Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

Do you want a Open PvE

  • Yes, I want a Open PvE

    Votes: 54 51.4%
  • No, I don't want a Open PvE

    Votes: 49 46.7%
  • I want only Open PvE and PvP only in groups

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Total voters
    105
  • Poll closed .
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
As an aside, in the first few days of playing in Mobius, I've had a much more social experience. I've seen way more real CMDRs, and flying in and out of the busy CG station people say 'Hi', and let you know when they are in and outbound, which is actually really useful in a busy space. Maybe that's an exception rather than the rule, and time will tell. So far though, I'm wishing I'd made the jump months ago.
That is how having to be on your guard permanently is different from being able to trust others to not shoot you. It leads to a more relaxed atmosphere, far more friendly contact, etc. Similar to how most people are more prone to talk to strangers in the "good" parts of the town and more likely to irrationally avoid everyone else in the "bad" parts.
 
To me, "He should have known what he was buying" is just simplistic and lazy. It is used over and over again in this thread. It's not an argument. It's not an opinion. It's nothing. The only time it could come close to a valid argument would be in response to someone who demands a refund because they didn't know that there was X mode. Then you can point to the references and say, "Well, it does say there are different modes."

My wife's SUV has a mode selector in it. It can select 2WD, 4WD (auto), and 4WD lock. I'm still not entirely sure why that thing is there. My wife certainly doesn't know what conditions each mode would be suited to. I could probably guess at a few but would likely forget it was there most of the time. I'd probably just leave it in 4WD lock mode thinking, "Why not? Surely 4WD would be better in the majority of scenarios?"

In the above paragraph, I have indicated my confusion around a feature in my wife's vehicle. I have also given an opinion about one of the modes in particular. I might add that I'm not entirely sure that we paid any attention to this particular feature when purchasing the vehicle. Now, I could think of a number of responses to the above:

(a) "Actually, you can be grateful the car has this feature. You don't necessarily want to be in 4WD all the time. Here's why..."
(b) "I wouldn't leave it in 4WD. I'd leave it in 2WD instead."
(c) "2WD sucks. 4WD is the only way to go!"
(d) "You should have known what you were buying."

To me: (a) would likely be useful; (b) and (c) are opinions, which may encourage me to look at the modes in a different way; but (d) is just plain useless.

The example you gave would be like someone stating that, since he doesn't see any sense in playing in anything other than Open, that he will just always keep to that mode; the player would be, at most, harming his own enjoyment of the game, without having a negative effect on anyone else.

What people often do here in asking for the modes or mode changing to be altered because they don't like it, on the other hand, would be equivalent to you demanding the auto-maker to remove the selector altogether from all SUVs (not just yours) and leave it locked to 4WD Lock for all users.

In that case, telling you that if you didn't want a car with the selector you should bloody well have chosen a different car is a perfectly valid response; it's not about antagonizing you or something of the like, but rather about defending a feature that is important for many users.
 
The OP isn't trying to tell you how to play, he's proposing giving added reward for added risk, it's what games do all the time, including ED.

Please try again.

your talking well you know what your talking the OP is saying that open is better than solo and that people in solo should be enticed to move to open and if not then those in open are better than solo players and should be rewarded thusly.

Again the forum rules won't let me reply to you properly.....what happens when enticement fails? Is it enforcement? The moment you come on these forums and say one of the ways of playing ED (always the way u play) is better than the others your the problem, but if you notice it's ALWAYS the PvP brigade who come on here and want others to be forced/coerced/enticed into going to open because they're struggling to find fresh meat I've NEVER seen a post on this forum from traders or the likes of möbius saying open should be shut down lets just play solo.....why is that.....well it's because their style of play isn't dependent on ruining another players day......they just login tune out and enjoy the greatness that is E.D. Instead of saying if u don't like open u should play another game mayb take a look for another game to play yourselves and leave us to it cos were having a blast.
 
Person A buys Game because it wants what the Game offers
Person B buys Game but it expected something diffrent

Question: Why should now Person A pay for the fault of Person B by changing the game to what Person B wants? I'm old fashioned, I believe everybody is responsible for its own faults and not other people.

you know, every part of me logically agrees with you... but then there is Liebeck vs McDonald's which just goes to show sometimes even the idiotic can "win" despite ignoring the obvious.

in a world where a bag of peanuts contains a warning that this product contains nuts, perhaps FD could have been clearer about the nature of the game. Short of a 100 paid document which you have to read and answer questions on before hitting buy, however am sure some would still complain
 
Last edited:
To me, "He should have known what he was buying" is just simplistic and lazy. It is used over and over again in this thread. It's not an argument. It's not an opinion. It's nothing. The only time it could come close to a valid argument would be in response to someone who demands a refund because they didn't know that there was X mode. Then you can point to the references and say, "Well, it does say there are different modes."
Do you feel it's as simplistic and lazy as not checking what you're buying, more simplistic and lazy as not checking what you're buying or less simplistic and lazy as not checking what you're buying?

I agree with you by the way it's simplistic and lazy. Reason being it's so bloody obvious. It shouldn't need to be used.
 
Now ofcourse you still see players but atleast half of the fun is destroyed because you know that atleast the same amount of players are additionally hiding in solo and private or unintentionally in open in another instance.

"unintentionally [hiding]" - you are now blaming Open players, the ones you support, for "hiding" because the game makes separate instances?

When I know a road is full of potholes and I choose a different route, I'm not hiding anything; I am routing around an unpleasant stretch of road. So it is with Solo.


The station creating would be awesome but should only be available to player groups and the station can be controlled by the group.

This is exactly the type of thing that screwed up EvE and exactly the type of shenanigans that many do not wish to see in E: D; Guilds claiming space. FD is on record many times saying that this will not happen.
 
This is because an Open world with all players would make this great game even more lively and fun.

Many people left Open because of the state it is in, which is player-made. Now people want to either force group/solo players into open or they want to separate the modes. Given that players here frequently say that "open is a wasteland" and the like, it appears as if the mode is suffering from its own consequences.
 
The OP isn't trying to tell you how to play, he's proposing giving added reward for added risk, it's what games do all the time, including ED.

Please try again.


Fdev gives you a mountain and allows you to climb it the way you want to, some climb it solo, some help each others, others attack each other and make it a competition.. but at no time did Fdev say they would give you more for climbing a certain way. To do so would mean they are advocating one way of climbing vs others. They said the reward is the same no matter your path on your journey.

Because some CHOSE to compete against each other does not equate more reward. If you get any reward at all extra it is the competition you so desired.
 
...when you 1st come out of supercruise your scanners are down so you cant see anything due to static interference or something, and then the scanners come online after 15 seconds or so - after the instance has populated.

With the stupid AI that came with 1.4, I have found (purely by accident) how to discourage immediate interdicting: I fuel scoop "on the fly." I've noticed that this either spawns the interceptor in the middle of the star or they chase you around it, again boiling them. It's quite fun :)
 
Glad to here it with such a venomous opinion of people with different views to you.

For the record, I play Solo because of hardware issues that turn ED in to a slide show on Open/Group..., and my other PC is on a non uPNP firewalled site. And you want to insult me with a spineless/anti-social/casual jibe? I'll have you know I've done more for community in SOLO than most of those shooting their mouth off about modes.

And only a coward would part that disgusting shot and then promise never to return.


I may have misread, I repped him because I read that those are their reason to play, not that they feel those are everyone's reason to play.
 



Well, first of all, I am really sorry for my English, I'll do my best.

Today I have a huge problem with this game (Elite: Dangerous)
Elite dangerous is a good game, but a lot of side are fully forgot and don't take a lot of time to do I think, with simple menchanicsand without destroy the actual problems (solo/private)
}--------------------------{

The Solo/private huge mistake:

Well, after300hours, I have see much problems, like Powerplay and trade 100% on Solo/private.
Today a trader only trade on solo, cause he don't have reward for playing on Open, and he can't give money to friends for escort him. (And don't try to talk about the comm'dividendes, it's a joke, nobody will do this job for that.)
It mean all military escort and piratery are destroyed.
For the powerplay, there is a BIG problem, nobody care. Yeah, your PP win or lose, you're doing an actually done obj or something useless you don't care, you'll earn money.
And there is a ridiculous PvP reward (like +20 points?), It mean, nobody will really do PvP for an objective (cause there is no objectiv and nobody care).

How patch it?

Traders will gain +50% for doing a trade 100% (more less?) on Real World (open) IDK how we can see it, but I hope we can. And with this option, you want SPLIT benefits to your team "10K for you, 20 for you" IDK. But we need something to force players to go on real World, and if you don't want nerf/Destroy solo, you have to up Open.

PowerPlayer need to be on a gate (Like they're capital) for switch solo/private=>Real World. Else they don't have influence (why don't do that for everybody all the time?), a LOT of rewards for all systems annexed, or a "contract of the Week" to complete. And ALL USELESS objective give Z.E.R.O. It's done, it's done.

}--------------------------{


SandBox is Only for Braben?

When I buy this game, it wasn't on Steam but I really WANT, sorry if I fail my purshase, a SandBox MMO SpaceOpera. ( http://store.steampowered.com/app/359320/ )
And actually, All I see is a REALLY good fight "Simulation" with good dogfight against NPC (cause there is no real pvp, and CQC Is a joke, but it's an other topic.)
We have a HUUUUGE world, a good background ect ect ect
But actually, we cannot call that a sandbox, cause ONLY BRABEN can call that a SandBox and he is lonely inside.
Actually, we can't build (Stations, Base, OutPost ect) we can't conquer, can't do a Team with all stats register to be proud.
No actually, we watch.

It's really sad but, we can't be on a faction (only mercenary, and PP is broken) the "Gamers groups" are a joke, they ONLY rename/edit a small faction, they don't do anything else. Seriously FD, how you can do that to your fan? If it's for do this huge joke, do Nothing, seriously, when I explain to my friends, and when they understand how it's done "So, the group have nothing more than other players? And they ONLY edit this faction? Yeah..."
On a sandBox, we can build, create conquer, do OUR politics, OUR history on the world.
Why don't do after the human Bubble a "No Law area" where players can build/Destroy/trade/Pimp"? And Braben can still play to his sandbox with CG by annex on the bubble players lands, why not, it's on the BackGround, it's on the game !i And all solo fan's can continue to play solo alone...

What this type of gameplay will add?

Fun, politics, History.
If players can build they're own "house" together, with a Farming Planet, and etablish a trade to this station, and this to this... It's only a panel gameplay with huge influence and money management (you'll see)
Why don't allow players to GIVE they're money to build (cause actually money is useless after 500M+) and pimp Police/Military.
I don't mean players will lead fleet, nope, I mean a team of players will spend money each Day/Week to set a concentration of police, a stuff to police, and same for army.
It's like powerplay, but more interesting. They can "Pimp" planet/station/Armed force against money, money producted by system/Trade or gift. And why don't allow the military attack against a huge cost?
This system (own by players) will attack an other (Players only, if Braben want keep his sandBox) against like 500M of money. And the military strike will apear after 2/3/4Days. And density of "friendly" or "enemy" force, and size/Weapons will depend of the money invested in this attack.
With this SMALL option of panel management and players management, we keep the actual system, and something new apear, the real Mercenary (but, we need money gift...).
If you start an attack, you'll need players farming, and you'll need mercenary and you're own players. Why not create contract to a players mercenary organisation like a CG, to earn X money they need to kill X enemy NPC/Players. It will help the military Strike and the conquest.

This is simple (like PP) to do, and give to Elite: Dangerous a HUGE gameplay for everybody. And, In ALL SITUATION, the global BackGround and Braben (Don't worry ;) ) keep hand an can "By RP" annex players conquest ect... And It give new CG, can give to players occasion to fight against the Empires ect ect.
I Hope I wasn't rough, cause it's really simple.

Problems? Not size, if every players have 100 systems, we will be on 1% of systems and we need to be 20/30 to keep 2/3 systems ;)
Inactivity? If players leave the faction/stop connection, the station became inactive, the colonist comeBack on Empire (Why don't do RP/CG) and after somedays if fall in ruins (And IDK, you can pay for reparation for 1/2 weeks and after it's 100% dead.)
Huge players organisaiton? YEAH GOOD ! You don't want see Elite with huge Organisation? And Braben with the Empire still can fight them with RP/CG ect, and if the system is well think, you can't do that.

And Explorer: With this gameplay, your exploration became usefull, not just RP. Why don't sold the "dream Systems" against 200M? ect ect

}--------------------------{


The univers is aliiiiive! (Thanks to trade) :
When I Start Elite, it was a fact for me, the univers was alive, planet produce, same for stations, but against food/Materials, and Players AND NPC do the transport job due to Ask/Offer. And if 10.000 players have fun to farm ALL NPC on a system, the stations will starve. But no.
Actually, station produce from a blackHole, and when you sell, it go on a BlackHole.
Why you don't do a real trade system with Procuction and free market?
This planet produce X food, and they need X medics.
All days 25.000 NPC transport X Tons of this Station/Planet, if they're all intercepted, it starve. Same for stations ect. You can keep your Solo/private and just check the stats of NPC dead.

This station have X tons of Gold due to planet (X K Transport a day) and Y tons due to the space mining (Y K) and Npc will do the trade to neighbor system against Food ect
With this system, without players it's like actually, price are stable, NPC do they're own daily job. And the market are stable.
But with players, we can gank NPC and intercept a small % of supply (And why not add it to the NPC pirate stats IDK) and the price of the intercepted ressources will up ! And why don't apply the next day, due to the interception more trader (due to better prices ;) ) and...Escort with them (Cause **** Piratry ! :p)
With a real market of NPC production/consumption (I never talk about Players production !) you can see new REAL jobs with fun:
Real traders, cause they'll check blockade systems and help it to don't starve (and make money.), and escort ect (with the Online reward describe before !)
Miners, cause with consumption, price will be better for them ;) (ACtually nobody mine nope?)
Smuggelers: Yeah, I LOVE this job but we can't do it actually, I talk about the REAL job, not the "LOL boring missioning", I mean buy goods where it's legal, and sell where it's not. Cause yeah, with this system, Pirate Stations will became full business stations for dishonest people.
ACtually, you can't cause "Real Price (legal) - Illegal(BlackmarketTaxe) = LOW % of benefitcs for hard job", you can trade scrap, it's better.

}--------------------------{


Better influence between players :
Yeah, our "paralel univers" are linked nope?
Why don't link stats and activity? I mean, don't wait a fall of governement for change something. If there is a HIGHT pirate kill on this system the last hour, ALL PRIVATE AND SOLO will have less pirates.
If there is a lot of (NPC or players) act of piracy the last hour, in all solo and private, it will have more pirates.
It mean a huge band of evil pirates can attack ALL NPC for 1hours and influence in all univers (it mean for real) all gamers. Is this not a good idea? More linked with the respect of Solo/private error ! (Cause it was.)


Well, all Idea can evolve or picked alone, but OFC for me it's linked. A huge players influence on all systems are linked to the real market life, and players constructions/Conquest/Management is linked to real market ect.
-======================-


Conclusion:
For me, it's not hard to pass Elite from a solo game less than skyrim (Thanks NPCs, quests ect ...) to a BIG multiplayer experience despite the solo / private. And we can call that a SandBox and a MMO, actually, excuse me but no.
ACtually, we have no sandbox, no MMo, no real solo (cause it's boring to just watch and do stupid mission and continue to farm money when you're already rich, or invest to PP when it's useless, or farm mission to help a minor faction... LOL.)
I have chekc the Horizon Stream, and Like Elite: Dangerous, I preorder it. But I really feel that Elite wants to be a solo game without sandbox and only be 100% custom for fans of the 80s.
I have check Horizon, and yeah, it's incredible, you do a linked game (GG, CCP fail it with Dust514, you do it !) but for what? All I see is "Land, Exploroe a auto-generated world, do "dungeon"/exploration and back".
I mean, it's all? You sold us an auto generated world with a small car? Not a buildable area, a feudal system between players ect? (Keep this planets, export this against that ect) If Elite: Dangerous want to be a solo auto generated world without real NPC without real RP, without all i've say, well, how getting refunded Horizon, we are some interested, cause dogfight is cool, but only against NPC in a frozen world...

For me the lone problem is server maintenance without subscription, nope? (I think we can found together a solution if it's only that.)
Well, thank you very much for taking the time to read, I had that on the heart for a while, it feels good to express in the only important board , the official. If somebody want correct me, I can edit.

Well, Thanks for merge.
Now 99% of my topic, not in the "Solo VS Open" subject are flooded in the middle of 500 page.
HAve I to repost it WITHOUT the solo vs Open section?

You know admin, if you just want delete my topic, you should do it, cause merge it here is the same.
 
To me, "He should have known what he was buying" is just simplistic and lazy. It is used over and over again in this thread. It's not an argument. It's not an opinion. It's nothing. The only time it could come close to a valid argument would be in response to someone who demands a refund because they didn't know that there was X mode. Then you can point to the references and say, "Well, it does say there are different modes."

My wife's SUV has a mode selector in it. It can select 2WD, 4WD (auto), and 4WD lock. I'm still not entirely sure why that thing is there. My wife certainly doesn't know what conditions each mode would be suited to. I could probably guess at a few but would likely forget it was there most of the time. I'd probably just leave it in 4WD lock mode thinking, "Why not? Surely 4WD would be better in the majority of scenarios?"

In the above paragraph, I have indicated my confusion around a feature in my wife's vehicle. I have also given an opinion about one of the modes in particular. I might add that I'm not entirely sure that we paid any attention to this particular feature when purchasing the vehicle. Now, I could think of a number of responses to the above:

(a) "Actually, you can be grateful the car has this feature. You don't necessarily want to be in 4WD all the time. Here's why..."
(b) "I wouldn't leave it in 4WD. I'd leave it in 2WD instead."
(c) "2WD sucks. 4WD is the only way to go!"
(d) "You should have known what you were buying."

To me: (a) would likely be useful; (b) and (c) are opinions, which may encourage me to look at the modes in a different way; but (d) is just plain useless.


for your argument to be valid as to why the "he should have known what he is buying " is flawed you would have to take your SUV back to the dealership and demand that the ability to switch between 2wd and 4wd modes be changed to all wheel drive only, and that the vehicle needs to be self driven.
 
Yes, that's the other issue. E:D is an Elite remake, it was always sold like this and I don't understand why some people buy a game that they enjoyed in their childhood and now want it to be completely different, with all the "modern" MMO stuff, achievements and "win" conditions.

I'm not sure about "the Elders" (I am one, '84) wanting all this stuff. From what I read on the forums, it's mostly "the new kids" who want all the badges, toys and pretty stuffs or some kind of "win" condition.

The '84 players I've spoken to like the game as it is, a reflection of the original, where you are small beer in a huge and uncaring universe. The sandbox approach doesn't work well with the "race to the top" style of play.
 
Well, Thanks for merge.
Now 99% of my topic, not in the "Solo VS Open" subject are flooded in the middle of 500 page.
HAve I to repost it WITHOUT the solo vs Open section?

You know admin, if you just want delete my topic, you should do it, cause merge it here is the same.

16 references to Solo in your original post, so... suck it up brave boy... If the cap fits and all...

And, er, XBox, low bandwidth and no to "I want it better my way."

Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom