According to my information, Ironman still allows for free mode switching between Ironman solo and Ironman open. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.
Game loses something by not forcing Open play
- Thread starter Archaegeo
- Start date
- Status
According to my information, Ironman still allows for free mode switching between Ironman solo and Ironman open. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.
I like true PvP as in on equal grounds. I played lots of Counterstrike in the past. Different type of game, but I didn't mind playing it in Descent neither (Maybe something a little closer to Elite)
Anyways, because some people have more spare time than others and there is persistence and a MMO RPG element to this game. I find this switching between solo/private and open play a move of brilliance on behalf of Frontier Developments.
You could buy this game late, work up to your favorite ship and maybe loadout and hit open play when you are ready for it. Or opt to start off in the more dangerous "Open Play" right away.
Anyways, because some people have more spare time than others and there is persistence and a MMO RPG element to this game. I find this switching between solo/private and open play a move of brilliance on behalf of Frontier Developments.
You could buy this game late, work up to your favorite ship and maybe loadout and hit open play when you are ready for it. Or opt to start off in the more dangerous "Open Play" right away.
I just have to ask: the original versions (1+2) ? Talk about true freedom of movement in dogfights there
Ok, for some strange reason that seems really weird to me, the whole idea of "Ironman Solo".... I assumed "Ironman" would be open only - as it's kind of the best of the best, Top Gun school kind of thing and if you mess up you're starting again.
I don't know why some people can't get over this not being Call of Duty and the COD mentality. Yes Ironman is the hardcore mode, but it is still not about PvP. It is about having no second chances, no insurance etc. When you die you die.
It has nothing to do with proving yourself against other players in a massive deathmatch arena till your top dog and last man standing, or everyone pledges allegiance and survives on your discretion. It's just about surviving without a safety net. which is why you can switch between solo and open. As far as the developers and many of the players are concerned there is no difference between the two modes. It's only PvP players that see things otherwise, and feel being human and being able to kill everyone else better than anyone else is a big deal.
Last edited:
For a start, I never said anything about PvP and as for "Call of Duty and the COD mentality" ~ I would not know, I've never played them.
I also didn't say anything about a death match arena either.
I did say if you mess up you're starting again - which is a shorter version of how you put it.
Please don't jump down my throat when you didn't even read my post properly then make huge wild assumptions about me. I don't PvP in ED unless it is in a pre arranged private group with a friend on TeamSpeak, I spend more time being "a keyboard warrior" (was once called that on another forum, I quite like the title myself - so wasn't much of an insult lol) for the PvE crowd, despite my deep respect for PvP players and how they help games grow / evolve and stay balanced.
My impression of the way "Ironman Mode" has been described is first and foremost in the singular (Mode - not Modes), hence my admitted assumption of it being open play only. Also, as it has been described as adding a lot more danger to you with permanent death, I didn't figure that would appeal to solo players who either had bad connections (hence solo) or use solo for safety (and permanent death is far from safe).
@ Jockey79
Sorry about that. I haven't read this thread for a few hours and shouldn't generalize at a person. To me "Top Gun" only means one thing, and as far as I can see there is no problem with solo or open outside of potentially a PvPers perspective. If exploits turn up they can probably be worked around pretty easily without resets. Though it may be inconvenient these kinds of things can usually be done quite easily.
As for Iron Man. What difference does solo or open make. To me there is nothing about other players that make them really stand out as more or less of a threat if they play sensibly and in the spirit of the game. Just that the NPC's play by the game rules while players often don't care about the spirit of the game and take great pleasure in breaking them. Therefore only those players have any significant impact that differentiates the two modes. That's why I don't think there is reason to be surprised that iron man spans both modes. If you have limited internet or don't fancy interacting with other people you can always switch to solo. In the end other players are not that essential to the game but the feature is nice to have if you suddenly find yourself wanting some company. That's assuming the game will be much more populated in the future. Currently, I meet a couple of players a week if that.
Sorry about that. I haven't read this thread for a few hours and shouldn't generalize at a person. To me "Top Gun" only means one thing, and as far as I can see there is no problem with solo or open outside of potentially a PvPers perspective. If exploits turn up they can probably be worked around pretty easily without resets. Though it may be inconvenient these kinds of things can usually be done quite easily.
As for Iron Man. What difference does solo or open make. To me there is nothing about other players that make them really stand out as more or less of a threat if they play sensibly and in the spirit of the game. Just that the NPC's play by the game rules while players often don't care about the spirit of the game and take great pleasure in breaking them. Therefore only those players have any significant impact that differentiates the two modes. That's why I don't think there is reason to be surprised that iron man spans both modes. If you have limited internet or don't fancy interacting with other people you can always switch to solo. In the end other players are not that essential to the game but the feature is nice to have if you suddenly find yourself wanting some company. That's assuming the game will be much more populated in the future. Currently, I meet a couple of players a week if that.
Last edited:
I used the "Top Gun" as a reference to the film, my interpretation of the film is a group of pilots trying to show off who is best by flaunting skill and bravado while pushing man and machine to the limits. But I suppose that's just my personal interpretation and should have gone with something else
Now it's been said, with the current set up of the game, solo / private group / open play versions of Ironman do make sense as it was stated that Ironman profiles could not join normal modes only Ironman - so yea, I'd agree it does make sense to mirror the modes for it.
Though with the current divide over normal mode switching, I think I'll duck and cover for the onslaught of threads on splitting the community and player base even more with 3 Ironman modes. So glad I'm not the Dev who'd have to announce that
-Edit-
Glad I'm not a mod either if Ironman comes in three modes - though I would donate a jar of coffee to help them out
Last edited:
Are you kidding me here? Just the other day on Twitch I saw a guy purposely blocking a station's exit door, and when another player (the streamer) gave him a bump trying to get out, the blocker texts "haha, now the station shoot you!" And, sure enough, the station blasted the streamer's ship to bits.
That's an example of what I would call griefing. Also don't get the point you were trying to make above about solo players of all people "wanting to mess up the open mode." How on earth would that be done? We've established that ED's networking is not going to allow sudden "out of the solo ether" group ganking, so what on Earth are you on about?
And Leopard, just because PvP is PART of Elite Dangerous doesn't mean PvP is the primary mode or raison d'être for Elite Dangerous, get it?
If you guys MUST have a game where the primary activity is shooting people in the face, then there are literally HUNDREDS of other games you can play to do that. Hell, you can even shoot people in the face in ED (although it won't be the primary activity, flying around in supercruise will be). You just can't keep all the other players in a nice convenient pen for you to prey on, and that's just not going to change, because that's not Frontier's vision (nor that of many--I daresay most--of its players).
I understand that PvP is not the primary mode - as evidenced by me never making that assertion. Not sure why you feel compelled to make this remark.
You must have engaged your hyperbole hyperdrive if you are trying to suggest that a galaxy with billions of stars could ever be a "convenient pen for you to prey on." This discussion would be much more productive if you would actually read what I say and respond to it rather than just skimming and posting fantastic nonsense in response.
OK, you never wrote the words "primary mode"--I over-inferred, when you wrote: "It is obvious Frontier intends for PvP to be a significant component of this game" that that's what you meant. I was apparently mistaken. I don't particularly agree with you that non-consensual PvP (which is what forcing everyone to play in open at all times would entail) is "obviously" intended to be said significant component of the game, because if it were, players would not be allowed to switch modes on the fly, QED. Mind, there will continue to be many many Hauler-piloting Commanders in Open who'll be attacked without warning by Commanders in Vipers and Cobras, and that's not going to change either, so let's all just accept the status quo, shall we? If you want more PvP, there will be game-lore-related battles to participate in, and no doubt PvP oriented private groups will be formed, so what's the problem?
BTW, your "fantastic nonsense" comment was also uncalled for, IMHO.
Interesting. I never played call of duty (not sure - maybe an early ones singleplayer, when it was WW2 and had a singleplayer-campaign, but I may mix it up with MOH).
I completely agree - the game isn't about PvP. I dislike the term 'hardcore mode" for it, because hardcore bears some elitist connotations.
I'm not a PvP player, I don't have to prove anything against other players and I have no intent to kill other players. As a matter of fact I'd lack the skill to prove anything against other players because I'm very bad at piloting spaceships.
However, NPCs are easy to figure out, and except the one time I deliberately killed myself, I have never been killed in Gamma.
I have no idea how long I've played (the rift makes me lose my sense of time, but I'd guess it should be around 30 hours), but I've only been successfully interdicted by 3 NPCs during all that time and each time it was just a question of my personal mood if I kill him or if I run away - both options would have been applicable even by a bad pilot like me as easily as flipping a switch.
And that's the huge difference between the modes - humans possess unlimited creativity and that renders them indefinitely more dangerous than NPCs.
Yes - Ironman is about playing without a safety net. Having the opportunity to fall back to solo online is a safety net.
I'd like the option to give informed consent to never be allowed to switch to solo online in one of the games modes and I want the inevitable possibility to be interdicted by a gank squad. Not because I fancy killing them all and being the ace of aces (I'd struggle with a single remotely competent commander), but because of the suspense it adds.
Would adding that purely optional mode hurt the game? Never read about a viable reason why it would.
Come on guys, slow down, I can't reply to everyone
But I want solo play mode to affect the open version.
I'm not the one saying a griefer can "ruin my day". What is it if it isn't the feeling of "losing"? Sure, the game itself has no such thing as "winning" nor "losing", but you define your own, and griefers make sure you meet the latter. Even if you argue about semantics or wish to come up with another term, it still see mostly two things, one that suits you, and one that doesn't.
How does this has to do with anything? People like you are required, your presence is necessary, no need to shift the blame, it's still yours.
Where the solo is essentially multiplayer with NPCs, and you're posting in a thread about switching between modes. If you only play solo, you might aswell leave this thread, it's of no concern to you.
Combat plays a huge part in Elite: Dangerous, and it starts at its very name. And even then, you're still fighting NPCs.
I think you're confusing it with this: http://en.spaceengine.org/
Oh I thought we were talking about the game... so we're talking about you?
Come on, please, open your eyes. Combat plays a huge part in this game, for either you take part in it, or try to do things while avoiding it. It's the meat of the game. Of course there are other things to do, but combat pretty much always plays a role in there, whether you're a rich trader with a full cargo hold everyone wants, an explorer far from civilization who still runs into hostile NPCs for some reason and soon enough Thargoids, a smuggler who needs to avoid running into authority, a passenger liner carrying important people...
I'm still surprised people don't see how important combat is in this game. It doesn't mean it's Call of Duty in space either, but if combat was to be removed, the game would be hugely different, when trading, hauling, smuggling, mining, exploring or passenger carrying could be removed without affecting other roles. That's how important it is.
Oh no I perfectly understand that some people simply don't want PvP. But then they need just to say it, not try to come up with excuses, when they're all invalid, as playing in open is pretty much identical to playing in a group right now, and when PvP remains fundamentaly similar to PvE.
But then, no one wants everything to be about PvP, and your behavior is one of those many hope we'll never see, that is, people who only want to take part in open once they have a good ship that can tear everyone a new one, because that's exactly kind of behavior would turn open play into a PvP mode. No need to ask me why it's a problem, this thread is all about it, and some said it far better than I.
Still, it's not only about being a "target", it's about forum a good community, and not letting PvPers overcome it. Because while I might appear to be advocating PvP, I'm not: I'm advocating a proper balance of PvE and PvP, precisely so that open play doesn't end up as a PvP-only mode, nor as a PvE-only mode for that matter, though this isn't a worry. It's not about my playstyle, nor do I enjoy that much PvP for that matter, it's about the community.
In what way do you see it affecting the "Open Play" version in any major way? Honestly, given the number of populated systems in space vs. the number of actual human players, the effect on the economy is pretty negligible if that's what you're worried about. What about the NPC kills stat. AFAIK, the NPCs are as hard to kill in solo as in Open. So what's the big deal?
You do realise that DB switches from Solo to Open at different times and wants them the way they are now, don't you?
Open when you've got a good connection, then solo when travelling with a laptop tethered to a phone. There would be little point playing when you only have enough bandwidth for solo if you lose all your work when you switch back to open.
As there is NO difference to other players if you're solo or just in another instance, why shouldn't you switch?
With enough friends on my list with good connections I can make sure that I'm always instanced with PvE players, even without groups. We can all collaborate to make credits and upgrade ships and equipment. If I then play when they're offline I may meet you. By your logic I would then have had an unfair advantage. It's nonsense.
(Flogged dead horse is still dead.)
- Status