Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Robert Maynard]

I'm not DEMANDING anything. It's just a statement that a game company, whatever it may be, benefits from taking feedback from their customer base.

Understood.

From Frontier's perspective, who *should* they listen to with regard to determining which changes to make to the game? In the unlikely event that there was ever a proposal for a feature that all of the forum users wanted, would that make a compelling case for change? What about the (estimated) 90% of players who do not frequent these forums?

The fact that most players do not get involved in the forums suggests that there is a silent majority of players who play the game - if major change were to be made without consultation across the whole player-base then there's no telling how many players would be potentially lost due to the change.

 

[Lestenio]

actually you can say whatever you want, whenever you want. FD is not all knowing nor omni-powerful in game development. Not to say they aren't good , but it is wise to take feedback from the audience.

Personally I think FD are pretty good at listening to feedback. But there is a big difference between listening to feedback and tweaking the game accordingly to dropping development in order to work on every random player suggested feature that comes up.

They have a roadmap of where they see the game. They are not going to change that just to keep some players happy if it doesn't go with their vision.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Kind of remind me of a certain type of debate topic, where instead of debating the issue or problem - everyone on the defenders side just circumnavigates the problem by saying it is FD's will that the game is as is and it's the best possible outcome for a Sandbox, when clearly this is not the case

Everyone on the defender's side eh? Your argument-fu must be too strong and your pearls of wisdom too true to address, right?

"FD is not all knowing nor omni-powerful in game development."

Nice representation of the argument you quoted.

 

[Robert Maynard]

.... everyone on the defenders side just circumnavigates the problem...."

Is there unanimous agreement that there is a problem in the first place?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Is there unanimous agreement that there is a problem in the first place?

Look at the circumnavigating in the system! Look at the circumnavigating in the system!

Help, help I'm being obsessed!

*makes like a panda, eats shoots and leaves*

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Is there unanimous agreement that there is a problem in the first place?

I think everybody agrees that there is a problem. The problem is that everybody thinks that something different is the problem.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think everybody agrees that there is a problem. The problem is that everybody thinks that something different is the problem.

Do they?

Frontier has delivered on their stated intent to offer players freedom of choice as to who they play with. All players experience and affect the same shared galaxy state. Everyone who bought the game had the opportunity to make a choice based on knowledge of the game's features.

Maybe the problem is that some players are not content with the freedoms offered to other players (and themselves, of course)....

 

[GluttonyFang]

Do they?

Frontier has delivered on their stated intent to offer players freedom of choice as to who they play with. All players experience and affect the same shared galaxy state. Everyone who bought the game had the opportunity to make a choice based on knowledge of the game's features.

Maybe the problem is that some players are not content with the freedoms offered to other players (and themselves, of course)....

But wouldn't you say that there's a quantitative equality and qualitative equality at work here?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But wouldn't you say that there's a quantitative equality and qualitative equality at work here?

I wouldn't, but I would wish I would have.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But wouldn't you say that there's a quantitative equality and qualitative equality at work here?

That probably depends on what is being assessed, why and with what criteria.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I wouldn't, but I would wish I would have.

Well, the idea goes back to the point I think I made a while back about Open having an open system and Private/Solo have a closed system, open system has dependency and closed system has comparatively less dependency. Of course, I understand the idea that players' choices are to be respected, but that's kind of equivalent to the argument of separate but equal, and lands us at Plessy v. Ferguson 1896. At least that's how I see it.

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

That probably depends on what is being assessed, why and with what criteria.

I kind of explained that with my reply to Ziggy, let me know if it still isn't clear.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, the idea goes back to the point I think I made a while back about Open having an open system and Private/Solo have a closed system, open system has dependency and closed system has comparatively less dependency.

Not sure how the system of Open is more open than Private/Solo (except in name of course, but I don't think that's what you meant)? All systems have the same boundaries haven't they?

 

[GluttonyFang]

Not sure how the system of Open is more open than Private/Solo (except in name of course, but I don't think that's what you meant)? All systems have the same boundaries haven't they?

Well, the entertainment in Open, or rather the exclusive entertainment in open is an unpredictable universe. The entertainment in solo/group is exclusive in its controlled/selective environment.

There is a dichotomy between the former's dependency and the latter's.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, the idea goes back to the point I think I made a while back about Open having an open system and Private/Solo have a closed system, open system has dependency and closed system has comparatively less dependency. Of course, I understand the idea that players' choices are to be respected, but that's kind of equivalent to the argument of separate but equal, and lands us at Plessy v. Ferguson 1896. At least that's how I see it.

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

I kind of explained that with my reply to Ziggy, let me know if it still isn't clear.

Except, in this case, it is not a section of the player-base forcing others to be segregated, rather that the players themselves choose to remove themselves from the attentions of (some / all) other players.

 

[Mouse]

Well, the idea goes back to the point I think I made a while back about Open having an open system and Private/Solo have a closed system, open system has dependency and closed system has comparatively less dependency. Of course, I understand the idea that players' choices are to be respected, but that's kind of equivalent to the argument of separate but equal, and lands us at Plessy v. Ferguson 1896. At least that's how I see it.

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



I kind of explained that with my reply to Ziggy, let me know if it still isn't clear.

Are you seriously comparing Open and Solo/Private to a bad Supreme Court Decision over Racial issues that has no bearing on the country that the developers live in that made this game?

 

[OldSalt]

I think everybody agrees that there is a problem. The problem is that everybody thinks that something different is the problem.

No, I count myself among 'everyone' and I do not agree that there is a problem.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, the entertainment in Open, or rather the exclusive entertainment in open is an unpredictable universe. The entertainment in solo/group is exclusive in its controlled/selective environment.

Well, if I log into Solo, I can assure you there's an unpredictable element in the equation

 

[GluttonyFang]

Except, in this case, it is not a section of the player-base forcing others to be segregated, rather that the players themselves choose to remove themselves from the attentions of (some / all) other players.

Of course, it's not player-base, but rather FD creating criteria that separates the two type of population within a playerbase while informing both side of being equal. Considering the idea that a player's preference to be what segregates one type of player from another.

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

Well, if I log into Solo, I can assure you there's an unpredictable element in the equation

Hahaha... Oh Ziggy...

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

Are you seriously comparing Open and Solo/Private to a bad Supreme Court Decision over Racial issues that has no bearing on the country that the developers live in that made this game?

Are you telling me you cannot understand an analogy or...?

I don't know what message I'm getting here.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Of course, it's not player-base, but rather FD creating criteria that separates the two type of population within a playerbase while informing both side of being equal. Considering the idea that a player's preference to be what segregates one type of player from another.

Not quite seeing how you can equate each player's choice as to which game mode to play in (coupled with the fact that each player experiences and affects the same shared galaxy state regardless of game mode) with state sponsored restriction of the freedoms of a section of its population.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not quite seeing how you can equate each player's choice as to which game mode to play in (coupled with the fact that each player experiences and affects the same shared galaxy state regardless of game mode) with state sponsored restriction of the freedoms of a section of its population.

Especially when that section of the population can decide on a whim to be a part of a different section of the population (in Elite).