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

[Scimiter]

Hello,
i ve been following this thread enough to get me started on open play, (have been playing solo since release and made a few millions)
So after 3 hours of open play, i met a lot of nice CMDR and some pirates (not griefer) around WW Piscis and Gliese 868, was doin my usual trade route until i got griefed by an ASP with no warning, i launched FSD as soon as i saw his hardpoint loading (tought he was only another pirate) but was useless since he took me down in a few seconds.

So my question is, did i had bad luck ? because for now i m sadly back to Solo since i ve lost 216T of gold and had to pay insurance for my t7 i can t afford another encounter with a griefer.

That s sad because i was just starting to appreciate open play... just can t afford it...

This is the very reason traders wont play pvp, basically there is little in it for them...........................but the game is young, in 6,8 12 months time there are going to be traders out there with untold millions of credits, who may enjoy the challenge of trying to beat the pirates and well able to afford the losses, also with the Anaconda having the abilty to carry fighters for protection that opens up an entirely different ball game, if the trader can team up with a player with a fighter and drop that into the battle to fend of the pirate?

 

[DarkWalker]

EA got burned because their SimCity mechanic was sheit. Small cities was not online-only's fault. But lets not get into the simcity debate, just want to say that simcity failed (imo) due to gameplay design flaws, not the online-only feature (allthough I dont think a city building game like sim city can really be compared to Elite).

For them to put the offline mode being available as the first mentioned feature of the complete SimCity package, I think Maxis/EA do believe lack of offline play was a major reason for its failure. Not the only, of course, but an important one.

To create a fantastic singleplayer game you really need to fill it with LOTS of content, to make up for the lack of interesting dynamic gameplay that multiplayer can create; if done properly.

Or to take procedural generation to the next level. Which is what the Elite series always excelled at.

Besides, not everyone finds the dynamic content generated by the multiplayer element interesting. I find it a bother, a flaw in an otherwise good game. I very much prefer when I can shape my game's world without unwanted interference from other players.

Why should I speak for myself when I believe there is many players that wants the same?

Then don't generalize. "What people want" isn't quite true. Specially when the best selling game lists are still dominated by games that are either exclusively single player or have a strong single player element.

Also me wanting a dynamic multiplayer experience does not necessarily mean you shouldn't have a solo mode experience; i believe that players should not be able to switch cmdr from solo to open and back. For the same reasons in World of Warcraft you can't just login a toon from a PVE server to a PVP server.

I guess you didn't get the memo. In WoW, ask for a Battle.net friend with a character on the realm you want to play on to invite you to a group; this allows you to play on a "server" with the opposite rule set (PvP or PvE). You can use this to get a PvE character temporarily into a PvP server, or to bring a PvP character to a PvE server in order to do questing without being bothered by PvP.

Basically, Blizzard decided that allowing players to play together is more important than that silly divide between PvP and PvE realms. Now, if only they went back on this silly notion that friends with characters of opposite factions shouldn't be able to play together...

Frontier, differently from Blizzard, didn't take the best part of a decade to notice that preventing players from playing together just because they chose different interaction modes is a bad idea.

Single player offline experience is definitely not what you are gonna get though.

Not sure; DB did say they haven't discarded the idea yet. And, if Elite doesn't bring that, Star Citizen will; Chris Roberts explicitly and specifically reaffirmed his commitment to providing the offline/private server version of the persistent universe in his game after Frontier announced it would be cut.

 

[BlackReign]

No, but you can self-flag for PvP on a World of Warcraft PvE server in a way that's similar to ED. You just don't have to log out of the game and back in, to do it. There are also Battlegrounds for consensual PvP on PvE servers, which is another form of "mode switching."

Freedom of choice is a selling point, and one reason WoW is so popular. Last time I checked, the servers on WoW where you can do this type of mode switching (PvE and RP) made up about 60% of the total servers available. Pure PvP servers were around 40%. It's a popular feature on WoW, and it's popular here in ED too. It also means ED can offer something different from the major competitors like Star Citizen and EvE Valkyrie, which will be 100% PvP (as far as I can tell).

WoW is a totally different game. Not interested in being "like" other games, especially games of a different genre. You do have freedom of choice: Online, Solo or Group.

StarCitizen is vaporware right now, seems pointless comparing ED to a game not even in Alpha yet.

And ED does offer something different: ED. There's nothing like it out there.

 

[tagos]

StarCitizen is vaporware right now, seems pointless comparing ED to a game not even in Alpha yet.

Yea, as an original backer i can say, the more money we give them the further away it gets. Stop designing new ships to sell for hundreds of dollars and deliver a ' game.

 

[Mikkel Toxwenius]

For them to put the offline mode being available as the first mentioned feature of the complete SimCity package, I think Maxis/EA do believe lack of offline play was a major reason for its failure. Not the only, of course, but an important one.



Or to take procedural generation to the next level. Which is what the Elite series always excelled at.

Besides, not everyone finds the dynamic content generated by the multiplayer element interesting. I find it a bother, a flaw in an otherwise good game. I very much prefer when I can shape my game's world without unwanted interference from other players.



Then don't generalize. "What people want" isn't quite true. Specially when the best selling game lists are still dominated by games that are either exclusively single player or have a strong single player element.



I guess you didn't get the memo. In WoW, ask for a Battle.net friend with a character on the realm you want to play on to invite you to a group; this allows you to play on a "server" with the opposite rule set (PvP or PvE). You can use this to get a PvE character temporarily into a PvP server, or to bring a PvP character to a PvE server in order to do questing without being bothered by PvP.

Basically, Blizzard decided that allowing players to play together is more important than that silly divide between PvP and PvE realms. Now, if only they went back on this silly notion that friends with characters of opposite factions shouldn't be able to play together...

Frontier, differently from Blizzard, didn't take the best part of a decade to notice that preventing players from playing together just because they chose different interaction modes is a bad idea.



Not sure; DB did say they haven't discarded the idea yet. And, if Elite doesn't bring that, Star Citizen will; Chris Roberts explicitly and specifically reaffirmed his commitment to providing the offline/private server version of the persistent universe in his game after Frontier announced it would be cut.

I don't think I was generalizing at all. Quote the generalizing part please. EDIT: okay, I think I understand what you mean, but generalizing is generally okay if it accounts for a high enough porting of players.

As to getting a pve character to pvp in wow temporarily I believe that the word temporarily is indeed a big difference from how the switching works in ED, which is not temporarily, but instead as long as the player wants; which is my critique.


If taking procedural generation to the next level would be the key, or even only factor, to a great single player experience, you would have to do it really well (or just do it in '84/'93 ). Right now the procedural generation is the 400 billions systems/stars. The rest is really not. I really really do hope that FD will in fact take procedural generation to higher and higher levels, incorporating it into all aspects of the game to make it truly dynamic,even if I can't get my multiplayer pirate/trader experience. Right now though, there's not much else to ED's procedural generation other than the 400 billion systems/stars (which I do enjoy and find is truly awesome! Once planetary landings come I will definitely and surely go explore the galaxy and land on mysterious planets, and set up mining hoppers. At least that's a hope I got for the future of ED).

 

[Mikkel Toxwenius]

Actually, if you engage in PvP (i.e. get a bounty on your head) you cannot opt out of Open. Solo offers more than just not seeing anyone, it offers a low bandwidth lag free connection, so PvP flagging is nonsense as the Bandwidth needed would be the same as Open. A non-starter I'm afraid. When multi commander slots come you can choose to create a commander for each different mode. However the key word will always be 'Choice.'

Traders wont get that bounty even if they fight other players (thus engaging in pvp), so they may still escape to solo. That solo offers a low bandwith connection without lag compared to open, with lag, is a design flaw in my opinion. It's bad because now there is also a technical motivation to play solo, to avoid lag, in addition to the completely risk free trading. There shouldn't be this technical difference between solo and pvp.

When multicommander slots come and you can choose one for each open/solo I hope the created commanders are bound to either solo or open so no switching can be done.

 

[Darian]

You don't get the point. Traders vs PvPers (or bounty hunters).

- The trader has AN EASY MODE option available for him
- The PvPer has ZERO EASY MODE options available for him (if there was a PvP arena where we could farm credits by consensual PvP, that would be our equivalent of "easy mode")

The design clearly favors only one gameplay style.:|

People playing traders sit in ships that are easy ganked.
PvP players for the most parts in ships that are specialised in killing other ships.

So solo mode allows an trader to "escape" the attention of an pvp player (totally not taking into account that the universe is big and an trader can trade in open for years without an PvP player finding him.)

So even without solo mode, the trader can for 99% avoid the PvP players attention, it would be a rather slim chance the PvP player finds the trader after seraching for many days, if not weeks.

Ergo the PvP player has not, like in EVE, its target served on a platter, so to say.

So you need to make it interesting for the trader beside you know, swooping in and blowing him up.

I say tough cookies.

 

[Darian]

...... also with the Anaconda having the abilty to carry fighters for protection that opens up an entirely different ball game, if the trader can team up with a player with a fighter and drop that into the battle to fend of the pirate?

An sidewinder is in the thinks for the anacondas hangar bay, so no Q ship for you lol

 

[snowleopard]

There shouldn't be this technical difference between solo and pvp.

But there is one. And there is nothing that can be done about it without completely changing the game network architecture, which I hope you agree, is financially unfeasible at this point in time.

When multicommander slots come and you can choose one for each open/solo I hope the created commanders are bound to either solo or open so no switching can be done.

I think several people have pointed out that this is pointless as you can play in the "open" in such a way that it is effectively solo.
Notice, I am not saying whether this restriction should or shouldn't be included - I am saying that with the current game architecture this feature is too easy circumvented, and therefore waste of man-hours to implement

 

[ChrisUK27]

Well now, you said a mouth full there. Golly. Well "MY CHOICE" is my "PLAYING IN MY GROUP". I respect everything you said there, and strangely enough, you can simply choose "THE OPEN PLAY OPTION" and knock yourself out, your way. You just can't have me your way, can you get that? It's really simple, there is no win here for you under any circumstances with me, and many, many like me. I will choose to leave this game entirely, before you will force me to do one single thing. I like my group, I enjoy playing Elite there, simple as that.

Reading my post again I have no idea what you're talking about. Did you perhaps get me mixed up with another post?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

When I bought into the Kickstarter there were specific and categoric assurances I'd get the Solo Offline game I wanted. Sucks to be us I guess. But ED is still a very good game.

You play OPEN.

 

[Darian]

What people here who argue for "no switching" overlook is that populated space in ED universe is huuuuuge.
Traders would still escape for 99% an pvp player actions if they do not stick to the beaten path.
Pvp players would have to invest days or weeks to find an trader given you have to be at the exact same time in the same systhem with the trader who comes out of an station, jumps, and travels for maybe 6 minutes to the station he sells in, rinse and repeat.
So playing for 4 hours each of them, the pvp player hopping from systhem to systhem he would have to be there in an time window of less than ten minutes to notice the trader, and that with thousands of sythems to search through.

People do the math.

PvP players need to offer fun and stuff if they want traders to shoot at.

Solo mode or no solo mode, does not matter, as long an trader really does not want to be found he will be very very hard to find.

There is more than Lave, WW Piscis, Gliese 868 or Anlave.

So if you want to PvP you need to find like minded, you can not like in other games sit at an chokepoint like in EVE or look through a few systhems to find an miner.

Even taking instances into account, you can not block an systhem because there is a lot of other choices to be made.

So yes, if you scrape/bar/remove/single choice solo, it would not offer you more targets.

That is what amazes me about this discussion, because it is a very pointless one, ED does not have a small playing field where people who do not care for PvP are forced to interact with an PvP player, so even without solo mode the non pvp player can for 99% evade the pvp player

 

[ChrisUK27]

Ok so let's imagine we are all people who have never played Elite but like the idea of a space game.

Then we watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6peGu2yG6o

It's the Official Elite: Dangerous Launch Trailer

The video has just stopped, what sort of game is this?

Honest answers!

 

[Darian]

Ok so let's imagine we are all people who have never played Elite but like the idea of a space game.

Then we watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6peGu2yG6o

It's the Official Elite: Dangerous Launch Trailer

The video has just stopped, what sort of game is this?

Honest answers!

The anaconda kills an ship using turrets.
Totally not possible, i tried.

 

[Driver]

Ok so let's imagine we are all people who have never played Elite but like the idea of a space game.

Then we watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6peGu2yG6o

It's the Official Elite: Dangerous Launch Trailer

The video has just stopped, what sort of game is this?

Honest answers!

Honest? Sure, but you are not going to like it.

The first think I see is the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen, "Not Actual Game Footage". Based solely on the disclaimer, I honestly do not know what the game is about.

Spoiler

If you've bought ED because of the trailer, then you did yourself a disservice.

 

[Darian]

Sometimes people amaze me, as if advertisement was not always a lot more flashy than the actual product.
Buying a bottle of mineral water i do not expect that two blond bombshells hunt me down and drag me off to have steamy 24 hours sex.
Not that i would mind.

 

[BlackReign]

Yea, as an original backer i can say, the more money we give them the further away it gets. Stop designing new ships to sell for hundreds of dollars and deliver a ' game.

I am a backer of SC too, and I share your sentiments. Got sick and tired of all the fluff, when there is little to no real development progress on the actual game.

 

[Zenicetus]

Ok so let's imagine we are all people who have never played Elite but like the idea of a space game.

Then we watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6peGu2yG6o

It's the Official Elite: Dangerous Launch Trailer

The video has just stopped, what sort of game is this?

Honest answers!

There is a lot more wrong (and frankly, dishonest) about that video besides the current lack of multiplayer features. Starting with the flight model shown there, with the "Cobra flip."

Better multiplayer support is at least on the way, according to FDEVs. The flight model, not so much. That's the kind of maneuverable, non-WWII-plane combat a lot of us wanted and argued for, but it didn't happen. Even what little 6DOF movement we had with FA/Off in the early Betas was nerfed to make spaceships fly more like airplanes.

See, we all have our little pet peeves with the game.

 

[aeshec]

Honest? Sure, but you are not going to like it.

The first think I see is the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen, "Not Actual Game Footage". Based solely on the disclaimer, I honestly do not know what the game is about.

If you've bought ED because of the trailer, then you did yourself a disservice.

I have to say I kind of agree. When was the last trailer for a major release that actually contained gameplay? I don't think I've seen one in years. Trailers are all CGI and, unfortunately, not really indicative of gameplay. Or at least they aren't anymore it seems.

Possibly secondary trailers. But never the first PUNCH trailer.

 

[Dave1235]

This is rather simple.

People DID their research. Some thought they were buying a MULTIPLAYER game you can PLAY WITH FRIENDS.

And all they got is a single player game, with multiplayer and co-op parts bugged / non functional / non existent.

I have seen Youtube's of people jumping together, around 6 people, and yes I am sure it took some work but it is doable working together, OK comms can still be a bit hit & miss, using TS is not ideal but some make it work. While I don't mind waiting, I do understand your POV on this.

I admit wings not being in at launch was a disappointment to me too, but it is something that we know is on the way "soon"(TM).

Someone posted earlier that FD dropped solo offline (a major change) so there is no reason to think FD won't change the game on recent suggestions to segregate the matching & saves, ok solo offline got dropped, they said they couldn't make it work as they wanted to, etc, etc (this has saved them time & money by dropping it, I am not saying I agree with but it is less work / money for them), when they were working their butts off on launch (time being very limited), and yes one day I would like a solo off line copy if it was ever possible.

I am sure they are now equally busy on "wings" amongst other things, we know they are grafters from previous patches etc, sometimes almost one a day for a week, changing the game to split matchmaking now would cost more in time & money and delay the launch of wings and other features, Michael Brooks posted that mining was the bare minimum they would release, this too still needs love, DDF I believe mentioned drones to collect the fragments etc.

So when would FD (theoretically) do this extra work, before wings, before mining, before system rep improvements, system map issues / trade routes, more BB missions & making them more interesting, (murder penalty's (not pirating, PKing) that might actually get more traders in open!), fixing netcode that might prevent people seeing each other in open, making anarchy's more dangerous than policed systems (you get where I am going, all the stuff that needs to be done for the benefit of all of us, not just a few)

It's too late for the "I don't wan't people to bring big ships from solo to open" crowd, that boat has sailed already, unless we all get wiped again, (has anyone seen CMDR Thrust from Bradford recently?, he might know, I think he is a FD mole, but don't tell anyone, Sshhh )). You will never know that the player with every ship in the game & 1,000,000,000,000,000 CR earned it in solo or not, BTW I played since PB, I didn't wipe as I never exploited a bug, still never even seen a rare, and I own a type 6 & a Cobra both close to A rated, ~ 3 million CR & I am now working towards a viper, lol you don't need to worry about me giving you too much trouble, I would rather give some cargo .

I will never work 3 separate accounts, I don't have the time, if I was locked into one I would chose private groups, which would be a shame (and not the game I bought and paid for including the DLC up front), I generally play a little in the "mobius"group, in solo if I am short on time (most week nights, if I do get an hour or so), and open on the weekends when I have a bit more time and might be feeling a little more sociable.

I took my type 6 out last week in open with the intention of getting pirated for the first time, I got lucky I got robbed by a gentleman pirate it was great fun, why should I not be able to do that again if I like to play in solo too sometimes?

 

[Zenicetus]

I have to say I kind of agree. When was the last trailer for a major release that actually contained gameplay? I don't think I've seen one in years. Trailers are all CGI and, unfortunately, not really indicative of gameplay. Or at least they aren't anymore it seems.

Possibly secondary trailers. But never the first PUNCH trailer.

You're looking at the wrong kind of game.

Elite Dangerous has many similarities with air combat simulations and the more realistic modern warfare games. Every one of the promotional videos below are showing what the actual game looks like. If any of them had shown ridiculous vehicle maneuvers that are not actually possible in the game -- like the "Cobra flip" -- they'd be laughed out of the room:

Rise of Flight (fan-made, but it's featured on the game's home page):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzZiIByxgQA

IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHSEaHwPTM#t=70

DCS Black Shark 2 Official Trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CClHbRG0F10#t=27

Arma 3 Launch Trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1YBZUxMX8g#t=48

And yes, I know we're getting into "game vs. simulation" territory here, but while ED isn't a pure space sim (witness the flight model), it's still breaking some conventions about showing vehicle maneuvers that are simply not possible in the game. Along with all the other stuff, including 3rd person perspective for the whole thing. That's just the most glaring dishonest feature for me, personally. If you're going to market a space combat game, then show what the combat actually looks like.