Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Zandraak]

Well.
If Elite is just a solo-assisted for 84's fans, how be refund of Horizon? I stop here to belive in Elite: Dangerous. It's done for me.

 

[Faded Glory]

Well.
If Elite is just a solo-assisted for 84's fans, how be refund of Horizon? I stop here to belive in Elite: Dangerous. It's done for me.

https://support.frontier.co.uk/kb/faq.php?id=192

 

[Zandraak]

https://support.frontier.co.uk/kb/faq.php?id=192

Thanks, i'll send it to my friends.
CYA.

 

[Jockey79]

I tend to agree. The language around "multi-player" is used heavily to promote this game.

Really?

From the Kickstarter;
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*

Some Dev comments from the Kickstarter;



https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1681441
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1705397
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1705551

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. "

From the forum archives;
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)

Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."

DB on "Griefing" and "Griefers"
(Listen out for the part where FD can move them in to a private group of just each other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M

Rededit Topic on "unusual event for players to come against players" (With Twitch Video)
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangero...ayers_to_come/

Direct Twitch Link; (Note DB use "Occasonial" and "unusual" regarding players interacting)
http://www.twitch.tv/egx/b/571962295?t=69m00s

Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)

Wikipedia;
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.

Oxford English Dictionary (Online);
An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .

The Steam Store page;

Please note, "Single Player" and "Multiplayer" with "Co-op".
So not just an "MMO"


Dev comments;

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by Numi
Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.

Michael

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by Robert Maynard
Thanks for that clarity Michael.

Are you in a position to confirm that group switching between the three game modes will remain as a feature of the game?

We're not planning on changing that.

Michael

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by mosh_er
Hi Micheal

I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?

None are planned at the moment.

Michael

Originally Posted by David Braben AMA Thread, post 319

Originally Posted by Alexander the Grape
In the newsletter, it was mentioned that an intersection between a trading power and a military power will result in piracy missions.

Will this make NPC piracy more profitable or will we continue to need to focus on players?

It can be more profitable, and it will apply to both players and NPCs.

Originally Posted by David Braben AMA Thread, post #367

Originally Posted by Adept
For fun

That said, it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation.

Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.

Originally Posted by David Braben

Originally Posted by FuzzySpider
The mechanics of powerplay, particularly the interface between player and power being an almost direct copy of the community goal model, gives the entire experience an MMO-guild type feel to the gameplay.


Is this MMO-style a new direction for Elite: Dangerous? Or will you be still focussing on the single player immersive experience, even if that single player is playing in a universe filled with other players?


Thank's very much to you and the FDev team for all of your efforts. One or two subjective niggles of mine aside the game is the one I've been waiting for for years and I'm totally enamoured with it.

We are supporting multiplayer and the solo experience. Community Goals are carrying on too.

E3 2015 Interview (17th June 2015);

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/0...-david-braben/


The overall thread topic (+ How XB1 fits);

On that last point, Producer Ben Dowie reiterated that Xbox One and PC players won’t be playing head-to-head—although they’ll be playing in the same simulated universe, they’ll never encounter each other in space, likely because Microsoft’s Xbox patch cycle adds complexity to Frontier’s game update procedure. This means that PC players and Xbox players will often wind up on different clients, which means no head-to-head play. To that end, anticipated PC-centric features will likely land on PC first.

And regarding the game design;

I pointed out that there’s frequent contention online about the “right” way to play, be it casual or hard-core, and Braben agreed. “But there shouldn’t be a ‘right’ way,” he said. “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 people have come up with lots of suggestions, some of them very constructive and sensible, and we do listen, and people hopefully have seen that we’ve changed things and adjusted things, but not in a way—we hope!—to upset people. We’re doing it to make the game better!”

To highlight something from that above quote;

“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."

Here is a quote from Zac Antonaci for the "game is dying" pro-claimers.
Dated 10th July 2015;

Originally Posted by Zac Antonaci

Originally Posted by fred
They need to be.


Look at the current posts on the subreddit and the forum. Your core player base is simply stopping playing. You might be selling copies but if your core community is splitting or stopping playing then you have a problem.

Hey Fred,


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.


<snip>


Zac

Originally Posted by Zac Antonaci

According to some members of the community, Solo players should have a limited or no effect on Powerplay - or, alternatively, playing in Open should offer Powerplay bonuses. Is this something you are considering?

No. For us Solo, Groups and Open are all valid and equal ways to play the game.

And a nice, clear, concise comment from Michael Brookes regarding the modes;

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes
From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.

Michael

Dev Update 6th August 2015 (https://community.elitedangerous.com/node/248);

What we are doing is new in many ways, both technically and in terms of how we are realizing our long term ambitions for Elite Dangerous. As we evolve the game we are trying to give the best value we can to both existing and new players, for the long term benefit of everyone. That’s why we’ve worked hard to keep backwards compatibility for the Elite Dangerous: Horizons season, and are continuing to release updates for ‘season one’ players. Everyone will continue to fly in the same galaxy, and be impacted by, participate in and help to drive the same events.

Reddit AMA from X-Box One launch, in relation to the Back Ground Simulation and Modes;
https://np.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/3nlmdg/its_frontier_developments_developers_of_elite/

^^ So PC/Mac and X-Box One impact the same live simulation, but cannot actually play together or see each other.

^^ X-Box One also has "Solo Mode" and is recommended by FD Devs for when you do not want to play with other people.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

The only interactions that a SRV can have is between 'bases', skimmers around those bases, or other players shooting from their ships and SRV's. It seems to be very group oriented, with the capability to be able to finish the same missions in Solo....albeit with more care and thought and skill than a group dealing with the same content.

I do not see this as PVE centric. It is just ground based USS's really.…

In my opinion that's very PvE centric. The bases, the skimmers, the missions (based on the hints) are PvE content. The USS's are PvE content. The SSS's are PvE content. The reasons to go down to a planet are PvE reasons: NPC settlements, NPC bases, NPC wreckages, NPC stuff to find …

PvE is not about doing things alone. Attacking a ground base in a group of players doesn't change the fact that the attack on the base is PvE.

Just like the current game is PvE centric with the ability to attack other players in Open and Private Group Mode while not offering any real in-game reasons to do so and without any PvP oriented game play. Horizons will be PvE centric from what I've seen so far.

And to be honest, after watching the stream I don't see that much "pushing to group game play". Especially since it was clearly stated that everything will be doable alone. Harder maybe, but doable. Just like it is now.

And nothing of this has to do with Solo or Group or Open Mode.

 

[Khelder]

However, the reason it is used so much in this thread and all those that get merged here is that we're talking about a fundamental core feature of the game, that all players in whatever mode are playing in the same universe and they can therefore switch modes as they choose for any play session without any loss of progress or other penalty. The "you should have known what you were buying" response is usually in reply to some player ranting that this feature has to be changed to "fix" the game. If they don't like that feature to the extent it totally ruins the game for them (which some claim but I suspect way fewer actually feel) then that response is perfectly reasonable - if it's that much of a deal breaker, then why did they buy the game in the first place?

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.

There are those (who regularly post to this thread) that have clearly made a purchasing decision based on mode functionality. They have done exhaustive research on that particular ‘feature' to ensure that it fits their needs before parting with their money. Jockey has a wall of information which is mostly comments from developers from scattered forum posts. That's great. He has gone to that effort because that is very important to him.

But now imagine that you are an average gamer who doesn't have some predetermined need not to play with others or some such. Go and take a look at www.elitedangerous.com or store.steampowered.com/app/359320. This is how the game is sold. There are basic references to the ability to play in multi-player or to play as single-player. But there is nothing to describe how that actually works on a technical level. There is nothing to explain how modes impact the simulation. The training modes available could be enough to point to and say, "There's your single-player mode."

Expecting everyone to go through every development note and every forum post before making a purchasing decision is not overly reasonable.
When we purchased my wife's vehicle, we didn't sift through all of the engineering notes from the manufacturer to see what their intentions for the vehicle were as it was going through development. We looked at the specifications and features of the product that were available to us.
I've commented on the mode selector in the vehicle. I'm not a huge fan of the stereo in the thing either. But pumping music through the car during our test-drive didn't really seem appropriate at the time.

Finding fault with something you have purchased does not mean that the purchase was necessarily a mistake. It just means that you believe something could have been done a better way. You can always disagree with that person's opinion.

I really don't like the way the Asp Explorer sounds like a Sopwith Camel. Yes, I'm sure if I had looked hard enough through everyone's YouTube videos that I would have found one with the sound of the Asp. But I didn't. I looked at the advertising material in front of me and said, "Wow! That's awesome!" (Actually, I played Elite back in the 80's. I was always going to buy it out of curiosity if nothing else. But that's beside the point.) That doesn't mean I can't complain now that the Asp sounds ridiculous.

Yes, you are right, that argument is used a lot, and perhaps it is flawed, but the problem is that the posters that it is aimed at are proposing to have the game changed from what it is to something it isn't.

Their position in this case is not reasonable, especially when it would quite probably adversely affect people who have bought the game who are happy with it as it is, or indeed purchased it because of the features that are being attacked.

So if it's game breaking for those people who want the game to be different, perhaps they should ask for a refund, but I don't see why they feel they should be entitled to have the game changed to suit them.

Plenty of people are asking to change the game from what it is to something it isn't. Just look at all the NERF! threads. Some changes have been made. Guess what? Other changes are bound to be made in the future.

You can throw the same "You should have known what you were buying" argument at everything…

"I'm sick of people hiding in Solo"… "You should have known what you were buying"
"SCBs are ruining combat"… "You should have known what you were buying"
"You can't make money from piracy"… "You should have known what you were buying"
"The Asp sounds like a Sopwith Camel"… "You should have known what you were buying"
"The screen shaking is making me physically sick"… "You should have known what you were buying"
"There's no depth"… "You should have known what you were buying"

In each of those cases, you could say that there is an element of truth in the response. That doesn't make the response a particularly good one. Not only does it show no effort in discussing the concern at hand, it is generally a method of shutting down an argument by putting the other person down.

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.

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.

I could have taken that example a step further and said I demand that the manufacturer change their vehicle to suit my choice. Perhaps I write them a polite letter? Or maybe I put together an offensive sign and picket my local dealership? Either way, the argument is still the same.

Let's say, for interest sake, that the manufacturer did respond to me. Not sure why they would, but go with it. If I had received a letter from them in the mail that simple said, "You should have known what you were buying," what do you think my reaction is going to be? "Oh. Fair enough then?"

What if I received a letter from them explaining the reasons behind the feature? What if that letter explained that other do in fact use the feature in a way that I, perhaps, have no interest in and that they are extremely satisfied with it? I'm not getting my way, but don't you think my reaction might be somewhat better?

I am not suggesting here that FD needs to respond to people. I'm just discussing the type of response. In this case, from forumers.

- - - Updated - - -

Really?

... THE WALL ...

Ok. Now go and look at how Elite: Dangerous is actually advertised.

 

[Dave1235]

That was a long read.

I did try, these new ideas I have never seen before had me enthralled, but I had to stop for the word "blockade" (pun intended), when blockades are discussed in a P2P network, 32 max instance (more like 12 in reality if very lucky), when ISP's give routers that let you white list IP addresses, well he lost me there, or maybe I would lose him somewhere in the interwebz

Praise Braben <bows> that I do not have to go do a networking course to play with who I wish, when I wish, its almost like it was part of the plan from the start, Oh yeah it was, from KS, I read it before I bought the game 18 months ago and its still here.

 

[Cmdr Cunomaglus]

Okay, so imagine if you had bought your wife's SUV specifically because it has the 2WD / 4WD thing. You're perfectly happy with it, got what you wanted, all is right with the world. First dude comes up, "hey, what's this? I didn't realise you had to choose between driving modes, I only want 4WD! This sucks, this entire line of cars should be returned to have the feature removed!" "Okay", you say, "it came with that feature from the start, some of us like that feature because [exhaustive, eloquent, polite list of reasons]. It's a shame you're not happy with it, perhaps you could just leave it in 4WD and forget it? [Whatever, I'm not qualified to argue about a car I've never driven!]" Dude grumblegrumbles and wanders off.

Second dude comes up, says exactly the same thing, you give exactly the same response, "... just like I told the other guy".

Third dude comes up, same complaint and demand again.

Fourth dude. Fifth dude. Fiftieth dude.

How long are you going to be patient, considerate, tolerant of all these demands for your car, which you bought precisely for the features it has, to be returned to maker to have these features removed? How long until you say in exasperation, "you should have known what you were buying"?

 

[Mouse]

There are those (who regularly post to this thread) that have clearly made a purchasing decision based on mode functionality. They have done exhaustive research on that particular ‘feature' to ensure that it fits their needs before parting with their money. Jockey has a wall of information which is mostly comments from developers from scattered forum posts. That's great. He has gone to that effort because that is very important to him.

But now imagine that you are an average gamer who doesn't have some predetermined need not to play with others or some such. Go and take a look at www.elitedangerous.com or store.steampowered.com/app/359320. This is how the game is sold. There are basic references to the ability to play in multi-player or to play as single-player. But there is nothing to describe how that actually works on a technical level. There is nothing to explain how modes impact the simulation. The training modes available could be enough to point to and say, "There's your single-player mode."

Expecting everyone to go through every development note and every forum post before making a purchasing decision is not overly reasonable.
When we purchased my wife's vehicle, we didn't sift through all of the engineering notes from the manufacturer to see what their intentions for the vehicle were as it was going through development. We looked at the specifications and features of the product that were available to us.
I've commented on the mode selector in the vehicle. I'm not a huge fan of the stereo in the thing either. But pumping music through the car during our test-drive didn't really seem appropriate at the time.

Finding fault with something you have purchased does not mean that the purchase was necessarily a mistake. It just means that you believe something could have been done a better way. You can always disagree with that person's opinion.

I really don't like the way the Asp Explorer sounds like a Sopwith Camel. Yes, I'm sure if I had looked hard enough through everyone's YouTube videos that I would have found one with the sound of the Asp. But I didn't. I looked at the advertising material in front of me and said, "Wow! That's awesome!" (Actually, I played Elite back in the 80's. I was always going to buy it out of curiosity if nothing else. But that's beside the point.) That doesn't mean I can't complain now that the Asp sounds ridiculous.



Plenty of people are asking to change the game from what it is to something it isn't. Just look at all the NERF! threads. Some changes have been made. Guess what? Other changes are bound to be made in the future.

You can throw the same "You should have known what you were buying" argument at everything…

"I'm sick of people hiding in Solo"… "You should have known what you were buying"
"SCBs are ruining combat"… "You should have known what you were buying"
"You can't make money from piracy"… "You should have known what you were buying"
"The Asp sounds like a Sopwith Camel"… "You should have known what you were buying"
"The screen shaking is making me physically sick"… "You should have known what you were buying"
"There's no depth"… "You should have known what you were buying"

In each of those cases, you could say that there is an element of truth in the response. That doesn't make the response a particularly good one. Not only does it show no effort in discussing the concern at hand, it is generally a method of shutting down an argument by putting the other person down.




I could have taken that example a step further and said I demand that the manufacturer change their vehicle to suit my choice. Perhaps I write them a polite letter? Or maybe I put together an offensive sign and picket my local dealership? Either way, the argument is still the same.

Let's say, for interest sake, that the manufacturer did respond to me. Not sure why they would, but go with it. If I had received a letter from them in the mail that simple said, "You should have known what you were buying," what do you think my reaction is going to be? "Oh. Fair enough then?"

What if I received a letter from them explaining the reasons behind the feature? What if that letter explained that other do in fact use the feature in a way that I, perhaps, have no interest in and that they are extremely satisfied with it? I'm not getting my way, but don't you think my reaction might be somewhat better?

I am not suggesting here that FD needs to respond to people. I'm just discussing the type of response. In this case, from forumers.

- - - Updated - - -



Ok. Now go and look at how Elite: Dangerous is actually advertised.

I will explain with one word... Responsibility

No one wants to take responsibility for their own actions anymore. If I go to the store and there is a whole bunch of 2% milk and I just grab a gallon without looking at it.. then I get home and find that what I grabbed was skim.. it is not the store's fault that I did not look to make sure I grabbed the right one, it was mine. Same if you are buying a game, or a vehicle or anything, and just buy it after you see it.. do you really have any right to complain that it isn't what you think it was?


in essence... you should have known what you were buying. It is perfectly valid and truthful.



as for how ED is advertised.. I am well aware of how it was advertised.. that is why I bought the game.. it says you can forge your own path and that you can make a difference, it says you can play the game with people or by yourself. I was well aware of what I was buying. I've only had one game that I had issue with because of what was advertised vs what was sold.. and that is Dark Souls..because it says it is keyboard/mouse compatible.. but it really isn't as the game is rather unplayable.

 

[Jockey79]

Ok. Now go and look at how Elite: Dangerous is actually advertised.

Your point?

The words "Single Player", "Play your own way", "Infinite Freedom", "Blaze Your Own Trail" - do not scream "Multiplayer" to me.
I've provided all the information you need, even DBOBE said seeing other players will be "rare" - so not exactly the best advert for multiplayer there.

 

[Khelder]

Okay, so imagine if you had bought your wife's SUV specifically because it has the 2WD / 4WD thing. You're perfectly happy with it, got what you wanted, all is right with the world. First dude comes up, "hey, what's this? I didn't realise you had to choose between driving modes, I only want 4WD! This sucks, this entire line of cars should be returned to have the feature removed!" "Okay", you say, "it came with that feature from the start, some of us like that feature because [exhaustive, eloquent, polite list of reasons]. It's a shame you're not happy with it, perhaps you could just leave it in 4WD and forget it? [Whatever, I'm not qualified to argue about a car I've never driven!]" Dude grumblegrumbles and wanders off.

Second dude comes up, says exactly the same thing, you give exactly the same response, "... just like I told the other guy".

Third dude comes up, same complaint and demand again.

Fourth dude. Fifth dude. Fiftieth dude.

How long are you going to be patient, considerate, tolerant of all these demands for your car, which you bought precisely for the features it has, to be returned to maker to have these features removed? How long until you say in exasperation, "you should have known what you were buying"?

I see what you're getting at and I do feel for you... to an extent. The thing is that it is just as easy to cut and paste your explanation as to why the modes are a good thing as it is to say, "You should have known what you were buying."

Back to your extension of my example though, it would really depend a little bit on the scenario. Therein lies another problem. I find it hard to imagine that so many random people would come up to me and complain about the purchase of a similar vehicle. Unless... I worked at the dealership. If I did work at the dealership, I would consider it my responsibility to convey the benefits of the "feature" in the most persuasive manner possible. Yes, it would get frustrating over time. But that wouldn't change my responsibility to offer excellent customer service and to promote my brand.

The comments we are talking about here are not being responded to by someone working in customer service. The forumers who are responding are not (generally I believe) being contacted directly/privately with these concerns. The responders are actively seeking out and responding to complaints that people have made on this forum. The fact that they have gone to the effort to read other people's comments and felt the need to respond indicates to me that the responder has taken upon himself/herself to adopt the role of "customer service" briefly (or, in some cases, extended periods) to "defend" a particular feature. If you are going to do that and then come out with, "You should have known what you were buying", I believe you have failed.

If you are tired of making a reasonable response, surely the better option would be to not respond at all. Nobody is forcing the forums on anyone else.

 

[Dave1235]

the modes in game are not equal though...in open you have real danger from real humans
Elite Dangerous is open mode..

<snip>

The last time I was in open it was in a type 6 running rares through all the home worlds, leesti, lave, diso. I got interdicted 3 times, twice by AI once by a CMDR.

Every time I submitted, boosted and went to SC, not HW, one AI followed interdicted me 3/4 times, the other twice IIRC, the CMDR only the once and gave up, I had decent cargo on-board.

This was on a Friday or Saturday night, well 10pm to ~3 am GMT, not when UK and East coast USA are at work.

 

[Jockey79]

The last time I was in open it was in a type 6 running rares through all the home worlds, leesti, lave, diso. I got interdicted 3 times, twice by AI once by a CMDR.

Every time I submitted, boosted and went to SC, not HW, one AI followed interdicted me 3/4 times, the other twice IIRC, the CMDR only the once and gave up, I had decent cargo on-board.

This was on a Friday or Saturday night, well 10pm to ~3 am GMT, not when UK and East coast USA are at work.

Same, I did a recorded Rares run in a Cobra - in "peek" time UK.
Not a single PC interdiction.

Go figure.

[video=youtube;dIsT-v_oofY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIsT-v_oofY&list=PLyyYKMhs7Zovizt5I6UJd-odE6rPnkD5g&index=5[/video]

[edit;

Also did one in a T6 and wrote a transcript of it while I played in mega thread 2.
Again, no issues - no more dangerous than Mobius. ]

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
Plenty of people are asking to change the game from what it is to something it isn't. Just look at all the NERF! threads. Some changes have been made. Guess what? Other changes are bound to be made in the future.

You can throw the same "You should have known what you were buying" argument at everything…

The nerfs that have been done have hardly been game breaking for many players... Just because they reduced the capabilities of the Python, or made friendly fire more forgiving is hardly the same as forcing everybody to play in Open, like it or not.

I personally don't throw that argument about, but I will reiterate, that while those that are unhappy are entitled to their opinion, I and others are equally as entitled to ours, and I really don't get why you feel that I / we are the bad guys here, just because we don't want to play ED with a load of strangers.

[snip]
What if I received a letter from them explaining the reasons behind the feature? What if that letter explained that other do in fact use the feature in a way that I, perhaps, have no interest in and that they are extremely satisfied with it? I'm not getting my way, but don't you think my reaction might be somewhat better?

I am not suggesting here that FD needs to respond to people. I'm just discussing the type of response. In this case, from forumers.

Well, FD have said, continually, that they feel that everyone should be able to play how they want, with others or alone and that they are very happy with how the game is going in that regard, but those complaining won't accept that. And the responses they get from us on the forums are not generally hostile, certainly no more hostile than those proposing that Solo mode be scrapped or excluded from content, and accusing those that choose to play Solo of being exploiters and cheats.

 

[Dave1235]

DDSS, I see!

Where I am from its SSDD but hey all the same.

If I don't read <circles> by the time I catch up, I will think your are slacking (or Iron Mouse is keeping you busy, maybe a cupboard biscuit problem).

<waves>

 

[Khelder]

I personally don't throw that argument about, but I will reiterate, that while those that are unhappy are entitled to their opinion, I and others are equally as entitled to ours, and I really don't get why you feel that I / we are the bad guys here, just because we don't want to play ED with a load of strangers.

I absolutely agree with you that you are entitled to your opinion. And in doing so, I certainly don't consider you or anyone else as a "bad guy". I am more than happy for people to explain why they believe either side (although, there are really more than two sides here) have the better case. I am also more than happy for people to express their personal opinion on a side. Personal opinions can be interesting.

What I don't like is people falling back on conversation stoppers like, "You should have known what you were buying" or "The devs said this is the way it is". Comments like that are not discussion. They are intended to "win". To stop the conversation. To me, it feels just as much as a "show of dominance" that some are suggesting are the motivations behind PvP enthusiasts.

And after all that, I was actually responding to someone who commented on a thread that had a number of different gripes/suggestions (including open/solo) and that ended up in this pit of despair. I don't see the point in responding to a bunch of suggestions with, "You should have known what you were buying." If you're not going to put in some effort, don't comment at all. Argue the points. Agree. Disagree. Why try to put them down by insinuating that they were not intelligent enough to make a responsible purchasing decision?

Anyway. That was my feeling at the time. Now I'm stuck responding in this stupid thread again. :/

The nerfs that have been done have hardly been game breaking for many players... Just because they reduced the capabilities of the Python, or made friendly fire more forgiving is hardly the same as forcing everybody to play in Open, like it or not.

I guess that would depend upon each individual. Perhaps I specifically researched the fact that ED was to have missiles. I love missiles. That's why I bought the game. To fire missiles at things. Except, now... they don't seem to do all that much.

No. I did not purchase ED so that I could fire missiles at things. But I do like missiles.

 

[Mouse]

I absolutely agree with you that you are entitled to your opinion. And in doing so, I certainly don't consider you or anyone else as a "bad guy". I am more than happy for people to explain why they believe either side (although, there are really more than two sides here) have the better case. I am also more than happy for people to express their personal opinion on a side. Personal opinions can be interesting.

What I don't like is people falling back on conversation stoppers like, "You should have known what you were buying" or "The devs said this is the way it is". Comments like that are not discussion. They are intended to "win". To stop the conversation. To me, it feels just as much as a "show of dominance" that some are suggesting are the motivations behind PvP enthusiasts.

And after all that, I was actually responding to someone who commented on a thread that had a number of different gripes/suggestions (including open/solo) and that ended up in this pit of despair. I don't see the point in responding to a bunch of suggestions with, "You should have known what you were buying." If you're not going to put in some effort, don't comment at all. Argue the points. Agree. Disagree. Why try to put them down by insinuating that they were not intelligent enough to make a responsible purchasing decision?

Anyway. That was my feeling at the time. Now I'm stuck responding in this stupid thread again. :/



I guess that would depend upon each individual. Perhaps I specifically researched the fact that ED was to have missiles. I love missiles. That's why I bought the game. To fire missiles at things. Except, now... they don't seem to do all that much.

No. I did not purchase ED so that I could fire missiles at things. But I do like missiles.

Why didn't you reply to Jockey?

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Your point?

The words "Single Player", "Play your own way", "Infinite Freedom", "Blaze Your Own Trail" - do not scream "Multiplayer" to me.
I've provided all the information you need, even DBOBE said seeing other players will be "rare" - so not exactly the best advert for multiplayer there.

Look at it from the perspective of a new player, someone without the kickstarter or dev notes baggage. In the two things you posted it says multiplayer 4 times vs solo's once. It's pretty hard to know solo impacts the galaxy just from that. All the other "fluff", "infinite freedom", and "play your own way", can very easily describe the game in general not necessarily the modes.

 

[DarkWalker]

I could have taken that example a step further and said I demand that the manufacturer change their vehicle to suit my choice. Perhaps I write them a polite letter? Or maybe I put together an offensive sign and picket my local dealership? Either way, the argument is still the same.

Let's say, for interest sake, that the manufacturer did respond to me. Not sure why they would, but go with it. If I had received a letter from them in the mail that simple said, "You should have known what you were buying," what do you think my reaction is going to be? "Oh. Fair enough then?"

What if I received a letter from them explaining the reasons behind the feature? What if that letter explained that other do in fact use the feature in a way that I, perhaps, have no interest in and that they are extremely satisfied with it? I'm not getting my way, but don't you think my reaction might be somewhat better?

I am not suggesting here that FD needs to respond to people. I'm just discussing the type of response. In this case, from forumers.

People in this thread don't refrain from posting the other reasons why the modes and mode switching should remain as they are, from the subjective (some players enjoy having control over when they meet others), to the legal (the game's PEGI-7 rating basically requires it to have a solo mode), to the logical (trying to force players into Open is an exercise in futility when players are able to easily block others at the networking level), to the technical (the networking model can't be changed to a client-server one without spreading server farms across all continents and segregating players according to which is the closest server farm), and so on.

Despite that, the "you should have known what you were buying" line is very appropriate in many situations here. After all, there are quite a few suggestions that basically amount to changing the game I paid for from something I can enjoy into something that would be utterly worthless for me. If someone wanted a game where they could use PvP to ruin the day for other players with impunity, they bloody well purchased the wrong game in ED.

More so because allowing players to choose who to meet and, more importantly, who to not meet was the core concept around which the game's multiplayer was built upon. The first sentence Frontier used to describe the game's multiplayer to potential backers was, literally, "you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game".

Ok. Now go and look at how Elite: Dangerous is actually advertised.

Oh, it's badly advertised, you won't find any opposition from me in that regard. There is not enough information to actually know how the game plays, what are the PvP constraints, or any of a large number of reasonable inquires a player might have.

Which is exactly what makes even more important for the future player to seek more information before making the purchase.

And, really, I don't see where this silly notion that, because it's a MMO(ish), it should have force players to interact comes from. In the MMO market allowing players to basically ignore each other is the rule, rather than the exception, for over a decade already, ever since many of the UO devs went to work in the following generation of MMOs taking with them the experience of what player interaction running amok looked like for player retention and customer support. If the game don't tell anything about unavoidable PvP or forced player interaction, assume that players will be able to ignore each other with impunity.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
What I don't like is people falling back on conversation stoppers like, "You should have known what you were buying" or "The devs said this is the way it is". Comments like that are not discussion. They are intended to "win". To stop the conversation. To me, it feels just as much as a "show of dominance" that some are suggesting are the motivations behind PvP enthusiasts.

That's fair enough, and not wishing to labor the point, I don't like it when people post inflammatory comments suggesting that I am a coward, an exploiter and a cheat for playing the game the way I want to.

And while for sure there are some people who I am sure just genuinely want a game where they can fly around chatting to and interacting with other real players and wish that everyone played in Open to enable that (instancing notwithstanding...), there are a number whose motivations are unquestionably less benign.

I have no interest in dominating anyone in game or on the forums, but I will defend my point of view.

I guess that would depend upon each individual. Perhaps I specifically researched the fact that ED was to have missiles. I love missiles. That's why I bought the game. To fire missiles at things. Except, now... they don't seem to do all that much.

No. I did not purchase ED so that I could fire missiles at things. But I do like missiles.

I liked interdicting my NPC mission targets, but since 1.4 that is broken for me, either because I'm not good enough, or perhaps for some other reason. It's not totally game breaking, but believe me, it was a lot more fun than just dropping into signal sources. So I've posted (I hope) constructively on the forums, and in the bug reporting section, and I've raised tickets.

Will they change it for me? I doubt it, despite the fact that I'm not the only one having issues. Will I stop playing because of it? Possibly, possibly not. But if FD force me to play in Open, you bet I will be asking for my money back. There's game breaking and there's game breaking, and I think you know the difference.