Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Robert Maynard]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/11/06/elite-returns-with-massive-kickstarter-goal/

There's The source for anyone interested, the original is long gone I believe it was on the kickstarter page, the quote I posted was in full.

Thanks for that.

Looking back at the Kickstarter comments, one of the first official comments was as follows:

@ Dan Hughes - the new networking approach (already working) allows us to offer the best of single and multi-player seamlessly, the plan is that it both is a great single-player experience and delivers vast scale for multiple players.

This was within a few hours of the launch of the Kickstarter.

 

[Dogoncrook]

Thanks for that.

Looking back at the Kickstarter comments, one of the first official comments was as follows:



This was within a few hours of the launch of the Kickstarter.

"If the game is to be multiplayer friendly, how will you go about recreating the sense of scale the first game had?
Will the game take any influences from the sequels, such as star dream controls… landing on planets, physics etc? Will the game offer a good single player experience?
Just some questions of the top of my head =)
Thanks David, your games are one of the few constants on my hard drive over the last 20 years! Oh, and please can I keep my Panther Clipper… pretty please?"

That's a reply to that. And it's pretty vague.

 

[Jockey79]

"Whether you want to trade for profit between systems, take part in multiplayer co-op mission alliances, free-for-all group battles and team raids to bring down planetary economies, even tip the balance of power in the galaxy (for your own advantage, of course..), or simply explore the wonders of the galaxy (and who knows what you’ll find out there..) is up to you."

The old "rare but meaningful" really needs to be retired as THE thing braben said about PvP.

Why?

It's more recent, so is the comment "no right way to play".

Also, what exactly was that quote supposed to prove?
At no point does it promote any style of play over another or encourage playing with others.

All the quotes you bring up show right from the start DBOBE and FD made sure the whole thing was built around play choice.
"Whether you want to...." & "you can" - they all mean the same thing, it's up to each person to find their own fun in Elite.

 

[Dogoncrook]

Why?

It's more recent, so is the comment "no right way to play".

Also, what exactly was that quote supposed to prove?
At no point does it promote any style of play over another or encourage playing with others.

All the quotes you bring up show right from the start DBOBE and FD made sure the whole thing was built around play choice.
"Whether you want to...." & "you can" - they all mean the same thing, it's up to each person to find their own fun in Elite.

Because that comment matches what we have. Is contact rare and meaningful? No. Do we have free for all battles, and team raids? Yes. I'm not arguing about how you want to play or how you should play so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

 

[Robert Maynard]

"If the game is to be multiplayer friendly, how will you go about recreating the sense of scale the first game had?
Will the game take any influences from the sequels, such as star dream controls… landing on planets, physics etc? Will the game offer a good single player experience?
Just some questions of the top of my head =)
Thanks David, your games are one of the few constants on my hard drive over the last 20 years! Oh, and please can I keep my Panther Clipper… pretty please?"

That's a reply to that. And it's pretty vague.

It talks about single and multi-player being part of the game design from day one - not tacked on....

 

[Zandraak]

Wow really? Open is already empty... If Elite Dangerous do It, much players will STOP the game, and i'll too.
I think the game actually need ONLY open and delete the solo/private.

 

[Dogoncrook]

It talks about single and multi-player being part of the game design from day one - not tacked on....

Still on about that. I never said they were not both planned from day one, could you drop it if your not willing to address the comment in its original context?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Still on about that. I never said they were not both planned from day one, could you drop it if your not willing to address the comment in its original context?

You claimed that the game is an MMO with a "tacked on" pair of additional game modes - implying that they were not part of the original design....

Also:

I've always thought solo was only put in because they knew the outrage "always online" was causing.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Wow really? Open is already empty... If Elite Dangerous do It, much players will STOP the game, and i'll too.
I think the game actually need ONLY open and delete the solo/private.

what an interesting suggestion....... Actually you may be onto something, why did no one else come up with this idea, I am sure everyone will support you. why not log a support ticket?

actually thinking about it, it will probably just be easier to delete open and only keep groups and solo.... I vote for that.

 

[Dogoncrook]

You claimed that the game is an MMO with a "tacked on" pair of additional game modes - implying that they were not part of the original design....

I was explaining the fact that were it primarily single player, multiplayer would be tacked on and that this bears more resemblance to a multiplayer with single player tacked on. I'm not sure why you are so hung up on this but from here on out I'm just going to have to ignore you because I don't feel like engaging in weird forum lawyering. You are entirely ignoring the point I was trying to illustrate and the context in which it was said.

And you see where I said 'I always thought" you see what I did there? That's why what you are attempting to do is so pathetic.

 

[Herik]

The lack of offline had to do with the fact that everything from missions to factions to epxloration turn ins etc. is tied to the background sim. Without the background sim there is nothing in the game except space and pretty round balls.

No, the lack of offline mode had nothing to do with a lack of 'Background Sim'; It could easily have been 'pretended'.
FD simply saw they had a lot on their plate, -the content they have planned for the game as it is, with all the platforms being supported was plenty to chew. Besides Solo mode seemed to them to solve most of the questions.

And yes they should never have succumbed to the requests for 'Offline mode' during Kickstarter; Or simply said it could be planned at a later date.

 

[Dogoncrook]

No, the lack of offline mode had nothing to do with a lack of 'Background Sim'; It could easily have been 'pretended'.
FD simply saw they had a lot on their plate, -the content they have planned for the game as it is, with all the platforms being supported was plenty to chew. Besides Solo mode seemed to them to solve most of the questions.

And yes they should never have succumbed to the requests for 'Offline mode' during Kickstarter; Or simply said it could be planned at a later date.

"We have developed a multiplayer game with an unfolding story involving the players, and groups collaborating with specific objectives and taking account of all players' behaviour. This is what the game is about. Without this it would not be the rich gaming experience that we will deliver, and would be a great disappointment to all players.

"Any offline experience would be fundamentally empty. We could write a separate mission system to allow a limited series of fixed missions, but that would still not be a compelling game, and is only the first step in the mountain of work required."

Whether or not it was true, it is what they said publicly.

 

[Jockey79]

.... You are entirely ignoring the point I was trying to illustrate and the context in which it was said..

No, you're ignoring how you made the claims;

...All I'm saying is the ability to remove players from your game is the tacked on feature,.....

It's speculation of course but solo has always seemed like an appeasement to me.

And 3 of us have shown you, you are wrong. The game was designed from the start, with mode switching in mind.

Also you claim;

I think mode switching was wise, but ultimately your opting out of a multiplayer game, and opting out of the experience he feels like making.

Newsflash, no one is opting out of anything Frontier are making.... as Frontier make content that even works in Solo play.
People are opting out of dealing with those they do not like - which is nothing to do with the "experience" Frontier provide.

 

[Dogoncrook]

No, you're ignoring how you made the claims;




And 3 of us have shown you, you are wrong. The game was designed from the start, with mode switching in mind.

Also you claim;



Newsflash, no one is opting out of anything Frontier are making.... as Frontier make content that even works in Solo play.
People are opting out of dealing with those they do not like - which is nothing to do with the "experience" Frontier provide.

It's tacked on in the sense that there is no difference between modes. Multiplayer is not seperate like it is in most games. Since the game in braben's own words is a multiplayer game, solo is tacked on. Although I guess that's a bit of a poor choice of words the fact both of you continue to make such a big deal out of it and focus on it is getting pretty old. I mean what's the point? You aren't interested in a discussion. And I'm not interested in engage in ridiculous drawn out arguments over what multiplayer, or mmo mean, or chicken and egg arguments over multiplayer and solo. It's silly. In the interest of discussion I gave my thoughts and impressions and clearly stated it as such. I'll be ignoring you too.

 

[DarkWalker]

“Elite: Dangerous is the game I have wanted Frontier to make for a very long time. The next game in the Elite series – an amazing space epic with stunning visuals, incredible gameplay and breath-taking scope, but this time you can play with your friends too. I want a game that feels more like the original Elite to fly, and with more rapid travel (to allow for the multi-player nature of the game) – so you travel quickly using local ‘hyperspace’ travel rather than by fast-forwarding time – but with the rich galaxy of Frontier – and more, so much more.”

“Up to now “Elite” has been worked upon by a small team as a ‘skunk-works’ activity in the background as availability permits. Nevertheless, we have been preparing; laying the technology and design foundations for when the time is right. And that time is now.”

This is the quote I was talking about.

And, from the same Kickstarter page those quotes are taken from, the explanation of what the technology he talks about is:

"Multiplayer: 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 as you choose. This technology is already working, using a combination of peer-to-peer (to reduce lag) and server connections."

Again I'm talking about the design of the game. It's clearly an mmo, that allows you to play solo, not the other way around. I'm glad you like solo, I'm glad he promised you solo. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying and you haven't offered any evidence the game was designed around solo, other than saying solo exists, and he said he's ok with you playing that way. And why wouldn't he be? Why would he add it and say, but I'd rather you not? I mean that's a given right?

Actually, it was never designed as an outright MMO. Shortly after that initial quote, still in 2012, DB himself said, "I don't see this as an MMO in the traditional sense, unless you think of Call of Duty as an MMO."

It's a hybrid. A game designed around the idea that players are able to choose who they play with, and where players could quickly change that choice to meet others. More or less like Diablo 3, except without a lobby to join other players.

(Of note: the devs only started describing ED as a MMO long after the Kickstart. DB even refused to call the game a MMO during the first interviews.)

If you go looking at the early interviews and dev diaries it is made clear that, since the beginning, Solo was seen as a perfectly valid way to play, and the game was designed around being engaging even for Solo players. No way around it, really; with the size of even just the populated galaxy, plus the limitations of matchmaking, the devs already predicted from the start that even in Open seeing other players around would be a rare occurrence anywhere except the core systems, so the game forcibly had to be designed around the solo player.

 

[Dogoncrook]

"We have developed a multiplayer game with an unfolding story involving the players, and groups collaborating with specific objectives and taking account of all players' behaviour. This is what the game is about."

From my previous comment. The truth is he said all kinds of different things, sometimes completely contradictory, and I've seen him address the concern there would be no solo at all. My initial impression that I was referring to may be wrong, but it was shared by a significant amount of people for a variety of reasons. I mean we have the game now. what it became is now obvious, so there is no point arguing about this.

 

[Jockey79]

Although I guess that's a bit of a poor choice of words the fact both of you continue to make such a big deal out of it

A bit of a poor choice of words !
Understatement of the week

Then instead of clarifying what you meant, you start rambling about it being sold as an MMO (which means nothing as it is sold as multiple game types).

 

[ianw]

The thing is what they have said over time in numerous verbal statements and dev posts has often seemed at odds with other published stuff early on and previous statements and posts.

ETA - they often announce something recently to do with reward levels mentioning kickstarter and fail to clarify if they mean non kickstarter as well - which generally seems to be the case.

Spoiler

Accurately!

 

[Dogoncrook]

A bit of a poor choice of words !
Understatement of the week

Then instead of clarifying what you meant, you start rambling about it being sold as an MMO (which means nothing as it is sold as multiple game types).

"We have developed a multiplayer game with an unfolding story involving the players, and groups collaborating with specific objectives and taking account of all players' behaviour. This is what the game is about."

 

[Belzmort]

Still on about that. I never said they were not both planned from day one, could you drop it if your not willing to address the comment in its original context?

Can I ask what the hell the original context was, as it might help me work out why there is such a storm over what was said during the Kickstarter period. I try to follow this thread, but due to work and the World Premier of Roger Water's The Wall, I seem to have completely missed a big talking point.

I can generally categorise the posters in the threadnoughts to which side of the fence they on, but for the life of me I can't work you out Dogoncrook.