Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Jockey79]

lol it wouldnt be the 1st time i have (figuratively) eaten my hat... but still, i will stand by my prediction. Xbox will have private online when it launches and if it doesnt, I will happily join your crusade for it

I don't even play XB but I'll jump on that bandwagon.
The folks playing on that are paying the same as PC users so they should get the same features.

Funny, the reason I don't play any XB is because I already pay for my internet - so I'm not giving Microsoft just to be able to use the internet I pay for all ready.
Our 360 is sat here thick of dust. Been sat so long the disc drive has lacked up and no longer works!
Shame, as I found the Kinect to be quite fun (Hey does that work with ED? can you get voice attack for XB1 ?)

 

[Mouse]

The one thing I have learnt from following theses threads from somewhere near the middle of Mark II, is that both sides are fairly entrenched and can be very defensive. I can't really blame some of the posters for that, as they have contributed thousands of posts on the subject and probably jump in too quickly too hard on unsuspecting threadnought virgins.

Now I am biased towards the "leave the three modes alone" side of the fence, and would happily dive into a Open PvE the instant it went live, but I do sometimes think people could lighten up just a tad. Probably why the moderators have to come in once in awhile to cool things down.

I know I can be aggressive, but it amazes me looking back at how many times I wasn't until the person I replied to didn't like being told they were incorrect and came out swinging.

I haven't seen anyone tell you how to play. I'm not going to try and convince you to play another way. I can't speak for everyone but I have a hunch that no one here cares how you play. nobody has dictated anything. The one person that actually popped in to rile everyone up, who was obviously trolling, did a drive by comment saying to ditch solo. You didn't even address that poster. Your just derailing any chance of decent conversation constantly tiliting at this windmill. And at the end of the day, that's the best we can hope for, fd have been completely non responsive to either side on this issue since launch. Nothings changing. There is no point in being so combative. I am not your enemy, this is getting completely ridiculous.

Oh sadly there have been many many times that people have tried to tell others which mode to play.. usually it is because someone who likes to shoot others can't find targets so starts pitching a fit about Solo/Group ruining open. And sometimes best thing to do is ignore a toll post, or to post as Mike did... if they comeback and want to make it a discussion, we can discuss, but I will be against their stance mainly because they want to take things away from others for their own selfish reasons.

 

[Daffan]

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.

wow

The only place you will ever find a person arguing my point and practically saying a scripted AI has more/equal possibilities as a human is the Elite Dangerous Forums.

I never said it was mandatory to have other players - I said Humans are better at it.

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.

When i say Solo - I mean private too - They are both like a local game really.

And yes - I already said that, the trade bonus is a way for the trader to pay those escorting him - but it's not enough, so people don't want to be escorts. Frontier will never make it enough, because why have an escort at all when you can get the escort to use a trading ship and make a private group with him. See the conflict of interest?

Lastly, that's why I ALWAYS push the crime system as a fix - because then all the gankers and people who log on just to kill as their bored will go away - only the player factions and long-term pirates will bother staying "RED" as we can call it. (Murderer, enemy etc)

Daffan, I don't think your ideas here are bad, but there is a problem...

You keep talking about 'emergent' gameplay as if it's some grail, and decrying 'grind' as the evil way we are forced to play the game. Then you ask for / suggest greater rewards (grind) to enable the emergent gameplay. It cannot be both things, either emergent gameplay trumps grind, and we want to do it because it's better, or we are still all grinding, but FD 'reward' us for grinding with others. Some people don't want to grind with others.

I'd argue that complex and possibly fun game-play trumps grinding. Why wouldn't people want to do that?

The same reason nobody plays against AI in any of the popular games, because it's grindy (Grind can be because of too easy or too repetitive)

Please tell me how playing in Open in one of the most notorious areas of space, was better than playing in my private group with real friends who would have flown with me.
I played without any human contact whatsoever, can you tell at what point I was so bored I almost fell asleep (it's when I over shot in SC and missed my drop point - TWICE).

Possibility of meeting a friend. Possibiltiy of meeting an enemy. Gameplay for others. Gameplay for yourself.

I don't know, were you hoping you were interdicted by 4 people or something?

 

[DarkWalker]

I'd argue that complex and possibly fun game-play trumps grinding. Why wouldn't people want to do that?

Unwanted PvP? Not in a million years, sorry. Already tried it enough to be utterly convinced that I will never be able to enjoy any game where I can't simply opt out of any PvP.

The same reason nobody plays against AI in any of the popular games, because it's grindy (Grind can be because of too easy or too repetitive)

Actually, many players do play against the AI. Among my friends circle, for example, everyone that plays Heroes of the Storm plays more against the AI than against other players. And that in a game where all PvP is, by definition, consensual, and the whole game is designed around players fighting each other.

DOTA2 is another example. Ever since the new version went online, with much better modding support, many PvE mods have already been made and are seeing heavy use.

You might dislike PvE; it's your call. Don't assume everyone else is like you, though.

Possibiltiy of meeting an enemy.

For some this is enough of a negative to warrant never playing in Open.

Gameplay for others.

I'm not someone else's content. I'm not being paid for that.

 

[Jockey79]

I don't know, were you hoping you were interdicted by 4 people or something?

Well, I'd have preferred to see people talking in chat, perhaps get a "Hi" along the way.
Heck, getting killed by CODE would have been more entertaining than ignoring my friends to be alone - in open mode.

I've met 1 person in Open mode in all the times I've tried it, met way more in Mobius.
There were people about, you see them in my video. But everyone is so busy ignoring everyone - it felt more cold and lonely than Solo.

 

[Phosphora]

I'd argue that complex and possibly fun game-play trumps grinding. Why wouldn't people want to do that?

Because some people are different to you. You find some things fun and exciting. I find those things boring and tedious. I would rather grind out a trade route than have to deal with another human player. I don't think my way is any better than yours, but I have tried PvP and found it utterly dull and dreary.

Humans are diverse, and Elite: Dangerous has done a good job of embracing that diversity.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[relayer]

And OMG - If you are going to ignore what the designer and creator of the game says...

I know, right? 2 much lolz.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
I'd argue that complex and possibly fun game-play trumps grinding. Why wouldn't people want to do that?

The same reason nobody plays against AI in any of the popular games, because it's grindy (Grind can be because of too easy or too repetitive)

Yes, I (we) know and understand that for you "complex and possibly fun game-play" is better than grinding. I don't know why other people wouldn't want that, I don't presume to know what other people want, but they obviously don't want it, or you wouldn't be here asking why nobody wants to play with you all the time...

Maybe the answer is because your 'emergent' gameplay is only possibly fun depending upon your mood, your character, your preference for that sessions gaming, not assured fun, who knows.

 

[relayer]

The lack of offline mode is more to do with pitiful home PC systems being unable to handle the simulation load.

Speak for yourself! *lovingly admires Beast computer*

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

<nods sagely - listens to Tubular Bells> Two slightly distorted guitars!

Hm, now I'm listening to Tubular Bells, thinking about listening to Amarok and somehow I want to read the Illuminati trilogy again. Thanks, I'm too sober for that.

Thinking of it. Operation Mindf.… explains a lot of this thread.

 

[Mouse]

wow

The only place you will ever find a person arguing my point and practically saying a scripted AI has more/equal possibilities as a human is the Elite Dangerous Forums.

I never said it was mandatory to have other players - I said Humans are better at it.

I would still like an answer to this " 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 really think you are confusing "Roleplaying type game play" with "emergent Game Play"

When i say Solo - I mean private too - They are both like a local game really.

Um.. no, they are ONLINE game play.. if you think that they are "local" then open would be as well as you could only see those in your "instance" and if they were then I'd not be able to chat and play with people from all over the world. While I would love for my friends to come visit me, it isn't a "quick jaunt" down the road. Oceans have to be crossed. I'm hoping you are not like my step aunt who thought, when I was home on leave one Thanksgivings, that the snow in New England would hamper my DRIVE back to England when I was stationed in East Anglia.

And yes - I already said that, the trade bonus is a way for the trader to pay those escorting him - but it's not enough, so people don't want to be escorts. Frontier will never make it enough, because why have an escort at all when you can get the escort to use a trading ship and make a private group with him. See the conflict of interest?

Lastly, that's why I ALWAYS push the crime system as a fix - because then all the gankers and people who log on just to kill as their bored will go away - only the player factions and long-term pirates will bother staying "RED" as we can call it. (Murderer, enemy etc)

You claimed the trade bonus was an incentive, I explained why it wasn't and what it really was for. It is not a conflict of interests, it is just a way for people to help others and get a little something for it since there is no real way to trade funds in this game to "pay" others. If they wanted it to be an incentive then they would make it so that traders could "Set" how much of their profit went to the escorts in payment for their services.

Pushing the crime system as a fix is a good thing but you are being highly optimistic. You believe the gankers and people who log on just to kill because they are bored will go away... Eve Online has already proved that they won't. They will get creative.. I know.. I've seen it. Having my Mastodon intercepted in a High Hisec space, .8 or .9 if I remember, and getting ambushed as I made my way to the gate.. utterly destroyed and watched as they were laughing as their cheap throw away ships were destroyed by CONCORD.

Heck I can tell you how they can do it. Get interdicted by a wing of 1 to 3 ships that are cheap to insure, Viper's and Cobra's probably...possibly vultures, and an Anaconda. The Anaconda takes no aggressive act their job is to stay close to the target and mass lock them. Other ships destroy the target that cannot now escape. Security shows up.. they allow themselves be destroyed so they don't incur a bounty and respawn back at their last station after paying a small fee for the insurance of their ship and laugh. All except the Anaconda.. it is still clean as it too no aggressive actions against the target so Security Forces have no reason to engage it. All the while the target trader is left paying their own insurance and also the price of the lost cargo.

Only way to combat that would be for everyone in a wing to become wanted and incur the same bounties as the aggressor.. but sadly I see ways around that as well.. though it would be harder. And a move like that would really urk a LOT of Non griefing players off as well plus that can be abused in other ways. Griefers and such will find a way.. heck look at the Sag A example..

I'd argue that complex and possibly fun game-play trumps grinding. Why wouldn't people want to do that?

The same reason nobody plays against AI in any of the popular games, because it's grindy (Grind can be because of too easy or too repetitive)

Possibility of meeting a friend. Possibiltiy of meeting an enemy. Gameplay for others. Gameplay for yourself.

I don't know, were you hoping you were interdicted by 4 people or something?

I trade.. it is complex and fun game play.. it isn't grinding.. it is also PVE.. I shoot NPC fighters... it is fun and complex game play.. it is not grinding. Plus what actually is grinding some people enjoy.. why do you keep thinking people are not having fun or complex game play unless they play like you do?

Um.. ok.. please tell me a popular game with NPC's (aka AI) that people do not play against the AI?

Some people don't want to meet a friend in game, or enemy and they are happy with their game play. I do find it interesting you mention "game play for others" because why... if people want to pvp they can, but why do people keep trying to get those who want nothing to do with PVP to log in and be their targets?

In truth I feel your entire argument boils down to that... Game play for others. The want and need for targets, everything you said is quite possibly a smoke screen .. that is the goal.

 

[relayer]

I was explaining the fact that were it primarily single player, multiplayer would be tacked on and that this bears more resemblance to a multiplayer with single player tacked on.

Let's take an example of an MMO - Diablo/Diablo II/LoD. Advertised as an MMO? Yes. Ability to create a solo game? Yes. Ability to create a "group" game with internal rules (LVL 12 & up)(Cows)(Doing Meph)(Andy) & etc. Ability to play with anyone/everyone? Yes.

Would you say that Blizzard "tacked on" the Create Game mode? No. Would you say that players creating a private game for the purposes of running Meph or Baal over and over for loot were "unfair" to other players? What about people who would shut down an open game when a PKer showed up and create another one to continue playing (solo mode) without them?

 

[Cody]

Thinking of it. Operation Mindf.… explains a lot of this thread.

<nods sagely> Overall, there is a smell of fried onions!

 

[relayer]

I said that I felt that originally he intended this to be an online game and that disasters like SIM city could have influenced it. It was pure speculation and probably not even right, which I made clear. This infuriated the hell out of people. To the point they have to prove to me and everyone that my first impression is completely wrong and I shouldn't have had it apparently.

OK, so...

You made a statement about your "impressions." You "could have been wrong." It was "pure speculation."

So, people answered your post and your position with rebuttal & direct quotes from devs.

That isn't "forum lawyering;" that is post-and-response.

 

[Faded Glory]

<nods sagely> Overall, there is a smell of fried onions!

I quite like fried onions...

 

[Jockey79]

OK, so...

You made a statement about your "impressions." You "could have been wrong." It was "pure speculation."

So, people answered your post and your position with rebuttal & direct quotes from devs.

That isn't "forum lawyering;" that is post-and-response.

Glad I'm not the only one who understands posting an opinion online, leaves that opinion open to criticism.
Though I'm still laughing at the use of Dev quotes after saying it does not matter what the Devs say.

This thread never fails to entertain. I have to keep docking so I don't get my ship destroyed.... the curse of 2 screens lol

 

[relayer]

Thinking of it. Operation Mindf.…

<nods sagely> Overall, there is a smell of fried onions!

23 Skidoo!

 

[Mouse]

Glad I'm not the only one who understands posting an opinion online, leaves that opinion open to criticism.
Though I'm still laughing at the use of Dev quotes after saying it does not matter what the Devs say.

This thread never fails to entertain. I have to keep docking so I don't get my ship destroyed.... the curse of 2 screens lol

I love multi displays.. had a 4 display while doing database stuff and sometimes wish I could afford to do it again. Wonder if I could run 5 monitors.. 3 side by side giving a panoramic view of ED, one above with skype, forums , etc, then the one over the fireplace playing movies, video, and such

 

[DarkWalker]

Let's take an example of an MMO - Diablo/Diablo II/LoD. Advertised as an MMO? Yes. Ability to create a solo game? Yes. Ability to create a "group" game with internal rules (LVL 12 & up)(Cows)(Doing Meph)(Andy) & etc. Ability to play with anyone/everyone? Yes.

Would you say that Blizzard "tacked on" the Create Game mode? No. Would you say that players creating a private game for the purposes of running Meph or Baal over and over for loot were "unfair" to other players? What about people who would shut down an open game when a PKer showed up and create another one to continue playing (solo mode) without them?

BTW, attacking other players was clearly preventing players from wanting to play together in the first two Diablo games. So much that in Diablo 3 Blizzard made it basically a PvE-only game, where players are unable to do anything harmful to each other. Well, technically there is a half-done, mostly abandoned Arena mode in Diablo 3, but that is it for PvP in that game.

 

[Khelder]

OK, so...

You made a statement about your "impressions." You "could have been wrong." It was "pure speculation."

So, people answered your post and your position with rebuttal & direct quotes from devs.

That isn't "forum lawyering;" that is post-and-response.

My impression is that Dogoncrook gave his impression about something. (Bold and possibly foolish thing to do here)

My impression of the responses is that they treated Dogoncrook's comments as stating fact rather than simply impressions.

My impression was then that Dogoncrook tried (again, foolishly) to defend his impressions by quoting from KS, etc in an effort to explain why he initially had those impressions.

My impression is now that this kind of thing will keep on going around in circles and that I have probably acted foolishly in getting involved myself.

But that's just my impression.