Just another Open/Private/Solo thread

[Bard Voronwe]

Hi guys, I know what all of you is thinking about: "Another stupid thread about how everyone should play Open".

Well it is not, trust me. In fact I think that every customer of this wonderful game has the right to play it as he likes, even without interacting with other players at all (or just interacting with people of his choice).

But I can't understand why these actions should affect the galaxy simulation AND the powerplay.

It's really hard to explain myself about it and consider that english is not my native tongue, but I would like to know from the developers if it's really impossible to make only the actions done in open play able to influence the game itself (galaxy simulation and powerplay), something like a hidden label to commodities, missions, combat bonds, bounties etc, which would be deleted if the cmdr switch in private or solo? (Maybe with a little warning message before).

All the personal rewards could remain as they are (credits, ranks), but it would be right (in my honest opinion) if only the open play actions would affect the galaxy. Your thoughts?

 

[Taranis Dekker]

ahhh yes....

Spoiler

 

[Drink!]

it affects the galaxy simulation AND the powerplay because they want it to.
unless someone can find a quote or they reply, that the best answer you will see.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

It's been said time and time again - each mode is separate, but equal.
There is no difference on the overall experience between modes, and each contributes to the background.
And this is not going to change, and that's fine.
Everyone overestimates their worth anyways - the actions of any one commander, regardless of what mode they play in are barely insignificant in terms of the background as a whole.

 

[babelfisch]

... "Another stupid thread about how everyone should play Open" ...

... Well it is not, trust me...

But I can't understand why these actions should affect the galaxy simulation AND the powerplay.

You lied to me. Shame on you...

Answer is simple: Because Solo and PG are legitimate game modes where players also have the right to shape the galaxy. If you don't understand this than it's because of your wrong interpretation of Open. There is nothing special about it. There isn't any increased risk, you don't become a awesome guy by playing in Open. It's not where the cool kids are. It's just a social filter for a game that was never designed to revolve around PvP, get over it.

 

[Flavourless]

The whole game is about players interacting with the galaxy simulation.
Open is in no way special, it just means you have a chance of seeing a tiny fraction of the other players who are in open (notwithstanding instancing, real world time zones, ping rates, host machine hardware, ignore lists etc) and interacting with them (which is trivial in most cases).

To propose Open only galaxy interaction is preposterous.

 

[TERMINATRIXXX]

I play in Open 99.9% of the time, and it doesn't bother me at all if someone hidden/invisible in Solo/Private lobbies influence the economy.
The influence of players is anyway only very small, the highest influence is made from NPC's.
I don't care for local factions or superpowers controlling systems and starports because it doesn't affect me in any way. I can dock even in hostile systems, restock, refuel, doing missiones, buy and sell stuff etc.
And thats all i need.

 

[Bonzodog]

 

[Robert Maynard]

But I can't understand why these actions should affect the galaxy simulation AND the powerplay.

Simply because that's the way that Frontier designed it, published that design information at the start of the Kickstarter (over four years ago), pitched, funded, developed and released the game (over two years ago):

FAQ- Elite: Dangerous
​

How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?

The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.


The other important aspect for us is that we can seed the galaxy with events, often these events will be triggered by player actions. With a living breathing galaxy players can discover new and interesting things long after they have started playing.


Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).​

 

[Bard Voronwe]

IndigoWyrd I'm sorry but I disagree. Look at the PowerPlay, for example: almost all the fortifications are done in Private and Solo, I did a lot of undermining myself and I didn't find a single player there, ever. And in the Galaxy Simulation is the same: we've lost a War a couple of months ago doing a LOT of dogfighting, always in Open Play, such we thought of a bug, just to find out that we were be "beaten" by many casual gamers passing by. Just last week I found a guy docked doing the open/solo/private swap to stack missions. And let me tell you: it's all right, I think they should be able do it, BUT I think that this simply shouldn't affect the game as a whole. There's logic in that. The PowerPlay and Minor Factions Gameplay is competitive by nature, how there can be any competition if people play safely in their closed servers?

 

[Jockey79]

Hi guys, I know what all of you is thinking about: "Another stupid thread about how everyone should play Open".

Well it is not, trust me. In fact I think that every customer of this wonderful game has the right to play it as he likes, even without interacting with other players at all (or just interacting with people of his choice).

But I can't understand why these actions should affect the galaxy simulation AND the powerplay.

It's really hard to explain myself about it and consider that english is not my native tongue, but I would like to know from the developers if it's really impossible to make only the actions done in open play able to influence the game itself (galaxy simulation and powerplay), something like a hidden label to commodities, missions, combat bonds, bounties etc, which would be deleted if the cmdr switch in private or solo? (Maybe with a little warning message before).

All the personal rewards could remain as they are (credits, ranks), but it would be right (in my honest opinion) if only the open play actions would affect the galaxy. Your thoughts?

The link to the dead horse you're flogging is in my sig.

 

[TERMINATRIXXX]

You lied to me. Shame on you...

Answer is simple: Because Solo and PG are legitimate game modes where players also have the right to shape the galaxy. If you don't understand this than it's because of your wrong interpretation of Open. There is nothing special about it. There isn't any increased risk, you don't become a awesome guy by playing in Open. It's not where the cool kids are. It's just a social filter for a game that was never designed to revolve around PvP, get over it.

Right you don't become awesome by playing in Open -> you become Superawesome

 

[DNA-Decay]

Sir!.

 

[Jockey79]

Look at the PowerPlay, for example: almost all the fortifications are done in Private and Solo,

Source?
Or just making stuff up?

I did a lot of undermining myself and I didn't find a single player there, ever.

Perhaps you need to fix your network settings then - your experience does not prove anything as others have the exact opposite to you.

The PowerPlay and Minor Factions Gameplay is competitive by nature,

"competitive" does not equal PvP.

Chess is competitive, but the players don't beat the snot out of each other. They play the game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There's logic in that. The PowerPlay and Minor Factions Gameplay is competitive by nature, how there can be any competition if people play safely in their closed servers?

There would be logic in that *if* E: D was a PvP focused game. The simple fact that there are three game modes, a single shared galaxy state and mode mobility demonstrates that it is not a PvP focused game - as PvP is entirely optional and is not required for any gameplay.

While Powerplay and Faction gameplay is competitive, it does not require direct competition / opposition - by design.

 

[Fracktal]

I think they should be able do it, BUT I think that this simply shouldn't affect the game as a whole. There's logic in that. The PowerPlay and Minor Factions Gameplay is competitive by nature, how there can be any competition if people play safely in their closed servers?

Ok, then X-Box One players should get their own BGS.

Oh! And then the coming PS4 players as well.

Mmmm, now that I think about it, it's not fair that I cannot counter players from Asia, Australia and North/South-America.

What about the European players with terrible ping that I cannot be instanced with...

Ok, let's have a BGS for each player. That should fix the problem. [rolleyes]

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Is the scary character from "Lost" here yet? :/

 

[Jockey79]

@ Mods

I take it we are still not merging topics ?

 

[babelfisch]

IndigoWyrd I'm sorry but I disagree. Look at the PowerPlay, for example: almost all the fortifications are done in Private and Solo, I did a lot of undermining myself and I didn't find a single player there, ever. And in the Galaxy Simulation is the same: we've lost a War a couple of months ago doing a LOT of dogfighting, always in Open Play, such we thought of a bug, just to find out that we were be "beaten" by many casual gamers passing by. Just last week I found a guy docked doing the open/solo/private swap to stack missions. And let me tell you: it's all right, I think they should be able do it, BUT I think that this simply shouldn't affect the game as a whole. There's logic in that. The PowerPlay and Minor Factions Gameplay is competitive by nature, how there can be any competition if people play safely in their closed servers?

There is no competition. That's in another game.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, then X-Box One players should get their own BGS.

Oh! And then the coming PS4 players as well.

Mmmm, now that I think about it, it's not fair that I cannot counter players from Asia, Australia and North/South-America.

What about the European players with terrible ping that I cannot be instanced with...

Ok, let's have a BGS for each player. That should fix the problem. [rolleyes]

Are we talking about offline mode yet?

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Jockey79 as far as I can say I'm doing MANY missions in an anarchy controlled system which is LARGELY undermined, never seen a player, and it's like 10 days I'm there playing. You are asking for sources. I would LOVE to have some official data, trust me, I can only speak about my first hand experience, and it's a ' desert. And my network settings are good, trust me, and trust the 4 cmdrs wing I flew from in a conflict zone last week. (Very dangerous, very funny, had to do my merits somewhere else).

And speaking of myself I'm NOT a PvP maniac, I like to interact with other players, greeting them, I despise the KOS behaviour of many cmdrs, it's immersion breaking to kill someone just because it's a hollow signal. And about the chess example dude you choose the wrong example, because chess is played against other people, and what you are talking about is more like playing chess against an AI that emulates your gaming behaviour. (Or maybe a chrono-puzzle race competition, the fastest the better against a passive game).

Anyway: I can't see anyone who's open to talk about good rules as they should be, what I see is people trying to defend the "good rules for themselves". It's understandable, but I still find illogical that game mechanics in which player interactions should be a crucial factor can be exploited simply being sure to not cross other players. But: if "things are the way they are"... (and I can understand now why Frontier simply cannot afford to make such a change because the majority of its clientle would simply not tolerate it)