Game loses something by not forcing Open play

[Divinious]

The only dropped mode is offline all others remain intact & that is a good thing IMO, can you imagine these forums if they dropped another advertised feature at this point? not to mention the bad publicity besides they have already said it is going to stay (before anyone says where it's quoted multiple times earlier in this thread).

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I must have confused only online as being open play.. but whatever..the rest of my post still stands.

I am glad its only online... iff you play offline then you update stats when you log in it leaves game open to cheaters manipulating the saved data between logins...much harder if saved to cloud in ongoing manner and conflicting data would flag the player for investigation.

I'm making evil eyes at you Sharky. You nearly gave everyone a heart attack.

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

I admit I have not read this entire thread. But isnt it moot as we have been told there will only be open play in final release?
And with the size of the galaxy its not hard to travel many hundreds of light years in any direction so you will be extremely unlikely to run into another player anyway.
I just hope there are still npc's out there to build up combat skills on untill you return to populated space.

Second point... true enough...

Third point was addressed in Gamma. Some people reported sideys and eagly near Sag A* and that was totally not what was expected. So the likelihood that you will find an NPC 500ly from the Capital Systems is vastly reduced from previous.

 

[Toramo]

Hello,

Guys,
Open Play is actually the exact same thing as group or solo ....
Yes the first days after release maybe, there will be some "pirating" or PVP ...

Just move with you ship some thousands LY in any direction and you'll never seen a player anymore

Actually multiplayer into this game is nothing, there is nothing to do together, it is unexpected to find someone else (since everyone will run far away from the spawn systems).
So, Open play ? group play ? Solo ? they are all the same anyway.

Do you think they will improve the multiplayer with the "Wings" feature early 2015 ? I think not.
What if I want to play with a friend if I have to travel 4,000 LY before to join him ?
Spent / loss too much real time to join someone and do the exact same thing than solo... No thank you.

Multiplayer is completely useless in my opinion ... According to the size of the milkyway...

How-many players will there be online at the same time according to you ? 10 thousands ? 50 thousands max maybe?
We are on a 4 billions star system...

So please, explain me if there is something I don't know, or don't understand, but multiplayer is actually totally useless and will be more and more useless as long as players will travel LY ...


++

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

of course its not useless.

1) Elite is more about co-op play than PvP and anyone who has followed the game has known this imo, and if you choose to fly with friends you can fly with friends, its still multiplayer but you stay together because you choose to so with that in mind size does not matter......
2) in open I DO see players anyway
3) not everyone will want to go to the back of beyond, a great many people will probably stay around known busy areas
4) if the mission generator is worth its salt, it should be able to quietly keep humans together anyway and increase the chances of meeting people.

 

[Miklos Atreides]

I made many cases. The biggest case is that mode switching negates the territorial control and throws group battles out of the window. This will contribute to the major Elite issue of being boring repetitive and dull. One of the proposed compromised solutions was the ability to switch modes only while being docked.

I want this game to be good and my intents are purely altruistic while the pro choice supporters do not care much of the game and selfishly focus on their own experience.

So what you wouldlike to have in the game is terrorism.
You want to have battles (civil war) and power beyond andabove of legal system authorities. That's terrorism.
I am sorry for naming thechild that way but another name wouldn't be correct.

If otherwise Eliteis 'dull, repetitive and boring' I would recommend to move on for another gamethat fits to your needs.

 

[Ted Striker]

It's sweet how the anti-switching poster is so concerned with fairness. Because the only objection anyone can come up with is that it's not fair that someone can get credits and equipment in group or solo then go open. And pvp in an open world game is all about fairness, as any fule kno.

I would also argue that it's not fair that new players on the 16th will have significant disadvantages vs beta players, and a year from now any new players would have significant disadvantages vs players who were there at launch on the 16th, and it goes on and on. That's why games with non-consensual PvP place limits on who can be attacked, where they can be attacked etc. Maybe EVE doesn't have those limits but I've never played it and have no desire to, I just know that sort of gameplay does not appeal to me in the slightest. In War Thunder for instance you don't get low tier planes matched up against high tier planes (well according to the players you do but true balance in a game like that is impossible to achieve to everyone's satisfaction). In classic Everquest you had a PvP server with a 4-level limit and later on one with no level limit but hardcoded teams and no reward whatsoever for kills outside your level range. In Pirates Of The Burning Sea non-consensual PvP could only occur in "red bubbles" which by the way made it easy to harass people who didn't want to bother with PvP and the game has failed and lost almost all it's playerbase. The point is there's almost always limits to non-consensual PvP in successful multiplayer games.

But yeah why is it not fair that someone can attain a powerful ship solo and then bring it to multiplayer but it's perfectly fair that people who've been playing beta for weeks or months have a distinct advantage vs new players and can attack and harass them with impunity? That argument wouldn't matter if there was to be a complete wipe but there won't be. Oh I also want to say again that I think ED's true PvP potential lies in it's factions, not piracy. I don't know their plans for the factions but there could be some major wars and PvP battles centered around them. I hope there will be.

*edit* annoying to have to edit posts to add paragraphs even though you did add them

 

[Baleur]

"But the fact that solo and open are tied together means you can play in complete safety, get your uber ship, then jump into open."

Let me continue that sentence for you.
...and get their uber ship blown up by two scrubs because you only have combat experience against AI's.

I think thats fair risk. If they jump into open, they risk their ship. If they dont, they dont. It is simple.
Doesnt matter if they "grind" to a federal dropship in solo play, they can still (and most likely will) lose it in open play, as much a risk as someone who always played in open.
Or what is the problem? That people can play the game "in Peace" if they want to? How is that a problem?
Are you just jealous that someone can have a less threatening game experience than you while trading or mining? It is their choice, is it not?

Finally, you fail to comprehend how massive the galaxy really is. Even playing in open you are essentially playing in an instanced solo play until the very RARE opportunity when you cross paths with Another player. So really this is a non issue anyway since 95% of your playtime will be alone in an instance even in open play.
Unless you stay in core systems, at which Point it is again YOUR choice to play that way, which has nothing to do with other peoples choice to spread out.

 

[Mikey2305]

going to stay in solo for my entire gaming experience in ED unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. if i drop into open with a fully upgraded anaconda, it still wont have any weapons and i certainly wont be trying to kill you. that aspect of the game leaves me completely cold and i wont be the butt of someones fun either

 

[Logical Viking]

While checking out the really cool things that are taking place in the Lugh system right now it dawned on me again why having solo and open connected is less than ideal...

The Lugh rebel guys are trying to put the hurt on the feds by trading activity. Now a group of cmdr's loyal to the federation have decided to try to foil their progress by trading AND forcibly blocking the Lugh guys from their trade activities. I imagine the Lugh guys will also try to stop fed traders from spoiling their plans using force if need be.

This is great for the game and community and is quite accurate to real life. Reminds me of German u boats sinking British and American ships during ww2.

All of that exciting game play is impossible or greatly cheapened when someone can simply log to solo mode for trading and thereby bypassing any blockade. Just limits the whole aspect of this part of the game imo.

Again, I'm not opposed to anyone enjoying solo play.. Just the idea of them influence each other.

 

[StayFrosty]

I'm pretty sure the guys in the Mobius group are fairly fine with not bothering with PVP. But fun fact, the group doesn't forbid PVP, just non-consensual one, it's allowed in warzones. And that's where the actual issue is. The issue has never been PVP itself.

Seems players in this group do not all agree on this matter, they join it to avoid PvP altogether. It doesn't count to be in favor of "consensual PvP" when you never consent to it.

Still, this was in reply to the idea that the two should be completely split, as only PvP players need PvE players, when PvE players don't need PvP players. Which simply isn't true: in the typical population of an online game, the majority takes part in both PvE and PvP, things aren't just split in two.

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

I disagree.

You want to disagree with statistics?

 

[StayFrosty]

'Hiding'? That's quite an emotive word. And your previous statement seems to suggest that the absence of PvE players, ie. players who do not want to engage in PvP, is somehow damaging your game experience. PvE players certainly aren't getting exactly what they want - currently they have to go out of their way to join a PvE group like Mobius, or play solo. In Eve Online, 'carebears' could stick to safe systems and fit warp core stabilisers; that's not possible in ED.

I'm not sure what qualifies as a 'deathmatch arena' - is that just a galaxy in which all player-versus-player combat is consensual? Is that such a bad thing? It sounds fine to me.

'Go out of their way'? That's quite an exaggeration. They need to press a couple buttons. And ED players are much safer in their solo/group mode than carebears will ever be in high sec. And according to themselves, they get exactly what they want.

As for a 'deathmatch arena', it implies it would revolve solely around combat, at the cost of other things, like cooperation. That's not a good thing, that would mean there would be no true PvE/PvP mode, and we'd have to choose between the two.

Personally, I don't need PvP to spice anything up in ED, and I don't agree that separating PvE and PvP would make it boring for both. (Or were you suggesting that the majority of people are PvPers and they'd be the ones getting bored?) I've not needed to shoot at human players to enjoy the game so far, and I don't see that changing. I don't care that Hengist Duval is sick; I'm not interested in the capture-the-flag / DOTA2-style warzone tussles. I appreciate that you think the core of ED's game is combat, but other people see things differently. And that's the issue - you say "it's about the community"; the issue is, as these forums neatly demonstrate, there isn't just one ED community, there are several.

The majority needs both, that's pretty much fact now, it's been noticed time and time again in online games. Another thing that has been noticed time and time again is that a community that's split doesn't stand the test of time. I realized it's split, and that's the problem.

Right now, we hold the perfect recipe for a disastrous community.

 

[StayFrosty]

Any player who would otherwise play solo only occasionally playing open necessarily brings an additional player, and hence diversity, to open. Example: me. I cannot commit to playing open only, so I'm either solo only or I play both, via mode-switching.

Any player who would otherwise play solo only because they don't enjoy PvP occasionally playing open for whatever reason necessarily brings an additional non-PvP player to open. Examples: any of the anti-PvP people who are petitioning for mode switching.

So it's okay to break the whole online structure for the sake of a handful people? Is this what you're saying? Because it might be nice to you, it still breaks it. That's not making open play any better. And it doesn't quite answer my question either.

But the thing is, it's not broken either. It doesn't need to be fixed. It only adds an advantage that it nullifies itself: what's the point of trying to attract more people to open play while making open play worse in the process?

You brought the word "problems" into the conversation; if neither of us know to which problems you were referring, we can just drop this subtopic.

It's up to you to tell me. I assumed you wanted to avoid open play because of some problems. If there are no problems, why avoid it?

There are plenty more examples, but I'm not going to list them all yet again.

They're not listed in this thread, because I read everything.

No, it's reasons such as above. Please don't be so dismissive of those with whom you disagree.

You always fail to explain anything, what should I be doing?

That is a problem, yes, because it's not true.

So there IS a problem. Explain how they're not essentially the same thing.

Well there you go. That is not what I am asking for. I am asking for people not to take away what I already have.

And I'm telling you there's nothing to take away, open play is a great place for everyone and you play there without any problem. Sure, you might be griefed once in your entire life, I'm sure you can deal with that.

 

[VonBrewskie]

Interesting points. I never played EVE. I was looking forward to this game specifically because it seemed a bit more accessible to my game play style. I've heard EVE referred to as a "spreadsheet simulator". I get that some people like that kind of micromanagement and slow build up to a massive payoff. I'm not necessarily in that boat. I see what you mean though. Letting someone build up a nasty ship with no risk in solo mode then jumping into open with it might be a bit unfair. On the other hand, a guy like me wants to just cruise sometimes and not be bothered by anyone and still make progress in the game. So I don't know. I think this will work out for me. i see your points though.

 

[Leopard]

Interesting points. I never played EVE. I was looking forward to this game specifically because it seemed a bit more accessible to my game play style. I've heard EVE referred to as a "spreadsheet simulator". I get that some people like that kind of micromanagement and slow build up to a massive payoff. I'm not necessarily in that boat. I see what you mean though. Letting someone build up a nasty ship with no risk in solo mode then jumping into open with it might be a bit unfair. On the other hand, a guy like me wants to just cruise sometimes and not be bothered by anyone and still make progress in the game. So I don't know. I think this will work out for me. i see your points though.

A lot of misconceptions here about EVE from people who haven't played it. The main reason EVE has been so successful for so long is that the entire community lives and works in the same consistent universe.

If Eve had a similar structure to ED it would have been an obscure failure rather than a household name in sci-fi multiplayer gaming. No secret there.

Now, you people about to scream at me that you don't want Elite to be like EVE can save it. I've already heard it. Just adding some facts to the discussion.

 

[Matke]

Just reach for them stars and enjoy yourselves everyone, whatever happens in game... I know I am

 

[SGTHACK]

I am a new player. I have been on board since the last day of beta. I am playing solo right now until I get my feet wet. Then I will join the fleet in open. I look at it as extended training.

 

[CdrTwisted]

Still a few people complaining that it's not fair that someone can get an advantage by playing solo. Hilarious.

 

[Logical Viking]

Still a few people complaining that it's not fair that someone can get an advantage by playing solo. Hilarious.

It's more than fair because everyone can do the same thing but just cheapens the game IMO.

What I didn't consider before but have realized now is how connected solo play to open play limits the potential for player influencing the dynamic galaxy in some cases as I pointed out on the previous page. I am frankly surprised that more people haven't considered this and aren't a bit concerned either. The potential for people influencing the galaxy like what is happening in Lugh right now can be severely limited by people being able to avoid any influence by others simply because solo allows them to basically fly and trade invisibly. Please see my previous post for more of an explanation. I thought we the players having an influence on the galaxy was a big draw. Apparently just delivering goods to and fro is the extent of what some people want to that end.

This is a conundrum because there are the open advocates who claim their games may be negatively influenced by having solo and open separated. On the other hand when you consider this aspect I point out, there are others who's game will be negatively impacted by removing a whole game play dynamic. Who is right or more important as it were?

 

[Matke]

I see a lot of people complaining about how solo players will negatively influence the galaxy economy.

Now as I recall, if you ever played Elite 2 Frontier, the galaxy economy was always changing anyway. So a potential massive profit you thought you were going to get, could turn into a small profit when you arrived at your destination. The economy in those games was never stagnant, it was constantly altering, sometimes it was in your favour, other times it wasn't.

So this so called "ghosting" of the economy, and not being able to touch those players in solo mode, its just the same as playing Elite and Elite 2.

If anything Frontier developers have added the potential to have open combat, so players who want to PvP with other players, can do so if they wish.

My point is this; This game is in keeping with the original Elite and Elite 2 in how its economy use to constantly change, with the added bonus of being able to combat each other if you wish to do so.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

This thread is a tug of war where neither side is showing any sign of pulling the other side over. It reminds me of this:

"My Logic is Undeniable..."

"You sooo have to die..."

3 Days to launch. Let's get out there and prove it one way or another. It's not going to change...