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

[Asp Explorer]

Sure, considering the scale of the universe the distinction of open and solo seems absolutely redundant since there is enough 'empty space' to wander off to for everyone.
Hence, getting rid of those different modes will not harm people who want to play alone and, likewise, will put the solo vs open discussion to rest.

I'd disagree there - getting rid of those different modes will harm people who want to play alone for whatever reason. If they want to go sightseeing in Solo in systems that are chocked-full of other players in Open, they should be free to do so. Similarly, if they want to go to the middle of absolutely nowhere in Solo and end up someplace no other player has ever been in Open - they should be free to do so.

Taking choices away from people is generally a bad idea.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

Except that doesn't work at all for the people that don't have the internet connection to support Open. Also, as has been established and explained time and again, getting rid of Solo isn't an option. It would be a bait and switch and they'd get sued. Its just not an option.

So people with bad internet connection want to play MMO or they want to switch to Open when their connection is less laggy?

 

[ianstrauss]

Let's try to read, disect and digest on what the Dev said before:

Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco
Hello all!

Time to dive in to this thread with our current thoughts:

Scamming:

In game - well, there will be certainly be the ability to scam.

We have the concept that a commodity/equipment canister does not necessarily contain what it says it contains. So there will be methods to disguise a canister's content.

On the flip side of the coin, we have ways of seeing what a canister contains (and this equipment/these methods will be available to use in player trades), so there is a potential arms race between lies and truth.

Why are we doing this? A couple of unrelated reasons, actually.

Firstly, we are not interested in making player trading the central pillar to trading game play. The various markets fulfil that role. So we don't need to protect player trading. The Elite universe is full of smugglers, pirates and general ne'er do wells.

Secondly, I think the ability to lie/cheat *using game rules* is reasonable and opens up more gameplay options. If you get traded a canister of "grain" that turns out to be "human organs" you can be sure of a number of things:

• The player that traded it had to go to some effort using game rules to set up the scam
• That player altered their reputation when they made the trade
• If you spent the time/resources, you could have detected the scam before the trade completed
• If you detect the scam we may be able to directly generate missions/events from the process

Now some folk may understandably still balk at this, but my response has to be that I think it makes the game better (mainly by giving us lots of mission/event potential from NPCs as well as players).

So in this case, we will hopefully be aiming for a very "light touch" because in theory we see nothing wrong with players role playing "bad guys".

Griefing:

So, we've said we don't mind bad guys. In fact, we go further; we have bad guy gameplay options (piracy, smuggling etc.) By default, this includes psychopathic behaviour - randomly attacking other player "because you can".

We're currently looking at two different angles of defence: an in-game law system and private groups.

The in-game law system should be pretty robust. It allows plausible but strong responses from NPC factions to criminal activities (using authority ships, structures and factional bounties), as well as player-driven bounties (via the Pilot's Federation) and player bounty hunting mechanisms (e.g. broadcasting "sightings" of know villains to help player bounty hunters track them).

All of this should mean that that if you're being naughty you are generating additional challenges for yourself which will undoubtedly make the game harder in some ways (this applies equally whether you are attacking players or NPCs).

It won't guarantee safety, even though it guarantees additional challenges to the bad guys. Which I think is about right; we don't want to make being the bad guy impossible.

The second factor is our grouping mechanisms.

The way it's currently standing, players will be able to enter and leave private groups of some sort reasonably easily, so they will be able to control the level of perceived griefing they want to suffer.

I know this is a very contentious issue, which I have been wrestling with since I first came on to the project. The way I see it at the moment is pretty straightforward:

• We have players that want a range of different experiences
• All of those experiences are valid
• Some of those experiences are mutually exclusive

So my answer is to say that we will support all of them but not to the point where one player is happy at the expense of another. And a clean way to do this is by using a grouping system.

The worst case scenario here is that a player who wants to avoid an encounter will vanish into a private group. In this case, the player will be forced to escape conventionally first (via hyperspace, docking or something similar).

In this instance, the aggressor still gets some benefit - they "defeated" their prey, and we can hopefully build on this in terms of rewarding them in various ways: via reputation, which can lead to missions and events, via player bragging rights (perhaps only players that remain in the "all group" can feature in various global news feed articles) and potentially via limited physical rewards.

If players are going to live in private groups, well, that suggests that if we had a single environment they would be playing offline or not at all, so they aren't part of the equation.

Players that dip into the "all group" after farming "private groups"; there are a few things to say about this.

• They are unlikely to have as good player-vs-player skills as those who live in the "all" group day in day out.
• NPCs can and will offer appropriate risks (in fact, it would not be a lie to suggest that we *could* make NPC ships significantly nastier than any human ships in the majority of situations. Not that we will, mind. But we could), so to get a tooled up advantage such players will have been facing a appropriate threat level (basically private groups should not be considered "easy mode").
• Everyone has access to their own private group(s)

It's not perfect, but it's my best shot at the moment.

Anyway, taking these two strands into account, again, the result will again be hopefully a "very light touch".

Other:
Offensive behaviour during communication, whether in game or on the forums is always unacceptable. We will have some form of reporting/investigation service to service this. We will also allow players to "ignore" communications so that they don't have to listen/read stuff that doesn't interest them (on a related note - I'm very dead set against session-wide or bigger chat channels. In my opinion they ruin ambience and are uneccessary for Elite: Dangerous).

I can't actually think of out-of-game scams that could be possible at the moment.

Finally:
On a personal note. I also find (even mildly) derogatory terms and statements unpleasant and unhelpful. They don't advance arguments and they are used to intentionally insult people/groups. It's perfectly fine to disagree, but it's not fine to insult (just as it's not fine face to face).

I also think that more civil (if not understanding) we can be (in game and on the forums) the more likely we are to grow the community which will be to the benefit of us all.

Now I understand that this is the original plan of the Devs and I DON'T see anywhere on this thread indicating that the feature that allows players to switch to Single Player Mode and Open Game at will is their answer to the griefing issue. What they had in mind was to implement a restrictive law in in the universe which is live at the moment, the other one is via grouping (of course if you are grouped pirates would think twice to attack you) and I assume that is through the upcoming Wings update.

let me highlight this part again:

The worst case scenario here is that a player who wants to avoid an encounter will vanish into a private group.

the Devs understands even from the beginning that this is a design flaw, which is the reason why they are not encouraging players to avoid encounters by exploiting the game mechanics. Problem is this is now being exploited by players using the switch to single player mode.

As I mentioned on my other post, allowing players to switch between single player and open play is a design flaw and creates imbalance to the game that only provides unfair advantage to those who only play in Open Play mode.

 

[Dabba]

Let's try to read, disect and digest on what the Dev said before:
Now I understand that this is the original plan of the Devs and I DON'T see anywhere on this thread indicating that the feature that allows players to switch to Single Player Mode and Open Game at will is their answer to the griefing issue. What they had in mind was to implement a restrictive law in in the universe which is live at the moment, the other one is via grouping (of course if you are grouped pirates would think twice to attack you) and I assume that is through the upcoming Wings update.

let me highlight this part again: The worst case scenario here is that a player who wants to avoid an encounter will vanish into a private group.

the Devs understands that this is a design flaw and that is the reason why they are not encouraging players to avoid encounters by exploiting the game mechanics. Problem is this is now being exploited by players using the switch to single player mode.

As I mentioned on my other post, allowing players to switch between single player and open play is a design flaw and creates imbalance to the game that only provides unfair advantage to those who only play in Open Play mode.

You are of course entitled to that opinion, but considering that this choice was a core part of the design plan, you're just going to have to accept that Frontier disagrees and its not going to change. If they thought it was a flaw, knowing what they did going in, they wouldn't have designed it that way. I think you are misunderstanding the perspective that sentence is written from. Its not a worst case scenario from the perspective of the devs or the attacking players, its saying the worst case scenario for the person feeling griefed would be that they have to log out and go into a private group, and compared to other games where the person being harassed feels as if they have no options to escape other than to stop playing, ED gives them a palatable choice.

Im all for increasing the penalties of the restrictive laws in a manner that would encourage more people to play in Open, but the design plan was always to give the players the choice of who to play with and when to play with them. Its not a flaw, its an intended feature.

 

[ianstrauss]

You are of course entitled to that opinion, but considering that this choice was a core part of the design plan, you're just going to have to accept that Frontier disagrees and its not going to change. If they thought it was a flaw, knowing what they did going in, they wouldn't have designed it that way.

Im all for increasing the penalties of the restrictive laws in a manner that would encourage more people to play in Open, but the design plan was always to give the players the choice of who to play with and when to play with them. Its not a flaw, its an intended feature.

I'd greatly appreciate if you could post a clear reference from the Devs to justify your claims and for everyones enlightenment please.

Also, where can you find in the quote "switching to Single Player mode is the answer to "perceived griefing" " ? Sam Sammarco is a Dev right?

 

[Jockey79]

So people with bad internet connection want to play MMO

What has playing an MMO got to do with playing in solo mode?

I explain several times what MMO stands for - try Google Define if you missed my points. MMO does not equal forced interactions with others, it does not equal having to see others.
I never seen people moan like this in Guild Wars 1, in which I used to go off on my own to do missions and level up in my own solo instance. I did not "interact" with anyone in that, just solo play - in an MMO.

 

[Dabba]

I'd greatly appreciate if you could post a clear reference from the Devs to justify your claims and for everyones enlightenment please. Thanks.

Id point you to this post where Jockey is quoting from the Kickstarter FAQ that outlines their development decisions focused on player choice. This info was all out there prior to the games release, Im sorry you didn't do your research, but that is nobodys fault but your own.

Well, here you go - FD on the current mode design of the game;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends as you choose. *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Play it your way*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At no point have FD said or hinted that you will ever be forced to put up with random strangers while you play.

 

[ianstrauss]

Id point you to this post where Jockey is quoting from the Kickstarter FAQ that outlines their development decisions focused on player choice. This info was all out there prior to the games release, Im sorry you didn't do your research, but that is nobodys fault but your own.

You are banking on a very generic term " the choice is yours"

Did they specifically say that you can exploit the game because the choice is yours?


Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,* with a highlight on GROUPS

Where is switching between the Single Player mode and Open Play on the quote you provided? GROUPS and GAME MODES are 2 different things

Thats why when you group up with friends (which is called PRIVATE GROUP) you dont encounter any other players right?

I still dont see anywhere that says "CHANGING GAME MODES"


As I've always been saying, having a private group is fine as its part of the mechanics of the game. However, switching from Open Play Mode to Single Player Mode just to negate any risks is downright game flaw which the devs should fix as this creates imbalance and provides unfair advantage to those who only play Open Play mode.

 

[Uueerdo]

Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,* with a highlight on GROUPS

Where is switching between the Single Player mode and Open Play on the quote you provided? GROUPS and GAME MODES are 2 different things

Thats why when you group up with friends (which is called PRIVATE GROUP) you dont encounter any other players right? But I still dont see anywhere that says "CHANGING GAME MODES"

However, switching from Open Play Mode to Single Player Mode just to negate any risks is downright game flaw which the devs should fix as this creates imbalance and provides unfair advantage to those who only play Open Play mode.

Solo (aka Single Player Mode) is effectively no different than group of one, and a private group with only allies is less risky than solo.

 

[Jockey79]

You are banking on a very generic term " the choice is yours"

Really, seems very specific to me in the sentence it is in with the context it was used - but yea, feel free to ignore the other words with it by all means, the choice is yours.

Did they specifically say that you can exploit the game because the choice is yours?

What exploit? Please explain the exploit (assuming you know what that words means)

Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,* with a highlight on GROUPS

Where is switching between the Single Player mode and Open Play on the quote you provided? GROUPS and GAME MODES are 2 different things

Thats why when you group up with friends you dont encounter any other players right? But I still dont see anywhere that says "CHANGING GAME MODES"

So you want to argue semantics? When the clear intent of the design is right there in my quote - if you know, you read all the lines.

Wow, the smell of desperation is over powering.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

What has playing an MMO got to do with playing in solo mode?

I explain several times what MMO stands for - try Google Define if you missed my points. MMO does not equal forced interactions with others, it does not equal having to see others.
I never seen people moan like this in Guild Wars 1, in which I used to go off on my own to do missions and level up in my own solo instance. I did not "interact" with anyone in that, just solo play - in an MMO.

You, Sir, failed to understand what the discussion is about.

 

[Dabba]

You are banking on a very generic term " the choice is yours"

Did they specifically say that you can exploit the game because the choice is yours?


Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,* with a highlight on GROUPS

Where is switching between the Single Player mode and Open Play on the quote you provided? GROUPS and GAME MODES are 2 different things

Thats why when you group up with friends (which is called PRIVATE GROUP) you dont encounter any other players right? But I still dont see anywhere that says "CHANGING GAME MODES"

There is no exploiting here man, its an intended part of the design. What part of "players can change groups at will" is confusing you?

There is only one game, its all the same data set, all the same background sim, the 3 "modes" as you put it are just matchmaking groups. There is no true Single player, as even in Solo you are part of the background sim and shared economy being affected by all of the other players in the shared galaxy.

Solo makes it so you cannot be grouped with anyone, Private makes it so you can only be grouped with the other people in your private group, and Open makes it so you will be grouped with anyone that has an appropriate ping, prioritizing connection to friends, and doing its best to make sure you are not connected to anyone you have blocked. This isn't some kind of unforseen flaw, it was an intended part of the game design, the ability for players to choose was a core tenet of the development team.

Maybe you didn't read the first post in this thread by the Moderator:

Elite Dangerous is an online game that allows players to play in three potential 'modes':

1. Online ALL group (called open play) where the player is in the same universe as all other players and can see and be seen by all others in open play
2. Online PRIVATE GROUP play where the player is online in the same universe as all other players but will only ever see and be seen by others in the same private group
3. Online SOLO play where the player is in the same universe as all other players, but will see no humans (essentially a private group of one).

Players can switch groups at will without penalty or change to their character's statistics.

All players have an effect on the background simulation regardless of mode they play in.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

There is no exploiting here man, its an intended part of the design. What part of "players can change groups at will" is confusing you?

There is only one game, its all the same data set, all the same background sim, the 3 "modes" as you put it are just matchmaking groups. There is no true Single player, as even in Solo you are part of the background sim and shared economy being affected by all of the other players in the shared galaxy.

Solo makes it so you cannot be grouped with anyone, Private makes it so you can only be grouped with the other people in your private group, and Open makes it so you will be grouped with anyone that has an appropriate ping. This isn't some kind of unforseen flaw, it was an intended part of the game design, the ability for players to choose was a core tenet of the development team.

It's amusing how you make all these points including the poor starving children with bad internet connections in order to stay invincible with the ability to flee to safety at any given point.

 

[Jockey79]

You, Sir, failed to understand what the discussion is about.

Really, as I've been running rings around you few in 2 threads on the topic, including your defence of "It's and MMO so there should not be a solo mode" (and other ways it was worded)
I fully understood where you were going, I just beat you to the draw.

Sorry, I'll wait my turn next time - as that avenue of "reasoning" comes up every 7 or 8 pages.
I'll let you misrepresent the English language for your failed stance of messing with solo / private groups, then correct you afterwards.

 

[ianstrauss]

There is no exploiting here man, its an intended part of the design. What part of "Can change groups at will" is confusing you?

There is only one game, its all the same data set, all the same background sim, the 3 "modes" as you put it are just matchmaking groups. There is no true Single player, as even in Solo you are part of the background sim being affected by all of the other players in the shared galaxy.

Solo makes it so you cannot be grouped with anyone, Private makes it so you can only be grouped with the other people in your private group, and Open makes it so you will be grouped with anyone that has an appropriate ping. This isn't some kind of unforseen flaw, it was an intended part of the game design, the ability for players to choose was a core tenet of the development team.

I think a lot of players are confused.

It's just simple:

PRIVATE group - You find a friend, and go on a private group so you don't see any other players but you still play in OPEN PLAY.
Single Player Mode - You play by yourself, no other human interaction.

Based on the Dev's plan, they acknowledge that a lot of the players don't like being killed and some players think that every pirate is a griefer. So they allow you to find a friend and go on PRIVATE GROUP so you can play in OPEN PLAY without other players interfering you.

Switching to Single Player MODE is a totally different thing. Don't confuse yourself or other players

 

[Jockey79]

It's amusing how you make all these points including the poor starving children with bad internet connections in order to stay invincible with the ability to flee to safety at any given point.

And it is funny how you wont go shooting at like minded people, and whine for human traders to harass.

It really must be knotting you up that others can enjoy the game without you.

 

[Dabba]

I think a lot of players are confused.

It's just simple:

PRIVATE group - You find a friend, and go on a private group so you don't see any other players but you still play in OPEN PLAY.
Single Player Mode - You play by yourself, no other human interaction.

Based on the Dev's plan, they acknowledge that a lot of the players don't like being killed and some players think that every pirate is a griefer. So they allow you to find a friend and go on PRIVATE GROUP so you can play in OPEN PLAY without other players interfering you.

Switching to Single Player MODE is a totally different thing. Don't confuse yourself or other players

Apparently its not that simple, because you have it all wrong.

When you are in a private group you are not in Open. You can't see anybody except the other people in your group. You will never share an instance with people that are in a private group you are not a part of. Solo mode is simply a Private Group of one.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

And it is funny how you wont go shooting at like minded people, and whine for human traders to harass.

It really must be knotting you up that others can enjoy the game without you.

Shoot? I'm a trader with the rank of Merchant!

 

[Beetlebum]

the Devs understands even from the beginning that this is a design flaw, which is the reason why they are not encouraging players to avoid encounters by exploiting the game mechanics. Problem is this is now being exploited by players using the switch to single player mode.

As I mentioned on my other post, allowing players to switch between single player and open play is a design flaw and creates imbalance to the game that only provides unfair advantage to those who only play in Open Play mode.

Brilliant post! Have some rep! The font color is a bit hard to read, though.

 

[Jockey79]

I think a lot of players are confused.

It's just simple:

PRIVATE group - You find a friend, and go on a private group so you don't see any other players but you still play in OPEN PLAY.
Single Player Mode - You play by yourself, no other human interaction.

Based on the Dev's plan, they acknowledge that a lot of the players don't like being killed and some players think that every pirate is a griefer. So they allow you to find a friend and go on PRIVATE GROUP so you can play in OPEN PLAY without other players interfering you.

Switching to Single Player MODE is a totally different thing. Don't confuse yourself or other players

Solo plays in the same galaxy as private and open, so let me correct you..

"PRIVATE group - You find a friend, and go on a private group so you don't see any other players but you still play in OPEN PLAY."
"SOLO group - You play by yourself, no other human interaction in OPEN PLAY"

There is not a separate area for solo players, you can use the "solo play" or crate a "private group" and not invite anyone in to it or allow anyone in - it is EXACTLY the same thing.