Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Ziggy Stardust]

As far as the whole someone playing in SOLO they are also playing in Multiplayer line, that was good, I mean seriously ROFLM*O...... waiiiiiittt you were joking there weren't you... I mean playing by yourself but your still playing multiplayer.... that was a joke right?.

He follows his statement with an argument.

Maybe instead of mocking, you should try addressing it. A discussion might break out.

Well done on paragraphs though. That's a win-win all around.

 

[Zieman]

Gosh I hate it when people don;t read the previous posts and get their facts straight before posting.... don't you hate that?

Look in the mirror while saying the quoted part aloud 10 times. Then do something new: think.

You are the one who hasn't got the facts straight, while accusing others of your mistake. I think you're just trolling.

 

[Kerrash]

Once again this thread has descended into constant sniping at each other rather than discussing the topic.
The thread will remain closed whilst you all collect your thoughts in a calm an rational matter.

Frontier Moderation Team

 

[Ian Phillips]

Lets just put this on pause for a while.

<edit>
ninja'd

 

[Kerrash]

Okay, there are a little over a 1000 posts left until the thread needs to be refreshed.
Let's see if they can remain constructive and on topic eh?

 

[DarkWalker]

( I mean seriously that makes sense to you; "I'm going to go and play an online multiplayer game, but nope, I'm never interacting with anyone else... nope not me....")

If you mean the kind of interaction involved in non-consensual PvP, then yeah, not going to have that kind of interaction in the online games I play. Tried it in the past, found that it only serves to ruin the experience for me, and decided to never again even give a chance to any game where others can force me into PvP situations.

But player interaction is more than just non-consensual PvP. I would bet players in Mobius have more actual interaction than those in Open simply because they don't have to be as distrustful of each other, and thus are more likely to talk and hang together, instead of flying away (or even combat logging) at the sight of the first player contact in the system like so many Open players do.

It still surprises me that a group of people that are so adamant about not wanting to interact with other people in this game, are the ones crying the most about being separated and put in their own little world.....

As the worlds haven't been separated, and the devs have multiple times stated that separating them isn't even on the table, it's not the Group and Solo players that are crying...

I mean isn't that what you want, to be left alone, to be by yourselves or with just your friends.....

Make a new Galaxy simulation for each player in Solo, and also one for each group, and you might have what you are actually describing.

While there is a single galaxy, though, no. If you, playing in Open, can influence the galaxy that I play in while in Solo, then I should be able to influence the galaxy to the same amount.

And Frontier doesn't want to have multiple "official" galaxies for a number of reasons. They want to have just one, a single galaxy that every player is in and influences. Among other things, better for storytelling.

That would solve all your issues, no more putting up with the big bad PvPers and Pirates and whatever else it is you don't want to interact with.... I mean honestly, they could just move all of you to a separate server and it's not like you would even realize it. You could have your own powerplay, and do your own thing without ever having to deal with other people, and we wouldn't have to worry that our hard work in the game is being undermined by someone we can't stop, because he's invisible to us.

And you seem to have no idea of how the game's multiplayer works. You would never be able to stop, or even see, everyone else even if all players were in Open. For starters, people on a different platform play in the same galaxy but are "invisible" to you, so there goes half of the players "invisible" (or two thirds when the game releases on the PS4). And then there's the matchmaking, which will only put you together with someone else if your mutual latency is low enough to guarantee a good game (or, in practical terms, you are unlikely to see players from other continents, unless you manually group together). And that doesn't even take into account players tweaking their network to be in Open but "invisible" to everyone else, or the limit on the number of players that can be in the same instance.

So, this motivation of wanting to be able to see and stop others was never catered for in this game's design. It would take a (likely expensive) technological change for it to even be possible. PvP — and particularly group PvP — was never a focus of the game. The only place where the game is supposed to be about PvP is the (relatively new) CQC mode.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

As others have pointed out, the three game modes, i.e. Solo, Private Groups and Open have existed in the game design from the outset. Here's a link to the FAQ thread on these very forums from the start of the Kickstarter - note the sections on single player and multi-player....

Technically, at the beginning the game was planned to have just group mode. Solo would be just a private group of one, and what passed for Open at the time would be a default "all" group every player was automatically a member of (unless banned; Frontier was planning to actually ban people from the Open equivalent for griefing).

Well, it basically still works that way even now. As it currently stands, with the modes being just different settings of the matchmaking, the modes are just UI sugar to make it easier to select the most used matchmaking choices.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Should I have said, been there done that, worked my butt off, earned some money, bought new PC parts, built new PC... would that have been better? I wasn't being arrogant at all, just blunt....

Dear RedNek,

Thank you for the suggestion. I do not play games much as a rule. I have a full time job and volunteer at evenings and weekends. Where my spare income goes to is of course none of your business, but the suggestion that I buy a new PC was taken as a back-handed swipe, whether you intended it or not.

The fact is that my PC meets the minimum specification for playing Elite Dangerous and therefore your suggestion is out of order. As it would be for you to suggest getting a better internet connection. That would be for my friend who lives in Northern Canada with nothing but a latency plagued Satellite internet connection on which to play Elite Dangerous in Solo Mode (as it is the only mode that does not cause him to be charged the earth for the amount of Data that needs to be downloaded in other modes. He also has some very nice Moose pictures, which I've never forgiven the mods for removing as they were relevant to the conversation at the time. @ Ian.)

FDev have created these modes to be as inclusive of everyone in the one story they are driving. But the suggestions that you make appear to ask for the exclusivity of one particular part of the community over another: i.e. a divisive change. No longer would I or people like me be able to play alongside my AEDC friends. A locked mode system would mean that I could never, should I afford an upgrade, enter in to Open and become your content, which in the end leaves you poorer, with less human targets to hunt. So we would all lose out.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
As far as the whole someone playing in SOLO they are also playing in Multiplayer line, that was good, I mean seriously ...... waiiiiiittt you were joking there weren't you... I mean playing by yourself but your still playing multiplayer.... that was a joke right?
…

Think of it like playing chess with someone over mail. You never see the other player and you have no way to directly affect the actions of that player (the other player only reacts to your actions and you only react to the actions of the other player). Now multiply that with a few thousand players and you get the idea behind the multiplayer part of Elite Dangerous.

Maybe add a little imagination and think about the countless invisible NPCs that constantly affect the BGS.

The player in Elite Dangerous is insignificant. Most of the time the actions of one player is countered by the actions of an other player and there is nothing one of those players can do about it. The whole game is designed around that concept.

I can understand that you want a different game, but this game isn't designed for what you want.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

From Open to Solo to Open.
One Commanders Views.​

When I started to play this game back in June I was really pleased to start in Open - Elite with other players! This is what I had dreamed about all those years ago. Elite is the game that inspired me to learn to program and eventually lead to my careeer which has been long and great fun (Thanks Mr. Braben ).

My love affair however was a short one... Gankers in the starting area soon had me in Solo and confirmed my believe that gankers are emotionally immature people who need medical help with their mental problems but that's another story!

So I carried on in Solo, made some cash, bought some ships, had lots of fun and enjoyed the game.

A few weeks ago however I decided to try Open again. I have mixed feelings on my return, let me explain why.

• Not been ganked by anyone since coming back to open
• Hardly see any players
• Never seen anyone talk to each other
• Feels as lonely as solo

So to all of those players that hate solo with a passion and want to see it hanged on the 6 o'clock news:

Can you please tell me what is so great about this 32 player game that makes you think you have a right to exclude the people in solo from the BGS or having any effect on the galaxy other than some false sense of PvP greatness?

I have a home system that i like to think of as my little retreat but now I see the occasional player there, I don't like that because I am a grumpy old anti-social idiot so what should I do? Shoot them till they go boom or leave my station? Of course not because there could be 20 other commanders in my station but in a different instance, might be thousands in solo and some in group, what you open only people need to get into you heads is that solo and group are just another instance that you didn't get put into.

Deal with it.

As for the people who like to throw the odd backhanded insult at solo players may I point out how you are perceived once more just in the hope it sinks in a little... 'emotionally immature'

 

[the100thmonkey]

Maybe add a little imagination and think about the countless invisible NPCs that constantly affect the BGS.

NPCs don't affect the BGS.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

NPCs don't affect the BGS.

From what I've read about the BGS I got the impression that there is a constant stream of goods between systems and stations - "invisible NPCs". The NPCs that are visible in this game are decoration.

But I might be wrong. If you can point me to a source where the BGS is explained by a Dev. I would be very grateful. I'm aways interested in learning more.

 

[Shaamaan]

I don't know where this topic has gone, but I've recently gotten into a minor discussion with an ED youtuber on the topic of messing about with modes. Specifically, like so many people before, he suggested that players are locked to a specific game-mode.

As such, I'd like to write why such ideas are, at this point in ED development, bad - if only from a technical perspective.

Because of the nature of ED (P2P architecture), due to either connection issues or an OS / router / firewall setup, a player might not be able to see nor be seen by other players even in Open. ED, currently, has no way to enforce these connections. To actually and effectively lock a player into open mode Frontier would need to move away from the current P2P architecture and implement a more traditional MMO-style server infrastructure. This would require rewriting a large portion of the already working game, both server-side and client-side, and would likely be extremely expensive. Also, now Frontier would need to have a lot more powerful hardware acting as the instance servers which would drive up the monthly server costs, possibly to the point where we'd need to move to a monthly subscription payment model for ED. The only upside from such a move is that this could possibly allow for seamless transitions between SC and local space (but that would require even more development) and possibly increase or remove the 32 player limit.

There are also further problems with such a forced separation. If you decide to keep a single BGS running for all modes, then you still have the problem of people from one mode affecting indirectly people from another mode - and it will be impossible for those people to ever find each other, not even if both groups of people decide to meet. If you decide to run a different BGS for each mode, then what do you do about groups? Does each group get it's own BGS? Or do you scrap groups entirely? If you don't scrap groups, then you need a (possibly) unlimited number of BGS running concurrently all the time.

In other words - to effectively enforce Open it is not enough to just remove the other options from the main menu. A far bigger, and complicated, change would need to happen in the inner-workings of ED. A change that would require lots and LOTS of man-hours (read: money) to implement for very little benefit and then requiring even more money for server upkeep.


Finally, on the subject of Open-PvP and Open-PvE modes... while I do think it would be nice to have an Open PvE mode (if only to have things automated so that someone like Mobius won't need to dedicate his time handling a pretty large group - something the in-game interface probably wasn't designed to do), it would also require quite a bit of work from a technical perspective. Removing player-to-player damage sounds like a simple task on paper, but I'm sure creative griefers will be able to find plenty of ways to annoy others anyway. After all - groups like Mobius are still, technically, modes with PvP-enabled. It's just that players who decide to participate in such groups agree not to shoot each other.

So while not ideal, I think the current mechanics are as good as we'll currently get.

Actually, come to think of it, perhaps we only need a better interface to handle large groups? It could, in the very least, be some kind of web service - I'm sure someone could then develop an external UI for group management (heck, give me a web-service and document it's workings, and I could write this myself).

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Gosh I hate it when people don;t read the previous posts and get their facts straight before posting.... don't you hate that?

LOL thank you for the most humours quote i have read today.



ED has advertised minimum specs. DB assured everyone, not to worry about the always online (not)DRM (apparently) that ED would only use a few meg of data an hr when you are away from a solid internet connection, and proved his point by playing tethered to a phone on a train.

He also said then when you get back to a decent connection you can then go back to open if you so wish but that in all modes we would all be part of AND CONTRIBUTING to the 1 central galaxy, unless you get hell banned.

Cant get more official info that the CEO demoing it himself and then posting about it. How much straighter can one get their facts?

 

[Jockey79]

....How much straighter can one get their facts?

I know the answer to this one.....

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

The part about it being as much a MMO as CoD is already in your Wall of Text, the second KS post. His exact words were "I don't see this as an MMO in the traditional sense, unless you think of Call of Duty as an MMO."

About he not wanting to call it a MMO early on, well, besides that very post hinting at it, and the Kickstart page not using that term even once, I remember hearing it in old video interviews from the KS era. The "I don't see it as an MMO in the traditional sense" line came out quite a few times before fans managed to finally convince DB that Elite Dangerous, as pitched, would qualify as an actual MMO.

There are other interesting things to find in those old interviews. For example, just from the Gary Whitta interview with David Braben and Chris Roberts, you have:
(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)

As reference for the following quote, here is Chris Roberts speaking about the Star Citizen equivalent of this thread (part 3, 5:30):
"And the key is kind of what David alluded to, which I think it's a debate that David has with his community and it's a debate I have with my community because there is definitely this whole sort of PvP and PvE sort of factions that go on and they're all pretty rabid. And so I think, and I think David also believes that you can sort of create a game that can cater to both sets of players and it will be okay. But it certainly is, that is, I would say if I were going to give you a touchpaper to set up a fight with your community that's the one to do it."

The immediate follow up by DB about PvE groups (part 3, 6:01):
"Well, the discussions have come up already. We have this concept of groups where you can join a group which doesn't allow or does allow it on the user choice."

Or this about the kind of game DB would want to play (part 3, 7:09):
"You know, so what I would I want from a game? I want to be able to play a great game without being griefed by teenagers, but having said that I do want there to be a feeling of risk out there."

Also this about what player interaction in ED was supposed to be about (part 3, 2:06):
"And so, I don’t mean necessarily every ship should be a player because then you get into a frame of mind that you can’t kill anything without really upsetting someone. I mean with Elite: Dangerous it’s still…a lot of the ships you encounter won’t be real players but we will call out, of the ships that you meet, who is a real player. We have a way of distinguishing them within the game. They’re actually part of this group of pilots that you’re part of and it will call out, above them say. Essentially what it means is “this is a real player,” but in the game fabric: “so this is a group who a member of the same organization as you.” We…you know, in other words we, we don’t want this game to be all about player vs. player kills, but the point is it encourages a lot of cooperation. And, it will be possible to do player vs. player kills if that’s what people want to do. "

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 .

The Steam Store page;

Please note, "Single Player" and "Multiplayer" with "Co-op".
So not just an "MMO"


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 Grape
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.

Reddit AMA from X-Box One launch, in relation to the Back Ground Simulation and Modes;
https://np.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/3nlmdg/its_frontier_developments_developers_of_elite/

^^ So PC/Mac and X-Box One impact the same live simulation, but cannot actually play together or see each other.

^^ X-Box One also has "Solo Mode" and is recommended by FD Devs for when you do not want to play with other people.

Horizons Live Stream;
(RE: Question about ED being an MMO)

DB was asked a question "Is Elite and MMORPG?" in the LiveStream tonight.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdP1DmRYco8

He answered it like this:

19:42
"Well I think the problem is this: Different people mean different things by saying MMOs, you know. I think we're massive (19:53) by most measures, in terms of we have a lot of people playing, all at the same time. We have instancing, but then you know so does every other or every MMO out there. (20:10) The case, you know, you look at the way Warcraft does it. Now the case is (20:15) where do you set the number. So currently it's you know around 32 players in a session plus NPCs and all that sort of thing. (20:23) You know we could go higher if it weren't for the NPCs, we could go higher if people had perfect network connections. You know if we had a LAN we could go way higher. You know this is the point. (20:31) And it's a case of balancing the experience and also how much data you have to exchange. You know it's a quality of the experience that I expect over time we will increase it.

"But are we an MMO? I think we are by all measures."

Ed speaks and then David adds:

"It's not an RPG in a sense that (21:09) you increase your personal stats but a lot of people play it as a role playing game. I think if that's what you want it to be then so it is I suppose. I don't think it really matters. Someone said 'That's a silly question. Such a waste of time.' Well there you go."

Do these class as straight facts?



(lol, could not help myself - not posted it in ages, getting withdrawals )

 

[Leto Thule]

*snip* gankers are emotionally immature people who need medical help with their mental problems but that's another story!

Thanks, doc. I am glad someone finally made the clinical diagnosis that pulling someone out of supercruise and divesting them of their cargo (and/or ship if they are uncooperative) is a valid MENTAL problem. My family will be sad to see me carted off to the looney bin, but ill try to let them know its for the greater good, as nobody else will succumb to my voracious appetite for fake space pixel destruction.

Everyone here, on BOTH sides, keeps saying "rabble rabble this is what the devs intended" or "rabble rabble this is not what the game should be". I think its pretty clear what the dev's intended by their actions/inactions regarding the game... Here are the facts:

PVP exists in this game as a design. It does not matter if it was an afterthought or if it was the core concept of the game. Its here now, it works, and its FUN. I enjoy it. Roleplaying a space pirate is just as much a valid idea as a lone explorer somewhere way out in the rim. For the record, I try to be the "classy" version of the pirate... not the guns-blazing no profit type, but that depends on the nature of the players I interdict... mouthy jerks (you should see some of the insults..) or those who try and run get blapped (or blap me , im no god at this game).

Now that being said, Solo mode and group mode ALSO exist in this game by design. If you dont WANT to deal with other players pirating you or... *ahem* "GANKING" you... then play in a group or by yourself. Nothing wrong with that either.

To be honest, I think this is a pointless discussion. I play in open, I dont have any shortage of targets (I frequent the Leesti/Ridequat(sp?)/Lave area, there is always traffic). I dont feel that im "losing" my content to group mode, and if I am, I am fine with that too. It cuts down on the amount of people that think I have a social disorder for shooting space ships.

My game works. Your game works. Everyone's game works. Pick your mode and play.

Deal with it.

 

[Leto Thule]

*snip* but I'm sure creative griefers will be able to find plenty of ways to annoy others anyway.

How is it that using terms as "greifer" is ok, but "carebear" is a "pejorative term"??

I dont grief anyone, I play to gain profit by stealing cargo from others. Please dont make the determination that everyone who engages in conflict with other CMDR's is doing it to be a jerk.

 

[the100thmonkey]

From what I've read about the BGS I got the impression that there is a constant stream of goods between systems and stations - "invisible NPCs". The NPCs that are visible in this game are decoration.

But I might be wrong. If you can point me to a source where the BGS is explained by a Dev. I would be very grateful. I'm aways interested in learning more.

Sorry - there isn't any developer information regarding the BGS that isn't in the most general terms. They like to keep it close to their chests. I really like this as, for me, a great deal of the game is working out what to do and when to achieve change. I can relate my experiences though:

1. A system with two faction in civil war for over a month because no ship had visited the system thus forcing an update.
2. Booms and busts lasting similar lengths of time for the same reason.
3. Faction influence not changing if no ships visit the system.

Basically, the instancing system applies to the BGS as well - if an instance is not created within the 24 hour update cycle, the system is not processed. If you think about it, this is a really smart move, as it saves the transaction server from calculating unnessecary updates. It does lead to the occasional strangeness such as described above.

For a great reference on the BGS, see Walt Kerman's BGS thread here. It's probably the best summary you're going to get.

 

[Jockey79]

...I think its pretty clear what the dev's intended by their actions/inactions regarding the game...

Yup, and with XB1 getting Private Groups added - I think that speaks volumes.

Here are the facts:

You're supposed to follow that with the Wall of Information (above)

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

To be fair, Leto, you working out as a pirate is different from going to the Starting Systems and using a A-Class Vulture to spit on Newbies in their first Sidewinder. I wouldn't take it personally.

PvP is there, but was intended by design to be "Rare and Meaningful" (DBOBE's Words) rather than "Fear Me!" Just because you can do something, does not mean that you "Have" to do it. There is far more to be had in E: D than knocking the other human's ship out of the sky by a wide margin. So it's not primarily a PvP Game. It's a game in which PvP can happen.

And not everyone considers the alternatives to Open on starting the game. It usually takes a couple of encounters with someone like you before they figure it out. The emotional downer that you get from being destroyed by another human when you are least expecting it is enough for some people to give up the game and walk away. Even the "run and I'll kill you" rules are the furthest thing from their mind the first time they are interdicted by a human play. Normally it's "No, no, no... No!"

Get killed by an NPC and it's like: "Oh, okay. Have to get better." Another human?

Not that the person on the trigger end thinks about these things, but there you go.

 

[the100thmonkey]

Thanks, doc. I am glad someone finally made the clinical diagnosis that pulling someone out of supercruise and divesting them of their cargo (and/or ship if they are uncooperative) is a valid MENTAL problem. My family will be sad to see me carted off to the looney bin, but ill try to let them know its for the greater good, as nobody else will succumb to my voracious appetite for fake space pixel destruction.
[/FONT]
Everyone here, on BOTH sides, keeps saying "rabble rabble this is what the devs intended" or "rabble rabble this is not what the game should be". I think its pretty clear what the dev's intended by their actions/inactions regarding the game... Here are the facts:

PVP exists in this game as a design. It does not matter if it was an afterthought or if it was the core concept of the game. Its here now, it works, and its FUN. I enjoy it. Roleplaying a space pirate is just as much a valid idea as a lone explorer somewhere way out in the rim. For the record, I try to be the "classy" version of the pirate... not the guns-blazing no profit type, but that depends on the nature of the players I interdict... mouthy jerks (you should see some of the insults..) or those who try and run get blapped (or blap me , im no god at this game).

Now that being said, Solo mode and group mode ALSO exist in this game by design. If you dont WANT to deal with other players pirating you or... *ahem* "GANKING" you... then play in a group or by yourself. Nothing wrong with that either.

To be honest, I think this is a pointless discussion. I play in open, I dont have any shortage of targets (I frequent the Leesti/Ridequat(sp?)/Lave area, there is always traffic). I dont feel that im "losing" my content to group mode, and if I am, I am fine with that too. It cuts down on the amount of people that think I have a social disorder for shooting space ships.

My game works. Your game works. Everyone's game works. Pick your mode and play.

This man is speaking the truth.

I never play solo, but I don't pirate. People have tried to pirate me. Some have succeeded; some have failed. Some dude in a Viper pulled my eleven year old son out of SC in Eravate and just started shooting. My boy shot back before realising he was outgunned (when a second Viper wing-dropped in), so he split. (I only allow my kids to play open when I'm around to monitor what's going on.) He made me proud that day.