atak2
A
Good thoughts but it seems to me that you are restricting content from Open. Why? No idea. All content should be in all modes.
- Status
Good thoughts but it seems to me that you are restricting content from Open. Why? No idea. All content should be in all modes.
Some interesting points. Personally I wouldn't recommend gating any content based on the mode you are in. It's similar to gating content based on rank. Players playing the game want to experience as much of the content as they can, whether that is in solo or open. Open has the human dynamic, thus leading to more immerrgent gameplay whereas solo has the same structure without the player driven immergency.
As soon as this content starts to get chopped between modes you end up in a situation where everyone feels like they're missing out. For me, the only choice should be player interaction or not... or in the case of groups like Mobius, a rule led form of player interaction.
I do think player NPCs should be more persitent though. Most who play in Open are likely it engage with game generated content as they are with the players. Solo players are welcome to gate themselves from that but gating Open players from these benefits is not necessary or welcome.
To quantify this, I play in Open but do a lot of solo related content, I'm also highly invested in the various storylines coming out, especially Thargoids. To wouldn't want to see Open starved of this content just because we can generate our own as Solo players are activilely steering themselves away from player based content.
One thing I would like to see divided though is the Top 5 bounty boards, and that ties in to your preference for Solo based content and persistent NPCs. It can't be fun for a Solo player to be shown the online bounties, no more than it is for Open players to see Solo commanders listed in the Open bounties (especially considering recent reports of farming.)
If is it difficult or impossible to reliably implement some element of gameplay in the context of "islanding", but simple to do where such constraints don't apply, and if the things being implemented don't persist beyond the single player game, I think it's perfectly fair to consider doing so.
After all, everyone is free to flit between all modes and sample all types of gameplay at will. It's not penalising people currently choosing to play in Open or Groups to give Solo play a bit of developer attention. The multiplayer modes got plenty of attention with Wings, which obviously doesn't translate to Solo mode. So why can the game not have any elements that don't translate to multiplayer modes?
But the question is, why would they need to? The content between all groups is the same with the only differntiator being player interaction. I don't see why they'd need to add extra content as the only content that solo players are missing is that which they elect not to join.
The reason is that Solo doesn't have to be treated like the poor relation in the current family of game modes. Each mode should have something to recommend it.
We know that there are many reasons players end up in Solo mode. Some are fed up of getting ganked. Some hate humanity in general. Some want to be in the game, and don't want fourth wall breaking player banter ruining it. Some have terrible connections, and multiplayer modes are a rubberband factory to them. All of them would probably appreciate it if Solo was given a bit of love by FDEV - they paid for the game too, after all.
If the devs could provide the type of play I described previously in all modes, even better - but I see that as a tall order, and think that restricting some stuff to modes where matchmaking algorithms don't come into play would make it a lot easier to do.
You'll have access to all the Powerplay changes in Private modes...and any other changes to the missions, etc. as everyone else.
What you suggest is interesting...but it would have to be in all modes. The idea of this game is that all modes get the same content.
The issue really comes down to how people see this game...is it a solo game with multiplayer bolted on? Or is it meant to be a multiplayer PvP game that offers safe havens for those that do not want the player interaction? Or some balancing act in between these ideas? Everyone has an opinion on this and FDev hasn't tipped its hand on this idea yet. It's been a great ride so far, though!
In what way is Solo treating as the poor relation? Outside of player interaction, what content is gated away from solo players? What love are Frontier giving to Open that they're not giving to Solo? I can't think of any.
How is wings denying content to Solo players? Wings is a natural addition for those that wish to play together.
Both metagames and both were made open to make the competition balanced.
Using them as a point is like new players complaining that both competions aren't open to them.
They are still somethings excluded from Solo and Private group modes and there are supposed to be NPC wingmen so Solo players can make use of Wings..... where are they now? So it is currently content excluded from Solo.
Whether you want to accept it or not, FD are showing favour for Open Mode and it is starting to get on the nerves of the other mode players.
How easy do you think it is to implement NPC wings? To write all new AI routines that can react and respond to a player's random behaviour? I've no problem with NPC wings and I'd expect them to come along at some point but even then, they wont ever be able to act like player wings so I'm sure the solo players will still find something to complain about. Player wings were just a question of tweaks and communication, NPC wings are a whole different kettle of fish that will take much longer to implement.
Yeah, because Open players don't have a 600 page mega thread going trying to get Solo / Private nerfed and force folks in to Open as cannon fodder
Yeah, because Open players don't have a 600 page mega thread going trying to get Solo / Private nerfed and force folks in to Open as cannon fodder
Well my personal opinion is that everyone is welcome to play in whatever game mode they please. I should really edit my post to say "some solo" players just as you could say "some open" players.
Don't worry, unless something is done about it, you'll still have easier to complete community goals.
Yep, as my grandson would say, "word."
So far it's clear that open is getting the lion's share of development hours. I'm still playing, but as long as this "chosen ones" mentality continues, I'm unlikely to purchase any dlc. The likelihood of said purchases goes up astronomically if FD quits treating solo like the proverbial red-headed stepchild.
Really, I'm not asking for much: Just a little transparency and honesty. If solo isn't important and FD is going to keep it on the back burner, fine, just be clear about it and I'll move on without so much as a farewell post. The powers at FD will make the best decision they can for the future of the game, but I'm starting to resent the feeling that I'm being strung along.
IMHO, FD to have any sort of ethical credibility absolutely needs to do the following:
1) Address mode switching. Make a firm stance that it will never change, or be honest and say that it might. Stop the fud posts and make it clear.
2) Address content and contributions across all modes. It's either going to remain equal((ish), given the race and nvidia cards, it's not equal) or that too is subject to change. Pick a side. If it's not mine I'll understand, but pick one and use your outside voice so we can hear you.
TL;DR
FD is being way to ambiguous. There is a need for a greater degree of transparency. This would stop all the 'dev' quoting that leads to debate because three different people can read the same vague statement three different ways. Ideally a quote from a developer should be iron-clad and end debate, not further it.
I've already said CZ spawns should be relative to the number of players in them, with a cap so the instance doesn't lag out like mad (though no idea how many for a cap is a good number).
And you can drop the "You'll have" - I've never taken part in a CG and only been in 2 CZ that happened to be no where near any populated areas (I checked the stations for traffic reports).
Went in with 2 friends when Wings came out and we quite enjoyed it, we were just chilling in there though, not trying to get a kill per hour ratio going - while we didn't run out of things to shoot, I can see why people in Open do.
As more involved narrative content that revolves around NPC persistence might be considered natural to those who play in modes without instance juggling or P2P networking woes (or indeed other players to provide that extra interaction beyond non-persistent NPCs)?
For example, plenty of single player games (whether online is required or not) have fairly complex persistent NPCs, but I can't think of many multiplayer ones that do...can you? It might just be a problem that's too tricky or would be too time-consuming for multiplayer modes in this game too. If so, I think it should make it into the solo mode, if only because the various levels of NPC persistence were considered important enough for the DDA, pre-release, and getting that stuff into one mode is better than getting it into none.
The kind of complex mission arcs I refer to might be there in 1.3 for all players, judging by the mission overhaul talked about by FDEV, in which case they will probably work for all modes. And if they manage to get persistent NPCs in there for all modes without it being a mess, I have no issue at all. But the issue remains - Solo players should get some shiny as well. Some of them may already feel like they got shafted on the whole offline thing (with some justification), so treating them like second-class citizens in favour of the pew-pew brigade might just be adding insult to injury.
Besides, I am not talking about denying any content to anyone - if you want some form of persistence in your game, you only have other players to provide that at present. That is plainly denying something to those that, for whatever reason, are not able to play with others. If you want the game to provide that extra level of interaction, and some form of ongoing narrative beneath Powerplay, you are currently out of luck. My suggestion would provide that, and it would be available to anyone, due to mode switching. I don't see who's losing out here.
I sincerely imagine that if they can provide persistent NPCs for one mode they can equally do it for all others as well without major headaches.
And in response to Cowboy Bats, I'm yet to see a compelling argument for Solo being treated as the "red-headed step child." Outside of Armour's unlikely suggestion that persistent NPCs could only be easily done in Solo, I struggle to think of any Solo content that couldn't be delivered in Open unless they created an entirely different game with an entirely different structure that wasn't Elite
angerous. Open content will always seem like favourtism because it will be focussed on player interaction, something Solo doesn't have. Whereas Solo based storylines and additions can always be implemented in Open.To go historical, think back to Frontier Elite (not the buggy, rushed and sadly incomplete FFE.) It wasn't a story led game, you didn't have over-arching narratives, it was a sandbox with a variety of activities. ED is similar to that. If Frontier Elite had a multiplayer mode I'm sure we'd see similar complaints about the love not being equally shared.
- Status