Game loses something by not forcing Open play

[CMDR Sheehy]

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.

Ah. I was waiting for that one. Sorry!

Knives can kill people. Fact. Should we all take up knives and start killing people because we 'can' do that with knives? No. Knives were designed to slice meat. I therefore suggest we all sit down and have dinner and pleasant conversation.



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

*** SMILE *** Gosh!

 

[Toxic_Waster]

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?

You're trying to drag me into the discussion I didn't sign up for. And now I have to prove something to you. My original point was why people who are not interested in playing the open world (as they claimed) are desperately trying to keep it handicapped? Is this some sort of the revenge crusade?

 

[Leopard]

Ah. I was waiting for that one. Sorry!

Knives can kill people. Fact. Should we all take up knives and start killing people because we 'can' do that with knives? No. Knives were designed to slice meat. I therefore suggest we all sit down and have dinner and pleasant conversation.

The absurdity of this analogy defies belief. It is obvious Frontier intends for PvP to be a significant component of this game. You may not like it, but there it is.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

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.

I wonder if a single incident of griefing was ever recorded in ED....

 

[Traceracing]

If you want to play alone you have 400 Billion stars to hide in, if you want to play pew pew you can congregate in wherever the action is. None of this Solo, Group, Open now splitting the player base.

Problem is (and I've been following this thread for a few days and read everything)... I'm one of the players "hiding in 400 billion stars", peacefully mining in my Lakon when another CMDR comes in with a Cobra armed to the teeth and attacks / destroys me for no reason. No warning, no nothing...

I have no objection to PvP per se (my other game is WoT which is totally PvP) however it needs to be limited to consensual PvP. If I go to a warzone or enter an anarchy system then sure, it's warranted. However when I have 2 mining lasers at my disposal and in a remote area in safe system then it's different.

I currently play open as there is a wipe coming so anything I achieve now will be wiped but will be playing solo / group come 16th.

 

[TheEponymousBob]

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.

FWIW, there was a dev post a while back (one of the Mikes?) explicitly stating a strong dislike for the CB term, and redacting it from several threads. But you're right; "griefer" is nit much better (though I reckon the verb form is probably kosher, if used sparingly and objectively).

 

[Zenicetus]

I wonder if a single incident of griefing was ever recorded in ED....

Did you follow the link I posted to the Kubler Ross model?

My use of the term "grief" predates any MMO, and I was talking about how some players are stuck in the "Bargaining" stage of disappointment over the fact that this isn't EvE with joysticks. They haven't reached the Acceptance stage yet, i.e. realizing that the game design won't change. It was an observation, not an attempt to talk about "griefers."

Or do you think "grief" only has one definition?

 

[TheEponymousBob]

I wonder if a single incident of griefing was ever recorded in ED....

Yes, though some chose to call it "testing". (Bug meant that shooting inside stations wouldn't prompt station defences unless the station itself was hit; corpses were camped, and many who tried to defend themselves ended up hitting the station, and...)

 

[Viscount Hood]

I haven't read all 71 pages but i'll give you my 2 pence on Open play.
When I first learnt about solo and open play modes in ED I was horrified at the thought of it in a similar way to the OP is explaining. However once I was past the horror actually I realised it was a excellent way of getting around the griefing issue. I've played Eve extensively, I have a 2003 character which I played nearly constantly through to 2011. I've run a corp, an alliance, lived in null sec etc. The one thing that gives eve a bad taste is the griefing and the shear joy people go to, to make other players gaming experience a misery. From undocking with cargo (Jita) hauler or freighter, mining asteroid belts, doing missions with your pimped out Golem, you are at risk of being ganked. Sometimes you just want to go play the game without having your gameplay disturbed. ED has an answer to it and that is what solo play is for.

I understand what the OP is saying but now we have a choice. If you want that type of game where you have interaction with other players then you play open. Personally I play open all the time, but if I find my life is being made a misery by certain players I have the choice to play solo and still enjoy the game.

 

[Kicks]

I see no issues with solo-play.

Without it, those who do not wish to be prey to players, simply wouldn't have purchased/backed the game.

The number of people playing in Open Mode are the same number of people who'd be in Open Mode if there was No Solo-mode present. Note: I know some play solo due to connectivity issues, but these are things that can be ironed out - rather than design choices.

 

[Traceracing]

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?

I can't speak for everyone, but I've never been attacked as I leave a starport by an NPC... nor when lining up to land. I have by a human player...

 

[Toxic_Waster]

Terminology appears to be the sensitive subject here. I propose to call both parties as the "open world" and "solo" communities. Per my observation the "solo" community is represented much better than the "open world" on this forum and hence they're the ones who bargain more.

Why does it matter? I suspect the most vocal members do not speak for majority and may influence the future development in the way which mildly speaking is not optimal.

Going back to your "bargaining" formula I just wanted to point out that actually the "solo" community bargains the most. Hopefully "the acceptance" part will come sooner than later.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

There is so much in the DDA that is not in the game, is it even worth referring to at this point?

Only in so much that the DDA was the last known intention by FD of things that might appear in the game at some point. FD are free of course to use, abuse, ignore or embrace the DDA - it was afterall their threads with our muzings over it, but for want of anything better it's a good starting point.

I am fairly confident that if you find a feature yet to be implemented that you have a great idea for and present it in a manner similar to the DDA then FD will listen. (They do read the forums, do comment, and from time to time say "yes, that's brilliant"*)



*or words close to that

 

[Leopard]

I see no issues with solo-play.

Without it, those who do not wish to be prey to players, simply wouldn't have purchased/backed the game.

The number of people playing in Open Mode are the same number of people who'd be in Open Mode if there was No Solo-mode present. Note: I know some play solo due to connectivity issues, but these are things that can be ironed out - rather than design choices.

Really I still think many would have purchased it anyway and got on just fine with it. It is a fallacy to assume that just being in open mode makes one prey to others. Plenty of options exist that would enable one to both play in open and not fall prey.

I do agree on the connectivity issues... If someone has inadequate hardware for a game, that shouldn't prevent the game from being made. How many people with old computers cannot run games with new graphics optimally? Many. Still, the new games should continue to be made.

 

[Jorlin]

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

Just to express my opinion without adding to the discussion (like anyone else).

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Frontier intends for PvP to be a significant component of this game. You may not like it, but there it is.

(emphasis mine)

I am afraid that it's not obvious nor significant in the slightest. Had it been in the forefront of their minds the game would have been designed entirely differently.

(a) DBOBE during a Dev Diary remarked on the rarity of meeting another player and you wondering what they would do
(b) There are no natural choke points to force player interaction
(c) The odds of meeting someone else in space is remote due to the sheer size of the playing field
(d) They, from the outset, gave us various modes of play including solo-online thus avoiding the need to meet other players

I grant you that PvP will happen but (IMO) it wasn't the primary focus for ED.

 

[Archaegeo]

Wow, went on travel for two days and this thing still going.

I think the majority who have an issue do not have an issue with Solo play at all.

Instead is it an issue that Solo play affect Multiplay (Open) at all. If you want to do solo play, great, do so, learn to fly there, learn how to trade, etc. Then when you are ready step into Open play, or never do so.

But having Solo play actions affect Open play statistics and environment is kinda hokey to me.

 

[Jorlin]

(emphasis mine)

I am afraid that it's not obvious nor significant in the slightest. Had it been in the forefront of their minds the game would have been designed entirely differently.

(a) DBOBE during a Dev Diary remarked on the rarity of meeting another player and you wondering what they would do
(b) There are no natural choke points to force player interaction
(c) The odds of meeting someone else in space is remote due to the sheer size of the playing field
(d) They, from the outset, gave us various modes of play including solo-online thus avoiding the need to meet other players

I grant you that PvP will happen but (IMO) it wasn't the primary focus for ED.

exactly.. +rep

 

[Zenicetus]

Going back to your "bargaining" formula I just wanted to point out that actually the "solo" community bargains the most. Hopefully "the acceptance" part will come sooner than later.

I don't understand why those supporting a Solo community (as well as All Online) need to bargain for anything. The game they want is already here, and to all indications from the developers will not be changing.

FYI, the "bargaining" stage in the Kubler Ross model doesn't refer to anything achievable. It's just a stage to later Acceptance because there is nothing and nobody to bargain with, when it comes to dealing with the loss of someone or something you care about. I thought the 5 Stages of Grief model was fairly common knowledge, so apologies if you've never heard of it before.

 

[bitstorm]

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

Just to express my opinion without adding to the discussion (like anyone else).

I think with things like this you have to understand there are a range of players all wanting different things.

There's a notion of balance in that sometimes implementing a feature is fine because the costs in doing so are really quite minor, I think the solo play falls into this category. While I agree having everyone shared would be best I don't think the solo option causes much of an issue.

Then again time may tell. it might turn out that the ability to quick swap between solo and shared may prove to be heavily exploitable with non-obvious repercussions.