Um, zero times. You thought you did once but I didn't see any contradiction. As for too many or not enough, that's easy, for too many, go to a cg, a PP major control system, or rare trade route, to pirate, now for too few, go anywhere else.
- Status
You are both right and wrong at the same time. Wonderfully refreshing in this world of know it alls.
If they listened, and cut of part of their playbase on the suggestion that Open is somehow more superior to other modes, then they'd stand to *lose players* I mean, duh.
The fact that people can *choose* and that there are more *choices* is actually a marketing guarantee to attract more people than having little or no choice.
Or are you on a different planet to me?
This has all been said before, but with a new merge bringing the thread to life again maybe there are readers that haven't grasped it yet:
These are not opinions, they are demonstrable facts.
My opinion based on them is that this is actually completely a non-issue and framing any "problem with the game" in terms of solo/group/open and how they interact (or don't) is to fundamentally mis-state the issue.
You want to see more players in open? Lobby for improvements to the netcode so that the game can support bigger, more reliable instances. There will always be instancing so you'll likely never see all the players in your particular volume of space at once, but you'd see more of them, and better yet they'd still all be folks willing at that time to play with you.
You have a problem with players in other instances being able to counter your work with any aspects of the BGS? That's not a problem with solo/open/group, it's a problem with the fundamental instancing architecture - which isn't going to change, it's too deeply embedded, so quite frankly your time would be better served finding some way to come to terms with that than lobbying for a "fix" that won't alter the aspect you have a problem with at all.
- The single BGS impacted by all players, whether they choose to allow others to be instanced with them or not, is such a fundamental feature of the ED architecture that changing it would require almost as much effort as reworking the game from scratch.
- The mechanics of instancing in ED mean that even if there were multiple different BGSs selected between on the basis of play mode, none of the perceived "issues" would go away.
- Even if open was the only mode, it is trivial to tweak firewall rules such that you restrict who you can be instanced with, exactly as is currently achieved by selecting a mode other than open.
These are not opinions, they are demonstrable facts.
My opinion based on them is that this is actually completely a non-issue and framing any "problem with the game" in terms of solo/group/open and how they interact (or don't) is to fundamentally mis-state the issue.
You want to see more players in open? Lobby for improvements to the netcode so that the game can support bigger, more reliable instances. There will always be instancing so you'll likely never see all the players in your particular volume of space at once, but you'd see more of them, and better yet they'd still all be folks willing at that time to play with you.
You have a problem with players in other instances being able to counter your work with any aspects of the BGS? That's not a problem with solo/open/group, it's a problem with the fundamental instancing architecture - which isn't going to change, it's too deeply embedded, so quite frankly your time would be better served finding some way to come to terms with that than lobbying for a "fix" that won't alter the aspect you have a problem with at all.
Or, in some cases, the same person might have multiple reasons. Which is perfectly natural.
The difference is that those for the status quo are basically asking the same thing. Well, there are some variations — I would very much like an official Open PvE mode to be added — but, for the most part, simply keeping the modes and mode changing as they currently are will please those players.
The ones asking for change, though, have different ways in which they want the game changed. Some want the game mostly kept as it is, just with some extra restrictions on mode changing, like a cooldown; some want Solo and Group removed outright; some want a separate open-only save sharing the same galaxy; some want Open and Solo to share the same save but affecting different galaxy simulations; some want to keep to one Galaxy but restrict how Solo and Group players can influence it; some don't want either separate saves or separate galaxies, but want bonuses to make players in Open progress faster; and so on.
This happens because there are many perceived issues with different ways of tackling them. For some, for example, the issue is in how players in Solo get to earn things in "easy mode" and bring what they earn into Open; those often want the modes separate, but don't care about the influence to the galaxy simulation. For some the issue is in "cloaked" players influencing factions, or else in players being able to influence factions without engaging in PvP; those typically don't care about where a player earned what they have, but want influence to the galaxy to only be possible in Open. Some are concerned that Open has too few players; those often just want some kind of incentive to Open, but might find separating the modes counterproductive. Some are worried about the possibility of their "prey" fleeing to other modes; those often want some restriction on mode changing, but not always want to fully separate them. And so on. A solution that would please part of the for change players would irritate others of that camp, which dilutes the benefits Frontier could get from trying to please the for change camp.
What is "wrong" is the preconceptions that this is EVE in cockpits or WoW in space.
What is also "wrong" is the preconceptions that MMOs have to have a set list of features - which they don't.
Type "Define MMO" in to Google and your fist line back is;
Elite: Dangerous fits that description perfectly. So does MWO, WoWP, WoT, Robocraft, War Thunder, Guild Wars, Planetside, WoW, EQ2 and so on. All very different games with different features and some even P2P while others are client - server.
Frontier put forward Elite: Dangerous to have the modes / mode switching - 25,000 people said yes to it and got it started.
So no, they were not "wrong" - they did not want to try and fit the stereotypical mould of MMO, same goes for https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/ who are using the same system.
So, to recap;
Wrong - no
Different - yes
Hey DaveB,
Just imagine an instance with as many players as you could handle... Remember FSX when VATSIM did their AirShow days, and your frame rates and network speed dug a hole in the ground?
Imagine the chaos and queues at ports? I mean think about it? 48 slots on a station, not all of them large, and 80 Anacondas sitting out side swiveling?
Yeah. brilliant. Bring it on!!! We can call it Elite: Parking
Just imagine an instance with as many players as you could handle... Remember FSX when VATSIM did their AirShow days, and your frame rates and network speed dug a hole in the ground?
Imagine the chaos and queues at ports? I mean think about it? 48 slots on a station, not all of them large, and 80 Anacondas sitting out side swiveling?
Yeah. brilliant. Bring it on!!! We can call it Elite: Parking
Last edited:
What is right to attract someone that find the presence of a group like Code or the Goons good for the game is wrong for attracting or keeping me as a player. There is no single answer, no universally good choice, but different choices that will direct the game to different target audiences.
That has more to do with technical issues and limitations than with their intent for the game. Also, if your buddies are people you've met in EVE, keep in mind that the requirements for playing together in that game are far more forgiving than in ED, thanks to the slow-paced nature of EVE combat.
As a rule of thumb, if you wouldn't be able to play a game of Call of Duty (or any other fast-paced FPS game) with someone without lag getting in the way, I wouldn't expect to be able to meet that person in ED reliably. And, if you do force the matchmaking into putting you together, expect lag and glitches.
Changing after the fact would likely alienate a fair number among the players that liked the old design without a guarantee of attracting enough players that like the new one to make up for it. It is usually a very bad idea to change such a central part of a game design, like the modes in ED, after the game has already launched.
Also, legal issues. Frontier must keep the game PEGI-7 (in other words, appropriate for a 7 years old child) if they want to avoid tangling with child protection agencies across Europe for having sold to children a product not fit for them anymore. I don't think they can keep that rating in a "real MMO," as it would require player to player interactions to be curated.
Been in PP for Blue, in open. Wasn't any more dangerous or less rewarding.
Did Hutton CG in Open, seen loads of folks - never attacked, didn't see any more danger and chatted with loads of folks (30 minute wait times to dock).
Done rare runs in open - got a video of the 2nd time, 1st has a transcript in mega 2 - interdicted once by a human, never harmed we just chatted. Oh and video version was done AFTER Code claimed one of the rares stations - didn't see any of them.
So, seen people - suffered no more danger than normal.
Oh, and those red links in my sig can filter the threads to where you've been caught contradicting your own arguments.
So if Open is a broken as some of you claim - might as well just remove Open, that is the easiest fix.
I think the game should be open only because otherwise it's a ghost town. I've seen all of maybe a handful of players outside of the newbie starting zone of erevate/leesti/whatever. Space is big, sure, but the world feels really empty and bland. Instancing is terrible too, which makes PVP terrible because it boils down to "Who's lucky enough to have their wing drop into the instance, shutting the other guy's wing out". The unlucky guy just bugs out and highwakes away because the odds aren't very good. Bland, boring, and very frustrating because there IS a good game in here, buried under all the bland uninspiring drek, but when you try to say "Hey, let's scrape off some of the drek and get at the good game underneath" a bunch of beardy old-timers gather around to shout it down. And that sucks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wa-ell now, it's looking like I got a mighty unpopular opinion here. So I guess I should iron a few things out. Clear the air.
Yeah, sure I played EVE, but only for a short stint and I wasn't too impressed. Only friends I had there were a couple IRL guys who I flew with.
Second, when I sit down and look at a game described as an MMO, I am looking to see more than say, 5 people at a time. Ever. Yeah sure a lot of people might be concurrently playing but, hey, we don't call candy crush an MMO, am I right?
Technical limitation or design choice, different or wrong, it's semantics. All I am saying is that people can't have their cake and eat it too. Choice is a great thing, let's everyone have what they want. Just gotta keep in mind what's fair and balanced. Given the recent rumblings, I am thinking that having players in solo/private able to affect the BGS isn't as fair and balanced as some would like.
I like playing ED. It is a Good Game, just think there are ways they could make it a Great Game.
Yeah, sure I played EVE, but only for a short stint and I wasn't too impressed. Only friends I had there were a couple IRL guys who I flew with.
Second, when I sit down and look at a game described as an MMO, I am looking to see more than say, 5 people at a time. Ever. Yeah sure a lot of people might be concurrently playing but, hey, we don't call candy crush an MMO, am I right?
Technical limitation or design choice, different or wrong, it's semantics. All I am saying is that people can't have their cake and eat it too. Choice is a great thing, let's everyone have what they want. Just gotta keep in mind what's fair and balanced. Given the recent rumblings, I am thinking that having players in solo/private able to affect the BGS isn't as fair and balanced as some would like.
I like playing ED. It is a Good Game, just think there are ways they could make it a Great Game.
Last edited:
Please define fair and balanced?
I too could not find more danger in open. I once got shot at by some CMDRs during a CG and gong out alive was quite easy.
Also can't see open being broken, even when not at the CG I saw other players all the time and all was nice and well. You like interacting with players you can.
Also can't see open being broken, even when not at the CG I saw other players all the time and all was nice and well. You like interacting with players you can.
Not necessarily, the 3 main themes I see from the ones you listed are, players base too fragmented/too few people in open, Fairness issues between players in open and solo, and ease of mode switching. Any idea you do can easily please 2 of the 3. Seperate saves, will cover, fairness, and ease of switching. Open incentives will cover fairness issues, and too few. Removal of Solo and group will arguably cover all three.
You won't satisfy everyone but you can easily get 2/3rds, (assuming all sides of the changes side are equal) with any "simple" change and a more complex one can cover most if not all the issues.
Last edited:
It's an unpopular opinion with a lot of us because the only real solution - even disregarding the basic obstacles such as having to more or less rewrite the game to achieve it, the Pegi7 rating, etc - effectively disenfranchises a sizeable chunk of the player base to appease another sizeable chunk. Either way, there's gonna be people who don't like the outcome, and since the game was designed this way, sold this way and bought this way (specifically this way, to a lot of us) it seems... a little excessive to expect FD to reverse all that at this point, a year after the game was released.
Basically, it's you who wants to have your cake and eat it too, even though that's achieved by taking cake away from others who paid just as much as you for cake.
I don't even entirely disagree with you; I don't like the current Diamond Frogs ops going on in private / solo, and if I had access to all the other off-site forums used by groups to plan their operations I'm sure there'd be others I'd find equally distasteful. If player groups are going to take advantage of the mechanics to act dishonourably (and computer gamers are in general the cheapiest of the cheap cheese brigade so if there are mechanics that can be abused, they certainly will be), I'd be a hypocrite to say they shouldn't be able to do that while also wanting to keep all the benefits of mode-switching.
If your PC/Network is configured properly and so is everyone else - you can get up to a maximum of 32.
If I recall, the current record is held at about 20 using techniques to manipulate the match maker.
Candy Crush is advertised and distributed as a puzzle game, so why would you call it an MMO ?
Not really, "wrong" would be to not follow your advertised and funded development plan.
That would be very "wrong" indeed. I think we call those people con artists.
Making a plan that is "different" to what is considered normal now - shows David Braben is doing what he did in 1984.
He is making a game that does not fit the main stream gamer crowd clichés that became so prevalent.
Once again, he is being very "different".
That's not "semantics".
Is it "fair" and "balanced" that 25,000+ backers get the game they paid to be developed snatch out from under them due to not even 100 forum users ?
Is it "fair" and "balanced" that a handful of people who could not even be bothered to look up info that has been out for 3 years describing the game and the modes, demand to change the core game play that a majority are happy with?
And yes, I say "majority" - as forum users (including myself) are a minority - the rest of the player base, well they are playing the game.
I agree, and you will see that I said "there will always be instancing" - The numbers will always be limited by some factor, but right now we rarely if ever approach the current hard cap, even in busy CG instances - Yes, there could easily be queuing issues, like there were at Hutton with only one medium pad available, but I doubt we'd ever manage instances large enough for "80 Anacondas" to be more than (admittedly entertaining to think of) hyperbole.
Lets just say we start reliably hitting the hard cap of 32. That would allow busy areas to actually seem busy. It would certainly satisfy the wishes of the PvP crowd to "see more people in open" and coincidentally increase the odds for a single trader do be the one they didn't target this time... Right now throw a wing of 4 pirates into a single SC instance and the two or three other players that get instanced with them are in trouble, because on even a reasonable SC length two, possibly all three could get chased down. If there's a couple of pirate wings but 8 traders on the scanner, more of those traders are actually going to get through while the pirates get all the action they want as well. Of course there could be congestion at a single station but if there's that many players in the area at the time, shouldn't there be?
This keeps getting pointed out, but can someone send me a link where it says that multiplayer only games can't have a pegi 7 rating. My own googlefu isn't turning anything up. Iirc splatoon is pegi 7 and online only.
So you missed the part where it say 1 - 8 Online (who do you fight as a 1 person only game I wonder?)
Or the 1 - 2 Offline part.
Oh, so it is not "Online Only" !!!
Logically it follows with the aforementioned 'definition' of MMO. Merely pointing out the ridiculousness of it.
As for ratings, I have never seen a game push a rating for online interaction. Seems they always skirt that one since no one can control it. Would be silly to try.
As to getting in and seeing 32 people max, again, that means nothing when it cant happen realistically. I don't really see the fun to be had in gaming the system just to fly effectively with my friends.
Again, I am but one man, sharing my opinion. I am not here to say for a certainty what the best course of action is, just what I see as some sub-optimal choices.
oh I forgot about couch multiplayer, and I googled it and there is a single player mode. However my main point remains, is there a link you can provide me?
- Status