Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Perhaps if I may be so bold as to suggest that the PvP loving Pirate community should take up arms against the Psychopathic PvP "Let's kill everyone for Lulz" community and make it a little easier for marks to grow up in open, then they would actually have a better time and, more importantly, more marks to which you say "Hey, we looked after you... now pay your dues..."!!! Of course, I'm only dreaming...

So much this!. According to Dev videos psychopaths are meant to be the scourge of the community, hated by (ingame) pirates, BHers and traders alike, as they benefit no one and kill the golden goose even for pirates.

To some degree it falls on players who really want interaction with humans to "clean their own house" as it were, because right now the, even in hisec, police are not up to the job.

hell, IF the psychopaths are telling the truth and just want meaningful PvP (which they can already get from warzones but I digress), then they would love a proper tooled up fight with like minded fighting vessels rather than just popping sidies, T6s and haulers.

Once the toothless traders feel there is even remotely some sort of equilibrium in all, MAYBE they will come back.

 

[Blast Hardcheese]

I have not, but I have noticed I get scanned less frequently when allied with the area.

Really? because i'm allied with dozens of systems and I have ALWAYS been scanned on approach to those stations.

 

[Yanaran]

It's probably because in Solo, the instance is always created when you get there and the police ships spawn at a set location in a group. In Open, the instance might have been there for a long time. Police ships will have been on patrol for a while and spread out, they might be busy with other ships or other players, or maybe they've even been destroyed.

 

[HipToss]

It's probably because in Solo, the instance is always created when you get there and the police ships spawn at a set location in a group. In Open, the instance might have been there for a long time. Police ships will have been on patrol for a while and spread out, they might be busy with other ships or other players, or maybe they've even been destroyed.

This seems logical. I do see them spawn, normally on the other side of the station and then begin their routes to scan.

+1

 

[Coccolino]

Been asked many times before, and it's never going to happen.
It's part of why they dropped offline mode. Because they can't support multiple universes.

Ridiculous.
The risk should be equal for everybody.
How has this only came to the devs' mind, to create such a feature? It's a shame.
So... I'm trading Open on my route, and somebody else is doing the same, *invisible*, affecting the market I share with him (or them) and I can't interact with them? And they are doing that without any risk, at which, on the contrary, I am exposed to.
This is so stupid.

 

[DarkWalker]

The reason there is no offline mode is that, while data from any transition is small, the total amount of information in the universe us huge, so it wouldn't comfortably fit on a local computer. (I have no idea how big, but I imagine terrabytes, so not realistic to ask this of anyone's computer, let alone the weeks or months of download time for the client)

Huh, no. There is no offline because Frontier decided that a galaxy without the influence of the other players to change things around would be boring. If you go read newsletter #50, you will find that Frontier itself thinks an offline mode is technically feasible.

Now with regards to seeing other players: Since having everything bounce over the central server is a networking nightmare (keeping track of your flightvector and all the changes to it needs a hell of a lot more bandwidth than just the information of rendering the instance), this solved by doing this through P2P. When you see another commander, the information is directly exchanged between your and their computer. Handling the bandwidth is your and their responsibility. To make sure that this doesn't spoil the experience (with lag), instances are created with a maximum of 32 players. When you have 32 players in an instance, you have 32 computers talking to 31 other computers at the same time. That is 496 concurrent connections (if I remember my middle school math correctly). If a few people have a flaky connection, you can imagine the frustration of those players.

And this means that players can choose open, and still play without ever seeing another player, by just tweaking their firewall settings. On top of that, without combat itself being handled by a central server, it's fairly easy for a player to drop out of the instance (e.g., by pulling the plug, though other more elaborate ways exist). So, with a P2P architecture, trying to remove player's options to play in solo would just result in more players finding out how to trick the game into providing them a solo experience, sometimes even at the expense of players that got matched to them.

It's a game played over the internet, so I kinda thought that a decent connection would be like... a basic requirement? But good for you that we have solo.

It wasn't always. Offline mode was promised, and listed as a feature in the store, until a month before launch. And, when offline was removed, Frontier said solo mode required so little bandwidth it could be played without issues while tethered to a lousy 3G data connection while on a train.

So, no, for ED specifically a decent connection was never a basic requirement.

 

[ianw]

Ridiculous.
The risk should be equal for everybody.
How has this only came to the devs' mind, to create such a feature? It's a shame.
So... I'm trading Open on my route, and somebody else is doing the same, *invisible*, affecting the market I share with him (or them) and I can't interact with them? And they are doing that without any risk, at which, on the contrary, I am exposed to.
This is so stupid.

But the "risk" is greatly overstated - plus the instancing limits mean there could be 100's or 1000's of players doing the same route in open that you can't interact with either.

 

[Joe Spivey]

Ridiculous.
The risk should be equal for everybody.
How has this only came to the devs' mind, to create such a feature? It's a shame.
So... I'm trading Open on my route, and somebody else is doing the same, *invisible*, affecting the market I share with him (or them) and I can't interact with them? And they are doing that without any risk, at which, on the contrary, I am exposed to.
This is so stupid.

What 'risk' are you talking about here?

 

[Dabba]

Ridiculous.
The risk should be equal for everybody.
How has this only came to the devs' mind, to create such a feature? It's a shame.
So... I'm trading Open on my route, and somebody else is doing the same, *invisible*, affecting the market I share with him (or them) and I can't interact with them? And they are doing that without any risk, at which, on the contrary, I am exposed to.
This is so stupid.

Genius.
Everyone should be able to play the game how they want.
How has this only now came to the devs mind to create such a feature? Its a shame someone didnt come up with this solution sooner.
Im making my choices, other people are making their choices, and we all impact this shared galaxy in our own way without anyone having to feel forced into an interaction or playstyle they don't want.
This is so amazing.


As you can see, different strokes for different folks. Anyone that did their research knew this was how this game was going to work before they bought it. If you bought it without researching, or bought it knowing this was the way of it but expecting that demanding them to change it would be productive, you have nobody to blame but yourself truly.

 

[DarkWalker]

How has this only came to the devs' mind, to create such a feature?

Likely because they figured out that, without also attracting the players that don't want to have PvP of any kind, they would be missing on a large part of the potential player base. Which means less revenues, lower budget to make the game, less time they would be able to keep the servers working, and so on.

Like it or not, many players will only play if they can choose when to engage in PvP and, more important, when not to engage. It's my own case, I will never play a game where I can't opt out of PvP, no matter how good the game otherwise is.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Ridiculous.
The risk should be equal for everybody.
How has this only came to the devs' mind, to create such a feature? It's a shame.
So... I'm trading Open on my route, and somebody else is doing the same, *invisible*, affecting the market I share with him (or them) and I can't interact with them? And they are doing that without any risk, at which, on the contrary, I am exposed to.
This is so stupid.

Because of mode switching, for various reasons not simply just to avoid combat, it has to be the same market, otherwise you would start a trade run in Open with one set of variable, park up, log in Solo later on and complete the trade with another set of variables? Would not be fair or reasonable to expect.

There is nothing stupid about that. However, should you feel it is and this is effecting you badly the rest of us who are enjoying the game salute you... for there is very little else we can do to ease your angst.

 

[CMDR Bansidhe]

Likely because they figured out that, without also attracting the players that don't want to have PvP of any kind, they would be missing on a large part of the potential player base. Which means less revenues, lower budget to make the game, less time they would be able to keep the servers working, and so on.

Like it or not, many players will only play if they can choose when to engage in PvP and, more important, when not to engage. It's my own case, I will never play a game where I can't opt out of PvP, no matter how good the game otherwise is.

Until those revenues are in and counted. Then what incentive is there for the developers to cater to any of us? The only players that will matter, from now on, are the ones that have still to pay. It is the wishes of those who do not yet own this game that will determine the direction of any and all future development.

Of course FD will try to reassure us otherwise but as a commercial entity they will be steered by financial motives and not out of any loyalty to the desires of PVP or non-PVP types. To think otherwise, to think that a trading company actually cares about what you want is the height of naivety.

 

[AJ79]

to think that a trading company actually cares about what you want is the height of naivety.

I think this quote contains the most wisdom in the entire thread.

 

[ianw]

Until those revenues are in and counted. Then what incentive is there for the developers to cater to any of us? The only players that will matter, from now on, are the ones that have still to pay. It is the wishes of those who do not yet own this game that will determine the direction of any and all future development.

Of course FD will try to reassure us otherwise but as a commercial entity they will be steered by financial motives and not out of any loyalty to the desires of PVP or non-PVP types. To think otherwise, to think that a trading company actually cares about what you want is the height of naivety.

That's not entirely true - they have a vested financial interest in keeping current players happy too as they want to sell them skins and stuff - but more importantly expansions down the line.

Obviously they also want new peeps too who will probably be a higher financial value.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Until those revenues are in and counted. Then what incentive is there for the developers to cater to any of us? The only players that will matter, from now on, are the ones that have still to pay. It is the wishes of those who do not yet own this game that will determine the direction of any and all future development.

Of course FD will try to reassure us otherwise but as a commercial entity they will be steered by financial motives and not out of any loyalty to the desires of PVP or non-PVP types. To think otherwise, to think that a trading company actually cares about what you want is the height of naivety.

Well let's think about that for a moment. They have a large wide diverse player-base at the moment. Say they did as you suggest and the non-PvP types leave and you are left with a smaller player-base. With me so far?

Okay... Time for the Planetary Landings expansion. Expansions can only be sold to an existing player base. Oh, wait a minute, we've just culled our player-base, we're not going to make as much money as we thought...

Hmmm. You logic is undeniable!!! I wonder if this open/groups/solo thing is going to change...

(Edit - Ninjad...)

 

[snotface]

After 37 pages people are still arguing about playing this game in one or another mod.

As I said at the start of this thread and all the way through *It should not matter which mode you play in* as its a game which can be played in many different ways.

Open is so much easier to play in and I have made so much money from bounty killing I do not need to do hauling as much, but the extra cash comes in handy.

Why can't people just let everybody else play the game they want?

I want just one person on this forum to explain to me very clearly why the way I play this game has anything to do with them?

Do I hurt them, does the way I play cause them any personal pain or injury?

Do I cause there game play to be affected in any way that would breach any game rules?

If the answer are all yes, then a nice detailed explanation would be nice.

Oh and if my game play hurts them that much why haven't they made complaints about me and my game play by use of the Report player button in game.

I do hope that just one person can give me a full answer because then everybody will know where they are going wrong.

 

[Spook]

I understand that some bloke called Richard Garrot (Lord British), who may or may not have just a little bit of games design experience is making a new online game.

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/

Seems he's put some thinking how he would implement the online play in his "ultimate" game.

I wonder how he'd chose to do it?

He thinks you'll at least select Single-Player Online (SPO) mode, because there you can play it offline for extended periods while also benefitting from a world stored online and affected by other people. You'll see their houses in towns and their wares on their vendors stood outside their shops. And they'll see yours.
Plus, if you take the completely offline route, you'll never be able to use that character online. But you're free to switch between any of the three online modes - SPO, Friends Play Online (OPO) and Open Play Online (OPO).

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...iotts-shroud-of-the-avatar-whats-the-big-idea

That all sounds fairly familiar.

Who knows, perhaps this new fangled concept of player choice may well catch on.

 

[DaveB]

Until those revenues are in and counted. Then what incentive is there for the developers to cater to any of us? The only players that will matter, from now on, are the ones that have still to pay. It is the wishes of those who do not yet own this game that will determine the direction of any and all future development.

Of course FD will try to reassure us otherwise but as a commercial entity they will be steered by financial motives and not out of any loyalty to the desires of PVP or non-PVP types. To think otherwise, to think that a trading company actually cares about what you want is the height of naivety.

The current player base is the source of revenue for expansion packs. Also if some of the potential customer base out there don't like how it is right now and don't want to play it, maybe after an expansion pack is released it will attract them to buy both the game AND the expansion.

If they plan on releasing expansions the folks who bought into it because of what it already is are a revenue source they don't want to limit.

 

[Sigon]

Huh, no. There is no offline because Frontier decided that a galaxy without the influence of the other players to change things around would be boring. If you go read newsletter #50, you will find that Frontier itself thinks an offline mode is technically feasible.

The game's executive producer Michael Brookes responded to complaints on the forums by explaining that due to the size of the data sets and processes, these would not translate well to an offline mode without a significant compromise to gameplay.

And this means that players can choose open, and still play without ever seeing another player, by just tweaking their firewall settings. On top of that, without combat itself being handled by a central server, it's fairly easy for a player to drop out of the instance (e.g., by pulling the plug, though other more elaborate ways exist). So, with a P2P architecture, trying to remove player's options to play in solo would just result in more players finding out how to trick the game into providing them a solo experience, sometimes even at the expense of players that got matched to them.

I guess we agree that the reason for the modes is that with the technical limitations this provides the most options and opens the game to the most people. As for having server instances for each mode without them influencing eachother, this would be a nightmare since each group would require new servers to be spun up on creation. Even in the cloud computing age, it would become unaffordable, especially with a pay-once business model.

 

[Dabba]

Until those revenues are in and counted. Then what incentive is there for the developers to cater to any of us? The only players that will matter, from now on, are the ones that have still to pay. It is the wishes of those who do not yet own this game that will determine the direction of any and all future development.

Of course FD will try to reassure us otherwise but as a commercial entity they will be steered by financial motives and not out of any loyalty to the desires of PVP or non-PVP types. To think otherwise, to think that a trading company actually cares about what you want is the height of naivety.

Well they are of course subject to the advertising and sales laws that protect consumers where they are based as well as where they are selling, which prevents them from selling a product as one thing and then changing it fundamentally to something else down the line. As such they actually don't have an option to remove Solo, not because they care about loyalty, but because they care about the giant class action law suit theyd get slapped with and lose if they were to remove it.

I understand that some bloke called Richard Garrot (Lord British), who may or may not have just a little bit of games design experience is making a new online game.

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/

Seems he's put some thinking how he would implement the online play in his "ultimate" game.

I wonder how he'd chose to do it?



http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...iotts-shroud-of-the-avatar-whats-the-big-idea

That all sounds fairly familiar.

Who knows, perhaps this new fangled concept of player choice may well catch on.

Yes I suspect we are looking at the future of online multiplayer choice based gaming. Its quite revolutionary, and I believe it will absolutely catch on. It is to the benefit of the companies seeking to cater to as many people as possible, and it is to the benefit of most gamers. The only ones it does not benefit are the people who can't have fun unless they are ruining somebody elses fun, and quite frankly that group is a disease that has been begging to be cured for a while now.