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

[KestrelPi]

Welcome to the forums!!!

I have played 250+ hours in game mainly open and so far. For 150+ hours been based loosely around Lave area.

- Been indicated about 4 times of which 2 were griefers but I managed to get away. Other 2 times by Code members wanting to know my intentions in their area.

- Have been station rammed a few times in the recent CG at Diso, was not killed because I was in a Python.

- Was subject to some sort of hax by above rammers where I was losing shields and hull damage until I logged out.

- Have been killed at RES sites a couple of times when becoming wanted.

Otherwise it has been pretty much the same experience as solo or PVE (I have quite a few friends who I may do stuff with) and it isn't the griefer infested hell hole the PVE boys like to make out. there are just as many good interactions in open as there are in PVE. Out of that 250+ hours about 10 minutes have been bad for me and it is pretty easy to avoid if you want to. I have been killed by NPC's more times that from a PVP experience.

See the problem is that these guys want PVE to be another game mode so when they see these posts they are on to them like a fly to rotten meat. "Oh play in PVE you won't be constantly griefed" bla bla bla when the reality is that open is fine.

So when guys who have one bad experience (usually early in the game) or like you read the forums and they go to PVE thinking open is always this way and the PVE fan boys can brag about how many are playing in their private group.

This is most likely why you see some players dumping it on the PVE group..

Open is not the be all and end all and bad things do happen but it is nothing like these PVE fan boys make out to try to achieve their own ends..

Thanks for the welcome but whoever said it was right in pointing out that this is exactly the kind of attitude I find so unwelcoming in the first place. As far as I can tell the PvE people aren't "bragging" about anything, they're presenting an option, and one which is appealing. And they're doing it right. I chose to sign up to Mobius because it's a large group and I DO want to encounter players co-operatively. I wouldn't have signed up to a group where my chance of seeing other people was extremely low. They're not 'fan boys' - they are spreading the word about an unofficially supported style of play that otherwise people might not know about. They're not telling people their good PvP experiences are 'wrong'.


I'm not sure why people who like PvE only seems to bother you so much. This isn't about what's better or worse - again this is about giving people options about how they'd like to play, whereas the "open is the only way" crowd are constantly trying to tell me how I should be having fun, as if they know my own mind better than I do.


But also, I am puzzled if your description of open play was intended to in favour of it. You haven't been interdicted by players much but 50% of the time you have it was griefers? And around stations the rest were mostly rammers? I've read some wonderful descriptions of PvP encounters, to be sure, but I read that and think "No wonder there are people who would rather just cut out the possibility of non-con PvP altogether."


I can understand that for some people the possibility of some great PvP is worth the possibility of some negative experiences, but surely based on your PvP experiences you can understand why for some people the balance is in the other direction?

But at least you admit the existence of griefers, so that's something!

 

[[VR] purolator]

I would already stopped playing without a multiplayer part where i can have some fun. And most people see this just like me.

Concerning the first sentence: that's great, as you found your "space" and the way you want to play ED.

Concerning the last sentence: unless you can back this up it's an opinion, not a fact.

 

[Jockey79]

Well nobody is stopping you, grab a combat ship and kill the pirates. Try to ruin their fun - but this will never happen. Because people who do it, actually enjoy fighting and are not scared of losing a fight.
You know you can defend yourself and also invite some friends to have fun and shoot a bit?
But fine, stay in solo and miss all the fun. Pirating guys who are so scared is not funny at all.

Did you even read the post you quoted ??

That player is a trader, they want to trade in peace - at what point, does a non-combat person "have to" grab a combat ship?
Forcing someone into a ship and play style they DO NOT WANT goes against the selling point that they can play their way - not YOUR way.

How are you not getting this :S - I even linked you ALL THE INFORMATION on how and why the game was made and the intent of the game

 

[PhazonAran]

Did you even read the post you quoted ??

That player is a trader, they want to trade in peace - at what point, does a non-combat person "have to" grab a combat ship?
Forcing someone into a ship and play style they DO NOT WANT goes against the selling point that they can play their way - not YOUR way.

How are you not getting this :S - I even linked you ALL THE INFORMATION on how and why the game was made and the intent of the game

They won't understand until some circumstances force them to grab a trading ship

 

[SteveLaw]

I would already stopped playing without a multiplayer part where i can have some fun.

And I wouldn't have even bought it without Solo/Group mode. So that's a draw.

 

[atak2]

Sure. Thats right. But there is one thing, we see this game from different sides. You see this game as a singleplayer game with an optional multiplayer, i see this game as a clear MMO with an optional singleplayer part.

And here is the point. For people who just want a solo expirience, singleplayer games are more than enough. If they dont want multiplayer, they dont buy it. There is no point of getting a multiplayer game and play it solo.
Same for the other side, people who expect multiplayer, buy games with multiplayer and expect anyone else who got it, also play in multiplayer - its just the way it was designed. And you know, 99% of MMO`s dont have a dedicated singleplayer mode that can also interact with the open world somehow. There is only multiplayer, like it or not - you cant avoid it.

Bear in mind I am one of the vocal Open advocates but even I have to argue with you here.

People should not be forced out of solo. If they enjoy that then let them play that way.

My concern is the mode switching and linked background simulation.

The fairest way I can think of to let solo players have fun but also to solve Open's problems is to separate the modes. Give Open a separate background simulation and commander slot and give every player multiple commander slots.

That way solo, group and open players can play in their preferred mode but if they want to try out another mode they can switch to a different Commander slot.

 

[SteveLaw]

That way solo, group and open players can play in their preferred mode but if they want to try out another mode they can switch to a different Commander slot.

Do you ever switch modes?

 

[Jockey79]

.....

That way solo, group and open players can play in their preferred mode but if they want to try out another mode they can switch to a different Commander slot.

This was suggested about 200 pages back and also in the first 100 pages.
It boiled down to a couple of points;

1) Not everyone has time to run more than 1 character but has friends in different modes - this would penalise them, prevent them playing with some friends and impact on their play styles.
2) People who act like morons in open don't like the idea, because they might have to actually face the consequences of their actions and cannot hide in solo while they sort out bounties etc.

Plus a main selling point was choosing who you play with on a session by session basis.

 

[Joe Spivey]

Bear in mind I am one of the vocal Open advocates but even I have to argue with you here.

People should not be forced out of solo. If they enjoy that then let them play that way.

My concern is the mode switching and linked background simulation.

The fairest way I can think of to let solo players have fun but also to solve Open's problems is to separate the modes. Give Open a separate background simulation and commander slot and give every player multiple commander slots.

That way solo, group and open players can play in their preferred mode but if they want to try out another mode they can switch to a different Commander slot.

Solo players already can play the way they want to. What you are proposing limits that choice. Limiting player choice is never a good thing. Look, the game is working as designed and the only 'problem' is the one players like you have invented for themselves. Rather than try and limit players to modes, why don't you acknowledge that you too have the choice to play as you want. Stop trying to dictate how others want to play.

 

[atak2]

This was suggested about 200 pages back and also in the first 100 pages.
It boiled down to a couple of points;

1) Not everyone has time to run more than 1 character but has friends in different modes - this would penalise them, prevent them playing with some friends and impact on their play styles.
2) People who act like morons in open don't like the idea, because they might have to actually face the consequences of their actions and cannot hide in solo while they sort out bounties etc.

Plus a main selling point was choosing who you play with on a session by session basis.

I understand your points but I think it would be a decent compromise. If something like this was implemented Frontier could initially copy and paste the Commander slot so people have the same progress for both their solo and open Commander.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

I understand your points but I think it would be a decent compromise. If something like this was implemented Frontier could initially copy and paste the Commander slot so people have the same progress for both their solo and open Commander.

All it would be is taking away a feature from people that they did pay for. No matter how you do it, it would be really nasty.

 

[SteveLaw]

I understand your points but I think it would be a decent compromise.

Do you ever switch modes?

 

[atak2]

Do you ever switch modes?

I would say I play Open and Solo equally depending on how tired I feel.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I understand your points but I think it would be a decent compromise. If something like this was implemented Frontier could initially copy and paste the Commander slot so people have the same progress for both their solo and open Commander.

how is it a compromise? Elite takes 100s of hrs to get some of the bigger gear. For those of us with other commitments its already a challenge getting there (I am not complaining). I would like 1 day to be triple elite (my own goal) I also like to play with friends sometimes.

this "solution" to a non existent problem would screw over so many people. It is perfectly acceptable to not like the game mechanics or the mode switching rules..... but imo it is not acceptable for people to demand changing them when it would ruin the game for many

there are heaps of games with the mechanics you seem to want, Elite (thank god) just isnt one of them. imo if these modes were such an issue for some people, they really did not have to buy the game.

It's not Open's problem. Lots of people don't have a problem with Open, Groups and Solo. It's also not a compromise, since people bought this game realising they can switch whenever they want.

Don't make the problem of those who haven't looked into the game before buying it, the problem of those who did.

nailed it!

 

[SteveLaw]

I would say I play Open and Solo equally depending on how tired I feel.

You'd be happy to still switch if your progress wasn't carried over? It would discourage many players. You would half of what you have now, in each mode.

 

[atak2]

You'd be happy to still switch if your progress wasn't carried over? It would discourage many players.

I would. For example I play Marvel Heroes. I have more than one hero. My current hero is a level 20 Nightcrawler but in order to play with my friend I switch to a level 60 Captain America for endgame content. Many games have to deal with similar compromises to Elite Dangerous.

 

[fergal]

My concern is the mode switching and linked background simulation.

"Concern" is a bit of a strong word for me, but I'm trying to think why I would care about this solo vs open swapping "problem". It certainly is on the minds of other players.

If I'm fighting another player and they drop out I think thats a problem. The devs agree and have stated combat logging is cheating, so thats not exactly a swapping into solo issue.

If I'm trying to interdict another player, I think having them drop out is fairly similar. I'm not sure if the devs consider this cheating, but I would, I think you shouldn't be able to leave open during or just before an interdiction.

If I was hunting a player (for their bounty, loot, lolz, whatever) I would like them to not drop out of open. If I interdict them, then they escape I would like to interdict them again. If they jump to another system I want to wake scan them and follow, then interdict again. If a player jumps to another system, then quits to the menu thats an issue for me.

On the other hand, interdicting a player over and over gets towards griefing. Following them to another system is stalking. The other player doesn't have an unlimited amount of time to play, how long must they stay in open for once the interdiction chase begins? Until their destruction, or they land at a station?

Players play at different times to me, not being in my instance seems the same as playing at a different time. Unless I actually see the players ship disappear because they quit to the menu (and its not like all I'm doing is PvP, most of the players I see are in SC or trying to land) I just don't see the issue.

Solo, group, open, whatever. Don't play in open then complain about getting interdicted though

 

[SteveLaw]

I would. For example I play Marvel Heroes. I have more than one hero. My current hero is a level 20 Nightcrawler but in order to play with my friend I switch to a level 60 Captain America for endgame content. Many games have to deal with similar compromises to Elite Dangerous.

That's a totally different situation. You are switching characters, not play mode. You can still play with your level 60 character alone or play your level 20 character with a friend. The switch is your choice of a second character, not one imposed by the game. I also suspect that it takes much less time to "level up" in Marvel Heroes than Elite.

(I bought Marvel Heroes, played it for about an hour, hated it and haven't played since, so I'm not sure how long it takes. Marvel Avengers Alliance, however, I played a LOT and basically gave myself an intervention by deleting my FB account. Elite is probably worse atm. :/)

However, I've played games like this. I played a lot of Neverwinter Nights back in the day (at one point I was a dev for a popular mod) and I had characters on various servers and multiple characters on the same server. I was okay with because that's how it worked. That was the game I bought. That isn't this game. It isn't the Elite that I bought.

 

[SteveLaw]

I just found out, when you click on # of replies in the main page, you get who posted howmany times.

It hasn't been made in the last couple of pages, but think about that when the next: "the size of this thread is proof this is a problem", argument comes around. Many of the posters in the top 10 are defending the option to switch modes.

Oh god. That's like the forum equivalent of the Total Perspective Vortex. I need to reassess my life.

 

[Jockey79]

I would. For example I play Marvel Heroes.

I play Everquest 2
I played World of Warcraft
I played Planetside 1 and 2
I played Eve Online

My list goes on.
My point is, those games were designed with Alts in mind. Star Trek Online even brought out craftable tokens for Alts to help level your reputations and claim gear faster on your Alts to lessen the grind.

Elite: Dangerous wasn't designed that way - it was designed around player choices.
If you try to force it into the framework of the other games, then Open needs a massive overhaul to prevent griefing and unwanted PvP - as they were part of the sale, that you didn't have to put up with nonsense if you didn't want to.

What if Open had all PvP action moved to set systems only?
Would that make you happy?
Would that help the game?

Of course it would not help the game, unsolicited non-consensual PvP is part of the game - and the players have a choice to avoid it. Locking people into open removes that choice to avoid and locking them into Solo/Private removes the choice to partake.
I'm not starting an alt - simple as that, so if I get locked out of Open, I will never have the option to be a part of your game and "enrich your experience" in any way. So by locking the modes out - you lock out people who would have started in Solo/Private then move over (conversely you'd prevent morons/griefers from hiding in Solo or Private groups - so there would be a silver lining for bounty hunters )