Modes Harry Potter and Zarek Null, plus a debate on Solo Play and the community.

[Darkfyre99]

Sure open is a desert, so am I shooting at npcs every day? I was sure those are players.

Btw I am sure none of those winders left the game, they prob died 5 times to an NPC before, one extra rebuy wont hurt.

You keep saying that, AL, but you also keep whining about players not in Open. It's gotten to the point where you keep begging Frontier to force players into Open by taking away the parts of the game they enjoy. You can't have it both ways.

Personally, I find it difficult to find players in Open, even in hot spots like CGs. I can't help but contrast that with player-run expeditions like Small Worlds 2, where even when I was wandering off the beaten path, I still encountered more players, in the Private Group set up for that trip, than I ever did in Open on a daily basis.

 

[BigF]

Personally, I find it difficult to find players in Open, even in hot spots like CGs. I can't help but contrast that with player-run expeditions like Small Worlds 2, where even when I was wandering off the beaten path, I still encountered more players, in the Private Group set up for that trip, than I ever did in Open on a daily basis.

I have found the same oddly when I was out in the void a few days back I came across an other player, he messaged me but keep his distance. Apparently I was the first real player he'd seen for days.

The last CG that I worked in was like solo in open yet in the various closed groups I have was teaming with players, to the point that one instance was probably too full.
That was for both the trade and combat aspect.

Killing noobs I suppose can be fun, hell I did it the first day I played this game, but soon got bored of it, that and getting blown up in my noobwinder.
Now nearly three years later I think the only thing it can do is scare players off completely or into solo and or private, so over all its just going to damage the game in the long run.

PVP has got a bad rap and nearly everyone just associates all PVP players as murderhobo's which is certainly not the case.
Several of my player friends only actually bother with PVP in open if provoked or the other player is on the oposite side in the CG or faction war, but they stay in open all the time. One of which has played since Beta and admits open dosent seem as busy as it used to be even at starter systems.

What does that say, are there less noobs or are they just getting the hell out of dodge and never setting foot back in their starter system again. If its my starter system I can understand as even without new player killers there is slightly more than nothing to do in it.

Less new players means less capital for FD which means less expenditure in ED, which means less game, and eventually no game.

 

[wrmiller]

I will continue to play this game, in solo, and hopefully a game company will someday create a game like this that is single-player and offline only.

I will then never play a MMO/online only game ever again. I don't want or need a 'community' to enjoy a computer game. And I certainly don't need or want to interact with the lower lifeforms that games like this attract. I am picky about who I wish to befriend/interact with in real life, so why put up with AHs in a computer game?

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Funny, and I find that's the most compelling *pro* open vid I've seen in a while.

 

[EvilWinkle]

Still trending $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

Seriously, that whole "you cant remove a feature because players bought the game for it" argument is the most ridiculous i've ever heard.
It's actually the opposite of the truth.
People who like videogames buy games for a conceptual proposition.
Let me explain.

All good games in the history of PC gaming share a common feature: they're the brainchild of a very limited number of people, with a very strong vision, people who didn't listen to players apart from bug report and occasional good ideas.
Those people have a lot of culture in tabletops and digital games, they know HOW TO TELL A STORY perfectly.
If you are a serious game dev, you know what you want, how to achieve it, and you even know how to backtrack on a bad idea if necessary, and Elite is as full of bad ideas as it is of good ones.
Most players on the other side (and an increasing number of devs) have a very limited culture, and will want to reproduce the mechanisms in the most-sold games of the moment.
"i want a craft system", "i want achievements", "i want that or that mode", and all those things that PRECISELY allow people with culture to instantly recognize lack of imagination, herd mentality and progressive dissolution of concept.
If you count on them to do the thinking, you'll end up with World of Warcraft every single time.

It is entirely possible that Assassin's creed, in example, has one the worst game design ever JUST BECAUSE the team is too big, too spread around the globe, too busy trying to convince themselves that the whole "eagle spot" thing is a modern game design concept, that you can target casual gamers without sacrificing quality, or even worst, that you can have 1000 people with what it takes to make a good game in the same company.
Let me put an end to the misery:
The entire theory of gameplay evolves, meaning that (example) Age of Empire 2 is now a bad joke for people who really enjoy strategy and take interest in understanding core mechanisms.
Company of Heroes is one of the most ambitious propositions in term of depth, but how many people know that?
What the point of building an art if people are never told that Bob Dylan is more important in its history than Backstreet Boys?
Even the actual artists of the art?

The (advertised) proposition of Elite is a 1:1 world with player-driven interaction (the pirate concept, in example), not a "a mode for everyone", cause "a game for everyone" is just not a game design proposition, plain and simple.
"To each its own" is the proposition of a game selling company, like Steam, who actually have a game for everyone.
The goal of a developper is to taylor the gameplay so that it matches quality objectives, and allow players to believe they're "living" inside the initial concept proposition.
EVE Online should be the golden standard for a game such as elite, to be improved as much as possible, and if possible completely beaten in every sector of game design.

If it's done correctly, any given game will only have a single "balanced state" in which every mechanism works.
This means that Frontier have to understand that either their game is made to be driven by bots, solo being the best mode in this case, either it's made to be driven by players, and open is the holy grail.
If the game doesn't have a "ideal" mode, it isn't a game.
A game has mechanisms, and they are designed to work optimally in one setting, not two, nor seven.
It's actually very pretentious to pretend anybody will ever be able to achieve that.
It's possibly impossible, and in any case EXTREMELY unlikely.

One ideal state is difficult enough to make, and most game devs, in their entire lifetime, won't be able to produce a good one cause they'll never be able to combine concept, interaction, depth, quality and art direction.
This should be the objective of Frontier: dropping their "modular" bull immediatly, and have the humility to recognize that for the moment, they have 0 gameplay-finished mode.
This game can become fantastic, but the design is being impaired by this "people won't like it" nonsense.

To hell with people, let's make games.

 

[EvE4evah]

I will continue to play this game, in solo, and hopefully a game company will someday create a game like this that is single-player and offline only.

I will then never play a MMO/online only game ever again. I don't want or need a 'community' to enjoy a computer game. And I certainly don't need or want to interact with the lower lifeforms that games like this attract. I am picky about who I wish to befriend/interact with in real life, so why put up with AHs in a computer game?

It's interesting how you say you love solo things still need to socialize in the forums. Nothing wrong with that, I'm actually glad you're here, Miller

 

[Phosphora]

If it's done correctly, any given game will only have a single "balanced state" in which every mechanism works.
This means that Frontier have to understand that either their game is made to be driven by bots, solo being the best mode in this case, either it's made to be driven by players, and open is the holy grail.
If the game doesn't have a "ideal" mode, it isn't a game.
A game has mechanisms, and they are designed to work optimally in one setting, not two, nor seven.
It's actually very pretentious to pretend anybody will ever be able to achieve that.
It's possibly impossible, and in any case EXTREMELY unlikely.

One ideal state is difficult enough to make, and most game devs, in their entire lifetime, won't be able to produce a good one cause they'll never be able to combine concept, interaction, depth, quality and art direction.
This should be the objective of Frontier: dropping their "modular" bull immediatly, and have the humility to recognize that for the moment, they have 0 gameplay-finished mode.
This game can become fantastic, but the design is being impaired by this "people won't like it" nonsense.

The game does have a single balanced state - there's only one BGS. You're able to access it in different ways. I play solo yet I'm not a bot (you're welcome to run a quick Turing test past me if you're not convinced). The modes exist because humans are a diverse bunch - what's fun and exciting to you may bore others to tears.

Frontier are doing well financially, so it looks like the modes work.

To hell with people, let's make games.

Games don't buy games, people buy games.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[BigF]

Still trending $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

Seriously, that whole "you cant remove a feature because players bought the game for it" argument is the most ridiculous i've ever heard.
It's actually the opposite of the truth.
People who like videogames buy games for a conceptual proposition.
Let me explain.

All good games in the history of PC gaming share a common feature: they're the brainchild of a very limited number of people, with a very strong vision, people who didn't listen to players apart from bug report and occasional good ideas.
Those people have a lot of culture in tabletops and digital games, they know HOW TO TELL A STORY perfectly.
If you are a serious game dev, you know what you want, how to achieve it, and you even know how to backtrack on a bad idea if necessary, and Elite is as full of bad ideas as it is of good ones.
Most players on the other side (and an increasing number of devs) have a very limited culture, and will want to reproduce the mechanisms in the most-sold games of the moment.
"i want a craft system", "i want achievements", "i want that or that mode", and all those things that PRECISELY allow people with culture to instantly recognize lack of imagination, herd mentality and progressive dissolution of concept.
If you count on them to do the thinking, you'll end up with World of Warcraft every single time.

It is entirely possible that Assassin's creed, in example, has one the worst game design ever JUST BECAUSE the team is too big, too spread around the globe, too busy trying to convince themselves that the whole "eagle spot" thing is a modern game design concept, that you can target casual gamers without sacrificing quality, or even worst, that you can have 1000 people with what it takes to make a good game in the same company.
Let me put an end to the misery:
The entire theory of gameplay evolves, meaning that (example) Age of Empire 2 is now a bad joke for people who really enjoy strategy and take interest in understanding core mechanisms.
Company of Heroes is one of the most ambitious propositions in term of depth, but how many people know that?
What the point of building an art if people are never told that Bob Dylan is more important in its history than Backstreet Boys?
Even the actual artists of the art?

The (advertised) proposition of Elite is a 1:1 world with player-driven interaction (the pirate concept, in example), not a "a mode for everyone", cause "a game for everyone" is just not a game design proposition, plain and simple.
"To each its own" is the proposition of a game selling company, like Steam, who actually have a game for everyone.
The goal of a developper is to taylor the gameplay so that it matches quality objectives, and allow players to believe they're "living" inside the initial concept proposition.
EVE Online should be the golden standard for a game such as elite, to be improved as much as possible, and if possible completely beaten in every sector of game design.

If it's done correctly, any given game will only have a single "balanced state" in which every mechanism works.
This means that Frontier have to understand that either their game is made to be driven by bots, solo being the best mode in this case, either it's made to be driven by players, and open is the holy grail.
If the game doesn't have a "ideal" mode, it isn't a game.
A game has mechanisms, and they are designed to work optimally in one setting, not two, nor seven.
It's actually very pretentious to pretend anybody will ever be able to achieve that.
It's possibly impossible, and in any case EXTREMELY unlikely.

One ideal state is difficult enough to make, and most game devs, in their entire lifetime, won't be able to produce a good one cause they'll never be able to combine concept, interaction, depth, quality and art direction.
This should be the objective of Frontier: dropping their "modular" bull immediatly, and have the humility to recognize that for the moment, they have 0 gameplay-finished mode.
This game can become fantastic, but the design is being impaired by this "people won't like it" nonsense.

To hell with people, let's make games.

One of the most sensible posts on this thread, do you work in a dev environment ? Because I used to and the whole thing sounds so familiar. When we went down the customer wont like it route the resulting product was luke warm. When the concept guys kept to the orginal plan the endresult application was usually much better, and subsequent user advised changes worked out of the box first time. Possibly because the Dev team focused entirely on one set of changes at a time.
Comparing the first release to whats now the current release visually they dont even look related, but the core is still the same, due to the continued slow dev.

FD could be the same, ED 5 years from now will likely only look vaguely similar to now, but only if they are able to focus on core areas one or two at a time.

The comunity of ED is unusual as many of us are very hands on and have invested considerable time and cash in the game both in software and hardware, i think the user base is underused when it comes to developement. There should be a Permenant Beta mode so any and all changes can be tested, periodic wipes would be mandatory to stop players living in there but feed back would also be mandatory via canvased poll/questionairs.

Currently it feels like the silence from FD is deafening.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Still trending $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

This debate (the PvP / PvE one) has been running for over five years now. This particular round just started about five years after the first one.

Seriously, that whole "you cant remove a feature because players bought the game for it" argument is the most ridiculous i've ever heard.
It's actually the opposite of the truth.

Explain that to players on consoles who don't have premium platform access - if Solo was removed they would not be able to play the game at all.

The (advertised) proposition of Elite is a 1:1 world with player-driven interaction (the pirate concept, in example), not a "a mode for everyone", cause "a game for everyone" is just not a game design proposition, plain and simple.

The advertising speaks of all players contributing to the economy, politics, conflicts:

WINGS
FLY ALONE, OR WITH FRIENDS AS PART OF A WING

Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous' vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy.

Whether you experience the open multi-player galaxy on your own or in a Wing where you can stay connected to a group of your buddies as you share in jointly-earned spoils, the connected galaxy delivers a constant source of new opportunities and people to play with and against.

In Solo play you can choose never meet another human player, yet the results of your actions still contribute to economy, politics and conflicts of the connected galaxy, and you experience the echoes of their activity.

https://www.elitedangerous.com/en/gameplay/wings

There's no requirement to play in Open to do so though - by design.

The goal of a developper is to taylor the gameplay so that it matches quality objectives, and allow players to believe they're "living" inside the initial concept proposition.

Indeed - and Frontier offer players with different play-styles different ways to ensure that they maximise their enjoyment from the game.

EVE Online should be the golden standard for a game such as elite, to be improved as much as possible, and if possible completely beaten in every sector of game design.

Apparently not in Frontier's opinion (although other opinions do vary). Frontier could, over five years ago, have chosen to pitch a game that resembled EVE - however they did not and have now sold over 2.75M franchise units of this game.

Some backers / players have been encouraging / demanding that Frontier change the game into something more akin to "EVE with cockpits" for years now. Yet Frontier continue down their own path.

This should be the objective of Frontier: dropping their "modular" bull immediatly, and have the humility to recognize that for the moment, they have 0 gameplay-finished mode.
This game can become fantastic, but the design is being impaired by this "people won't like it" nonsense.

To hell with people, let's make games.

Not everyone plays EVE - so it can be assumed that not everyone likes that game nor would wish this game to become that game..

To suggest that this game requires to be changed in ways that some people will not like infers that it should be changed in ways that some players will like (but not all players). Frontier, on the other hand, would seem to be working to introduce features aimed at the majority of the player-base.

If a group of people were to get together and develop their own game that ended up as "EVE with cockpits" it would probably gain players - not me though as I'm quite happy playing this game which is not that game.

.... then there's the fact that one Dev has indicated that Frontier are well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - which is rather suggestive of the three game modes system remaining, in my opinion, as well as the following statements by the Developers of this game:

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

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.

Is there planned to be any defense against the possibility that player created minor factions could be destroyed with no possible recourse through Private Groups or Solo play?

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

 

[Jockey79]

To hell with people, let's make games.

I believe this is EA's attitude and look where it's getting them.
But at least they'll have a sense of pride and accomplishment, as no one else has lost 3.1 billion dollars in one go.

The lesson is; you don't annoy the people you want to get money from.
And Frontier is no fool. They know how many people use each mode.

Bottom line is, they are not going to remove a popular feature, because a handful of people didn't understand what a selective mode system is when they bought the game.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Seriously, that whole "you cant remove a feature because players bought the game for it" argument is the most ridiculous i've ever heard.

I take it you haven't read the OP?

This game can become fantastic, but the design is being impaired by this "people won't like it" nonsense.

I agree, lets start with ignoring the stuff you don't like.

To hell with people, let's make games.

Hear, hear. To hell with EvilWinkle, lets make games.

 

[Phosphora]

It's interesting how you say you love solo things still need to socialize in the forums. Nothing wrong with that, I'm actually glad you're here, Miller

I prefer chess to football. Must be the way chess lets you consider moves before making them.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[Darkfyre99]

EVE Online should be the golden standard for a game such as elite, to be improved as much as possible, and if possible completely beaten in every sector of game design.

No, it isn't.

For its particular niche, EvE is the gold standard of how to do nearly completely player driven content right. But it is still a niche game, and it is one that isn't particularly appealing for a lot of players. Elite: Dangerous is the next generation of the Elite franchise, and its goal should be an improvement over previous iterations, not EvE in cockpits.

While E: D is still missing key two elements from previous games (landing on atmospheric and life bearing planets), its still managed to improve greatly on what made the previous Elite games great, while adding multi-player in such a way that it appeals to a wide audience, from those who prefer never to see another human beings, for those who only want to play with friends, to those who actually enjoy open PvP.

The only type of player that complains about this game's multi-player design ethos, which gives players almost full control over who they want play with on a day to day basis, are the type of players who need to attack players who don't enjoy PvP, because they can't handle attacking the kind of players who do enjoy PvP. The kind of player who'll attack new players in starting systems, because they can't hack attacking players who know what they're doing in Open. The kind of player who brings a PvP metaship into a trade CG, and then combat logs suffers a network failure when a player in an unmodified D-rated Imperial Courier interdicts them. The kind of player who claims that players who prefer modes other than Open are "scared," and yet generate tons of salty tears the moment Frontier moves to implement a more effective C&P.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

No, it isn't.

For its particular niche, EvE is the gold standard of how to do nearly completely player driven content right. But it is still a niche game, and it is one that isn't particularly appealing for a lot of players. Elite: Dangerous is the next generation of the Elite franchise, and its goal should be an improvement over previous iterations, not EvE in cockpits.

While E: D is still missing key two elements from previous games (landing on atmospheric and life bearing planets), its still managed to improve greatly on what made the previous Elite games great, while adding multi-player in such a way that it appeals to a wide audience, from those who prefer never to see another human beings, for those who only want to play with friends, to those who actually enjoy open PvP.

The only type of player that complains about this game's multi-player design ethos, which gives players almost full control over who they want play with on a day to day basis, are the type of players who need to attack players who don't enjoy PvP, because they can't handle attacking the kind of players who do enjoy PvP. The kind of player who'll attack new players in starting systems, because they can't hack attacking players who know what they're doing in Open. The kind of player who brings a PvP metaship into a trade CG, and then combat logs suffers a network failure when a player in an unmodified D-rated Imperial Courier interdicts them. The kind of player who claims that players who prefer modes other than Open are "scared," and yet generate tons of salty tears the moment Frontier moves to implement a more effective C&P.

That is not true, most people complain about BGS and PP being affected from SOLO. While its true that the game was designed this way, the complaints are not related with bringing people into Open. Its about no incentive to play in Open, which is the only mode that you can counter BGS / PP wars with PVP rendering it being much riskier.

 

[Phosphora]

That is not true, most people complain about BGS and PP being affected from SOLO. While its true that the game was designed this way, the complaints are not related with bringing people into Open. Its about no incentive to play in Open, which is the only mode that you can counter BGS / PP wars with PVP rendering it being much riskier.

I've no problem with affecting the BGS from solo. Solo may be more efficient at manipulating the BGS than Open, but everyone has a free choice of mode.

You could deliberately handicap yourself by playing football with one eye closed, but the referee wouldn't have to award your side an extra goal - you'd chosen to close one eye. Similarly, you can deliberately handicap your ability to manipulate the BGS by playing in Open, but Frontier are under no legal obligation to give you a bonus. You've traded efficiency for the 'fun' of PvP.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[Stigbob]

That is not true, most people complain about BGS and PP being affected from SOLO. While its true that the game was designed this way, the complaints are not related with bringing people into Open. Its about no incentive to play in Open, which is the only mode that you can counter BGS / PP wars with PVP rendering it being much riskier.

So it's not about forcing people to play in open, it's about removing content from and denying incentives to paying customers who don't play in open.

 

[BigF]

The whole PVP vs PVE thing is starting to get so boring.

PVP for the most part is a great thing, but the small minority are like the school bully taking eveyones lunch money and then complaining that the school close the tuck shop because of a lack of sales.

 

[Darkfyre99]

That is not true, most people complain about BGS and PP being affected from SOLO. While its true that the game was designed this way, the complaints are not related with bringing people into Open. Its about no incentive to play in Open, which is the only mode that you can counter BGS / PP wars with PVP rendering it being much riskier.

I keep being told that, but such "complaints" are never about adding a system that is capable of creating PvP based "BGS/PP wars," and all about forcing players who don't enjoy PvP into Open, by removing their access to the parts of the game they enjoy. As such, these "complaints" ring about as hollow as a politician trying to explain away getting caught cheating on their spouse.

I can only conclude that these complainers know they wouldn't stand a chance of influencing the BGS or Powerplay via PvP if they were to actually face opponents who enjoy PvP, and so use Powerplay and the BGS as an excuse to get the soft targets they need out of Solo and Private Groups, and into Open.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

With all this talk about Powerplay, I wonder whether people have posted in the Powerplay section to see whether the idea of Open only Powerplay would gel there. I mean, the opinion of people who are actually playing Powerplay could be relevant right?

 

[Jockey79]

With all this talk about Powerplay, I wonder whether people have posted in the Powerplay section to see whether the idea of Open only Powerplay would gel there. I mean, the opinion of people who are actually playing Powerplay could be relevant right?

Wouldn't be worth the effort, in about 5 minutes the thread would be moved to this sub forum because it would devolve into Open Vs Solo.

The PP forums from what I see are just full of people playing PP and sharing information on it. They all seem to be having quite a bit of fun.