You don't see the irony in a forum post telling people not to pay attention to what they read on the forum? Really? We're going to have to work on your sense of irony if that slipped by you.
- Status
For once, I'm not promoting "no open=no problems".
As you know, unless God almighty were to intervene - no one is going to see 20+ other people in their personal instance. So trying to apply "social" to this game is a far stretch of the imagination.
Well...it still seems compelling enough for there to be a desire for an Open PVE so people can 'be social' and 'play together'...and a lot of people seem to complain about others shooting them in the face...so 12 or so people getting together seems to create enough problems for everyone...so it must be good enough?!? shrug>
Which, I suspect, is the whole point of the threadnaut.
I do find being pirated by somebody who's prepared to actually BE a pirate "fun" in a way - in the "tense negotiations with the finger half a millimeter away from the trigger" sense of the word. Encounter with Joe Q RandomPewPew, not so much. I know there's plenty of players out there who will find that not to be fun or even to be cause for incandescent forum-rage but that's fine - they are welcome to play the way they want too
Thing is, each and every one of us wants something slightly different out of the game than even the folks we most closely agree with and the way ED's handling of matchmaking caters to such a wide audience with different (and not necessarily static) ideas of the kind of gameplay they find "fun" is why I'm firmly in favor of keeping the status quo. Every proposal that has been put forward in all three megathreads on this subject has, without exception, favored a particular play style over another. I could even come up with a few "proposals" of my own if I were prepared to advocate diminishing somebody elses fun to enhance my own. Fortunately (in my view at least) I'm capable of being a teensy bit more objective than that and that is why, Jockey, you and I find ourselves on the same side of this debate because I suspect you are also capable of that objectivity even though our respective play styles tend to differ
Not true; you can go to Mobius...
And as usually noted, the reason for 'Mobius' was to allow a pleasant side to 'social' because it just wasn't happening for most people.
Last edited:
"like 2 days" doesn't mean 48 hours
Secondly,
My point was AI is scripted and is nothing compared to the emergent gameplay possibilites of a real human. It cant learn new tricks.
Objectively, humans aren't scripted and therefore better at emergent gameplay. There is no two ways about it. You might like PVE better, doesn't make it more emergent.
That was just my simple point, I never said I hated PVE - I said it was mindless after a while because it's very easy and a bad type of grind. Grind is not bad in games - it's how they get their longevity, but there is good grind and bad grind.
That's why iI keep suggesting make a better crime system.
People only hate on open because it is possible to be killed over and over with no recourse and the attacker has no penalty. So it comes across as "griefing"
You make a decent system, there will still be pirates and serial killers - but most will go bye bye because they don't want to commit to that lifestyle in the game.
Example: No normal player EVER wanted to go RED in Ultima Online, because it meant being cut off from so many NPCs and areas - also, anyone who was BLUE and not a criminal would chase you down.
It would also put good use to Anarchy Systems.
The incentive is not there for traders in open because they can do the exactly the same thing, but better in Solo.
Incentive is possible - in fact very easy to make for FD... More profit and have escorts = kill pirates ...... The pirate is now becoming YOUR content , not just you becoming HIS. He's not just chasing you down, you are fighting back with a good friend or wing man. That's interesting gameplay
I mean that's what trade fleets use to do - maybe even "EAST INDIA COMPANY" in real life, they had escorts - made big $$$$ with their wares. It's not rocket science to create this idea, it just requires removal of a comfort zone to try to make it work.
Why do you think they gave the 5-15% bonus or whatever it was to anyone in your wing? It was to incentive having other players like an escort. Except, instead you can just run 4 traders in Solo and the 5-15% was not enough to warrant any "escort" gameplay because it was to trivial
So yes, it is completely possible for Frontier to balance the Open gameplay to work. However, if they increase the 5-15% trade bonus in wings to say, 50% to try and get people to wing up in Open - All it is doing is making the 4 man wing in Solo get more money. Still nobody will sign up to be an "escort" because it's not needed in the current gameplay environment.
Last edited:
Actually, Mobius created the group to circumvent the lack of a PVE mode. It's nice he did it...and I applaud the effort. However...there is an argument that it weakens the design of the game, since the devs designed the game to NOT have a PVE (safe mode) only mode. The existence of Mobius' group, once people join, removes the tension between wanting to play with others....where a bad outcome could occur to you...something I believe the devs actually wanted people to have to make a choice about every time they entered the game.
Last edited:
I've always thought solo was only put in because they knew the outrage "always online" was causing. The first I heard of it was around the SIM city fiasco, and the interview was akward because they kept asking for assurances there would be solo and offline but braben didn't seem like he wanted to talk about it. I believe this was in rps. It always seemed to me that if they thought they could have got away with it, and if SIM city didn't become the epic disaster it was, they probably would have made it open only, and possibly group mode.
That said until they confirm Xbox won't have it, it's probably not there for the same reason it wasn't in beta.
The modes were always part of the game....from KS days. Offline was an added idea..that did not pan out.
I am uncertain as to any relation to Sim City catastrophe.
“Elite: Dangerous is the game I have wanted Frontier to make for a very long time. The next game in the Elite series – an amazing space epic with stunning visuals, incredible gameplay and breath-taking scope, but this time you can play with your friends too. I want a game that feels more like the original Elite to fly, and with more rapid travel (to allow for the multi-player nature of the game) – so you travel quickly using local ‘hyperspace’ travel rather than by fast-forwarding time – but with the rich galaxy of Frontier – and more, so much more.”
“Up to now “Elite” has been worked upon by a small team as a ‘skunk-works’ activity in the background as availability permits. Nevertheless, we have been preparing; laying the technology and design foundations for when the time is right. And that time is now.”
That's the first pitch. It only mentions multiplayer. It's speculation of course but solo has always seemed like an appeasement to me.
“Up to now “Elite” has been worked upon by a small team as a ‘skunk-works’ activity in the background as availability permits. Nevertheless, we have been preparing; laying the technology and design foundations for when the time is right. And that time is now.”
That's the first pitch. It only mentions multiplayer. It's speculation of course but solo has always seemed like an appeasement to me.
I got it now. I can be a little slow sometimes.Telling someone to not listen to the forums, while posting on the forums....
irony, at its finest.
If that were so I have little doubt FD would have taken steps like they did against third party data grabbing tools for traders but they haven't. Alternately the existence of Möbius (and its popularity) could be seen to remove the need for any further official PvE mode, at least for the time being , and its existence further adds to the underlying concept of players being able to enjoy the game in the way of their choosing which FD have always promoted.
What's fun to you can be dreary and boring to others. I play this game to entertain me, not to entertain someone else. I'm also not interested in teaming up with others. I want to play my way.
We don't need a collective standard in music, or books, or food, or politics, or in the games we play. We certainly don't need one in how we play a particular game.
Cheers, Phos.
Sounds like a reasonable argument. Surely, in allowing a Group Mode, they had to have seen that coming though?
Understand that circumventions are not all bad...but they do change the nature of the way the game is played. The data scraping was changed, IIRC, because the activity caused game issues and people were reporting/opening tickets for support....not because it was deemed a cheat. It certainly made trading easier!
One of the main arguments about Mobius..is that the devs SHOULD provide an Open PVE mode, because the idea is so popular with a lot of the players...my take is that it is unfair that a player is tasked to do something the devs could 'easily' provide (whether there should be an Open PVE mode is up to the devs...but they should not expect a player to provide what they either..do not want...or will not provide themselves).
IMO the devs did not do this. The devs created a game where a group creator could set up whatever rules they wished to have in their group. Group creator can make rules saying 'no PVP', 'PVP only if certain criteria are met' or 'total PVP.' Frontier left it up to the group creator to decide how they wanted their group to play. This is not against the design of the game but rather totally in line with the game design.
Last edited:
Um.. so again your using words without really having an understanding of their meaning? Saying "I haven't seen you in like 48 hours" is literally identical to saying "I haven't seen you in like 2 days", a "day" is actually a measurement of time. When I first remarked on your comment I just though it was rather odd so I pointed it out, but your subsequent attempts at trying to justify the comment have made it pretty obvious that you are either unsure what words mean, or you always have to be right.
Again, Emergent Game play refers to complex situations in video games, board games, or table top role-playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics. At no point is "interaction with other humans" a mandatory part of emergent game. They can add to it, but so can NPC's or the environment. Your simple point has never been a point, it has always been your opinion based off of your feelings about PVE. Oh and AI's can learn new tricks.. they do it all the time. The AI in this game are not static.. they are dynamic and are changed and behave differently. If you don't believe me then ask how AI behaved in beta vs now.
You and I both have made suggestions on the crime system, the one i've been most vocal about has been this:
"I think if someone has a bounty above a certain amount (say $5000) than he can't sell his ship, modules, or even re-arm/repair in a civilized sector of the power he has criminal charges in. He can't dock in stations only outposts, and if his ship is too big.. he's in trouble. BUT.. if he can get to a station that is controlled by pirates then he can.. though the price would probably be higher than normal to get repaired. Maybe even have station personnel who can take care of their bounty for a hefty cut allowing him access back into civilized sectors. I mean if someone wants to play as a pirate, lets make it at least partly realistic. I don't understand being "hostile" to a system and the station allowing me to dock and fully repair, rearm and everything."
And people don't hate Open, even I dont' hate it, but you are correct that the actions taken by some are what is hated. And you say " it comes across as griefing".. yet I would ask.. You keep touting "emergent game play" but if you are attacking others that either 1. Can't attack back, 2. Vastly outnumbered, or 3. Vastly outclassed .. where is the emergent game play and how is it not griefing? They are no threat to you.. you pretty much have impunity in your actions. That is not PVP.. there is no vs.. just assaulter and victim pretty much.
I will disagree with the no one wanting to go red in Ultima Online.. I saw PLENTY of people who were red. And like here.. when the PVE shard was started those same players cried and screamed that UO was ruined... all because they suddenly didn't have victims anymore.
[/QUOTE]
It is a very simple numbers game. If you want to talk about incentives.. the "incentive" for traders to go to solo is not because there are pirates in open, it is the sheer number of them. Open is a very, shall we say, predator heavy mode. There is no balance. For predators to survive their prey have to outnumber them, by a lot. Currently Open is full of predators and few "sheep". Even I .. who cannot pvp.. would trade in open if pirates were few and far between and behaved like Jordan. But they don't and for some it was not few and far between.. so they had incentive to leave. The trade bonus for wings.. is not an incentive, it is a way for a trader to pay those escorting him. If it was an incentive then it would be at a rate that would make escorting more profitable than going to an RES.
Also you may be a bit confused as there is no way to run four traders in solo winged up together. There are no wings in solo.. it is just you..
As for escorts.. traders can use them as well againt NPC pirates and such... not just humans.
This is a good question..and although I think they might have...I don't think they realized it would be so 'sticky'...I think they expected a few hundred to oblige themselves.
The community..myself included...pushed Mobius a lot during the beginning of the game. Even now the 'Go play in Mobius!' line is fairly common.
My point on this now? If they did realize it was going to be as popular..they should never have let a player be the point of contact. I mean nothing against Mobius on this point...as I said...he's a great player for doing this...however, the devs should have either made the mode...or restricted the size of the player groups...if they wanted to keep the game with no PVE only mode. IMHO, this is the worst way they could have implemented PVE.
Now, if they were going to change this up...the only painless option is to create a PVE only mode. As others have pointed out, to change the rules now..will be painful for many..and could be costly.
- - - Updated - - -
Although I agree...the problem is that we now have 1 commander running a 12k+ player group...growing at a rate of 1000+ players per month. As a person that plays games...this is wrong. You have created an employee to run your PVE for you. No matter how you slice it...that is wrong.
I wouldn't exactly call group lock and boot functions, a system where players can make specific rules. Those are two very basic functions in most multiplayer games. Now if pve only was an option on group creation, you'd have a point.
Last edited:
That's quite possible. I'd actually love to see some real numbers on Mobius though. Having X members because people hear about it and sign up out of curiosity does not equal X players who regularly play ED in Mobius group. Not trying to suggest that nobody joined Mobius for reasons other than curiosity. Just saying that the member count doesn't really show the whole story.
Got to agree with you here. I'm hoping this has more to do with not forseeing how popular/'sticky' it would be rather than just bad design choices.
- Status