Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
atak2
A
I can make a compellin... Oh dear, he is carousaling with his router again.
Its not only me. I get games gifted, promo and alpha/beta codes and some games are actually kinda fun, but get boring pretty fast. Some other games like Rust, DayZ just sit in my library and i want them to be finished before i get too old to hold a mouse... I still check the major updates on some, but Steam is a mess where you have to dig deep sometimes to sort your stuff out once you reached a decent amount of games.
I´m not the patient guy, i like my games with constant updates, content patches like every month and major changes pretty often. Elite and FD are just "too slow" for me. I know this is a grind game and most people dont have all the stuff that is avaliable before the next big content patch is rolling out, specially if they want to test it on the beta server (so the playtime is not reflected ingame).
Here's my take on the core design issue with Powerplay. It's quite simple.
1. Powers are inert. They massively depend on player input in order to function - everything, from deciding which systems to expand into, to undermine/fortification efforts is exclusively up to the players.
2. Powerplay is a PvE activity. Everything involves either ferrying cargo (other players are a liability) or killing NPCs (other players are a liability)
Conclusion: Powerplay is designed as a player-centric activity which encourages avoiding other players.
IF the powers were in full simulation mode, meaning that if left to their own devices they would act on their own, then the problem might be somewhat mitigated.
As it is... all I can do is chuckle. Give it a few months for people to work out the most efficient strategies, and Powerplay will be dominated by coordinated solo activity. Because, FD, this is 2015. and people do have the Internet to communicate through. Just because they're playing in Solo mode doesn't mean they work alone.
1. Powers are inert. They massively depend on player input in order to function - everything, from deciding which systems to expand into, to undermine/fortification efforts is exclusively up to the players.
2. Powerplay is a PvE activity. Everything involves either ferrying cargo (other players are a liability) or killing NPCs (other players are a liability)
Conclusion: Powerplay is designed as a player-centric activity which encourages avoiding other players.
IF the powers were in full simulation mode, meaning that if left to their own devices they would act on their own, then the problem might be somewhat mitigated.
As it is... all I can do is chuckle. Give it a few months for people to work out the most efficient strategies, and Powerplay will be dominated by coordinated solo activity. Because, FD, this is 2015. and people do have the Internet to communicate through. Just because they're playing in Solo mode doesn't mean they work alone.
Last edited:
u miss the thread that we ask to have exclussive power-chat for all the modes
Separate issue. And they can't do it because of P2P architecture anyway.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
indeed..... whilst i would not walk away it would royally screw me over... (and it WOULD be the last time I supported FD in a future product until it was bargain bin prices - fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice etc etc!)
it really grinds my gears when people state that all these solo players are gearing up in solo with a view to go PvPing when they are loaded. Yes, I accept some will do it...... just as some will CL, some will cheat and some will find every which way to annoy other players... the difference is the people mode switching are making use of an advertised feature everyone knew (or had the option to know) was in the game.
But IMO the majority who play in solo play because they want to play in solo...... So why not STAY in solo you may ask? well it is covered many many times in this thread and no one has come up with a solution to it.
This game advertised a way I can play in a group, some of my friends play in open, and others in solo (I indeed DID play fully in open until certain people thought it was funny to start acting idiots around leesti with dumb fires and then ramming with no consequences.. as well as the simple wiping out criminality - indeed I may venture back for a look now in 1.3, but i digress!!)
but it also advertised that when my mates and I wanted to we could all squad up together and play as a social team....... Given how long it takes to progress in elite have neither the time or the energy to have multiple cmdrs, and why would I want to when the game ADVERTISED I could swap at will. remove this and essentially you remove the primary reason many of my mates bought it! (would anyone demanding a lockdown also support full refunds for anyone who this broke the game for?)
asking to ban all of us who have not played 100% in open from going into open is pretty off imo.
Last edited:
these are BOTH arena based MP competitive games. Elite is NOT an arena based competitive game (though if an arena commander type module was added to the training section, or bolted on in some other way (training simulation when docked) I certainly would not complain... indeed I have a feeling it may happen to coincide with the XB1 release (total guess!).
This.
Hello everyone,
Been playing E
Last week, with the release of PowerPlay, I really feel you guys are pouring everything into this game and working hard to improve the gaming experience for all of us.
I've never complained that much about how easy is to switch between open and solo without penalty: I am still not that wealthy in the game and so far I mostly played against NPC, still I always played OPEN because it suits better the feel of the galaxy you are creating.
But I feel that something must change in order to fully create the feeling of a living galaxy.
It's not fair that people who actually risk their ships in playing OPEN to prepare a system get surpassed by a Galactic Power made of players who just play SOLO.
Just check for instance the war of attrition currently ongoing in Cartoi between Lavigny-Duval and Aisling Duval supporters, but I bet there are similar examples for other powers.
My suggestion is simple: split the galaxy. You contribute in SOLO? Only the SOLO "galaxy" will be affected. You got to rank 3 playing only SOLO for Winters? If you switch to OPEN you will still have to pledge a power because it's another galaxy. The other way around for switching between OPEN and SOLO.
You already have to handle two galaxies: LIVE and BETA - make them three: LIVE, BETA and SOLO.
This way all the galaxies will still feel alive, but at least it will be fair for everyone playing the game.
Otherwise the only scenario possible will be the one described by Meritz, and this will really hurt this beautiful game.
Ciao!
and WHERE IS THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE THAT advertised when ED released???
Be sure if they split the galaxies us u ask open will be hurt more than solo
1st open isnt something special....
2nd ED style is different of wows ....deal with it....
to bad that promise convince me and many others to give money to FD
that depends if it was an advertised feature and how it was meant to work.
IF it was then yes it is fair. Do you not see the double standards in your post? I am NOT the one complaining on the forums demanding changes from the game I bought knowing it will spoil the game for others who actually didnt buy in ignorance!.
and really.. players are cowards for not playing in open?.... FGS get over yourself. one of the group I play with was honourably discharged after a career in the RAF, another one is a copper who puts up with more crap in real life than many of us (certainly than I anyway)..... they do not enjoy playing in open and yet they are cowards? you sir are a genius!..
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In your opinion.... Frontier pitched the game with its three game modes, single shared galactic background simulation and mode switching over two and half years ago - despite many debates on these features, the game launched six months ago with the features intact. There is no PvP galaxy, nor a PvE galaxy - there is one single shared galactic background simulation for all players, regardless of game mode. It should be noted that the game "modes" are simply different settings of the matchmaking system, i.e. Solo = match with no players; Private Group = match with players playing in that Private Group; Open = match with players playing in Open.
Add to this the fact that other platforms will share the same shared galactic background simulation (as confirmed by DBOBE in the XBox One announcement) and it becomes obvious that separating Solo/Private Groups and Open in the hope that players will be able to oppose any action by other players is a fruitless endeavour - I do not expect that we will see console players in the PC/Mac game, but they will all affect the gamaxy that belongs to all players of Elite: Dangerous - whichever mode / platform they play in / on.
Yes you can, as you can see here with ED.
It works just fine, no law is broken, the world is not falling apart and the Game is even selling good. Its a really good feature of Elite, you may not like it but others do. (little hint: Some Games are designed by people and made for people who may like diffrent things then you. That can really happen!)
Last edited:
Hi
I've been playing since Alpha. I love the foundation that FD have built for this game, the ships, the planets, piracy, all the nods to features from the original game, which I played on Speccy and BBC.
I played solidly at first, until obtaining an Imperial Clipper, which was a few months back. I've played sporadically since.
The main issues for me personally are:
a) Repetitive grid for credits. Whether this is trading, combat bonds, RES, missions, or exploring. Gameplay is too similar. Missions have too little variety and there are no 'bosses' within PvE.
b) The credits curve after Imperial Clipper is too big for me to get motivated to grind them out and I'm not sure that the Python or Fer-Der-Lance will offer significantly better gameplay when I get them.
c) I tried Community Goals just before my playing hours dropped off. This suffers from either i) unbalanced PvP in combat zones where players of minority faction get wiped out instantly, meaning it's only practical in solo or ii) widespread grinding of commodities wiping out local sources way too quickly (and grindy play anyway)
d) Loneliness. When there is a Community Goal, players flock to the locations in Open and this alone provides some entertainment (I don't mean exclusively PvP but I enjoy that too - I like being interdicted and fighting back). But for me, at pretty much all other times/locations , it is very rare to come across a player. For example I just single-handedly 'Prepared' a system in PP for Patreus and didn't see another player during the whole time, which took an hour or so.
e) Solo is too boring for me (for reasons above) and to me feels like cheating, unless I had decided my entire experience was going to be Solo from the beginning. Also I don't like games where you have the 'PvP flag' on a per-player basis. Either the game is supposed to have PvP interaction, or it isn't. Don't make a game within a game.
f) PP is another grind-fest with no current variety, and worse than that, immaterial reward. I am trying it for the 1st week just to check I understand how it works, but I go on holiday for 2 weeks in 2 week's time, and I'll lose 75% of my earnings. Why should I bother until after then?
Much of these views/observations I know have already been stated and many constructive suggestions to fix them.
I hope some changes are made because I do believe there is the potential to build a great game with long life.
I've been playing since Alpha. I love the foundation that FD have built for this game, the ships, the planets, piracy, all the nods to features from the original game, which I played on Speccy and BBC.
I played solidly at first, until obtaining an Imperial Clipper, which was a few months back. I've played sporadically since.
The main issues for me personally are:
a) Repetitive grid for credits. Whether this is trading, combat bonds, RES, missions, or exploring. Gameplay is too similar. Missions have too little variety and there are no 'bosses' within PvE.
b) The credits curve after Imperial Clipper is too big for me to get motivated to grind them out and I'm not sure that the Python or Fer-Der-Lance will offer significantly better gameplay when I get them.
c) I tried Community Goals just before my playing hours dropped off. This suffers from either i) unbalanced PvP in combat zones where players of minority faction get wiped out instantly, meaning it's only practical in solo or ii) widespread grinding of commodities wiping out local sources way too quickly (and grindy play anyway)
d) Loneliness. When there is a Community Goal, players flock to the locations in Open and this alone provides some entertainment (I don't mean exclusively PvP but I enjoy that too - I like being interdicted and fighting back). But for me, at pretty much all other times/locations , it is very rare to come across a player. For example I just single-handedly 'Prepared' a system in PP for Patreus and didn't see another player during the whole time, which took an hour or so.
e) Solo is too boring for me (for reasons above) and to me feels like cheating, unless I had decided my entire experience was going to be Solo from the beginning. Also I don't like games where you have the 'PvP flag' on a per-player basis. Either the game is supposed to have PvP interaction, or it isn't. Don't make a game within a game.
f) PP is another grind-fest with no current variety, and worse than that, immaterial reward. I am trying it for the 1st week just to check I understand how it works, but I go on holiday for 2 weeks in 2 week's time, and I'll lose 75% of my earnings. Why should I bother until after then?
Much of these views/observations I know have already been stated and many constructive suggestions to fix them.
I hope some changes are made because I do believe there is the potential to build a great game with long life.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
When women were "allowed" (i.e. not banned from) the vote, that was a win for equality.
All players of the game are equal with the freedom of choice to play in each game mode on a session by session basis ("the vote"). What is being sought is a restriction on the freedoms of other players who do not subscribe to a particular play-style - hardly an equitable change....
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which particular group of players are you referring to?
- Status