Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Yaffle]

To avoid future confusion any posts quoting others without the proper QUOTE function will be deleted.

To use it, simply press 'reply with quote' at the bottom right of the post in question.

To respond to multiple posts press 'Multi Quote' and then on the last one you wish to quote press 'reply with quote'.

To use multiple quotes from the same post use

at the start of each one, you can get this easily once you have replied with quote.

Thanks

 

[Khelder]

I've forgotten what I replied to that got merged into this mega-thread. :/

...Oh, that's right. The Galaga thing. Carry on.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

To avoid future confusion any posts quoting others without the proper QUOTE function will be deleted.

Like this yeah?

To use it, simply press 'reply with quote' at the bottom right of the post in question.

Just testing...

To respond to multiple quotes press 'Multi Quote' and then on the last one you wish to quote press 'reply with quote'.

Okay think I got it now

 

[Robert Maynard]

Like this yeah?

Nope, like this.

Just testing...

Test failure....

Okay think I got it now

Sorry, you haven't.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Nope, like this.



Test failure....



Sorry, you haven't.

What do you mean? Looks the same to me.. I just had to add in the =part after every quote manually

 

[ianw]

To avoid future confusion any posts quoting others without the proper QUOTE function will be deleted.

To use it, simply press 'reply with quote' at the bottom right of the post in question.

To respond to multiple quotes press 'Multi Quote' and then on the last one you wish to quote press 'reply with quote'.

Thanks

haha yes! I see it now. Well I don't think I am FULLY to blame for that one, we both were a little unclear This is why I usually put the whole body at the top, to prevent such confusion. Thx for pointing it out anyways

Using quote/unquote tags copied as above for Yaffle's post allows you break someone's quote into chunks as you often do with a reply. But it takes longer to copy/paste the tags.

Multi quote allows you quote several people but keeps their quotes intact as one piece - unless you use quote/unquote tags to break them up.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What do you mean? Looks the same to me.. I just had to add in the =part after every quote manually

After you fixed it.... Your post before the edit looked like this:

To avoid future confusion any posts quoting others without the proper QUOTE function will be deleted.

Like this yeah?

To use it, simply press 'reply with quote' at the bottom right of the post in question.

Just testing...

To respond to multiple quotes press 'Multi Quote' and then on the last one you wish to quote press 'reply with quote'.

However, you've now mastered it - I trust that you will continue to enclose quoted sections of posts in the correct tags....
Okay think I got it now

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

After you fixed it.... Your post before the edit looked like this:



However, you've now mastered it - I trust that you will continue to enclose quoted sections of posts in the correct tags....
Okay think I got it now

You learn something new every day

 

[Jockey79]

I will just leave this here Pv
"Open being removed suggestion (by me) is in direct response to 2 previous mega threads worth of people asking for Solo and Group "

Was said by me, from here;

<snip>

Open being removed suggestion (by me) is in direct response to 2 previous mega threads worth of people asking for Solo and Group to be removed. And while I do still think it is a good idea - it shows that the people who first brought up the idea of removing a feature to suit them, didn't like it when the suggestion was turned back at them.

<snip>

You even quoted it back at me in your post here;

"Open being removed suggestion (by me) "

But somehow you got Roybes idea of moving PvP into CQC and keeping open as PvE only mixed up with my idea.
No idea how you got Pv confused in there.

And I've said it before, and I'll say it again;

no open = no problems

[Edit: The little blue arrow after the name in the quote will jump you to the full post the quote comes from]

 

[Asp Explorer]

I can just hear Scuddy singing "No Open no Cry"

 

[Jockey79]

I can just hear Scuddy singing "No Open no Cry"

LMAO !!!

Now I've got a tune stuck in my head;

[video=youtube;pHlSE9j5FGY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHlSE9j5FGY[/video]

 

[Robert Maynard]

I can just hear Scuddy singing "No Open no Cry"

.... or, from the opposing pole of the debate: "No Solo No Cry"....

 

[Jockey79]

I can just hear Scuddy singing "No Open no Cry"

.... or, from the opposing pole of the debate: "No Solo No Cry"....

Is it "Open" mic night here ?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I can just hear Scuddy singing "No Open no Cry"

I shot the Player, but I didn't shoot no NPC
----------------------------------
Emancipate yourselves from Imperial slavery,
None but ourselves can free our minds.
Have no fear for gankers and griefers,
'Cause none of them can stop the time.
How long shall they kill our traders,
While we stand aside and look? Ooh!
Some say it's just a part of it,
We've got to fulfill the DDF
---------------------
Is this Lave, is this Lave, is this Lave
Is this Lave that I'm seein'
Is this Lave, is this Lave, is this Lave
Is this Lave that I'm seein'
------------------


The man's a goldmine.

 

[Yaffle]

Much as the late Mr Marley was awesome (and I believe liked his doughnuts with jam in) it's waaaaay off topic now.

Thanks

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Was said by me, from here;



You even quoted it back at me in your post here;



But somehow you got Roybes idea of moving PvP into CQC and keeping open as PvE only mixed up with my idea.
No idea how you got Pv confused in there.

And I've said it before, and I'll say it again;

no open = no problems

[Edit: The little blue arrow after the name in the quote will jump you to the full post the quote comes from]

No open = No problems, for the two people who think that. Given the 800,000+ potential player base, all I can say is - Good Luck With That " How is that going to prevent you being interdicted against your consent by an NPC who won't respond to your hails? Methinks the "problems" will continue...

 

[Jockey79]

<snip>How is that going to prevent you being interdicted against your consent by an NPC who won't respond to your hails? Methinks the "problems" will continue...

Not really, NPCs are not on the forums asking for more pew pew targets or buffs to their game play

I do miss the days they were after actually after loot though, before they all turned into murderous psychos.
You at least were able to pay your way out if an Elite Anaconda pulled over your Type 7. Now you just have to HW and hope you make it.

 

[DaveB]

It's obvious you think it's "working as intended", so therefore we'll agree to disagree. Not everyone shares your view- and not everyone shares mine, either.

There's no question that is it is, indeed, "working as intended". The different matchmaking modes, the ability to switch between them for each play session at will without loss of progress or any other penalty are exactly what FD originally intended. The reason for this trio of megathreads is folks disagreeing, in diverse ways, with that design intent. You and others are quite free to disagree with it but it's what FD said it would be right from the start. So those that argue for anything other than the status quo in respect of the matchmaking modes are in one of very few positions:

• I didn't do my research before buying in or didn't really understand what I read when I did, now I'm bummed. Sorry, buddy...
• Meh, I'll jump in anyway and then agitate for change to the way I want it. Good luck with that...
• You're kidding me! There's no way anyone would build a game like that! See above about research...
• This would make the way I play better, who cares about all the folks playing any other way... Entitled much?
• I have this wondrous vision about how to improve this fundamental aspect of the game design... Unless you work for FD and have actual input into THEIR vision for the game, that vision of yours is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Less, in fact. The chocolate teapot is at least edible.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

There's no question that is it is, indeed, "working as intended". The different matchmaking modes, the ability to switch between them for each play session at will without loss of progress or any other penalty are exactly what FD originally intended. The reason for this trio of megathreads is folks disagreeing, in diverse ways, with that design intent. You and others are quite free to disagree with it but it's what FD said it would be right from the start. So those that argue for anything other than the status quo in respect of the matchmaking modes are in one of very few positions:

• I didn't do my research before buying in or didn't really understand what I read when I did, now I'm bummed. Sorry, buddy...
• Meh, I'll jump in anyway and then agitate for change to the way I want it. Good luck with that...
• You're kidding me! There's no way anyone would build a game like that! See above about research...
• This would make the way I play better, who cares about all the folks playing any other way... Entitled much?
• I have this wondrous vision about how to improve this fundamental aspect of the game design... Unless you work for FD and have actual input into THEIR vision for the game, that vision of yours is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Less, in fact. The chocolate teapot is at least edible.

Well said.. + 1 rep

 

[Jockey79]

<snip>You and others are quite free to disagree with it but it's what FD said it would be right from the start. <snip>

And just to support that assertion, Ladies and Gentlemen - I give you..... (drum roll please).....

Jockeys Wall of Information;

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.