Proposal Discussion Possible Solution to Open/Solo Play Issue

[Joe Spivey]

To the OP. Where is your evidence that there is even an issue? Where are your facts and figures? What measurements have you taken to determine there is a problem? What research have you done to see if this has been discussed before?

What? No evidence? No facts and figures? No measurements? No research? Ohhhh, so you've just decided that it must be a bad thing because it doesn't fit with your idea about how it SHOULD be.

This subject has been talked to death. It is a dead subject. It has ceased to be. This aspect of the game is working as designed.

 

[Hermit]

It's really how it appears to others who are used to online games, rather than evidence. It may well be that the solo game is no less easy than the multiplayer one. In which case, why have it at all?

 

[bassman]

Why is there a problem?

For one thing it devalues death since if someone dies in open they just go back to solo play and re-grind the lost credits in a safer environment, this is probable going to encourage PKers/grievers to "have a go" in open play.

 

[Mephane]

For one thing it devalues death since if someone dies in open they just go back to solo play and re-grind the lost credits in a safer environment, this is probable going to encourage PKers/grievers to "have a go" in open play.

To the contrary, I believe the only ones hurt by the free mode switching are the griefers themselves. (Note to you PvPers, contrary to what you believe you are not hurt by this, because a potential target that rather goes to solo mode to avoid PvP, is not a valid PvP target in the first place; if you insist on trying to subject them to your PvP, you become a griefer from their perspective.)

 

[Joe Spivey]

For one thing it devalues death since if someone dies in open they just go back to solo play and re-grind the lost credits in a safer environment, this is probable going to encourage PKers/grievers to "have a go" in open play.

Where is your evidence anything that you say here is happening?

 

[Yaffle]

I still can't understand why an online solo mode would be needed on final release with a gameplay area that'll cover 400 billion systems. Sensitive players wouldn't have much to worry about from others. It'll be like one person complaining that they can smell a fart from the other side of the world

Like I said, if it became an offline single player game, then that would be good to have.

Well, some people just don't like the idea of playing with others, but do like the idea of the galaxy changing and evolving. They won't get that offline, it will be static.

 

[Hermit]

For one thing it devalues death since if someone dies in open they just go back to solo play and re-grind the lost credits in a safer environment, this is probable going to encourage PKers/grievers to "have a go" in open play.

That could be a problem in the short term, but with the final game, there'd be too much space for the griefers to cover. Unless most stay in the safe starting zones.

 

[Hermit]

Well, some people just don't like the idea of playing with others, but do like the idea of the galaxy changing and evolving. They won't get that offline, it will be static.

You see, that's why the final multiplayer game will be so good for such players. So many systems and minimal chance of bumping into others if they strike out and explore space.

 

[Epimetheus]

We really should have a HUGE announcement before you are allowed in to the forums that there are no winning or loosing in this game. There is only the journey.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

So what is the point of having this as a multuplayer game if everyone prefers a solo one?

It's the unpredictability of other players and their egos that adds spice to online games. But like I said, Elite will have a massive play area and both good and bad players will easily co-exist within it without much worry.

Not sure who you actually mean, but you said "everyone", so... I guess you mean everyone.


However, that doesn't include me. I absolutely love the online-all galaxy.

I do, however, try to keep a sense of perspective. I don't want to be guilty of hubris, and come to believe that my mere presence makes the galaxy come alive for other players.

I'm just a small part of the machine. As is everyone else... and as are the NPCs.

For one thing it devalues death since if someone dies in open they just go back to solo play and re-grind the lost credits in a safer environment, this is probable going to encourage PKers/grievers to "have a go" in open play.

You just took a leap of speculation that "solo = Safe". Not even "Safer"... "Safe".


I put it to you that Elite in solo mode doesn't equate to "safe", and that Elite in online-all mode doesn't equate to "risky".

 

[Gwydion]

I am of course talking about solo (online), if the community is cool with people farming in solo (online) and fighting in open play than there is no problem. I was just expecting a multitude of gameplay experiences in open play, not just a battleground which is without a doubt what open-play will be. If you think haulers are going to be floating around open play you are kidding yourself.

That's your opinion. As the game hasn't been released in any kind of completed state yet, you can't even call it an informed opinion.

This has been argued numerous times before and a good proportion of players say they will play in the All group.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

You see, that's why the final multiplayer game will be so good for such players.

You're absolutely right - the final MP game will be perfect for everyone as they get to choose how they play and who with .. It's genius - it's refreshing ...

Oh, that's not what you meant ? You're implying that as space is so big if someone comes along and annoys them they can just move on somewhere else ? That's kind of you ..

No ... I think FD's vision and proposal on this is perfect - select who you want to play with and how you want to do it .. Personally I will be in the all pilots group dying at the hands of some rogue NPC .. but I can see the value to the switching. As a time served player some of my friends may join up and what better to teach them in a private game until they get their footing and the bonus is that when offline I can revert back to all ... Genius I say.

 

[Spook]

Forgive me if this has been suggested before, I couldn't find a similar thread. How would you feel if:

Spoiler

Open-play character save files were completely separate from solo and private group character saves. I.E. you would not be able to haul your way into an Anaconda in solo only to take that Anaconda into open-play in an attempt to kill other players. However you could still play the game by yourself or with friends without the threat of being ganked.

The reason why the current phasing selection system is an issue:

It reduces the number of meaningful interactions between players and makes open-play a one dimensional battleground where the vast majority of players are geared and looking to kill one another. Here are some examples of cool player interactions that are NOT going to take place as a result of the current phasing selection system:

• Traders hiring mercenaries to escort their hauler through a dangerous sector.
• Pirates identifying popular trade routes and interdicting haulers to steal their cargo.
• Pirates raiding miners in an asteroid field.
• Mercenaries hiding in an asteroid field in an attempt to intercept pirate raiders.

I'd like to point out that I am not trying to make Elite a less hospitable game, I am just of the belief that pirates, mercenaries and bounty hunters should be making choices about their actions and play styles as a result of in game consequences like local security and not as a result of a player phasing system.

I am super impressed with Elite but I think a lot of its potential as a player driven game goes down the toilet with the current system that incentivizes players to gear up in solo mode and only play in open-play if they are ready and looking for a fight.

Unfounded speculations based on uncorroborated and potentially incorrect assumptions.

No proof = no issue.

The assumption is no where near enough IMHO to justify the unwarranted restriction on player freedom and choice as advertised plainly and openly over the last year and a half.

"Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group."

 

[CaptainKremmen]

I was just expecting a multitude of gameplay experiences in open play, not just a battleground which is without a doubt what open-play will be. If you think haulers are going to be floating around open play you are kidding yourself.

No, not kidding myself. There surely will be ZP Haulers flown by lone players in online-all.

From time to time, I'll be one of them.


I can't see why you'd think "without a doubt" that open-play will be a "battleground".


I'm keen to discuss meaningful design problems and solutions, but I honestly don't think you and I are even in the same library, let alone on the same page.

 

[Kulin]

I'm happy that there is no need to play in the open world if i don't want to. I know you OpenPvP dudes very well because i took this way once or twice back then in meridian 59, ultima online, neocron and so on. I was young and i needed the kick of being a young, sociopathic bully.

Now i'm a little bit older and my perspective to gaming has changed. The first important difference from today to this old days is that i don't like powergaming anymore. The usual PvP-Player needs to stay competitive. Such a player knows how to exploit the legal und sometimes illegal weaknesses of game design to get to their target as fast as possible. They also like to play very intensive at game release.

This means while a normal player wastes his times with things like learning docking or watching breathtaking sceneries the usual pvp-player already has got his viper and starts shooting you while you watch fascinated the twin-stars of i bootis in your sidewinder.

In my eyes its no matter of nut up or something. I for myself just don't want to invest this time and i don't want to compete with any player who draws all his self-esteem from this gameplay. I also don't want to play the easy prey just because i want to take the game easy.

Its a matter of incompatible play-styles. So please Frontier: don't force anyone to anything he does not want. The best choice in my opinion would be to change "Online" and "solo" officially into pvp and pve channels. I know that most PvP-Players don't like this. It's like sending a predator into a cage full of other predators. Gets bloody very fast and no easy prey in sight.

A PvE Channel with non-lethal pirating gameplay, designated open-pvp war zones, openpvp-pirate-systems and such things would be really nice.

 

[TheDoctor]

Also the bandwidth requirements of Online Solo seem to be a lot lower than the All group and so people who don't have a great connection can at least play with some online functionality.

 

[Shadowdancer]

I can't see why you'd think "without a doubt" that open-play will be a "battleground".

Because of human nature. It's tangent time!

Remember the first rule of human interaction: people are power-hungry ****s. (It may not be a universal truth, but it still explains so much when taken as one.)

Griefers (and most of us really are, just that not everyone shows it on a regular basis) want fodder, and a game that forces, or at least goads, a lot of players who would prefer a rather safe and controlled environment into an environment where they're ripe for the taking, provides such fodder. Obversely, if those players can choose to go to such a safe place without much of a downside, the pool of players on the "battleground" is basically distilled and the chance of encountering someone who will actually spank your behind suddenly becomes vastly greater.

Essentially, an environment where the more peaceful (and maybe the less skilled) players can opt out of hostile interactions with other players can quickly become vastly more frustrating to aggressive players; however, looking at the Rule, forcing everyone into the same, unsafe, environment may actually make otherwise sedentary players become aggressors, because hey, there's got to be someone who's even weaker than me, right?

I don't think Open multiplayer will become a very pleasant place (And I still like to cite EVE as a prime example on why those concepts don't work out.)

 

[Cetian]

I don't really understand this concept, unless it is due to technological constraints.

There should be a classic offline single player mode, a multiplayer mode, and an open play MMO mode, and there should not be any transitions of commanders between these three.

I understand the people that want to experience the game as single player, like it used to be, or with a few friends, since we're talking about a classic.

But at the same time, many of us have played and accustomed ourselves to the open world concept, playing games like EVE, and very much enjoy this type of play. But what is the incentive to do stuff that don't explicitly involve risk-seeking group play in the open mode, if you can do all that solo and then transition?

To me this destroys the dynamics and possibilities of the open world concept, while not obviously adding anything to those that prefer solo or friends-only play. It just brings out a huge loophole which will effectively make the open play a very skewed experience. Coming up against player blockades or making a run with valuable cargo in dangerous areas was exhilerating in games like EVE. Here, seemingly, you can just switch game modes and bypass the risk added by the presence of other players.
And why does that make sense, if you have other game modes explicitly catering to that type of experience?

 

[Krom]

I'm happy that there is no need to play in the open world if i don't want to. I know you OpenPvP dudes very well because i took this way once or twice back then in meridian 59, ultima online, neocron and so on. I was young and i needed the kick of being a young, sociopathic bully.

Now i'm a little bit older and my perspective to gaming has changed. The first important difference from today to this old days is that i don't like powergaming anymore. The usual PvP-Player needs to stay competitive. Such a player knows how to exploit the legal und sometimes illegal weaknesses of game design to get to their target as fast as possible. They also like to play very intensive at game release.

This means while a normal player wastes his times with things like learning docking or watching breathtaking sceneries the usual pvp-player already has got his viper and starts shooting you while you watch fascinated the twin-stars of i bootis in your sidewinder.

In my eyes its no matter of nut up or something. I for myself just don't want to invest this time and i don't want to compete with any player who draws all his self-esteem from this gameplay. I also don't want to play the easy prey just because i want to take the game easy.

Its a matter of incompatible play-styles. So please Frontier: don't force anyone to anything he does not want. The best choice in my opinion would be to change "Online" and "solo" officially into pvp and pve channels. I know that most PvP-Players don't like this. It's like sending a predator into a cage full of other predators. Gets bloody very fast and no easy prey in sight.

A PvE Channel with non-lethal pirating gameplay, designated open-pvp war zones, openpvp-pirate-systems and such things would be really nice.

I think what many people in this Thread get wrong is: No one has a problem with a PVE- Mode.
There is an other scenario which is the problem here:

Player A: Plays always online. Tries to farm some credits to buy a good ship. While doing so he gets killed .. 3 Times and loses a lot of his values.
Finally he has the second best Ship, damn is he happy.

Now here comes Player B:
He played Solo and farmed the best ship ingame with ease (granting that the solo play is easier, which is a discussion for itsself). Now he goes online and kills players like Player A and his Ship which he worked hard for is lost.

Now before someone asks "is there an issue? proof? example?".
It is the internet and we are humans. Its like leaving the car unlocked, someone will abuse that. I got no proof for that but there will be someone.
There is always someone exploiting as much as possible.

Many people would just come online if they want to do PVP. Which makes the Open Play mode there "Battleground". That would reduce the openplay for everyone to a very agressive community where everyone would fight with a "nothing to lose"- mind.

There are many solutions for the problem without hurting anyone but if it is a Design-decision it is just that. For "fair" PvP you maybe have to look out elsewhere then.


Not saying someone is right or wrong, i just felt like i had to explain what OP and some others meant. No one wants to steal the game of the PVE-Faction.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

Our points of view differ on human nature, then. Human nature when police exist, at any rate.


Pilots can plumb the depths of violence and lawlessness in anarchy systems, of course. After all, that's the Elite way!

In this game universe, lawless systems are the boogeyman under the bed... not the pilots themselves, in isolation.