Game loses something by not forcing Open play

[Clifford]

I just don't get where this game is trying to fit in, is it an solo game where people don't interact or is it a PvP game?

It is both, the game gives you that choice so you can make it in your own way whatever you want.

The main thing this game does not do is allow you to force other players to bend to your will; apparently some players can't stand the idea that another players can't be under their control.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

I can't believe this stupid argument keeps on popping up.

Elite was always a single player affair, I'm aware that times change but forcing everyone to play online in open is not what this game is about.
It doesn't need it. It's excellent that we can all join open play if we so choose - that is the kind of change and progress the game needs.
What it doesn't need is changing into a cookie cutter mmo just because the influx of mmo players want it that way.
If you want a stereotypical mmo experience go and play a stereotypical mmo.

Old school elite players are not here for leader board place hunting. We are not concerned with 'beating' you, We are not concerned with being part of big player guilds dedicated to crushing other player guilds. We don't want to club together in herds for protection.
I'm not speaking for everyone here of course - the difference is we don't want to stop you from enjoying playing with other like minded people but would ask the same in return - let us play how we want.

Because at the end of the day it doesn't affect you if people play solo. Sure they have an effect on the living galaxy but for all the difference that will make in the grand scheme of things it hardly matters. Other than that if solo players don't affect the universe then the universe will change very little and you will never know if it is dynamic or not!

All hyperbole of course, just like most of the posts in here.

Calling the ability to switch between solo and open an unfair advantage, and cheating the system is complete nonsense.
The ability is there for everyone - including you. If you don't want to do it then kudos to you; but it makes very little difference to your game if someone else does it.

I prefer the idea of separate galaxies - one offline, one open, and then ironman.
I'm not going to get what I wanted, so I must compromise.
I can see why they have decided to go in this direction, I understand as they do that it is not ideal. But I understand as they do, that nothing would be ideal for everyone.
Everyone wants something different and we can't all be made happy.

So why oh why do the mmo crowd keep insisting that their way is the only right way.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - This game is not called EVE, it is called ELITE. It is it's own game.
Forcing everyone into open will not fill your screen with thousands of real people; you'll be lucky if you see anyone for days regardless of how the open/solo is handled.
You could even force everyone to go open and the instance limit might leave you on your own while a bunch of other people are cavorting round the system unbeknownst to you!

Would they be cheating the system and taking that unfair advantage over you in this scenario also?

I have a humble request. Would you mind to edit your post and replace all "WE" with "I". Thanking in advance.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The problem is the Open Play only offers the opportunity to gank or be ganked right now, so people stay in nice safe Solo world till they have enough cash to outfit for Open world level ships/weapons.

Forcing players to play in open all the time (if they want to play there at all) would, in all likelihood, not change this in the slightest.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

[REQUEST] Clan Outposts/Bases/Multiplayer Only features


- Bases are only aviable for players who play in a clan/corp/alliance whatever, but if you decide to be a part of this feature you are no more able to play in Single Player,
Only if you decide to delete your charactor data and start a new game in boredome singleplayer iam superman mode.
Single player are not able to do any Interactions with other players / multiplayer stations / missions bounties or whatever has to do with interacting with other players,
they are just able to explore (find there positions with exploration) the features what multiplayers get from distance.

- You are not able to Haul Materials, take any missions/contracts/bounties issued from others player/s Organisations, buy and sell orders or whatever issued from other players to build up stations or whatever, if you decide to be a part of Multiplayer features: youre no more able to play in Singleplayer Mode, and this is an Absolute fair Point.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=65507&p=1118438#post1118438

Better yet, retire to a private group and group members will be spared the temptation to consort with "others"....

 

[Archaegeo]

But it doesn't give you a choice.

If you want to control a trade route, you cant, because people can just run it in solo.

I am not a ganker. I run from PvP, hide with pride.

I like it in my games because it adds excitement.

But having a solo mode you can escape to in order to move your loot or mine unassaulted, etc, and then your actions still affect others and there is nothing they can do about it? That's crap.

Keep the solo mode, but give it its own database, separate from Open play in every aspect.

There is no reason not to do this. Then solo players can be solo, and still enjoy the game, and those who want to compete with others have to do so in an environment with some risk.

 

[Jarek Storm]

Seems so, from David Braben's own statements on the Frontier website:

http://www.frontier.co.uk/features/f...eNum=1&blk=214
ACTION
There are six ways we can go:
...........
6. Move to online-only. This is where the retailers seem to want us to go after all, so perhaps it’s time to make the jump.

Whatever the tactic, let’s do something soon, and stop all the shouting about the unjust iceberg

This was in regard to the sale and distribution of the game, and has nothing to do with the gameplay.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

But it doesn't give you a choice.

If you want to control a trade route, you cant, because people can just run it in solo.

I am not a ganker. I run from PvP, hide with pride.

I like it in my games because it adds excitement.

But having a solo mode you can escape to in order to move your loot or mine unassaulted, etc, and then your actions still affect others and there is nothing they can do about it? That's crap.

Keep the solo mode, but give it its own database, separate from Open play in every aspect.

There is no reason not to do this. Then solo players can be solo, and still enjoy the game, and those who want to compete with others have to do so in an environment with some risk.

It seems like some forum members have mistaken the proposal to limit the ability to switch between modes with the attempt to wipe out solo mode at all. Let them fight their own Don Quixote's battles.

 

[murraypaul]

If you want to control a trade route, you cant, because people can just run it in solo.

You can't can anyway
The game is instanced. People can fly right past you in a different instance.

 

[Jarek Storm]

You can't can anyway
The game is instanced. People can fly right past you in a different instance.

I feel most people do not get this concept at all. They think MMO as in the traditional UO/EQ/WoW style.

You'll never be able to control everyone in ED. There is not one Aulin, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of Aulins. You might encounter someone in your Aulin, but for everyone you see, there are dozens of more, all in Open mode too, that you'll never ever see.

Disallowing people from choosing Solo or Open when they feel like it only results in even less player encounters. This is not a true open MMO like EvE, WoW, et al.

 

[gazzareth]

Yawn, again really..... ho hum, it ain't going to change.

Yet again "group" mode is ignored in the argument, do group players get lumped in with soloists or open....


G

 

[Robert Maynard]

But it doesn't give you a choice.

If you want to control a trade route, you cant, because people can just run it in solo.

I am not a ganker. I run from PvP, hide with pride.

I like it in my games because it adds excitement.

But having a solo mode you can escape to in order to move your loot or mine unassaulted, etc, and then your actions still affect others and there is nothing they can do about it? That's crap.

Keep the solo mode, but give it its own database, separate from Open play in every aspect.

There is no reason not to do this. Then solo players can be solo, and still enjoy the game, and those who want to compete with others have to do so in an environment with some risk.

I wonder how many ships it would take to "control" a single station, 24/7, taking into account the fact that instances will preclude any real possibility of blockading any site effectively?

Not all players like their games the same way - this thread is evidence of that simple fact.

How players choose to use the group switching feature is up to them. Your example assumes the worst. The option is available to everyone, therefore there is no advantage.

Sharing the single persistent galaxy between all online players, regardless of play mode, is a feature that has existed in the stated game design from the outset, as has group switching.

Frontier would need a compelling reason to make a change at this (very) late stage - I very much doubt that they would consider any of the offered examples as suitably persuasive.

We have been told both that Frontier are "making the game that we (Frontier) want to play" and that, as players, we are to "play the game how you want to".

Removing the group switching feature would allow one group of players to "play the game how you want to" by denying that same freedom to others - let's see what happens, shall we?

 

[Cody]

Ah, so the poor horse's name is Rocinante, eh?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

But it doesn't give you a choice.

If you want to control a trade route, you cant, because people can just run it in solo.

I am not a ganker. I run from PvP, hide with pride.

I like it in my games because it adds excitement.

But having a solo mode you can escape to in order to move your loot or mine unassaulted, etc, and then your actions still affect others and there is nothing they can do about it? That's crap.

Keep the solo mode, but give it its own database, separate from Open play in every aspect.

There is no reason not to do this. Then solo players can be solo, and still enjoy the game, and those who want to compete with others have to do so in an environment with some risk.

What about players who want to play in all but have mates who want to play in private. I take it you want to ban me from playing with my mates then or forever be locked out of all?. Thanks for that! Very nice of you!. Generally I can put up with most of the suggestions on here even tho I may not agree with them but players who are happy to just completely screw over the players who backed the core game and to hell with them really grind my gears.

Its fine if you do not like the game but please do not try to change it from what it has always been promised from the start. I would really like eve if it was not for the guilds and massive ganking. I would never dream of going there and complaining asking for changes.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It seems like some forum members have mistaken the proposal to limit the ability to switch between modes with the attempt to wipe out solo mode at all. Let them fight their own Don Quixote's battles.

Not in my case - I see it as an attempt to restrict the freedoms of players who do not necessarily share the same preferences as to play style.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

Not in my case - I see it as an attempt to restrict the freedoms of players who do not necessarily share the same preferences as to play style.

I fail to understand how the restriction on openly switching from solo to open world limits your freedom and play style? Where would be the applicable scenario?

 

[PLF]

It loses more by forcing combat on players that don't want a combat flight sim but want a good fun game they can play their own way, like trading, etc.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I fail to understand how the restriction on openly switching from solo to open world limits your freedom and play style? Where would be the applicable scenario?

It restricts a players choice of how to play the game on a session by session basis - not all players would want to play in open all the time. To restrict the choice to the moment of commander creation and necessitating duplication of effort in each online mode would very likely discourage players who would prefer to use group switching from creating a character in open online in the first place.

Players who are require other players to provide them with content will, most likely, be anti-group switching. Players who do not necessarily wish to play a bit part in another player's content will, again most likely, be pro-group switching.

As to applicable scenarios - I'm sure that the imaginations of those who wish to deny other players the freedom of how to play have already come up with sufficient examples of their own, where an advantage can be perceived.

 

[Flying Penguin]

I fail to understand how the restriction on openly switching from solo to open world limits your freedom and play style? Where would be the applicable scenario?

"you know what, I've had a long day and I feel like taking it easy tonight, I'll just log into solo for a couple of hours. Oh wait... You mean I have to start a new character??"

It's the freedom to enjoy the game the way I choose, not some ideologically pure way that someone else has dictated because of some perceived but unproven advantage I'm supposedly going to get.

I can't see many people seriously working on multiple characters at once so if you want to drive an irreversible wedge in between elements of the community then this is the perfect way to do it.

 

[Dr. Dave Bowman]

I fail to understand how the restriction on openly switching from solo to open world limits your freedom and play style? Where would be the applicable scenario?

OK look at it this way, if you are in solo play why the hell should you gain any benefit from things discovered by players in open mode, why should you be able to buy discovery or market data for things you didnt discover yourself, if you choose to play solo mode you should have no benefit from anything discovered by anyone in open play.

The same goes for group play you shouldn't get any info other than that your group discovers etc.

The same with open play, no one should be able to get any info that wasn't discovered etc. by a player in open mode.

At least this way the the three groups get the play style they wish without getting the benefits from every other player types.

So play solo should mean just that you only get data etc. YOU find as a solo player the same with the other types no cross over of info etc between the three play types. People are screaming they don't want to be forced into open because they don't want PVP or PVE Groups but they want all the benefits of discoveries made by others not in their group etc. from other players which makes them hypocrites.

 

[PLF]

But having a solo mode you can escape to in order to move your loot or mine unassaulted, etc, and then your actions still affect others and there is nothing they can do about it? That's crap.

Yeah, not like real life where you are able to control a group of streets and not let anyone shop at certain stores so you can shop there and control their prices yourself.

 

[Jezzah]

I have no problem with both modes but swapping one to the other is a ridiculous design decision. There's absolutely no benefit in being in open play and "taking the risks" over that of solo online.