Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jordan Cobalt]

I fear that NPC wingmen would be the end of the "lone wolf" CMDR.

In open maybe..... Unless there is a massive npc pirate, patch I don't see traders in solo needing any, same as we have now.

Edit: Even then, in open I imagine their effectiveness will be quite limited against players who only mean to kill. It seems like it would be fairly easy to just target the player, kill him quickly then leave.

 

[DarkWalker]

At the expense of forcing players to need player escorts? No thanks.

The same for me. While I like playing with others, and will often do that if given the choice, the moment I'm forced to ask another player for help is the moment I leave a game forever. I'm all for optional, spontaneous and positive player interaction, but I'm dead set against either negative player interaction or forced player interaction.

Though, FD does have it's own share of blame - they never should have slapped the "MMO" tag on Elite: Dangerous.

They didn't want to name it a MMO, at least not at first. DB is even on record saying Elite Dangerous would be as much a MMO as CoD is.

Well, that's the problem - the vouchers are meh and traders have no way to top it up themselves.
I have not tried myself to get escorts when I've been in open - because I know if I were asked I'd laugh and fly over to a RES where I'd earn more money / have more fun in a combat ship.

Though what I see as the main issue is not the first part (rewards), but the second (fun). Fix the rewards without fixing the fun and you will have simply introduced a boring grind to the game, which will serve only to make players burn out and leave.

It is the same with other parts of the game where the interaction is lacking. Piracy? No way to truly fix it until it's as fun for the interdicted player as it is for the pirate. And so on.

---

So, the discussions we are seeing throughout the forums about the difficulty will currently be ignored. When the possibility of ship loss is equilibrated between the modes...more people should decide to play together. Not everyone...as there are people that just despise the idea of dying to a real person...or their internet won't support others...etc. but more people will give up the solitude for the interaction.

I kinda doubt it, for two reasons.

First, most people (unfortunately) like easy games. If Frontier increases the AI difficulty to the point fighting one is as hard as fighting a (not bad) player, it will just drive people away. And, given that AI difficulty affects all modes, this will happen regardless of player preference about modes.

(It would be funny to see gankers, and other kinds of PvPers who only target players that can't fight back, get their behinds handed back to them by NPCs, though.)

Second, whether the player wants to play with others has nothing to do with how easy the player likes the game. I like my games as hard as they can get, for example, but I will never accept being attacked by another player without my explicit consent.

Sincerely, it's grating when people assume that, if they can simply get me to interact more with others, I will stop being an introvert. It doesn't work that way, and when my parents (both extroverts) tried to force me into it as a child it only made things worse. I will have contact with others, be it in a game or in real life, at my own pace, on my own terms, or else not at all.

 

[Jockey79]

They didn't want to name it a MMO, at least not at first. DB is even on record saying Elite Dangerous would be as much a MMO as CoD is.

Really?
How have I not found that?

Any hints as to where I can grab that?

Also, yes adding fun for all - those being interdicted / pirated and those running escort would be great, but the problem is fun is subjective - so not something I'd like to try and come up with an idea for tbh.

 

[relayer]

Time to push my agenda. I want to be an escort in this game that gets paid, please make it happen.

There's a lot of talk among traders on this issue... one of the main points being showing your player-escorts your super-profitable trade routes and the risk of those escort-players coming back in a T-9.

I'd like AI escorts...

- - - Updated - - -

Now now.

I don't think Cody needs to be "tsk tsk"d, as the Other Fellow keeps throwing words like "liars."

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Given that pure player Wings and pure NPC wings already exist and that lone wolf players still exist, why would we expect them to die off with the introduction of the last Wing type?

I would expect that the difficulty of the NPCs would get adjusted to match the higher "fire power" of players who probably will always use NPC wingmen. I assume that currently the game is balanced for lone players and wings are giving players an advantage (like a bonus for playing with others). If everybody is in a wing the game would become to easy. Players will start to complain that the game is to easy (some already do this now).

Why? It definitely makes the lone wolf job a little harder...but the jump and run will stay the same. I could outboost most NPC interdictions in a Type 9...and high waking was no problem.

Running and jumping is not always the game play I like. If running and jumping away is the only option for a player who wants to play alone the game would - in my opinion - become really boring.

Not really sure that it will make much of a difference. As Robert says, NPCs are already often in a wing which can be entertaining...
…

It wouldn't make a difference if, beside the option for wingmen, nothing changes. But if FD can/has to assume that everybody is in a wing, then balancing the game to match that wouldn't be something surprisingly.

In open maybe..... Unless there is a massive npc pirate, patch I don't see traders in solo needing any, same as we have now.
…

I think the biggest effect of NPC wingmen would be in Solo Mode. In Open Mode NPC wingmen would probably not be very effective, unless the difficulty of the NPCs would get boosted.

As I wrote, it _could_ result in balancing nightmares.

 

[Mouse]

"I could go on and on, I'm not sure how much of it is viable, or if it's worth it. I do however feel by kicking these ideas around in a friendly manner, even if we don't agree, there's a chance that something shakes out we can all agree on, or is at least benign to the opposing modes camp, and get more content. Because I don't think there are that many people, devs included, who feel any part of the game is fully fleshed out."

That's me a couple of pages ago. You were saying? Why don't you try again when you can be bothered to read the entire exchange rather than jumping in to take pot shots. Your are far more likely to hit when you calm down and aim.

Original reply didn't make it, have read entire discussion. Look to your own replies, don't vaguely insult like you did above and discuss instead of being passive agressive.

 

[Khelder]

Whether something is generally more interesting due to player engagement is entirely subjective obviously, regardless of the nature of that engagement.

I was actually meaning customer engagement that time. Thinking that it's engaging for an audience at expos and on streams, etc to see features demonstrated with players participating with each other. But, I guess, if you're not interested in those things as a player then you're not likely to be all that "engaged" when those features are being sold to you.

 

[Mouse]

I was actually meaning customer engagement that time. Thinking that it's engaging for an audience at expos and on streams, etc to see features demonstrated with players participating with each other. But, I guess, if you're not interested in those things as a player then you're not likely to be all that "engaged" when those features are being sold to you.

For some it can be, but at the same time if you're showing the game and using Open and someone comes up and just annihilates you new character that you are using to show people the game... it has made people leave and or not buy the game.


You have to balance it, and it is rather funny as people have been very engaged with the features of the game.. the one many don't want is PVP.. And while they have actively not tried to do anything to those who do like PVP, it cannot be said to be reciprocated. And some PVPers have actively tried to force people to PVP.. which gets some somewhat hostile to PVP.

Now I could be wrong, but when at expo's and such, I thought I read that they use a PRIVATE GROUP to show people the game so that they can control what is going on in the game...

 

[Dogoncrook]

I would expect that the difficulty of the NPCs would get adjusted to match the higher "fire power" of players who probably will always use NPC wingmen. I assume that currently the game is balanced for lone players and wings are giving players an advantage (like a bonus for playing with others). If everybody is in a wing the game would become to easy. Players will start to complain that the game is to easy (some already do this now).



Running and jumping is not always the game play I like. If running and jumping away is the only option for a player who wants to play alone the game would - in my opinion - become really boring.



It wouldn't make a difference if, beside the option for wingmen, nothing changes. But if FD can/has to assume that everybody is in a wing, then balancing the game to match that wouldn't be something surprisingly.



I think the biggest effect of NPC wingmen would be in Solo Mode. In Open Mode NPC wingmen would probably not be very effective, unless the difficulty of the NPCs would get boosted.

As I wrote, it _could_ result in balancing nightmares.

I'm sure people will claim to easy because of wingmen as well, but it's a pretty easy claim to dismiss as it would be entirely optional. I'd expect far more complaints when they don't save someone from another player, or even another npc by not living up to expectations in terms of effectiveness.

 

[Jockey79]

I'm sure people will claim to easy because of wingmen as well, but it's a pretty easy claim to dismiss as it would be entirely optional. I'd expect far more complaints when they don't save someone from another player, or even another npc by not living up to expectations in terms of effectiveness.

Will rep this as soon as I can... apparently I'm not spreading it around enough

(some days these forums really annoy me with that rubbish)

 

[Mouse]

I'm sure people will claim to easy because of wingmen as well, but it's a pretty easy claim to dismiss as it would be entirely optional. I'd expect far more complaints when they don't save someone from another player, or even another npc by not living up to expectations in terms of effectiveness.

Sadly you will have people who will point that you CAN have wingman in the scenario and still scream it is "easy mode" because no matter the truth they need their agenda pushed..

 

[DarkWalker]

Really?
How have I not found that?

Any hints as to where I can grab that?

Also, yes adding fun for all - those being interdicted / pirated and those running escort would be great, but the problem is fun is subjective - so not something I'd like to try and come up with an idea for tbh.

The part about it being as much a MMO as CoD is already in your Wall of Text, the second KS post. His exact words were "I don't see this as an MMO in the traditional sense, unless you think of Call of Duty as an MMO."

About he not wanting to call it a MMO early on, well, besides that very post hinting at it, and the Kickstart page not using that term even once, I remember hearing it in old video interviews from the KS era. The "I don't see it as an MMO in the traditional sense" line came out quite a few times before fans managed to finally convince DB that Elite Dangerous, as pitched, would qualify as an actual MMO.

There are other interesting things to find in those old interviews. For example, just from the Gary Whitta interview with David Braben and Chris Roberts, you have:
(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)

As reference for the following quote, here is Chris Roberts speaking about the Star Citizen equivalent of this thread (part 3, 5:30):
"And the key is kind of what David alluded to, which I think it's a debate that David has with his community and it's a debate I have with my community because there is definitely this whole sort of PvP and PvE sort of factions that go on and they're all pretty rabid. And so I think, and I think David also believes that you can sort of create a game that can cater to both sets of players and it will be okay. But it certainly is, that is, I would say if I were going to give you a touchpaper to set up a fight with your community that's the one to do it."

The immediate follow up by DB about PvE groups (part 3, 6:01):
"Well, the discussions have come up already. We have this concept of groups where you can join a group which doesn't allow or does allow it on the user choice."

Or this about the kind of game DB would want to play (part 3, 7:09):
"You know, so what I would I want from a game? I want to be able to play a great game without being griefed by teenagers, but having said that I do want there to be a feeling of risk out there."

Also this about what player interaction in ED was supposed to be about (part 3, 2:06):
"And so, I don’t mean necessarily every ship should be a player because then you get into a frame of mind that you can’t kill anything without really upsetting someone. I mean with Elite: Dangerous it’s still…a lot of the ships you encounter won’t be real players but we will call out, of the ships that you meet, who is a real player. We have a way of distinguishing them within the game. They’re actually part of this group of pilots that you’re part of and it will call out, above them say. Essentially what it means is “this is a real player,” but in the game fabric: “so this is a group who a member of the same organization as you.” We…you know, in other words we, we don’t want this game to be all about player vs. player kills, but the point is it encourages a lot of cooperation. And, it will be possible to do player vs. player kills if that’s what people want to do. "

 

[Mouse]

Will rep this as soon as I can... apparently I'm not spreading it around enough

(some days these forums really annoy me with that rubbish)

same.. people make good comments a lot more than we can rep em

 

[Khelder]

Will rep this as soon as I can... apparently I'm not spreading it around enough

(some days these forums really annoy me with that rubbish)

Hear, hear.

 

[Jockey79]

The part about it being as much a MMO as CoD is already in your Wall of Text,.....

LOL.

Been that long since I read it myself, I've forgotten what is in it.
I just add stuff to the bottom and carry on as I've gotten used to others now using it as a reference

 

[DarkWalker]

I was actually meaning customer engagement that time. Thinking that it's engaging for an audience at expos and on streams, etc to see features demonstrated with players participating with each other. But, I guess, if you're not interested in those things as a player then you're not likely to be all that "engaged" when those features are being sold to you.

Demonstration videos, including the ones used in advertisement, are usually done with the most frantic group content the game has to offer because, well, it's usually the most exciting content to look at. It's why WoW and many other MMOs use raids in those videos, why EVE uses the big fights with hundreds or thousands of players, why FPS advertisements often go for the mode with the largest number of players.

But most exciting to look at often isn't always the same as the most fun to play. Heck, in WoW I became a raider out of both peer pressure and a desire to see if raiding was all that it's often pegged as, and boy, was it a let down. The only thing of worth in that experience is that I found a really nice group to play with, one that made the game enjoyable by just being around, because the raiding content itself (including hard-mode raiding) was basically a mix of boring with frustrating.

 

[Mouse]

I think this article (if you read the whole thing) is rather relevant to the whole open vs solo thing..

http://gamerant.com/star-wars-battlefront-offline-single-player/

 

[Jockey79]

Demonstration videos, including the ones used in advertisement, are usually done with the most frantic group content the game has to offer because, well, it's usually the most exciting content to look at. It's why WoW and many other MMOs use raids in those videos, why EVE uses the big fights with hundreds or thousands of players, why FPS advertisements often go for the mode with the largest number of players.

But most exciting to look at often isn't always the same as the most fun to play. Heck, in WoW I became a raider out of both peer pressure and a desire to see if raiding was all that it's often pegged as, and boy, was it a let down. The only thing of worth in that experience is that I found a really nice group to play with, one that made the game enjoyable by just being around, because the raiding content itself (including hard-mode raiding) was basically a mix of boring with frustrating.

Look at the Wings video.

I'm still waiting to walk over the deck plating to get in my ship - just like in the video.
Or mini jump to a station and fight around it, without the station kicking my backside for using my guns near it.

 

[Khelder]

Or mini jump to a station and fight around it, without the station kicking my backside for using my guns near it.

We so need conflict zones around stations! Or missions to defend a station against attackers.

 

[Jockey79]

We so need conflict zones around stations! Or missions to defend a station against attackers.

See, we have a pirate faction.

Why do they not have missions to raid stations, or others have missions to attack the pirate faction supply lines (stations)?
That is a perfect way of adding stuff for everyone, pirates attacking defending, Bounty hunters doing the same - Traders / smugglers trying to get things in/out of the stations involved.

And an FD run "blockade" (so all modes get it either way) by their version of the U.N. trying to keep the peace.