Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Khelder]

You couldn't be more wrong. I respond to these threads because I did do my research beforehand to make sure that the game en toto was playable as a single player game. Quite frankly, I take a fair bit of umbrage when I see posts that seek to sway the developers to change the game that I bought, into a game that I would not have bought. Think about it for just a second. If you think you feel cheated because the game didn't live up to trailer, how do you think I and others like me would feel if the game that we bought that was living up to our expectations was suddenly changed negatively (to us) to appease players who wanted a different game entirely?

That is why I monitor and post in this thread. There are those that would like to take my game away from me, and especially owning the lifetime pass, I don't want that to happen. Surely, that is no way difficult to understand.

I couldn't be more wrong? Really?

The comments we are talking about here are not being responded to by someone working in customer service. - I assume you do not work for FD customer service?
The forumers who are responding are not (generally I believe) being contacted directly/privately with these concerns. - Are you being contacted directly? No. You are monitoring this thread.
The responders are actively seeking out and responding to complaints that people have made on this forum. - Again, you are actively monitoring and posting to this thread.
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. - Ok. You have put in the effort and you have responded. You are defending a particular feature. Is it "customer service" you have issue with? Would "resentment" be better perhaps?

What is that? 5 out of 6? It's really just your motivation. Or was that what you were referring to? I thought "customer service" fit with the scenario that this snip was taken from. Regardless, my real point still applies. If you are going to do that (even out of resentment) and then come out with, "You should have known what you were buying", I believe you have failed.

- - - Updated - - -

Dude, I'm just killing time here

And when I see an argument I disagree with, time will be killed.

That's fine. Not that anyone needs my permission.

I kill time here too. If you want to disagree with something, by all means, do so. I beg you, don't just come up with comments like "You should have known what you were buying." If you're not going to add useful input, at least make it funny or something.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I kill time here too. If you want to disagree with something, by all means, do so. I beg you, don't just come up with comments like "You should have known what you were buying." If you're not going to add useful input, at least make it funny or something.

All online purchases in the UK (and probably other countries) come with a statutory cool down period. You can, in that time, realize that you made a mistake and get your money back under that legislation.

Are you still here? Excuse me while I roll around in agony trying to grasp a breath. <--- that's the funny bit.

 

[Khelder]

I bought the game exactly because it has the features you are against.

You clearly do not know what I am for or against. But that's ok. The thing that I am against, in the conversation you are replying to, is people using lazy conversation stoppers like "He should have known what he was buying." My original comment wasn't even on a specifically mode-related thread. Although it ended up being merged into this mess.

I respond to forums postings that suggest that these features should be changed. "He should have informed himself before buying the game" is a thought I occasionally have while reading some comments here.

That's great. And, yes, I am sure I have thought, "He should have informed himself before buying the game" on occasion too. But I don't believe that is a particularly nice (in the way it is quite commonly expressed) or helpful thing to say... so I don't.

Not responding at all is not an option. Not resounding is agreeing with the most vocal group - it's not, but that's the way most interpret not responding or silence. If someone later complains he would get the response "why didn't you complain earlier?"

I didn't say don't respond. I suggested that if someone couldn't put the effort in to write a sensible response, rather than just putting people down, that perhaps they shouldn't at all.

It has been my impression that the anti-change group has actually been the most vocal. Sure, complaints about the modes keep on coming in. But there seems to be a very efficient system in place where any thread that even resembles a discussion about modes swiftly gets merged here and is promptly set upon by the usual suspects. That's just my impression, of course.

- - - Updated - - -

All online purchases in the UK (and probably other countries) come with a statutory cool down period. You can, in that time, realize that you made a mistake and get your money back under that legislation.

Are you still here? Excuse me while I roll around in agony trying to grasp a breath. <--- that's the funny bit.

I'm really sorry. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

The "Anti-Change" group, as you put it, has a point.

If you sell something, and then change it, you (the person selling the something) are liable for fraud.

If you buy something, and it is not what you thought it was, you have redress... get a refund! To say that you are in it to change the product in to something completely different flies in the face of logic (and a lawyer's salary.)

Still, you are quite entitled to bang your head against the wall in this forum. Just don't expect people to stay quiet.

And I've seen people complain about their OP that got merged. "Modes was only a small part of it." The last person who said that had 16 references to Solo in his OP. Would you mind linking to yours. I'd like to read it to see exactly how much reference to modes is in there.

 

[Dogoncrook]

What you have listed is content which require multiple players. Multi-crew and ability to handle the SRV and your ship at the same time. And I as an Open player still play 99% of the game by myself.

Now for someone who rather plays solo, they don't want to multicrew with other players, or have other players handle the SRV. And what does immersion have to do with the fact I am one person, so am unable to operate 2 vehicles at once. To me that rather is what I'd expect.

Now unless you have inside information about what features are hidden behind multi-crew which I as an opensolo player can't have access to, please share. But you're not making a very solid case on determining Solo is on it's way down with the argument: you can't do features that require more than 1 player.

I'd hold off crying wolf and patting yourself on the back how you told us so for a while until those details are more fleshed out and you can make a solid case.

Indeed. I was really stoked when I learned Elite would be made. I was really bummed when I heard it was an MMO. But it's Elite so I decided to check it out anyway.

When reading how vast the galaxy was and how that meant player interaction would be rare (a very oft quoted and easy quote to find) I got interested again. It didn't need "exhaustive research". I myself am a very lazy buyer who has been burned on game purchases before.

- - - Updated - - -


Dude, I'm just killing time here

And when I see an argument I disagree with, time will be killed.

I think what he is saying though is multi assaults sound a lot like heists in gtav or raids in Destiny, without multiple players coordinating, that content is inaccessible. I have no idea what they actually intend to implement but this could very well be a step in that direction, and it's interesting they would put this type of mechanic in an expansion. It essentially keeps the promise of all modes equal (for the base game). Srv vs srv combat will also be open only. So yeah I'm not sure it's a solid case that there will be dramatic differences, but multi assault is definitely not possible solo. It's a lot like wings I guess, but here they are requiring a group to accomplish something. If bases can be attacked and they influence factions, and solo players cannot do these missions or attacks..

 

[Jockey79]

It's only a starting point, if you know it's a starting point. Idk about you but I don't check the kickstarter or dev diaries from 2 years ago. My standard order is, I check the store page (I use steam so it's how I hear about everything), then some reviews, and then maybe some let's plays. Yes advertisements are bull, and what is kickstarter but just an advertisement for the game.

KS is not "just an advertisement" - it is a promise to a potential group of investors about the product you are going to deliver to them if they invest in your product.

I've said before and I'll say again - Frontier can go back on their KS promises all they like and there is nothing anyone can do about it,
HOWEVER; They'll never get funding through KS again and will probably damage the chances of other developers getting funding through crowd sourcing as the tale of Frontier Developments becomes a warning to all future backers of software development going wrong or being a complete rip off (Unless Chris Roberts beats them to it, then Frontier Developments would be just a footnote to that warning).

Also, I didn't go out of my way to look for KS information or DDA info - looking in to my original question about how it was going to handle single / multi saves - the forums was awash with it. Which then lead me to more questions - that all stemmed from a tiny bit of basic research.

If people want to buy something on face value, well they should take a good long look at themselves - unless they have money to just throw away for no reason, if so I'll link my PayPal details.

I beg you, don't just come up with comments like "You should have known what you were buying."

Why? That is a perfectly valid comment.

Do you phone for a pizza without telling them what you want on it? Then complain you didn't get your toppings you like?
Do you walk on to a car lot, close your eyes and point randomly and say, "I'll buy that one"? Then a week later moan it's not the right car for you?

In fact, here is a question I'd like to know the answer to;

Why is PC gaming the only area in life where someone can randomly buy something - and it's not their fault when they don't like it, but the fault of the people who make it?

I genuinely would like to know, why all personal responsibility evaporates when it comes to buying a computer game - because else where in life, you get ridiculed and called an idiot for spending money without knowing what you're spending it on. So why is gaming exempt from that?

emptor cavete.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I think what he is saying though is multi assaults sound a lot like heists in gtav or raids in Destiny, without multiple players coordinating, that content is inaccessible. I have no idea what they actually intend to implement but this could very well be a step in that direction, and it's interesting they would put this type of mechanic in an expansion. It essentially keeps the promise of all modes equal (for the base game). Srv vs srv combat will also be open only. So yeah I'm not sure it's a solid case that there will be dramatic differences, but multi assault is definitely not possible solo. It's a lot like wings I guess, but here they are requiring a group to accomplish something. If bases can be attacked and they influence factions, and solo players cannot do these missions or attacks..

There is always more than one way to skin a cat.

In the case of a base assault, you fly in and take out the outlying SRV defense, then send in the SRV to take out the main AA guns... or the reverse. You will just have to be clever about it in the same way as taking out wings on your own (get them to shoot you with report crimes on, wait for the cavalry, then join the fray and make sure you get a shot in on all the wings...)

Saying that, you can use that tactic in any mode...

 

[Dogoncrook]

The "Anti-Change" group, as you put it, has a point.

If you sell something, and then change it, you (the person selling the something) are liable for fraud.

If you buy something, and it is not what you thought it was, you have redress... get a refund! To say that you are in it to change the product in to something completely different flies in the face of logic (and a lawyer's salary.)

Still, you are quite entitled to bang your head against the wall in this forum. Just don't expect people to stay quiet.

And I've seen people complain about their OP that got merged. "Modes was only a small part of it." The last person who said that had 16 references to Solo in his OP. Would you mind linking to yours. I'd like to read it to see exactly how much reference to modes is in there.

In a perfect world I guess, we don't have offline.

And they can simply gate it behind an expansion, New product, problem solved.

They will do what they want, both sides taking this personally or as a duty to defend their desires is useless. This should be a friendly discussion. If you see it as anything different you are just being disruptive.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

In a perfect world I guess, we don't have offline.

And they can simply gate it behind an expansion, New product, problem solved.

They will do what they want, both sides taking this personally or as a duty to defend their desires is useless. This should be a friendly discussion. If you see it as anything different you are just being disruptive.

Hmm. New Product.... Star Citizen? No Man's Sky???

 

[Dogoncrook]

There is always more than one way to skin a cat.

In the case of a base assault, you fly in and take out the outlying SRV defense, then send in the SRV to take out the main AA guns... or the reverse. You will just have to be clever about it in the same way as taking out wings on your own (get them to shoot you with report crimes on, wait for the cavalry, then join the fray and make sure you get a shot in on all the wings...)

Saying that, you can use that tactic in any mode...

They could do it that way, I'm not sure they intend to. It's all speculation at this point, but logically if it were that easy it's pretty boring and immersion breaking. "Hold on let me get my buggy"..

Also do we know if there even is a planetary Calvary? And why would they help you? Attacking a base makes you the aggressor and they would be after you going off the current mechanics.

 

[Khelder]

The "Anti-Change" group, as you put it, has a point.

If you sell something, and then change it, you (the person selling the something) are liable for fraud.

If you buy something, and it is not what you thought it was, you have redress... get a refund! To say that you are in it to change the product in to something completely different flies in the face of logic (and a lawyer's salary.)

Actually, if you intentionally misrepresent something in order to benefit financially, fraud may come into the picture. A company developing an ongoing product is completely within their rights to change it however they see fit.

Still, you are quite entitled to bang your head against the wall in this forum. Just don't expect people to stay quiet.

I do seem to be banging my head against the wall in this forum. But it's generally because I am futilely trying to have a discussion (sometimes not even about modes) and would really like it if others would join in a sensible conversation instead of just abusing people. Oh, and reading threads before they respond to them would be helpful too.

My apologies for the caps here. But I think this needs to be said.

I SUPPORT MODES. I SUPPORT MODE SWITCHING. I SUPPORT MODE SWITCHING WITHOUT LOCKOUTS OR ANY OTHER FORM OF PUNITIVE ACTION. I SUPPORT ALL MODES IMPACTING THE SAME BGS.

That is not to say that I do not understand where the "other side" is coming from. I also have issues with many of the anti-change arguments.

And I've seen people complain about their OP that got merged. "Modes was only a small part of it." The last person who said that had 16 references to Solo in his OP. Would you mind linking to yours. I'd like to read it to see exactly how much reference to modes is in there.

It wasn't my thread. I was merely commenting on someone else's. I'm pretty sure it's the one you say had 16 references to "Solo". I can't say for sure though. I didn't count words. I read the text and I understood that many of his comments were talking about different features and how they should bring a closer integration between the different modes - not that the modes should be removed or nerfed or whatever.

 

[Dogoncrook]

Hmm. New Product.... Star Citizen? No Man's Sky???

If you think that releasing a guild open only expansion or the like would violate any of the original promises or amount to fraud you are mistaken. As long as the base game is as advertised they can do as they please with the expansions. It's a new product, with new terms, and is essentially a new contract.

 

[Robert Maynard]

As long as the base game is as advertised they can do as they please with the expansions. It's a new product, with new terms, and is essentially a new contract.

If an expansion requires the original game to be able to be played then is it really a new product with a new contract?

 

[SNaomiScott]

I think what he is saying though is multi assaults sound a lot like heists in gtav or raids in Destiny, without multiple players coordinating, that content is inaccessible. I have no idea what they actually intend to implement but this could very well be a step in that direction, and it's interesting they would put this type of mechanic in an expansion. It essentially keeps the promise of all modes equal (for the base game). Srv vs srv combat will also be open only. So yeah I'm not sure it's a solid case that there will be dramatic differences, but multi assault is definitely not possible solo. It's a lot like wings I guess, but here they are requiring a group to accomplish something. If bases can be attacked and they influence factions, and solo players cannot do these missions or attacks..

The impression I got from MB's comments on the feed about the Solo thing was that doing base assaults would be possible in Solo but would require a much more tactical approach, which to be honest makes a lot of sense to me.

If you're assaulting a defended position and you have an army of twenty combat-ready grunts to help you then some form of directed assault is probably going to be your first (and most efficient) choice. However, if you're on your own and facing the same situation then you're going to be much better served by taking a sneaky approach to achieve the same ends. Going in solo will be harder but the rewards for success would, presumably, be much greater because you're not sharing them with others.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the challenge. I always did like playing the sneaky roles...

 

[Dogoncrook]

If an expansion requires the original game to be able to be played then is it really a new product with a new contract?

Yes absolutely.

- - - Updated - - -

The impression I got from MB's comments on the feed about the Solo thing was that doing base assaults would be possible in Solo but would require a much more tactical approach, which to be honest makes a lot of sense to me.

If you're assaulting a defended position and you have an army of twenty combat-ready grunts to help you then some form of directed assault is probably going to be your first (and most efficient) choice. However, if you're on your own and facing the same situation then you're going to be much better served by taking a sneaky approach to achieve the same ends. Going in solo will be harder but the rewards for success would, presumably, be much greater because you're not sharing them with others.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the challenge. I always did like playing the sneaky roles...

Yeah I would like that too. Hopefully it is like that imo, but it wasn't really clear what multi role assaults meant or referred to. We'll have to wait and see I guess.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Yes absolutely.

Of course, the same game, and same universe, has to be playable under the original terms of their contract by those who do not buy the expansion. Hence the scope of change is limited to the original specification, with the expansion being just that... the expansion of the original concept.

I.E. It cannot change the original terms beyond recognition.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes absolutely.

If that is the case then there'd be nothing stopping a Developer demanding a subscription from players who buy a particular expansion (as an example of one possible change compared to the contract entered into by someone buying the original game).

 

[Jockey79]

They could do it that way, I'm not sure they intend to. It's all speculation at this point, but logically if it were that easy it's pretty boring and immersion breaking. "Hold on let me get my buggy"..

Also do we know if there even is a planetary Calvary? And why would they help you? Attacking a base makes you the aggressor and they would be after you going off the current mechanics.

Apart from the drones, there is no ground AI SRVs - so no "Calvary" as such.

A Solo player will have to think and plan each assault and not just charge in.

 

[Dogoncrook]

Of course, the same game, and same universe, has to be playable under the original terms of their contract by those who do not buy the expansion. Hence the scope of change is limited to the original specification, with the expansion being just that... the expansion of the original concept.

I.E. It cannot change the original terms beyond recognition.

Legally they could make a "feline expansion" and mail you a cat. The expansion can be whatever they want, you buy it and agree or you don't.

And read the tos, they can change the original terms. They already have.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I tend to agree. The language around "multi-player" is used heavily to promote this game. The ability to play on your own is mentioned, but almost as the lesser option. Even going back to DB's original comments from the Kickstarter campaign...

but this time you can play with your friends too.
(italics mine)

It seems to me that DB has always had grand visions for Elite. But technology has limitations. Now, however, he was able to develop the Elite game with the amazing visuals which he has always wanted. Now, however, he was able to develop the Elite game as a multiplayer galaxy (which he has always wanted?)
.

it we are to take that post literally, it mentions nothing about playing with randoms however so private group covers playing with your friends just fine. I actually always got the feeling that DB was not really interested in PvP (I fully accept I may be wrong, but I am not the only one, indeed some have come right out and accused DB of being a carebear).

All that being said, I was very worried about last nights video. I think it was in the other thread i said this, but not in this one however I am very worried that ED does IMO seem to be pretty much leaving the solo player behind now and just concentrating more on multiplayer MMO type stuff, which for me is a big worry.

We already have no support for AI wingmates, something which was in the original design decisions, and up until now i just hoped was a temporary thing.

but with ships multicrew not offering AI and only human players (massive massive missed opportunity here to add a real skills based thing here and depth to gameplay hiring and firing staff, looking for the most skilled people for different roles - esp in the bigger ships........ (who would not want a scotty in the engine room or Uhura on comms or helm?)

and NPCs not getting the SRVs on planets I fear the core elite experience is becoming a distant memory as clans/factions and group content become the main focus.

What ever happens with the price i paid I got my monies worth out of the core game, and I am confident i will get my monies worth out of the season pass (only £35)... however I am glad I only paid that for the pass as unless we get NPCs to give back some of the new content solo is losing out of, right now I would not even consider paying >£100 for the season pass, I would have just stuck with the core game.

why should solo lose out on wings, on missions to attack bases, all guns blazing with a mix of SRVs and aerial attack. (I am all for stealth as an option but its nice to raise hell too) and why should solo not have crew in their ships improving key parts like a human would?. IF it is jus ta time thing, and these things are coming, just not on day 1, that is ok too, but FD should communicate this - and besides its been 6 months now since wings... that at least should be coming by now if it was coming at all imo.