Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jenner]

Elite Dangerous is an online game that allows players to play in three potential 'modes':

1. Online ALL group (called open play) where the player is in the same universe as all other players and can see and be seen by all others in open play
2. Online PRIVATE GROUP play where the player is online in the same universe as all other players but will only ever see and be seen by others in the same private group
3. Online SOLO play where the player is in the same universe as all other players, but will see no humans (essentially a private group of one).

All players have an effect on the background simulation regardless of mode they play in or which platform they play on, and can switch between groups at will without penalty or change to their character's statistics.

This thread is for discussing issues around the Solo, Open and Private Group modes and the different platforms. For a shorter summary of community opinions, see Vox Populi: how do you think modes affect community goals? (only one post allowed per user, as discussed in the first post). Please do not create new threads about the modes of play - they always turn into repeats of the same discussion, so will be merged in here.

Powerplay
A separate thread has been created for brainstorming ideas to encourage players to Powerplay in Open. Any discussion on the modes in general, the shared galaxy state or mode-switching in that thread will end up being moved into this thread.

Important rules for this thread​

The forum rules apply as usual in this thread, but we'd like to highlight some specific points:

• Stay polite and topic. Baiting, insulting or swearing will result in a direct infraction. No warnings, no nice private messages. Baiting includes dead horse references, use of the words "easy mode" or "carebear", accusations of griefing, and picture spam.
• Please do not indulge in pejorative comments about players from *any* of the platforms on which the game has been, or will be (or even might be), released
• Remember how hard it is to read emotion on the Internet. For example, make sure to show your respect for people when disagreeing about whether the group system disqualifies this game as an MMO
• For technical reasons, this thread will be closed and another opened if it goes over 10,000 posts (see the previous thread). This is a server limitation, not a comment about how contentious the thread is at that point
• If you feel a post violates the forum rules, click "report this post" and do not reply

What do Frontier think about the modes?​

Frontier have been thinking about modes since the earliest stages of development. A FAQ item from the original Kickstarter states in part:

We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. 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.

This was eventually codified in the design team's "groups" proposal, which was the basis for the grouping system in the game today.

David Braben also discussed modes during the game's development, for example:

• During the original Kickstarter video discussing Frontier's vision for multiplayer
• In an interview about griefing

There are also some developer comments in the original version of this thread - you can see them by clicking here then clicking the Frontier icon in the top-right of each developer post to see the next developer post in the thread.

Here are some relevant developer posts from around the forums:

Spoiler

Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.

Michael

Thanks for that clarity Michael.

Are you in a position to confirm that group switching between the three game modes will remain as a feature of the game?

We're not planning on changing that.

Michael

Hi Micheal

I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?

None are planned at the moment.

Michael

Hello Commander Demiga!

Spoiler

Seriously, it annoys people. Solo has every right to do community goals - Yes, I get that there is an "unfair advantage" for solo players working a community goal VS. an open player.

Its a very easy fix by FDEV - Make it so that when a Solo/Private Group player turns in a bond for 30k (example) they get 30k in cash, but it only counts as..15k towards the community goal

Wheras the Open players can turn in the same 30k Bond, Receive the same 30k in cash, but it counts as 30k towards the community goal.

Its not so much about not letting this group do that with this, but just make the values weighted differently. Open, it is much harder to make that 30k than it is in solo, so it should be worth x times as much for the goal.

Is this a viable solution for anyone?

For anyone that can see my signature, I am an avid player of Solo/Group - but I really do hear, understand, and mostly agree with what the solo players are saying. I do want to start playing in open at some point. If anyone can give me a good reason as to why this wont work or help, then please explain...

P.S. I say very easy fix by FDEV, but honestly I have no idea. The concept is simple though

Edit - Sorry if anyone was offended by my tone or by the wording I used - had just read a very.....anger inducing thread about completely removing solo mode - Wont happen again - also - I want to reiterate that I fully support both SOLO and OPEN modes, and I believe there can be a great solution so everyone is happy in the end - aka this solution

Edit 2 - Again - I need to reiterate to everyone - This doesnt hurt anyone's personal finances, everyone will still make the same amount when they turn in a bond, everyone will still rank up within the community goal the same (top 70%, top 40%, top 15% etc) - The only thing this does is add a separate advantage to players who want to play in open - This allows them to affect an overall goal better than a solo player. This goal would be a NEW feature added in game if something like this goes through - It doesnt hurt the "advantage" of playing solo either - It really is a WIN-WIN compromise - I believe and fully support all 3 modes....

This is something that I'm considering.

There won't be any changes in the immediate future (our time is fairly booked up right now), but on face value it certainly seems plausible and maybe reasonable to me. I'll need to chew it over some more, obviously. I *believe* a change like this would be possible though (again, I'd have to verify that with team server).

Comments on this would be welcome.

Oh, but obviously, Commander Demiga, let's try and keep the temperature at a reasonable level . Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, as long as they do so politely.

Hello Commander jp josh!

Spoiler

how bout no....

i would like npc in wings to coordinate better in solo and wings of them be more common/hire our own wing to with our spare ships before we take your idea (for combat oriented goals)

for trading make pirates not just interdict but wait for you outside the station again we need to flesh out wings and ai a bit more.

exploring still exploring i don't want to see any type of reduction for explores community goals.

however i am open to the idea of boosting open play bonuses (when in that mode you get a 25% boost to all round profit but the number contributed stays the same)

id also like more range of community goals. (smuggling) where bigger ships are more of a hindrance than helpful so that way players in early ships can actually help rather than add pocket change. (friend tried to help in lugh even though all he had was a adder)

We've hopefully got a fix for Capital ship farming exploits lined up (provisionally for 1.3, but no guarantee).

What I took from Commander Demiga's suggestion was that there might be a consensus that activities carried out in solo mode are "safer/unfair" as there is no chance for other Commanders to oppose them.

I'm not going to take a side at the moment, because I'd like to consider it more.

It could definitely be seen as an attempt to entice folk into playing open, though if the personal rewards remained unchanged I'm not sure that this would be an utter evil.

Fundamentally, Community goals are about Commanders working together, in concert or in opposition. It does not seem completely unreasonable that for such elements we might encourage direct interaction more.

On the other hand, I'm wary of the precedent this might set, and want to make sure that solo mode always fulfils all the requirements it needs to, remaining the completely valid option that it is.

So this is something we would not consider lightly.

Hello Commander Jerakeen!

Spoiler

No, definitely not. Play your own way they said. Well if they punish me for playing my own way then I'll be very irritated. Why should I have to do twice as much to qualify for goal awards just because I choose not to expose myself to being mugged by Johnny McPewPew for my lunch money.

Seriously Sandro. Stop considering this. Very many of your players choose to play in solo and in groups. You'll be upsetting a very large section of the player base.

Possibly I could attempt a counter that suggests at the moment it is unfair against open play mode - you have more risks and challenges but only get the same rewards.

I take your point though.

Possibly, community goal thresholds, when it came to determining where each player sits, could be adjusted to ensure that solo players' actual amounts were considered, which I *think* would prevent any loss of goal rewards.

Like I said though, we'll need to chew over this some more when we get the time. Nothing is going to happen right away.

Hello Commander Demiga!

Spoiler

Sandro - Please read my edit in the original post regarding the tempurature - I apologize for that...was very heated atm lol

Thanks for the reply though - its just if you look at the core of all these issues,its that open mode is harder, so what is the incentive for a CMDR to play in open when they can farm in solo? Well, obviously, you cant make the bounties worth different amounts, that would absolutely enrage everyone.

So why not - in your Personal opinion, what would be some reasons as to why this wouldnt work?

Don't worry, no harm, no foul, it was just a helpful reminder!

I can't give you my considered opinions just yet because, well, I need a little more time to consider them!

But this is clearly an interesting debate, on both sides of the fence, so we will revisit it at a later date.

FuzzySpider
The mechanics of powerplay, particularly the interface between player and power being an almost direct copy of the community goal model, gives the entire experience an MMO-guild type feel to the gameplay.

Is this MMO-style a new direction for Elite: Dangerous? Or will you be still focussing on the single player immersive experience, even if that single player is playing in a universe filled with other players?

Thank's very much to you and the FDev team for all of your efforts. One or two subjective niggles of mine aside the game is the one I've been waiting for for years and I'm totally enamoured with it.

We are supporting multiplayer and the solo experience. Community Goals are carrying on too.

In the newsletter, it was mentioned that an intersection between a trading power and a military power will result in piracy missions.

Will this make NPC piracy more profitable or will we continue to need to focus on players?

It can be more profitable, and it will apply to both players and NPCs.

For fun

That said, it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation.

Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.

The mechanics of powerplay, particularly the interface between player and power being an almost direct copy of the community goal model, gives the entire experience an MMO-guild type feel to the gameplay.


Is this MMO-style a new direction for Elite: Dangerous? Or will you be still focussing on the single player immersive experience, even if that single player is playing in a universe filled with other players?


Thank's very much to you and the FDev team for all of your efforts. One or two subjective niggles of mine aside the game is the one I've been waiting for for years and I'm totally enamoured with it.

We are supporting multiplayer and the solo experience. Community Goals are carrying on too.

From an interview between DBOBE and Arstechnica at E3:2015:

.... Producer Ben Dowie reiterated that Xbox One and PC players won’t be playing head-to-head—although they’ll be playing in the same simulated universe, they’ll never encounter each other in space, likely because Microsoft’s Xbox patch cycle adds complexity to Frontier’s game update procedure.

I pointed out that there’s frequent contention online about the “right” way to play, be it casual or hard-core, and Braben agreed. “But there shouldn’t be a ‘right’ way,” he said. “You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play. And people have come up with lots of suggestions, some of them very constructive and sensible, and we do listen, and people hopefully have seen that we’ve changed things and adjusted things, but not in a way—we hope!—to upset people. We’re doing it to make the game better!”

There are no changes planned to separate solo and online saves, and players will continue to inhabit the same shared galaxy whether they’re in solo or multiplayer—again, continuing with Braben’s contention that there’s no ‘right’ way to play.

Several of the links above were found by community members (special thanks go to Jockey79). If you have more questions, please search this thread or search the previous thread.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Oh dear a part three?!

Thanks for tending the Open/Solo garden (of massacare) Jenner, appreciate it!

Now where did I put the gasoline and flamethrower...

Alrighty time to write some controversial perspectives that will get me downvoted to hell. (Don't tell me this is not reddit >:3)

---

Open Mode Bias: [On] Off

The game inherently uses the mechanic of risk and reward, however, it is ignored when the developers of the game intentionally try to introduce the game to a wider market for revenue gain purposes.

Inherent mechanic of risk and reward can be found in harder missions (PvE content) receives more reward (credits).

Thus it is easy to conclude, judging from the game's credit system that progression exists (rank progression, as well). Thus it will create players that race for progression for the sake of progression.

Developers deploy the stand of "all modes are equal and valid" is nothing short of avoiding losing portions of its playerbase. However, it is pretty obvious that the playerbase is discontent toward FD's middle-road approach.

Open mode is reliant on Solo mode, meaning that players seeking multiplayer experience receives an open system that is dependent upon Solo mode. Open players can't enter Solo players' modes while vice versa is possible.

Open mode inherently possesses more risk both statistically and practically, however is rewarded the same as Solo, thus creating an imbalance. Suggesting that the modes are not equal and Solo players get the benefit from this forced inequality disguised as equality.

Players do not play for the sake of the activity they willfully engage in, but rather the credits/ranks they earn from doing them, thus judging from such a materialistic approach of defining reward, it makes sense to reward players that engage in more risky environment.

If Solo players/players that merely wish to play the game for engaging in the activities of their choices, then they should have no problem with Open mode being more rewarded for the increase in risk. But they do have a problem, thus leading to the conclusion that non-Open players that rejects Open play having a positive multiplier on its income fearful of their relative safer player styles to not be able to acquire the same reward.

Solo/Private group are completed systems and modes that are independent, while Open is not.

Equality and validity, come again?

---

Solo Mode Bias: [On] Off

Solo players did not necessarily purchase the game for the MP experience or some even loath dealing with people to begin with. There is no reason to force a mode upon Solo players on a game they paid for. Each mode is inherently equal, no matter what activity one engages in (outside of grieving I think), they are considered equal.

"No right way to play Elite Dangerous"

Profession imbalance is to be expected, some career tends to make more money than another. The whole inequality Open mode players stress is nothing but under the assumption that the foundation of credit/rank = reward. Which is not something everyone subscribes to.

There are certainly some people that engage in activities for the sake of the joy that emerges from the engagement instead of the materialistic gain potentially resulting from it.

Even Solo players that buy the risk vs reward system do not necessarily agree to the scaling of risk and reward. Since the relativity of the terms is quite obvious, one cannot assess what is risk and to what magnitude it poses to a certain player.

Thus the choice of playing in Open is not a commitment to risk, but rather a preference of MP disguised and pleading for more (believers of engagement of preferred activity itself being the definition of reward), or unfair (believers of materialistic gain being the definition of reward) reward.

Open mode is complete in the sense that MP includes both competition and cooperation, and both require the consent of the player to do so. The mechanics might be flawed due to P2P and other difficult issues to deal with (combat logging), but it was made clear from the beginning.

This game isn't as PvP focused as many people would like to believe, it is a PvE-heavy sandbox with PvP built upon it. Thus the core should be focused on PvE instead of PvP.

While PvP is of course another valid form of playing Elite Dangerous, though it is not its entirety. Therefore it is something that should allow a portion of the community to dedicate their time to, but not a focus forced upon every player.

---

Open Mode Bias: On [Off]

Solo Mode Bias: On [Off]

It's just a matter of which side yells the loudest now, really. Also how stubborn FD wants to be.

Now then... I wonder if bricks are going to come from both sides or nothing happens...

In the mean time... where did I put the napalm?

 

[relayer]

What ho! I saw the other thread locked & thought we'd been being bad, straying from topic for Noodliness.

It is just WELCOME PART THE THIRD OF THE NEVERENDING THREAD! *pops champagne bottle*

This is The Thread That Never Ends;
It just goes on and on, my friend.
Some people
started posting here
no knowing what it was;
and they'll continue posting here
forever, just because
This is The Thread That Never Ends...

 

[Yaffle]

Jenner, the spoiler's empty when you open it, is it just me?

I can see the posts there - can you now?

 

[relayer]

Jenner, the spoiler's empty when you open it, is it just me?

works for me...

 

[Kigre]

The fact that this topic is close to reaching 10.000 comments, (and it will) says something alone.

In my dearest, deepest, strongly suggested opinion.
The different modes... SHOULD. BE. SEPERATED. End of story.

 

[CMDR Starschulz]

Is this the only topic that has managed to get over 10000 replies? i am not sure if that is an achievement or not

 

[Yaffle]

We've had a few - the Unknown Artefact one gets more action than this one.

This is part three though; so it's nearer 20,000 than 10,000.

 

[Mouse]

The fact that this topic is close to reaching 10.000 comments, (and it will) says something alone.

In my dearest, deepest, strongly suggested opinion.
The different modes... SHOULD. BE. SEPERATED. End of story.

No they shouldn't.



End of Line.

 

[Spook]

Is this the only topic that has managed to get over 10000 replies? i am not sure if that is an achievement or not

Pity the Offline thread was culled in it's prime, that hit two threads in two weeks or so. If my alcohol impaired brain recalls correctly.

The fact that this topic is close to reaching 10.000 comments, (and it will) says something alone.

In my dearest, deepest, strongly suggested opinion.
The different modes... SHOULD. BE. SEPERATED. End of story.

Not happening dude.

From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.

Michael

 

[relayer]

In my dearest, deepest, strongly suggested opinion.
The different modes... SHOULD. BE. SEPERATED. End of story.

No they shouldn't.

End of Line.

Right there is the whole thread encapsulated.

 

[Jenner]

Right there is the whole thread encapsulated.

And around and around we go!

 

[Julissa Silver]

Hey now! We were going to have this thread be labeled as an homage to the legendary Cobra Mk III.

Edit:

GARLIC BREAD.

 

[Mouse]

And around and around we go!

sadly, but what can we do about it cept stand in the face of the storm?

 

[Alex Brentnall]

sadly, but what can we do about it cept stand in the face of the storm?

Mods could close the thread and any like it, tell people to let it go and move on with their lives? Surely everything that can be said has already been said by now. By the players, the developers and anyone else concerned...
Or simply go through deleting any comments that do not add to the debate like the "Should be seperate" and "no it shouldn't" saga so perfectly displayed above on page one of this 3rd iteration Would shorten the number of posts by a good 50% or more.

The fact that this topic is close to reaching 10.000 comments, (and it will) says something alone.

On a serious reply to this: What it says is there are as many people strongly against it as there are for it
If it was clear cut you'd have 15 pages of "Yes they should" or 15 pages of "no they shouldn't" and the thread would have died long ago.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I can see the posts there - can you now?

Yes, I realized Jenner fixed it, thanks for letting me know

 

[Spook]

To be honest the thread title doesn't "quite" encapsulate the subject.

PC/MAC Solo - PC/MAC Groups
PC/MAC Solo - PC/MAC Open
PC/MAC Solo – CQC ?
PC/MAC Solo - X Box Solo
PC/MAC Solo - X Box Groups
PC/MAC Solo - X Box Open
PC/MAC Solo - X Box CQC ?
PC/MAC Solo - PS4 Solo ?
PC/MAC Solo - PS4 Groups ?
PC/MAC Solo - PS4 Open ?
PC/MAC Solo - PS4 CQC ?
PC/MAC Groups - PC/MAC Open
PC/MAC Groups - PC/MAC CQC ?
PC/MAC Groups - X Box Solo
PC/MAC Groups - X Box Groups
PC/MAC Groups - X Box Open
PC/MAC Groups - X Box CQC ?
PC/MAC Groups - PS4 Solo ?
PC/MAC Groups - PS4 Groups ?
PC/MAC Groups - PS4 Open ?
PC/MAC Groups - PS4 CQC ?
PC/MAC Open - CQC ?
PC/MAC Open - Instance greater than (X-1) Number of players
PC/MAC Open - Any player without a valid matchmaking connection
PC/MAC Open - X Box Solo
PC/MAC Open - X Box Groups
PC/MAC Open - X Box Open
PC/MAC Open - X Box CQC ?
PC/MAC Open - PS4 Solo ?
PC/MAC Open - PS4 Groups ?
PC/MAC Open - PS4 Open ?
PC/MAC Open - PS4 CQC ?
X Box Solo - PS4 Solo ?
X Box Solo - PS4 Groups ?
X Box Solo - PS4 Open ?
X Box Solo - PS4 CQC ?
X Box Solo - X Box Groups
X Box Solo - X Box Open
X Box Solo - X Box CQC ?
X Box Groups - X Box Open
X Box Groups - PS4 Solo ?
X Box Groups - PS4 Groups ?
X Box Groups - PS4 Open ?
X Box Groups - PS4 CQC ?
X Box Open - Instance greater than (X-1) Number of players
X Box Open - Any player without a valid matchmaking connection
X Box Open - PS4 Solo ?
X Box Open - PS4 Groups ?
X Box Open - PS4 Open ?
X Box Open - PS4 CQC ?
PS4 Solo ? - PS4 Groups ?
PS4 Solo ? - PS4 Open ?
PS4 Solo ? - PS4 CQC ?
PS4 Groups ? - PS4 Open ?
PS4 Groups ? - PS4 CQC ?
PS4 Open ? – PS4 CQC ?
PS4 Open ? - Instance greater than (X-1) Number of players
PS4 Open ? - Any player without a valid matchmaking connection

? = not confirmed – details not known.

Any chance of updating it ?

I managed to condense it down if it helps:

PC/MAC Open vs PC/MAC Groups vs PC/MAC Solo vs PC/MAC CQC? Vs X Box Open vs X Box Groups vs X Box Solo vs X Box CQC? vs PS4 Open? vs PS4 Groups? vs PS4 Solo? vs PS4 CQC? vs Instance greater than (X-1) No of players vs Any player without a valid matchmaking connection.

Aaaannnd breathe.

 

[relayer]

<snip snippity snip>

Surely everything that can be said has already been said by now. By the players, the developers and anyone else concerned...

<moar snip>

This thread reminds me of an old joke.

A new prisoner is sitting at table with a bunch of old cons.
Each con waits a nice space, and then says a number ("twenty-seven, five-thirty-two," etc)
and the whole table cracks up laughing (except the new guy)

The new con asks about this & one of the old cons says,
"We been in this pokey so long, we know all the jokes by heart, so we just say their number."

So the new con waits for a space, and says, "48!" but no one laughs. The new guy says, "wut"
And one of the old cons says, "some people just can't tell a joke."

btw, post #3719!

 

[Mouse]

This thread reminds me of an old joke.

A new prisoner is sitting at table with a bunch of old cons.
Each con waits a nice space, and then says a number ("twenty-seven, five-thirty-two," etc)
and the whole table cracks up laughing (except the new guy)

The new con asks about this & one of the old cons says,
"We been in this pokey so long, we know all the jokes by heart, so we just say their number."

So the new con waits for a space, and says, "48!" but no one laughs. The new guy says, "wut"
And one of the old cons says, "some people just can't tell a joke."

btw, 371!

As long as it isn't 341.. *Shudder* that brings nightmares.

 

[Scudmungus]

Threeeeedom!