Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Robert Maynard]

I was complaining about people attempting to shut down conversations by saying, "He should have known what he was buying" (usually in a condescending manner).

While that response is quite blunt, it is not inaccurate. These core game features have been published as part of the stated game design for nigh on three years now, after all. As to "condescending manner" - that can very much depend on the "tone of voice" that the reader casts on the text being read.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I was complaining about people attempting to shut down conversations by saying, "He should have known what he was buying" (usually in a condescending manner).

I've never understood this fully. Are you describing something people refer to as "Meta?"

 

[ianw]

Yes. The software technology to implement current hardware and best practices (e.g. OS independence) doesn't currently exists in gaming. Hence most projects have even been stuck at 32bit for over a decade now. Only few titles have proper multi-screen support (FSX, DCS ..) and the graphics look almost consistently bad, where they are not helped by the community (e.g. Skyrim modders have far outperformed the Bethesda graphical arts team).

If you haven't realized it yet - gaming is doing very poorly from a technological standpoint. Something, that would seem inconceivable back in the days, where game devs would be able to squeeze the last bits out of a given hardware with dirty assembler tricks.

So you think that SC are somehow advancing technology and doing proper R&D by selecting Cryengine - an engine that many tecchie people think is totally unsuited to space flight games?

And all the work FD are doing with PG is advancing nothing?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I was complaining about people attempting to shut down conversations by saying, "He should have known what he was buying" (usually in a condescending manner).

My experience for the most part is people more often than not respond in kind, therefore if for instance (and am not accusing a specific individual) but if I am reading a post using terms like carebear, hiding/exploiting in solo, cheating, coward, easymode, do this or the game will fail etc etc etc, I am more likely to respond in a less than positive way. Furthermore, if I was to read enough of these posts, and end up in a crappy mood then it is probably also more likely that said bad mood may also carry over and lead to someone possibly getting a harsher response than they deserved for their otherwise innocent post if it is on the same subject..

The latter is usually the reason why some of my posts are followed up by apologies

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Actually, I'm shocked that my nearly 3 year old PC with only a basic on-board Intel chipset can play Elite Dangerous. If that is not an achievement I don't know what is. Most of these "Getting the most out of every cycle" games are way out of my budget and need cooling systems that might have served the Eldridge well...

Actually getting a massive universe to run on a standard PC! Kudos FDev, continue what you're doing...

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

So you think that SC are somehow advancing technology and doing proper R&D by selecting Cryengine - an engine that many tecchie people think is totally unsuited to space flight games?

And all the work FD are doing with PG is advancing nothing?

I am backing SC too, and really looking forward to S42, and hopefully finding a PvE private server for the PU.... however my fear is that what SC may end up being is a jack of all trades. I actually believe frontiers way of doing it is the sounder one in principle ie.

get a solid core and then build on it incrementally, with pretty much completed parts and only adding them when they work well.

whether in practice FD are sticking to this is subjective of course.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I was complaining about people attempting to shut down conversations by saying, "He should have known what he was buying" (usually in a condescending manner).

Ok, how about another approach?

It's completely understandable when you buy a game and it turns out not what you expected, even though the information was available. I have done it many times myself.

But it's unreasonable to argue the game should be changed according to your failed understanding of the game after you bought it, just because you bought it. (not saying you're arguing for this, but it often is the consequence which is argued)

Is that less condescending, and more reasonable?

I'm over arguing about it. I'm not even arguing about it. I initially waded into the conversation because I could see validity in some of the modes-aren't-fair comments but ultimately realise that it's a compromise for the greater good. Now I just end up arguing about the way people argue. I had been trying to avoid this thread for a while and then got sucked in again thanks to a merge.

That's how we all ended up here

 

[Khelder]

I can't believe I am going to discuss Pizza, but there you go !

What's wrong with pizza??! Maybe ED needs some pizza deliveries. Dodgy beat-up sidewinders with a neon pizza logo bolted on the top.

if all the description you got was 'Ham and Pineapple' yes, I agree but so far as ED is concerned the information available, at least certainly when I bought before the launch of premium beta was right there on the page, pretty clear exactly what it was and how it worked. In that case anyone having a rant about it after the fact is not right imo. I don't think you are having a rant, instead it seems (to me at least) that what you are attempting is to suggest changes based on what you feel would make the game better. That's fair enough but the evidence continue to pile up that FD like this model and aren't about to drop it regardless of the on going suggestions. I suspect that due to the way the game works- instancing etc, it would be all but impossible to achieve anything meaningful by separating modes, forcing open, or any of the other slightly more nuts suggestions that have come out in these threads. I know this discussion isn't going to die the death it is long overdue any time soon but it should, that's my view anyway, accept it, enjoy it, move on to other things.

I'm over arguing about it. I'm not even arguing about it. I initially waded into the conversation because I could see validity in some of the modes-aren't-fair comments but ultimately realise that it's a compromise for the greater good. Now I just end up arguing about the way people argue. I had been trying to avoid this thread for a while and then got sucked in again thanks to a merge.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I'm over arguing about it. I'm not even arguing about it. I initially waded into the conversation because I could see validity in some of the modes-aren't-fair comments but ultimately realise that it's a compromise for the greater good. Now I just end up arguing about the way people argue. I had been trying to avoid this thread for a while and then got sucked in again thanks to a merge.

Yep, that's definitely Meta. (I think)

How about we share some Pizza and decide to be friends!

I prefer stuffed crust...

 

[Khelder]

My experience for the most part is people more often than not respond in kind, therefore if for instance (and am not accusing a specific individual) but if I am reading a post using terms like carebear, hiding/exploiting in solo, cheating, coward, easymode, do this or the game will fail etc etc etc, I am more likely to respond in a less than positive way. Furthermore, if I was to read enough of these posts, and end up in a crappy mood then it is probably also more likely that said bad mood may also carry over and lead to someone possibly getting a harsher response than they deserved for their otherwise innocent post if it is on the same subject..

The latter is usually the reason why some of my posts are followed up by apologies

Oh, there has certainly been plenty of offense given from the "other mob" too. My feeling for the OP that started this whole thing off was that it was more frustration than meaning offense.

- - - Updated - - -

While that response is quite blunt, it is not inaccurate. These core game features have been published as part of the stated game design for nigh on three years now, after all.

I'm really sorry Robert, but "core game feature" is right up there on my list of personal annoyances. While it may be somewhat accurate, I still don't consider it a strong argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, I'm shocked that my nearly 3 year old PC with only a basic on-board Intel chipset can play Elite Dangerous. If that is not an achievement I don't know what is. Most of these "Getting the most out of every cycle" games are way out of my budget and need cooling systems that might have served the Eldridge well...

Actually getting a massive universe to run on a standard PC! Kudos FDev, continue what you're doing...

I completely agree. It would seem to me that FD have done a remarkable job of making a game with such scope possible within a reasonable budget from their end and playable by a vast majority of players on the client end.

 

[Khelder]

How about we share some Pizza and decide to be friends!

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/tasty-ham-pineapple-pizza-22190630.jpg

I prefer stuffed crust...

I'm sorry. I don't think I can do that... stuffed crust? What are you thinking?!

 

[Jockey79]

I was complaining about people attempting to shut down conversations by saying, "He should have known what he was buying" (usually in a condescending manner).

Yes, it may be condescending, it may be blunt as Robert points out,
but it does not make it any less true / relevant or right and people are entitled to point it out - it is a public forum after all.

I've worked with the public most of my life, every company I've worked for goes to great lengths to help and provide information in a way that even the intellectually challenged can understand it, Frontier Developments are no different. They have provided all the information anyone could need to make an informed decision. They have FAQs, they have public forums, they have a Customer Service Department.

If someone chooses to be willfully stupid however, then they deserve to have their points "shut down" in a blunt manner.
Why should those of us who take our consumer responsibility seriously have to put up with those who are flippant and disrespectful over it?
Especially when those being willfully stupid then decide the game has to be changed to meet their needs, regardless of everyone else.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Oh, there has certainly been plenty of offense given from the "other mob" too. My feeling for the OP that started this whole thing off was that it was more frustration than meaning offense.

I think the thing people forget (myself included) is that we all just want to make the game better...... this is subjective however.

I think most of us can agree the game is great in some areas and is lacking in others. I am defo up for talking about improvements to the game, but my biggest fear is that ED goes more like other mmo type games, and this would completely destroy the game for me, which is why i am so passionate about certain areas (mainly creating all content to be usable in all modes, as well as keeping the modes themselves along with the ability to swap when needed).

sadly (for me) it is looking imo (and i hope to be proven wrong) that ED is actually going down that path anyway with more limited content unless you play in a group. so far we have wings, & CQC being MP only....... and going forward as I said before (repeating myself now so gonna bug out for a bit) multicrew and combined multi SRV / ship assault locked into MP as well.

The biggest disaster for FD imo would be if they end up spoiling the game for all camps and not appeasing the multiplayer types, and also not having enough content / not having the game properly playable for the lone wolf..

hypothetically, IF ED ever did become open only, it would destroy the game for me I think. (apart from anyhting else i physically cant always play in MP due to internet)

 

[Khelder]

sadly (for me) it is looking imo (and i hope to be proven wrong) that ED is actually going down that path anyway with more limited content unless you play in a group. so far we have wings, & CQC being MP only....... and going forward as I said before (repeating myself now so gonna bug out for a bit) multicrew and combined multi SRV / ship assault locked into MP as well.

The biggest disaster for FD imo would be if they end up spoiling the game for all camps and not appeasing the multiplayer types, and also not having enough content / not having the game properly playable for the lone wolf..

I agree that things seem to be going down that path. However, I can also see certain difficulties from a development perspective with adapting certain multiplayer elements to work with NPCs. I'm sure it will get there eventually. And I certainly don't see a need for the mode "features" to change anytime soon.

It would be nice to have an option to fly against NPCs in CQC. If for no other reason than to pad out teams. I don't think they plan on doing that though.

- - - Updated - - -

hypothetically, IF ED ever did become open only, it would destroy the game for me I think. (apart from anyhting else i physically cant always play in MP due to internet)

I think they would have to radically re-think their architecture before ever going too far down that path. I think you're safe.

Ultimately, I don't think it would bother me. I play Open mostly now. If it was Open only, I would still continue to play. If it was Solo only, I would play that. If it was Offline only, I would play that too. If it was Group only, I think I would be in trouble. :/

 

[Jockey79]

... If it was Group only, I think I would be in trouble. :/

No you wouldn't, you'd be welcome to join my friends private group - or Mobius - or whatever PvP groups come about.

We'd all find a home if the game went group only

 

[Erna Jedermann]

I think the thing people forget (myself included) is that we all just want to make the game better...... this is subjective however.

I think most of us can agree the game is great in some areas and is lacking in others. I am defo up for talking about improvements to the game, but my biggest fear is that ED goes more like other mmo type games, and this would completely destroy the game for me, which is why i am so passionate about certain areas (mainly creating all content to be usable in all modes, as well as keeping the modes themselves along with the ability to swap when needed).

sadly (for me) it is looking imo (and i hope to be proven wrong) that ED is actually going down that path anyway with more limited content unless you play in a group. so far we have wings, & CQC being MP only....... and going forward as I said before (repeating myself now so gonna bug out for a bit) multicrew and combined multi SRV / ship assault locked into MP as well.

The biggest disaster for FD imo would be if they end up spoiling the game for all camps and not appeasing the multiplayer types, and also not having enough content / not having the game properly playable for the lone wolf..

hypothetically, IF ED ever did become open only, it would destroy the game for me I think. (apart from anyhting else i physically cant always play in MP due to internet)

100% agree ! ....
As I wrote before, I see the same.
And what I see until now from Horizon, nothing will change for the Solist.
Without any other Player in Wings it will be to Dangerous to scan and visit, findings on distance Planets, BUT who really have the interest, to fly 2 Weeks across the Galaxy, to see the same Rocky Planet, with the same "Findings" as they can found in the closest next System ?
And than, do that with 4 people in a Wing ... I think you will not find enough people for such a trip together. Think about RL Problems/Duty's /Different Timezones ect...

 

[Khelder]

No you wouldn't, you'd be welcome to join my friends private group - or Mobius - or whatever PvP groups come about.

We'd all find a home if the game went group only

Fair enough.

 

[hunvagy]

No you wouldn't, you'd be welcome to join my friends private group - or Mobius - or whatever PvP groups come about.

We'd all find a home if the game went group only

That, and Group is basically Solo with more then 1 person in it. The only difference between solo, group and open are the number of connections. Solo, 0 others, Group as many others as the group has members (if it's your own group as many as you want) and in open as many as people are playing in open.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

No you wouldn't, you'd be welcome to join my friends private group - or Mobius - or whatever PvP groups come about.

We'd all find a home if the game went group only

Group settings: Reject all joining requests = Solo

 

[Cody]

We'd all find a home if the game went group only

No, not all of us!