Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Sylveria]

The problem lies in the fact that since release, FD hasn't really clarified their "intentions" in any particular way. Because of this, people tend to only assume- which rarely leads to truth.

The bottom line here is no one but FD themselves know what their "plan" or "intent" is... and all we can do is speculate because of this. It's also why I tend to stick to facts (or my own opinion)- rather than their "intentions" when it comes to describing the game features- because there's specific things I'd like to see changed.

That said, I'm a firm believer in anything's "possible", but not all things are "probable".

IMO, the crime/bounty system would go a loooooooong way in helping make PvP more "meaningful" in Open- but until that time I'll stick to Solo or Group. As to the game mode switching- if it was indeed a "selling point" (and from what I've read of the original KS page, so was PP and the ability to affect it from Solo play) then expecting FD to remove said features is going to be tantamount to insanity. (Defined as "performing the same actions and expecting different results)

All in all, I'm a realist- I know it would not behoove FD to lock themselves into advocating for a particular playstyle, but I think they need to weigh in at least for clarification in helping to attract new sales. I'm also a firm believer in word-of-mouth advertising and that the longer they stay silent the more sales they will lose out on as people who are dissatisfied with the game will be spreading the news. (in any/either camp- PvE or PvP)

 

[Tuub t Tute]

If the players want something… the customer is always right.

No. What if you have two customers with diametrically opposed points of view on a subject? Which one is right, both, or neither?

 

[DarkWalker]

I could, but that city does not even come close to what I said.

Lave is considered the equivalent of a capital city (if not "Thee" capital of Elite in general), not a back water city barely anyone globally has heard of.

Case in point, the top 30 crime cities listed on Wikipedia;

View attachment 63609

I do not see;

London, UK
Tokyo, JPN
Washington DC, USA
Paris, FR
Berlin, GER

And so on.

None of the worlds well known capital cities are in the top 50 list.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate)

Even the most well known secondary and tertiary cities are not on that list.
Even the 4 USA cities listed are not major areas in the USA, you have New York, San Francisco and L.A. are more well known than those on that list.

If you go by what is considered "First World" and "Developed areas", none of those places make the cut (no one has ever accused Detroit of being developed ).

So my point stands, thug groups or pirate groups should not be able to claim the areas is theirs and freely commit crimes in well known, high population areas that should be safe to visitors.

[Footnote: No offence is intended to anyone who lives in any of the areas mentioned above, that I have referred to as not being "First World" and "Developed areas" - every city is a beautiful and a wonderful place to live in its own unique way.]

Also, to keep in mind, that is murders per year, per 100K habitants. Even using San Pedro Sula, the reigning champion, as an example, living there you would have a roughly 0.2% chance of being murdered before your 100th birthday. Murder is actually very rare.

(Incidentally, I've actually walked the streets of a dozen of those cities when I crossed the country with my father a long time ago — when murder rates were even higher — and I'm still alive and kicking.)

All the complaints about the modes stem from PvPers who want to "win".

Which, by the way, is why I favor PvP games that have no rewards for winning. Remove the rewards and you get less players interested in winning, and thus proportionally more players interested mainly in having a good time. Which makes the PvP experience far more enjoyable for me.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

You have to remember, in this game, crime is desired by the devs...…

Yes, I just think that a bigger difference between anarchy and high security systems would make more fun (for me). I don't want to remove crime, I would like that there are save areas and very dangerous areas. Changing the way or place where crime happens might be a better description of what I want. For me difference is what makes things interesting and what makes things noticeable. Currently I see no much difference in security in systems. But with higher security in some systems and higher danger in others these systems would become different, more unique and interesting - for me.

And I would like that in all modes. A better crimes and justice system would make the game more interesting, more varied in all modes. Changing the crime system is probably not an easy task and I guess it will happen in very little steps.

 

[DarkWalker]

From any kind of business perspective the customer is always right.

That is a huge fallacy, as everyone that ever dealt directly with customers should know. The customer should be given the impression that he is important, that what he says matter, but blindly following what the customer says is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Roybe]

The problem lies in the fact that since release, FD hasn't really clarified their "intentions" in any particular way. Because of this, people tend to only assume- which rarely leads to truth.

The bottom line here is no one but FD themselves know what their "plan" or "intent" is... and all we can do is speculate because of this. It's also why I tend to stick to facts (or my own opinion)- rather than their "intentions" when it comes to describing the game features- because there's specific things I'd like to see changed.

That said, I'm a firm believer in anything's "possible", but not all things are "probable".

IMO, the crime/bounty system would go a loooooooong way in helping make PvP more "meaningful" in Open- but until that time I'll stick to Solo or Group. As to the game mode switching- if it was indeed a "selling point" (and from what I've read of the original KS page, so was PP and the ability to affect it from Solo play) then expecting FD to remove said features is going to be tantamount to insanity. (Defined as "performing the same actions and expecting different results)

All in all, I'm a realist- I know it would not behoove FD to lock themselves into advocating for a particular playstyle, but I think they need to weigh in at least for clarification in helping to attract new sales. I'm also a firm believer in word-of-mouth advertising and that the longer they stay silent the more sales they will lose out on as people who are dissatisfied with the game will be spreading the news. (in any/either camp- PvE or PvP)

All this is true...in the absence of the devs talking about 'stuff', all we can do is wait and see. The deferred income, is an interesting number on their sheets...as this is a solid measure of good will within the community (it shows the payments given for future content)...unfortunately, they put the Horizon content on sale after the date of their financials...so it is a very tiny number...I would love to see that number today!

 

[willowfan]

The customer is always right is nice PR speak.

The Mantra that most companies actually live by is "Give them what we need, not what they want"

 

[Jockey79]

The customer is always right is nice PR speak.

The Mantra that most companies actually live by is "Give them what we need, not what they want"

More like, give them as little as we can get away with.

 

[DarkWalker]

Just my thoughts here, but isn't Open technically more... you know... realistic? I can understand why people want PvE. But from a realism point of view, it doesn't really make sense to have a certain set of pilots who are magically off limits to attacks from their own class. Ultimately, it would be awesome if you couldn't tell the difference between NPCs and PCs (more than just hollow indicators - I mean by their actions).

I think the problem particularly comes from PvPers who aren't interested in fitting into the realism (roleplay) as such and are just looking for things to shoot.

1. Having a far larger number of pilots attacking others than would be expected in even a minimally working society is far more immersion breaking than even "pilots who are magically off limits to attacks from their own class".

2. If I can't tell the difference between players and NPCs I simply won't play. I don't shoot players, not without first getting their consent to fight, so not knowing which ships are players and which are NPCs would make the game useless to me.

3. Realism in games should never be the end goal. It's merely a tool for bringing a bit more enjoyment to the game, but for that it needs to be used with restraint. Not every aspect of reality improves the game; you will rarely ever find, for example, games that require the characters to take bathroom breaks, despite it being a relatively easy way to add a bit more realism.

That's not even my main point. The emphasis on the (yes, optional) content of PP was to become part of a team. To work towards the goals of your team - while opposing teams were simultaneously working against you. My suggestion is that by bringing a more competitive element into the mix, they have brought certain "issues" with an "everyone is equal" system to light. Therefore, I am not overly surprised that people would complain about it.

And I think Frontier really bungled it by offering exclusive rewards, the same way Blizzard bungled by offering perks for merely being in a guild.

In both cases the devs got a large number of players to join those groups with no desire to actually play with those groups. Can you imagine a guild where nobody talks in guild chat, a guild that doesn't do any content together? That was becoming the norm rather than the exception in WoW, to the point Blizzard removed the Guild Perks in the latest expansion. Similarly, in Power Play there is a lot of complaints about people that will just reinforce or undermine whichever system it's easier to do so with no regard for how it will influence their own power; this is a clear sign that a lot of players are just signing to the powers for the rewards, with no desire to actually engage in Power Play.

 

[ianw]

I tend to go with;

"The Customer is always right, except when they're wrong"

Seems to cover all the permutations...

 

[Roybe]

Yes, I just think that a bigger difference between anarchy and high security systems would make more fun (for me). I don't want to remove crime, I would like that there are save areas and very dangerous areas. Changing the way or place where crime happens might be a better description of what I want. For me difference is what makes things interesting and what makes things noticeable. Currently I see no much difference in security in systems. But with higher security in some systems and higher danger in others these systems would become different, more unique and interesting - for me.

And I would like that in all modes. A better crimes and justice system would make the game more interesting, more varied in all modes. Changing the crime system is probably not an easy task and I guess it will happen in very little steps.

When you look at high sec in this game...consider the difference between anarchy. There is no law present in anarchy. You can shoot anyone in the face you desire without bounties being enacted. They are different. Are they different enough? I would like to see more variation between them....but I am uncertain as to how this could be done. Since the political power system in the game is corrupt...the cops and the criminals in all systems work hand in glove. Pay attention to the number of system security hanging out with criminals within USS's...watch who the police shoot at during times of attack. With a corrupt power system...High sec...lo sec are not going to have a huge variety. The galaxy is meant, by design, to be dystopian.

The problem with a 'better crimes and justice system' means that law and order are important to people in the galaxy..see above...they obviously are not. People will fall on a range of desires for the amount of security they want within a game. For those that can live and flourish within this game with what we have, that is good. For those that fall outside on either side of the issue...they are unhappy...and the problem I see is that the devs might not care about those folks since they are making 'the game they want to play'....which leads us all back to making proper choices. Whether to play or not...or where to play within the game...Open or Private.

 

[DarkWalker]

More like, give them as little as we can get away with.

The ideal process for the company would be more like what should happen in a well conducted negotiation.

Listen to the other party. Make note of the demands. Then step back and look at the whole picture, so you can try to understand why those demands are being made; you will often find that what the other party says they want isn't what they actually want, but instead something that, if identified, can be fulfilled with a lower cost, less resources.

Then, and only then, start to see how you might fulfill the other party's true wishes.

This demands empathy, though; the ability to walk in the other person's shoes, so to speak. As such, people that hold strong views about how things work, that try to project their views on others, have a truly hard time doing this, if they are even capable of doing so.

 

[DarkWalker]

It's been said many, many, many times. "Offline" mode, which was promised from the kickstarter never manifested itself- therefore "Solo" mode was the compromise.

You got it backwards. Online Solo was promised from the start, then during the Kickstart players started clamoring for an offline mode, so much that Frontier ended promising it about two weeks into the Kickstart.

So, Solo was never a compromise. It was part of the plan from the start, and its effects even discussed in dev diaries from before Offline was promised.

---

Or the same people who say the crafting or economy sucks in x,y,z games, but as soon as you tell them to get a good economy/crafting there needs to be a dying penalty, they reel back.

Having good crafting is different from having a player economy. A game can have very good crafting without having a player economy at all. Obvious example, each and every single player game with good crafting.

Incidentally, what you pointed is why I now actively avoid most games that attempt to go for a realistic player economy, and tend to not recommend them to others either. After over a decade dabbling with MMOs, and a degree that helps me reverse-engineer the game systems, I figured that many of the elements that would be required for a well behaving, stable player economy are also things that invariably drive me away from a game. Given this, I actually love the fact you can't directly trade with other players in ED; no player trading means less pressure for adding game systems I dislike.

 

[Sylveria]

More like, give them as little as we can get away with.

^ Truth. The new business mantra is "Maximize Profits, Reduce Overhead."

 

[Agony_Aunt]

From any kind of business perspective the customer is always right. If they announced ED as a game, they should give us a game, not an explorable simulation of the Milky Way.

Having worked in the service industry in a number of roles, i can assure you that the customer is not always right, but sometimes they are downright imbeciles. Read "Not Always Right" for good examples of this: http://notalwaysright.com/

And i find it hard to accept that you do not consider ED to be a game, since it pretty much seems to fit the bill.

 

[Asp Explorer]

More like, give them as little as we can get away with.

For me it's quite different. My customers ask me to provide X to perform Y, when what they really mean is "we have A, make it do B", and getting in the way of everything are those annoying Agilists yelling "Must have Oranges and CLOUD"

 

[Mouse]

I never said there was pvp only

I said there was cooperative too. You could enter a CZ/NAV/RES in Open and find other players from your faction and group with them. You could join those people and go into enemy faction space and do stuff that is more relevant that undermining NPC's or grinding NPC's. There might be opposing wings or not, or there might be a lone enemy pilot - who knows. It's a lot more engaging then FARMING clueless AI over and over.

I don't hate PVE. I find risk/reward and challenging games more fun.

You really don't get it do you?

if you make something super easy and super fast. Nobody is going to play the other options. That's where meta-gaming and human psychology came in (Path of Least Resistance)

Apparently you are the one who doesn't get it, The game is not judged by YOUR abilities alone and PVE has risk/reward and challenges.

By your continued belief that because you believe NPCs are easy that it is true for most others, which it IS NOT. ED is in no way Super Easy or Super Fast. Again make a private server and invite everyone who wants to kill other players into it and have a good old time with your level of risk/reward. You don't drastically change a game because one or a few people feel it is too easy, you set it at a median to try and give an enjoyable game to as many players as you can, which ED has done

Secondly, meta-gaming has nothign to do with pvp. It's simply put, a way to play the game the simplest and most efficient and not really intended. I doubt Frontier intended that Undermining in solo was where everyone was going to gravitate to.

You may need to look up the definition of Meta-gaming.. "Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself. Metagaming differs from strategy in that metagaming is making decisions based upon out of game knowledge, whereas strategies are decisions made based upon in-game actions and knowledge."

Since undermining in Solo is an INTENDED game mechanic, as PP is a PVE element of the game, your calling it meta-gaming is not in all the definition of the word and you are using the term out of context. Again.. if any action in the game resembles meta-gaming it is those who abuse PVP to grief others.

Lastly, my rant was about how the player interaction and everything else is completely null and void in this game. Than again I guess you never really played a online sandbox before, where it actually felt immersive and real with other players and stuff actually felt meaningful. PowerPlay should feel important if you join a faction, you want to fight and defend it, killing NPC's over and over with no risk/reward makes it dull.

Player interaction with the environment is not null and void, there are risks and rewards.. heck the simple action of getting near a star is full of risk and rewards, especially if you have a fuel scoop. You risk damage to be rewarded with fuel you dont' have to pay for. It is a very simple risk/reward but it is there. Even if you don't have a fuel scoop the simple action of jumping into a system puts you at risk for damage if you don't change your direction immediately.

And the claim that I don't understand sandbox games and have never really played them... Oh please.. come on.. Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout games, Assasin Creed Games, Star Wars Galaxies, Eve Online, Ultima Online, Minecraft, Sim City, Sid Meier's Pirates, just to name a few..other players are not required to be a sandbox game.. Elite Dangerous in solo is as much a sandbox game as Elite Dangerous in Open is. And the game is immersive and real, actions taken in Elite is meaningful.. PVP is not required for a game to be sandbox either.. many sandbox games are solo players games. Playing alongside players not against them in Sandbox games is nice as well when it is available.


Addenum: I already said the crime system in this game needs an overhaul, so that griefing/ganking is reduced to almost none. If you made murder and killing actually bad and could only dock in anarchy, could be attaceked by anyone anywhere etc. There would be way less meaningless PVP.

​I agree with your Addendum as I've even suggested a system that would make those actions have consequences and may make things more enjoyable for those looking for real and meaningful PVP and those looking for meaningful PVE.

 

[Imperial Guard]

Just my thoughts here, but isn't Open technically more... you know... realistic? I can understand why people want PvE. But from a realism point of view, it doesn't really make sense to have a certain set of pilots who are magically off limits to attacks from their own class. Ultimately, it would be awesome if you couldn't tell the difference between NPCs and PCs (more than just hollow indicators - I mean by their actions).

I think the problem particularly comes from PvPers who aren't interested in fitting into the realism (roleplay) as such and are just looking for things to shoot.

How would the explorers like it if every time they jumped into a system to run an advanced scan, I turned all the planets and discoverable objects off to deny them the chance...

 

[Robert Maynard]

How would the explorers like it if every time they jumped into a system to run an advanced scan, I turned all the planets and discoverable objects off to deny them the chance...

Turning off the environment would make the game very boring indeed.

 

[Asp Explorer]

How would the explorers like it if every time they jumped into a system to run an advanced scan, I turned all the planets and discoverable objects off to deny them the chance...

And how would you accomplish this?