Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[ianw]

Michael already has. I quoted the relevant post earlier:

Actually now you mention it again I do recall seeing that post previously, missed it upthread.

Job done I guess!

 

[Khelder]

Michael already has.

Goodo. Well, guess the moderators (not you, obviously) can close this thread then.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Ahh, but maybe if he said it again, in a slightly different way that inferred that they knew they were wrong but couldn't say so.... etc, etc /rolleyes

- - - Updated - - -

Goodo. Well, guess the moderators (not you, obviously) can close this thread then.

This one stays open so that every new thread on the same subject can be merged and managed... This is v3 so there is little signs of the message being accepted overall

 

[bootsam]

What?!

I'm talking about a sensible company volunteering to communicate to their customers in a conciliatory manner because it's a smart thing to do and might help calm some of the tension.

And I think it is actually more like a customer purchasing a product from a supplier and that product does exactly what the supplier claimed. Unfortunately, the product - while effective at stated intent - has one or two minor side effects that were either unknown or undisclosed at the time the information was printed. Some people believe to have experienced these side effects and are understandably concerned.

But they have. They have repeatedly stated that they consider ALL MODES TO BE EQUAL AND VALID. Theyve said it numerous times. This thread is 370pgs long, so I'd guess they are aware of the issues and again have stated as such. What more, other than a personal letter from David Braben, will it take to convince people of this.

(please note my posts are made in a civil tone and mean no offence, honest.)

 

[ianw]

Goodo. Well, guess the moderators (not you, obviously) can close this thread then.

Oi! You leave our thread alone.

Some of us have been here quite a while you know.

You can't just come here without a by your leave and then deem the thread closed!

 

[Khelder]

Oi! You leave our thread alone.

Some of us have been here quite a while you know.

You can't just come here without a bye your leave and then deem the thread closed!

Well, I have added quite a lot of content to this thread. Direct content mind you, not that dodgy merged stuff. That must count for something??

 

[ianw]

Well, I have added quite a lot of content to this thread. Direct content mind you, not that dodgy merged stuff. That must count for something??

Fair enough, I'm sold!

Though I must say that the "turn the planets off analogy" a couple of pages back has to qualify as a total original too.

 

[Daffan]

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.

Nah because half the items are completely garbage in single player games or made redundant by dropped items or gear within a short time frame that makes them useless.

THEN comes the whole market viability issue

If you cant be a pure Crafter or industry person, then the crafting is a second thought or after thought in the game and not very good. In UO, EVE, DF, Runescape you could be a crafter or builder that never fought a single monster because the crafting was so in depth and interesting.

I guess they should delete dropping cargo from the game, because giving other players cargo is almost the exactly same outcome as giving them credits. Just slower.

What my example that you quoted anyway was about risk vs reward. If you put minerals in a dangerous area and the same ones in a risk-free area, nobody will ever go into the dangerous area therefore the possibility of wing pvp, wings, cooperative play, finding other people and making friends, escorts and random events is totally removed.

and an Elite example, PowerPlay has a lot of potential but everything is squandered into a nPC farming simulator in solo, because open has a bad crime system nobody plays there and solo is so powerful.

**Wasted potential is the reason this thread exists, not because we want PvP or people to kill**

 

[R3DB3RD]

This one from OP:

---

Yes. It is simple. And, like I said, it comes down to nothing more than "the developers consider all modes valid and equal - end of story." It offers no justification, no explanation, no understanding of concerns. It's like what a parent answers a child who asks, "Why aren't I allowed to do that?" with a, "Because I said so." It works for a while, but at some point a better reason is needed.

Now, I'm not saying I'm right. Just suggesting. But, perhaps, there are a few players who are looking for a better reason?

Oh thats easy ...

Belligerent child/disgruntled player: why whywhywhywhywhy...
Caring parent/FD: because I said so...
Belligerent child/disgruntled player: OMGWTFBBQ thats not an answer you suck *stomp stomp stomp* i hate you...
Caring parent/FD: ok, well i packed your bags, theres the front door, off you go and get a job, somewhere to live, pay your own bills, and with whats left over you can do whatever the hell you want. You want to live in my house, my rules, im the parent, your the child... do as your bloody well told.

See... easy.

 

[ianw]

I guess they should delete dropping cargo from the game, because giving other players cargo is almost the exactly same outcome as giving them credits. Just slower.

Pirates might not like that.

What my example that you quoted anyway was about risk vs reward. If you put minerals in a dangerous area and the same ones in a risk-free area, nobody will ever go into the dangerous area therefore the possibility of wing pvp, wings, cooperative play, finding other people and making friends, escorts and random events is totally removed.

People that want to go into a dangerous area still would - people like me that trade in open rather than solo. When I do CGs I do them in open because I find it fun. You seem to be assuming that people will always choose something they don't really like as much because they think they make faster imaginary progress. A lot of people aren't like that.

 

[Lestenio]

I sincerely hope that FD employs one or more people in a communications/community-engagement role and that they are capable of better responses than "You paid for it so tough luck. Get over yourselves."

And Microsoft have explained (in response to community reaction) why they decided to dump the Start menu. Funny enough, in response to community reaction, it has come right back.

It’s not a question of tough luck. If I buy Fifa 2016, I have no justification to complain about the lack of flame throwers. Then complain saying they should reconsider adding them and then ask the devs for a written statement on why they are absent from the game to begin with. Suggesting improvements is great, but trying to change the design isn’t. I’m at a loss why some people don’t see that.

Microsoft brought something back at popular request, you are asking for a fundamental design change to a product that has been sold to nearly 1 million customers with an advertised feature. Your argument is mixing apples with pears and isn’t valid in this context.

 

[Khelder]

People that want to go into a dangerous area still would - people like me that trade in open rather than solo. When I do CGs I do them in open because I find it fun. You seem to be assuming that people will always choose something they don't really like as much because they think they make faster imaginary progress. A lot of people aren't like that.

Not everyone is like that, but enough to make a difference I would say. As always, I get that some people really (really really) don't want PvP. But an argument can be made that being able to avoid it will circumvent a certain amount of emergent content. Because it's PvE, the majority of the content will have to be generated by FD. But that's all part of the balance.

 

[OldSalt]

What?!

I'm talking about a sensible company volunteering to communicate to their customers in a conciliatory manner because it's a smart thing to do and might help calm some of the tension.

And I think it is actually more like a customer purchasing a product from a supplier and that product does exactly what the supplier claimed. Unfortunately, the product - while effective at stated intent - has one or two minor side effects that were either unknown or undisclosed at the time the information was printed. Some people believe to have experienced these side effects and are understandably concerned.

Personally I wouldn't call this 'tension', It's more like a place where posts on a defunct topic come to die.

 

[Khelder]

It’s not a question of tough luck. If I buy Fifa 2016, I have no justification to complain about the lack of flame throwers. Then complain saying they should reconsider adding them and then ask the devs for a written statement on why they are absent from the game to begin with. Suggesting improvements is great, but trying to change the design isn’t. I’m at a loss why some people don’t see that.

I'm at a loss as to why some people don't see that I am not asking for anything. As I have said on numerous occasions, I am looking at the issue at hand (mode switching and its effect on the same BGS) and have concluded that there is an element of unfairness in it. If some people can't see the logic behind that conclusion - I don't know what else to do. Some people just refuse to see it I guess. I have also stated that I can't see a valid solution to the problem without having a more negative effect on the game in general.

Ok. I lie. I am suggesting the FD communicate a little bit better. But that's generally as a suggestion to help with threads like this.

Microsoft brought something back at popular request, you are asking for a fundamental design change to a product that has been sold to nearly 1 million customers with an advertised feature. Your argument is mixing apples with pears and isn’t valid in this context.

I was responding to an argument made by hunvagy. But I actually don't see your point. I am pretty sure it was very clear before and during the sales of Windows 8 that Microsoft had removed the Start menu. And I am almost certain, without looking up the numbers, that Windows 8 may have had one or two more sales than Elite Dangerous (and possibly all the previous variants combined).

The only reason it isn't valid in this context is because I am not demanding a change to the multi-mode design.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Not everyone is like that, but enough to make a difference I would say. As always, I get that some people really (really really) don't want PvP. But an argument can be made that being able to avoid it will circumvent a certain amount of emergent content. Because it's PvE, the majority of the content will have to be generated by FD. But that's all part of the balance.

No no no. That people can avoid PvP is not a problem, people who don't want to do PvP should never be fourced into PvP for the sake of others - unless the game is designed like that from the get go. ED isn't, I bought a Game where I don't have to do PvP.

Anybody who expected a game where other people will be forced into pvp with them misunderstood something before buying and made a mistke. Can happen, I made mistakes too. I am willing to pay for my mistakes, I am sure as hell won't pay for the mistakes of others by getting forced into pvp aka needing to stop playing the game since it would be no longer what I once paid for.

 

[Khelder]

Personally I wouldn't call this 'tension', It's more like a place where posts on a defunct topic come to die.

Tension may have actually been a bad choice. 'Discontent'? I posit that there is a reason why this topic keeps coming up again and again in a variety of threads only to eventually feed this monster.

- - - Updated - - -

No no no. That people can avoid PvP is not a problem, people who don't want to do PvP should never be fourced into PvP for the sake of others - unless the game is designed like that from the get go. ED isn't, I bought a Game where I don't have to do PvP.

Anybody who expected a game where other people will be forced into pvp with them misunderstood something before buying and made a mistke. Can happen, I made mistakes too. I am willing to pay for my mistakes, I am sure as hell won't pay for the mistakes of others by getting forced into pvp aka needing to stop playing the game since it would be no longer what I once paid for.

All I am saying is that there are certain "emergent content" (who came up with that??) scenarios that are not likely to ever work well in ED. It's probably not a problem because a lot of people don't seem to be interested. But I'm curious as to what interesting things may have come about. Maybe it has all been done before in other MMOs. I don't know. I don't play them.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

All I am saying is that there are certain "emergent content" (who came up with that??) scenarios that are not likely to ever work well in ED. It's probably not a problem because a lot of people don't seem to be interested. But I'm curious as to what interesting things may have come about. Maybe it has all been done before in other MMOs. I don't know. I don't play them.

What exactly is emergent content anyway? Honest question, got no clue.

And yes, I am not interested in the PvP part of ED and never will. It does not appeal to me and thats allright, I am not doing anything wrong here. PvP is there for people who want to PvP, not everybody wants it and that you can never change.

 

[Taimaru]

It’s not a question of tough luck. If I buy Fifa 2016, I have no justification to complain about the lack of flame throwers. Then complain saying they should reconsider adding them and then ask the devs for a written statement on why they are absent from the game to begin with.

If Fifa 2016 had flame throwers I would actually buy that game .

 

[hunvagy]

If Fifa 2016 had flame throwers I would actually buy that game .

I think that would be Blood Bowl then

 

[Khelder]

What exactly is emergent content anyway? Honest question, got no clue.

Emergent content is in-game activity (content) that comes about from a coordinated effort of players (as opposed to being generated or sponsored by the game and its creators). The Hutton CG was an example of this. The FD provided content was the CG. A number of "pirate" groups decided to attempt a blockade of that event. The blockade - while it annoyed a whole bunch of people - was emergent content. Players got together on their own to do something that the game hadn't provided for them. You will note that this particular example of emergent content required PvP. But not all do.

And yes, I am not interested in the PvP part of ED and never will. It does not appeal to me and thats allright, I am not doing anything wrong here. PvP is there for people who want to PvP, not everybody wants it and that you can never change.

Yep. Pretty sure I said that people don't seem to be interested.