Game loses something by not forcing Open play

[Fireball]

You just did, right there.

Nope, I was trying to say that that PvP actually rarely happens.

Only you, and maybe a couple of other PvP affected guys seem to see that so. Those who probably never actually played any reasonable time in Open and cower in their corner, afraid of getting violated by the big bad internet.

I don't join Open for PvP, I join it for any type of interaction - if it has to be a fight, it will be one, but not for PvP only.

 

[Fireball]

Maybe it just comes from my history of playing games like DayZ... I'm used to starting from scratch.

Except you do NOT start from scratch in ED, when you die. It makes no difference to you (except your ego maybe) if you lose against AI or a player.

 

[TheEponymousBob]

And if your target operates within a certain area and you have been stalking them, the odds of success go up dramatically. I have a comprehensive pedigree of experience with various groups in various online games. I also have a thorough understanding of sociological phenomena within those environments. I've learned to recognize where a mechanic can be exploited. Make no mistake, this mechanic can and will be used to grief players in this and a variety of other ways.

No, you have (in your opinion) a "comprehensive pedigree" of other games. E: D is not one of those games. This "mechanic" would not work here.

Try to understand. Your fears are not being dismissed because others aren't as brilliant or experienced as you; they are being dismissed because you do not seem to understand how E: D works. Mode switching isn't just some concept they tacked on to a game otherwise just a clone of every other online game out there; the game was designed with this in mind, such that it does not lead to the kind of situations you are imagining.

You're new here. It's understandable that you have quite figured the game out yet. But you might want to start listening to some of the people who have been playing since these fears were first aired and thoroughly debunked.

 

[Jockey79]

Except you do NOT start from scratch in ED, when you die. It makes no difference to you (except your ego maybe) if you lose against AI or a player.

Wrong, if you happen to fall short on your insurance due to not paying attention or trying to squeeze extra profits for a better ship - then you do lose everything as you're back to the stock sidewinder and whatever little credits you didn't get stuffed in your hold.

Now, I personally keep an eye on my insurance cost (for this very reason), but every now and then something overly tempting comes along and it's human nature to push our luck.
Getting killed by an NPC under that situation is bad enough but if it turns out to be a human who takes the time to message some sort of childish gloating rubbish afterwards, you feel some what less inclined to play ED ever again, in part due to your own greed but more so because the player who got you just had to be a d**k about it (and I know only a few PvPers behave like that, but that is one of the things that puts PvE people off the open server to start with).

 

[StayFrosty]

Because if it is a choice of "only ever solo" and "only ever open" (everyone seems to ignore group play), then many of us will choose "only ever solo".
So people who might have popped their toes in the water never will, and the open population will be lower, not higher.

So you're saying that no online-only game can possibly have a balanced community, because if PvE players don't have an option for solo play, they won't play it? That's some pretty wild theory I'd love to see backed with some numbers, or previous examples, but fortunately I witnessed neither.

I do have plenty examples of online-only games with both PvE and PvP that have/had a proper balance of both PvE and PvP players, and the only thing that ever broke this balance was splitting them in different groups or activities. That's how most online games work, and they work quite well. Arguably, people who don't like multiplayer at all, the "many of us", won't play it, but as you can see, they're not part of the group whose presence is necessary for a community, and it's the "I want to play multiplayer games but not with griefers" group that is needed.

And I'd question why they're even interested in a game that, again, revolves mostly around combat, and where PvP and PvE are essentially the same thing. It seems more and more that people are quite simply stuck on the idea that they don't like PvP, and even when caught redhanded enjoying it, they still deny it.

We are playing video games. We don't have to play them the way you want for it to count.

You kinda have to when it's a multiplayer game. You can't show up in the middle of a game and expect to make your own rules: either you play by the same rules as everyone else or you don't. Elite: Dangerous presents us with a case where people can do whatever they want within a multiplayer environement, and it is expected that if their numbers are high enough, they'll unbalance the community and lead it to the worst extremes.

It can't be that hard to realize that such a concept goes against the very idea of a multiplayer game, and things aren't a certain way because no one tried something else, but because other things just don't work. And that structure just doesn't work for the majority of playstyles.

 

[StayFrosty]

In fairness, this is the (n+1)th thread on the matter, and both I and others have also given thorough explanations n times already. But to reiterate: I cannot commit my main commander to open-only play (for health reasons). So I either spend most of my time contributing to a healthy open ecosystem (with occasional solo days), or I remain banished to solo play while open becomes home for only those who are up for player interaction 24x7.

You haven't quite replied to my question: how is being able to play however you want going to make open play any better? How is the ability to avoid problems going to help with dealing with them? What kind of mechanism is going to prevent open play from turning into a full-on PvP mode? Why do you still want to play solo when open play is a complete desert?

Didn't say "video games". Said open play. Telling a solo player that if he/she wants to try open play, they have to start again from scratch, is not the ideal way to bring new players into the fold.

Restricting which commanders are allowed into open play is a suboptimal strategy for seeing more commanders in open play.

I think you missed the point: you're acting like trying it would require huge efforts. It's a video game, people don't need to be "encouraged", they have to do it on their own, and they can't possibly expect others to make actual efforts so the can have the courage to click on a damn button.

If people don't enjoy multiplayer, I'm wondering how they can enjoy Elite: Dangerous in solo. What kind of valid reason do they have to not enjoy seeing a couple NPCs replaced with players? How can they justify that fighting the exact same ships with the exact same equipment doing the exact same things is fundamentally different whether it's piloted by a human or an AI? How can they still act like open play is such a bad place when all complaints are grossly exaggerated and that everyone knows that? And even if they find worthy reasons for all that, how are they even valid when people in open play themselves complain that THEY RARELY EVER SEE ANYONE?

The amount of contradiction behind those words blows my mind, and the justifications for solo and group play all hinge on the possibility of a rare event that's mostly exaggerated and based on wrong assumptions: quite a radical solution for a problem so negligible I have trouble even defining it.

 

[TheEponymousBob]

So you're saying that no online-only game can possibly have a balanced community, because if PvE players don't have an option for solo play, they won't play it?

No, he said nothing of the sort.

 

[Jockey79]

So you're saying that no online-only game can possibly have a balanced community, because if PvE players don't have an option for solo play, they won't play it? That's some pretty wild theory I'd love to see backed with some numbers, or previous examples, but fortunately I witnessed neither.

Q) Can you solo quest in WoW?
A) Yes

Q) Can you solo play in Firefall?
A) Yes (all the levelling instance mission can be done solo as well as the main game)

Q) Can you solo play in Star Trek Online?
A) Yes (it is another instanced game, you basically have to solo unless someone happens to be on the same mission or wants to join you)

Q) Can you solo play in EVE Online?
A) Yes (though it makes the game harder, people still do it)

Q) Can this list go on and on?
A) Yes, as all most all Online / MMO style games are made so people can solo all they like while in a multiplayer world.

You kinda have to when it's a multiplayer game. You can't show up in the middle of a game and expect to make your own rules: either you play by the same rules as everyone else or you don't.

1) I don't have to do anything I don't want to - despite how much you protest.
2) This is a remake of a *Single player* game with multi being added on as a bonus feature.
3) Under the current system, we are playing by the same rules - if you don't want to make use of solo, that is *YOU* limiting yourself, not us

It can't be that hard to realize that such a concept goes against the very idea of a multiplayer game, and things aren't a certain way because no one tried something else, but because other things just don't work. And that structure just doesn't work for the majority of playstyles.

See above ^^ as for your "concept" of "multiplayer game" I will repeat, this is a remake of an old *Single player* game where you can co op with your friends or battle with them if you wish (players choice).

All you are asking for is for everyone to be locked in to your game world for your enjoyment.

 

[Joe Spivey]

So you're saying that no online-only game can possibly have a balanced community, because if PvE players don't have an option for solo play, they won't play it? That's some pretty wild theory I'd love to see backed with some numbers, or previous examples, but fortunately I witnessed neither.

I do have plenty examples of online-only games with both PvE and PvP that have/had a proper balance of both PvE and PvP players, and the only thing that ever broke this balance was splitting them in different groups or activities. That's how most online games work, and they work quite well. Arguably, people who don't like multiplayer at all, the "many of us", won't play it, but as you can see, they're not part of the group whose presence is necessary for a community, and it's the "I want to play multiplayer games but not with griefers" group that is needed.

And I'd question why they're even interested in a game that, again, revolves mostly around combat, and where PvP and PvE are essentially the same thing. It seems more and more that people are quite simply stuck on the idea that they don't like PvP, and even when caught redhanded enjoying it, they still deny it.

Erm, no he was actually replying to YOU saying THIS: "As it stands, Open play is likely to turn into a PvP mode, even though few really want that, and it's the kind of thing that could have me consider playing solo, despite championing open play. And the likelihood of that happening is far greater if players can't switch between solo and open. Please explain how. I've already given my thorough explanation on this subject." But besides that, Once again you have said that "...PvP and PvE are essentially the same thing" and once again you haven't explained how you have come to this rather bizzare conclusion.

You kinda have to when it's a multiplayer game. You can't show up in the middle of a game and expect to make your own rules: either you play by the same rules as everyone else or you don't. Elite: Dangerous presents us with a case where people can do whatever they want within a multiplayer environement, and it is expected that if their numbers are high enough, they'll unbalance the community and lead it to the worst extremes.

It can't be that hard to realize that such a concept goes against the very idea of a multiplayer game, and things aren't a certain way because no one tried something else, but because other things just don't work. And that structure just doesn't work for the majority of playstyles.

Poppycock. ED is designed so that you CAN play the way you want! LMAO it is YOU who want to: "...show up in the middle of a game and expect to make your own rules:" So it is actually YOU who has to either play by the same rules as everyone else or you don't. The Solo/Group/Open rules have been in place since conception.

 

[Jockey79]

Erm, no he was actually replying to YOU saying THIS: "As it stands, Open play is likely to turn into a PvP mode, even though few really want that, and it's the kind of thing that could have me consider playing solo, despite championing open play. And the likelihood of that happening is far greater if players can't switch between solo and open. Please explain how. I've already given my thorough explanation on this subject." But besides that, Once again you have said that "...PvP and PvE are essentially the same thing" and once again you haven't explained how you have come to this rather bizzare conclusion.



Poppycock. ED is designed so that you CAN play the way you want! LMAO it is YOU who want to: "...show up in the middle of a game and expect to make your own rules:" So it is actually YOU who has to either play by the same rules as everyone else or you don't. The Solo/Group/Open rules have been in place since conception.

Morning Joe

What are we on now? fifth time around in this thread now? or sixth? I've lost count around page 48.

Though Frosty has been here for some time, so got to be what, third or fourth time around for them? Stubborn little ice flake aint they? lol

 

[TrueFranco]

Always the same comanders defending this stupid idea of mode switch (cheat mode)

 

[Robert Maynard]

Arguably, people who don't like multiplayer at all, the "many of us", won't play it, but as you can see, they're not part of the group whose presence is necessary for a community, and it's the "I want to play multiplayer games but not with griefers" group that is needed.

If the "I want to play multiplayer games but not with griefers" group of players is needed in open to satisfy your sense of community then their participation in open needs to be earned. If they are to be encouraged to play in a group that almost certainly contains players that they definitely wish to avoid then some form of quid pro quo is required from the more combative players, otherwise they way I see your proposal going is to simply add unwilling targets for the subset of pro-PvP players that require them to be so.

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

Always the same comanders defending this stupid idea of mode switch (cheat mode)

.... and the same ones pushing a herding agenda without proving in any way that group switching is harmful to the game.

 

[Joe Spivey]

Morning Joe

What are we on now? fifth time around in this thread now? or sixth? I've lost count around page 48.

Though Frosty has been here for some time, so got to be what, third or fourth time around for them? Stubborn little ice flake aint they? lol

Morning Yes, must be something like that. Still, it passes the time while I write and hopefully we can educate a few along the way. After all, in debate, it is not the opponent we have to convince... it is the audience. Fortunately this particular subject is so easy to debate because the counter arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

If people don't enjoy multiplayer, I'm wondering how they can enjoy Elite: Dangerous in solo.

What kind of valid reason do they have to not enjoy seeing a couple NPCs replaced with players?

How can they justify that fighting the exact same ships with the exact same equipment doing the exact same things is fundamentally different whether it's piloted by a human or an AI?

1) But some of us do. Enjoying it immensely. Sorry you can't understand that.

2) Because some people are jerks. The AI is programmed to be a jerk, it has an excuse. And the AI is a lot easier to escape from.

3) Not exactly the same equipment. At the start, sure, pirates will have lesser equipment, while the NPCs will come with their random selections based on rank (including the amusing "no shield" configuration - only for the hardcore AI pilot), but later, those human pirates with be flying around in their fully kitted out ships, ganking everyone they come across, because they have nothing else to do except grief people.*

* = yes, i'm cynical, i'm sure there will be a number of pirate players who are OOCly courteous and give players a chance ICly and only attack challenging targets, but i suspect they will be in the minority.

At the end of the day, it comes down to trust. Trust that the human pirate will not gank someone who is just setting off in their sidewinder or desparately trying to save up enough money, get the cargo runs to get out of that Hauler and into a Cobra. If the pirate and player knew each other well, the Pirate would make contact, say Hi, how's it going, and by the way, would you be cool with some PvP, or will it spoil your day? Or perhaps you can just drop 1t of that cargo you have and we will call it quits. But this is the internet, and people will behave like jerks, just to get kicks.

In other words, trust the pirate players to not be jerks? Sorry, can't do that. Most of those advocating piracy seem to be saying it should be their right to take down people in haulers and eagles or whatever - because the game allows it. Right, and so the game allows me to never have to interact with such people. Thanks FD.

 

[TheEponymousBob]

You haven't quite replied to my question: how is being able to play however you want going to make open play any better?

Encouraging players sceptical of open to try it brings on greater diversity.

How is the ability to avoid problems going to help with dealing with them?

What problems?

What kind of mechanism is going to prevent open play from turning into a full-on PvP mode?

Mode-switching.

Why do you still want to play solo when open play is a complete desert?

Please refer to the reasons I have given numerously in this thread and before.

I think you missed the point: you're acting like trying it would require huge efforts. It's a video game, people don't need to be "encouraged", they have to do it on their own, and they can't possibly expect others to make actual efforts so the can have the courage to click on a damn button.

No, I'm afraid you're missing the point: it has nothing to do with courage.

If people don't enjoy multiplayer, I'm wondering how they can enjoy Elite: Dangerous in solo.

And that's where your problem is. We're not talking about people who don't enjoy multiplayer. If we were, there'd be no problem separating the modes entirely. We're talking about people who enjoy both multiplayer and solo.

The amount of contradiction behind those words blows my mind.

It's not any contradiction that is blowing your mind, it is that you've not grasped what we are asking for.

 

[hunvagy]

If the "I want to play multiplayer games but not with griefers" group of players is needed in open to satisfy your sense of community then their participation in open needs to be earned. If they are to be encouraged to play in a group that almost certainly contains players that they definitely wish to avoid then some form of quid pro quo is required from the more combative players, otherwise they way I see your proposal going is to simply add unwilling targets for the subset of pro-PvP players that require them to be so.

That's the thing though, isn't it? The advocates of one mode to rule them all know full well that the PvE group members, solo online players can play how they want and be happy without them, but not vice versa. Even though I have no idea why that is the case, unless they know for certain that open mode will be an empty shell (which by the way judging by quite a few replies is anything but true).

And honestly, labeling people who play solo cheaters, or any other derogatory term while banging your chest about "fairness" and "eazy mode" will not earn anyone any brownie points FOR the open mode.

If it'll achieve anything it'll make people already not very inclined to put up with individuals like that turn away and never look back. If that is the ultimate goal, this thread is succeeding though.

 

[Jockey79]

That's the thing though, isn't it? The advocates of one mode to rule them all know full well that the PvE group members, solo online players can play how they want and be happy without them, but not vice versa. Even though I have no idea why that is the case,

Let me stop you right there, I can answer that

Easy kills.

*Some* PvP players, only play for the sole purpose of finding easy targets (miners with no guns / haulers / type 6) and panic if someone shoots back at them.

 

[hunvagy]

Let me stop you right there, I can answer that

Easy kills.

*Some* PvP players, only play for the sole purpose of finding easy targets (miners with no guns / haulers / type 6) and panic if someone shoots back at them.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that is also a factor, but as a reason it's not helping the cause much. Assymetric encounters are the nature of the beast with Elite, be it player or NPC, you will eventually find yourself outgunned. Also the Type 6 can outfly an eagle/sidewinder, it's actually quite a dangerous little transport ship

Anyway what usually bothers me more in these threads is that people seem to be incapable of understanding that some people who actually like multiplayer games also like to have the CHOICE of who they are playing with. You are given that choice even in MMOs. You decide who you party with, which guild you join (if any), and it's even your choice to PUG and live with the consequences. So naturally for some people the forcing of this choice wouldn't sit well. Accept it, along with the high probablity, that the modes will not change.

 

[Ikari]

That's the thing though, isn't it? The advocates of one mode to rule them all know full well that the PvE group members, solo online players can play how they want and be happy without them, but not vice versa. Even though I have no idea why that is the case, unless they know for certain that open mode will be an empty shell (which by the way judging by quite a few replies is anything but true).

And honestly, labeling people who play solo cheaters, or any other derogatory term while banging your chest about "fairness" and "eazy mode" will not earn anyone any brownie points FOR the open mode.

If it'll achieve anything it'll make people already not very inclined to put up with individuals like that turn away and never look back. If that is the ultimate goal, this thread is succeeding though.

Good point and that's why I never grace open and never will I'd rather play in the PVE group with like minded people and that group is growing exponentially in response to people reading threads where they are called "care bears" "cheaters" or simply told they have to play victim or not play at all.

It's a shame really because even with "mode switching" a lot of people will now simply ignore open mode altogether in fact it would be nice if FD split the modes because I don't see why PVPers who don't explore or trade should benefit from our data in the galaxy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That's the thing though, isn't it? The advocates of one mode to rule them all know full well that the PvE group members, solo online players can play how they want and be happy without them, but not vice versa. Even though I have no idea why that is the case, unless they know for certain that open mode will be an empty shell (which by the way judging by quite a few replies is anything but true).

The prophecies of the impending downfall of the community in open in the event that PvE players play the way that they want to (and are perfectly entitled to, as evidenced by the group switching feature being included in the game) seem to be an attempt to sway the PvE group by making them fear an outcome that may well happen anyway. If the pro-PvP crowd make open sufficiently unpleasant, the more PvE inclined players will simply retire to private groups and let open fend for itself. As you quite rightly say, PvP players need other players to satisfy their chosen play-style - for PvE players this is not necessarily the case (as not all PvE players need co-operative play).