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

[Undisputed]

Maybe we can have a poll ?

something like below:

where are you Cmdr ?

a) not hiding I'm 100%open.

b) playing group with friends.

c) lonely star trooper in solo

d) switching between modes


dunno how to make it maybe one of you can do this ?

 

[Joe Spivey]

Maybe we can have a poll ?

something like below:

where are you Cmdr ?

a) not hiding I'm 100%open.

b) playing group with friends.

c) lonely star trooper in solo

d) switching between modes


dunno how to make it maybe one of you can do this ?

Or you could just look up one of the half dozen or so similar polls.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, lets be honest. David Braben may be a cool guy and all. But lets assume for a moment he is building a game for other people and he doesn't necessarily know what other people want. Lets also assume what is fun for David Braben isn't fun for everyone. Lets also assume David Braben can be wrong. Now, I think we can continue.

Absolutely - humans are fallible creatures. That said, recognising fallibility in others does not necessarily mean that the decision making process in this case relating to the inclusion of the three game modes and group switching between them was flawed.

 

[tagos]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the game is about 'playing it however I want to', which is with other pilots, working towards a group goal.

That doesn't include incessant lobbying to change basic game mechanics to suit your desires. It means 'playing how you want to' in the game as it has been designed and sold.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

Well, lets be honest. David Braben may be a cool guy and all. But lets assume for a moment he is building a game for other people and he doesn't necessarily know what other people want. Lets also assume what is fun for David Braben isn't fun for everyone. Lets also assume David Braben can be wrong. Now, I think we can continue.

Perhaps the silliest thing I ever read. There is no right or wrong in this instance, as it's purely subjective. Some people like Picasso, and some don't. Neither is wrong, neither is right, but what's important is that Picasso painted for Picasso. Entertainment of any stripe is far too subjective to be right or wrong.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

The story so far?

Okay - to summarize what I've seen so far in this thread:

It's about the modes of play Open and Solo and Groups. The core design, directed by FDev and decided upon/discussed by backers who backed Elite Dangerous to higher levels than any of us now discussing that design were prepared to do. (So it was not just DB's idea... lots of interested people contributed to this design.)

The intended design is that upon launching a session, the player may at will choose which kind of session to launch. Each session regardless of mode will affect the background simulation in the same way, hence all prices need to be the same otherwise the economics would not be affect the same. The ability to switch by design is preserved for the following reasons:

• You may desire to play a single or multiple sessions with a group of friends - Hence switching from Open to Groups and back.
• You may go abroad/to a hotel/or to work (during your breaks, of course) where uPNP is not available or the lag is so bad, hence Solo, which requires minimal bandwidth, is the only option for some people. Switching from Open to Solo and back to Open is therefore permitted.
• You may desire to avoid 'perceived griefing' (not my words, not my definition) at which point you may disconnect, log in Solo, continue your play and log back into Open at your leisure (Yes, this is part of the reasoning for the design.)
• You may decide to play fully in either Solo, Groups or Open and no pressure is given to exist in any mode. Play it how you want to play, you will be fully involved with the dynamic universe and not penalised for either.

Some of the exploits that have come up on the forums and form some of the contention points for making changes to this arrangement are:

• Logging out on initial contact with another play or during combat and continuing in another mode (This is not the idea of avoiding griefing, unless we are talking about being picked on by the same person continually.)
• Blockades can be got round by playing in a mode other than Open (though matchmaking and 32 client limit can also get in the way)
• Putting commanders on block lists to avoid matching (another anti-griefing measure that can be abused)
• Port Blocking during interdiction to avoid PvP in Open

Some of the unproven/contested ideas on Open vs Solo:

• That there is somehow more risk in Open - The opposite of which is that the universe is so big that Open can be like Solo in experience
• That Open mode is specifically a PvP Arena - Contested by DB's vision that Player contact would be Rare and Meaningful (I know, some of you are sick of that quote...)
• That provision of Groups/Solo means that there are no traders in Open.
• That it is easier to trade in Solo/Groups (specifically PvE groups)
• That NPCs are diddly-piddly
• That some people just PK for the fun of it and that ruins Open
• That trading in Solo, tooling up, and taking that Supa-Dupa Anaconda to Open is an exploit

Some of the suggestions that Players have made:

• Partition Open/Groups/Solo (Remove mode switching) - even though it will inevitably reduce the amount of players in open.
• Make Open more profitable (Make trades more profitable/equipment cheaper) - even though it will unbalance the background economy simulation, and appear to penalise those players who choose (or are forced to choose) Solo mode for personal or technical reasons.
• Have separate universes - Even though that would mean multiple universe simulations, multiple servers... but no one is willing to pay any more to support this!!!
• Force all players in to Open - Eliminating players who technically cannot do PtP connections, and increasing the number of players who will resort to the port blocking exploit, resulting in fewer players playing altogether and denying the ability for friends to specifically play together
• Leave it alone - it's fine - "Let it go, let it go..." (hehe - you've got that song in your head now!!!)

Oh, and finally:

• Pro-PvP players being defined as Griefers who are just out to make you their next lunch - Not True (all the time)
• Solo players being defined at Care Bears, despite the warning from the mods that such name calling would get people a 7 day ban. Not everyone in Solo is running from PvP
• Pirates being defined as PKers (A true pirate does not kill his marks!!! - So not true)
• PKers pretending to be pirates
• People saying they know best cause they worked blah blah blah blah experienced blah blah
• This is the end of the world as we know it - FDev will die a horrible death
• This is the start of something beautiful - FDev will go down in history
• A few people enjoying themselves
• A few people getting so frustrated with the whole thing they are in danger of doing themselves harm
• Comparisons to EVE, WOW, some other unhelpful reference to a game in which Pew Pew, gank, ruined, blah...

Have I missed something?

 

[Azulkb]

you missed nothing

but i notice, this thread begin to dispapear from "today post".
I am happy with that, need one more week and i think, it poof.

Good, and personaly i hope no changement with game mode (expect perhaps no logoff or switch during a fight),
i am tired with other mmo where few hardcore decide for all.

And finaly, (is only speculative), but how is fun, if a players return after 2 week exploration, 15000 Ly, with blog post, screen, and near a station without dmg, after a looooong travel.... 70% hull left, little weapon for max jump range, and ? juste interdicted and killed by another player. Lol . very fun. (

 

[Gibbonici]

So lets say FD seal off Solo and Private from Open. Open is now a locked mode, with a woefully underdeveloped environment for the kind of play that the locked Open mode argument is clamouring for. There's no corp type structures, no player-owned stations, no way of defending such stations or maintaining blockades etc due to instancing, and no means of effectively controlling space. NPC trading as modelled by the background sim reduces the economic effects of ship losses to a mere blip, so that's another change that needs to happen to bring more depth to this mode.

So where do we go from here? How much more development time has to be invested in the new locked Open mode? How many differences will there need to be between the Open mode database and other modes database? How is that going to be maintained? Another set of servers to support it?

How much development time is going to be taken away from the game that was intended since before the Kickstarter and long before the forum wars?

All of this suggests one final question - what do you tell people who wanted to play the old game but now have a different one?

And is the answer any different to the question "what do you tell people who want a different game to the one that this one is setting out to be?"

 

[tagos]

Perhaps the silliest thing I ever read. There is no right or wrong in this instance, as it's purely subjective. Some people like Picasso, and some don't. Neither is wrong, neither is right, but what's important is that Picasso painted for Picasso. Entertainment of any stripe is far too subjective to be right or wrong.

If I bought a Picasso I'd be real miffed if Matisse came and painted over it, that's for sure.

 

[tagos]

So lets say FD seal off Solo and Private from Open. Open is now a locked mode, with a woefully underdeveloped environment for the kind of play that the locked Open mode argument is clamouring for. There's no corp type structures, no player-owned stations, no way of defending such stations or maintaining blockades etc due to instancing, and no means of effectively controlling space. NPC trading as modelled by the background sim reduces the economic effects of ship losses to a mere blip, so that's another change that needs to happen to bring more depth to this mode.

So where do we go from here? How much more development time has to be invested in the new locked Open mode? How many differences will there need to be between the Open mode database and other modes database? How is that going to be maintained? Another set of servers to support it?

How much development time is going to be taken away from the game that was intended since before the Kickstarter and long before the forum wars?

All of this suggests one final question - what do you tell people who wanted to play the old game but now have a different one?

And is the answer any different to the question "what do you tell people who want a different game to the one that this one is setting out to be?"

There's simply no upside for Frontier in changing things, just costs and lost income. For instance - if I couldn't swap between Open and Solo I wouldn't have spent £10 on Asp skins.

This isn't a PvP game and I'd bet a majority of players would be happy to see PvP replaced by really dangerous NPC's.

I wouldn't mind betting that a lot of players would swap PvP for Solo Offline.

 

[CMDR Reza Malin]

Don't really see that this is relevant, there's probably a lot of squaddies playing ED, I'm one (now civvy). I primarily play solo and group and at no point did I say to myself - I must avoid being attacked. I played solo in this game because that is how I played the other Elite games, I liked the idea of some coop play so I applied to the Mobius grp. I even like playing some open. All I want to do is play the game using the mechanism that FD has provided, one they've been quite open about from the very beginning. Having choice is a good thing. Being forced to be the unwilling cannon-fodder for a bunch of people who paid not one penny more than I did for ED is not my idea of fun especially when the game allows these people to form a PvP group and do what they want in the group whilst allowing everyone else to enjoy the game they paid for. The problem we (on my side) have with you is that you just will not accept the game the way it is even though you presumably paid for it knowing the score. And once again I say to you, it is not going to change. Why don't you organise like minded players, make a group and advertise it on these forums and then have at it, no one is stopping you. This thread is ridiculous.

Im sure lots of ex soldiers are playing this game, and why not? Im also a civvy now too. You completely missed the point of what i was saying and why with reference to the military comment, so maybe you should have read the other guys comment before posting? In fact seeing as it looks like you haven't really read anything i really said except maybe the first couple of lines, maybe you should read more of what is being discussed on a forum in general, and in what context before posting. There are 92 pages. The discussion moves beyond just what is in the heading sometimes.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Well, lets be honest. David Braben may be a cool guy and all. But lets assume for a moment he is building a game for other people and he doesn't necessarily know what other people want. Lets also assume what is fun for David Braben isn't fun for everyone. Lets also assume David Braben can be wrong. Now, I think we can continue.

Your assumption i believe is wrong.

If i recall the quote correctly, it went something like he is making the game for himself, and invites others to join him.

So, if this is indeed the case, he cannot be wrong from this perspective, because he is making the game he wants. The fact that some people don't like the game suggests they shouldn't be playing it. The fact that some people do like the game means he is making something that others also happen to enjoy.

 

[Alpha November]

Im sure lots of ex soldiers are playing this game, and why not? Im also a civvy now too. You completely missed the point of what i was saying and why with reference to the military comment, so maybe you should have read the other guys comment before posting? In fact seeing as it looks like you haven't really read anything i really said except maybe the first couple of lines, maybe you should read more of what is being discussed on a forum in general, and in what context before posting. There are 92 pages. The discussion moves beyond just what is in the heading sometimes.

Read it and replied to it.

 

[DarkWalker]

3. Licence Restrictions
You are not permitted:
(a) to load the Game on to a network server for the purposes of distribution to one or more other device(s) on that network or to effect such distribution;
(b) except as expressly permitted by this EULA and to the extent expressly permitted by applicable law, to rent, lease, sub-license, loan, exploit for profit or gain, copy, modify, adapt, merge, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or create derivative works based on the whole or any part of the Game or use, reproduce, distribute, translate, broadcast, publicly perform, store in a retrieval system or otherwise deal in the Game or any part thereof in any way;
(c) use cheats, automation software, hacks, mods, or any other unauthorized software designed to modify or defeat the purpose or experience of the Game;
(d) use any unauthorized software that harvests or otherwise collections information about others or the Game, including about a character or the game environment;
(e) use any robot, spider, scraper, or other automated or manual means to access the Game or any Online Features or copy any content or information from the Game or any Online Features;
(f) probe, scan, test the vulnerability of or breach the authentication measures of the Game or any Online Features;
(g) violate any technology control or export laws and regulations that apply to the technology used or supported by the Game or any Online Features.


The method you mentioned, I believe, falls in the category highlighted in red from the EULA & Terms of Use. I wouldn't risk a ban just to get a unfair advantage against others.

1. It can happen accidentally or otherwise outside the player's control, so much that many players had to tweak their routers to see other players in open in the first place.

2. Network hiccups can cause it even if everything has worked fine before. So can overzealous anti-virus.

3. Hard to say what exactly is happening, and which player is causing it.

4. Even if Frontier can tell which player is breaking the matchmaking, no way to tell if it was intentional or not.

5. There are other ways to trigger it without a firewall or tweaking router settings. For example, saturate your broadband, perhaps by streaming a couple high def videos or torrenting something, and the matchmaking will avoid putting you in the same instance as other players in order to not harm everyone else's experience.

Judging by how the multiplayer was implemented, Frontier never intended to lock players to an online mode, allow blockades to happen, etc. Because, if they did want this kind of forced PvP to happen, they basically chose the worst possible network architecture for that. You might want to think about ED's multiplayer as something closer to Dark Souls, just with a far higher chance of meeting someone, where you are never guaranteed to meet anyone else in the same place as you.

(And, incidentally, as prone to exploits as the Dark Souls model.)

BTW, game devs typically want to use a very light touch when applying that rule. As a simple example, Voice Attack would run afoul of that same rule, as it is a third party software meant to modify the experience by providing voice commands that don't exist in the base game.

 

[cpy]

I play in open and i if i get destroyed with 3M worth of palladium on board + 1M buyout i want pirate to get 4M bounty! So that sucker will never be able to pay for the mess he creates. Then all would be pirates will be either pirate for life or guys who play it safe (not killing you but robbing you instead) by targeting cargo hatch.

What do you think is the sentence in real life for stealing 1 vodka bottle from your shop vs stealing 10M USD from bank. I don't think it's the same penalty, why should it be same here?

 

[nightspore]

Well, lets be honest. David Braben may be a cool guy and all. But lets assume for a moment he is building a game for other people and he doesn't necessarily know what other people want. Lets also assume what is fun for David Braben isn't fun for everyone. Lets also assume David Braben can be wrong. Now, I think we can continue.

He designed a game which at last count has sold 300K copies, so I think that he really does have a pretty good idea about what people want, since I think that the great majority do seem to be enjoying the game as it is (incomplete though it may be).

 

[cpy]

He designed a game which at last count has sold 300K copies, so I think that he really does have a pretty good idea about what people want, since I think that the great majority do seem to be enjoying the game as it is (incomplete though it may be).

ED is good, i mean REALLY good, i plan to buy all DLCs because nobody ever delivered such good space sim to me since 1999 or so. I hope the best for dev team and many many more sold copies.

 

[aeshec]

I think this thread is fully cooked. I highly suggest letting it die or closing it.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I think this thread is fully cooked. I highly suggest letting it die or closing it.

When something is fully cooked, its been dead for a long time. I suggest you eat it!!!

I doubt the Mods will close it as, like a weed, it will pop up elsewhere.

 

[Joe Spivey]

Well, lets be honest. David Braben may be a cool guy and all. But lets assume for a moment he is building a game for other people and he doesn't necessarily know what other people want. Lets also assume what is fun for David Braben isn't fun for everyone. Lets also assume David Braben can be wrong. Now, I think we can continue.

Except.... DB and the company are NOT building a game for other people. they have repeated many many time that they are building the game FOR THEMSELVES. We are just along for the ride.