Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

Do you want a Open PvE

  • Yes, I want a Open PvE

    Votes: 54 51.4%
  • No, I don't want a Open PvE

    Votes: 49 46.7%
  • I want only Open PvE and PvP only in groups

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Total voters
    105
  • Poll closed .
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
what I want is a sand box with sand to play with and people to play with I'm not a griever in part but when greifers attack me they almost always come off second best and that's what I enjoy its called risk and without it the game is nothing but a shell
if I wanted an empty game with a few players per instance and pve in a game were the npc provides NOT 1% of a challenge I say to you what is it you want out of ED


You have a sandbox here.. but the other statements you said about large mega server and pvp battles.. smacks of eve.. and what some want ED to become..

no.. And I laugh at the "risk" talk because there is risk in all modes and Open is easier than solo.. you can wing up to combat things.. solo can't..

And there is no "empty game" just more of your PVP banter that PVE cannot be a game and to have a "real" game you need to PVP.. well you are wrong.
 
Glad to hear that you enjoy EVE.

Regarding larger instances - until consumer internet connections worldwide are upgraded to cope with the demands of large, real-time, twitch based, multi-player combat, we're not goiong to see more than 32 players in an instance. This is not a Server / Client game - it uses a P2P/Server-Lite networking model.

I am not techy minded but does that mean when the world upgrades to the IPV6 protocol we will have bigger instances?
 
what I want is a sand box with sand to play with and people to play with I'm not a griever in part but when greifers attack me they almost always come off second best and that's what I enjoy its called risk and without it the game is nothing but a shell
if I wanted an empty game with a few players per instance and pve in a game were the npc provides NOT 1% of a challenge I say to you what is it you want out of ED

What I want is the game advertised.
Which is what we have.

Perhaps you should have done more research, as Frontier made it quite clear seeing other players should be rare.

Here you go, some light reading while the server is offline;


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;

attachment.php

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


Dev comments;

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

quote_icon.png
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

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

quote_icon.png
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


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

quote_icon.png
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

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by David Braben AMA Thread, post 319

quote_icon.png
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.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by David Braben AMA Thread, post #367

quote_icon.png
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.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by David Braben

quote_icon.png
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;

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Zac Antonaci
quote_icon.png
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

quote_icon.png
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;

quote_icon.png
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);

Dev Update (6/8/2015) Last Paragraph said:
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/

attachment.php


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


attachment.php


^^ 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.


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."


 
And this imo is the bottom line (though to be fair some would argue it is not quite what we have..... yet? ;)

Noo, don't summon the people who will spam two pages what is not realized from the DDF yet please. It was so nice and quiet lately :p

But yes, I would prefer the game that I backed myself, especially now that we've been playing it for a year now.
 
Concerning the idea of consent to PvP, I think people should watch this video:

[video=youtube;oQbei5JGiT8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8[/video]

Although the issue being addressed is more serious and real-world, it is no less important when interacting socially on any level. When ever you hear the word sex, just replace it with PvP.
 
Concerning the idea of consent to PvP, I think people should watch this video:


Although the issue being addressed is more serious and real-world, it is no less important when interacting socially on any level. When ever you hear the word sex, just replace it with PvP.

Ugh, seen that video on MRA sites.
A YouTuber did a nice commentary on it that I tend to agree with. (Edit: Direct Video link)

On the flip side, go back and see how I word unwanted PvP. ;)
 
Last edited:
all i want is more planets in the future like earth ect....the ability to go first person and walk out the ship,and to places like citys and bars ect....with mass effect style npc dialouge....and my own station/base that i can can reinforce.....then in my mind it would be perfect
 
all i want is more planets in the future like earth ect....the ability to go first person and walk out the ship,and to places like citys and bars ect....with mass effect style npc dialouge....and my own station/base that i can can reinforce.....then in my mind it would be perfect

Add first-person hostile ship boarding to that and that would be perfect indeed :)
 
Last edited:
I'm glad you like it. I did not make that inference. You did. (That's a strawman argument, by the way, just in case you didn't know what one was. ;) )

To make it clear for you: I was pointing out that your idea of Consent by default (by selecting to play in Solo) is a pot of horse dung.

Tea anyone?

So how do you see your PvP flag setting working? All I can see is a hordes of invincible traders flying round in open... that doesn't sound great to me.
 
So how do you see your PvP flag setting working? All I can see is a hordes of invincible traders flying round in open... that doesn't sound great to me.

I've never proposed a PvP flag. I'm proposing that some players have a little humanity, empathy, some little spark of human feeling for the person they are pounding to pieces because, you know, you do "pirate" and they are in Open. Either that or stop whinging about the number of players you see in Open. :D
 
Concerning the idea of consent to PvP, I think people should watch this video:


Although the issue being addressed is more serious and real-world, it is no less important when interacting socially on any level. When ever you hear the word sex, just replace it with PvP.
Really annoying video since I don't like tea, I'm more of a coffee guy and I am afraid what that means in context.
 

To make it clear for you: I was pointing out that your idea of Consent by default (by selecting to play in Solo) is a pot of horse dung.

That's why I think an Open PvE mode would solve a lot of problems - ok, maybe just that problem. Play in Open PvP mode and you give consent to PvP. Play in Open PvE and you don't give consent.
No more strange analogies, no more accusations of griefing - ok, that's wishful thinking, but I can dream…
 
Last edited:
I've never proposed a PvP flag. I'm proposing that some players have a little humanity, empathy, some little spark of human feeling for the person they are pounding to pieces because, you know, you do "pirate" and they are in Open. Either that or stop whinging about the number of players you see in Open. :D

If a trader chooses to escape, call you rude names or ignore you - it's not unreasonable to expect some kind of consequences :)
 
If a trader chooses to escape, call you rude names or ignore you - it's not unreasonable to expect some kind of consequences :)

But what if that trader didn't know that they don't have to be your content and does not give consent to you forcing yourself in to their game time ?
 
If a trader chooses to escape, call you rude names or ignore you - it's not unreasonable to expect some kind of consequences :)

If a person decides they no longer want to play by your rules, but you decide to force yourself and your ideology on them because you are the more powerful player, what is that called?

A rose by any other name...
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom