Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
What am I complaining about is the fact that you can just avoid other people but still contribute to your power. Why people should play open then? Why not just play solo or in a group if you are with a friend? Where is the social part which should be part of this update?
Isn't that painfully obvious? The reason to play open is because you are a fan of pvp, and you're looking to play with other pvp aficionados. There is your reason to play open.

Imagine you want to be a pirate, align with a pirate power and find only npcs to interdict. Loads of fun for you eh?

Sounds like fun to me. I've pirated a ton of npc's and enjoyed every minute of it.
 
In other words, who has more solo players willing to put in more hours grinding, wins. No strategy. No tactics. No skill.

That's also known as "what-the-hell-were-they-thinking" school of terrible game design.
Quite the contrary. I think it's a terrific game design. I'm having more fun with ED than I have had with any game in quite some time. You may think it's a terrible design, but I'm loving it. Since we both know that I'm far from alone in that sentiment, maybe you should just take the time to ponder that while this is a great game, that it is just not for you. That happens, tastes vary. I have dozens of games that are by all accounts and reviews great games, but sit in my library unplayed. They just weren't for me.
 
Not really a bold statement.

David Braben has stated that Solo players balance Solo players. (So there is a mix of players on all sides using all the modes)
There is indeed another game coming out using the same Flexi-player set up.
P2P is a cheap way of networking and keeping costs down.

So far, Lestenio has only said what we all have been told by the Devs over the past 2 years.

A "bold statement" is proclaiming the game is "broken and needs fixing". That is a bold statement, one made without any evidence/ proof or data to support it. Yet Open advocates keep saying it.

Plenty of solid evidence and cold logical facts were given, but those carry little weight on internet forums. ;)

- - - Updated - - -

Edit: Community Goals are fine, but when it turns competitive and or control of a system(Ala Lugh) it becomes a question of "Why isn't this tied to Open Play or done better to really bring the players closer to their goals". But then we have SJA's AIs that we'll have to rely on to make things better when we get competitive things I guess.

I wouldn't hold my breath for some super-AI to come along and rescue us all. And so far they haven't even finished the basic background simulation, nevermind the strategic AI that would be needed in order to be able to deploy NPC forces in proper systems.

Not to mention that the combat AI is... well, it's better. A little. At flying. It still sucks at actually shooting at stuff unless it's 3-1 odds against the player.

So I can't see PP being anything but player-driven for a foreseeable future.
 
Since I have spend well over 100 Hours with the Game without doing any PvP thats obviously not true, there is much more to Elite then PvP.

Huh, he was talking about World of Tanks. Which, to the best of my knowledge, is basically a lobby-based, micropayments-fueled, 15 vs 15 arena game with tanks.
(Admittedly, a very engaging one for those that enjoy this kind of content.)

And World of Tanks is still called a MMO often enough, for whichever strange reason, even though it's not even close to what most players think when they see the MMO acronym thrown around.
 
there is a difference between being matched with 16, 20, 30 in a lobby to play against them
and an MMO.

what next.... COD is an MMO because you can have 8v8?

'massive' is not about the amount of gamers who bought or play the game.

it is about the amount of players currently in the game environment available to be interacted with.

thats why they originally added the term 'massively' to the terms 'multiplayer online'

nice one. thats kinda my gripe as well.

you look at the video's, watch the dogfighting, and see it listed as an MMO.
thats what was presented. its all too easy to buy it based on advertising
only to find that its nothing like its portrayed.

nothing good will come from that situation. especially when released for consoles.

also, not sure about the PC version but i wouldnt call world of tanks an MMO either.

its a 15v15 enclosed PVP game and nothing else.

Well, in regards to... erm... all of it!

I completely agree that the MMO tag for games is now so liberally used, it it starting to become meaningless.
The way people throw MMO about (Robocraft / WoT / MWO etc..) we might as well call COD an MMO.
Heck at this rate, an electronic/online chess tournament qualifies as one :(

I have said a few times, ED should not have the MMO tag. It only fits under a technical sense, and even then it scrapes by.
There are features that are "expected" in an MMO. And when Ed came out, it had none of them.
Even local chat is a recent add on to the game, and an MMO from the start should have chat systems in place, not have them thrown in at a later date.

Other things commonly synonymous with MMOs are guilds, dungeons (or other group based content (raids etc..) for 5 or more players), character customisation tools (more than just male/female).
If you look at what "real" MMOs have in common - we have none of it in ED.

But, this is year one (1) of a ten (10) year plan.... so you never know. Just keep in mind, the modes were always the plan and so was the P2P networking system.
 
Plenty of solid evidence and cold logical facts were given, but those carry little weight on internet forums. ;)

Actually, those where basically opinions. People that don't like how solo and open currently interact and, thus, think there is something broken in the game, even as many players find things working perfectly well.

And, what is more, the proposed "fixes" often are things that would make the game far worse for many of the players currently enjoying it. Thus, strong opposition against them from players that could see their game ruined if those so-called "fixes" were ever implemented.
 
Thus, strong opposition against them from players that could see their game ruined if those so-called "fixes" were ever implemented.

Indeed. If the "Open-Only-Need-Guilds-And-Crafting-And-Guild-Only-Content-Plus-Clanwars-And-Rainbow-Ponies" party ever got their way with Elite - I wouldn't quit the game. I would simply have to buy a much bigger router :D
 
WTH is a "true MMO" ?

Very good question. AFAIK there is no single, agreed-upon definition.

So, is Guild Wars a MMO? or D&D Online? Both of those are basically trading hubs from where players enter instanced adventure zones in small groups.

Is Star Trek Online a MMO? Most of the content is instanced and only available to solo players and small groups.

Is UO a MMO? Was it a MMO at launch, despite the lack of guilds, the restrictions on chat, the lack of proper group content?

Is Simcity a MMO? After all, players play together in zones, and trade across a global market that reacts to each transaction.

Is WoW a MMO? For many players, 90%+ of the time is spent on the personal (instanced) garrison, from where the player only emerges to teleport to the (instanced) dungeons and raids.

Does the addition of different ways of doing things, ways that bypass much of the player interaction, changes whether a game is a MMO or not? For example, when WoW and Rift (and about every WoW clone) added ways to simply click on a button and be added to a dungeon or raid group, did they become any less MMOs?

What about Second Life? Are game systems even required for a MMO?

The MMO genre is so diverse that, sincerely, expecting the features of a specific MMO to be available across the whole genre is like expecting Zelda to have random loot and gear grind just because it's an action RPG.
 
Personally I hated that ED called itsself a massive multiplayer online game NOT because i personally do not think it is one (I think it DOES qualify) but because some people subjectively have a set structure on what it means, which regardless of if may or may not be correct can lead to disappointment..

So with this in mind, when FD updated their front page and removed it, I thought it was a good move.................. only for it to appear back again on the steam page on steam release. :(

so for me, bottom line, (and this is not really related to the solo/open chat) but I can see why some people are confused if they buy on the MMO tag. That being said, apparently war thunder and World of tanks are MMOs... and yet by the definitions some are stating here, neither of them qualify either.

I don't normally get involved in the is it an MMO or not part of the discussion, I have only played 3 online games over the last ~ 8 years, and many offline ones long before & along side.

Two online games because mates recommended them to me (and I could play online with them) and the other I stumbled across, one of them was WOW, surprisingly that was the one I spent the least time in, anyway to the point.

I agree with you, I don't think that FD should have marketed it as an MMO although I think it is one too, I think a lot of people have a more fixed idea of what an MMO should be, but that's not FD's fault.

The price is now in the "ooohh shiny new space game" range and people will watch the trailer & impulse buy, and I get why FD or Steam would market it that way, they will get more sales, but it does cause some annoyance from people that didn't get what they expected.

Even at £35 I would do a bit more than watch a trailer personally but that's me. Others obviously don't, It's not like the thread has hundreds or thousands of people complaining about it though so I would guess its not top of their list to address.
 
did i read right that DB said the background sim could be run from one 2G phone?

Yep. On a moving train, nevertheless. And he made it a selling point when he announced that offline mode was being dropped, saying that because the game required so little bandwidth, offline mode wasn't needed except in very rare cases where no connection was available at all.

I strongly disagree with the second part, mind; offline isn't just for when no connection is available. But allowing players to play on any crappy connection was indeed part of the sales pitch.
 
The word multiplayer in mmo tends to imply more than one player. While it's true not every mmo forces you to group up, they certainly aren't single player.

ED is sold as a single-player game in Steam, though.

Or, rather, it's simultaneously sold as a single-player, a multi-player, a co-op, and a MMO game. Look for the icons on the right side.

Given that, kinda obvious Frontier can't force players to play together. Not if they want to avoid any issues with false advertisement on Steam, at least.
 
ED is sold as a single-player game in Steam, though.

Or, rather, it's simultaneously sold as a single-player, a multi-player, a co-op, and a MMO game. Look for the icons on the right side.

Given that, kinda obvious Frontier can't force players to play together. Not if they want to avoid any issues with false advertisement on Steam, at least.

It's Genres are as followed: Action, Adventure, Massively Multiplayer, RPG, Simulation, Strategy.

I don't see anything regarding Single-player (because it isn't that, and is an Online-Single-player tied into the game's lore and multiplayer) and the same goes for the co-op one.

User tags maybe, but their official one isn't that.
 
Last edited:
It's Genres are as followed: Action, Adventure, Massively Multiplayer, RPG, Simulation, Strategy.

I don't see anything regarding Single-player (because it isn't that, and is an Online-Single-player tied into the game's lore and multiplayer) and the same goes for the co-op one.

User tags maybe, but their official one isn't that.

Here you go;

steam ed page.png
 
It's Genres are as followed: Action, Adventure, Massively Multiplayer, RPG, Simulation, Strategy.

I don't see anything regarding Single-player (because it isn't that, and is an Online-Single-player tied into the game's lore and multiplayer) and the same goes for the co-op one.

User tags maybe, but their official one isn't that.

I'm talking about the categories. Just above the amber box that tells consumers that they need to agree to ED's EULA. Those are official, supplied by the publisher.

EDStore.jpg
 
I don't want you to play the game my way. But I don't want you to play the game YOUR way and impact MY game.

And yet, you completely ignore the moderator's post about the console release affecting the same galaxy as PC players....but we'll not be able to interact with them at all, no matter WHAT mode they play in.

XBox player in open? Won't be able to see/interact with if on PC in open. Ever. Yet the XBox player changes the galaxy just as if a solo PC player were playing.

Does that make them cowards? Does that impact your game any differently than a solo player?

Hint: The answer to both is the same, and it's in the negative. Yet you're complaining about solo players quite fiercely and ignoring console players entirely. I smell hypocrisy. You just want more people to pew-pew. Sorry, not happening.
 
ED is sold as a single-player game in Steam, though.

Or, rather, it's simultaneously sold as a single-player, a multi-player, a co-op, and a MMO game. Look for the icons on the right side.

Given that, kinda obvious Frontier can't force players to play together. Not if they want to avoid any issues with false advertisement on Steam, at least.

That's interesting (I have never used steam), Mmmm "simultaneously sold as a single-player, a multi-player, a co-op, and a MMO game" (I saw that part), as hard as I try I can't see "mainly pvp" anywhere on their webpage, nor do I see "all modes will have their own BGS", I also missed the part about guild support being promised, maybe I need new glasses (or more sleep) :).
 
<snip>

Other things commonly synonymous with MMOs are guilds, dungeons (or other group based content (raids etc..) for 5 or more players), character customisation tools (more than just male/female).
If you look at what "real" MMOs have in common - we have none of it in ED.

In those type of games I enjoyed being in a guild (or wing), it fitted well with the game, in elite not so much, I don't ever remember CMDR Jameson being asked to defend the galaxy

But, this is year one (1) of a ten (10) year plan.... so you never know. Just keep in mind, the modes were always the plan and so was the P2P networking system.

I really hope to still be playing ED in many years time, its part of the reason I am not in a rush to do stuff, there is no "game over" screen, its not a race for me, I am just enjoying the journey.

It will be interesting to see the next set of published accounts for FD, they should be out soon and I expect they made enough from the last years sales to keep the game moving ahead at full speed, end of this year I would expect to see some DLC (which a lot more people will buy), then they have the xbox release too.

I think FD will earn well from this game, and as DBOBE's baby I am sure they will continue to support it, I was going to say 10 years was a bit optimistic but I think you might be right, I don't think FD will ever "finish" this game but there is a lot more to come and it will take time.

Edit, the red text is mine.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom