three online game modes have existed as part of the stated game design since the outset of the Kickstarter.

I have said elsewhere, a lot of the issues people bring up are all a result of the current confused mechanics and modes.

Some people have bought the game, don't like some of the features, and hope to change the game. The three game modes, single shared galaxy state (between all game modes and platforms) and the ability of all players to select which game mode they want to play in on a session-by-session basis have been core features of the game for nearly three years. The debate on these features started at about the same time that some players realised that the features would negate some play-styles. Frontier are certainly aware that some players don't like these features but are on record as saying that all game modes are equal and valid and have made a particular selling point of the single shared galaxy state.

The online OPEN concept is fine.

I agree - so is the online Private Group mode and the online Solo mode - these features are beyond the concept stage - the game has been released for over nine months now - every player who has bought the game has done so with these features in place.

PVP is also a massively misused term. It suggests everyman for himself and everybody is out to get you.
Not true. There is as much CO-OP in online play as anything else. And most combat outside the odd pit of piracy is legitimate action between enemy PP factions.

The term PvP can be considered to be, in my opinion, relating to one or more players on each side of the engagement and that the engagement itself often (although not exclusively) includes combat, i.e. "player versus player" or "players vs player" or "players vs players".

Therefore, it includes the possibility of the "everyman for himself and everybody is out to get you" while at the same time including the possibility of the player joining a Wing and attacking another Wing or possibly a single player.

It's no surprise that many players eschew PvP.

 

[hunvagy]

And then there's "that other game", which is based entirely and prided itself on open-world "non-consensual" PvP is dying slowly with less and less people logging in and playing- with the majority of players actually playing and basing themselves in high security systems rather than the lower or non-security systems.

If that isn't "evidence" to what the majority of players are actually interested in and what they're not, I don't know what is. It's pretty demonstrative- and over a period of 12 years, this is the result- but no amount of facts will ever change the closed-minded.

It would definitely behoove FD to watch and learn from the mistakes of other developers and plan accordingly- history really does have a way of repeating itself.

I usually don't bring "that game" up because it just births ill will on both sides of the fence, really. Honestly, I think Elite did it right. The people who prefer the wild west approach of Open have their place, people can form groups to have their own rules, and those who don't want anyone sullying their gameplay have solo to go to. Would it be nice to have Open PvE? Certainly, but it's not a necessity.

What I don't get is why this threadnaut is still alive, why some feel that players in groups and solo need to be part of the content. If they don't want to be, they sure as hell wouldn't stay if they were forced. But I guess it's the internet, it's required we argue