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

[CMDR Bansidhe]

By all means carry on thinking that, as long as you also accept that it is never going to happen. The core design feature of players swapping from mode to mode as an when they want to is fixed and has been fixed since conception. Any attempt to change it would not only be a massive undertaking programming wise, time wise and expense wise but it would also change the fundamental premise of the game. FD have always maintained that they are building the game THEY want to make. So, whether you accept the game for what it is or not, it isn't going to change.

Did they always maintain that before they decided no offline mode?
Did they always maintain the same after they decided no offline mode?

Which was the game THEY wanted to make - with or without?

Things change. It's just the way it is.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Still don't get how anything can be an "unfair" Advantage that anybody can do. Its not limited to some players, its a build in mechanic of the Game everybody can use. Not a Bug or Glitch, no its meant to be that way by design, its how the Game is build.

I really don't get that logic. If you don't want to do that thats fine, but that dosn't mean nobody should do it. You are not the Emperor, you are just one of many Pilots like anybody else.

 

[ianw]

likewise, you can also keep on convincing youself that it wont change in the future.

unless the devs will say they will change or not change something you cannot stop people to provide constructive critisisms here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions

are you a dev to say with finality that it wont change?

Did they always maintain that before they decided no offline mode?
Did they always maintain the same after they decided no offline mode?

Which was the game THEY wanted to make - with or without?

Things change. It's just the way it is.

Of course we can't say it will never change.

But the fact is this argument has been going on and and on for over 2 years now - there is nothing new in this thread that hasn't been suggested before many many times.

The last time a dev addressed it they said that on balance they thought it was best to allow people the opportunity to find their feet in solo/group and move over into open if/when they felt like it. And that's why they allow switching.

And I think it's unlikely that will change - based on that and all the other stuff I've seen from the devs in that time.

 

[Driver]

The problem with the game currently is that theres no ecosystem at all. The food chain doesnt exist while in paper, it was designed to have a living breathing ecosystem.

how can pirates exists without human targets?

How can the game promise more than " space trucking sim" without pirates?

Everything boils dows to the feature allowing you to switch modes.

if you want this to be a " space trucking sim" as what gaming sites are getting the impression for now the keep the switching feature open.

If you want the game to be a AAA title in the long run that promises dynamism and depth of game play, remove that switching feature

Why should I consider your opinions on game design to be more correct than those of the Frontier developers?

 

[Joe Spivey]

Did they always maintain that before they decided no offline mode?
Did they always maintain the same after they decided no offline mode?

Which was the game THEY wanted to make - with or without?

Things change. It's just the way it is.

likewise, you can also keep on convincing youself that it wont change in the future.

unless the devs will say they will change or not change something you cannot stop people to provide constructive critisisms here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions

are you a dev to say with finality that it wont change?

Wow guys. Do some research. The Devs HAVE said this, many times. Forum posts, interviews Q+A sessions. As for the offline mode, I admit that I too thought that it was a for definite mode but the explanation given by the company as to why it was dropped suggest that it was more of a 'it would be nice if we could do this too' sort of thing. Anyway, my reasons for saying that the current mode swapping will not change still stand by themselves without any Dev input. Too much work. Too much time. Too expensive. Of course, if any dev wants to come in and clarify the situation please do. So, once more then:

The core design feature of players swapping from mode to mode as an when they want to is fixed and has been fixed since conception. Any attempt to change it would not only be a massive undertaking programming wise, time wise and expense wise but it would also change the fundamental premise of the game. FD have always maintained that they are building the game THEY want to make. So, whether you accept the game for what it is or not, it isn't going to change.

Edited to add: One more thing, if you want to keep pursuing this line that I could be wrong too. The burden of proof lays with those positing something different from the status quo.

 

[ianstrauss]

Of course we can't say it will never change.

But the fact is this argument has been going on and and on for over 2 years now - there is nothing new in this thread that hasn't been suggested before many many times.

The last time a dev addressed it they said that on balance they thought it was best to allow people the opportunity to find their feet in solo/group and move over into open if/when they felt like it. And that's why they allow switching.

And I think it's unlikely that will change - based on that and all the other stuff I've seen from the devs in that time.

The fact that its still being discussed after 2 years means that there really is an issue with it it. Maybe that's the reason why the Devs created and consolidated this on a single thread?

If the Devs are really really in touch with their customers, they should acknowledge the points of arguments.. Most especially issues that have been there for more than 2 years

Perhaps this time they're listening thats why they created this one mega thread to consolidate the feedback for their deliberation.

 

[Driver]

The best answer is the one that should have happened all along. When you first launch the game you are presented with a choice to play in Open, Group or Solo mode. You should make that choice and then, from that point on, that is the mode you are in. If people wish to play solo that is their choice. They should not be able to transfer gains made in the safety of solo into open play. That is the part that is the problem. Make your choice but stick with it.

Why should I consider your opinions on game design to be more correct than those of the Frontier developers?

 

[aeshec]

Possibly the most spot on post in this entire thread. +rep

OR it forces the pvp player to do more than the usual gank and run because if they overdo it they are soon alone in open.
And that is the beauty of it.
I do not know.. like .. maybe.. duh... play his role good... like.. more than shooting at stuff .... maybe even turn bounty hunter at players who abuse there role...

Because, if you are honest with yourself, ask yourself, would there be more traders in an forced open, or if they can not switch to solo to make up losses through PK players (an T9 blown up rates easy in the 15-20 million damage to the player, and it IS an sitting target)

Elite is quite lax with penalties for PK and already some of them are whining it is unfair, picture an Elite where choices are limited as you propose and how populatet open then would be.

If i there wanted to play an trader the hell i would not choose open, or i would go to the outer systhems, but only to the more populated areas in an ASP for trading, something fast enough to evade or with enough teeth to defend.

Turn it as you want, no change in the way the game is designed will add more targets for you, i dare to say even less.

I have seen it over and over in online games, pvp junkies overdo it, the other players leave or switch to chars/roles that can defend better or are outright not desirable for the pvp player to interact with, the pvp player throws a fit and demands that things have to change.

Now what i ask myself, where and when was an law made that forces players who paid the same price for the game and have to sacrifice there free time for it too to serve as amusing feature of the pvp player or leave the game?

You can discuss it for an back but enforcing an no switching of modes will not give you more targets, rather less because there will be only traders in small agile ships, or as soon they have the money big well armed ships, and if that does not work no traders at all.

Way back there was an online game, very wow like just with offcourse way less good graphic where one character class who was cleric like was very handy to have around, but at the same time very vulnerable, so prime target for pvp players.

One day they where all gone because players who played clerics where annoyed.

The whole game came to an grinding halt for everyone who had not such an priest in an character slot to do certain tasks.

and the pvp players where whining without end but never once did they consider that it was there own actions that caused it, not ONCE.

And the same will happen for the pirates, there will be no traders to have, and they will point there fingers at everyone but them self.

 

[ianstrauss]

Wow guys. Do some research. The Devs HAVE said this, many times. Forum posts, interviews Q+A sessions. As for the offline mode, I admit that I too thought that it was a for definite mode but the explanation given by the company as to why it was dropped suggest that it was more of a 'it would be nice if we could do this too' sort of thing. Anyway, my reasons for saying that the current mode swapping will not change still stand by themselves without any Dev input. Too much work. Too much time. Too expensive. Of course, if any dev wants to come in and clarify the situation please do. So, once more then:

The core design feature of players swapping from mode to mode as an when they want to is fixed and has been fixed since conception. Any attempt to change it would not only be a massive undertaking programming wise, time wise and expense wise but it would also change the fundamental premise of the game. FD have always maintained that they are building the game THEY want to make. So, whether you accept the game for what it is or not, it isn't going to change.

Edited to add: One more thing, if you want to keep pursuing this line that I could be wrong too. The burden of proof lays with those positing something different from the status quo.

What burden of proof are you talking about. This is a forum to provide feedback and opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion, so do I.

Whether you have proof or not we still think that the feature doesn't do good for the game and I dont think the noise will stop , not from me , new players or anyone else who also thinks the same way unless the Devs do something about it.

At the end of the day, its up to the Devs wether to take the suggestions or not. But you are not in the position to tell us that this feature will not change because YOU ARE NOT A DEV.

 

[ianw]

The fact that its still being discussed after 2 years means that there really is an issue with it it. Maybe that's the reason why the Devs created and consolidated this on a single thread?

If the Devs are really really in touch with their customers, they should acknowledge the points of arguments.. Most especially issues that have been there for more than 2 years

Perhaps this time they're listening thats why they created this one mega thread to consolidate the feedback for their deliberation.

Oh there is no doubt there is an issue - for some people - there always has been.

And I think the reason there is now a single thread is because the mods are fed up with playing whack a mole with this topic...

 

[Alpha November]

At the end of the day, its up to the Devs wether to take the suggestions or not. But you are not in the position to tell us that this feature will not change because YOU ARE NOT A DEV.

Shouting won't change it. Solo/Group/Open are going to stay exactly as they are (which is the correct decision) and you can generate another shouty 80 pages of comments and it isn't going to change. Move on.

 

[ianstrauss]

Oh there is no doubt there is an issue - for some people - there always has been.

And I think the reason there is now a single thread is because the mods are fed up with playing whack a mole with this topic...

If the Devs are fed up of this topic, they could have Closed thise topic long ago, or deleted each time such topic is posted.

You can think all reasons you want to, you can convince that to yourself. But at the end of the day, its not over till the fat lady sings, LOL

 

[T@F]

Maybe it is time the devs/mods closed this thread.
and del any new ones.
As it's the same ppl all the time crying for only open mode anyway.

 

[Robert Maynard]

All I ask for is the removal of the ability to switch modes at will on the same save. How is this a major feature?

The ability to play in solo or open could be considered a major feature, heck they advertise that on their site, the ability to switch at will isn't advertised at all. It just strikes me as a temporary concession to those who complained about the lack of offline mode.

It creates demonstrable unfairness, irrespective of attempts at sophist arguments to downplay the impact, and this will be harmful for the game's reputation. Harm the game's rep and you harm sales. Harm sales and you harm development. For what? So you can feel "like you got one over on the PVP crowd"?

"All" you ask for is to restrict the freedom of choice of *all* players as to which mode they play the game in on a session by session basis to satisfy your personal view of how the game should be.

Again, for the N+1th time, from the Kickstarter FAQ:

How does multiplayer work?


You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) some of the other ships you meet as you travel around are real players as opposed to computer-controlled ships. It may be a friend you have agreed to rendezvous with here, or it may be another real player you have encountered by chance. All players will be part of a “Pilot’s Federation” – that is how they are distinguished from non-players – so you will be able to tell who is a player and who is a non-player easily.

You will be able to save your position in certain key places (probably just in space stations, but possibly while in hyperspace too, if we feel it is needed). A save-and-quit option will be freely available at those points, as will the subsequent reload, but there will be a game cost for a reload following player death. Your ship will still be intact in the condition it was when the save occurred, but there will be a game currency charge (referred to as an insurance policy) for this. This is to prevent the obvious exploit of friends cooperating and killing each other to get each other’s cargo. If you can’t pay, then it will accumulate as an in-game debt, and the police may chase you!

There are no multiplayer lobbies, and the game will be played across many servers, augmented by peer-to-peer traffic for fast responses. Session creation and destruction happens during the long-range hyperspace countdown and hyperspace effect (which is a few seconds only), so is transparent to the player.

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, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.

Last updated: Wed, Nov 14 2012 12:52 PM +00:00

Unfairness to those who wish to be able to interact with players that may not wish to interact with the former? Again, Sandro has commented on this:

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.

So, the developers consciously implemented features of the game that have been known about for over two years - those for whom the existing features need to be amended to suit their personal view as to how the game should be would, I expect, have a very difficult task persuading Frontier to remove features at this stage, after the game has been launched with the disputed features intact.

 

[tagos]

The problem with the game currently is that theres no ecosystem at all. The food chain doesnt exist while in paper, it was designed to have a living breathing ecosystem.

how can pirates exists without human targets?

There are plenty of human targets. I'm one. There's just not plenty of good enough pirates. Just dealt with one of them who thought interdicting my Triple-A, fully armed Asp in an Asp without chaff, shield cells and armed only with multi-cannons was somehow a good idea.

And there was no cargo demand and I'm a bounty free, peaceful trader. It was just an attack.

Hopefully he's not heading here to complain about my chaff and shield cells but is instead planning how to not get his ass handed to him next time he tries to gank someone.

 

[ianw]

If the Devs are fed up of this topic, they could have Closed thise topic long ago, or deleted each time such topic is posted.

You can think all reasons you want to, you can convince that to yourself. But at the end of the day, its not over till the fat lady sings, LOL
You can think

I didn't say they were fed up with the topic, just fed up with people starting their own threads on it. Now we have one thread to rule them all, or something...

 

[Robert Maynard]

If the Devs are fed up of this topic, they could have Closed thise topic long ago, or deleted each time such topic is posted.

You can think all reasons you want to, you can convince that to yourself. But at the end of the day, its not over till the fat lady sings, LOL

The Moderators creates this thread to keep all of the discussions on these features in one place and stated that all other new threads on the same features would be merged / closed. It's a matter of containment.

As to the rotund lady singing - the game has released after over two years of development - these features are mature parts of the game design - I am of the opinion that she has already performed, had the encore and left the stage.

 

[Joe Spivey]

The fact that its still being discussed after 2 years means that there really is an issue with it it. Maybe that's the reason why the Devs created and consolidated this on a single thread?

If the Devs are really really in touch with their customers, they should acknowledge the points of arguments.. Most especially issues that have been there for more than 2 years

Perhaps this time they're listening thats why they created this one mega thread to consolidate the feedback for their deliberation.

Aaaaaaand the fact that nothing has changed in the same two years should perhaps give you a bit of a clue as to the Devs' opinion.

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

The core design feature of players swapping from mode to mode as an when they want to is fixed and has been fixed since conception. Any attempt to change it would not only be a massive undertaking programming wise, time wise and expense wise but it would also change the fundamental premise of the game. FD have always maintained that they are building the game THEY want to make. So, whether you accept the game for what it is or not, it isn't going to change.

 

[Alpha November]

If the Devs are fed up of this topic, they could have Closed thise topic long ago, or deleted each time such topic is posted.

You can think all reasons you want to, you can convince that to yourself. But at the end of the day, its not over till the fat lady sings, LOL

I think the fat lady sat down about a year ago when the design docs were finalised.

 

[Amaze]

Just my opinion but I believe if they did change things so you could not be in open without a clean "open only" save
then you would just end up with a mostly unpopulated open mode with the majority in private groups, Mobius and solo.

This would be more likely to happen if you could leave open anytime but not return as has been suggested.
It might take a few months to get to that but I believe it would happen.