Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
FD have really shoved the CQC mode at us however. We even have to put up with a big red notice in the ranking screen in the cockpit under Combat/Trade/Explorer that reads CQC Ranking: Mostly Harmless... 0%

If that ain't just the biggest immersion breaker staring you in the face every day.. I'd share some screenshots but as ED is still pre release software on the Xbox until Oct 6th, we can't save or share game clips or screenshots without much faffing about...

Don't worry, it's not just you, that is also shown on the PC version (beta), at least it was last time I looked, and that also started a big thread on the subject. On the PC the ranking was actually Hopeless in red... lol

 

[Robert Maynard]

It seems there is no reason NOT to have group mode...as it shouldn't require substantial differences in resources..what was FDevs reasoning for limiting it in the console?

I wonder....

The Alpha and Beta versions of the PC version were effectively Open only (I think - it was a while ago).

That would not have worked on the XBox as players with XBox Live Silver would not be able to play in Open, therefore Solo was included.

I fully expect that Private Groups will be implemented in the XBox version in due time - as you say, there's no reason not to have them.

 

[Mole HD]

I wonder....

The Alpha and Beta versions of the PC version were effectively Open only (I think - it was a while ago).

That would not have worked on the XBox as players with XBox Live Silver would not be able to play in Open, therefore Solo was included.

I fully expect that Private Groups will be implemented in the XBox version in due time - as you say, there's no reason not to have them.

Interesting thoughts...I had completely forgotten about the Xbox live silver account holders... or that there were possibly enough of them to make such a decision by Microsoft feasible.. Practically every other multiplayer game on sale has the caveat "Xbox live gold required for online play" on the box or stated in the digital download somewhere though.

 

[Roybe]

I did just reply to this but the forum software crashed due to overload, lol.

On the first pre release beta the private group option was included in the main menu but greyed out. After one of the recent updates, the option was removed but no explaination was offered for it's removal.

I honestly can't see Micro$oft forcing the issue as their flagship Xbox live depends on player participation at it's core. Maybe FD decided that us childlike console gamers weren't adult enough to prefer coop play as opposed to chucking insults and hardware at eachother like chimps... I've no idea. All I know is there's an outcry over in our corner of this forum over the very same issues as here... but we're a mode short in the menu to start with.
Practically all multiplayer games on the Xbox have the facility for group participation and directly launched from Party chat with your friends... so the group part isn't an issue as far as I can see.

FD have really shoved the CQC mode at us however. We even have to put up with a big red notice in the ranking screen in the cockpit under Combat/Trade/Explorer that reads CQC Ranking: Mostly Harmless... 0%

If that ain't just the biggest immersion breaker staring you in the face every day.. I'd share some screenshots but as ED is still pre release software on the Xbox until Oct 6th, we can't save or share game clips or screenshots without much faffing about...

That's on all platforms and probably won't change as it is part of the Elite standings structure...whether it should be there or not is the subject of at least one theadnaught!



So it basically was never on the XBOne.

Here's my take on this...FDev realized they made a mistake on the other platforms...and decided not to make the same one on Xbone. They do not want a safety valve of a Open PVE group. They want people to choose between a lack of social gaming and social gaming which includes PVP. It's my thought that most players do not utilize the private group modes within the game...if they cannot handle the conflict in Open..they would choose Solo...or play in a Private group by themselves (ultimately, a duplication of resources). Granted some folks play with friends..but that number is probably quite small. They would have the numbers for this...so metrics would drive the decision.

I would suspect that Mobius is circumventing the ideal for the game...and that they are avoiding that choice, in other platforms, on purpose. (*this could be a marketing ploy to sell more copies...i.e. forcing other platforms to purchase another copy to have Group mode) The future of Private Group...on the PC and Mac..will be interesting to watch....depending on how the devs are going to deal with it. Obviously, it can be considered working as intended on the PC..but the lack of options on other platforms means something has changed..and this could be a push to 'improve' the way the game works there.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
Although I agree with this...I really think the devs will never go this route. I would be pleasantly surprised if they did. I AM curious about the XBone release...as FDev has removed Private groups and wings from the XBone version, currently.

Yes, I'm interested to see whether something is in fact brewing, although like you I don't (didn't) think the game modes would be changed, I think an Open PvE mode would be very welcome.

Personally, I think that the most obvious, simple way to do the game matchmaking is two Open modes, one PvP allowed, the other purely PvE where player on player damage is coded out, or better still DarkWalker's suggestion that an aggressor takes damage if they hit another player. Groups would be done through the in-game friends list, and you just choose whether you are playing PvP or PvE. Keep Solo as it is.

I suppose the only downside to this is that it may be hard to control comms, so in the case of families who have young kids and want to play as a group, they would then be exposed to other players comms.

It's also quite possible that the group matchmaking is different on the xbox and there are simply technical issues, hence why it is not there, in the same way that I understand Horizons (planetary landings) will not be available on the Mac platform due to graphics issues, at least that is what I understand. It would however be a nice surprise if it were to herald an Open PvE login.

 

[Roybe]

Yes, I'm interested to see whether something is in fact brewing, although like you I don't (didn't) think the game modes would be changed, I think an Open PvE mode would be very welcome.

Personally, I think that the most obvious, simple way to do the game matchmaking is two Open modes, one PvP allowed, the other purely PvE where player on player damage is coded out, or better still DarkWalker's suggestion that an aggressor takes damage if they hit another player. Groups would be done through the in-game friends list, and you just choose whether you are playing PvP or PvE. Keep Solo as it is.

I suppose the only downside to this is that it may be hard to control comms, so in the case of families who have young kids and want to play as a group, they would then be exposed to other players comms.

It's also quite possible that the group matchmaking is different on the xbox and there are simply technical issues, hence why it is not there, in the same way that I understand Horizons (planetary landings) will not be available on the Mac platform due to graphics issues, at least that is what I understand. It would however be a nice surprise if it were to herald an Open PvE login.

Honestly, I am afraid that they would do something to limit groups sizes, before they opened a new PVE only mode. I think they really want to cause people to make a real choice between social and non-social.

Although Robert's and your idea of a Microsoft reason quells this to some degree...it still does cause me to ask 'Why a 'real' PVE mode was not included?'...and the answer is not one that a lot of people will like.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
I would suspect that Mobius is circumventing the ideal for the game...and that they are avoiding that choice, in other platforms, on purpose.

The only thing I'd say about that is the fact that the existence of the Mobius group shows FD that there is more than a small demand for an Open PvE environment.

If they have an 'ideal' for the game, do you really believe that Open conflict or Solo play is what it is? I think that other than CQC they have tried pretty hard to engender cooperative gameplay, they just didn't count on the propensity for people to want to use their lasers to shoot each other...

 

[Faded Glory]

Honestly, I am afraid that they would do something to limit groups sizes, before they opened a new PVE only mode. I think they really want to cause people to make a real choice between social and non-social.

Although Robert's and your idea of a Microsoft reason quells this to some degree...it still does cause me to ask 'Why a 'real' PVE mode was not included?'...and the answer is not one that a lot of people will like.

Is limiting group sizes of any consequence given the instancing system? A group, no matter how large, cannot blockade, control, whatever.

You could be right about them wanting to force people to choose between interaction or non interaction, but truthfully it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me why they would try and force people, when this would be such a contrast to their stated ideals for the game, play how you like...

 

[Mole HD]

On the Xbox, and I assume the Ps4 will be similar, the game is directed at a different gaming mentality...and dare I say it... age group. The games available on console generally lack a certain depth unless you chose single player only games such as The Witcher3 et al... all the multiplayer games are quick fix, quick gratification then on to the next game type of things.

There are however, a growing number of faded PC gamers like myself that have taken up the Xbox for a variety of reasons...believe me, if it was a financial option to start again with a decent gaming rig, I wouldn't be here wishing I had one

I miss IL2, Rise of Flight, ARMA2 and all the other games I frequented on the PC... and the Xbox, however efficient it is, is a poor second...so far, that is. The inclusion of ED on the Xbox has given just a glimmer of hope that some developer, somewhere will give me some nice flight sims to play that aren't dumbed down for a kiddie market ...and some hardware firm will offer a decent HOTAS that works too

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Personally, I think that the most obvious, simple way to do the game matchmaking is two Open modes, one PvP allowed, the other purely PvE where player on player damage is coded out, or better still DarkWalker's suggestion that an aggressor takes damage if they hit another player. Groups would be done through the in-game friends list, and you just choose whether you are playing PvP or PvE. Keep Solo as it is.

A justice field... I like it
http://reddwarf.wikia.com/wiki/Justice_World

 

[Imperial Navy Vessel]

On the Xbox, and I assume the Ps4 will be similar, the game is directed at a different gaming mentality...and dare I say it... age group. The games available on console generally lack a certain depth unless you chose single player only games such as The Witcher3 et al... all the multiplayer games are quick fix, quick gratification then on to the next game type of things.

Yeah, it's a pretty natural result of consoles starting from the concept of arcade-style fun which is all about simplicity and lack if a required investment. There may come a time where consoles develop to a point where gamers are given more "responsibility" with the complexity of games (especially multiplayer), but we're still probably a while off that. ED is certainly a great step though, as you mentioned!

 

[ianw]

Is limiting group sizes of any consequence given the instancing system? A group, no matter how large, cannot blockade, control, whatever.

You could be right about them wanting to force people to choose between interaction or non interaction, but truthfully it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me why they would try and force people, when this would be such a contrast to their stated ideals for the game, play how you like...

We know they're trying to get pirates playing more with bounty hunters according to Sandro and they are still balancing.

Maybe that's a sign that they realise leveraging someone's desire to meet random players who doesn't want PVP therefore "forcing" them to trade meeting people for unwanted interaction isn't a great game design and in the long run won't be sustainable as a means of getting "willing" PVP victims for piracy into open.

Sure you'll catch new people but as soon as they realise there is an ever growing PVE private group they'll be off there.

Surely better to make changes that encourage people and incentivise them?

 

[Roybe]

On the Xbox, and I assume the Ps4 will be similar, the game is directed at a different gaming mentality...and dare I say it... age group. The games available on console generally lack a certain depth unless you chose single player only games such as The Witcher3 et al... all the multiplayer games are quick fix, quick gratification then on to the next game type of things.

There are however, a growing number of faded PC gamers like myself that have taken up the Xbox for a variety of reasons...believe me, if it was a financial option to start again with a decent gaming rig, I wouldn't be here wishing I had one

I miss IL2, Rise of Flight, ARMA2 and all the other games I frequented on the PC... and the Xbox, however efficient it is, is a poor second...so far, that is. The inclusion of ED on the Xbox has given just a glimmer of hope that some developer, somewhere will give me some nice flight sims to play that aren't dumbed down for a kiddie market ...and some hardware firm will offer a decent HOTAS that works too

As I do not console play I cannot be sure if this statement is true or not.

I have more friends in their 30's-50's that have consoles..than friends with kids that play. Your assessment of mentality and age could be a general shortcoming of developers looking for annual turnover to sell a new game in the same franchise. This does not mean that there could be a level of immaturity involved...or you are correct...it just seems a pretty harsh judgement/stereotype. Ageism is a topic that happens in this game a lot..and generally splits camps into pretty toxic discussions.

 

[Mole HD]

Yeah, it's a pretty natural result of consoles starting from the concept of arcade-style fun which is all about simplicity and lack if a required investment. There may come a time where consoles develop to a point where gamers are given more "responsibility" with the complexity of games (especially multiplayer), but we're still probably a while off that. ED is certainly a great step though, as you mentioned!

OT: The next gen consoles like the Xbone are getting there now with the current crop of open world, open play games currently and soon to be released titles. The multiplayer side is improving as Microsoft and Sony begin to realise that the current crop of console owners are the parents...rather than the kids... and are looking for something more adult to play.

 

[Roybe]

Is limiting group sizes of any consequence given the instancing system? A group, no matter how large, cannot blockade, control, whatever.

You could be right about them wanting to force people to choose between interaction or non interaction, but truthfully it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me why they would try and force people, when this would be such a contrast to their stated ideals for the game, play how you like...

It's not about what the players could do within the game..the systems still remain.

Honestly, if you think about it...it's not a lot of force being applied...and what little there is, becomes watered down with any PVE option. This is one of my reasons for not fully supporting an Open PVE mode...at a given level it breaks the tension that players have to deal with within the game. Play together (and accept conflict) or play apart, in relative safety, and not be with others. Again...these are just thoughts on the topic.

 

[xXCheeChowXx]

I've played in Open since Elite was released back in December of 2014. I have been attacked ONCE by another commander in all that time. Don't believe all the hype.

Well lucky you...everytime I go into open I get interdicted, I am warned to loose equipment or I will be destroyed.....this is everytime.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not about what the players could do within the game..the systems still remain.

Honestly, if you think about it...it's not a lot of force being applied...and what little there is, becomes watered down with any PVE option. This is one of my reasons for not fully supporting an Open PVE mode...at a given level it breaks the tension that players have to deal with within the game. Play together (and accept conflict) or play apart and not be with others. Again...these are just thoughts on the topic.

Or just turn this into BF4 or World Of Cra.....Tanks or war thunder or the 1000'S of other PvP games out there.....Elite is so much more

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I am on a tablet so sorry if stating something already covered but I will eat my hat if XB1 does not have private.

When PC was in beta it was in open only. Groups only came in gamma so the Xbox is only having parity with pc and it will be while FD get the matchmaking OK. XB actually has gone 1 better probably because you have to pay to play MP on console which is not for everyone

 

[Faded Glory]

We know they're trying to get pirates playing more with bounty hunters according to Sandro and they are still balancing.

Maybe that's a sign that they realise leveraging someone's desire to meet random players who doesn't want PVP therefore "forcing" them to trade meeting people for unwanted interaction isn't a great game design and in the long run won't be sustainable as a means of getting "willing" PVP victims for piracy into open.

Sure you'll catch new people but as soon as they realise there is an ever growing PVE private group they'll be off there.

Surely better to make changes that encourage people and incentivise them?

The pirate / trader dynamic is one where they will never (I believe) achieve a PvP balance. It may be a lot of fun for the pirate, but after a while it probably stops being fun for the trader, just another nuisance interaction, no matter how cordial and fun the pirate is they'll have heard all the lines before, and downright not fun when they meet a 'pirate' who shoots first and demands cargo later.

I just don't see how they can ever incentivise real people to become someone else content in this way, that's why they have NPCs... Forcing them to choose between Solo and anything goes Open isn't exactly an incentive.

Just want to add that from my perspective it wouldn't make the game worse, I'd choose Solo without a second thought.

 

[Roybe]

Well lucky you...everytime I go into open I get interdicted, I am warned to loose equipment or I will be destroyed.....this is everytime.

- - - Updated - - -






Or just turn this into BF4 or World Of Cra.....Tanks or war thunder or the 1000'S of other PvP games out there.....Elite is so much more

But how would it change for the vast majority of players if they limited group size to say 10, 20, or 150 players.

You still have Solo, you still can make a group with friends. All that changes allowing an unlimited PVE group is that it waters down a differentiating idea of the game....to play with others, and accept conflict or play in relative safety and not be social. Which would completely disappear if an Open PVE mode came into existence. And Mobius is circumventing..to his credit.

- - - Updated - - -

I am on a tablet so sorry if stating something already covered but I will eat my hat if XB1 does not have private.

When PC was in beta it was in open only. Groups only came in gamma so the Xbox is only having parity with pc and it will be while FD get the matchmaking OK. XB actually has gone 1 better probably because you have to pay to play MP on console which is not for everyone

This would be awesome news...we can only wait and see! Wings wasn't even in the game on release..so there is that.

 

[ianw]

The pirate / trader dynamic is one where they will never (I believe) achieve a PvP balance. It may be a lot of fun for the pirate, but after a while it probably stops being fun for the trader, just another nuisance interaction, no matter how cordial and fun the pirate is they'll have heard all the lines before, and downright not fun when they meet a 'pirate' who shoots first and demands cargo later.

I just don't see how they can ever incentivise real people to become someone else content in this way, that's why they have NPCs... Forcing them to choose between Solo and anything goes Open isn't exactly an incentive.

Just want to add that from my perspective it wouldn't make the game worse, I'd choose Solo without a second thought.

It's something I've said for a while - I don't think many people think it's fun to play "muggee" in their leisure time. For me it boiled down to the pointlessness of it. When I had a ship that stood no chance I just avoided interdiction - very successfully. Ironically as soon as I got the Anaconda I thought I'd be bulletproof and went out with no plan in the event of a "contact" - got shredded!

But as I figured it out and eventually ironassed the Anaconda it became pointless for the pirate or wing of pirates - I could escape at my leisure unless I got stupidly casual or too cocky.

So yes - in my experience it's nigh on impossible it seems - with the current setup - to make it fun somehow for all parties.