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

[[VR] Mad Mike]

So doing changes to this open/solo dilemma would be the same like making a CoD out of elite? Wow....

FGS no but it is the same principle. you would completely change the game from what many of us want to play, after doing our homework and buying BECAUSE its like this. Jesus... Right I am out for a while. You do not like i i get it and i sympathise, but it IS the game you bought and your - and others - attitude of trying to change it to fit in with you, and screw those of us who were not ignorant and are relying on its modes either through choice or necessity is just poor., it stinks in fact

asking for changes that would bring it closer to the DDA - that is fine as they were features which were hinted at by the devs would be in - at some point.

discussing changes which ADD to the game for some, or better yet add for all is great too.

but breaking the game for many and not giving a crap about it even when explained why.... not cool.

 

[rckstr]

FGS no but it is the same principle. you would completely change the game from what many of us want to play. Jesus... Right I am out for a while. You do not like i i get it and i sympathise, but it IS the game you bought and your - and others attitude of trying to change it to fit in with you, and screw those of us who are not ignorant is just poor., it stinks in fact

I am making suggestions to things. And it is a fact that in Elite and every other game out there, plans have been changed. This is what happens.
Do you use the answer "because we always did it like this" often?

 

[Yaffle]

I'm sure someone went back through threadzilla at one point and counted up the number of posters. It came to about 750, presumably with a fairly equitable split between pro and con. Which means you are asking for 639,625 people to have their game changed to suit 375 (more or less). Doesn't look so viable when you look at it in those terms.

There have been about 400 posters to this thread.

 

[Cody]

Deleted!

 

[Jockey79]

There is some faulty logic here, you can't know why they stop posting, it could be as simple as throwing in their ideas then not caring past that.

No more a "fallacy" than saying with a straight face, removing or restricting fame features/content will "improve" the game or "help it succeed".

And if you care to go through the mega threads, some people didn't know what ED was supposed to be and stopped posting right after they were shown - so again, not so much a "fallacy".
An exaggeration over how many maybe, but not a "fallacy".

@Yaffle Out of those 400, do you happen to know a split between pro open and pro choice teams? or even an educated estimate over it?

 

[Lestenio]

I am making suggestions to things. And it is a fact that in Elite and every other game out there, plans have been changed. This is what happens.
Do you use the answer "because we always did it like this" often?

Look, ED was released around 7 months ago. The developers successfully raised the funds for this game based on the modes. They have sold over half a million copies of the game. The game is not failing, people are buying it. They are not going to change a successful formula and alienate all other players just because you happen not to like it.

Plans do change, so IF in a few years the developers decide to change it to accommodate how people are playing, they will. But, once again, and for the last time. They are not going to change it 7 months after release just because YOU don't like it.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Ooh, because every owner of the game commented here and left his opinion... Yeah, now I got it.
I previously said that like anybody else, I have no numbers. No one here has them.
With enough voices I am talking about the amount of posts that point to this situation met in game.
Honestly the number of people complaining about it is bigger than the handful peeps that defend the current state til blood..

So your point is "Lots and lots of people are unhappy about this, but they never post, so I can't really say how many are unhappy, so I choose to arbitrarily decide on a big number to support my personal agenda?"

So long as I understand your position, it is one you are entitled to. It does not make it right, correct, or valid in my eyes. Democracy allows you to hold that position and you have volunteered to place it under public scrutiny in the hope of garnering support for it. I wish you the best of fortune with that endeavour.

 

[rckstr]

@Yaffle Out of those 400, do you happen to know a split between pro open and pro choice teams? or even an educated estimate over it?

I don't think this would be possible to track. You would have to know how many threads have been created and merged and how many just showed their opinion without creating a thread. I guess you'd just have to count them individually.

 

[Jockey79]

I don't think this would be possible to track. You would have to know how many threads have been created and merged and how many just showed their opinion without creating a thread. I guess you'd just have to count them individually.

It is very possible to track.
That link that shows how many posts people have done in the thread - click the number at the end of each line and it filters that persons posts.
All you need to know is are they pro open or pro choice - quite easy to tell once all their posts are in order in front of you.

That is how I know, the top 17 people who post, only 3 are pro open.

I'm asking Yaffle (or any Mod) - as they may have been tracking it all ready or have some sort of magic tools they use to keep an eye on the thread etc..
But anyone can get a rough idea by doing it themselves.

 

[rckstr]

Look, ED was released around 7 months ago. The developers successfully raised the funds for this game based on the modes. They have sold over half a million copies of the game. The game is not failing, people are buying it. They are not going to change a successful formula and alienate all other players just because you happen not to like it.

Plans do change, so IF in a few years the developers decide to change it to accommodate how people are playing, they will. But, once again, and for the last time. They are not going to change it 7 months after release just because YOU don't like it.

I didn't say ed is failing. Only that you can assume that the multiplayer part (open) might be failing when there is barely no one around in open. Let me show you this on battlefield as example. Xx copies sold, but 80% stick to play campaign only. You could call mp a fail.
And it is not just me who doesn't like current conditions. There are many more that either stopped discussing here or just don't say anything.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Only that you can assume that the multiplayer part (open) might be failing when there is barely no one around in open.

Equally, you could assume that players are playing elsewhere in Open (the galaxy is rather big, after all), at different times of day, in places where your mutual ping times stop you being instanced together.... As has been mentioned quite a few times recently - Frontier do have the statistics as to who plays where and when - also, as DBOBE is on record as holding the opinion that "there is no 'right' way to play the game", I would be somewhat surprised if major changes were made to favour a particular game mode.

And it is not just me who doesn't like current conditions. There are many more that either stopped discussing here or just don't say anything.

Similarly, there are doubtless players who quite like the current conditions who have stopped participating in (or have never participated in) these discussions....

 

[Mohrgan]

I didn't say ed is failing. Only that you can assume that the multiplayer part (open) might be failing when there is barely no one around in open. Let me show you this on battlefield as example. Xx copies sold, but 80% stick to play campaign only. You could call mp a fail.
And it is not just me who doesn't like current conditions. There are many more that either stopped discussing here or just don't say anything.

How many players prefer how it is now, but have stopped discussing it, or just continue to happily play the game? It cuts both ways. There has never been an Open-only majority. Not from the beginning, or now. There has always been a big enough split for Choice to be the only fair conclusion. That's how I have always seen the the factíonal breakdown. You have to pursue this argument with nothing but personal opinions. That is all we can share.

 

[Lestenio]

I didn't say ed is failing. Only that you can assume that the multiplayer part (open) might be failing when there is barely no one around in open. Let me show you this on battlefield as example. Xx copies sold, but 80% stick to play campaign only. You could call mp a fail.
And it is not just me who doesn't like current conditions. There are many more that either stopped discussing here or just don't say anything.

You want to compensate for Open's 'failing' by forcing people who have no interest in Open play it. As the devs have said, there is no plans to do that. It doesn't matter how many forum posts get added to this threadzilla.

If 80% of Battlefields customers are playing solo campaigns only, then if I was the developer I would spend my time adding new solo campaign content. The would seem very little point in trying to get 80% of the players to do what the other 20% want them to do.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

… Xx copies sold, but 80% stick to play campaign only. You could call mp a fail.

And your solution would be to force everybody who just plays the campaign mode into the mp mode? Somehow I think that would turn a successful campaign mode game into a failed game and not into a successful multiplayer game.

… There are many more that either stopped discussing here or just don't say anything.

Yes there are many that want to be able to freely switch between Solo, Group and Open Mode. Much more than those that want that choice removed. Why? I said so, just like you just wrote the opposite. I can make up other things, but my fantasies are completely irrelevant to this discussion, just like yours.

 

[ianw]

For me the choice is the important thing.

I only play open but I wouldn't want the opportunity to try Mobius for example or switch to solo/private to dock at a busy platform to be taken away from me.

 

[nedeaalex]

Look, ED was released around 7 months ago. The developers successfully raised the funds for this game based on the modes. They have sold over half a million copies of the game. The game is not failing, people are buying it. They are not going to change a successful formula and alienate all other players just because you happen not to like it.

Plans do change, so IF in a few years the developers decide to change it to accommodate how people are playing, they will. But, once again, and for the last time. They are not going to change it 7 months after release just because YOU don't like it.

I hope you use "you" as a plural because he is not alone here. Just go on any other forum or Reddit or Youtube or any comments section that is not moderated like this one is. You will understand how many people simply never wish to play the game again and think they wasted their money here.

 

[FuzzySpider]

I didn't say ed is failing. Only that you can assume that the multiplayer part (open) might be failing when there is barely no one around in open. Let me show you this on battlefield as example. Xx copies sold, but 80% stick to play campaign only. You could call mp a fail.
And it is not just me who doesn't like current conditions. There are many more that either stopped discussing here or just don't say anything.

"Failing" depends on the actual goal of open.

The goal of player encounters, if you recall, was that they be "rare and meaningful". This was never supposed to be an arena type shooter with big player engagements. Open, if anything, fails because certain areas are too full of people, thus become no-go areas for those who RP or PvE and want to play in Open.

I hope you use "you" as a plural because he is not alone here. Just go on any other forum or Reddit or Youtube or any comments section that is not moderated like this one is. You will understand how many people simply never wish to play the game again and think they wasted their money here.

Maybe. As I've said before I think the game was marketed badly. But not every game needs to have multiplayer and in the case of Elite it can be to the detriment of the game.

 

[nedeaalex]

"Failing" depends on the actual goal of open.

The goal of player encounters, if you recall, was that they be "rare and meaningful". This was never supposed to be an arena type shooter with big player engagements. Open, if anything, fails because certain areas are too full of people, thus become no-go areas for those who RP or PvE and want to play in Open.

They are so meaningfull that barely anyone plays open anymore

 

[Robert Maynard]

They are so meaningfull that barely anyone plays open anymore

In your opinion, of course, as there are no reliable statistics available to tell us who plays in which mode....

 

[nedeaalex]

For me the choice is the important thing.

I only play open but I wouldn't want the opportunity to try Mobius for example or switch to solo/private to dock at a busy platform to be taken away from me.

Who please point me to WHO is saying Solo/Groups should go away. Honestly we should all ignore this comments from now on. Nobody is asking for Solo gone. All I see is split them or make Open more meaningful. Nobody is asking for Solo gone.

- - - Updated - - -

In your opinion, of course, as there are no reliable statistics available to tell us who plays in which mode....

Pretty much yeah, it may be my opinion was wrongly formed on other websites were people seem to either completely hate on ED or trully love it