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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Okay this is a nuanced situation - but I just can't think of any reasonable complaint that a Solo player could have of being restricted to Solo mode (or likewise for group mode) for the lifetime career of that commander profile - provided that players were allowed more than one commander/profile (so that they wouldn't have to delete the Solo commander in order to play in Open or Group.) Provisionally allow 3 profiles/commanders per player?

How about "the freedom to move between game modes freely has been included in the game design for over two years and to change it now to satisfy the play-style needs of a subset of the player base seems to be unreasonable to those who have bought the game on the understanding that players have those freedoms as the change would seem to favour the wishes of the few over the wishes of the many"?

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

Open -> Solo -> Open - The biggest exploit in all of ED.

Example:

Player 1 hunting Player 2, tracks them to a station.

Player 2 realises they are being tracked, switches to Solo - leaves the station, moves to wherever and them goes back to Open to continue their task(s).

Player 1 Wait I thought this was Multiplayer...

For some it would appear to be an exploit - for others it is a long standing design feature of the game that allows players the freedom of choice as to which game mode they play the game in on a session by session basis.

There is no requirement for players to offer themselves up as content for other players - we have all been told to "play the game how you want to".
 
This one will be, apparently....

.... also, due to the instancing system and 32-player per instance upper limit, blockading will probably not work in open, regardless of the existence of private groups and solo.

My God! It's almost like they're trying to make as much money as possible by offering potential customers the widest possible choice.

shocking.

Maybe we can have lord British burnt as a witch or something?

Failing that we should all buy the game, wait for it to come out and then flood the forums with complaints that the game had the features it said it would have when we bought it.

(I'm a founder, it's a fun game.)

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

You got in before I edited 'justifiable' to 'reasonable'!

Makes no difference. It's perfectly 'reasonable' a player can switch modes when they want. This being a world where you don't get to define a subjective term such as 'reasonable' for anyone else but yourself.
 
I can give you a reason:

I bought into this game because it allowed mode switching with the same character. I knew all about it before I bought into the alpha.

Why should I have to accept something else? Where is the benefit for me?

I would venture that the benefit to you would be a bigger player base, by attracting/keeping players who want to play in open mode which is vibrant and developing - meaning more funding for ongoing development. You can have Solo if you want to play Solo, you can have Group if you want to play Group, you can have Open if you want to play Open. Can I ask what you value so much about switching?
 
Can I ask what you value so much about switching?

I'm not him but for me I can decide precisely what is going to be fun for me and me alone, this session. Sometimes the danger of being shot at is a fun prospect and sometimes it's not. It depends. And as a major component of fun is developing the one Commander i have time to play in my limited spare time then running 2 commanders would not be fun.

Besides if you imagine forcing a choice would lead to Open being anything but a desert populated by predators preying on each other you're very misguided.
 
I would venture that the benefit to you would be a bigger player base, by attracting/keeping players who want to play in open mode which is vibrant and developing - meaning more funding for ongoing development. You can have Solo if you want to play Solo, you can have Group if you want to play Group, you can have Open if you want to play Open. Can I ask what you value so much about switching?

I value my time and my freedom to choose.

If I needed to start from the beginning with 1000cr just to play in open, I wouldn't bother.

I do go into open from time to time but without the choice to switch I would never be in open.

Even with more than one save, one for each mode, I don't have enough time.
 
Open -> Solo -> Open - The biggest exploit in all of ED.

Example:

Player 1 hunting Player 2, tracks them to a station.

Player 2 realises they are being tracked, switches to Solo - leaves the station, moves to wherever and them goes back to Open to continue their task(s).

Player 1 Wait I thought this was Multiplayer...

Or player 2 does not realise he is followed and leaves the station in another instance and player 1 waits until the cows come home...
Or player 2 decides to go to bed and have a good nights sleep and player 1.. i think you are smart enough to get the idea.
 
I would venture that the benefit to you would be a bigger player base, by attracting/keeping players who want to play in open mode which is vibrant and developing - meaning more funding for ongoing development. You can have Solo if you want to play Solo, you can have Group if you want to play Group, you can have Open if you want to play Open. Can I ask what you value so much about switching?

If Open truly offers to most compelling game play, then it will attract the most players.

To answer your question:

I enjoy cooperative game play much more than forced PvP. The ability to freely switch between Open/Grouped/Solo supports coop and emasculates forced PvP.
 
People vary, which is why we need the different modes of Open, Private Group, and Solo. Frontier have made a good business decision by catering for differing personality types.

Individuals will vary over time as well. One day they may want the adrenalin rush and sudden ups and downs of Open. Another day they may want to have the slow, steady movement upwards that comes with Solo or a certain Private Group. Again, Frontier have made the right business decision in acknowledging that people change from day to day.

Let's keep the different modes in. Let's keep switching at will in.

Cheers, Phos.
 
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: T@F
The upshot is that the current system allows for more choice for more players. Anything else reduces that choice. The only justifications offered for reducing the choice we have are the same selfish ones put up again and again. They didn't work then because nothing changed FDs mind. They don't work now because there is no indication from FD that mode switching is going to change. And because they haven't worked since the game was first conceived and all this was discussed at board level... there is no reason to think that FD are going to do a sudden turn and change the whole premise of the game. It's a done deal.
 
Lots of people don't understand why the Open/Group/Solo switching exists.

From the Kickstarter;
*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
*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,*

From the forum archives;
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)

Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JYRyhxYhI&list=PL7glm5rbPHKyBblUEjmm2PFkwJ4ykuz6s&index=18

DB on "Griefing" and "Griefers"
(Listen out for the part where FD can move them in to a private group of just each other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M

Rededit Topic on "unusual event for players to come against players" (With Twitch Video)
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDanger...will_be_an_unusual_event_for_players_to_come/

Direct Twitch Link; (Note DB use "Occasonial" and "unusual" regarding players interacting)
http://www.twitch.tv/egx/b/571962295?t=69m00s

Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)

A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.



If I missed anything, let me know. :)


Does anyone still think that it is going to change? After all of the developer time put into it?

If you do, you'd probably be better off going to the EVE forums and asking for cockpits and a solo mode.

Jockey, thank you for this compilation.
 
You know what the actual dagger in the solo kills sale argument is? The exact same argument that is used to make solo the great big unequaliser: There are lots of people playing solo, for whom it's the preferred playing style for whatever reason.

My guess is that solo and group (I count them the same because you choose who you play with) makes the majority of players.
Open in itself is only a group where no one controlls who is allowed in, so the whole discussion is pointless
 
The very fact that the "white" knight is seen negatively alone paints the entire picture. Six year olds have developed an accurate enough moral compass to realize that he white knight is the good guy, and the black knight is the bad guy.

You likely got your gaming jargon mixed up.

White Knight, in the context of game forums, is used to denote a player that will always defend the devs, no matter how absurd their decisions. A dev might be clearly driving the game onto the ground and the white knight will be there applauding the devs and refusing to admit there is anything wrong with the game.

That being said, while there are certainly players that fit the bill, that term is far more commonly used as an insult by unhappy players that demand changes; some of those unhappy players will resort to calling their opponents "White Knights" in an attempt to discredit them.

Personally, I look at that kind of ad hominem attack as a strong indication that the one calling others "white knights" is out of arguments but refuses to admit defeat.




Why would they jeopardise future sales to please a handful of entitled backers? They already have your money.

1. Because it, most likely, isn't a mere handful. In most games that offer this option, players that prefer playing solo are more numerous than those that play in groups.

2. Because the game still wants to attract more players, including those that prefer playing solo.

3. Because the game wants to retain the existing players in order to sell them expansions and whatever they get into the game's online store, and retaining a player tends to be far easier (= less expensive) than attracting a new one.

4. Because being known as a company that changes games willy nilly, just to attract a different kind of players and without any concern for whether it will drive away the current ones, is a fantastic way to lose consumer trust and become irrelevant in short notice.

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.

In a game where you can trick the open mode into becoming solo just by tweaking your firewall? Really? The only thing this would achieve is to make more players aware of how to "pull the plug" without actually pulling the plug (or, in other words, how to make them and their attacker vanish from each other's computers without actually killing their game, which is possible as of now and gives an even larger advantage to those that do it than crudely and literally pulling the plug or killing the game client).

And this seems to be a technical limitation. To remove that "exploit" would require routing all peer to peer data through Frontier's systems, drastically increasing their bandwidth costs and likely doubling latency for everyone.

BTW: in this case, "technical limitation" doesn't seem to equate with incompetency. Frontier likely never cared for that particular "exploit," of selecting open but actually playing solo, because with the different matching modes they wanted to implement, and the possibility to freely switch between them, closing that "exploit" wouldn't bring any benefits. So, between little to no benefits for the way they planned their game with players able to freely switch modes, and a huge increase in bandwidth costs to close the "exploit", it was better to just leave it open.




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?

1. There are human targets if you know how to look for them. Pirates like Tigga seem to have no issue finding targets.

2. Pirates can also attack NPCs.

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

Did you consider the previous Elite games mere "space trucking sims"?

BTW, even if there were no player pirates, the game wouldn't be just about "space trucking". Players can smuggle, pirate (both other players and NPCs), hunt bounties, explore, take part in wars, and so on.

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

And you really think forcing players that occasionally go into solo or groups to permanently choose a mode would bring more players into open?

I think it would have the opposite effect: players choosing to start in either solo or group and then, unable to try open without starting over, deciding that it's just not worth the effort. Or, to put it another way, I believe you would get even less traders in open if you prevented players from changing modes.

And that is if such separation can even be forced. In the game as it currently stands, it's easy to play in open but prevent the game from finding any other players.




I would venture that the benefit to you would be a bigger player base, by attracting/keeping players who want to play in open mode which is vibrant and developing - meaning more funding for ongoing development. You can have Solo if you want to play Solo, you can have Group if you want to play Group, you can have Open if you want to play Open. Can I ask what you value so much about switching?

Being able to play in all modes without the need to do three times the gruesome grind that the beginning of ED is?

Being able to play in whichever mode I feel like without having to care about which of my characters I need to progress?

I, particularly, tend to see the need for alts as a huge issue in any game I play. I "fix" that in most offline games by either modding them or cheating in order to remove the boring parts, but for games where modding or cheating isn't possible I really want to be able to do as many things on a single character as possible. Adding this kind of limitation basically makes the whole game far less enjoyable for me, and (if I'm evaluating a purchase) makes me far less prone to purchase the game.
 
New premise in the discussion.

Open: is David Brabens group, and because he is very nice guy he allows EVERYONE to join.
Groups: Are made by players who allow otherplayers into there group or not,
Solo: is a single persons group who allows noone else to join.

So if David Brabens group is not what you like you make your own group and allow only the people you like into it.

Problem solved.
 
So if David Brabens group is not what you like you make your own group and allow only the people you like into it.

Problem solved.


I think this is the best possible choice for those that feel the current game modes are unfair.

This might need FD help though, allowing only the people they like into it, might mean not including people who chose to play in solo with their save game.

If they allowed a "no solo" group to check that no other game mode was used then they could setup that kind of group.
 
Those against switching modes did they think of this scenario. Someone picks up the game knowing they can play solo to learn the game without running into players who have been at the game for months and have a huge advantage. So they play gain confidence, read the boards and join a PvE group to join others and all without starting over. So now they are in a more dynamic universe and having fun, they get a friend to join and they play in the PvE to learn their way. The 2 decide I want to see what the open world offers, so again without missing a step or back peddling they move to the open group. They play that way together, but one likes open and the other doesn't and moves back to the PvE group.
.
Result 2 players both happy playing and moving from one group to another to see what suites each one best without some artificial penalty of, starting over each time. It works and is a huge incentive to new players, who may not know what they want to do. No problem at all, you have all choices.
.
The strict choose one and be done do not understand and never will, choices makes people happy and will lead to many more trying open, then not. Of course if they run into a lot of issues from the shoot first even if you have no cargo to pirate, they may leave open, or as the shoot first person may find out, that target was better then them and thy are now space dust.
.
Calebe
 
Last edited:
I think that is not too hard to implement, they have to have flags for that or the rules for the race to elite would be rather pointless.
the other question is if they would like the population density in this group, my guess is people there would soon be bored, running out of human targets.
 
I normally play in open but I've never even seen another human way out where I am exploring so fear of PVP doesn't come into it :)

IRL, where I live, our best ever broadband speed is 1.6 megabit. If we have bad weather, like now, it can drop to 0.09 megabit, this page for instance can take 10 -15 seconds to show. At this point, I have to go into solo mode to even stand a chance of playing. Although we have a 20Mb satellite link as backup, the .75 second Ping is a no go for FD's servers. So, for some of us, Solo mode is a lifesaver and an essential part of being able to be involved in a game I've waited half my life to play again :)
 
I think this is the best possible choice for those that feel the current game modes are unfair.

This might need FD help though, allowing only the people they like into it, might mean not including people who chose to play in solo with their save game.

If they allowed a "no solo" group to check that no other game mode was used then they could setup that kind of group.

Will Frontier also provide the crickets and tumbleweeds? ;-)
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom