As Julio Montega (great pirate name lol) I voted for "more MMO" but I think the two options are a too black and white - all I really want is some kind of grouping and bounty sharing system. Maybe "guild" functionality. But definitely no player crafting or anything heavy like that, it would move this game in a completely new (unwanted by me) direction.
Purist or MMORPGler?
- Thread starter BishopC
- Start date
I would call that a "role" rather than a "class".
In my understanding classes are described with one simple word: restricting.
I don't like restriction in the way i want to play, and i can't stand to have 3-4 characters to cover every role there is in a game.
I am rather glad, this game is made without levels and skills, but the choice of your ship, modules and piloting skill.
A lack of instances does not an MMO make. In fact, most MMOs that permit a massive (more than 16) amount of players in the same instance have to sacrifice something in order to get that many people. Some do it by maintaining separate servers (and no server jumping) and limiting the number of people who can log in at the same time. Most do it via instancing (and hope nobody notices). Some can't be bothered, and tell players to endure the lag and latency issues. And of course, in order to increase the number of people per instance, they try to decrease the amount of data flowing as possible, usually by implementing skill-based actions, as opposed to the full-on simulation of Elite Dangerous.
Would really hate to see Elite develop anything resembling classes in the traditional sense; healers, tanks, dps... bleh.
I also don't see the benefit in formatting a poll (or an argument) in an attempt to polarise between multiplayer and solo. The whole paradigm of binary opposition between the two is daft and people really ought to get over it. What we have is the framework for a game which could very comfortably cater to both. On that level the poll does not even make sense, why would 'player owned stuff' be exclusive to multiplayer?
Elite needs better social tools and content which is entertaining and rewarding for groups. 'MMO' mechanics which could foster player competition, on the level of both small and larger groups, as well as rewarding content for solo players. At this point nobody should be trying to force the game down one route or the other. It's an old fashioned outlook and one which by its very nature seeks to drive away a certain segment of the player base rather than attempting to be inclusive, not so smart.
I also don't see the benefit in formatting a poll (or an argument) in an attempt to polarise between multiplayer and solo. The whole paradigm of binary opposition between the two is daft and people really ought to get over it. What we have is the framework for a game which could very comfortably cater to both. On that level the poll does not even make sense, why would 'player owned stuff' be exclusive to multiplayer?
Elite needs better social tools and content which is entertaining and rewarding for groups. 'MMO' mechanics which could foster player competition, on the level of both small and larger groups, as well as rewarding content for solo players. At this point nobody should be trying to force the game down one route or the other. It's an old fashioned outlook and one which by its very nature seeks to drive away a certain segment of the player base rather than attempting to be inclusive, not so smart.
I am kinda sorry, I never played WoW or EQ or anything like that, so I guess my vocabulary is not as MMORPG experienced as it should be. So when I said "class" I probably meant "role" as in having a special function in a group.
The most vocal opinions very often tend to come from those with the loudest mouths, not the smartest brains.
You make a very good point, and I totally agree that people should get over it, but I followed some discussion and I actually wanted to know which side has more supporters in this forum. Analyzing it a little more, I think I could have projected the result easily, since the people asking for option A probably left the game and the forum already, while the option B kind still hang around. DOH!
This game has always had a very vocal segment of the community which sees Elite as single player and is adverse to anything which they perceive might take it away from that ideal. It's a shame since the potential exists for something which would be very exciting for both 'sets' of players. Personally I'd like to see both sides developed because I play both ways, I like to have things to do on my own and the very last thing I want is to be forced into group play but conversely I also enjoy playing with others and want meaningful content and good social tools to enable that. I have not entirely given up hope on the latter but my optimism is not what it once was, in part because I haven't seen the creative spark from FD which might make this happen.
Not quite the case. You can just get larger servers to accomodate more players. That's what EvE does, it's what Darkfall Online did (twitch based combat with hundreds vs hundreds of players and the servers handled it well).
I voted solo only. Not because I don't want it to be multi player, but because I don't want them to blindly adopt tired MMO tropes and become some horrible mish-mash of EVE, WoW and SWG with the Elite influence being simply in art style.
Classes - No, ship types and actual player skill in using them should be all that counts. We need more varied ships, but no character or ship skill levelling please.
Crafting - Hell no, this is one of the most overused and boring tropes in modern gaming, it has no place in Elite, nor in most games tbh. Find 6 blue tribbles and a quark drill, take to a bench and get a pulse laser. No thanks.
Guilds - Only as far as is necessary to allow friends to find and fly with each other (i.e. wings), anything akin to the "fighter pilot's guild" or similar has no place here given the EPF.
Player owned stuff - Really big no. This flies in the face of everything that Elite is, i.e. the speck of sand trying to survive alone in the machinations of an uncaring universe. The moment we get player owned stuff, the focus changes from player struggle to player politics and the comparisons with EVE start. Not that there is anything fundamentally wrong with player owned stuff as a concept, but it's a different game, Football Manager 2015 vs FIFA 15 if you can excuse the football analogy.
For me it boils down to wanting "Elite (the original), done well by 2015 standards and with a shared galaxy and a curated big picture story" rather than "generic space based player driven sandbox MMO" but with Elite branding. Neither is *wrong* as such, but they are different games.
Classes - No, ship types and actual player skill in using them should be all that counts. We need more varied ships, but no character or ship skill levelling please.
Crafting - Hell no, this is one of the most overused and boring tropes in modern gaming, it has no place in Elite, nor in most games tbh. Find 6 blue tribbles and a quark drill, take to a bench and get a pulse laser. No thanks.
Guilds - Only as far as is necessary to allow friends to find and fly with each other (i.e. wings), anything akin to the "fighter pilot's guild" or similar has no place here given the EPF.
Player owned stuff - Really big no. This flies in the face of everything that Elite is, i.e. the speck of sand trying to survive alone in the machinations of an uncaring universe. The moment we get player owned stuff, the focus changes from player struggle to player politics and the comparisons with EVE start. Not that there is anything fundamentally wrong with player owned stuff as a concept, but it's a different game, Football Manager 2015 vs FIFA 15 if you can excuse the football analogy.
For me it boils down to wanting "Elite (the original), done well by 2015 standards and with a shared galaxy and a curated big picture story" rather than "generic space based player driven sandbox MMO" but with Elite branding. Neither is *wrong* as such, but they are different games.
Last edited:
Your poll is pointless. ED is not a primarilly solo experience as another poll has already shown. See here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=93738
Last edited:
Yeah the wording of the poll is going to skew the results. I understand what you meant though.
Actually, given the usual bias in forums towards those that don't have any issues with socialization, that pool is more than a bit inconclusive. The only ones that can say for certain whether players are mostly playing the game as multiplayer or as a solo endeavor is Frontier.
For those new to these forums, the player base is actually pretty polarized on this particular issue. The game IS being advertised as an MMO, and as such should have certain multiplayer capabilities built in...some are coming, some are implemented...very poorly, others are non existent. Many question what x feature would add, however, that is not the question that any of us should be asking. The proper question is how the game could be made better because of these additions. To that, I can only answer, by building a sense of in game community, players become more invested in the game and will want to be in game rather than using disparate forums organizing player run activities.
I see where the MMO is in the game, most do not, and many feel that affecting systems and stations is somehow breaking the game and an exploitation. This would become more compelling if there was better multiplayer features, such as wings. We know these are coming and many are patiently awaiting their arrival, however, many players coming to the game expected...because of the marketing...that these features would be more complete. Even many of us early beta testers and backers were surprised that these were so limited in scope for the release.
To conclude, the personal investment due to social tools in the game would definitely increase if they were available, leading to more players in game regularly, rather than out of game dealing with multiple forums and tools, and more player driven content being played and fought over.
I see where the MMO is in the game, most do not, and many feel that affecting systems and stations is somehow breaking the game and an exploitation. This would become more compelling if there was better multiplayer features, such as wings. We know these are coming and many are patiently awaiting their arrival, however, many players coming to the game expected...because of the marketing...that these features would be more complete. Even many of us early beta testers and backers were surprised that these were so limited in scope for the release.
To conclude, the personal investment due to social tools in the game would definitely increase if they were available, leading to more players in game regularly, rather than out of game dealing with multiple forums and tools, and more player driven content being played and fought over.
Badly enough formatted to be completely useless.
Not any more it isn't, that wording was removed, presumably because of the expectations it raises.
I hear you. I see the potential. I like the foundation the game is now.
For me it is quite easy, I want to know if the game will go in a social direction that will make it recommendable to others and get a great number of people hooked, or if the player base will try (successfully) to keep it in a single player direction. If it's the latter, no problem, me and my friends will migrate to SC, that's the market. It's just that I have a bad feeling for ED (here cometh the doomsayer), reflecting from the discussions among friends (we tried to play together with 5 people and failed miserably), and I wouldn't be surprised if SC will still rake in millions in 10 years, while ED will be a sidenote in the tech news about some player hosted servers.
A bit more support for playing as a small group would be a superb addition, I reckon. It would make piracy a lot more viable, and also make defending against it a lot more viable. Plus, the optional ability to play with yer mates is always a good thing, even if it's just two or three of you bodding around the place.
That said, I would hate to see ED go full-on MMO in the sense that it becomes a case of having to interact with other players in order to achieve anything. Having been there and done that in a number of other games, I really can't be bothered playing what amounts to a personnel management game set in a charitable organisation which is what most classic MMOs ultimately are.
That said, I would hate to see ED go full-on MMO in the sense that it becomes a case of having to interact with other players in order to achieve anything. Having been there and done that in a number of other games, I really can't be bothered playing what amounts to a personnel management game set in a charitable organisation which is what most classic MMOs ultimately are.