Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Khelder]

That may well be the case - however the fact that the single shared galaxy state (that everyone experiences and everyone affects) has been a core design feature since the outset means that every player who has bought the game did so with this feature in-place.

To buy a game on the assumption that it will be changed to suit one's personal preference would be a bit presumptuous, wouldn't you say?

I doubt that many truly would have purchased the game on the assumption that it will be changed. However, I would say that it is quite possible to buy a game (or anything really) with a certain feature and not realise its real significance until a later point. They complain. You point to the fineprint and say, "Well, you should have known. You know, you're being a bit presumptuous." That's your choice. I'm just simply sitting here agreeing with them and say, "Yeah, I get it." But I can't do much more than that.

Some could also say that those who resist change (despite one of the core design 'features' being that it was released in an 'in development' state) that would improve the quality of the game (in their opinion) are somewhat stubborn or unreasonable?

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

View attachment 67169

See here, how I'm fuel scooping?

I didn't choose to scoop there, that is where I landed when I jumped in to the system.
The top star was the jump in point, the lower one was just in the way.

That situation you called "bug" or "desync", is one I've had a few times because of closer landings than one pictured.
I've jumped in to the "oh no" point and been kicked back to normal space so fast the hyperspace animation had not finished before it put me to the emergency drop out animation - no bug or desync, just a star getting in the way of my landing - in a damaging way.

It is a risk of the job, that a binary or more stars be clumped so close together you take damage when you drop in to the system - the only thing you can do, is take control of your ship and carry on. I had one like the picture while heading out, where I was exactly between the two stars and taking heat damage from both. All I could do was put my foot down and hope I made it.

Should the mode I'm in decide how much more that risk is worth?
As you know, people were killed while at Sag A* in open... so even exploring there is that chance isn't there. Should I get paid more for using open mode? (because I have used it this trip while heading out) and should my risks also bump up my pay?
Having a couple of stars try to toast me in the middle of nowhere - surely that risk warrants more pay?

Ok I know what you mean now. That's pretty rare isn't it? I doubt anyone could ever be so unlucky to have that happen repeatedly and die because of it.

 

[Majinvash]

If PvP isn't its own reward, then why do it? You can get social experience of ED in Mobius without the PvP or other private groups with controlled encounters - the only reason to play open is the excitement someone may want to kill you.

As for the others - they should have read up on the game before buying it - 1 BGS, all modes was the mantra from the start before any money changed hands, it was the KS sales pitch. Arguing over it after buying the game is stupid beyond belief. Where else do people buy things without reading up what it is first? Then complain about THEIR mistake afterwards?

Those are the same people KP had to put "Warning: May Contain Nuts".....

ON A PACKET OF NUTS ! (Honestly, what else did they expect to find in there, car keys for a Bentley!?)

I'n not sorry to say, I have no sympathy here for those types of people.

You do also realise that for this game to last its 10 year plan, it will need to adapt to the wants of its player base. (FD is a business, its has bills.)
Not pander to the small number of supporters that gave it life.

Whether you feel like that is fair or not has no bearing over how FD as a business is going to have to run.

Throwing up what was once discussed or said in the beginning is rather pointless.

The future of this game is PVP in one style or another whether that be "Pew pew pew" or working against player factions by grinding. Its still player vs player.
If this wasn't the case then this thread would never have existed.

The basic crack is that people don't feel that other modes should effect their modes by the counter actions they are taking.

You will cry no its not, but look at the facts. QCQ, Player factions IN game, more combat focused ships being produced, FD stress testing how many players its can fit into an instance, Code vs Hutton player turn out.

At some point in the future they are going to have to seriously look at the modes and I can be brutally sure that Open will be one of the modes that survives.

People still scream they wont continue playing the game, FD will look at its employees and the market that is going to target and move past those tears.
Xbox and PS3 are going to be a huge money maker and that market wants excitement and quick action over long drawn out grinding.
FD isn't going to build two games, so it will build where the revenue is.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[Khelder]

If PvP isn't its own reward, then why do it? You can get social experience of ED in Mobius without the PvP or other private groups with controlled encounters - the only reason to play open is the excitement someone may want to kill you.

I don't know. I play Open but I generally avoid PvP. I'm not interested in groups and I just feel that Solo is somehow "not right". Don't take this the wrong way. This is just how I feel about the game myself at the moment. Not judging others. I wouldn't have a problem playing Solo if that was all the game was. But having Open there and not using it somehow just doesn't sit right. It feels, to me, that by playing Open I am doing it "properly". Yes, yes, "no right way". I'm happy with that. But to me, Open feels like the "right" way.

As for the others - they should have read up on the game before buying it - 1 BGS, all modes was the mantra from the start before any money changed hands, it was the KS sales pitch. Arguing over it after buying the game is stupid beyond belief. Where else do people buy things without reading up what it is first? Then complain about THEIR mistake afterwards?

Those are the same people KP had to put "Warning: May Contain Nuts".....

ON A PACKET OF NUTS ! (Honestly, what else did they expect to find in there, car keys for a Bentley!?)

I'n not sorry to say, I have no sympathy here for those types of people.

"Where else do people buy things without reading what it is first?" You've got to be kidding, right? Certain parts of the retail industry rely heavily on impulse buying. Even if that weren't the case, I'm almost certain that the percentage of people who purchase a product without in-depth research is a lot higher than those who do.

I've got to admit, I am one of those people who purchased without a lot of research. Sure, I watched a couple of the preview videos. But I loved Elite back in the 80's. As soon as I was in a position to do so, I was going to buy it.

But the real problem is that you can do plenty of research about something and still not understand the full import of a 'feature' until you actually use it. Or that feature may only become a problem after other new features are introduced that conflict with it. I get your point with the nuts example. I just don't believe that the mode contention is that obvious. It's hard enough to explain that because the modes are different that must mean that they are not equal - regardless of how FD says they will be treated.

 

[ianw]

You do also realise that for this game to last its 10 year plan, it will need to adapt to the wants of its player base. (FD is a business, its has bills.)
Not pander to the small number of supporters that gave it life.

Whether you feel like that is fair or not has no bearing over how FD as a business is going to have to run.

Throwing up what was once discussed or said in the beginning is rather pointless.

The future of this game is PVP in one style or another whether that be "Pew pew pew" or working against player factions by grinding. Its still player vs player.
If this wasn't the case then this thread would never have existed.

The basic crack is that people don't feel that other modes should effect their modes by the counter actions they are taking.

You will cry no its not, but look at the facts. QCQ, Player factions IN game, more combat focused ships being produced, FD stress testing how many players its can fit into an instance, Code vs Hutton player turn out.

At some point in the future they are going to have to seriously look at the modes and I can be brutally sure that Open will be one of the modes that survives.

People still scream they wont continue playing the game, FD will look at its employees and the market that is going to target and move past those tears.
Xbox and PS3 are going to be a huge money maker and that market wants excitement and quick action over long drawn out grinding.
FD isn't going to build two games, so it will build where the revenue is.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

It doesn't need 2 games - that's the whole point - modes are just matchmaking. It costs them nothing to have solo or private and those players buy skins and bobble heads and expansions just the same as anyone else.

I'm predicting no major changes.

Astrodamus

The Voice of the Mysterons

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

You do also realise that for this game to last its 10 year plan, it will need to adapt to the wants of its player base. (FD is a business, its has bills.)
Not pander to the small number of supporters that gave it life.

So tell me, do you think FD lied to its player base to get the game funded, or is it just that you think FD are imbeciles & you know better about the economics of game development than FD?

because IF what you say is correct, one of the above have to be true.

I do not claim that solo or private groups are more important to the future of the game than open, but all I can say is that in my personal experience every single person i know in my meat space who play ED, do so in either solo or private group for the most part, and have little interest in open other than the odd jaunt in to say hello for CGs.

CQC has reinforced this position for them, because IF they decide they want some ED flavoured mindless pew pew as you call it, they can go to that.

Me personally I think the mode structure is essentially where it is meant to be, and that FD got this right and it is going no where.

I will bet my house on 1 thing however..... As long as MS charge for xbox live, solo is going no where, and neither is the ability to swap modes.... can you imagine the outcry if little Johnny’s xbox live ran out, and so he defaulted to solo mode for 20 mins before realising, and then because of that he was for ever banned from open mode losing a 1000 hrs progress?

this is not gonna happen!.


As an aside......... out of curiosity, did private groups get reinstated into the XB1 version on launch and if not was a reason given?

 

[Daffan]

It's clear what you would like to see Daffan, and I honestly respect your point of view and your hopes for the game.

However, there is one small thing you don't seem to recognize. There are people who like to play computer games, but who don't enjoy playing them with other people. Being forced into doing so would not make the game better for them, not at all. Trying to entice them into a play mode or style that doesn't appeal to them won't work.

As I've said before, the people who feel the same as you are presumably all there in Open right now, all you need to do is to reach out to them and get together and play.

Both my idea did not force anyone to play open.

They were just nice bonus for escorts!

You are hard pressed to find these kinds of people willing to spend time out from RES/powerplay grinding to escort for zero profit!

Another hallmark of the open-pvp-only crowd - "I do this to make credits in solo, but I don't want you doing it in solo."

Really guy, these twisty pretzels are of your own making.

I did it because it's the most efficient

I never said they should take it away from solo did i lately? NO. I just said give escorts some money... to make it viable...

That may well be the case - however the fact that the single shared galaxy state (that everyone experiences and everyone affects) has been a core design feature since the outset means that every player who has bought the game did so with this feature in-place.

To buy a game on the assumption that it will be changed to suit one's personal preference would be a bit presumptuous, wouldn't you say?

U could also make argument that power play was not in at launch so Solo did not matter as much... Now with undermining it's a different story. However i personally don't care because I've written power play of as a solo-grind.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

How do profession risks relate at all to the topic of this thread?

How not?

Every player starting the game has a lack of money, since money is what makes him able to "unlock" the full possibilities of the game. Once you have 1billion credits that won't matter anymore. He can then do whta he like which will only cost him some of his "too plenty" credits.
So for nearly all new players, making money is the first goal. And I guess you do now figure out how professions their risks, and their interaction with open and solo mode DO relate to this topic.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

You do also realise that for this game to last its 10 year plan, it will need to adapt to the wants of its player base. (FD is a business, its has bills.)
Not pander to the small number of supporters that gave it life.

Whether you feel like that is fair or not has no bearing over how FD as a business is going to have to run.

Throwing up what was once discussed or said in the beginning is rather pointless.

The future of this game is PVP in one style or another whether that be "Pew pew pew" or working against player factions by grinding. Its still player vs player.
If this wasn't the case then this thread would never have existed.

The basic crack is that people don't feel that other modes should effect their modes by the counter actions they are taking.

You will cry no its not, but look at the facts. QCQ, Player factions IN game, more combat focused ships being produced, FD stress testing how many players its can fit into an instance, Code vs Hutton player turn out.

At some point in the future they are going to have to seriously look at the modes and I can be brutally sure that Open will be one of the modes that survives.

People still scream they wont continue playing the game, FD will look at its employees and the market that is going to target and move past those tears.
Xbox and PS3 are going to be a huge money maker and that market wants excitement and quick action over long drawn out grinding.
FD isn't going to build two games, so it will build where the revenue is.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

Well said, I wouldn't be surprised if fd started pushing even harder towards open, and multiplayer playstyles. That seems to be the direction games as a whole, are moving in. Even metal gear solid, my favorite series, moved towards multiplayer away from of it's single player focus.

 

[Majinvash]

So tell me, do you think FD lied to its player base to get the game funded, or is it just that you think FD are imbeciles & you know better about the economics of game development than FD?

because IF what you say is correct, one of the above have to be true.

I do not claim that private groups are more important to the future of the game than open, but all I can say is that every single person i know in my meat space who play ED, do so in either solo or private group, and have little interest in open.

CQC has reinforced this position for them, because IF they decide they want some ED flavoured mindless pew pew as you call it, they can go to that.

Me personally I think the mode structure is essentially where it is meant to be, and that FD got this right and it is going no where.

I am not saying they lied to their backers, I am saying that they cannot pander to them indefinitely.

One of us will be right.

You are looking at CQC in the wrong way, its not to appease the PVP Open crowd. Its to bring in a different market. When they get bored of QCQ you think they are going to spend 100's of hours trading and exploring?

Take away the emotion of what you think ED should be and what it was said it would be, look at the cold hard reality of what sells these days and what doesn't on the console market.

I am part of the PC Master race and that will never change, but we are a minority in the gaming market. ( Although maybe right now we out number the console players, but we have had a 1 year head start )

In the same way EA lied to everyone that PC would be the lead platform for Battlefield 3 to then give us a console port. It was still a huge seller, to be followed by BF4 and soon Battlefronts.
Gaming companies that want to exist in one of the toughest markets out, will follow the money. Why would FD be any different? Especially with competitors on the horizon. Whether No Mans sky or SC ever make it to release will not effect the plans FD has to have in place to retain its market share "if" they should release.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[Khelder]

So tell me, do you think FD lied to its player base to get the game funded, or is it just that you think FD are imbeciles & you know better about the economics of game development than FD?

because IF what you say is correct, one of the above have to be true.

Why does it have to be one of those options?

I don't think many people would seriously suggest that FD lied in order to get funding. It sounds very much like they didn't really need the funding anyway and would have released the game regardless. They did the KS to gauge interest and to fund a better (read: prettier) game.

However, FD is a business and they do know about the economics of their game development. If changing a "core design principle" of the game would result in a better business outcome, then it would be prudent for them to do so. It would seem to me that taking the time and effort to release to XB1 and building CQC are fairly strong indicators of pursuing a broader audience (read: market share) as opposed to following the "vision".

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

In the same way EA lied to everyone that PC would be the lead platform for Battlefield 3 to then give us a console port.

a bit of a segue but do you think so? I must admit I was very happy with BF3 on PC (4 as well once they finally sorted out the net code). I found it way better than the 360 version.

back to ED...... if anything I think the consoles have had the side effect of cementing solo mode and the not getting locked out of open, not the other way around for the reason i edited in.......... not everyone on xbox (or ps4 if it comes) will have access to online play all the time and to buy a game allowing them to play without paying a monthly fee, only to take it away from them later would be a disaster for FD imo.

MP games sell, sure they do.... but I would counter that games like skyrim and witcher 3 show that single player games do too.

I personally see ED as a hybrid game a bit like GTA or MGS, games which have been historically single player but have now bought in the option to choose to play MP as well if you like.

just cause 3 is also still going to be primarily single player (though my god if ever there was a game begging for co-op or vs MP mayhem as an extra that has to be it)

Why does it have to be one of those options?

because even as recently as a few weeks ago FD staff have promised us the 3 modes are going no where!.

 

[Seonid]

You do also realise that for this game to last its 10 year plan, it will need to adapt to the wants of its player base. (FD is a business, its has bills.) Not pander to the small number of supporters that gave it life.

FD has been trading for 21 years and ED is one of 9 products [currently] and ED is far more to DBOBE than you realise. The number of Business experts and commercial game developers you see posting on this forum is staggering. I assume it's only a sense of modesty that prevents them stating their decades of experience.

 

[Jockey79]

Ok I know what you mean now. That's pretty rare isn't it? I doubt anyone could ever be so unlucky to have that happen repeatedly and die because of it.

I thought it was rare, had maybe twice as trader. Once in my T7 and once in my T9.
But since I've taken the tourist run to Sag A and Great Annihilator I've had it quite a few times.

I may be unlucky, I don't know - but it does show, there is a risk of being killed by the environment, before anything else is taken in to consideration (like NPCs, or PCs).

(I suppose this is true anywhere thinking about it - almost lost my T7 as I had it happen to that on its first trade run, my T9 was outfitted better and ran a lot cooler so it was okay)

You do also realise that for this game to last its 10 year plan, it will need to adapt to the wants of its player base. (FD is a business, its has bills.)
Not pander to the small number of supporters that gave it life.

Very true, shame the PvP / Open Only group is so small and easily ignored.
And now they have a pure PvP mode - no need to force anyone else in to PvP is there

But to me, Open feels like the "right" way.

Glad you have that connection to that mode and are enjoying it.
That is how I feel about Private Groups

"Where else do people buy things without reading what it is first?" You've got to be kidding, right? Certain parts of the retail industry rely heavily on impulse buying. Even if that weren't the case, I'm almost certain that the percentage of people who purchase a product without in-depth research is a lot higher than those who do./

And how many people, after an "impulse" buy, get to use said product for a few weeks - then demand the manufacturing people redesign it as it wasn't what they really wanted?

Can I buy a bicycle and in 4 weeks have Raleigh remake it in to a Motorbike as I've never liked peddling and wanted a motor vehicle ?

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Neither Open nor Choice proponents have any hard data on the division of player numbers. The only vaguery we had recently from Zac was about "new players and healthy numbers", make of that what you will.
-
FDev have maintained a vigorous grasp on the rudder of the game so far and can on occasions seem to delight in telling customers as little as possible. I do not expect this to change.
-
I suppose the economic seesaw is something like this: How much would it cost us to create a second BGS? How much revenue can we project based on player data for those who play a significant amount of their time in Open (with the caveat that not everyone who plays in open seeks or desires pvp, they just choose open for "reasons"). Which side of the seesaw is bigger and is either side gaining momentum?
-
In the end, a mash-up between DBOBE's vision, any financial imperatives and the price of fish may well change the course of the game. We will all have to wait and see!
-
Tuub t Tute
The Voice of the BeeHive

 

[Robert Maynard]

You do also realise that for this game to last its 10 year plan, it will need to adapt to the wants of its player base. (FD is a business, its has bills.)
Not pander to the small number of supporters that gave it life.

Where are the published statistics which show us that "the wants of the player base" are not what the game is at the moment?

Whether you feel like that is fair or not has no bearing over how FD as a business is going to have to run.

I expect that only what Frontier considers to be fair will influence any changes to the game going forward.

Throwing up what was once discussed or said in the beginning is rather pointless.

Is it? Large portions of the originally stated game design have been implemented already - just as we expected when reading the Kickstarter pitch in November 2012.

The future of this game is PVP in one style or another whether that be "Pew pew pew" or working against player factions by grinding. Its still player vs player.
If this wasn't the case then this thread would never have existed.

PvP may be direct or indirect as we have the three modes to play in.

The basic crack is that people don't feel that other modes should effect their modes by the counter actions they are taking.

Some people feel that way, of course. No statistics are available to us to indicate what proportion of the player-base they represent though.

You will cry no its not, but look at the facts. QCQ, Player factions IN game, more combat focused ships being produced, FD stress testing how many players its can fit into an instance, Code vs Hutton player turn out.

CQC is no consequence PvP outside the main game - with the added benefit of earning participants credits for use in the main game. Player groups are indeed in the game. More ships are indeed being added. Improving instanced benefits all players, not just those who want to shoot at each other. The Hutton Mug CG was great fun - I met lots of interesting and sociable players.

At some point in the future they are going to have to seriously look at the modes and I can be brutally sure that Open will be one of the modes that survives.

Being "sure that Open will be one of the modes that survives" is a no-bet. It is one of the three modes that the game launched with - I don't expect any of them to be removed.

People still scream they wont continue playing the game, FD will look at its employees and the market that is going to target and move past those tears.
Xbox and PS3 are going to be a huge money maker and that market wants excitement and quick action over long drawn out grinding.
FD isn't going to build two games, so it will build where the revenue is.

Frontier will look at its game statistics - that will tell it plenty about how the player-base actually plays the game. As to where any "tears" will be coming from - there's no guarantee that it'll be from those who eschew PvP.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

Was there a ballot for that post or is it assumed....?

 

[Khelder]

How not?

Every player starting the game has a lack of money, since money is what makes him able to "unlock" the full possibilities of the game. Once you have 1billion credits that won't matter anymore. He can then do whta he like which will only cost him some of his "too plenty" credits.
So for nearly all new players, making money is the first goal. And I guess you do now figure out how professions their risks, and their interaction with open and solo mode DO relate to this topic.

The topic of this thread is (supposed to be) mode switching and its effect on a common BGS. I'm not sure how choice of profession fits into that. Every standard profession is available to all players in all modes.

You could suggest that some might choose a profession they want to do and then choose the mode that is easiest to do that in. But, then, the answer would likely always be... Solo (or maybe Group with wings). The fact that you can choose a mode to make "easier" progress in a profession has come up as a topic. But the actual choice of profession doesn't really matter.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

You do also realise that for this game to last its 10 year plan, it will need to adapt to the wants of its player base.
…

The future of this game is PVP in one style or another whether that be "Pew pew pew" or working against player factions by grinding. Its still player vs player.
…

At some point in the future they are going to have to seriously look at the modes and I can be brutally sure that Open will be one of the modes that survives.
…

Looking at MMOs only a few offer only PvP modes and they are considered niche games for a very special type of gamers.
I think offering a MMO style game without offering a way to play that game without PvP is not a good business decision. Yes, the game will adapt to its player base, but I doubt that a large portion of the player base actually wants a pure "direct" PvP ("pew pew") game.
I think that most gamers don't like "direct PvP" in MMO-style games and the majority prefers cooperative game play without direct opposition of other players.

The whole concept with the one single BGS can be considered PvP, but I think that's not the type of PvP many players have problems with.

Looking at the future, I agree with you that something like Open Mode will remain part of the game. I think it will have changed in someway. At some point in the future I think there will be an Open PvE mode. If Solo Mode or Private Group mode survive? I don't know.

The game will change and I hope that the ability to change modes will stay something that is always possible.

We will see how it will change over time.

 

[Jockey79]

Neither Open nor Choice proponents have any hard data on the division of player numbers. The only vaguery we had recently from Zac was about "new players and healthy numbers", make of that what you will.

And JimS from FDev (See the part in green)

 

[Roybe]

I forgot to answer this. A Pirate loadout is completely different from a pure pvp loadout. It's built for a different purpose, carrying cargo and disabling weak trade ships, not carrying shield cells and punching through shield cell spam.

The playstyle is also different, piracy is more about subiety, persuasion, and bluster.Bounty hunting, shock and awe, letting your guns do the talking, and being able to back up anything they say.

The problem pirates face is that the 'shoot 'em in the face' crowd is killing your profession....if I am to understand the desire to have more traders in Open. (Please FDEv...make NPC's as profitable as a real person!).

Currently, the pirates seem to accept this problem...and blame the traders...for avoidance.

I say the pirates need to understand the real problem, and police their profession and get rid of those that damage their good works and names.

We can disagree on this. However, realize your reluctance to police against the PVP 'crazies' hurts your chosen profession....and I would assume the amount of fun you have as a pirate.