Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Phosphora]

I'd still like it done "in universe". You don't need separate modes when you have so much space. You just need different, variable environments within that space. To be honest you can partially achieve this by simply moving away from busy areas, but that also eliminates friendly player interactions. Which is why I'd like to see some heavily policed, peacefull sections of the bubble.

Make secure and anarchic systems actually actually mean something. If you turn up with a big bounty in a high secure system, or commit an assault in one, it should be death-on-a-stick. However, in Anarchy no effect at all. Weaker systems somewhere between the two.

To be honest. I think Solo only exists because offline became non viable. It's essentially offline, with the universe data online rather than on the hard drive. Perfectly sensible hybrid of both offline and online play, allowing the massive universe whilst also maintaining privacy.

Open is probably what it was always intended to be (multiplayer), which would be why it doesn't protect players that much.

People can tweak their routers to avoid appearing in an instance with other players. People could go into busy/anarchic/losec systems and only ever meet NPCs.

One reason why I suspect Frontier won't be pushing the game in this direction.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[Majinvash]

Were Solo and Private Groups to be removed leaving Open as the only play option, that would represent a significant change to the design of the game - published over three years ago as part of a Kickstarter pitch to fund the development of the game - we'll never know if the game would have met the target without Solo and Private Groups (and the ability to switch modes on a session-by-session basis). While the number of KS backers is small in relation to the number of units sold, I expect that another "Offlinegate" is pretty high up on Frontier's list of things to avoid. That just adds one more reason why I believe that none of the three game modes are going anywhere.

It's less about an opinion as to what players would do - more about how players would react to a developer who would remove core features - it would also probably be seen as pandering to the PvP agenda.

Maybe some of the players would remain in Open - maybe they would indeed get better at playing in a manner that they had previously chosen not to - for how long, who knows.

There are plenty of other options - Elite: Dangerous will not be the only space game out there. As mentioned previously, there is always the option not to play.

This thought exercise is all very interesting, however with the recent confirmation that Private Groups are in development for the XBox One version of the game, I don't have any particular worries regarding the longevity of player choice as to which mode they play the game in.

Offline mode never happened, people got over it. That was promised too.

The reason so many people play ED is because it is currently sits in a unique place.
IF something else half decent had come out in its early days, the game would be VERY different to what we are seeing now.
I am in no way calling FD slow or lazy, but they would have had to have made huge and faster changes to attract and keep players.

It would also most likely have caused them to change game designs from kick starter to compete.
They have been fortunate that Star Citizen seems so lost in development hell.

Xbone having a private function is fine.
It hasn't got a PVE function coming has it?
You would think if FD wanted one of those, Xbone would have been the ideal test area.
Its probably because the PC/Mac versions have one that they didn't want Xbone players to feel short changed with all the options.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[Mouse]

Were Solo and Private Groups to be removed leaving Open as the only play option, that would represent a significant change to the design of the game - published over three years ago as part of a Kickstarter pitch to fund the development of the game - we'll never know if the game would have met the target without Solo and Private Groups (and the ability to switch modes on a session-by-session basis). While the number of KS backers is small in relation to the number of units sold, I expect that another "Offlinegate" is pretty high up on Frontier's list of things to avoid. That just adds one more reason why I believe that none of the three game modes are going anywhere.

It's less about an opinion as to what players would do - more about how players would react to a developer who would remove core features - it would also probably be seen as pandering to the PvP agenda.

Maybe some of the players would remain in Open - maybe they would indeed get better at playing in a manner that they had previously chosen not to - for how long, who knows.

There are plenty of other options - Elite: Dangerous will not be the only space game out there. As mentioned previously, there is always the option not to play.

This thought exercise is all very interesting, however with the recent confirmation that Private Groups are in development for the XBox One version of the game, I don't have any particular worries regarding the longevity of player choice as to which mode they play the game in.

Example.... Star Wars Galaxies.. changed the core game.. hemorrhaged players so bad they were merging servers within months.... it struggled along but never regained numbers and folded completely.

 

[DaveB]

I disagree the avoidance of PVP is about risk. Or fear. A lot of people just want to play 'together' rather than 'against'. The only reason this gets circular is the way the two sides look at this idea. For most PvE people the avoidance isn't the issue, it's the intrusion. Thinking about it a little differently, it's like building a sand castle with friends on a public beach and having another group come over and rather than help build and add to it, somehow change the dynamic between the builders and interrupt them (yes this could be knock over the sand castle, but it could also be to convince some of the builders to come and play football, purposely breaking the group, and leaving the others to continue on without their friends...which causes problems in a different way).


Not sure if the analogy is good, but the idea of people not PvP'ing to avoid 'risk', 'death', etc. is bordering on insult. It insinuates 'fear of'...which is not the issue.

I agree that DB expects people to play bad guys and that the game provides this ability. However, there is supposed to be outcomes to doing so...and there are. However, the argument can be made, that regardless of NPC or PC, these punishments are not providing the outcomes they should...at least a feeling of difference between secure and insecure areas. This could be enhanced. Again, it won't prevent illegalities from occurring...but it would make them more 'meaningful' for those that commit them.

Agreed. I'll use myself as an example - when I'm in the mood for the possibility of PvP I'll be in open or in a group that permits it. I've lived through, and died in, more PvP encounters than I can count. However, I've initiated a PvP encounter precisely twice - before the nerfing of bounties and these two were both carrying too large a sum to pass up. I won one and lost one so the credits involved evened out in the fights I've actually started I generally play as a "nice" but not necessarily "good" guy. When I'm in a mode that permits PvP I'll generally not attack other players unprovoked even if there's a less than compelling game reason for being hostile to them. If they attack me, things are different of course I find that way I get challenging and stimulating interactions with the majority of players I meet and the majority of those are cooperative rather than hostile. I participate in few CGs, because I only do those if I have a valid RP reason, given the backstory I generated for my pilot. I suspect if I was more interested in grinding CGs I'd have a slightly higher frequency of hostile encounters with other players but the mix I get is about right for my gameplay and I've NEVER combat-logged or switched modes to avoid another player if I was in the mood to accept the possibility of PvP when I started that play session. I made that choice and I'll live by it (or not) for as long as that play session lasts.

That way, I'm contributing to the gameplay of like-minded players whenever I play in any mode other than solo and similarly they are contributing to mine. Whether that other player is somebody like Debic or somebody like Majinvash. If/when I encounter them they know that I'm up for interaction with them in the way they expect to interact with other players and that's how it should be. Whatever happens after that is fine by me. If we're in an environment where they are allowed to shoot at me, then my response to commed demands or incoming fire will be based on my own risk-reward estimate and they can expect compliance, escape attempts or return fire based on that evaluation. If we're not in a mode where that is supposed to happen then they'll find me a friendly player more than willing to team up for almost anything.

 

[Mouse]

Yeah...but the difference is that you had a choice to leave them alone. NPC's are not expected to make a choice. Although it is accepted/expected that you do it better...the idea that you actually did it, is enough for most PvE players to walk away.

NPC's also go for NPC's and for human targets.. whereas PVPers ignore the NPC mainly and concentrate on human targets..

 

[Majinvash]

Yeah...but the difference is that you had a choice to leave them alone. NPC's are not expected to make a choice. Although it is accepted/expected that you do it better...the idea that you actually did it, is enough for most PvE players to walk away.

Totally understand that... but if you take peoples feelies out of it.

Its the same gaming mechanical experience.

Except one is significantly more difficult to get out of with your ship intact.

NPC's also go for NPC's and for human targets.. whereas PVPers ignore the NPC mainly and concentrate on human targets..

Because NPC's are so incredibly easy to beat.

Even the worst player in a T6 is going to be more unpredictable than an NPC T6.

Also NPC's dont talk back. You have zero chance of any meaningful interaction.

[video=youtube;RHIBp2BvYjQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHIBp2BvYjQ[/video]

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Totally understand that... but if you take peoples feelies out of it.
…

You (the general all humans including you) can't take feelings out of the equation in human interaction.

 

[Jockey79]

Because NPC's are so incredibly easy to beat.

Even the worst player in a T6 is going to be more unpredictable than an NPC T6.

Also NPC's dont talk back. You have zero chance of any meaningful interaction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHIBp2BvYjQ

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

Like how you ignored the point.

 

[DaveB]

There is nothing we do, that an NPC doesn't also do. There have even been threads recently saying that NPC pirates are too aggressive.

We just do it a lot better and people get bent out of shape because they are upset because another human did it to them...

I never thought I'd do this, but I'm repping you for this. Because you've just hit upon the reason why I switch modes based on my mood. If I'm at all cranky and suspect I might get all salty about a "bad" encounter with another player, THAT is when I stay out of open. I'd rather not be that guy. It may not make any difference to the other players gameplay but it would detract from my satisfaction with the game and we do play it for fun after all.

If you and I are staring at each other through our gunsights I'm sure you'd prefer I was enjoying the encounter and determined, win or lose, to give you the best fight possible. So I go where that fight can happen when I can approach it that way.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Offline mode never happened, people got over it. That was promised too.

The reason so many people play ED is because it is currently sits in a unique place.
IF something else half decent had come out in its early days, the game would be VERY different to what we are seeing now.
I am in no way calling FD slow or lazy, but they would have had to have made huge and faster changes to attract and keep players.

It would also most likely have caused them to change game designs from kick starter to compete.
They have been fortunate that Star Citizen seems so lost in development hell.

Xbone having a private function is fine.
It hasn't got a PVE function coming has it?
You would think if FD wanted one of those, Xbone would have been the ideal test area.
Its probably because the PC/Mac versions have one that they didn't want Xbone players to feel short changed with all the options.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

Offline mode was not part of the original design - it was requested during the KS and added in during the KS. Sadly it was not part of the released game as it was cancelled prior to launch.

Open, Solo and Private Groups, however, were all part of the original design as set out at the beginning of the KS, formed core gameplay features at launch and continue to do so (very nearly) a year after launch. Removing extant game features in a released game would, I expect, cause significantly more issues for a developer than removing potential features prior to launch. The game is sold with a PEGI 7 rating - if Solo and Private Groups were removed then the game would probably require to be re-rated after the fact.

I think that Frontier are sticking to their vision for the game - and I don't expect that they will change that substantially to pander to a potential gameplay demographic (especially quite a small one if the 10% figure commonly quoted is close to being accurate).

As PvE can be achieved in an access controlled Private Group (with some case as to who is admitted), Private Groups will provide user-organised PvE on the XBox One as we already have on PC/Mac. It would be very interesting indeed to get a look at the before and after game mode selection statistics when Private Groups are implemented on XBox One - but I don't expect that it will tell a substantially different story than those for the PC/Mac.

 

[Mouse]

Like how you ignored the point.

Was expecting that really..

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

If you and I are staring at each other through our gunsights I'm sure you'd prefer I was enjoying the encounter and determined, win or lose, to give you the best fight possible. So I go where that fight can happen when I can approach it that way.

This would be nice.. but sadly many times the targets gone for are those that offer little to know danger to them and the "enjoy" part is only on one end of the fight.

 

[DaveB]

This would be nice.. but sadly many times the targets gone for are those that offer little to know danger to them and the "enjoy" part is only on one end of the fight.

For some reason I tend not to encounter those guys, even in open. Maybe if I spent more time in a stock sidey or a naked T6 I'd have a different opinion

Edited to add: Let me underscore I've no gripes with "bad guys" making the tactical decision to overwhelm my large or well-armed ship with a wing of combat-specialists. That's when I either run away or die. When I'm in open or a group that allows PvP that's what I'd do in their place. A "fair fight" is what you do when you don't have the resources to tilt the odds in your favor and can't avoid it and still achieve your goals.

 

[Mouse]

For some reason I tend not to encounter those guys, even in open. Maybe if I spent more time in a stock sidey or a naked T6 I'd have a different opinion

Edited to add: Let me underscore I've no gripes with "bad guys" making the tactical decision to overwhelm my large or well-armed ship with a wing of combat-specialists. That's when I either run away or die. When I'm in open or a group that allows PvP that's what I'd do in their place. A "fair fight" is what you do when you don't have the resources to tilt the odds in your favor and can't avoid it and still achieve your goals.

I feel that if they fixed the security issue that more people may play in open and not mind the "occasional" pirate hit. Currently there is no real danger in being a pirate and the problem is that you have way more wolves than sheep and that is a situation that cannot support itself. Yet the wolves want to blame the sheep for the problem.

 

[Nyres]

What makes me chuckle with that, look at the Mobius forum numbers and Facebook numbers.

If you mean lower numbers than players in the group that doesn't really mean anything as not all players of ED sign up on the forums but still play the game. The same holds true for private groups there are people like myself who play and are in the Mobius group but we don't sign up on the external website or on the facebook group for one reason another.

Also honestly I don't see how an Open PVE would hurt the game as a whole as long as regular open was relabeled as Open PVP. Almost every MMO has a PVP server type and PVE server type and both thrive one isn't killed by the other due to lack of players and I'm always baffled as to why people think this game would be a different case. So I would greatly support an Open PVE mode. Also while yes Mobius does fit the the bill for the moment it is open to griefers that could slip in until banned by Mobius. The same could not happen in a dedicated PVE mode.

 

[DaveB]

I feel that if they fixed the security issue that more people may play in open and not mind the "occasional" pirate hit. Currently there is no real danger in being a pirate and the problem is that you have way more wolves than sheep and that is a situation that cannot support itself. Yet the wolves want to blame the sheep for the problem.

To some extent you may be correct, but just as in life this will correct itself. If the wolves outnumber the sheep so badly, and the sheepdogs are proliferating around the few available sheep, the wolves will die off until the balance is restored. It's all good. Who the wolves blame for the situation doesn't matter. Reality doesn't care.

 

[Roybe]

Totally understand that... but if you take peoples feelies out of it.

Its the same gaming mechanical experience.

Although this is true, it does not change the fact that a lot of people can not (due to emotional problems, mental illness), or are not willing (due to their sense of 'morals'), to take those out. That is not a shortcoming, however, it does limit their enjoyment, since they desire playing together with others, but do not wish to be intruded upon. And on this point I concede an Open PvE mode is needed. Whether the devs agree..no one knows!

 

[Runnybabbit]

Although this is true, it does not change the fact that a lot of people can not (due to emotional problems, mental illness), or are not willing (due to their sense of 'morals'), to take those out. That is not a shortcoming, however, it does limit their enjoyment, since they desire playing together with others, but do not wish to be intruded upon. And on this point I concede an Open PvE mode is needed. Whether the devs agree..no one knows!

Well said, good point made with understanding that not everyone is equal in terms of health, outlook, morals.. Have to agree with you..

 

[Mouse]

To some extent you may be correct, but just as in life this will correct itself. If the wolves outnumber the sheep so badly, and the sheepdogs are proliferating around the few available sheep, the wolves will die off until the balance is restored. It's all good. Who the wolves blame for the situation doesn't matter. Reality doesn't care.

The Whole Megathreadnaught though is because those wolves are seeking ways to force more sheep.

 

[DaveB]

The Whole Megathreadnaught though is because those wolves are seeking ways to force more sheep.

I'd say about a third of it. Others have other concerns that they see as being rooted in the mode mechanic. Doesn't matter, though. It's all consigned to the threadnaught(s) because FD aint gonna change it. So the natural selection will function. The guys that cant stand it will leave and the ones that can play within it will continue. This is just the place to hear the screaming.

 

[Jockey79]

The Whole Megathreadnaught though is because those wolves are seeking ways to force more sheep.

Exactly this.

Anyone can go back and look - constant requests to force open or lock people out of open (due to spite imo)