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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Players resisting such a split are simply wanting the game to stay true to Frontier's vision rather than be changed to suit a particular play-style.

This ^^

Adding to the game, is always welcome - but taking away from what was sold to me, I'm never going to support any idea that removes things.
Fine tune and tweak I'm good with. But I bought a game where I can use the same save to play in different modes to suit my mood.
 
Frontier decided to have everyone share the same galactic background simulation (GBS) and advertised it as a feature of the Solo / Private Group game modes. When Offline was cancelled, part of the reasoning was that an offline GBS would not offer the game experience that Frontier wanted for the game.

Players resisting such a split are simply wanting the game to stay true to Frontier's vision rather than be changed to suit a particular play-style.
I read that as seperating saves, not the GBS. Two CMDR slots, one for solo/group and one for open. Same GBS. Gives a slot for exploring and trading and a slot for being social and risky. Adds the much requested multiple CMDR, eliminates playing switchies that seems to cause these mega threads. People can just invest in whatever save they want.

I personaly don't care. I just play how feeling that day. But I do think allowing players to hide in a game with a built in adversarial component is a little off.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I read that as seperating saves, not the GBS. Two CMDR slots, one for solo/group and one for open. Same GBS. Gives a slot for exploring and trading and a slot for being social and risky. Adds the much requested multiple CMDR, eliminates playing switchies that seems to cause these mega threads. People can just invest in whatever save they want.

I personaly don't care. I just play how feeling that day. But I do think allowing players to hide in a game with a built in adversarial component is a little off.

It's not just about resistance to GBS split, it's also about resistance to calls for separate CMDRs for each mode. E: D has been a flexi-player game from the outset - much to the chagrin of those who wish to lock players into a particular mode, thus removing the free choice as to which game mode to play in on a session-by-session basis.
 
So I'm a little confused here...why are so many people opposed to the idea of separating the open background simulation from the solo and private background sim? Would solo/private players be able to distinguish the difference(other than the fact that it would be in the patch notes and updates)? This wouldn't force people from solo/private to open mode and those in solo/private will still be doing the same things they were doing before, minus the possible adverse effects on the open players' background sim.

This has been covered so many times! :(

1)
Sometimes I have great internet but often I don't. ED was advertised as playable using next to no bandwidth. This is only possible in solo.

2)
I play in Möbius some mates play solo and others tend to play in open but we do plan to meet up and muck about from time to time. How do you suggest we do that with walled off modes. Bottom line this feature is a promised feature vital to many. If you do not like it well, sorry but I hope you will live with it.
 
It's not just about resistance to GBS split, it's also about resistance to calls for separate CMDRs for each mode. E: D has been a flexi-player game from the outset - much to the chagrin of those who wish to lock players into a particular mode, thus removing the free choice as to which game mode to play in on a session-by-session basis.
If Frontier came out and said, we looked at the numbers and have determined that the solo and open switching is skewing goals in the GBS so in the best interest of balance we are providing a seperate save for each, would people support them?

Nobody knows what's best because we have no hard data. I think someone said it best, we are all arm chair Devs.

At the end of the day this rift doesn't accomplish anything. Frontier needs to make an official statement and put it to bed.
 
I don't know how many have been following the 1.3 beta discussions. Power Play adds more ladder ranking grind to the game - competition within a Power as well as between Powers (as well as decaying reputation while you are logged off). I'm seriously reconsidering my impressions of FD's intentions. (And my interest in the game.)

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=148803

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=149366
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=149489

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=149702

If they are determined to continue to pit player against player in a competitive grind-fest then I'm afraid I'm starting to think that they should separate the modes. I don't know where they are going anymore.
 
All that's needed is two characters... One the way it is now, and another on a open only simulation... Everyone gets what they want, we get some real choice... Right now there is NO CHOICE for people that want a genuine closed sandbox... Some of you may come and argue about how the choice I'm focussing on "was not part of their original design" but in all honesty that's just a cop out avoiding an actual discussion. Here is the question Why would another character and another open only simulation for that character be bad for the game?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Right now there is NO CHOICE for people that want a genuine closed sandbox... Some of you may come and argue about how the choice I'm focussing on "was not part of their original design" but in all honesty that's just a cop out avoiding an actual discussion. Here is the question Why would another character and another open only simulation for that character be bad for the game?

The game was never advertised as a closed sandbox.
 
If Frontier came out and said, we looked at the numbers and have determined that the solo and open switching is skewing goals in the GBS so in the best interest of balance we are providing a seperate save for each, would people support them?

Nobody knows what's best because we have no hard data. I think someone said it best, we are all arm chair Devs.

At the end of the day this rift doesn't accomplish anything. Frontier needs to make an official statement and put it to bed.

FD have spoken out - but YOU people keep ignoring them.
Again and again FD have spoken out - again and again, YOU people just complain louder.


From the Kickstarter;
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*

From the forum archives;
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)

Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."

DB on "Griefing" and "Griefers"
(Listen out for the part where FD can move them in to a private group of just each other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M

Rededit Topic on "unusual event for players to come against players" (With Twitch Video)
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangero...ayers_to_come/

Direct Twitch Link; (Note DB use "Occasonial" and "unusual" regarding players interacting)
http://www.twitch.tv/egx/b/571962295?t=69m00s

Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)

Wikipedia;
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.

Oxford English Dictionary (Online);
An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .



More Recent Dev comments;

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Numi
Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.


No.

Michael
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Robert Maynard
Thanks for that clarity Michael.

Are you in a position to confirm that group switching between the three game modes will remain as a feature of the game?


We're not planning on changing that.

Michael
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Michael Brookes

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by mosh_er
Hi Micheal

I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?

None are planned at the moment.

Michael

David Braben AMA Thread said:
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Alexander the Grape
In the newsletter, it was mentioned that an intersection between a trading power and a military power will result in piracy missions.

Will this make NPC piracy more profitable or will we continue to need to focus on players?

It can be more profitable, and it will apply to both players and NPCs.

David Braben AMA Thread said:
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Adept
For fun :)

That said, it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation.


Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.
 
Last edited:
All that's needed is two characters... One the way it is now, and another on a open only simulation... Everyone gets what they want, we get some real choice... Right now there is NO CHOICE for people that want a genuine closed sandbox... Some of you may come and argue about how the choice I'm focussing on "was not part of their original design" but in all honesty that's just a cop out avoiding an actual discussion. Here is the question Why would another character and another open only simulation for that character be bad for the game?
People who want a corridor Shooter also have no choice but to play another Game then ED.

Dunno why it should be the Games fault for not being this or this typ of Game, it can't be anything. When you want a closed Sandbox then go an buy closed Sandbox Game, but buying a Game that isn't and blaming the Game for not being it makes no sense.

I know the old "you bought the wrong Game" stuff is getting tiresome but I just have a really hard time understanding these complains. If you want a Game that does A, why buying a Game that does B and then complaining that it should do A? Why not just buy a Game that does A from the beginning and getting happy? Thats how I do it and works quite good.
 
FD have spoken out - but YOU people keep ignoring them.
Again and again FD have spoken out - again and again, YOU people just complain louder.


From the Kickstarter;
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*

From the forum archives;
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)

Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."

DB on "Griefing" and "Griefers"
(Listen out for the part where FD can move them in to a private group of just each other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M

Rededit Topic on "unusual event for players to come against players" (With Twitch Video)
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangero...ayers_to_come/

Direct Twitch Link; (Note DB use "Occasonial" and "unusual" regarding players interacting)
http://www.twitch.tv/egx/b/571962295?t=69m00s

Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)

Wikipedia;
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.

Oxford English Dictionary (Online);
An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .



More Recent Dev comments;
Well I guess that settles it. Frontiers official stance is that any adversarial community goals are an even distribution of open and solo players perfectly balancing the outcome.

Sounds good to me close this thread finally.

Also what's with the YOU people garbage? I don't care if they keep it or change it. I see the positives and negativeS on both sides. I'll still log in and have fun.
 
Last edited:
Well I guess that settles it. Frontiers official stance is that any adversarial community goals are an even distribution of open and solo players perfectly balancing the outcome.

Sounds good to me close this thread finally.

Also what's with the YOU people garbage? I don't care if they keep it or change it. I see the positives and negativeS on both sides. I'll still log in and have fun.

Really? As your post count and search of what you've posted here says otherwise.

I agree. I'd love two CMDR slots. One for solo/private and one for Open. I'd use both for sure.
I look at those modes as just risk filters, but with no reward change.
<snip> At the end of the day, the modes are NOT equal risk.

For someone who claims not to care, you spout Open advocates propaganda and suggestions quickly enough.
Hence the "YOU people" in response to your "what if..." senario. FD have spoken, but are being ignored by the people who want to force the game away from their vision (aka YOU people).
 
Really? As your post count and search of what you've posted here says otherwise.





For someone who claims not to care, you spout Open advocates propaganda and suggestions quickly enough.
Hence the "YOU people" in response to your "what if..." senario. FD have spoken, but are being ignored by the people who want to force the game away from their vision (aka YOU people).
Sure I have leanings. I think we should have seperate saves but still all play in the same galaxy. In my opinion it would make a better game and people would be more invested. It's just my opinion though. If they do it or not, I don't care. It won't make me enjoy the game any less.

Eh...I may just change my mind, I'm open that way.
 
Last edited:
People who want a corridor Shooter also have no choice but to play another Game then ED.

Dunno why it should be the Games fault for not being this or this typ of Game, it can't be anything. When you want a closed Sandbox then go an buy closed Sandbox Game, but buying a Game that isn't and blaming the Game for not being it makes no sense.

I know the old "you bought the wrong Game" stuff is getting tiresome but I just have a really hard time understanding these complains. If you want a Game that does A, why buying a Game that does B and then complaining that it should do A? Why not just buy a Game that does A from the beginning and getting happy? Thats how I do it and works quite good.

To be fair, games that offer the kind of experience those players want — a polished PvP sandbox with a large population, where players can fight for control of the game world and submit the losers to their wishes — are exceedingly rare. The only large one available in English I'm aware of is EVE, most other such games have a player base measured at most at a couple dozen thousand players (and in a way this goes for Rust, DayZ, Life is Feudal, etc, as each individual server is tiny for a MMO).

Thus, I've seen this phenomenon a few times. A game appears that might, with some rule tweaks, provide those players with what they desire, so they flood the forums and start asking for (or even outright demanding) those tweaks, spreading an apocalyptic scenario that will come to pass if they aren't implemented and the game remains "boring, lacking challenge or engagement" for them. Shroud of the Avatar had its fair share of those players, including many whose last game they enjoyed was pre-Trammel UO (and, more recently, private servers created to those old, PvP-based rules).

It's kinda funny, in a tragic way, because those players often shun small budget games that aim to provide what they want in the long run, if they just get enough of a player base to secure a reasonable development budget. The same way EVE was initially shunned, had a very weak launch, and only managed to stay afloat due to very lean costs and the sheer stubbornness of the devs. In their insistence on getting a game that has a reasonably large budget from the get go, those players are starving games that could grow into exactly the experience they want.

(And, of course, there's the whole question of a game with player "sheep" to prey upon. That specific ship has sailed; there's just too much choice nowadays for any player to settle for an unsatisfying experience, and the number of players that feel satisfied in playing the "sheep" in a game where others can play the "wolf" seems to not be large enough to sustain the players that want to play "wolf".)
 
Last edited:
Exactly - everyone wants to be the seal-clubber, and nobody wants to be the seal. Not even the really good PvP-pro-bro's seem to want to show off their skills by being superior seals - which I find kind of disturbing.
 
To be fair, games that offer the kind of experience those players want — a polished PvP sandbox with a large population, where players can fight for control of the game world and submit the losers to their wishes — is exceedingly rare. The only large one available in English I'm aware of is EVE, most other such games have a player base measured at most at a couple dozen thousand players (and in a way this goes for Rust, DayZ, Life is Feudal, etc, as each individual server is tiny for a MMO).

Thus, I've seen this phenomenon a few times. A game appears that might, with some rule tweaks, provide those players with what they desire, so they flood the forums and start asking for (or even outright demanding) those tweaks, spreading an apocalyptic scenario that will come to pass if they aren't implemented and the game remains "boring, lacking challenge or engagement" for them. Shroud of the Avatar had its fair share of those players, including many whose last game they enjoyed was pre-Trammel UO (and, more recently, private servers created to those old, PvP-based rules).

It's kinda funny, in a tragic way, because those players often shun small budget games that aim to provide what they want in the long run, if they just get enough of a player base to secure a reasonable development budget. The same way EVE was initially shunned, had a very weak launch, and only managed to stay afloat due to very lean costs and the sheer stubbornness of the devs. In their insistence on getting a game that has a reasonably large budget from the get go, those players are starving games that could grow into exactly the experience they want.

(And, of course, there's the whole question of a game with player "sheep" to prey upon. That specific ship has sailed; there's just too much choice nowadays for any player to settle for an unsatisfying experience, and the number of players that feel satisfied in playing the "sheep" in a game where others can play the "wolf" seems to not be large enough to sustain the players that want to play "wolf".)
Big thanks to you, that actually makes a lot of sense and gives me a better understanding. The Forum won't let me rep you tough, just imagine it ^^
 
Exactly - everyone wants to be the seal-clubber, and nobody wants to be the seal. Not even the really good PvP-pro-bro's seem to want to show off their skills by being superior seals - which I find kind of disturbing.

I've had my fair share of loses and fair share of wins, I like learning from Success and more importantly, from failure.

At this point, I think we can all agree that the root of all evil isn't necessarily the Open versus Private versus Solo debacle. Though it is a partial reason as to why certain updates are as they are. They're having a problem balancing certain mechanics out and that is why it is logically better to play a different way. The Game Mechanics fail to be simply fair across the field. Shield Cells, lack of more AI presence and interaction, the works. It's a work in progress that I hope they fix soon. Why is why certain modes right now, unfortunately, are better than others. Overall, 1.3 (Aside from Power Play and the Background Simulator) captivate this to the tee. Power Play and the Background sim, and certain quirks here and there, do not match up entirely to be call a fair thing across the board. Which is why I dislike Shield Cells especially because it makes other modules useless and ruins the fun of PVP and PVE. They don't give the game credit for being tough, but fun. Ala Dark Souls 2, but not as terribly unfun.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom