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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
"Shape the world with your actions" is implied when talking about a sandbox particularly when coupled with the notion of PvP.

But of course, we all know that Frontier did not technically lie about anything. The problem is the use of some overloaded buzzwords in marketing. Its not all Frontiers fault. I have heard the fan base refer to it as a sandbox. Up until Powerplay, I thought it was heading towards a true sandbox.

I don't think that now.

I think the most important thing is to be more open about what this game is and what the gameplay is. Its time to stop "selling" and start taking honestly if you ever want this thread to die.

Its a PvE faction game. Combat with players is possible but discouraged.

PvP Is not "discouraged" at all. You're just not able to force your game on someone else.
This thread (topic at least) will never die. It's been two and a half years and it is still going strong, people like to argue. Ever forum I've been on has that one thread where people go to argue over something mundane, pointless and everyone knows the Devs are not taking seriously. In STO it was the "DOOOOOM" thread, here is it the modes thread.

As for marketing, it sorely needs cleaning up to be more honest over what ED is. "Play your own way", "Blaze your own trail" and so on does not scream "Selective Multiplayer" (Flexi-player) to people.
There should be a clear explanation explaining the modes to people, as some folks still don't get it is one game we are all playing. You can just put blinkers on to not see anyone else if you don't want to.
 
I'm not a "PVPer" - I'm not even a proper "gamer" - ED is the first game I've played with online PVP and I played the original Elite - a lot.

I've always played in open - have got a ton of cash and a big ship plus loads of other ships - I like playing in all of them. I don't feel any need to play in solo to earn/do stuff more efficiently (I doubt if it would have made that much difference to my progress).

I can't be the only one that feels that way - surely?

So I don't get why people who say they want to be in open for the interaction/PVP wouldn't be there. I understand that lots of people prefer solo and some prefer private groups and that's fine. I just genuinely don't get why those that say they prefer open aren't there all the time - technical reasons aside.

It's not as if you win or lose anything by progressing faster or slower and you can't reliably tell what anyone else is up to anyway.

Thank you for the response. In answer to your question, not everyone feels the need to rush through the game and try to progress to the biggest and baddest ships in the game. I myself don't particularly enjoy RES farming or repetitive trading. The problem arises when we do finally earn something, only to be bullied by the next player who has nothing left to do but pick fights.

It's not a particular problem for less expensive ships, so I guess the lesson here is, don't upgrade early or you'll be sorry. Once I hit a point where it took me more than an hour or two to earn back what I lost, I realized I had something to lose. I made the mistake of upgrading to an Asp early, which meant that most of my modules were low rated and I saved just enough for a rebuy. PP in particular made this worse because most of the activities pay out in merits instead of credits. If only I could hand over merits to insurance companies.... 3 days later, I still hadn't earned back what I had lost from a single death. Short of farming RES, Combat Zones, or straight up trading, there's very limited income available to players.

Fighting in a smaller ship against bigger ships can be a fun challenge, but it can also be a huge frustration if players are continually smashed down and can never reach a point where they actually have a fighting chance. Quite simply, you have money so it's not a problem if someone blows you up. It's all part of the experience. Restarting in a starter Sidney can also be part of the experience, but it's not an experience most people want to go through. If they did, we'd see a lot more players resetting their save.

I envy what you have achieved. Multiple ships, millions of credits, no real fear of dying. I would like to be able to play the game in this manner, but I'll never get there if I get shot down by every player viper that decides to enter my power's system. I sold my backup ships with the introduction of Power Play. I realized it would be hard to pick them up after pledging. It doesn't help that invading systems offers 15 merits per kill but very little incentive to actually defend the system. Last I've heard, invading other powers is by far the fastest way to gain merits.

At the end of the day, there's a huge risk for me to interact with other players. There's very little incentive to do so. Making more friends would be enough of an incentive for me to risk a starter sydney. However, since my previous interactions with other players have all involved them shooting at me without saying a word, I'll go back to solo until I don't have to worry about credits.
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day, there's a huge risk for me to interact with other players. There's very little incentive to do so. Making more friends would be enough of an incentive for me to risk a starter sydney. However, since my previous interactions with other players have all involved them shooting at me without saying a word, I'll go back to solo until I don't have to worry about credits.

if u have researched the game u know what u gonna buy why now u want to change it?
 
At the end of the day, there's a huge risk for me to interact with other players. There's very little incentive to do so. Making more friends would be enough of an incentive for me to risk a starter sydney. However, since my previous interactions with other players have all involved them shooting at me without saying a word, I'll go back to solo until I don't have to worry about credits.


There is always Mobius
 
Just like ED then. Glad we sorted that out.

Nitpicking, but for many what Sandbox means is that the player is able to cause large, and lasting, changes to the game world. It's why, for example, the original Elite often isn't considered a sandbox game, despite the freedom it offered; there was no way to change the universe.

As for whether ED is one, I would say that is up to grabs. The way players can influence systems, and now powers, might straddle the line, but I don't think it clear-cut; many, myself included, might think it's too little for a game that wants to be considered a sandbox. And even if it's a sandbox, I don't think it feels like one, because it takes the aggregate efforts from a large number of players to influence anything, thus for the individual player it doesn't feel like he can actually change things.

I'm glad it doesn't feel like a sandbox, though. In recent years I've come to the conclusion that I simply don't enjoy sandbox MMOs, or even sandbox multiplayer games. If I can make effective changes to the game world, I want to be the only one to do so, without other players interfering with or undoing my changes. It's why I play games like Minecraft exclusively offline.

P.S. : a game where players aren't locked to a path is typically referenced as an open-ended game (if the players make their own objectives), an open-world game (if the player is free to roam around the game world freely), or a non-linear game (if the player can choose the order in which he tackles content), depending on what the person has in mind. ED is all of those (as was the original Elite).
 
I see the old 'Elite isn't a sandbox game' thing came up, it's an 'open world' game or something else. Because people have started to really limit the definition of sandbox to pretty much be 'like EVE'.

What's ironic is the original Elite is mentioned on pretty much any random article on the history of sandbox games.

Maybe I just got lucky, but here it's mentioned on page 2. I only search 'history of sandbox games' I didn't mention Elite at all.

This is just for me, I know the people who say it isn't will continue to say it isn't, pretty much irrelevent of any evidence to the contrary.

But I do think it's a shame that one of the pioneers of the sandbox game is being denied its pedigree.
 
I see the old 'Elite isn't a sandbox game' thing came up, it's an 'open world' game or something else. Because people have started to really limit the definition of sandbox to pretty much be 'like EVE'.

What's ironic is the original Elite is mentioned on pretty much any random article on the history of sandbox games.

Maybe I just got lucky, but here it's mentioned on page 2. I only search 'history of sandbox games' I didn't mention Elite at all.

This is just for me, I know the people who say it isn't will continue to say it isn't, pretty much irrelevent of any evidence to the contrary.

But I do think it's a shame that one of the pioneers of the sandbox game is being denied its pedigree.

Elite certainly has a place in the story of sandbox games, as it proved that the old concept of linear games wasn't the only kid on the block, but I don't think it should be called one. Too little sand, so to speak.

The very article you linked points to this, when it refers, in the next page, to The Sims and GTA III as the first games widely acknowledged as sandbox games.

BTW, the game that IMHO changed how people look at sandbox games wasn't EVE, but rather Minecraft. It might not be the first, nor the best, but with over 65 million copies sold across all platforms (nearly 20M just on the PC) it is by far the best known and most played.
 
I see the old 'Elite isn't a sandbox game' thing came up, it's an 'open world' game or something else. Because people have started to really limit the definition of sandbox to pretty much be 'like EVE'.
<Snip>
I thought the difference between a sandbox and open world was that, an open world game has an over arching story, ie GTA and the elder scrolls series, and a sandbox has no story or very little, ie minecraft or the mount and blade series.

So in that case elite is very much a sandbox since there is very little narrative, except what you make for yourself.
 
Last edited:
I thought the difference between a sandbox and open world was that, an open world game has an over arching story, ie GTA and the elder scrolls series, and a sandbox has no story or very little, ie minecraft or the mount and blade series.

So in that case elite is very much a sandbox since there is very little narrative, except what you make for yourself.

Minecraft, space engineers, and other building games are the prime definitions of sandbox for me in that you BUILD things without needing to conform to a pre-defined scenario.
You design the scenario yourself, if you want one at all.

Secondary definitions, again in my definitions could be EVE and other games mentioned here because you are not restricted in your choice of actions within the game mechanics.
ED falls into the secondary group, just barely because we are not building anything other than our own reputations, fortunes and personal infrastructure of ships and weapons.
A mixture of the tangible and intangible.

This brings to mind an idea for the future, player built stations.
How would they be implemented?
A player in solo decides to build a station.
Players in open decide to take it apart with their weapons.
Or
Players in open decide to build a station.
A player in solo decides to take it apart with their weapons.

Same idea with structures built on planets.

Hmmmmm. Open, Solo, Group modes may mean these things are difficult if not impossible to ever bring into the game.
 
Minecraft, space engineers, and other building games are the prime definitions of sandbox for me in that you BUILD things without needing to conform to a pre-defined scenario.
You design the scenario yourself, if you want one at all.

Secondary definitions, again in my definitions could be EVE and other games mentioned here because you are not restricted in your choice of actions within the game mechanics.
ED falls into the secondary group, just barely because we are not building anything other than our own reputations, fortunes and personal infrastructure of ships and weapons.
A mixture of the tangible and intangible.

This brings to mind an idea for the future, player built stations.
How would they be implemented?
A player in solo decides to build a station.
Players in open decide to take it apart with their weapons.
Or
Players in open decide to build a station.
A player in solo decides to take it apart with their weapons.

Same idea with structures built on planets.

Hmmmmm. Open, Solo, Group modes may mean these things are difficult if not impossible to ever bring into the game.

You are aware that we already have 'player built' stations? Check out the Mercs of Mikunn.

The problem this game has in this definition is related to how player groups function. This game is built on the premise 'If you build it, they will come!' But what is being built? Your story. Whether a single player, whose actions and activities inspire thousands in the game to come and follow and help them...or a group of twenty player that do the same....or a group of hundreds.

You build the fiction within the game, write the articles, influence player opinion, and the devs will notice and help you build the story through local community goals. Understand the comittment that this will take....it is not for the faint of heart...
 
Last edited:
I have a simple question to solo/group players.

Why do you want to avoid open play so much?

Isn't it exciting you can be interdicted by somoone with real IQ than n stupid NPC's? Can't you find a way to avoid being killed, i.e. try a bit RPG with your opponents? Try to find a way to escpase from real trouble, other then switching into solo? Isn't it fun to mąkę friebds with other cmdr's try to organize and nich those Pirates?

Lately the biggest fun i get playing ED is pvp, and the best thing in it is not to kill Someone but jest to fight and win even IF win means to take opponents shiels down. IF a fight isin't unfair (fdv vs cobra) then it is always fun, even IF i am the one who is killed. Moreover 90% of my enemies have found the way to run away. Most od them had time to chat and noone was dissappointed.

give it a chance ;)

I avoid open play because I find interactions with other players boring. I have a tough job, and want to relax when I come home. I don't mind consensual group play, but dislike being interdicted, even if I can run off. I want to play in a way that entertains me, not to be entertainment for others.

I'm in my fifties with slow reactions, so combat is something I'm likely to lose at. That's why I find it boring. I can explore and trade with the best of them though. I find that interesting.

What is fun and entertaining to you may be dull and boring to others. I have no problem with others playing PvP/Open, but I don't want to do it myself.

Don't assume that people will like stuff because you do. People differ, and Frontier have done a good job of embracing the diversity out there in the real world.

Give it a chance? Done that. Didn't like it. Won't do it again.

Cheers, Phos.
 
Solo should not be allowed in Powerplay

Powerplay represents the machinations of powerful individuals and organisations as they strive to control inhabited space for their own agendas. At its heart, Powerplay is a battle for territory. - FD

At its heart, Powerplay is a battle for territory by groups of players, allowing solo in defeats this. Solo players are untouchable we can't stop them and most have no intention of participating in powerplays strategy and only participate to gain the rank 5 to get a 50mill a week bonus. They are preparing systems that no group wants and we cant stop it, so where is the strategy in that. Can we please close solo off in Powerplay.
 
Powerplay represents the machinations of powerful individuals and organisations as they strive to control inhabited space for their own agendas. At its heart, Powerplay is a battle for territory. - FD

At its heart, Powerplay is a battle for territory by groups of players, allowing solo in defeats this. Solo players are untouchable we can't stop them and most have no intention of participating in powerplays strategy and only participate to gain the rank 5 to get a 50mill a week bonus. They are preparing systems that no group wants and we cant stop it, so where is the strategy in that. Can we please close solo off in Powerplay.

Solo = covert mode did you miss the memo?
 
+Rep

I agree.
I checked undermined systems... and found nobody. Everyone are in solo, because they are scared. I can't stop them.
In federation there is no way to stop empire undermining. Federation are empty... I saw only imperial brothers and ( sometimes ) federal sidewinders/adders. Federal players are in solo, because imperials killing them in open.
I'm imperial commander but... It's not fun to attack defenseless target. I want resistance!
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom