Game loses something by not forcing Open play

[Sargon]

So if you want to play Open because you don't mind the above, then fine.
The rest of us will be enjoying Solo play thanks.

I couldn't agree more... it's play and let play... it should stay that way.
We can easily (or technically for sure) share the same galaxy, its political biases, prices, stocks and its events, between online and solo mode without forcing one side to play as the other wishes.

 

[almostpilot]

It wasn't meant to be an online-only game, that has only happened recently. The game I bought promised an offline mode, if they had delivered it, I'd be playing it.
That is a basic misunderstanding. It can be a multiplayer game. It can be a single-player game. That is a fundamental design decision.



There are several posters here that I do not want to play with. If that insults them, tough.



See above.



I don't think that is what experience of multiplayer games, and MMOs especially, has taught us.
I think it has taught us that:
- Most MMOs make PvP optional in one way or another, either by splitting PvP and non-PvP worlds, by specific PvP arenas, or by a PvP flag.
- Solo (either exclusively or normally) players are now a distinct audience that MMO developers are reaching out to.



And you are missing that from the outset, the game was designed with multiplayer being optional.



What consequences? A bounty that probably amounts to less than fuel costs? That can simply be paid off at the nearest station?
There is no effective NPC/system response to balance PvP, and the bounties are a joke.
An interdiction system whereby the interdictor gets to size up the interdictee before deciding whether to fight or not, and can simply walk away from any fight they might lose? Where the interdictee cannot fire first without themselves becoming Wanted?

Exactly.

And FD please never do something like EVE in ED.

 

[Kaelan]

So, a player who trades in open, 500 LY from the population centres, mitigating risk by travelling in a group, should make more than a player who does exactly the same in solo?

Yup.

Getting together in a trade convoy should be encouraged and rewarded. it also lends to larger battles/ wolf pack tactics and pirate gangs working togeather

 

[Tyr07]

I would be quite happy with the removal of "Solo play" if proper PVE is introduced, with an optional PVP flag, or alternately EVE like high-security systems where PVP is only possibly between at-war groups and any other PVP action is immediate kill rights to anyone else and/or instant and unavoidable death due to local police force.

I play Solo because I "choose" to not want to PVP. If I ever want to PVP I should be able to choose when to put myself in that situation, and not let someone else choose for me and until I get to choose, I will continue to play Solo, and/or PVE only private groups.

PS: Yes, I know Elite is not EVE, nor do I want it to *be* EVE, but don't reject an idea for discussion just because it's from a game you don't like.

That's mostly fair, although the fact that people get upset if it is a player vs an npc is bad. I wish the game just masked all players to look like NPC's and no one would be ever upset.

I think you should be allowed to play solo and choose only to engage in potential pvp in open mode when you want.
But I also don't think it's fair if there are new players playing in open mode, taking the risks that come with it in their cobra or whatever, and you finally come out of solo mode with an anaconda or something, turf the living crap out of the little guy. Do all players need to change their play style so they can enjoy the game fairly?

That doesn't seem right. People have been jumping up and down over their right to not have 'their' play style changed. What about other people then?

 

[Flying Penguin]

Well I could tell you the "Solo/Group" advocates seem to be focusing on the PvP aspects too.

Well yes, if you don't care for PvP, advocating PvE group/solo pretty much required you to reference PvP, if only to explain what it's not... You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, the honey of PvE is no PvP, I'm yet to find the honey of open play.

As for the Open advocates, they also think about:

• Playing with other people, because it's an online game, and that's what online games are about. Telling someone "I don't want to play with you" is quite possibly the most insulting thing you can do in an online game, even worse than griefing.
• The impossibility of merging solo activities with group activities, because there's something about a "solo" activity in an "online game" not being right in the first place.
• Creating a strong community that cares for its members, and can thus actively fight griefing and make the game better for everyone. As it stands, solo and group players live in fear of being griefed and ruin their online experience by their avoidance of others, and open players are in an empty world that most people avoid, and that in time will turn into a griefing/ganking mode because there is no sense of community. A weak community succumbs to the worst extremes, and that's something no one wants; a community being split has never, ever been beneficial to any game.
• Learning from 30 years of multiplayer games, that taught us a community needs a healthy balance of all roles, and that includes PvP. Don't think everyone that wants to play in open wants to actually participate in PvP activities, most simply realize this balance is needed, and as such, there are plenty PvE enthusiasts who want PvPers around them. This strong debate is enough to have us gather around here, why couldn't it be so in-game?
• How Elite: Dangerous isn't such a special snowflake that will somehow achieve what other games failed to do by doing the exact same thing that led to this failure. A man in a video game once told me this is insanity.

Right now, it seems many just look at Open play from a distance, waiting for it to become bad, only to say "told you so!", rather than intervene and try to make it good. Just remember that if it's bad, you'll be party responsible for it. It could become a great mode for everyone, but it'll take some effort, from everyone.
But most anti-PvP zealots don't understand that a game subjects you to rules, nor that multiplayer comes with compromises, and they reject both simply because it doesn't put them in control. This breaks the entire nature of multiplayer and has far more negative aspect for the majority than any amount of griefing.

Last night I spend a few hours in Mobius, during that time I had several positive social interactions with passing commanders, at no point did either side feel the need to deploy hardpoints. The "but....social!" argument doesn't seem relevant, given the size of the main PvE group and the paranoia that seems to infest Open. I've spent more time in Open than Group, but I have NEVER had a response in Open, in fact people were as likely to change SC course to avoid a possible interdiction as simply ignore me. If that counts as "ruining my online experience", then I quite like the ruined version!

If you feel offended that I "don't want to play with you", please feel free to join Mobius, I'll quite happily play with you If they let me in, they'll let anybody in

So we're left with the guilt trip that by gathering into groups of like minded individuals we're going to bring doom upon us all. Now that's a positive argument if ever I heard one!

Solo and group players not only put the whole community at risk, they're also the cause of their own fears. And then, they end up being worse than those they wish to avoid, refusing to play with them, and thinking someone can be held accountable for doing bad things in a video game. They do and think the exact opposite of what they should be doing, and turning what is a simple thing into an overly complex problem.

Victim blaming, I'm sorry, just no... I've been playing multiplayer games for many more years than I care to remember, if there's one thing that's been a constant it's the general unpleasantness of the CoD kiddies and the like (they've had several names, but they were there in Quake 1, their successors are here now). This is one of the few games that allows social play in what effectively is a "gentleman's club" and with our own house rules, and thank god for that.

The threads over the last day or so have convinced me that if group play was removed as an option, I'd just play something else.

 

[Tyr07]

.... so, players who want to be able to play in solo and private groups are going to be the downfall of the game and players who use the "I can do it so I will do it" play-style justification are in no way accountable for discouraging less pugnacious players from playing in open?



NPCs cannot take satisfaction. NPCs do not pass over more suitable targets just to target a player.

So in other words, a player might enjoy it, and that makes you angry, so it shouldn't happen.

 

[rumtruffle]

i certainly do not want my game completely ruined by forced open play.

it was bad enough having offline scrapped. open play only would be the final straw for me

 

[Tyr07]

The threads over the last day or so have convinced me that if group play was removed as an option, I'd just play something else.

What if we just balanced it by setting your solo and group play commander as separate from open play? That way the people who are willing to put up with pvp are on the same fairness / advantage / disadvantage as anyone else in open mode, so you can't solo upgrade then open wreck face? Ironically I get the most protest at suggesting ways to reduce the overkill pvp potential, by suggestion people who want to pvp have to advance with other people who want to pvp.

 

[Joe Spivey]

Yup.

Getting together in a trade convoy should be encouraged and rewarded. it also lends to larger battles/ wolf pack tactics and pirate gangs working togeather

Soooo let me see if I have this right. Traders should get together in groups so that pirates can get together in groups and attack them and kill them and rob them... I don't see what is in it for the traders.

 

[FS3DPete]

So in other words, a player might enjoy it, and that makes you angry, so it shouldn't happen.

That's not what he meant, and I think you know it.

 

[Kramster]

I have played many MMO style games over the last 15 years or so and my impression is that open, pvp always on, games don't do too well compared to pve games with optional pvp.
.
I like a bit of pvp sometimes but not all the time, sometimes I just want to kick back and say sod the world...
.
Some games provide pvp servers which often have lower populations
Some games quickly add severe consequences to being an aggressor
Some allow self flagging for pvp and to be honest you rarely see anyone flagging themselves
Some offer optional pvp zones or battlegrounds
.
The only types of game that seem to do well are games where pvp has real consequences or where pvp is optional.
.
Separating the two modes will just probably kill open play if the past is anything to go by.

 

[Dietger]

If players playing in solo mode are killing potential then I would therefore assume that they are in the majority to have such a damaging effect.
If they are the majority then it would be a more logical assumption that the gameplay type that is out of sync is open play and would be a more likely candidate for removal (note: I in no way advocate this option)
.
As others have said, the only advantage solo gives is the advantage of not having another players gameplay choices potentially ruining my desired game experience.
.
If they ever did separate the saves then I would probably choose to stay solo/group and no one in mp would benefit as I would no longer spend around 50% of my time in open play.

Not a judge.

A state.

 

[FS3DPete]

i certainly do not want my game completely ruined by forced open play.

it was bad enough having offline scrapped. open play only would be the final straw for me

I agree. I tried DOTA, Star Trek Online and Blade Symphony once... Once.

I often want to play on my own without having to keep to other people's timetables. Gaming is a recreational activity and is something I do when I have time. I don't want to plan it, like I have to plan everything else in my life.

 

[murraypaul]

So you're saying you're going to trade always in solo mode, to be safe as I commenting about those players specifically?

It isn't so much about being safe, as in preserving credits/ships/cargo, as it is about preserving enjoyment.
I'm highly unlikely to meet another player whether in solo or open.
Going into open introduces more network issues than staying in solo.
Going into open introduces a 0.1% (made up figure) chance of running into a complete jerk who just wants to ruin other people's fun.
Meeting people like that, whether in real life or in a game, is a downer. Even if I got away and it cost me nothing, it is depressing in the same way as walking past a building where someone has smashed in all the windows for no reason other than 'for the lulz'. It is a game, it is meant to be fun. I can't avoid jerks in real life, but I can easily do so in the game, so why wouldn't I?

Okay, enlighten me then, I'm serious, not being sarcastic. If you fall into that category, why would you enter into open mode? I notice you didn't post as to why. So if right now, you don't, because you don't have a reason to, but you're saying if you did, you wouldn't it for that reason, then at the moment, you're just someone who doesn't go into open mode, which no offense, makes your information invalid.

With the game as it is, I don't think there is any reason for me to enter Open mode. But the game as it is, is clearly unfinished.
If there were actual interesting interaction between players, cooperative behaviour, shared missions, that sort of thing, I might be tempted.
It might then have some advantages to balance its disadvantages.
I don't want to be shut out of any chance of playing a future interesting multi-player mode just because of my decisions about the current state of it.
If there were no network implications, I would play private group (Mobius) instead of solo.

You're right tho, I haven't seen someone say "I am angry at the thought of not being able to build up in solo then play on open" however it can be derived over their protest over the idea of solo mode and open mode having separate progression.

With respect, that isn't what you said.
You said: "A lot of angry people at the thought over not being able to build up in solo play then gank on open."

"Play on open" and "gank on open" are not the same thing.

 

[Gibbonici]

Yup.

Getting together in a trade convoy should be encouraged and rewarded. it also lends to larger battles/ wolf pack tactics and pirate gangs working togeather

Apart from the lack of the wings feature (the elephant in the room in these arguments), there's nothing stopping traders from doing that if that's the kind of gameplay they want. If they don't want that kind of gameplay they'd just stay in the solo/private group mode even if it was locked down. No net difference.

 

[Graywolfe]

The only way you're going to entice traders not to play in solo mode and risk being ganked is to increase the reward vs risk for trading in open by much larger profit margins for open play.

I see this sort of thing mentioned lots in these discussions, and it makes me wonder whether we're even playing the same game...

There are plenty of people currently trading in Open. At the moment I'm one of them (having a blast space trucking in the Rift).

I've been playing exclusively in Open since the start of Premium Beta and in that time I've been fired on by players a grand total of four times outside of combat zones. The vast majority of players are having fun doing things other than shooting each other.

Open is not the huge gankfest that some people think it is, or in some cases want it to be.

 

[Flying Penguin]

That's mostly fair, although the fact that people get upset if it is a player vs an npc is bad. I wish the game just masked all players to look like NPC's and no one would be ever upset.

I'd be in favour of universal player masking, would make Open far more rational imho. I'm not totally averse to PvP (despite my posts ), but it has to make lore/world sense. If I'm the biggest juciest target going, a shieldless hauler full of gold, I'm expecting to get more than my fair share of heat. It's rational pirate behaviour to pick your targets based on risk/reward (although the risks for pirates are far too low), what I don't *personally* appreciate is players beelining to players simply because they have a hollow dot on the scanner, dropping out of SC without a word and then going on a killing spree, only to fly to the nearest station and pay off their trivial bounty. If someone came to your space station to pay off a murder bounty every few days, that might get a *little* suspicious, no?

But I also don't think it's fair if there are new players playing in open mode, taking the risks that come with it in their cobra or whatever, and you finally come out of solo mode with an anaconda or something, turf the living crap out of the little guy. Do all players need to change their play style so they can enjoy the game fairly?

That doesn't seem right. People have been jumping up and down over their right to not have 'their' play style changed. What about other people then?

Then let them know they have options... It's fair if everyone has the same opportunity. Just because you choose not to take opportunities does not make it unfair for other people to do so.

 

[Tyr07]

That's not what he meant, and I think you know it.

No I think that's exactly what he ment. Strictly that a player will enjoy killing another player, and that is exactly where the problem is. Your ego isn't bruised when an NPC does it, no one knows, not a big deal, but if another person does it, your ego is blemished and that is the bottom line where I think all of the problems relating to this comes from.

People want to protect their egos and only PVP if they have the clear advantage.

 

[Flying Penguin]

What if we just balanced it by setting your solo and group play commander as separate from open play? That way the people who are willing to put up with pvp are on the same fairness / advantage / disadvantage as anyone else in open mode, so you can't solo upgrade then open wreck face? Ironically I get the most protest at suggesting ways to reduce the overkill pvp potential, by suggestion people who want to pvp have to advance with other people who want to pvp.

There is no way I'm grinding two separate characters just to negate some minor perceived advantage I may or may not have. I currently play all 3 modes, in that scenario I'd drop Open in a heartbeat.

 

[Northius]

I too agree. Base on the majority of the comments the most of responders have no idea what they're talking about. It's not about PVP vs PVE, it's about the overlapping concept of open world and solo mode. The simplest solution in my opinion would be to keep two separate credit balances for each instance.

If Eve was FPS. Id still be playing Eve.

The simplest solution would be to have 1 button... 'PLAY'
You can still have groups to play with your friends in the open arena, you can still setup in a quiet corner in one of the 400 billion stars and play alone.