Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Robert Maynard]

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

Quite.

Why should a game called Dangerous prevent extortion and mugging??

Possibly to prevent direct credit transfer between CMDRs - and the reason that "Dangerous" is included in the game title isn't what is assumed here.

.... and, likely, to encourage "pirates" to actually fit the tools of their trade rather than simply extort players, whether or not the target ship has any cargo, in the comparatively risk free environment of their no-compromise required combat ship.

Probably similar in philosophy to the decisions to not drop cargo or materials on player destruction.

 

[Capt Bellinger]

The one good thing happening in this game, Borann, is now suffering from the "everybody is in solo" plague, so it's lost its appeal to me. Here's an interesting thought - I cannot force another player to play in Open, but another player can force me to play "solo" by not playing in Open. Think about it - an empty Open IS Solo!

Sorry old chap, I don't really understand how someone else playing in Solo would force you to do the same. After all, Open and its habitual denizens is still available. Illumination would be appreciated.

 

[Old Duck]

Is everyone in Solo? Or are they just done prepping for carrier beta 2? Borann was going to eventually slowly die as more non-recreational miners across modes hit their goals of ridiculous riches. I would speculate carriers just boosted activity for a bit.

D) All of the above

 

[Old Duck]

@Robert Maynard I'm curious, would you be opposed to system chat obeying the boundaries of modes? I personally would much rather that system chat only display comms from those in the same mode I'm in. So in Open, this means only people who I have the potential to instance with would show up in system chat. In Solo, other solo-ers would be there (Introverts unite! Separately from your own homes). As it is, Open is haunted by the ghosts of solo players - we can hear them but never interact with them. In a place like Borann or the now-dead CG, this gives a false sense of who is available to play with when in Open. It bothers me, and I'm not alone.

ps - I directed this to Robert, the Don Quixote and defender of modes, but anyone is welcome to reply.

 

[leeG]

accomdating everyone is why entire features of the game are hamstrung. Also accomodating everyone is the worst possible decision, because then its just a bunch of half baked stuff like we have now, vs a with a consistent design philosophy that steers the game toward an actual vision, and doesn't apologize for it. If elite decided to become a true single player experience, that'd be fine. It'd open up lots potential for cool new stuff because you wouldn't have to worry about balance the same way. If it became a true multiplayer experience that'd be awesome too. Because then it can lean into that with all of its features. It needs to make up it's mind instead straddling the line with everything it does and therefore doing everything half way.

Accommodating as many players and play styles possible is what makes this a financially viable project. Some people play for an adrenaline rush, some play to relax. Some people just want to putter about in spaceships. All valid ways of enjoying the game. That Elite can accommodate many different ways to play Is a testament to the brilliance of its design. Can things be improved? Of course. Should one particular mode and play style be emphasized above and to the detriment of the rest? You tell me. How many players are you willing to throw under the bus? I’m gone if it open only.

 

[Robert Maynard]

@Robert Maynard I'm curious, would you be opposed to system chat obeying the boundaries of modes? I personally would much rather that system chat only display comms from those in the same mode I'm in. So in Open, this means only people who I have the potential to instance with would show up in system chat. In Solo, other solo-ers would be there (Introverts unite! Separately from your own homes). As it is, Open is haunted by the ghosts of solo players - we can hear them but never interact with them. In a place like Borann or the now-dead CG, this gives a false sense of who is available to play with when in Open. It bothers me, and I'm not alone.

ps - I directed this to Robert, the Don Quixote and defender of modes, but anyone is welcome to reply.

I was a bit surprised when Frontier made system chat pan-modal. One way of offering each player the choice of which mode(s) to listen to might be a simple toggle against each mode - which would let each player choose between three and zero modes of system chat to listen to.

 

[AsukaZ]

@Robert Maynard I'm curious, would you be opposed to system chat obeying the boundaries of modes? I personally would much rather that system chat only display comms from those in the same mode I'm in. So in Open, this means only people who I have the potential to instance with would show up in system chat. In Solo, other solo-ers would be there (Introverts unite! Separately from your own homes). As it is, Open is haunted by the ghosts of solo players - we can hear them but never interact with them. In a place like Borann or the now-dead CG, this gives a false sense of who is available to play with when in Open. It bothers me, and I'm not alone.

ps - I directed this to Robert, the Don Quixote and defender of modes, but anyone is welcome to reply.

Not really ghosts, you can communicate with them you know. 'Interacting' doesn't have to be just PvP or winging up. Information can be a valuable commodity as well.
I can appreciate it might be a problem if there's a lot of chat happening at the same time scrolling down the screen then Yeah, a chat mode filter makes sense.

On topic - not a debacle, an interesting idea. Some like, some don't like. I like.

 

[Triptych]

Perhaps you're not aware that Solo mode was a kind of sop thrown to the many Kickstarter backers who were told they'd get a Solo Offline - ie. standalone - game. When Frontier changed its collective mind there was a ruckus that lasted for days. If Frontier were now to fully separate Solo from Open they'd have little excuse for not providing the standalone game they originally promised.

For my part I'd love a standalone game: with difficulty level, saved games, all kinds of customisation and my very own personal galaxy. I have no reason to think it'll happen.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Perhaps you're not aware that Solo mode was a kind of sop thrown to the many Kickstarter backers who were told they'd get a Solo Offline - ie. standalone - game.

That's because that's not how it actually happened....

 

[Triptych]

That's because that's not how it actually happened....

Solo online was already planned when Frontier pulled the plug on standalone, if that's what you mean; but when said plug was pulled we were told we still had Solo online; and this is what kept some imponderable number of players in the game. I stick by what I said.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Solo online was already planned when Frontier pulled the plug on standalone, if that's what you mean; but when said plug was pulled we were told we still had Solo online; and this is what kept some imponderable number of players in the game. I stick by what I said.

More than that - the three game modes as we know them, with a shared galaxy, were announced together at the beginning of the Kickstarter. Offline mode was added to the scope about half-way through.

 

[Triptych]

More than that - the three game modes as we know them, with a shared galaxy, were announced together at the beginning of the Kickstarter. Offline mode was added to the scope about half-way through.

It was introduced about half way through Kickstarter..........ok.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It was introduced about half way through Kickstarter..........ok.

Indeed; from the FAQ thread that ran here in parallel to the KS FAQ it's clear that offline mode formed an update to the pitch, i.e. it was not there from the beginning:

How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?
The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.

The other important aspect for us is that we can seed the galaxy with events, often these events will be triggered by player actions. With a living breathing galaxy players can discover new and interesting things long after they have started playing.

Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).

....

How does multiplayer work?
You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) some of the other ships you meet as you travel around are real players as opposed to computer-controlled ships. It may be a friend you have agreed to rendezvous with here, or it may be another real player you have encountered by chance. All players will be part of a “Pilot’s Federation” – that is how they are distinguished from non-players – so you will be able to tell who is a player and who is a non-player easily.

You will be able to save your position in certain key places (probably just in space stations, but possibly while in hyperspace too, if we feel it is needed). A save-and-quit option will be freely available at those points, as will the subsequent reload, but there will be a game cost for a reload following player death. Your ship will still be intact in the condition it was when the save occurred, but there will be a game currency charge (referred to as an insurance policy) for this. This is to prevent the obvious exploit of friends cooperating and killing each other to get each other’s cargo. If you can’t pay, then it will accumulate as an in-game debt, and the police may chase you!

There are no multiplayer lobbies, and the game will be played across many servers, augmented by peer-to-peer traffic for fast responses. Session creation and destruction happens during the long-range hyperspace countdown and hyperspace effect (which is a few seconds only), so is transparent to the player.

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, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.

 

[Triptych]

Indeed; from the FAQ thread that ran here in parallel to the KS FAQ it's clear that offline mode formed an update to the pitch, i.e. it was not there from the beginning:

Indeed, yes, it was introduced about half way through Kickstarter alright. No question. No question at all.

 

[Ganogati]

Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).

I truly hope they follow through with this at some point. I wouldn't use it now, but it would have great value to me in two cases:

1) Unlikely case: They somehow remove or make too difficult to use the VR version of this game, which is all that I play, either with a future patch (like space legs) or by simply removing it from the game. Being able to play an older version that allows me to play in VR still would keep me in the game in that situation

2) More likely case: Nothing lasts forever, and eventually support for this game will end. I'd like to know that I can continue to play it into the future. At this moment there is nothing like it, and I see nothing on the horizon to compare with it for what it does (especially in the VR space), so it would be great to have a copy on the backburner for if the game's servers ever shut down. If they have to stop supporting the game without being prepared first, that could simply be the end of ED.

 

[Triptych]

..........
2) More likely case: Nothing lasts forever, and eventually support for this game will end. I'd like to know that I can continue to play it into the future. At this moment there is nothing like it, and I see nothing on the horizon to compare with it for what it does (especially in the VR space), so it would be great to have a copy on the backburner for if the game's servers ever shut down. If they have to stop supporting the game without being prepared first, that could simply be the end of ED.

I recall this very issue being brought up when they scrapped the standalone version. Frontier said something about handing it over to a 3rd party to continue, but it seemed then, as now, as nothing more than empty words to keep the baying mob quiet.

 

[Arioch]

I recall this very issue being brought up when they scrapped the standalone version. Frontier said something about handing it over to a 3rd party to continue, but it seemed then, as now, as nothing more than empty words to keep the baying mob quiet.

At the time, David Braben said (in response to an Offline question), “We have no intention of taking the servers down, but I understand what you are getting at. We plan to archive the game from time to time (ie matching client and servers and game world state), and would release such an archive if the servers were to come down. That would also address the issue of how you preserve an online game for the future, from the whole 'retro' perspective.”

Newsletter #50 also contained a Q&A with DB regarding the issue:

Spoiler

Elite: Dangerous Offline Mode - Q&A

From David Braben: Each of the “Elite” games pushed the boundaries of the technology available. With Elite: Dangerous a major new feature is playing online, and we are pushing that hard now. Offline support was not one of our original aims, though we did believe we could support it at the start of the project. We do a great deal of processing in the cloud, and this benefits everyone playing. We had considered that an online connection is a reasonable pre-requisite for a game delivered online. I am really sorry this has upset people, but we have a strong, consistent vision that we do not want to compromise. Below we have collected common questions from backers and the press and our answers so we can be clear about the situation. Can I still play in single player mode? Yes. Some people have thought that dropping 100% offline play means there wouldn’t be a single-player mode - to be clear, the single-player game is already there, but it requires a low bandwidth online connection for the reasons we explained. I’ve even played on a laptop using a tethered connection on the train. When was the offline mode dropped? The decision was made recently, and was not made lightly as we have been looking for ways to satisfy everyone. We announced shortly after we concluded that it wasn’t possible to create an offline mode without unacceptably compromising the game. Offline-only support was a requested feature during the Kickstarter – why was it dropped? Back during the Kickstarter, we were clear about the vision, to make a phenomenal new sequel to Elite in an online world, which we believe we are about to deliver. At the time we believed we could also offer a good single player experience, and base an acceptable offline-only experience off that. As development has progressed, it has become clear that this last assumption is not the case. Why wait so long to announce this? In retrospect we should have shared the fact that we were struggling with this aspect with the community, but we were still trying to find a solution. As features were implemented, for the best results we chose to prioritise delivery of the online single and multiplayer experiences, with a view to providing the offline version later in development. We had to make a decision for the good of the game, and that is what we did. What would you lose in offline mode? We have developed a multi-player game with an unfolding story involving the players, and groups collaborating with specific objectives and taking account of all player’s behaviour. This is what the game is about. Without this it would not be the rich gaming experience that we will deliver, and would be a great disappointment to all players. Any offline experience would be fundamentally empty. We could write a separate mission system to allow a limited series of fixed missions, but that would still not be a compelling game, and is just the first step in the mountain of work that would be required. Do you now consider Elite: Dangerous to be an MMO? Technically, it has always been. There are already over 100,000 people playing in the same world. We believe that always-online entertainment is already a reality for the majority. We are delivering a truly huge game using the best technology and designed to stand the test of time, played for many years to come and still be relevant. What do you say to people who backed Elite with an offline experience in mind? Many of the conversations we have had during development focussed on backers wanting to play the game without the downside of online – griefing especially – ie a single player experience. We considered this to be the main issue and focussed on making sure we had a great single player offering. We have also ensured that the solo play mode has a minimal network requirement(about 10 kbps). Are you confident the servers will be stable come launch day? Yes, as confident as we can be, because we have been testing our servers throughout the development process, and continue to do so. Our servers are the same ones that Amazon uses, and can (and have) scaled up quickly to deal with demand when needed. What is Frontier's plan for when the servers shut down? We do not plan to shut the servers down, but understand it is a reasonable question. We are at the beginning of the game not the end and are focused on creating a game that we hope will be played for many years in the future. We do plan to take regular archives of the game and the servers, to preserve the game for the future. Could the server code be released publicly some day when the servers are shut down? Yes. This is something we would do if for whatever reason we cannot keep the game going. Will offline mode ever be implemented? Why not create a second "offline galaxy" with different secrets than the online one? It is not out of the question we will create a cut-down game that is offline only, but this is not currently in our plan. It would still be a big undertaking to do well. Will you give people refunds? We have started responding to requests where there is a clear outcome: Those who have pre-ordered an Elite: Dangerous release version from our online store and have therefore not yet played the game are eligible for a refund. Those who have already been playing the game online in the Alpha and/or Beta phases, regardless of whether they backed the project via Kickstarter or purchased access to Alpha and/or Beta through our online store, are not eligible for a refund. We want to make sure we treat each person's situation with the thoroughness it deserves, and have contacted each of them to ask that they bear with us over the next few working days if their circumstances do not fit either criteria above as we look into individual requests. Is offline mode an impossible problem, or just unfeasible? It is a creative decision, not wanting to produce an empty game. It is technically possible, but it would be a largely separate game development. Why not delay the decisions and put extra resources on this after the release? We will review the decision after release, but our priority is moving the game forwards for the great majority of players, and are wary of producing a sub-standard game. Was this because offline players are less likely to get involved in microtransactions? Is this just about the money? No. We have been clear and consistent. This is about the game experience. I have always been against ‘pay to win’ – in a game like Elite: Dangerous there are a great many opportunities we could have taken already that would have amounted to ‘pay to win’ but we have chosen not to. This whole issue comes down to what the vision is of the game we are making, and whether people trust us to make the right decisions. We made this decision with heavy hearts but for the right reasons. David Braben

Whether these prove to be empty words is hopefully something to be discovered many years from now.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

@Robert Maynard I'm curious, would you be opposed to system chat obeying the boundaries of modes? I personally would much rather that system chat only display comms from those in the same mode I'm in. So in Open, this means only people who I have the potential to instance with would show up in system chat. In Solo, other solo-ers would be there (Introverts unite! Separately from your own homes). As it is, Open is haunted by the ghosts of solo players - we can hear them but never interact with them. In a place like Borann or the now-dead CG, this gives a false sense of who is available to play with when in Open. It bothers me, and I'm not alone.

ps - I directed this to Robert, the Don Quixote and defender of modes, but anyone is welcome to reply.

I did not even know that system chat was multimodal. Well even while in bubble my home system is not very popular one. Usually no players there except me even in open.

 

[Han Zulu]

You say that as if it were a bad thing. Why should a game called Dangerous prevent extortion and mugging??

It's been explained many times before, because the name "Dangerous" relates to the combat rank, just like "Elite", and not the state of the game.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Hi, so i’ve been playing ED for two weekends in Open and on PS4.

Love the game. Reminds me of my Eve days without coercing me into giving up all my free time.

However I feel cheated with people who hide in Solo or Private Party Mode and still affect the regular game’s economy and PP.

So two weekends makes you an expert on this topic? I guess you played the game a bit before your two weekends in open... doing what exactly? affecting the galaxy? or just flying around in your starter sidewinder?

Despite this I totally understand players that are less inclined to “getting ganked” shying away from Open.

Easy fixes we can debate about (because we probably will):

-Remove insurance, when a ship pops, it’s gone, including engineering and ship modules.

Why: gives worth to your money, opens up “cheap builds”, deters wannabe pirates from just throttling newbies and haulers with the risk of loss added.

This will solve exactly what? what risk does a fully outfitted ganker really risk here? We already know that gankers per definition is not looking for anything resembling a fair fight... There are several stories about gankers combat logginig to AVOID loosing their ship when hunted down by other players... Your suggestion would only increase the AMOUNT of combat logging that would be happening... for EVERYONE! as noone would like to loose their stuff, did you miss the outcry regarding Fleet Carriers going poof if yoiu did not have enough credits to pay for its upkeep!

-Separate economies and Powerplay from each game mode.

Why: it’s simply ridden with exploits and caters to people who want everything easy and punishes people who want immersion and challenge.

Also Why: would decrease server loads because Solo can run a clientside market and PP, where they can then focus a majority of their server base on both open and private sessions without mixing and destroying the cores of the game with Copouts of switching modes to avoid confrontation or competition. (It’s on the ropes of exploitative)

What exploits?
How would this lower server loads, as you are clearly cheating on my open experience hiding on that PS4 console! CHEATER! So there would be no cost savings, as FDEv would have to setup MORE servers to cover PS4, XBoxOne and PC. As there is no crossplay between these platforms, so any PS4 player would be like they where all hiding in solo, regardless of what mode they play in for XboxOne and PC users!! So no real cost saving happening here. So how would solo experience be? how would the galaxy look like? how would you manage discoveries, and BGS updates etc? how much data would a copy of the existing galaxy be?

The commuitty driven websites like Inara, EDDB etc, would have to tripple up their efforts, one per platform, as progress of factions would now be different. Then what about all player "managed" minor factions?

-And finally, give us the ability to make money payments to each other, but only in our respective modes with our respective characters. Hate that you get ganked for your cargo? That’s because pirates can’t actually be pirates. If you lock someone down and they pay you and you let them go, congratulations, you are a successful pirate that has a retained honor for his profession.

Currently you have the ability to destroy your cargo so the natural move of a pirate is to kill you. Also gives worth to the cargo scanner thingy, because currently is a useless module.

How do you lock someone down? there is no real disabling mechanism in the game! And we always have the approved option to exit to menu, and if that is not fast enough, people can simply combat log. And if you are not trying to "lock down" the target, but instead try to kill them, then what you are doing is ganking, not piracy... and asking for credits and offer NOT to destroy someone is not piracy, that is extortion.

Don’t take it completely to heart, like I said I love the game, and the community is badass (at least the ones I meet, haven’t seen another pilot in days) but from an outside perspective, this game won’t go anywhere even with updates unless it fixes its roll, and i know they have the ability to do it.

Thanks for reading my rant, don’t slap the good side of my face with replies

Perhaps do you research before? the many misunderstandings on how the game works and why the game works like it does, is quite telling. And let uys be clear here, FDev do not really care to change these things, as they have been pretty clear about this from the start...

There is another thing FDev have been pretty clear with, you cannot force me to play in a certain way, neither can I force you to play a certain way.That is why we have blocking option, so I can choose to block a player that I do not want to play with. So I do not have to be "your" content to gank and extort credits from just because you like that sort of gameplay.

If you have not got the hints by now, this game was not about having the main focus to be a very competitive PvP environment, where "everything" have to be resolved by pew-pew'ing at each other. It was more about playing with friends, and seeing other players, and the game modes was a great starting point to allow players to choose their preferred experience.