Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Mouse]

Very well said. This certainly well addresses one of the Solo/Open/Group complaints and I couldn't agree more.



Ok. Now we have a problem. It may not be a huge problem, but it's still a problem. And I really don't see why it is so hard for people to understand.

There are elements in ED that are competitive. PP is competitive. CGs can be competitive. Some players look at general gameplay as competitive.

The different modes allow differences in gameplay. Open can generally be considered more dangerous. I'm not saying that Solo/Group aren't. It's just that you are never going to face as much threat from NPCs as you would from concerted efforts of humans. Solo/Group allows competitive goals to be accomplished without interference from human players (your opposition... or just pewpewers).

So we have different styles of gameplay (one arguably easier than the other) that affect the same overall goals. This is actually what this thread is supposedly about... that there is a problem with having different modes (with the ability to switch between them) that have the same effect on the background simulation.



The responses I generally see fall into these categories:

What difference? - Some people don't seem to see the issue with the whole different-rules/same-simulation thing.

Working as intended - This one and its variants really bug me. FD has built it that way so it must be right. No. There is a case for saying "That is the way it is so we'll just have to live with it." But just because something is some way, does not necessarily make it "right" or "fair".

You can do the same thing - This is the argument that if Solo is easier to achieve certain goals, then that option is open to the Open players as well, so all good. The problem here is that it's almost the reverse of the "I don't like PvP so I want to play in Solo" thing. Open players shouldn't expect that everyone should enjoy and want to participate in that gamestyle (at least all the time) - see askavir's comment. Solo players should not have to be Open player's content. However, isn't it just as unfair to allow the actions of Solo players to affect the content of Open?

You can't say that things like PP are not a PvP thing. PvP may not be the intent. But PvP can certainly have an influence. As I understand it, if you have a group of PvPers who want to make a concerted effort to resist the PP efforts of an opposing faction, the opposition is left with three options:

1) Persist with their efforts despite the resistance. This presumably will make their efforts riskier and will potentially slow things down.
2) Decide that the risk isn't worth it and decide to go exploring or something instead.
3) Avoid the resistance altogether by switching to Solo.

Options 1 and 2 will surely have the desired effect on the outcome of the goal. But having option 3 available (while still pursuing the same goals) completely nullifies the efforts of those in Open. I don't see how that is fair.

This specific comment isn't about solutions. I don't know what the solution is or even if there can be one. I'm more inclined to think that it is something the Open players will just have to learn to live with.

But please stop suggesting that there isn't a problem, because to some there clearly is.

I will continue to say there is no problem mainly because there isn't one. You say this thread was started because of problems, but that is not the case.. the thread was started because some felt their game in open was more important then others in Solo/Group. That is literally the gist of the entire symphony of mega-threads.... some in open thinking their mode is "different" and "better" than all other modes and they think other modes are unfair and demand people either play in their area, or that they get more rewards or recognition.

ED is a mountain.. you are told you can climb it but no matter how you do it the reward is the same for reaching the top. Some co-op, some go up by themselves, others get overly competitive and fight other climbers as well as the mountain. Yet once everyone reaches the top and gets their reward.. it is those who CHOSE to fight everyone on their side of the mountain that clamor that they should get more than the people who ascended the mountain in other ways because they had a harder struggle to get there. They blatantly ignore the fact that everything that happened was through THEIR OWN CHOICE and their extra "reward" was fighting other climbers to get to the top.


If there is a problem it is the ego of those who feel that they need rewards for choices they made to purposely play a certain way.

 

[Jockey79]

.....
There are elements in ED that are competitive. PP is competitive. CGs can be competitive. Some players look at general gameplay as competitive.

In a PvE sense. But direct PvP has no impact whatsoever on the BGS and only pays rewards out if the losing party happened to have a bounty at the time of ship destruction - if they didn't, then you earn nothing at all.

The different modes allow differences in gameplay. Open can generally be considered more dangerous. I'm not saying that Solo/Group aren't. It's just that you are never going to face as much threat from NPCs as you would from concerted efforts of humans.

And you can offset that thread by having combat pilot (humans) fly with you.

Open - has wings
Group - has wings

Solo - has no one, nothing, no support, no back up, no help, no one to watch your back.

But just because something is some way, does not necessarily make it "right" or "fair".

You're right, it's not fair that some people did not perform their due diligence BEFORE buying the game and now want it changing.
A lot of people sank money in to a game they RESEARCHED and SUPPORTED three years ago, and they expect to keep what they paid for.

See my above question regarding who will pay out refund money should you get your way.

You can't say that things like PP are not a PvP thing. PvP may not be the intent. But PvP can certainly have an influence. As I understand it, if you have a group of PvPers who want to make a concerted effort to resist the PP efforts of an opposing faction, the opposition is left with three options:

1) Persist with their efforts despite the resistance. This presumably will make their efforts riskier and will potentially slow things down.
2) Decide that the risk isn't worth it and decide to go exploring or something instead.
3) Avoid the resistance altogether by switching to Solo.

Options 1 and 2 will surely have the desired effect on the outcome of the goal. But having option 3 available (while still pursuing the same goals) completely nullifies the efforts of those in Open. I don't see how that is fair.

As you've not factored in a lot of things, this is not an honest break down of possible out comes.

Off the top of my head, instance sizes, ping times / network traffic, stability between peers and so on.
Time zones, as not everyone plays at the same time.

I flew to Hutton for the CG, in open, while CODE were doing their blockade.....

Guess how many CODE people I seen, or interacted with..... did you guess ZERO?
Because that is the answer - UK prime time player, and nope - no one. Seen more people when I finally switched to the Mobius group than I did in open.

Also, I can play open mode, fire up Netflix and my network traffic is so high the match making service wont place me with anyone else, as I'd lag their game out. Same if I go mad with Spotify / YouTube or let the rest of my family have any bandwidth for anything else.
And with multiple smart phones, tablets, computers, Sky Multi room + on demand service.

And lets not forget, when the game came out FD had UDP turned off by default in the game settings - no one could see anyone else. It was a player who "modded" a game file to allow UDP and fix the problems of people not seeing each other (isn't "modding" game files cheating?) - so by that, every time my firewall freaks out over a new UDP connection, all I have to do is say no and block it and bingo, guess who sees no one in Open mode.

But please stop suggesting that there isn't a problem, because to some there clearly is.

In YOUR opinion.

Game is fine for me and all those people who are playing it, so it would seem. As they are not here complaining.
So please stop suggesting there is a problem, because there clearly isn't ( <- see what I did there )

 

[R3DB3RD]

Working as intended - This one and its variants really bug me. FD has built it that way so it must be right. No. There is a case for saying "That is the way it is so we'll just have to live with it."

But please stop suggesting that there isn't a problem, because to some there clearly is.

It is only a problem for those who want a different game.
Working as intended is only an issue with players whose expectations are wrong.

Nobody is saying it MUST be right or it MUST be wrong. Advocates for Open + Group + Solo = valid and equal are on the sides of the developers. These players have invested in a game that FD have designed and built FOR players who WANT this.

If you do not want this simple and elegant gameplay design... it is you that is playing the wrong game.
You are responsible for your game choices.
You are responsible for your expectations.
You are responsible for not enjoying a game that is not directed at you.

I would like to buy a house. On an acre block with lovely serene gardens and a pond with a fountain. A view over the valley and woods around it. I have the finances to afford it and yet when faced with a number of very eligible choices at the real estate agents I end up buying an apartment. Overlooking a canal, with hanging baskets on the window ledges full of weeds. Leaking drain pipes and rising damp in the kitchen.
I then spend the rest of my heavily mortgaged life going in to the estate agents everyday and screaming and shouting and complaining about my terrible view, the cramped living conditions and the horrible smells from the canal and how its not right and all they're fault and that they need to give me a new house like the one that I wanted. For free.

Go figure..

 

[Khelder]

In a PvE sense. But direct PvP has no impact whatsoever on the BGS and only pays rewards out if the losing party happened to have a bounty at the time of ship destruction - if they didn't, then you earn nothing at all.

PvP has a potential (yes - there are instancing issues, etc) to affect the efforts of those doing PvE. That, by extension, effects the BGS. Think beyond bounties.

And you can offset that thread by having combat pilot (humans) fly with you.

Open - has wings
Group - has wings

Solo - has no one, nothing, no support, no back up, no help, no one to watch your back.

That is true. But wings in Open actually works both ways. Wings of aggressors just make it even more dangerous. Regardless, I'm certain you're still a little bit safer against NPCs than you are against PCs.

As you've not factored in a lot of things, this is not an honest break down of possible out comes.

Off the top of my head, instance sizes, ping times / network traffic, stability between peers and so on.
Time zones, as not everyone plays at the same time.

I flew to Hutton for the CG, in open, while CODE were doing their blockade.....

Guess how many CODE people I seen, or interacted with..... did you guess ZERO?
Because that is the answer - UK prime time player, and nope - no one. Seen more people when I finally switched to the Mobius group than I did in open.

Also, I can play open mode, fire up Netflix and my network traffic is so high the match making service wont place me with anyone else, as I'd lag their game out. Same if I go mad with Spotify / YouTube or let the rest of my family have any bandwidth for anything else.
And with multiple smart phones, tablets, computers, Sky Multi room + on demand service.

And lets not forget, when the game came out FD had UDP turned off by default in the game settings - no one could see anyone else. It was a player who "modded" a game file to allow UDP and fix the problems of people not seeing each other (isn't "modding" game files cheating?) - so by that, every time my firewall freaks out over a new UDP connection, all I have to do is say no and block it and bingo, guess who sees no one in Open mode.

I was listing potential options for those who faced opposition. The networking/instancing issues that you are talking about effectively prevent someone from facing opposition - even in Open. So they don't really apply. But for you...

4) Persist in their efforts because due to some lucky instancing quirk, they never saw any resistance anyway. Good for them. Not so good for resisters.

You're right, it's not fair that some people did not perform their due diligence BEFORE buying the game and now want it changing.
A lot of people sank money in to a game they RESEARCHED and SUPPORTED three years ago, and they expect to keep what they paid for.

See my above question regarding who will pay out refund money should you get your way.

Ok. First, I'm not sure what "way" you're suggesting I want to get. I have offered suggestions in the past. But that is mainly focused on ways to balance aggression in Open so that maybe more players might want to venture into that mode. In the comment you are replying to, I offered no suggestion at all. I am merely trying to understand the issues that players are facing.

If you're thinking that I want Solo and/or Group modes gone, then you are mistaken. I'm sorry if I can't keep track of everyone's predispositions, but are you generally pro-Solo? From the tone I'm getting from your comment that is what it sounds like. Given that I'm not suggesting getting rid of these modes, I don't understand the anger. Even if FD went down the path of completely splitting the BGS between the modes (which I really don't think they will ever do), how would that affect you in Solo? How is it not keeping what you have paid for? Or is it the mode switching that you are holding on to?

In YOUR opinion.

Game is fine for me and all those people who are playing it, so it would seem. As they are not here complaining.
So please stop suggesting there is a problem, because there clearly isn't ( <- see what I did there )

I'm replying to a thread (Mk III btw) that has over 5000 posts in it. It would seem that one or two people have something to say about the issue. In fact, it's amazing how many disparate issues (in separate threads) end up getting merged here because it continues to come back to a discussion about the different modes. You can twist the words and smile. That's cool. But it seems to fly in the face of available evidence.

 

[Khelder]

It is only a problem for those who want a different game.
Working as intended is only an issue with players whose expectations are wrong.

Nobody is saying it MUST be right or it MUST be wrong. Advocates for Open + Group + Solo = valid and equal are on the sides of the developers. These players have invested in a game that FD have designed and built FOR players who WANT this.

If you do not want this simple and elegant gameplay design... it is you that is playing the wrong game.
You are responsible for your game choices.
You are responsible for your expectations.
You are responsible for not enjoying a game that is not directed at you.

I would like to buy a house. On an acre block with lovely serene gardens and a pond with a fountain. A view over the valley and woods around it. I have the finances to afford it and yet when faced with a number of very eligible choices at the real estate agents I end up buying an apartment. Overlooking a canal, with hanging baskets on the window ledges full of weeds. Leaking drain pipes and rising damp in the kitchen.
I then spend the rest of my heavily mortgaged life going in to the estate agents everyday and screaming and shouting and complaining about my terrible view, the cramped living conditions and the horrible smells from the canal and how its not right and all they're fault and that they need to give me a new house like the one that I wanted. For free.

Go figure..

Ok. Fair enough. Maybe that is what Jockey79 is going on about.

But I still don't see why people can't suggest that perhaps the way it is done now (and, yes, the way people researched, invested, supported, whatever) isn't the best way. People discuss a lot of things in these forums. Why does this topic have to get slapped down because it's "Working as intended" whereas other things might be open to debate?

Are all those "advocates for Open + Group + Solo = valid and equal" also abstaining from any other discussion around game features?

 

[R3DB3RD]

Ok. Fair enough. Maybe that is what Jockey79 is going on about.

But I still don't see why people can't suggest that perhaps the way it is done now (and, yes, the way people researched, invested, supported, whatever) isn't the best way. People discuss a lot of things in these forums. Why does this topic have to get slapped down because it's "Working as intended" whereas other things might be open to debate?

Are all those "advocates for Open + Group + Solo = valid and equal" also abstaining from any other discussion around game features?

No. As has been said before, there are issues that we all want to see addressed. Fixes and tweaks and additions.
The modes and the validity of each mode and the need for them to be equal is what was made available to the player base. This is the intention of the designers, to say anything but, is insulting and derogatory. Why? Because opinion is 'I dont like it, this is a bad game and needs to be completely rebuilt to what I want' ... that is not a good argument for change.
Everybody at FD has put the hard yards in, blood, sweat and tears to bring to life the vision of a very well respected game developer.
Then a small handfull of players come along and say all that hard work and dedication, all those project deadlines, working into the night, putting life on hold, sacrifices made to get this project delivered AS designed FOR the targeted player base is utter pants and wrong and you all need to pull your heads in and make a 'better' game just for me and all my ungrateful mates.

Giving what the player base asked for is EXACTLY the right way, not tearing it all down and rebuilding it just because some people dont get it.

 

[Khelder]

No. As has been said before, there are issues that we all want to see addressed. Fixes and tweaks and additions.
The modes and the validity of each mode and the need for them to be equal is what was made available to the player base. This is the intention of the designers, to say anything but, is insulting and derogatory. Why? Because opinion is 'I dont like it, this is a bad game and needs to be completely rebuilt to what I want' ... that is not a good argument for change.
Everybody at FD has put the hard yards in, blood, sweat and tears to bring to life the vision of a very well respected game developer.
Then a small handfull of players come along and say all that hard work and dedication, all those project deadlines, working into the night, putting life on hold, sacrifices made to get this project delivered AS designed FOR the targeted player base is utter pants and wrong and you all need to pull your heads in and make a 'better' game just for me and all my ungrateful mates.

Giving what the player base asked for is EXACTLY the right way, not tearing it all down and rebuilding it just because some people dont get it.

Insulting and derogatory? Whoa!

Maybe I'm just taking your comment too personally. But I have NEVER said that this is a bad game. I have NEVER said anything close to that it need to be completely rebuilt. As a developer myself, I am extremely aware of the "hard yards, blood, sweat and tears" involved. I (and, by extension, my family) have sacrificed weekends, holidays, sleeping at night, to get projects over the line for clients. Don't for a second presume that I am ungrateful.

I am not being insulting. I am not being derogatory. I am merely attempting to understand the issues that many (other) people seem to feel exist in the current design. And I can understand where some of them are coming from. I would assume that FD are doing the same - keeping track of and trying to understand the issues. I actually think that FD is in quite a good position from the responses in this forum. Building a product and receiving no feedback is worrying. Building a product and receiving only positive feedback can be almost as bad.

And I don't know if your contention that FD has given the player base exactly what they asked for really makes much difference. They may have in this instance. But there are plenty of complaints around other topics where what was promised in the magical DDF was simply not delivered on. It doesn't really make sense to have righteous indignation over those who question one delivered feature but be happy to argue others.

 

[Mouse]

Insulting and derogatory? Whoa!

Maybe I'm just taking your comment too personally. But I have NEVER said that this is a bad game. I have NEVER said anything close to that it need to be completely rebuilt. As a developer myself, I am extremely aware of the "hard yards, blood, sweat and tears" involved. I (and, by extension, my family) have sacrificed weekends, holidays, sleeping at night, to get projects over the line for clients. Don't for a second presume that I am ungrateful.

I am not being insulting. I am not being derogatory. I am merely attempting to understand the issues that many (other) people seem to feel exist in the current design. And I can understand where some of them are coming from. I would assume that FD are doing the same - keeping track of and trying to understand the issues. I actually think that FD is in quite a good position from the responses in this forum. Building a product and receiving no feedback is worrying. Building a product and receiving only positive feedback can be almost as bad.

And I don't know if your contention that FD has given the player base exactly what they asked for really makes much difference. They may have in this instance. But there are plenty of complaints around other topics where what was promised in the magical DDF was simply not delivered on. It doesn't really make sense to have righteous indignation over those who question one delivered feature but be happy to argue others.

Maybe you should read what R3DB3RD wrote again and look at what he said was insulting and derogatory.

 

[R3DB3RD]

Insulting and derogatory? Whoa!

Maybe I'm just taking your comment too personally. But I have NEVER said that this is a bad game. I have NEVER said anything close to that it need to be completely rebuilt. As a developer myself, I am extremely aware of the "hard yards, blood, sweat and tears" involved. I (and, by extension, my family) have sacrificed weekends, holidays, sleeping at night, to get projects over the line for clients. Don't for a second presume that I am ungrateful.

I am not being insulting. I am not being derogatory. I am merely attempting to understand the issues that many (other) people seem to feel exist in the current design. And I can understand where some of them are coming from. I would assume that FD are doing the same - keeping track of and trying to understand the issues. I actually think that FD is in quite a good position from the responses in this forum. Building a product and receiving no feedback is worrying. Building a product and receiving only positive feedback can be almost as bad.

And I don't know if your contention that FD has given the player base exactly what they asked for really makes much difference. They may have in this instance. But there are plenty of complaints around other topics where what was promised in the magical DDF was simply not delivered on. It doesn't really make sense to have righteous indignation over those who question one delivered feature but be happy to argue others.

Ok.

Firstly, my commments are aimed in a general way at generalised attitudes, not at you personally, I quoted you in that respect. I didnt make any claims as to what you were saying. It is a response to the same points of view that keep coming up surrounding the modes. The modes of the game are an integral feature of the game. The very foundation of the game. To change them is to change the nature of the game completely.

Secondly, if you are a developer yourself then I do not understand how you might wish to alter something that is part of the foundation of the game that will significantly change the game. Im not a developer, but I am a modder. I love feedback and peoples opinions, but will not stand for views that completely change what I have done or am trying to achieve. If someone does not get what I am trying to do, move on, this is not for you. My attitude might come across as harsh, it keeps my sanity and helps me remained focus on what I am working towards.

Thirdly, rightous indignation? Right here, right now I am focused on Open + Group + Solo = Validity + Equality. Never said there should be no feedback, never said that there should only be positive feedback (I am not a die hard fanboy). Never claimed that FD have delivered the complete game. As far as I and many others are concerned: The modes work as they have been designed to work; player choice and freedom with equal impact on the surrounding game envrionment. This system is embedded in the game.

Is it not righteous indignation that someone is so disturbed by the very nature of a game that they want to change it completely?

I believe that it is unique, clever and very different from every other multiplayer concept out there that enables me, as a gamer to play a variety of different games wrapped up in one package.

Warning: Bad Analogy

Gamer A: Dude check this game out. You play this wierd yellow head running round a maze eating pills and dodging evil ghosts. And if you eat a special one you can eat the ghosts too for a few seconds. Theres tons of mazes and its awesome and you score points and stuff and it gets harder.
Gamer B: Hey, this is cool yeah, but really, its a bit boring, so lets put big laser guns on the head thingamajig which is just stupid anyway and instead of ghosts we'll have monsters, cos ghosts are stupid anyway, and instead of a maze you can zoom left and right at the bottom of the screen cos that looks way cooler and all the monsters line up and march down at you getting faster and faster...
Gamer A: ... Dude... thats like, totally a different game.
Gamer B: Yeah but its way better hey.
Gamer A: ...

 

[Khelder]

my commments are aimed in a general way at generalised attitudes, not at you personally

Fair enough. Thank you.

The modes of the game are an integral feature of the game. The very foundation of the game. To change them is to change the nature of the game completely.

I am sure that many would agree with you. I don't really see it though. If you look at the web site, the fact that you can play in different modes and have equal impact on the same environment is not even mentioned. In fact, at a quick scan, the only thing I can see that even hints at the existence of a Solo mode is the line "Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy..." And that could actually be referring to flying alone in Open since it is under the Massively Multiplayer header.

But if you believe that changing that would be a fundamental change to the game, that's fair enough.

if you are a developer yourself then I do not understand how you might wish to alter something that is part of the foundation of the game that will significantly change the game. Im not a developer, but I am a modder. I love feedback and peoples opinions, but will not stand for views that completely change what I have done or am trying to achieve. If someone does not get what I am trying to do, move on, this is not for you. My attitude might come across as harsh, it keeps my sanity and helps me remained focus on what I am working towards.

As a developer, I recognise that I have a client who is ultimately paying for my services. I have had occasions where I have had to make fundamental changes because a requirement was not properly defined at the beginning or was just found to be incorrect down the track. Sure, it's frustrating. But there is no point in developing software that doesn't fit the purpose.

If you're developing projects for your own pleasure, then you have a bit more flexibility. But ultimately, if you build something that your audience doesn't want, you're not going to have much of an audience.

I believe that it is unique, clever and very different from every other multiplayer concept out there that enables me, as a gamer to play a variety of different games wrapped up in one package.

It is probably unique. I don't know if it necessarily works though - unless you ignore the minor problems with it. And, I'll admit, the problems are probably fairly minor at the moment. Someone posted in another thread about player factions. I don't know how they are going to work in general. But I am really curious as to how a player faction can exist in a mode that only has one player.

Warning: Bad Analogy

Yeah, it was. But I get your point. Like I said, I just don't see it being that fundamental. Clearly you do. So we disagree.

 

[Mouse]

Fair enough. Thank you.



I am sure that many would agree with you. I don't really see it though. If you look at the web site, the fact that you can play in different modes and have equal impact on the same environment is not even mentioned. In fact, at a quick scan, the only thing I can see that even hints at the existence of a Solo mode is the line "Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy..." And that could actually be referring to flying alone in Open since it is under the Massively Multiplayer header.

But if you believe that changing that would be a fundamental change to the game, that's fair enough.



As a developer, I recognise that I have a client who is ultimately paying for my services. I have had occasions where I have had to make fundamental changes because a requirement was not properly defined at the beginning or was just found to be incorrect down the track. Sure, it's frustrating. But there is no point in developing software that doesn't fit the purpose.

If you're developing projects for your own pleasure, then you have a bit more flexibility. But ultimately, if you build something that your audience doesn't want, you're not going to have much of an audience.



It is probably unique. I don't know if it necessarily works though - unless you ignore the minor problems with it. And, I'll admit, the problems are probably fairly minor at the moment. Someone posted in another thread about player factions. I don't know how they are going to work in general. But I am really curious as to how a player faction can exist in a mode that only has one player.



Yeah, it was. But I get your point. Like I said, I just don't see it being that fundamental. Clearly you do. So we disagree.

As a developer you would change a game for a minority when most of your clients are happy with it?

 

[Faded Glory]

Ok. Fair enough. Maybe that is what Jockey79 is going on about.

But I still don't see why people can't suggest that perhaps the way it is done now (and, yes, the way people researched, invested, supported, whatever) isn't the best way. People discuss a lot of things in these forums. Why does this topic have to get slapped down because it's "Working as intended" whereas other things might be open to debate?

Are all those "advocates for Open + Group + Solo = valid and equal" also abstaining from any other discussion around game features?

The main reason some of us don't accept that it's not wrong is because we don't believe it is wrong. Some of us believe that FD have made a very clever (conscious) decision to allow everyone to play the game in the way that they want to, with everybody, with just selected friends or with no one.

Nobody here really tries to stop the debate, but the posts that come up here have all come up before, been discussed to death, there's nothing new being presented, so often you will get sightly tetchy responses. Remember, this is the third version of the thread, we're at 25,000 odd posts, and I would say that a minority of these are people saying they don't like the setup as it is.

I don't believe that any of the pro Solo / pro choice posters here would care at all if FD created a brand new, separate game for the Open only crowd, but they're probably not going to do that. In the end, the people claiming the game is flawed want a different game to the one FD have made / are making. Understandably, they don't want to hear that, but just changing mode switching won't do it for them, it won't create a game where massive space battles can occur (unless you call less than 32 pilots having a battle massive), it probably won't create a scenario where traders fly convoys guarded by armed escorts, because the mechanics aren't in place for the armed escorts to be rewarded, it won't allow for blockades of a space station or a system due to instancing, and most importantly because FD don't want players to be able to blockade a space station.

People can discuss it, that's fine, but wanting, often demanding a game so fundamentally different to the one that they are playing, while potentially understandable, is at the very least a little bit entitled, and for those of us who like the game as it is, well, we are just as entitled to defend it.

 

[Faded Glory]

There is one key thing you are missing.

The people who like solo will play solo, nothing will change if save swapping is removed for them. Private groups could even be incorporated with the solo system... like Mobious and other stuff.

The people who want to make a difference and have a sandbox will play open. Because they want player interaction, they WANT that unscripted gameplay. People are begging Frontier for tier 2 NPC's, REAL PEOPLE ARE TIER 3! .

Solo has ONE good purpose, letting people relax on days they don't want to play open,

But so many nefarious features (10+ easily). Like Undermining (Yay NPC grind solo), making power-play irrelevant (Wow who can grind the most in solo), making PvP irrelevant (why kill people in my area when I can grind in solo and achieve more), making escorts irrelevant (4 traders in Solo please), making bounty hunting irrelevant (Wow he's getting away while solo, see: Hutton CG), making wing PvP irrelevant (Why bother outside of pre-arranged), making finding people in CZ or RES for friendship or combat almost impossible (Let's just play solo because = efficiency)

And people will do it too even if they hate it (grind in solo) because humans love path of least resistance.

Furthermore, the log off timer can be extended and combat logging can be crunched on - you dont negatively develop a game because the fact that an exploit exists, you squish the exploit.

I don't believe I am missing the point. If you lock Open, as it is, it will make no difference to the dissatisfaction you have with the game, as Solo and Group players will still affect the BGS. So that won't work. You want FD to create a new, different, entirely dynamic, PvP oriented game.

I'd guess that all the players who actually want to make a difference are already playing Open, and Open would actually lose players, as those who don't want to play Open all the time would likely settle for Solo / Group mode. Is that what you want?

I'd say that ED is a game about the journey, not the outcome. It's certainly true in my view that there is no end game, no moment when you have 'won'. So play the game the way it's fun for you,enjoy the journey, and yes, that may take some pre-arranged organization if you want other players to play with you. If it's vital to you that you must win at PP, then use the mechanics that are in place to do that, fortify or undermine. If you're trying to do it in Open through PvP then that's great, assuming there are players on the opposite side to PvP with, if not, then you have a clear field to do the same fortifying or undermining in Open as unopposed as those doing it in Solo.

If players don't want to engage with you now, they're not going to want to engage with you in a separate, locked down Open mode, at least I cannot see why they would.

 

[Khelder]

The main reason some of us don't accept that it's not wrong is because we don't believe it is wrong. Some of us believe that FD have made a very clever (conscious) decision to allow everyone to play the game in the way that they want to, with everybody, with just selected friends or with no one.

Nobody here really tries to stop the debate, but the posts that come up here have all come up before, been discussed to death, there's nothing new being presented, so often you will get sightly tetchy responses. Remember, this is the third version of the thread, we're at 25,000 odd posts, and I would say that a minority of these are people saying they don't like the setup as it is.

I don't believe that any of the pro Solo / pro choice posters here would care at all if FD created a brand new, separate game for the Open only crowd, but they're probably not going to do that. In the end, the people claiming the game is flawed want a different game to the one FD have made / are making. Understandably, they don't want to hear that, but just changing mode switching won't do it for them, it won't create a game where massive space battles can occur (unless you call less than 32 pilots having a battle massive), it probably won't create a scenario where traders fly convoys guarded by armed escorts, because the mechanics aren't in place for the armed escorts to be rewarded, it won't allow for blockades of a space station or a system due to instancing, and most importantly because FD don't want players to be able to blockade a space station.

People can discuss it, that's fine, but wanting, often demanding a game so fundamentally different to the one that they are playing, while potentially understandable, is at the very least a little bit entitled, and for those of us who like the game as it is, well, we are just as entitled to defend it.

Fair enough. I haven't been following this from the beginning. But I've seen a lot of the arguments. So I can understand people getting frustrated with the same things coming up again and again. Maybe I just have a problem with some of the responses that are given again and again. I think I would be a lot happier if rather than the usual "That is the way it was supposed to be and it is fair and works perfectly for everyone", there was the occasional, "That is the way it has been built. That is the way it is going to stay. We recognise that it isn't quite perfect, but it's the best we can do."

Ok. FD made a very "clever" and conscious decision to allow everyone to play the game with different rules but have equal standing and equal effect on the BGS. You won't find too many instances where people are in the same game or sport playing by different rules but affecting the same outcome. In situations where that does happen, it's usually accepted by all parties involved. I would imagine that a golf handicap would be an example of this.

This has nothing really to do with massive battles, armed escorts, blockades, etc. The conversation often meanders into those areas, but the thread is supposed to be about the different modes affecting the same BGS in the same way.

 

[R3DB3RD]

Fair enough. Thank you.



I am sure that many would agree with you. I don't really see it though. If you look at the web site, the fact that you can play in different modes and have equal impact on the same environment is not even mentioned. In fact, at a quick scan, the only thing I can see that even hints at the existence of a Solo mode is the line "Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy..." And that could actually be referring to flying alone in Open since it is under the Massively Multiplayer header.

But if you believe that changing that would be a fundamental change to the game, that's fair enough.



As a developer, I recognise that I have a client who is ultimately paying for my services. I have had occasions where I have had to make fundamental changes because a requirement was not properly defined at the beginning or was just found to be incorrect down the track. Sure, it's frustrating. But there is no point in developing software that doesn't fit the purpose.

If you're developing projects for your own pleasure, then you have a bit more flexibility. But ultimately, if you build something that your audience doesn't want, you're not going to have much of an audience.



It is probably unique. I don't know if it necessarily works though - unless you ignore the minor problems with it. And, I'll admit, the problems are probably fairly minor at the moment. Someone posted in another thread about player factions. I don't know how they are going to work in general. But I am really curious as to how a player faction can exist in a mode that only has one player.



Yeah, it was. But I get your point. Like I said, I just don't see it being that fundamental. Clearly you do. So we disagree.

It really is a matter of perspective and what you want or desire from the game. I like what you say and were both right and both wrong from our individual standpoints which is quite indicative of this whole thread. Maybe FD need to have clearer distinction on who and what Elite Dangerous is really about.

And admit that the marketing is all bells and whistles and half truths and white lies.

 

[Faded Glory]

Fair enough. I haven't been following this from the beginning. But I've seen a lot of the arguments. So I can understand people getting frustrated with the same things coming up again and again. Maybe I just have a problem with some of the responses that are given again and again. I think I would be a lot happier if rather than the usual "That is the way it was supposed to be and it is fair and works perfectly for everyone", there was the occasional, "That is the way it has been built. That is the way it is going to stay. We recognise that it isn't quite perfect, but it's the best we can do."

Well, to be fair, there are plenty of occasions where the second response is given. The first response generally comes about in reply to a poster who demands the game be changed to suit their play style. But as I said, we don't have to say that we recognize it isn't perfect, some of us consider it to be working very well for our play style, and I'll defend that as strongly as others wish to criticize and more importantly change it.

Ok. FD made a very "clever" and conscious decision to allow everyone to play the game with different rules but have equal standing and equal effect on the BGS. You won't find too many instances where people are in the same game or sport playing by different rules but affecting the same outcome. In situations where that does happen, it's usually accepted by all parties involved. I would imagine that a golf handicap would be an example of this.

I'd argue that the rules are no different between the modes. The only difference is that in Open you might be attacked by another player rather than an NPC. Is that really so much of a game changer, especially when there is no guarantee that you will ever see another player for a whole multitude of reasons? And bare in mind that plenty of the pro PvP crowd write here how easy it is to avoid PvP if you don't want it. It surely can't be both the lethal game changer and yet easy to avoid at the same time.

You are correct though that acceptance by all parties would be a good thing. And then this thread and subject would, by and large, disappear. It may still surface from time to time when people complain that there are no unwilling targets for them to engage with.

This has nothing really to do with massive battles, armed escorts, blockades, etc. The conversation often meanders into those areas, but the thread is supposed to be about the different modes affecting the same BGS in the same way.

But it does have to do with PvP battles and blockades, because that is how the PvP side would like the BGS to be affected. They feel that if you cannot shoot something, then it should have no influence for example, or perhaps lesser influence, or perhaps there should be greater influence given to their preferred play style.

If there is to be one BGS, and it seems that FD want there to be, then it needs to be affected equally by everyone participating, whether in Open or Solo, whether on a PC or an Xbox, that surely is the only fair and balanced way for it to happen.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It is probably unique.

Not quite unique. Shroud of the Avatar adopts a similar flexi-player implementation:

• Selective Multiplayer Modes: You can also play with everyone in a single world with three different online modes (Single Player, Friends Only, and Open).

 

[W0OCQCK]

To be honest, I really like it just the way it is. Brilliant game design.

 

[Jockey79]

.... I'm sorry if I can't keep track of everyone's predispositions, but are you generally pro-Solo? From the tone I'm getting from your comment that is what it sounds like....

I'm not on any side. I play all modes for various reasons at various times - something that was an advertised feature BEFORE anyone started handing money over.

What annoys me is we live in a world where the combined knowledge of the human race is easily accessible, from home, by ANYONE with internet access and a device to access it (Which anyone posting CLEARLY has) and then some come here, complaining about a feature the entire game is built on saying: it should be removed / it adjusted so it no longer works as advertised / complains about it being implemented to start with - because they were just too lazy to use Google before parting with their money.
Why should something I spent time researching, watching videos on, reading reviews for then after a few days paid for - be changed because someone decided not to bother looking, bought it and suddenly doesn't like it?
Not to mention ALL of the so called issues would still happen if the game was open only due to instancing / time zones / network tinkering - the modes neither create or resolve the problems in open.

Does the game need tweaking - yes
Do I have my ideas on "fixing" the game - yes

1) Players should be worth the same merits as NPCs for Power Play (if they are taking part).
2) PvP Bounty Hunting is broken (see below).
3) Crime system needs sorting so being a criminal means something and has added danger of being a criminal.
4) System ratings should mean something - safe systems actually safe, anarchy systems living up to their name along with "pirate" stations.
5) PvE Piracy - NPCs need their cargo sorting, right now it is so bad is went past being a joke to just plain sad now.

As for Bounty Hunting, how is a PvPer supposed to collect human bounties when you get player killers go about ganking in open, then jump to a private group and they collect each others bounties?
The few changes I'd try is;

A) If a person has a bounty from attacking/killing another player - for the duration of that bounty they can only play in open mode to give the bounty hunters a fair crack at collecting.
B) If a person is "Wanted" - they cannot cash in or collect other bounties.

My reasoning for "B" is thus: I used to watch "Dog the Bounty Hunter", and you see him take the wanted criminal in to the local police station to collect his bounty - if he himself was "Wanted", he'd not be collecting any bounty as he himself would be arrested and jailed. So wanted criminals being able to collect from other criminals makes no sense to me - but players currently can to keep their record clean and help friends earn after they've had their killing sprees.

 

[Neutronium]

I'm not on any side. I play all modes for various reasons at various times - something that was an advertised feature BEFORE anyone started handing money over.

What annoys me is we live in a world where the combined knowledge of the human race is easily accessible, from home, by ANYONE with internet access and a device to access it (Which anyone posting CLEARLY has) and then some come here, complaining about a feature the entire game is built on saying: it should be removed / it adjusted so it no longer works as advertised / complains about it being implemented to start with - because they were just too lazy to use Google before parting with their money.
Why should something I spent time researching, watching videos on, reading reviews for then after a few days paid for - be changed because someone decided not to bother looking, bought it and suddenly doesn't like it?
Not to mention ALL of the so called issues would still happen if the game was open only due to instancing / time zones / network tinkering - the modes neither create or resolve the problems in open.

Does the game need tweaking - yes
Do I have my ideas on "fixing" the game - yes

1) Players should be worth the same merits as NPCs for Power Play (if they are taking part).
2) PvP Bounty Hunting is broken (see below).
3) Crime system needs sorting so being a criminal means something and has added danger of being a criminal.
4) System ratings should mean something - safe systems actually safe, anarchy systems living up to their name along with "pirate" stations.
5) PvE Piracy - NPCs need their cargo sorting, right now it is so bad is went past being a joke to just plain sad now.

As for Bounty Hunting, how is a PvPer supposed to collect human bounties when you get player killers go about ganking in open, then jump to a private group and they collect each others bounties?
The few changes I'd try is;

A) If a person has a bounty from attacking/killing another player - for the duration of that bounty they can only play in open mode to give the bounty hunters a fair crack at collecting.
B) If a person is "Wanted" - they cannot cash in or collect other bounties.

My reasoning for "B" is thus: I used to watch "Dog the Bounty Hunter", and you see him take the wanted criminal in to the local police station to collect his bounty - if he himself was "Wanted", he'd not be collecting any bounty as he himself would be arrested and jailed. So wanted criminals being able to collect from other criminals makes no sense to me - but players currently can to keep their record clean and help friends earn after they've had their killing sprees.

It actually does make sense to me if we take into account the fact that ''its a wild, wild west'' in space out there. You are wanted for 1mil, you catch another 1mil criminal, 1mil-1mil = you pay your debt and you are clean