Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

Do you want a Open PvE

  • Yes, I want a Open PvE

    Votes: 54 51.4%
  • No, I don't want a Open PvE

    Votes: 49 46.7%
  • I want only Open PvE and PvP only in groups

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Total voters
    105
  • Poll closed .
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Majinvash

Banned
I assume it's only a sense of modesty that prevents them stating their decades of experience.

I did once and no one believed me.

5 years designing simulators for the MOD and shipping sector. Working closely with games companies that produced the back ground environments and physics.
8 years building custom gaming systems for a leading UK company.
Endless trade shows and expo's, usually working them rather than visiting.
Sponsored counter strike player for from beta 6 until version 1.3.
Sponsored COD MW player until MW2 came out and ruined everything.

Fortunately I now only have to deal with Enterprise level customers ( not startrek ) but I still speak to my old colleagues and get many many free games.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

- - - Updated - - -


Yet another wonderful snip that supports your narrative and that is correct RIGHT NOW.

I return to my point of looking at the future of the game and the direction that I expect it will drift into to retain an active player base.
 
And how many people, after an "impulse" buy, get to use said product for a few weeks - then demand the manufacturing people redesign it as it wasn't what they really wanted?

Can I buy a bicycle and in 4 weeks have Raleigh remake it in to a Motorbike as I've never liked peddling and wanted a motor vehicle ?

Yes, but this is where FD have a bit of a problem. Well, it's not really a problem if they just choose to ignore it. But I'll get to the point.

It is very clear that ED is a game that is in development. They have been interested in feedback from the start and they have said that the game is nowhere near completion (10-year plan). Going by those factors, I think some would feel that they can make suggestions and they would be taken seriously.

This is a software product with regular updates. Changing the core design is something that could happen. That's not really the case for physical products. All people can really do about those is complain about them and/or try to sell them second hand.
 
But in Open, there is the added risk of PvP engagement.

Why don't we start saying there's "the added chance of PvP engagement"? Also the added chance of being able to wing up, be rescued by the fuel rats... and I'm sure other things too.

Isn't that why people play in Open, because it's more fun for them?
 
I am not saying they lied to their backers, I am saying that they cannot pander to them indefinitely.

I fully agree with this idea. A business cannot pander to anyone group...and remain a viable business. MMO's have stopped pandering to the uber 3% of players...thankfully. Any customer has to adapt to the desires of their customer. However, there are issues that in any game are non-negotiable. One of these, in this game, is that Elite will always have three ways to interact with people...Open, Solo, and Private Groups. The devs have stated it as a non-negotiable issue. This is part of their business plan/design. Certainly, this can change....but it would be with the removal of the principals (not principles) of the business. This is part of their design and desire, just as their desire that this galaxy is a place where brutality can take place...and they fully expect that brutality to be repaired through activity between players...not prevention through AI enforcement.

It is obvious they are working on what many backers consider 'concessions' to 'guilds, flights, player groups'. These are already being supported and the devs will be creating in-game tools Someday in the Future™...so, yes they are evolving the game in directions they might not have envisioned at the start...but none of these have had multiple statements that the devs 'understand that people disagree....but we will not be changing'.
 
I did once and no one believed me.

Since you made a comment along the lines of "Unless FD do X they won't survive as a business" I was referring to your experience as an employer, not an employee but I can't find you on any lists of UK Company Directors. I'm not really fussed anyway as I will still be playing long after you have left and you will be remembered the same way as the early Dahan Gateway, even if I have never met you or any of your group in game, ever. I'm sure this thread will still be going though.;)
 
I think the topic of this thread is not just mode switching and it's effect to the BGS.

Actually, you're probably correct. I think it just sounded like the same BGS component was being particularly emphasised...

Elite Dangerous is an online game that allows players to play in three potential 'modes':

  1. Online ALL group (called open play) where the player is in the same universe as all other players and can see and be seen by all others in open play
  2. Online PRIVATE GROUP play where the player is online in the same universe as all other players but will only ever see and be seen by others in the same private group
  3. Online SOLO play where the player is in the same universe as all other players, but will see no humans (essentially a private group of one).
All players have an effect on the background simulation regardless of mode they play in or which platform they play on, and can switch between groups at will without penalty or change to their character's statistics.

This thread is for discussing issues around the Solo, Open and Private Group modes and the different platforms.

(bold mine)

The thread has certainly come to cover mode balancing, player numbers in Open, etc. I still don't see how choice of profession relates to any problem with the modes.
 
…When they get bored of QCQ you think they are going to spend 100's of hours trading and exploring?

They will have to trade and "PvE bounty hunt RES farming" grinding all their way to the big ships needed to "pew pew" in Open Mode. They will realize very, very fast that that Eagle is a death trap in open mode against a CMDR in even a slightly bigger ship.

- - - Updated - - -


The thread has certainly come to cover mode balancing, player numbers in Open, etc. I still don't see how choice of profession relates to any problem with the modes.

In a broader sense everything affects the modes, the reasons why player chose a mode and how players enjoy the game. I guess that's one of the reasons why we are quickly approaching Mk IV (code name "Hotel California") of this thread.
 
Why don't we start saying there's "the added chance of PvP engagement"? Also the added chance of being able to wing up, be rescued by the fuel rats... and I'm sure other things too.

You could use "chance" instead of "risk" if you wanted to. Would it really make any difference? I use "risk" because "risk" (def: exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance) provides a bit more meaning. I would also probably use a word like "benefit" when referring to the potential of flying in a wing or being rescued by Fuel Rats.

- - - Updated - - -

In a broader sense everything affects the modes, the reasons why player chose a mode and how players enjoy the game. I guess that's one of the reasons why we are quickly approaching Mk IV (code name "Hotel California") of this thread.

I'm still having trouble seeing how choice of profession is relevant.
 
The topic of this thread is (supposed to be) mode switching and its effect on a common BGS. I'm not sure how choice of profession fits into that. Every standard profession is available to all players in all modes.

You could suggest that some might choose a profession they want to do and then choose the mode that is easiest to do that in. But, then, the answer would likely always be... Solo (or maybe Group with wings). The fact that you can choose a mode to make "easier" progress in a profession has come up as a topic. But the actual choice of profession doesn't really matter.
Well, being a trader in OPEN is a lot more risky than in Solo, while being a Explorer may hardly differ, due to rarely anyone out in the depth of the galaxy.
So it does correlate tot he topic by making trading in Open more profitable to outweight the higher risk. Both games do happen in the same universe in the background. But this does not necessarily mena both games would need to have the same prices or same mission rewards. However with the current system something would be needed to prevent fllying to a location in solomode then switching to open mode to sell and return to open mode.
Leading palyers to specific modes is a matter of intention and motivations you offer them within these modes..
 
You could use "chance" instead of "risk" if you wanted to. Would it really make any difference? I use "risk" because "risk" (def: exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance) provides a bit more meaning. I would also probably use a word like "benefit" when referring to the potential of flying in a wing or being rescued by Fuel Rats.

I was just being picky... ;) The word risk has in the past been used to imply that players not playing in Open were scared or cowards, 'risk averse'.

People have been 'complaining' about this issue since well before CGs and PP, so the issue that players in different modes affect the same BGS is just one of many.

I would say that at the end of the day, people should get on and play the game the way that it is the most fun for them, because that is all it is, a game, not a job, not a profession, one never wins it or finishes it, there is no 'end game' to attain.
 
You do also realise that for this game to last its 10 year plan, it will need to adapt to the wants of its player base. (FD is a business, its has bills.)
Not pander to the small number of supporters that gave it life.
True. But if this game follows the common pattern between PvP and PvE players, the end result of that would be reinforcing PvE features. After all, as the UO devs recognized (and data from EVE proves, though CCP is too headstrong to admit it), open PvP is among the surest ways to drive away large numbers of players.

The future of this game is PVP in one style or another whether that be "Pew pew pew" or working against player factions by grinding. Its still player vs player.
If this wasn't the case then this thread would never have existed.
Even if you were right, for the "Pew pew pew" crowd the game now has CQC, and the indirect PvP found when doing CGs or PowerPlay in Solo or Mobius doesn't inconvenience most of the PvE players.

The basic crack is that people don't feel that other modes should effect their modes by the counter actions they are taking.
Sincerely, those few got the wrong game. Everyone influencing the same galaxy simulation — including Solo players, as has been repeatedly and explicitly stated both in the past and in the present — is a core aspect of the game.

You will cry no its not, but look at the facts. QCQ,
Fully opt-in PvP mode that is welcomed by many of the Solo and Group players. The issue most PvE players have with PvP is, when you look closely, with non-consensual PvP, it doesn't extend to things like CQC that they can just opt out with impunity.

Player factions IN game,
You mean, player-supported NPC factions. Players have no actual control over the factions. Supposing CODE gets their supported faction in-game, I could, for example, join that faction and reap its rewards while going for all the strategically wrong targets, and CODE wouldn't be able to do anything about it. They wouldn't be able to kick me out of the faction even if every single other player behooved to that faction wanted to.

more combat focused ships being produced,
As much a PvE feature as a PvP one.

FD stress testing how many players its can fit into an instance,
As asked by many Group players.

Code vs Hutton player turn out.
The one after the Hutton Mug event? That one was a friendly, consensual fight, attended by many players that are staunchly against any kind of limitation to the modes. Nothing, at all, to do with the kind of PvP you usually hoot for.

At some point in the future they are going to have to seriously look at the modes and I can be brutally sure that Open will be one of the modes that survives.
I'm even more sure they won't kill Solo. Apart from any potential discontentment in the player base, if Frontier removes Solo, thanks to the game's European rating, they will be required to make sure all multiplayer interactions are appropriate for a 7-years old child — chat, gameplay, every way in which players can interact. I don't think Frontier wants that, and I doubt you would like it either.

Xbox and PS3 are going to be a huge money maker and that market wants excitement and quick action over long drawn out grinding.
Hence the CQC mode. Jump in, jump out, no need to grind credits to get more powerful ships.

Take away the emotion of what you think ED should be and what it was said it would be, look at the cold hard reality of what sells these days and what doesn't on the console market.
It is currently a mixed bag, and getting harder to evaluate because console makers are fairly tight-lipped about digital sales. According to Forbes, among the 10 best selling console games in the first half of the year, there are two fighting games (Mortal Kombat X and Super Smash Bros), two FPS shooters (Battlefield Hardline and Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare), three open world single-player games (Dying Light, The Witcher 3, and Batman: Arkham Knight), GTA V (first in the series with online play, though it seems to be mostly PvE focused), Minecraft (AFAIK mainly played as either single-player or PvE), and NBA 2K15.

Seems like roughly the same mix as in the previous decade. I don't see any specific trend towards PvP.
 
I'm still having trouble seeing how choice of profession is relevant.

How many pirates play Solo ? (DBOBE said you can be a pirate vs NPCs)
How many player killers in Open, play trader in Solo? (at least one who admits it in this thread)
How many explorers use each mode?

What you do in game, will impact where you do it.
Some people do everything in Open, some in Solo, some in Group and people like me change depending on mood being a factor.

It has also for the history of this topic had more "pirates" and "pkers" fueling the "unfair" / "unbalanced" points of view, than say explorers (which is what I was getting at before)
So why is it more "PvP" find the modes "unfair" than "PvE" people do ?
 
How many pirates play Solo ? (DBOBE said you can be a pirate vs NPCs)
How many player killers in Open, play trader in Solo? (at least one who admits it in this thread)
How many explorers use each mode?

What you do in game, will impact where you do it.
Some people do everything in Open, some in Solo, some in Group and people like me change depending on mood being a factor.

It has also for the history of this topic had more "pirates" and "pkers" fueling the "unfair" / "unbalanced" points of view, than say explorers (which is what I was getting at before)
So why is it more "PvP" find the modes "unfair" than "PvE" people do ?

I think those people where basically arguing for two bgs's which is clearly more fair, but also not going to happen but nevertheless a seperate argument.

As to why you wouldn't offer incentives to explorers it just wasn't brought up, that doesn't mean anyone is against it. But it also was part of the race to elite so it's been included before.
 
Last edited:
People still scream they wont continue playing the game, FD will look at its employees and the market that is going to target and move past those tears.
Xbox and PS3 are going to be a huge money maker and that market wants excitement and quick action over long drawn out grinding.
FD isn't going to build two games, so it will build where the revenue is.

Majinvash

Frontier have embraced the diversity in the gamer community. They are providing PvP oriented action for the extrovert/risk takers in Open. They are also providing PvE oriented goals for the introvert/steady progress people who will probably prefer Solo/Group.

That diversity will still be around in ten years, so Frontier will do what they can to get revenue from both the introverts and the extroverts. Most studies that I've seen have the real world introvert/extrovert split as not far off 50:50, bearing in mind that this is a spectrum. Ignoring one side would cost them money.

Frontier won't have to build two games. They'll just keep the one game going, allowing people to select modes as they want.

This isn't a game where people have to let other players control them. Nor should it be.

Cheers, Phos.
 
I think those people where basically arguing for two bgs's which is clearly more fair, but also not going to happen but nevertheless a seperate argument.

As to why you wouldn't offer incentives to explorers it just wasn't brought up, that doesn't mean anyone is against it. But it also was part of the race to elite so it's been included before.

We've had all the arguments between the 3 megas and the mass of smaller threads that existed before them.
Explorers don't care as they are out in the black, most miners I've spoken to don't care as they are off in the middle of nowhere and PvE players are happy doing PvE things.
It's 99% (in my experience) people who want PvP / PKing or Piracy who want the major game breaking changes, including (but not exclusive to) a second BGS.

I've also seen requests to prevent mode switching, removal of Solo / Group, nerfing none Open mode earnings, boosting Open only earnings - all from the same group of people.

Oh and how is it "clearly more fair" ? When it was clearly advertised as having one from the start ?
 
Last edited:
We've had all the arguments between the 3 megas and the mass of smaller threads that existed before them.
Explorers don't care as they are out in the black, most miners I've spoken to don't care as they are off in the middle of nowhere and PvE players are happy doing PvE things.
It's 99% (in my experience) people who want PvP / PKing or Piracy who want the major game breaking changes, including (but not exclusive to) a second BGS.

I've also seen requests to prevent mode switching, removal of Solo / Group, nerfing none Open mode earnings, boosting Open only earnings - all from the same group of people.

Oh and how is it "clearly more fair" ? When it was clearly advertised as having one from the start ?

How does advertising make something fair? It would be more fair because people can't turn invisible and undermine your work. And I guess it's really not about fairness, it would just be more interesting and fun. It doesn't hurt solo players in any way.

Harking back to what the developers said over and over is an appeal to authority, and in the context of a discussion is irrelevant when we are discussing the merits of one thing or another.

And you know I can't speak for other people so bringing up what other people said is irrelevant, I can't speak for them, nor explain what they said, ask them. I'm in no way connected to those people or their thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom