Game loses something by not forcing Open play

[murraypaul]

We're talking about a potentially sizeable part of a particular playstyle never playing the game here.

And if you force those people into open, many of them simply wouldn't play (or buy) the game in the first place. How does that help?
This is a 30 year anniversary remake of a genre-defining single-player game. That is what is drawing a potentially sizeable portion of the playerbase.
I played the original. That nostalgia is a large part of the draw for the game.
I have never played EVE, I did look into it, and immediately knew that I had no interest whatsoever in playing it.
I do play a couple of MMORPGs, ones that cater to solo play and no enforced PvP.

 

[Thornton]

I'm just here for page 69

 

[murraypaul]

Try to come up with a better analogy, because that would be more like trying to play soccer in a world where no one wants to be the goal keeper.

Here there is a robot goalkeeper who can stand in for a human one, so everyone else gets to play outfield.

 

[Jockey79]

I'm just here for page 69

LMAO

Have some rep

 

[Kuro]

To be fair, some people don't have the internet to play open play well, and some people like myself have pretty meh internet and I'd like to be able to play ED and stream <entirely appropriate piano playing cat videos> simultaneously

 

[CMDR i Tetsuo]

Some people just like their gaming time to be solitary, I don't see any point in forcing them into something they don't want especially when a game mode is there to support their preference. Attacking their stance won't make them suddenly change their minds, in fact it will probably reinforce them.
-
I am really looking forward to Open play because Human players are able to think outside the box whilst AI run on rules and so the chance of something totally unexpected happening in Open is much higher. I think once these sort of moments start happening and CMDRs post about them on the forum then some solo players may have their interest piqued and come over to the open side, I hope so as it's going to be great fun but I certainly wouldn't want to force others to do so.

 

[Jockey79]

We're talking about a potentially sizeable part of a particular playstyle never playing the game here.

Yes, they are playing the game *they paid for* and *they want* - not the game you insist they play.

You have been told time and time again, this is a remake of an old Solo game, so that is how some view it - you're never going to change their minds.

You've been told why people who want multiplayer wont use open play and only do private groups - it's not that you don't get it, because you've shown you do understand. You just keep bringing up your issue of wanting forced open play so you've waited a few pages and come back again to start your argument again. (anyone else can go back 10ish pages and check for themselves)

 

[Zenicetus]

As long as people discuss this in 65 page threads over and over there is a problem, if you agree with it or not.

If there is a problem, it's that the group who would like this to be "EvE with joysticks" hasn't finished going through the 5 Stages of Grief process (Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance). They're still stuck at #3, the Bargaining stage.


The final Acceptance stage is where they can decide if they can still have fun with the game, or if there is something else they would enjoy playing more.

 

[TheEponymousBob]

The player initiated bounties are only able to be set by players on the attacker after they have been attacked / destroyed by another player. Only other players would be able to cash in the bounties, therefore I would expect that this implies that the player gaining the bounty would be restricted to open until such time as the bounty had been claimed. To pay it off (after e.g. a week [from the DDA]) it would cost 10x (again for example from the DDA) the amount of the bounty set.

Ah, my mistake; I wasn't aware that was a DDA feature; thought previous poster was talking about an ad hoc player agreement. But yes, if the DDA version ever does get implemented, I think it's fair to assume it will have the same open/solo safeguards.

 

[Trebor Daehdoow]

The essence of this issue is that people differ in their desire to shoot other people in the face, and their tolerance of people shooting them in the face. As things currently stand, for those people who are either not interested in, or not particularly good at, shooting people in the face, there is little or no benefit to playing in Open mode, other than possible social interaction -- which would mostly be "Ha ha, I just shot you in the face."

Those players who want to be predators should keep in mind that unless there are significant risk-reward benefits for the prey, they'll just opt not to play Open -- and if you get your way and they are forced to play in Open, they'll either not play or migrate as soon as they can to an area of space where they are effectively in Solo play. Either way, after an initial feeding frenzy, you'll be reduced to killing other predators, of which there is a limited supply.

Much better for the long-term health and development of the game is making sure that there are good economic reasons why non-predators will not only choose to play in Open, but choose to stay in populated space.

 

[Hootmon]

The essence of this issue is that people differ in their desire to shoot other people in the face, and their tolerance of people shooting them in the face. As things currently stand, for those people who are either not interested in, or not particularly good at, shooting people in the face, there is little or no benefit to playing in Open mode, other than possible social interaction -- which would mostly be "Ha ha, I just shot you in the face."

Have some Rep in your face.

 

[Jorlin]

Because this thread runs in circles for about 60 pages now and it's now just about being heard:

I'm still against seperating modes and so far there was no argument that would make me change my mind

Edit: and i think i'll just cut and paste this every few pages since noone brings something new into it anyway.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

To be fair, some people don't have the internet to play open play well, and some people like myself have pretty meh internet and I'd like to be able to play ED and stream <entirely appropriate piano playing cat videos> simultaneously

Like this one?

[video=youtube;J---aiyznGQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J---aiyznGQ[/video]

 

[Toxic_Waster]

If there is a problem, it's that the group who would like this to be "EvE with joysticks" hasn't finished going through the 5 Stages of Grief process (Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance). They're still stuck at #3, the Bargaining stage.


The final Acceptance stage is where they can decide if they can still have fun with the game, or if there is something else they would enjoy playing more.

If by griefing you mean engaging in combat the other player then I can't agree with you here. So far Elite is more PVP oriented than EVE. I can engage any player at any spot without much of consequences in Elite. So may be your acceptance formula is more applicable to carebears who always play solo anyways, but want to mess up the open world mode.

 

[Antmax]

Some people need to realise that in this world, if you generalize there are two polar personality types. Introverts and extroverts who interact with other people completely differently.

Extroverts are energized by socializing with strangers and having new experiences, putting themselves in danger, being loud and participating in small talk etc. They get energy from interacting in groups and it gives them a buz and makes them feel good.

Introverts like more intimate company without crowds, they don't like taking big risks and prefer to think things through and analyse stuff. They also find social interaction tiring and need time by themselves to recharge. They find a lot of social interaction enjoyable but tiring and need time alone to contemplate and recharge their energy. They also don't like small talk and seem quiet and not very sociable to extrovert personality types.

This is part of what we have here. I fit in the introvert personality type and though I like watching people go about their business. I'm not really into taking risks that aren't calculated and I don't care for small talk so I tend to not play MP games much. I'm not likely to hail someone I don't know just to say a few polite words, especially when I don't know them and they might be annoying or downright abusive. It all seems trivial and a waste of energy.

These two personality traits can get along, but it's easy to see how they might clash in a game like this one and is probably a part of the division in this thread.

The other thing is that some people like single player games and have no interest in MP. Elite has traditionally been a single player game, and the current user base is mostly made up of fans of the franchise and are happy to play it as though it were a single player game.

I myself played Elite with my friends in the 80's. We had CB radios in our bedrooms and just played and chatted at night as though we were playing in seperate parts of the same galaxy. Just like you can do here in ED. It's cool that you can actually meet up and play in the same locale now (though it can be problematic). But ultimately I'd rather just play with people I know, not too bothered about complete strangers. I'm more likely to interact with someone I recognise from the forums. But complete strangers, probably not.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

If by griefing you mean engaging in combat the other player then I can't agree with you here. So far Elite is more PVP oriented than EVE. I can engage any player at any spot without much of consequences in Elite. So may be your acceptance formula is more applicable to carebears who always play solo anyways, but want to mess up the open world mode.

Resorting to name calling is a sign of failing to put your point across. Just ask Gerry Adams. You lose.

Elite is designed so that there is far more universe, far more NPCs, than in any game so far. If you had listened to any of David Braben in the dev diaries, then you would know that his vision for Open was one of coop, not PVP. That's not to say there is no room for Bounty Hunting and Pirating, but these are two different things from hunting PCs for kicks. In fact, the whole game engine is designed to punish those who "murder" other players.

Your point is not well made sir.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

Resorting to name calling is a sign of failing to put your point across. Just ask Gerry Adams. You lose.

Elite is designed so that there is far more universe, far more NPCs, than in any game so far. If you had listened to any of David Braben in the dev diaries, then you would know that his vision for Open was one of coop, not PVP. That's not to say there is no room for Bounty Hunting and Pirating, but these are two different things from hunting PCs for kicks. In fact, the whole game engine is designed to punish those who "murder" other players.

Your point is not well made sir.

<snip>There is the conversation about carebears vs griefers. While it's perfectly fine for you to call someone griefer it's "the name calling" when another term is applied on you. You're biased to the bones. I'd urge you to grow some skin and stick to the thread subject.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Please don't bullsheet the bullsheetter. There is the conversation about carebears vs griefers. While it's perfectly fine for you to call someone griefer it's "the name calling" when another term is applied on you. You're biased to the bones. I'd urge you to grow some skin and stick to the thread subject.

I may be biased, but you still didn't address the issue. The design of this game is clearly NOT PvP. I put that to you with my evidence. Prove that's not the case. The Open world is meant not for people who want to engage other human players, but was designed for players to co-op. Prove me wrong and send me the quotes from DB and the dev team to say it's not so, it is actually your vision? This is the thread subject, or you would not have talked about it yourself?

 

[Leopard]

I may be biased, but you still didn't address the issue. The design of this game is clearly NOT PvP. I put that to you with my evidence. Prove that's not the case. The Open world is meant not for people who want to engage other human players, but was designed for players to co-op. Prove me wrong and send me the quotes from DB and the dev team to say it's not so, it is actually your vision? This is the thread subject, or you would not have talked about it yourself?

Who needs quotes? If the game wasn't designed to include PvP there would be no option for it in the game, nor would there be a whole system of mechanics and such constructed to facilitate it. Fairly obvious if you relax slightly and consider the facts.

 

[Zenicetus]

If by griefing you mean engaging in combat the other player then I can't agree with you here. So far Elite is more PVP oriented than EVE. I can engage any player at any spot without much of consequences in Elite. So may be your acceptance formula is more applicable to carebears who always play solo anyways, but want to mess up the open world mode.

No, that was a reference to the Kübler-Ross model of the psychological grief process, not the way "grief" is used in MMO's. But extra points for using it to throw in a "Carebear" reply.