Proposal Discussion An option to play without unfairly advantaged group switchers?

[StarTux]

So while the impacts are different it DOES impact both sides in a potentially negative way.

How so? I am yet to be honestly convinced that it ever will. Sure, there would be a trade-off's for switching groups which people going from all/all to private to single player will have to deal with.

Private:

Limited to the people you know on yours friends list, this will and can vary. After listening to the Lavecon broadcast we're probably currently limited to 16 people per instance and anyone whose connection speed is too far off will likely have a hard time playing with these friends. Due to the size of the core systems, most of what we'll be encountering will be NPC's anyway, so any large group of friends in all/all will likely still dominate.

Solo:

Benefits of only seeing NPC's, slower to advance because you cannot co-op with other players for those particularly big runs and even with two wingmen they won't be as effective or as good as a co-ordinated PC group. Progress will be slowest of all the modes.

Potential negative side to forcing a group:

Future play may involve the necessity of actually switching to full modes, such as multi-crewed ships and for those in single play mode will then be forced to start again.

I have had to rush this, anyone else actually got positives and negatives? I really want to know why Frontier should limit the choice to that one time only at creation, without any possibility to switch.

 

[Bromley86]

EDITED: Got the wrong end of the stick, so my post didn't really make sense.

 

[Viajero]

Not sure but I think you missed my original counter to the OP's argument of trying to control a players rate of progress by not allowing solo players to switch when they wanted to.

The OP seems to be plumping constantly for a forced PVP environment in the All group by basically saying you can only play solo private or MP, thereby controlling an aspect of a players game.
If I, as a retired person spent 16 hours a day fighting in PVP, I would expect generally to become a pretty skilled PVP player. So taking the OP's argument of controlling the groups to prevent "unfair advantage", I was pointing out that it would be akin to trying to limit a players time in game by controlling their hours played.
This is not according to the KS backing I and many others risked our own investment on, that artificial controls be applied to enforce a style of play.
If people wish to play in a controlled enforced environment there are plenty of games out there they can already play. DB's plan for ED is not to follow that style.

Yeah, I have mentioned already that I am not sure splitting the groups with no switching allowed would be a good solution anyways. Although I sympathize with the OP's concern.

I think that first things are first, i.e. it needs to be established if there is an issue or not at all in the first place. And we wont know that for sure until the full game is released and some in game metrics have been established to measure any potential imbalance. I ve suggested a couple metrics already (average net Cr. per in game hour and per ship type) but I am sure there may be others.

If an imbalance for in game development rates can be established between Multi and Solo gameplay then it will be time to discuss what can be done to correct such imbalance, and if we want to correct it at all in the first place.

 

[StayFrosty]

I have had to rush this, anyone else actually got positives and negatives? I really want to know why Frontier should limit the choice to that one time only at creation, without any possibility to switch.

The singleplayer galaxy will evolve differently from the multiplayer one: it would be too easy to buy stuff on the multiplayer market, and sell it immediately on the local market at profit.

There's also the fact that singleplayer characters will be saved locally, leaving people the opportunity to cheat. Multiplayer will be more cheat proof.

 

[Cody]

<scatches head> You talking about offline characters?

 

[RobFisher]

I think this is non-issue. It is yet to be seen that progress is any faster in single player. It is far from given, and I can see various ways the two could be balanced if needed.

 

[Seonid]

The singleplayer galaxy will evolve differently from the multiplayer one:

No, the offline galaxy will evolve differently than the online one, the online one simply has different game modes; solo, private and all.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

The singleplayer galaxy will evolve differently from the multiplayer one: it would be too easy to buy stuff on the multiplayer market, and sell it immediately on the local market at profit.

There's also the fact that singleplayer characters will be saved locally, leaving people the opportunity to cheat. Multiplayer will be more cheat proof.

either I am at crossed purposes or you are..... (quite possibly me)

however if you are talkign about single player ONLINE, which is the only one which we can dip into and out of, then you are mistaken.

ALL of the online game modes have the same universe wit hthe same cheat mechanics.

if you are talking about the single player OFFLINE then it is moot as you cant ever switch out of the single player offline universe, you are locked in there for good.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

The singleplayer galaxy will evolve differently from the multiplayer one: it would be too easy to buy stuff on the multiplayer market, and sell it immediately on the local market at profit.

There's also the fact that singleplayer characters will be saved locally, leaving people the opportunity to cheat. Multiplayer will be more cheat proof.

Errrr what? Do you know that offline commander won't be able to play online? That there won't be actual saving in final version for online mode and all of it will be saved on server? That SP online and All online differs only on matchmaking (meeting none of humans, generating harder AI), and everything else is practically the same?

 

[Joe Spivey]

The singleplayer galaxy will evolve differently from the multiplayer one: it would be too easy to buy stuff on the multiplayer market, and sell it immediately on the local market at profit.

There's also the fact that singleplayer characters will be saved locally, leaving people the opportunity to cheat. Multiplayer will be more cheat proof.

Will you please stop making stuff up and posting it as fact. Your posts are littered with all kinds of nonsense. Read up on what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING. Understand that there is a difference between Online SP and Offline SP.

 

[graham.reeds]

Make everyone play in Iron Man, no exceptions, no single player. And to prevent griefers charge £1 per account creation. Give the game away for free. Those who pledged in the kickstarter/alpha/beta get that number of accounts equal to donation.

Simplifies code, everyone knows what they are getting. No 30 page discussions of adding yet more groups.

 

[StayFrosty]

My bad, I thought he was talking about offline solo, not online solo.

Will you please stop making stuff up and posting it as fact. Your posts are littered with all kinds of nonsense. Read up on what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING. Understand that there is a difference between Online SP and Offline SP.

No need to be so aggressive, though I'd love to know where I am making stuff up. The post just above isn't even wrong, it's simply irrelevant to the point that was being mentioned.

 

[avow555]

From time to time I will due to locale be in very poor internet reception areas so playing solo is actually how I intend to play for about 40% of my game time.
Should I be forced into playing Iron Man mode in this scenario or indeed hasn't FD decided that many play options benefit more people instead of catering to the rather vociferous PVP minority.
Lets face it if people group switch then so can you!

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

My bad, I thought he was talking about offline solo, not online solo.

Then why did you compare MP online with SP offline like transfer was possible? Sorry but it looks intentional to me to push further your agenda Rather weak attempt I must say.

 

[Storagebod]

Then why did you compare MP online with SP offline like transfer was possible? Sorry but it looks intentional to me to push further your agenda Rather weak attempt I must say.

It could be deliberate...I prefer to think that it was simply a lack of understanding.

This SP:Online has really confused people...it's MP:GroupOfOne.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

It could be deliberate...I prefer to think that it was simply a lack of understanding.

This SP:Online has really confused people...it's MP:GroupOfOne.

He's debating this for a week already on several very "goon"-ish threads - so for that to be "lack of understanding" is very long stretch.

 

[Storagebod]

He's debating this for a week already on several very "goon"-ish threads - so for that to be "lack of understanding" is very long stretch.

I'm feeling generous....

I'm nice like that! I rarely attribute to malice that which can be otherwise explained!!

 

[StayFrosty]

Then why did you compare MP online with SP offline like transfer was possible? Sorry but it looks intentional to me to push further your agenda Rather weak attempt I must say.

I have no agenda and I'm not pushing anything, I was merely replying to a post which I thought compared online multiplayer with offline solo, and mostly mistook this:

I really want to know why Frontier should limit the choice to that one time only at creation, without any possibility to switch.

as "why are offline characters stuck offline" when it was a reply to a proposal that private groups should be separate from multiplayer:

I still hope they choose to keep the private/SP seperate from the multiplayer group.

Still, I thought we were discussing- well, debating. Is this all agenda pushing to you? You think whatever we say will really have FD reconsider everything they planned?

 

[Bromley86]

Still, I thought we were discussing- well, debating. Is this all agenda pushing to you? You think whatever we say will really have FD reconsider everything they planned?

Well, seems a bit pointless if it has no impact. They may be more aware of the possibility of goonish behaviour than before; or not, maybe it was already in the back of their minds. They certainly reacted to the rooms-in-space feedback, giving us supercruise.

Of course all that probably could be covered by the DDF. But then what would we have to do for another 21 days?

EDIT: Didn't catch who it was speaking, as I was skipping through the 70 odd minutes, but one of the FD guys said they "really appreciate" all our waffle (here@12:30)