Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[ianw]

Perhaps you would care to address the rest of the argument? If you care to scroll up you will see I have been told over and over again that Moebius contains 11000 or so players. Am I incorrect?

Indeed you are - the name of the group is Mobius.

From what Mobius himself has said it's a makeshift mode not a group with a common purpose. There is no leader - Mobius is just the guy who adds and bans people because no-one else can. They don't have a common in game goal, ideology, or anything else and they don't support any particular faction.

The thing that they have in common is that they prefer to play PVE so they don't attack each other.

If an open PVE mode was a menu option they - and anyone else who preferred PVE could use that - it wouldn't be the Mobius group - it would be the official PVE mode.

The Mobius private group would no longer be required as a PVE shelter/mode because there would be an official PVE mode. It would just be a private group same as any other.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Indeed you are - the name of the group is Mobius.

From what Mobius himself has said it's a makeshift mode not a group with a common purpose. There is no leader - Mobius is just the guy who adds and bans people because no-one else can. They don't have a common in game goal, ideology, or anything else and they don't support any particular faction.

The thing that they have in common is that they prefer to play PVE so they don't attack each other.

If an open PVE mode was a menu option they - and anyone else who preferred PVE could use that - it wouldn't be the Mobius group - it would be the official PVE mode.

The Mobius private group would no longer be required as a PVE shelter/mode because there would be an official PVE mode. It would just be a private group same as any other.

"Indeed you are - the name of the group is Mobius."

Yes sorry, I have been having some difficulty with this

"From what Mobius himself has said it's a makeshift mode not a group with a common purpose. There is no leader - Mobius is just the guy who adds and bans people because no-one else can. They don't have a common in game goal, ideology, or anything else and they don't support any particular faction."

Thanks for the information. But is he a developer? As it stands it is still just a private group, it is technically not a mode yet. Is it officially recognized as a "mode"?

"The thing that they have in common is that they prefer to play PVE so they don't attack each other."

Thankyou for the information again, but I did not dispute this common purpose of theirs.

"If an open PVE mode was a menu option they - and anyone else who preferred PVE could use that - it wouldn't be the Mobius group - it would be the official PVE mode. "

I understand, I was responding to some of the specific claims that his "mode" should be officially recognized as THE PvE group, and be given a menu option for all players. That is why I was suggesting ALL other groups be given the same privilege in the interests of fairness

 

[Sylveria]

"I'll simply re-quote your original sentence- see below. Your assertion is that Mobius "represents a small percentage of the player base", thus also asserting that it's a minority in comparison as a whole- therefore by logic also asserting that "everyone else" is a majority."

Well you are free to believe otherwise, but I was told by several of the Moebius players on this thread, in the last few days, that the majority of players are NOT AWARE of Moebius. In fact it was their an often cited reason for it's inclusion into the options menu I have even offered a compromise, in which Moebius COULD be displayed, along with other private groups, in the interests of fairness. I will repeat, why only Moebius? BTW, 11000 is a minority percentage of 800,000. That is about 1.375 %, it would be stretching to say this is not a minority... This has nothing to do with PvP, so I cannot for the life of me imagine why you brought it up. As I said, I think you confuse me with other posters.

View attachment 62110

Nice picture, but it still doesn't tell me where the "everyone else" numbers originated from.

 

[Jockey79]

Not that I think there is anything wrong with people using "statistics" but;

 

[ianw]

"Indeed you are - the name of the group is Mobius."

Yes sorry, I have been having some difficulty with this

"From what Mobius himself has said it's a makeshift mode not a group with a common purpose. There is no leader - Mobius is just the guy who adds and bans people because no-one else can. They don't have a common in game goal, ideology, or anything else and they don't support any particular faction."

Thanks for the information. But is he a developer? As it stands it is still just a private group, it is technically not a mode yet. Is it officially recognized as a "mode"?

"The thing that they have in common is that they prefer to play PVE so they don't attack each other."

Thankyou for the information again, but I did not dispute this common purpose of theirs.

"If an open PVE mode was a menu option they - and anyone else who preferred PVE could use that - it wouldn't be the Mobius group - it would be the official PVE mode. "

I understand, I was responding to some of the specific claims that his "mode" should be officially recognized as THE PvE group, and be given a menu option for all players. That is why I was suggesting ALL other groups be given the same privilege in the interests of fairness

He's not a developer and it's not a mode - it's a group that allows people to play together without attacking each other. If a PVE mode was there that had nothing whatsoever to do with Mobius then anyone who wanted to use it could do so.

As we see from the boards there are lots of people who like to play PVE and are unaware of the option to use Mobius. If there was a PVE mode in the menu they wouldn't need to join the Mobius group and many people who currently use Mobius wouldn't need to and they could meet new random people.

 

[Jockey79]

Oh, and I still think removing the problem "Open Mode" will fix all this moaning about "Open Mode"

- - - Updated - - -

He's not a developer and it's not a mode - it's a group that allows people to play together without attacking each other......

And that is not always the case, as was proven by Majinvash and a few others

 

[Cowboy Bats]

I understand, I was responding to some of the specific claims that his "mode" should be officially recognized as THE PvE group, and be given a menu option for all players. That is why I was suggesting ALL other groups be given the same privilege in the interests of fairness

Wouldn't it be much simpler at this point to just admit that the sole reason that you are opposed to an open pve is that you think that it would dilute the current open mode? I mean seriously, we could just dispense with all this dancing around Mobius and the purpose of private groups, if we could just get that out of the way.

 

[Roybe]

He's not a developer and it's not a mode - it's a group that allows people to play together without attacking each other. If a PVE mode was there that had nothing whatsoever to do with Mobius then anyone who wanted to use it could do so.

As we see from the boards there are lots of people who like to play PVE and are unaware of the option to use Mobius. If there was a PVE mode in the menu they wouldn't need to join the Mobius group and many people who currently use Mobius wouldn't need to and they could meet new random people.

Ian...Mobius, for lack of any other place to do the same thing, IS the defacto PVE mode. This is an unfortunate state of affairs..and I have voiced my concern that a player has been put into such a position.

The main argument FOR adding a PVE mode is that there is no game mode available for those that want to play in a large social environment with the ability to be worry free from PVP.

As, with Open and Private...at this point this discussion comes down to the devs design....and their unwillingness to change their basic design choice. As players, it is necessary to come to grips with this issue and play within the rules of the game. Ultimately, the argument just becomes circular in a nature and keeps repeating.

I would go so far as to suggest to the mods that a new 'Pit of despair' should be opened and this discussion and all threads should be placed there. It is important to discuss...but discussion appears to be futile since the devs do not seem willing to change this issue.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Nice picture, but it still doesn't tell me where the "everyone else" numbers originated from.

Approx 800,000 units sold as of this date. Many more to come with XBOX (but I get a feeling those players will be more interested in open play, but that is just my opinion ) If you are so inclined, you can do your own research and propose me an alternative number! I like making charts, I can do some more if you want . Either way, I am of the opinion that MY suggestion is the fairest, most sensitive, and most egalitarian one.

 

[Jockey79]

... Ultimately, the argument just becomes circular in a nature and keeps repeating.....

Three (3) years now, or there about.
The Kickstarter quotes in my "Wall of Information" are from November 2012 (re-posted below to make it easy to get to)

From the Kickstarter;
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*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,*

Some Dev comments from the Kickstarter;



https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1681441
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1705397
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1705551

From the forum archives;
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)

Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."

DB on "Griefing" and "Griefers"
(Listen out for the part where FD can move them in to a private group of just each other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M

Rededit Topic on "unusual event for players to come against players" (With Twitch Video)
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangero...ayers_to_come/

Direct Twitch Link; (Note DB use "Occasonial" and "unusual" regarding players interacting)
http://www.twitch.tv/egx/b/571962295?t=69m00s

Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)

Wikipedia;
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.

Oxford English Dictionary (Online);
An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .


Dev comments;

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by Numi
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

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by Robert Maynard
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

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

Originally Posted by mosh_er
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

Originally Posted by David Braben AMA Thread, post 319

Originally Posted by Alexander the G
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.

Originally Posted by David Braben AMA Thread, post #367

Originally Posted by Adept
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.

Originally Posted by David Braben

Originally Posted by 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.

E3 2015 Interview (17th June 2015);

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/0...-david-braben/


The overall thread topic (+ How XB1 fits);

On that last point, 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. This means that PC players and Xbox players will often wind up on different clients, which means no head-to-head play. To that end, anticipated PC-centric features will likely land on PC first.

And regarding the game design;

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!”

To highlight something from that above quote;

“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."

Here is a quote from Zac Antonaci for the "game is dying" pro-claimers.
Dated 10th July 2015;

Originally Posted by Zac Antonaci

Originally Posted by fred
They need to be.


Look at the current posts on the subreddit and the forum. Your core player base is simply stopping playing. You might be selling copies but if your core community is splitting or stopping playing then you have a problem.

Hey Fred,


I wanted to reply to this honestly if I may.


I'm not going to be talking about active player numbers explicitally but I can tell you without question that the game has a very healthy and thriving community who enjoys hours upon hours of Elite. You really don't need to worry on that point.


<snip>


Zac

Originally Posted by Zac Antonaci

According to some members of the community, Solo players should have a limited or no effect on Powerplay - or, alternatively, playing in Open should offer Powerplay bonuses. Is this something you are considering?

No. For us Solo, Groups and Open are all valid and equal ways to play the game.

And a nice, clear, concise comment from Michael Brookes regarding the modes;

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes
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

Dev Update 6th August 2015 (https://community.elitedangerous.com/node/248);

What we are doing is new in many ways, both technically and in terms of how we are realizing our long term ambitions for Elite Dangerous. As we evolve the game we are trying to give the best value we can to both existing and new players, for the long term benefit of everyone. That’s why we’ve worked hard to keep backwards compatibility for the Elite Dangerous: Horizons season, and are continuing to release updates for ‘season one’ players. Everyone will continue to fly in the same galaxy, and be impacted by, participate in and help to drive the same events.

 

[ianw]

Ian...Mobius, for lack of any other place to do the same thing, IS the defacto PVE mode. This is an unfortunate state of affairs..and I have voiced my concern that a player has been put into such a position.

The main argument FOR adding a PVE mode is that there is no game mode available for those that want to play in a large social environment with the ability to be worry free from PVP.

As, with Open and Private...at this point this discussion comes down to the devs design....and their unwillingness to change their basic design choice. As players, it is necessary to come to grips with this issue and play within the rules of the game. Ultimately, the argument just becomes circular in a nature and keeps repeating.

I would go so far as to suggest to the mods that a new 'Pit of despair' should be opened and this discussion and all threads should be placed there. It is important to discuss...but discussion appears to be futile since the devs do not seem willing to change this issue.

Hi Roy - I know my friend. Though I disagree with you on some points we are on the same page on the state of affairs, the design etc. I think the Pit of Despair has some merit too.

I'm just trying to help a fellow commander with something he appears to be having trouble with - he did ask if we was wrong and I just felt obliged to try an and assist.

Coz I'm just that kind of guy!

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Oh, and I still think removing the problem "Open Mode" will fix all this moaning about "Open Mode"

- - - Updated - - -



And that is not always the case, as was proven by Majinvash and a few others

Again, I find it odd that someone would advocate for removing the Open mode to fix the so called "moaning". I have only seen about ten people engaged in this discussion over the last week. The great majority seem to be buzzing about other things

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes
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

So why would anyone think this would happen given the above statement?

 

[Roybe]

Jockey...I think the idea of a PVE mode falls within the idea..'we are making the game we want to play'...basically, if you would like to play with a large social group...you will have to play the way we say....with everyone...warts and all.

They can claim that everyone can play the way they want...the caveat to that statement anywhere is...as long as it is the way we design it.

The idea of PVE area is not new...and Mobius made his group in Beta or there abouts....so the devs knew that there was a strong base that would not be able to 'play their way' and did nothing to improve this shortcoming...at this point it either must be accepted or treated equivalently to the Open vs. discussion.

do not misundestand my statement...I think there is a case to be made for a PVE mode...I just do not believe the devs are willing to capitulate on it.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Jockey...I think the idea of a PVE mode falls within the idea..'we are making the game we want to play'...basically, if you would like to play with a large social group...you will have to play the way we say....with everyone...warts and all.

They can claim that everyone can play the way they want...the caveat to that statement anywhere is...as long as it is the way we design it.

The idea of PVE area is not new...and Mobius made his group in Beta or there abouts....so the devs knew that there was a strong base that would not be able to 'play their way' and did nothing to improve this shortcoming...at this point it either must be accepted or treated equivalently to the Open vs. discussion.

do not misundestand my statement...I think there is a case to be made for a PVE mode...I just do not believe the devs are willing to capitulate on it.

What do you think of my suggestion Roybe? Having a groups browser, so we could have EDC, Moebius, etc... any online group, with a filter system so we can choose PvE, PvP, etc... and see the people online. I think it seems like a fair solution (though I expect the devs would keep things as they are)..

 

[Mouse]

Jockey...I think the idea of a PVE mode falls within the idea..'we are making the game we want to play'...basically, if you would like to play with a large social group...you will have to play the way we say....with everyone...warts and all.

They can claim that everyone can play the way they want...the caveat to that statement anywhere is...as long as it is the way we design it.

The idea of PVE area is not new...and Mobius made his group in Beta or there abouts....so the devs knew that there was a strong base that would not be able to 'play their way' and did nothing to improve this shortcoming...at this point it either must be accepted or treated equivalently to the Open vs. discussion.

do not misundestand my statement...I think there is a case to be made for a PVE mode...I just do not believe the devs are willing to capitulate on it.

Agree and hope one day we can show them enough of why it is a good idea so that they would realize it is a benefit.

 

[DarkWalker]

Nice picture, but it still doesn't tell me where the "everyone else" numbers originated from.

He is trying to imply that only those in Mobius would want a PvE Open mode. Which is factually false, and unethical to boot.

It might be closer to the point if he had picked the number of people registered in the Forums, given that for the most part only people that use the form even have a chance to learn that the Mobius group exists; that would put the number of people choosing to play in a PvE "mode" at roughly 20% of the ones that are even aware it exists, which is a huge amount taking into account that the rest would divide themselves between Open, Solo, and other groups. Though even then it still wouldn't be the whole truth, as not everyone in the forums knows about the Mobius group, nor is everyone willing to play in a private group even if it's more closely aligned to how they prefer to play the game.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

He is trying to imply that only those in Mobius would want a PvE Open mode. Which is factually false, and unethical to boot.

It might be closer to the point if he had picked the number of people registered in the Forums, given that for the most part only people that use the form even have a chance to learn that the Mobius group exists; that would put the number of people choosing to play in a PvE "mode" at roughly 20% of the ones that are even aware it exists, which is a huge amount taking into account that the rest would divide themselves between Open, Solo, and other groups. Though even then it still wouldn't be the whole truth, as not everyone in the forums knows about the Mobius group, not everyone is willing to play in a private group even if it's more closely aligned to how they prefer to play the game.

"He is trying to imply that only those in Mobius would want a PvE Open mode. Which is factually false, and unethical to boot."

Very Funny You are free to think that is what I mean, but it is not. That other "majority" who are not aware of Moebius may also want PvE. I did not make the claim you are suggesting, so that is an obvious strawman. Even if I did mean that, how would that be "unethical"?

Also, I wish to say that it is my personal opinion that these forums do not represent the wants and needs of the majority player base, let alone this thread. What matters most is what the devs want, and they have made their position quite clear as far as I am concerned

 

[ianw]

Wouldn't it be much simpler at this point to just admit that the sole reason that you are opposed to an open pve is that you think that it would dilute the current open mode? I mean seriously, we could just dispense with all this dancing around Mobius and the purpose of private groups, if we could just get that out of the way.

I think this post is as close as you'll get to that admission.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=182327&p=2809879&viewfull=1#post2809879

That post and many of the pirates posts remind me of this guy;

[video=youtube;TFq8rBe79L0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFq8rBe79L0[/video]

What do you think of my suggestion Roybe? Having a groups browser, so we could have EDC, Moebius, etc... any online group, with a filter system so we can choose PvE, PvP, etc... and see the people online. I think it seems like a fair solution (though I expect the devs would keep things as they are)..

With the greatest respect I can't help thinking would be kind of a waste of time as each group can decide their policy as to what goes on in the group. If the PVE mode was at the main menu then everyone in it would see far more random people.

I think it's a win! Though as I have often said I probably wouldn't use it but then I have to accept it's not all about me. Take one for the team as it were!

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Ima jump into here again for just one post:

I think it is pointless to discuss the reasoning behind the groups (I myself find it 'okay' that you can switch between single, group and multiplayer) and that every mode impacts the background sim and powerplay (this however, is complete nonesense in my opinion, it destroys every kind of strategical play and mass control).

As a conclusion I would rather suggest to discuss balancing between the modes as solo and group modes being clearly the 'right' aka 'best' way to play ED assuming progress is what you want (which is the common goal in ED -> credits -> bigger ships ->more credits -> more ships -> more possibilities).


An open PvE mode would further destroy the "dangerous" behind the "Elite:" tag. The galaxy is, by far, not dangerous.
That said, I think we all can agree that solo is the beginner mode, co-op/group the beginner mode for friends (and a good way to teach a friend the game) and open being the normal mode. Playing a multiplayer game how it should be.

So, what do you guys think about player rewards? The easiest example would be to increase the reward for killing a player, let's say the bounty fines are icnreased by 5. A palyer would easily get a high bounty. Ofcourse we need to adress stuff like "Hey, yo! Let's undermine and after tha twe kill eachother in a sidey to get credits!". Only getting the insurance costs of that palyer's ship as a reward would be a start. So a sidey can easily pass by with 10 million cr. bounty but he will only lose 10.000 creidts if killed by an NPC or player.

Take this idea and change it as you please and in the end it is just an example, not the ultimate solution to everything.


Now, to conclude: Let's talk about mode-balancing rather than the never ending discussion about choices already being made by FD (seperate saves, etc.). While I am not happy with FD's decisions, I can partly agree with some of them.


EDIT: Sorry for typos (if they are any, which is quite likely ) ... I was tired when writing this.

 

[Seonid]

Fictitious pie chart

One slight problem there, you're working on assumption that members of a particular Private Group only ever play in that Private Group. If you were a member you would see that is not the case and would in fact see people moving about between all three game modes. In fact, they seem to move around at will, as if they had a free choice of how they wish to play the game... Fancy that!