I agree. However, for the point of this discussion...each of those players that signed up...count as a vote for PVE without PVP. Whether they were a one time request or a daily 8 hour player. Each of them wanted a PVE experience without PVP.
- Status
I agree. However, for the point of this discussion...each of those players that signed up...count as a vote for PVE without PVP. Whether they were a one time request or a daily 8 hour player. Each of them wanted a PVE experience without PVP.
That isn't quite accurate, PvP is possible in certain circumstances in Möbius, for example CZ's. Rather its a vote for PvP controlled by the individual player.
Splitting hairs, but yes. The idea is that it is a place where the player themselves are in charge of their activities...i.e. a safe PVE environment.
Problem? I see no problem. Wrong? Why? Why is it wrong? I am willing to bet that Frontier had no idea a group would grow so big but how is that wrong? Unexpected it may be but I do not see this as wrong.
.
.
.
They can make specific rules. Granted there is no mechanism either than lock & boot to deal with those that do not wish to follow said rules but that's really all that's needed. Would it be nice if there were some other features to customize one's group? Sure! You bet! but they are not needed. For a group to maintain it's group integrity all it needs is a way to police itself & the basic methods of policing itself are lock & boot.
Last edited:
It's wrong in the idea that you basically have a commander that is enslaved to the game to keep a GAME MODE for players viable. If he walked away from the game tomorrow...he would have to give someone his account to run and administer the group.
Daffan, I don't think your ideas here are bad, but there is a problem...
You keep talking about 'emergent' gameplay as if it's some grail, and decrying 'grind' as the evil way we are forced to play the game. Then you ask for / suggest greater rewards (grind) to enable the emergent gameplay. It cannot be both things, either emergent gameplay trumps grind, and we want to do it because it's better, or we are still all grinding, but FD 'reward' us for grinding with others. Some people don't want to grind with others.
I should also say that I believe there are many obstacles to the emergent play that you envision. This isn't a job for players, it's something to do when they have the free time, so there is no guarantee that your escort of friends will be available when you want to play, and if such gameplay is rewarded, then that punishes players who cannot commit the time to playing the game.
This goes back to the statement that playing Open is the reward in itself, you get to have the gameplay you want with others, and if players want to do that, they can right now, but they don't. Because it's more efficient in Solo? Perhaps, but there's also the distinct possibility that it's because people don't actually want what you consider to be better, more interesting gameplay. Right now we have the choice, grind if that's what you call it, and that's what you want to do, or immerse yourself in the game with others.
I strongly believe that FD cannot, and will not try to coerce players into playing the game in a way that they don't want to, hence the modes, and the ability to freely move between them. If you are my escort, and we are on at the same time, we can play together and enjoy the camaraderie and emergent gameplay, but if I am online and you are not, I can continue to play without my escort and without worrying that I will be attacked by a wing of player pirates when I do not have the defense that I require (you). I shouldn't be obliged to play the game only when you are available, and vice versa.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not at all - if you read the FAQ thread from the beginning of the Kickstarter, it talks about Single Player online (with the subsequent update regarding the ill-fated offline play) and Multi-player with Private Groups and Open. Sadly, the "rules" that are mentioned pertaining to Private Groups have not been implemented yet and as such, we rely on out-of-game rules to govern gameplay in a Private Group (as Mobius is set up now).
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
whilst this is factually 100% true, the only thing I can say is this. There are many people here who claim Open in a wasteland and they have never seen a player in months, even in the bubble.
I play mostly in Mobius. I dabble in CGs but generally do my own thing, and do not head to human player populated space for the most part, I also play at various times during the day or night, and it is very rare for a session to go by in Mobius that I do not see at least 1 other player, usually many more.
do 12000 people actively play Mobius? No, that seems unlikely, but I DO think it is a significant number.....
I do agree it is a terrible design having all of this on Mobius however, its a lot of work for him, and a huge potential point of failure (a bit like a story my grandad told me about the Jesus nut in a helicopter used in Vietnam (actually there is one on many helicopters but I digress))
personally i think the instancing should just be a selection of tick boxes which we do as players on the main screen and we make our own group on starting the game...... (one of the check boxes being "no filters" and another one being "solo" with a range in between)
IF as Roybe says the devs do not like private groups and feel that PvE is watering down their vision of the game then this is news to me and flies in the face of the dev diaries on KSer. I would want to know at what point this "vision" changed.
- - - Updated - - -
1 thing I do need to pull you up on, not sure if accidental or you are having a sly dig, however for the record.. I do not want a "safe" environment. a PvE environment does not have to be a "safe" one. Personally (and I can only speak for myself) I just do not want to meet AT ANY POINT a certain type of player. unfortunately the only way to assure this actually removes me from meeting other types of player I would, in principle tolerate, but this is my hobby, my entertainment and No one gets to dictate who I choose to play with. Eve did this. I do not play Eve. ED does not do this, so I DO play ED.
Last edited:
Given MB's repeated statements that all modes are valid and Sandro saying there is no right way to play the game I'd say the chances of the vision having changed or that they'd do anything to hinder the Mobius group are slightly less than zero - only slightly mind you!
The quote I posted earlier predates that. But the entire game is built around multiplayer. Obviously it would be stupid to ditch the fans of the original elite and who are not on board with an mmo, but literally everything is built around multiplayer. This game would not look anything like it does if that were reversed. And the offline gate illustrated, he's only willing to budge so far on the multiplayer vision. The reason it was stated they dropped it is that it wasn't worth the effort if the universe was static. I'm mean think about that, he felt the experience wasn't worth the money if you couldn't see the effects of other people in your game.
I think mode switching was wise, but ultimately your opting out of a multiplayer game, and opting out of the experience he feels like making. All that's speculative of course but, I'm not surprised he isn't in any hurry to add those features if he even intends to do so. Saying "not all" well that's speculative as well, and the fact that it's offered isn't really convincing that it's a priority. It's kinda common sense that it's not. Just my opinion.
They way they've set it up though you are still playing multi-player against other players through the background SIM in solo. That's their been whole concept from the start. And in private group you are still playing with other players.
They obviously didn't want to manage a separate offline game - but by the same token they won't want to manage multiple background SIMs so the modes will stay and won't be split either.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Could you link to the earlier quote for reference, please?
I agree that the structure of the game is built around multi-player (no pause, no save / restart from save, no seamless travel between systems, etc.) however the three modes and mode mobility exist in the stated game design as published in the Kickstarter on the 6th of November 2012 - the day that we found out that the game was possible.
Playing in modes other than Open is not "opting out of the experience he feels like making" - as you refer to regarding the cancellation of offline, "he felt the experience wasn't worth the money if you couldn't see the effects of other people in your game" - every player experiences and affects the single shared galaxy state regardless of game mode or platform. It is the shared galaxy state itself that he is referred to with respect to seeing the effects of other people in the game.
Let's just hope that Mobius doesn't stop playing Elite Dangerous anytime soon. The effect of no "go to Mobius" option would be devastating. Hordes of players with torches and pitchforks will gather and storm the castle. A lot of players will realize that this game has a fundamentally broken PvP concept.
(Btw: I don't play in the private group of Mobuis)
You have written a lot about what you think is the vision of the developers.
Things like crime between players is intended and how PvE is watering down that vision. Partly I agree with you about that, the developers have a vision about the game that includes crime, conflict and combat between players.
The problem is, in my opinion, that the developers don't understand PvP, they are good at making interesting PvE content and terrible at making PvP content.
Their vision seems to be "Lets make a good PvE game and then allow many players to play that game while treating players like NPCs". This is the perfect recipe for disaster.
The moment players can shoot at players the game isn't a PvE game anymore, it becomes a PvP game - no matter how much PvP is discouraged and no matter how much PvE activities most players do - and a PvP game has to be designed differently than a PvE game.
I'm not arguing either of the modes should get more attention than the others. In fact I'm not arguing anything. All I'm saying is the ability to remove players from your game is the tacked on feature, just as in other games the opposite can be the case. The quote I dug up earlier, was a response to another's speculative comment that fd would usher people into open. I don't know if he would do that, but I said I get the feeling from his early interviews, and the original pitch he would if he could entice people over (I don't think he could get away with it). Kinda like he's trying to get you to try a new food, you don't have to eat it, but he made it, so just try it, if that makes sense.
All this talk of "it says there will be solo" etc. Is irrelevant to what I'm saying. I'm guessing at his mindset (and I could totally be wrong). He would have missed out on a bunch of sales had he not included it, and it's no detriment to add it, but when he talks about making the game he wants to play, It's a near certainty he's not talking about solo.
- - - Updated - - -
“Elite: Dangerous is the game I have wanted Frontier to make for a very long time. The next game in the Elite series – an amazing space epic with stunning visuals, incredible gameplay and breath-taking scope, but this time you can play with your friends too. I want a game that feels more like the original Elite to fly, and with more rapid travel (to allow for the multi-player nature of the game) – so you travel quickly using local ‘hyperspace’ travel rather than by fast-forwarding time – but with the rich galaxy of Frontier – and more, so much more.”
“Up to now “Elite” has been worked upon by a small team as a ‘skunk-works’ activity in the background as availability permits. Nevertheless, we have been preparing; laying the technology and design foundations for when the time is right. And that time is now.”
This is the quote I was talking about.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I'll have to agree to disagree regarding your opinion that "the ability to remove players from your game is the tacked on feature" - for me, the existence of the three game modes and mode mobility are a part of "the game we want to play" that Frontier have said that they are making - allowing players of all types to enjoy the game alone, in a Private Group and with everyone in Open as the case may be.
Even the quote mentions playing with friends specifically - borne out by the inclusion of Private Groups in the game.
I was asking for a URL to the quote rather than another copy of the quote. There's a variant of it on the Frontier site here.
They changed the method of travel "to allow for the multiplayer nature of the game". There's numerous other examples of how the game was designed first and foremost around multiplayer.
It's like if I baked you a cake, and you remove the icing, I'm ok with that, enjoy, but I didn't intend for you to eat plain cake.
I m not discussing what the game is to you, or what you were promised, I'm talking about design, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. He built an mmo, that's not really an opinion, that is fact. The fact that he added solo, or says "they are all valid ways to play" means nothing in the context of what I am discussing.
Tacked on?
A feature that was advertised BEFORE they started making the game and was one of the main selling points for the Kickstarter campaign.
By no stretch of the imagination can be called "tacked on" when the entire game was designed and built on that feature.
Funny how that quote says "you can play with your friends too" not have to or should but that you have the choice, you "can".
That is a massive assumption about what DBOBE talks about, which ignores a previous comment from DBOBE;
“You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play."
And other comments like it from Frontier in the last link in my Sig (Wall of Information)
-
He didn't stress anything about playing with people who aren't your friends! I still strongly believe that DBOBE is hopelessly caught in the mindset that people want to play games together nicely and cooperatively. I really believe that a lot of the problems with crime and punishment stem from him not being able to comprehend that people will be mean to other players in-game "because they can".
-
The entire Game, with one expection (Wings) is build to be working Multiplayer and Singleplayer.
- Status