I find it hard to imagine David abandoning P2P after years of study and testing before the start of the game’s development.
The year is 2020 and Elite Dangerous is still P2P. Let's discuss PvE and PvP servers.
- Thread starter Sir Ganksalot
- Start date
No, you nailed my opinion on the head but I intentionally left it open to see what everyone would say about it.I don't want to put words in the mouth of Sir G so to speak, but I think what our man is suggesting is along these lines - two servers where the galaxy and all its actions or reactions are consistent and so on; but that there is simply a distinct difference between what a player can expect.
Ie on the PvP server, one can consent to PvP by being present, and the opposite on the pve server. Other than that, they run the same for bgs and so on.
I may have interpreted you wrong @Sir Ganksalot and if so, I apologize, but this is how I understand your post and viewpoint. Which is I think what you were asking for - and if it could be made to work, I think it's a good idea as I've outlined it. There would obviously need to be caveats implemented in design so it can't be misused etc, but overall I think the idea is a pretty good one. It would improve the mmo incorporation side of things more, allowing more interaction between players.
Please nobody shoot me down with the 'but' arguments, as I'm not discounting anything, I'm just alluding to a positive framework that could be built upon.
If I misunderstood you though, please ignore this. Everyone has a different understanding of the two terms though, right?
Cheers,
The Hat
Ps - I've obviously omitted the offline argument to keep this simple
You're probably right, I was just being hypothetical. I would love dedicated servers though and would absolutely be willing to pay a subscription fee for it.
I think you're absolutely right. I just can't help but think that Odyssey is gonna be a complete mess.
I kind of feel the same but I would be curious to see how many players would actually opt out of a PvP dedicated server. Personally, I think there would need to be major changes to gameplay, specifically that would make it easier for newer players to get into PvP but I don't know. Just being hypothetical here.
It's not unreasonable or anything, I think it's just such a massive change to the core design. From a coding point of view - caveat, I'm not a game developer - it's a completely different game. At this stage the entire design isn't changing.
But I'm fully expecting Odyssey to now come along and destroy my ignorant opinion
here we go again ...
...
...
![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
Console subscriptions make this a nightmare.
Me not wanting to meet other people ‘in game’ is a massive problem for me. If there was no solo, I’d stop playing.
Me not wanting to meet other people ‘in game’ is a massive problem for me. If there was no solo, I’d stop playing.
I think you're a smart guy and genuinely trying to ask an important question - so respect for that - but unfortunately I think you've just answered it for yourself here.
That BGS thing is the dinosaur-killing asteroid. If the BGS is the same for both PVP and PVE dedicated servers then the major gripe of the folks that advocate for this solution fails to go away. BGS, PP, all the ways to make a persistent change in the galaxy, remain as something that "folks can influence in a mode where I can't shoot at them to make them stop" for the folks playing on the PVP server or "mindless murderhobos can foul up for the rest of us" on the PVE server. It will effectively remain as it is right now, just implemented differently.
Unless you are advocating completely separate galaxies, separate rankings and progression for the two environments then what you wish will never happen. And if you DO accept that separation, with each player running what is effectively totally independent characters on the two environments, then you're driving a permanent wedge into the playerbase and risking that neither environment retains enough activity to even feel "as alive" as the current situation does.
.. on my own ....here we go again ...
...
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There's no compelling need to ditch Solo - and removing it would mean that some console players would not be able to play the game (as those without premium platform access are not permitted to play in the multi-player game modes).
.... and Private Groups seem to have been forgotten (not for the first time). A Private Group with only the creator as a member is functionally equivalent to Solo.
Cool, glad I got what you had in mind, but as you said as well, keeping the question open to useful opinion and discussion. We both have very different gaming style with ed but although I play in open, I'm just not a big PvP guy - doesn't mean I avoid it in solo though as you know. That's part of what I agree with you on though - I started in solo or Pg and apart from wing or squadron mates, it can be very, very quiet, and I think that takes away from a lot the game has to offer.
Now that CGs have gone, it has become stale in that regard, and I moved to open before that happened. I can see why new players would enjoy and value security of being in a pve server state as you described, and why some would want to stick to that all the time. I also don't think you are criticising others' choices really, even though you'd prefer more PvP. Again I'm not trying to talk for you, but you want more PvP involvement as opposed to just beating up new players. Which is why I can get where you're coming from.
Again it's just my interpretation of your suggestion, and I think if the game was started again, rewinding 6 years, people probably wouldn't think about it much as being a weird choice, as it would just be the way it is.
For me, it would increase player to player participation, whether it involved PvP or co-op play, to just pick phrases, and that would increase its mmo incorporation imho.
But like before, this is opinion and interpretation, so nobody please shout at me for sharing an opinion!! The thread is designed to be a discussion, and I don't think it's supposed to be a open-solo / to gank or not thread!!
![[PS4] Filthymick420](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/201/201444.jpg?1555738739){kind=avatar}
Although i am for pve and pvp open servers specifically, the removal of solo would create an issue for a lot of players on console. I cant speak for xbox but everyone on ps4 would suddenly not be able to play unless they were paying for ps+, which they currently dont need for playing in solo
There is also Star Wars Squadrons coming out.
You got a problem with that?
People like Lou and Frilop make good points as well in regards to this subject.
Sadly the console subscription thing is a major hurdle, and even though I'm ignorant to it really, I think if I was console based I'd struggle to be happy paying more for a similar product I could play without subscription cost.
And with Frilop's points - I confess to again being pretty ignorant to how servers and that work beyond the lay grasp of the subject, but it seems like a big hurdle with the way it's explained.
I guess it's moving my opinion towards a conclusion that - in theory I still like the idea, but in practise it may be a huge pita or impossible situation to resolve both as an architecture, and a playerbase-pleasing construct, especially when there are subsequent costs involved from other providers.
I do still think it's an interesting discussion topic though, and one that doesn't need to devolve into the open solo argument, which is a pleasant change
@XloubellXX and @Frillop Freyraum (apologies if I misspelled your name?!)
Sadly the console subscription thing is a major hurdle, and even though I'm ignorant to it really, I think if I was console based I'd struggle to be happy paying more for a similar product I could play without subscription cost.
And with Frilop's points - I confess to again being pretty ignorant to how servers and that work beyond the lay grasp of the subject, but it seems like a big hurdle with the way it's explained.
I guess it's moving my opinion towards a conclusion that - in theory I still like the idea, but in practise it may be a huge pita or impossible situation to resolve both as an architecture, and a playerbase-pleasing construct, especially when there are subsequent costs involved from other providers.
I do still think it's an interesting discussion topic though, and one that doesn't need to devolve into the open solo argument, which is a pleasant change
@XloubellXX and @Frillop Freyraum (apologies if I misspelled your name?!)
I don't care.