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

[Numinosum]

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.

Agreed - all this is possible if you allow up to say 3 commander profiles.

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.

What I am suggesting is that dynamically developed player content and interaction, which is what people who want to play in open mode want imho, will be restricted by continuing the current switch anytime model.

Also, I guess I may be misguided but my experience of playing open so far in popular systems has lead to many more positive encounters than negative - I want to have a higher opinion of the elite player base than this. The 'desert populated by predators preying on each other' you predict is my prediction if things stay as they are. You need players in open that are not just about pirating to make it different to that. Ultimately the choice that you have now to dip into Open that you highly value, in my opinion will become a mode you will not want to visit and therefore you will lose the choice you have now.

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.

I guess if FD changed the system they would definitely allow current players to carry forward their current commanders into whatever mode - you could choose to take your developed commander into an open career, you wouldn't need to start again to play in Open.

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.

My argument is that Open will not offer compelling gameplay to the people that want an MMO experience because the current switch anytime dynamic will restrict the development of dynamic player created content driven by risk/need/co-operation.

new players don't necessary know what type of play they want in the begining.
i was open play but switched to group. I don't want my choices restricted.

Agreed - new commander profiles could allow 10 switches before you have to decide. This would mean that if you wanted to take advantage of perceived less risk in solo at the start of your career/learning the game you could - you can try out the different modes. For group mode there would be no restriction on number of switches to other groups obviously. The intention of restricting switching isn't because I'm sore that people make a profit/ get a big ship etc in a lower risk environment - but to stop players repeatedly having the option to avoid interaction in a way that bypasses the integrity of the game when playing in open mode. FD have created a multiplayer mode with something similar to a single player safe savegame option! I don't like how things are developing in this moment in multiplayer - I'll just make it not happen. - Its INSANE I tell you!!....INSANE!!!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Agreed - all this is possible if you allow up to 3 commander profiles.

All this is currently possible in the game as released with only one commander profile.

What I am suggesting is that dynamically developed player content and interaction, which is what people who want to play in open mode want imho, will be restricted by continuing the current switch anytime model.

.... and in creating a barrier to open you disenfranchise those players who would play most of the time in solo / private groups who may, from time-to-time, choose to augment open by playing in it.

Also, I guess I may be misguided but my experience of playing open so far in popular systems has lead to many more positive encounters than negative - I want to have a higher opinion of the elite player base than this. The 'desert populated by predators preying on each other' you predict is my prediction if things stay as they are. You need players in open that are not just about pirating to make it different to that. Ultimately the choice that you have now to dip into Open that you highly value, in my opinion will become a mode you will not want to visit and therefore you will lose the choice you have now.

I'm glad that you have enjoyed your experience thus far in open - I have played open since before release and am also enjoying it immensely. How open develops over time will very much depend on the attitude and play-styles of players inhabiting it - if it becomes the place to be then players will flock to it. Similarly, if it becomes unpalatable to players, they will leave. That's the great thing about choice - we can exercise it on a session by session basis.

I guess if FD changed the system they would definitely allow current players to carry forward their current commanders into whatever mode - you could choose to take your developed commander into an open career, you wouldn't need to start again to play in Open.

What we may or not be able to do in an imaginary situation is moot.

My argument is that Open will not offer compelling gameplay to the people that want an MMO experience because the current switch anytime dynamic will restrict the development of dynamic player created content driven by risk/need/co-operation.

It is up to the players who play in open to provide that fore themselves. If it is as compelling as you seem to suggest, players will switch from solo / private groups to open to take part in it.

Agreed - new commander profiles could allow 10 switches before you have to decide.

.... or just leave it as it is without introducing an arbitrary number of switches.

 

[Darian]

You need players in open that are not just about pirating to make it different to that.

And you suppose how to force players to serve as prey for the pirate players into open?
It is an game, people pay to play it, you have little legal stance to force them to do something they do not want to do.
i would say beef up the trading ships so Pirates risk there hide interdicting them, but then i am not masochistic enough to listen to THAT howling protests then.

Make your own group and allow only players in who do not switch, I am sure the devs would consider to create an filter for that, then you can put down the rules for that group as you like, but as with open, I think you will lack numbers.

I do not care, I play solo only because i have to deal with enough jerks due to work, I do not need to have more drama during my time out.
Hell i would be exstatic having an Elite Dangerous offline version with beefed up npc pirates.
Making Elite mmo is in my eyes one of the worst ideas ever, it added internet dramas to an perfectly good game idea.
MMO is overrated, there is already plenty out there, we lack good single player games, not more online games where basement dwellers can stroke there eEgo with virtual kills.
Resources where wasted to turn it into just another online world where everyone and his dog tells everyone else how exactly they have to play the game and yammers about everything that reduces the options to avoid having to spend time with unpleasant trolls.
At least there is solo, and group play, and that would be just fine and enough, people who want to play together can, now that is perfect.

Now remove open play and Frontier can use metadata from groups and single to create and exiting evolving galaxy.

And noone has to spend time with or listen to the holy pvp players who know exactly how the game HAS to be played.

Even better!

Online gaming took a steep nosedive the moment connecting an computer became easy, i blame AOL for that. Now we have to endure the fallout of THAT bad descision.

 

[Tuco_Ramires]

It's perfect as it is,don't touch anything.
Can't get any better.

 

[DaveB]

All this hot air on mode switching loses sight of one thing. Mode switching is a fundamental component of a gameplay mechanic that is in ED by design. Throughout development DB and FD have gone on record multiple times to say that there are some things they don't want to ever see in ED. One of those things is choke points that players can blockade or camp. This is why there will never be "jump gates" or other structures facilitating rapid transport. This is also why switching to solo to avoid your nemesis camping outside the no-fire zone where you're docked is not an exploit but a fundamental aspect of the game design.

This will never change and I've sufficient confidence in FDs previous statements to that effect that if this were not an anonymous internet forum I'd take a friendly wager to that effect with anyone who thinks different.

 

[AndyC77]

All this hot air on mode switching loses sight of one thing. Mode switching is a fundamental component of a gameplay mechanic that is in ED by design. Throughout development DB and FD have gone on record multiple times to say that there are some things they don't want to ever see in ED. One of those things is choke points that players can blockade or camp. This is why there will never be "jump gates" or other structures facilitating rapid transport. This is also why switching to solo to avoid your nemesis camping outside the no-fire zone where you're docked is not an exploit but a fundamental aspect of the game design.

This will never change and I've sufficient confidence in FDs previous statements to that effect that if this were not an anonymous internet forum I'd take a friendly wager to that effect with anyone who thinks different.

Exactly this and nothing else.

 

[Driver]

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.

My argument is that Open will not offer compelling gameplay to the people that want an MMO experience because the current switch anytime dynamic will restrict the development of dynamic player created content driven by risk/need/co-operation.

I have a couple of questions:

Could you please define what you mean by a "MMO experience"? What MMO's have you played?

Is, "dynamic player created content" the same thing as emergent game play?


My answers to the above questions:

From Wikipedia:

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.

So a mmo experience is playing online with other people.

The MMO's that I've played for more than a month include: UO, Everquest, Asherons Call, DAoC, WoW, EVE, Anarchy Online, SWO, SWG, SWTOR, and ED.

As for emergent game play; I think that it is just a mechanism that excuses professional game designers from creating compelling content.

 

[Numinosum]

DB and FD have gone on record multiple times to say that there are some things they don't want to ever see in ED. One of those things is choke points that players can blockade or camp. This is why there will never be "jump gates" or other structures facilitating rapid transport. This is also why switching to solo to avoid your nemesis camping outside the no-fire zone where you're docked is not an exploit but a fundamental aspect of the game design.

They can avoid choke points and blockading/camping if they want using the mechanics you've mentioned and other means I'm sure. The impression I get is that DB and FD want to mitigate griefers. The scenario you imagined there - of trying to avoid your nemesis camping outside the no-fire zone - is;

A) one you will never have to face if you don't want this kind of gameplay - just play solo.
B) one that players who want to experience it in multiplayer, likely won't experience either if the current switch to solo option removes any incentive for players to play in this way.

 

[Darian]

So you are saying that there will be no camping outside no fire zones because the camper knows that his intented victim will just leave the station in another mode?

I call that the perfect solution.

I remember Everquest, 15 servers and one of them PvP, full of tumbleweeds and the occasional player sticking his nose into and then toddeling off back to the more amusing PvE worlds.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I remember Everquest ...

Ah Fansy .. where art though Fansy

 

[Kramster]

Until there is a real benefit beyond pvp Solo wins Hans down

 

[DaveB]

They can avoid choke points and blockading/camping if they want using the mechanics you've mentioned and other means I'm sure. The impression I get is that DB and FD want to mitigate griefers. The scenario you imagined there - of trying to avoid your nemesis camping outside the no-fire zone - is;

A) one you will never have to face if you don't want this kind of gameplay - just play solo.
B) one that players who want to experience it in multiplayer, likely won't experience either if the current switch to solo option removes any incentive for players to play in this way.

*sigh* once again with somebody insisting that everybody else must play the way he wants. No. I refuse. I'll continue to play open most of the time but when I'm not in the mood for PvP I'll go into a PvE private group or if I'm feeling antisocial I'll play solo, If I'm in the mood for character-based RP that day I'll join the group where I know everyone else is doing the same. And I'll do all this thankful that FD have made it possible to do it without grinding a new character for each mood. If somebody is annoying me I will make the decision on the spot whether to relieve that annoyance by frying his ship or either ignoring him or switching modes to make him go away and if that player doesn't like that I have that option then that's just his tough luck.

You play how you want and I'll play how I want, and the lovely thing about this game is that you can't stop me. I do have to wonder just how much of the ranting on this thread is folks objecting to that last bit.

 

[ChrisUK27]

All this hot air on mode switching loses sight of one thing. Mode switching is a fundamental component of a gameplay mechanic that is in ED by design. Throughout development DB and FD have gone on record multiple times to say that there are some things they don't want to ever see in ED. One of those things is choke points that players can blockade or camp. This is why there will never be "jump gates" or other structures facilitating rapid transport. This is also why switching to solo to avoid your nemesis camping outside the no-fire zone where you're docked is not an exploit but a fundamental aspect of the game design.

This will never change and I've sufficient confidence in FDs previous statements to that effect that if this were not an anonymous internet forum I'd take a friendly wager to that effect with anyone who thinks different.

Ok have you read the most recent Newsletter?

A brief overview of the past week’s developments follows:

Player faction The Mercs Of Mikunn had humble beginnings, with two members working to spread the influence of The Dukes Of Mikunn to nearby systems. By trading in slaves, the two brothers quickly managed to strengthen their hold on the system. Not content with their gains, the Dukes have turned to HR 7327 as their next target. The Commanders are rallying others to their cause, saying: “The Dukes want your help. If cash is your thing, come to Mikunn for some Merc work. I don’t call the shots, but I will be your liaison between you and the Dukes, serving only to coordinate. There are some serious credits to be made.”

In recent days players flying through Kappa Tucanae have been turned away by Commanders claiming allegiance with player faction Emperor's Grace. Those refusing to leave were promptly destroyed. In a statement on their online channel, Emperor’s Grace warned: “A surge in Federal scum and Alliance cowards has become unbearable within our borders. It is your duty to protect all that our Emperor has fought so hard to provide us. Join now and show your love for our Emperor’s Grace!”

If you want to see their thread it's here:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...=t(Elite_Dangerous_Newsletter_58)#post1428130

This Co-op is one example of how Open has more to offer and seems what FD wants to happen.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This Co-op is one example of how Open has more to offer and seems what FD wants to happen.

Indeed - and that still has nothing to do with any perceived problems associated with group switching.

 

[Driver]

This Co-op is one example of how Open has more to offer and seems what FD wants to happen.

Isn't it great that this dynamic player created content can coexist and even thrive within EDs OPen/Group/Solo game enviroment?

Thank you ChrisUK27 for giving us this example!

 

[Commander Edison]

*sigh* once again with somebody insisting that everybody else must play the way he wants. No. I refuse. I'll continue to play open most of the time but when I'm not in the mood for PvP I'll go into a PvE private group or if I'm feeling antisocial I'll play solo, If I'm in the mood for character-based RP that day I'll join the group where I know everyone else is doing the same. And I'll do all this thankful that FD have made it possible to do it without grinding a new character for each mood. If somebody is annoying me I will make the decision on the spot whether to relieve that annoyance by frying his ship or either ignoring him or switching modes to make him go away and if that player doesn't like that I have that option then that's just his tough luck.

You play how you want and I'll play how I want, and the lovely thing about this game is that you can't stop me. I do have to wonder just how much of the ranting on this thread is folks objecting to that last bit.

Yep. This has been thrashed at for months, but the fact is that the only reason to be against the system as it stands is that you want someone else to play how you want.

I've been in open since gamma, I like seeing other CMDRS and swapping little bits of info or wondering if they are up to no good in my little neighbourhood. But I'm having a week off next week, and there is every chance that I'll wake up with a steaming hangover at least once. On that day I shall cling to my bucket of alka seltzer and trade in solo because I really, really won't be chatty. But if group choices were locked I either wouldn't play, or I'd play and crash into some poor smuggler in the letterbox because I'm smashed.* Everyone loses.

Choice is good.

* Total disclosure, this may happen when I'm sober.

 

[DaveB]

Ok have you read the most recent Newsletter?

<newsletter quote snipped>

If you want to see their thread it's here:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...=t(Elite_Dangerous_Newsletter_58)#post1428130

This Co-op is one example of how Open has more to offer and seems what FD wants to happen.

Yep, I've read it, I even asked a question in that thread you linked and got a courteous reply from one of their leaders. I've also participated in the co-op effort around Lugh to work on flipping that system.

I'm all in favor of such events and as I said, I participate in them. However, if Joe Q Cmdr doesn't want to play that game he can pass through those systems without ever being instanced with the participants and this is also part of what FD wants to happen.

 

[ChrisUK27]

Indeed - and that still has nothing to do with any perceived problems associated with group switching.

Except all of it.

These actions in Open affect Solo and visa-versa (Unless I've got that wrong).

First group - players in Solo are affected by their actions so how long before the moans about lack of x,y,z start.

What if there's a player using that system as a base (Solo), in come this bunch and all of a sudden their influence, market etc they've worked at is gone to pot.

Second - It's a blockade. - Wonder how I can get round that...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Except all of it.

These actions in Open affect Solo and visa-versa (Unless I've got that wrong).

First group - players in Solo are affected by their actions so how long before the moans about lack of x,y,z start.

What if there's a player using that system as a base (Solo), in come this bunch and all of a sudden their influence, market etc they've worked at is gone to pot.

Second - It's a blockade. - Wonder how I can get round that...

Then what you should be calling for is the total removal of solo and private groups so that players in either of those modes cannot affect the shared galactic background simulation. I doubt that you'd find that proposal to gain any traction with Frontier.

 

[tagos]

Except all of it.

These actions in Open affect Solo and visa-versa (Unless I've got that wrong).

First group - players in Solo are affected by their actions so how long before the moans about lack of x,y,z start.

What if there's a player using that system as a base (Solo), in come this bunch and all of a sudden their influence, market etc they've worked at is gone to pot.

Second - It's a blockade. - Wonder how I can get round that...

1. I don't know, and it seems neither do you as you cannot even name these hypotheticals. I'm pretty certain I wouldn't care though.
2. So what? Don't care as that's the game i purchased.
3. Blockade? Not if I decide to go solo, just like the game allows and the designers intended there isn't.