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

[DarkWalker]

As to getting a pve character to pvp in wow temporarily I believe that the word temporarily is indeed a big difference from how the switching works in ED, which is not temporarily, but instead as long as the player wants; which is my critique.

Why, sure, it's temporary. Just like someone that plays in open going for a few hours to solo to recover after losing a ship is temporary

Next time I'm subscribed I need to test if I can do that with one of those "eternal trial" accounts, BTW; I believe I can. It would be a nice way to do it on demand and for free, since WoW specifically allows players to run multiple instances with different accounts from the same install.

If taking procedural generation to the next level would be the key, or even only factor, to a great single player experience, you would have to do it really well (or just do it in '84/'93 ). Right now the procedural generation is the 400 billions systems/stars. The rest is really not. I really really do hope that FD will in fact take procedural generation to higher and higher levels, incorporating it into all aspects of the game to make it truly dynamic,even if I can't get my multiplayer pirate/trader experience. Right now though, there's not much else to ED's procedural generation other than the 400 billion systems/stars (which I do enjoy and find is truly awesome! Once planetary landings come I will definitely and surely go explore the galaxy and land on mysterious planets, and set up mining hoppers. At least that's a hope I got for the future of ED).

What is not procedurally generated, as of now, is just the player activity and some celestial bodies that were seeded by hand; Frontier doesn't seem to have started seeding handcrafted events yet. So, it's not only the systems/stars/planets/etc, but also the missions, the NPCs, the variations on commodity prices (atop the changes caused by the players), and so on.

In fact, if you go somewhere out of the way where meeting other players is exceedingly rare — exploring, trading away from the main hubs, etc — you will be going through what is nearly 100% procedural content.

Now, procedural generation can also be employed to change things. All that influence the players have on the galaxy? It's possible to get a very similar result by using procedural generation. There are games out there that do this, such as Dwarf Fortress. The same method could have been used in a potential single player offline version of ED.

(Heck, I would hope they use similar techniques for the online version to fill out activity where player presence is thin. With a play area the size Frontier made, they aren't going to be able to evolve it by hand in a satisfactory way, and even player activity might not be enough to make the galaxy feel alive apart from the better traversed home systems.)

 

[Roland2]

Ok so let's imagine we are all people who have never played Elite but like the idea of a space game.

Then we watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6peGu2yG6o

It's the Official Elite: Dangerous Launch Trailer

The video has just stopped, what sort of game is this?

Honest answers!

Honest answer? In the form of a question: What does this video have to do with Solo vs Open vs Group?

 

[Dave1235]

I agree with freedom of choice. I just don't agree that the "pvp server" should offer possibility to opt out of pvp. The choice between solo/open choice really should be made at commander creation, and each player should be able to create 1 commander for open and 1 commander for solo. In addition "solo" should not actually be pure solo, but offer the opportunity and freedom to have consensual pvp, pvp flagging.

There is no "pvp server", it is one "instance" with matchmaking, this change that you suggest, where do you think it should be put into the priority list, before wings, before "murder" penalty's, something that should bring more traders into open when balanced a bit better.

Why would you object to me trading in open in my type 6 because I play in solo sometimes? or groups?, why do I need another ship & do twice the work if I want to play for an hour or two on hotel wifi when I am away from home & maybe on teathering, I should be able to use my only CMDR as I have been able to from PB to date, I think so. No need for any additional work here for the devs, "move along please, these are not the droids you are looking for".

 

[W0OCQCK]

Reading my post again I have no idea what you're talking about. Did you perhaps get me mixed up with another post?

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



You play OPEN.

Yea Maybe so. My sincere apoligies.

 

[CMDR Reza Malin]

Honest answer? In the form of a question: What does this video have to do with Solo vs Open vs Group?

Im not sure if you noticed Roland, but this thread alone is 127 pages long, and that is not including all the other threads that were made about this same topic before they were closed. Discussions have been ongoing for tens of pages, between various forum members. Not all directly related to the thread title, which is extremely vague anyway, but still usually relevant in some way. Maybe you should read at least some of the pages in future, before you comment on such a big thread. Especially if its with a cocky one liner. Not sure if that was your intent, but it certainly comes across like that.

 

[Dave1235]

You don't get the point.

I hate to be blunt but I don't think you get the point.

I love a good debate, I read far more than I comment on, but a lot of people seem to have missed (or ignored) all (or most) the Dev posts quoted here.

That aside, DBOBE has always said "they are making the game they want to make & play" (and being the largest shareholder, I guess his opinion counts for a bit).

You can "farm credits by consensual PvP", you just need some of the consenting PVPer's to be the sheep rather than the wolf, make a private group, I would suggest you advertise it on the forums.

I am not a marketing guru but I would avoid "sheep wanted for a pvp only group" , I would guess you would see less traders than in open.

 

[CMDR Reza Malin]

Ok so let's imagine we are all people who have never played Elite but like the idea of a space game.

Then we watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6peGu2yG6o

It's the Official Elite: Dangerous Launch Trailer

The video has just stopped, what sort of game is this?

Honest answers!

I watched this video before i bought the game. It wasn't my sole research for buying, but i certainly watched it. And i have to admit it did make me imagine people everywhere, and lots of exciting interactions doing all kinds of things, including pvp.

What is didn't even hint at, was that about 40% of the playerbase would hide in solo, leaving a 60% at best, open population.

What is probably the most clear thing in this video, is the perception it gives that all the ships in the scene are players. I mean, lets be honest now, none of those ships could possibly be piloted by the elite AI. They were all actually flying, not just circling forwards or backwards waiting to die, or interdicting asps with sidewinders or eagles.

 

[CMDR Reza Malin]

I hate to be blunt but I don't think you get the point.

I love a good debate, I read far more than I comment on, but a lot of people seem to have missed (or ignored) all (or most) the Dev posts quoted here.

That aside, DBOBE has always said "they are making the game they want to make & play" (and being the largest shareholder, I guess his opinion counts for a bit).

You can "farm credits by consensual PvP", you just need some of the consenting PVPer's to be the sheep rather than the wolf, make a private group, I would suggest you advertise it on the forums.

I am not a marketing guru but I would avoid "sheep wanted for a pvp only group" , I would guess you would see less traders than in open.

There is another Dave, with a name like yours! Anyway.

I think you are missing a point also. All the dev posts and videos being linked by most people here, are almost a year old. Now while i am not saying the focus points in the statements made are no longer true, what i am saying is that after a year of development, feedback and then the actual game launch, no one on these forums knows what the devs or DB are still thinking right now. It might be the same, it might not. If people want to say " well we backed it, it cant change ", then they just have to look at offline mode.

In actual fact, the most recent dev posts, that are actually within the last few days, are heavily involved with pvp, its balancing between traders and fighters, and tuning the punishment system for stupidly aggressive players. So yes, pvp is certainly here to stay to the extent it is relevant within the game universe. The only pvp that i think they will 'actively' discourage will be over the top killing people for no reason other than cheap laughs.

 

[T@F]

I watched this video before i bought the game. It wasn't my sole research for buying, but i certainly watched it. And i have to admit it did make me imagine people everywhere, and lots of exciting interactions doing all kinds of things, including pvp.

What is didn't even hint at, was that about 40% of the playerbase would hide in solo, leaving a 60% at best, open population.

What is probably the most clear thing in this video, is the perception it gives that all the ships in the scene are players. I mean, lets be honest now, none of those ships could possibly be piloted by the elite AI. They were all actually flying, not just circling forwards or backwards waiting to die, or interdicting asps with sidewinders or eagles.

You keep banging on about hiding in solo.
Have you ever thought ppl like me play solo because we have a bandwidth cap.
So playing solo i'm still having fun without destroying my cap for the month.

Tbh i would rather had offline mode as thats why i orig bought into (early access) elite in the first place.

 

[Captain Willard]

From what i've read here the biggest whine is that solo players cheat by playing solo and going into open. Funny tho how everyone can do it. So what if they go after a python, i'll stick with an asp as my combat ship. If the end is 30,000 pythons and condas in the game, the little ships can run and lettem fight it out, OR maybe 25 sideys will corner 7 pythons on a map. A pointless whine, everyone can do the same games and the 3 groups. Open, solo and group are here to stay. If ya can't or won't run with the big dogs. Get off the porch.

 

[Dave1235]

There is another Dave, with a name like yours! Anyway.

I think you are missing a point also. All the dev posts and videos being linked by most people here, are almost a year old. Now while i am not saying the focus points in the statements made are no longer true, what i am saying is that after a year of development, feedback and then the actual game launch, no one on these forums knows what the devs or DB are still thinking right now. It might be the same, it might not. If people want to say " well we backed it, it cant change ", then they just have to look at offline mode.

In actual fact, the most recent dev posts, that are actually within the last few days, are heavily involved with pvp, its balancing between traders and fighters, and tuning the punishment system for stupidly aggressive players. So yes, pvp is certainly here to stay to the extent it is relevant within the game universe. The only pvp that i think they will 'actively' discourage will be over the top killing people for no reason other than cheap laughs.

I respect your opinion and your logic, even though our opinions are a little different, you say the dev posts are old, I say they are relevant unless you quote something newer from a dev changing it.

The switching between modes has been in the game from the start, it is still here and its going to take a lot more people getting upset about it than we have now for FD to change it IMHO.

It will take some time, I am pretty sure its on their list but when "murdering" for cheap laughs as you put it (not pirating accidents, I am sure we agree) are balanced a bit better I think you will see more traders in open.

FD have stated that they can send the PKers to PVP hell, eg their own instance "the naughty step", they have too much to do right now to pay too much attention to this, hence the Mods creating this "black hole", shame its needed but it would appear this "little storm in a teacup" has picked up a little wind.

I don't think they will stop PKers / (RP psycos), it is a valid way to play the game, but their life should be one of always looking over their shoulder and the bounty's will be more meaningful

 

[Amaze]

You don't get the point. Traders vs PvPers (or bounty hunters).

- The trader has AN EASY MODE option available for him
- The PvPer has ZERO EASY MODE options available for him (if there was a PvP arena where we could farm credits by consensual PvP, that would be our equivalent of "easy mode")

The design clearly favors only one gameplay style.

It is still your choice to play as PvP only or trader in open or solo.

Different games favors different play styles and I see your point that this one doesn't favor your playstyle.
Really I don't like to say this but I think it fits here, "this game is just not for you".

 

[Darian]

For the nth time
Traders do not need solo to vanish for the pvp player, they can trade away from the high populated (player) systhems and the chance of finding one is remote at best.
Traders and solo mode is an non issue, the populatet systhems are so many that they are "solo" mode too, even if one plays in open

 

[ianstrauss]

For the nth time
Traders do not need solo to vanish for the pvp player, they can trade away from the high populated (player) systhems and the chance of finding one is remote at best.
Traders and solo mode is an non issue, the populatet systhems are so many that they are "solo" mode too, even if one plays in open

That is exactly the point why the Devs should reconsider seperating Solo mode and Open Play Mode, because there isnt really a point vanishing like that by switching modes to abuse the mechanics.

You want to trade without shields and proper armaments? If you get ganked and die well no one else to blame but yourself
You want to trade in highly populated rare trading routes? Accept the risk that there may be a pirate there waiting for you. Else, try and discover a lesser profitable route but safer. Risk vs Reward right?

The Devs are trying their best to put up the best mechanics for traders to avoid getting PVPed easily and to allow them to survive, but all of these good stuff effectivity will be negated due to one fact, people can just switch between modes. Btw, I hate PVP FYI.

The galaxy is so damn big even all people on Earth multiplied by 10 play this game in Open and have their own star system, you can still hide somewhere and nobody will find you. Why allow switching? Problem is some people just want an easy way out, hopefully its just in games not in real life, because if it is then Im sorry for you.

As I always point out. Everything you get from Solo Mode should be only stay in Solo. Open Play should give you a totally unique CMDR.

Nobody's asking to remove Solo, just make them seperate so nobody gets left out. You just have to make up your mind which one you prefer

Although I hate PVP and I'm mainly doing trading and mining, PvP encounters should be part of the game and switching from one mode to another to avoid confrontation is not the intention why the feature was created.

A lot of people are starting to get bored and this game is starting to get the reputation of being a Space Trucking Simulator. IT SHOULDNT BE.


Let the game reach its full potential and I hope the the Devs do something quick to correct the notion that this game is not only a Space Trucking Simulation but a living, breathing space ecosystem full of riches for the brave entrepreneur, untold mysteries for the bold explorers and danger for the cunning pirates and bounty hunters.

 

[W0OCQCK]

That is exactly the point why the Devs should reconsider seperating Solo mode and Open Play Mode, because there isnt really a point vanishing like that by switching modes to abuse the mechanics.

You want to trade without shields and proper armaments? If you get ganked and die well no one else to blame but yourself
You want to trade in highly populated rare trading routes? Accept the risk that there may be a pirate there waiting for you. Else, try and discover a lesser profitable route but safer. Risk vs Reward right?

The Devs are trying their best to put up the best mechanics for traders to avoid getting PVPed easily and to allow them to survive, but all of these good stuff effectivity will be negated due to one fact, people can just switch between modes. Btw, I hate PVP FYI.

The galaxy is so damn big even all people on Earth multiplied by 10 play this game in Open and have their own star system, you can still hide somewhere and nobody will find you. Why allow switching? Problem is some people just want an easy way out, hopefully its just in games not in real life, because if it is then Im sorry for you.

As I always point out. Everything you get from Solo Mode should be only stay in Solo. Open Play should give you a totally unique CMDR.

Nobody's asking to remove Solo, just make them seperate so nobody gets left out. You just have to make up your mind which one you prefer

Although I hate PVP and I'm mainly doing trading and mining, PvP encounters should be part of the game and switching from one mode to another to avoid confrontation is not the intention why the feature was created.

A lot of people is starting to get bored and this game is starting to get the reputation of being a Space Trucking Simulator. IT SHOULDNT BE.


Let the game reach its full potential and I hope the the Devs do something quick to correct the notion that this game is not only a Space Trucking Simulation but a living, breathing ecosystem full of riches for the brave entrepreneur, untold mysteries for the bold explorers and danger for the cunning pirates and bounty hunters.

Ya know, I think we get where you stand here. No honestly I get it. I think everyone gets your position here. Don't agree with it, but do completely understand your position. I think the DEV's do too.

P.S. I just bought my very first combat ship today, I'm just figuring out how to set it up for fighting. I'm not bored in the very least. Quite the opposite, I'm having fun here. And all three modes to switch to, at will i might add, they're still there. Isn't bothering me one little bit.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

Ganking a trader SHOULD be like taking a candy from the baby.

Sounds like a blast for the baby. And yet you wonder why all these complaints fall on deaf ears. Honestly, you guys should give up. It should be obvious by now that mode switching isn't going to change, and all the tantrums in the black hole (this thread) aren't going to change that. Deep down, I think you all realize that, but are just stubbornly refusing to admit it to yourselves.

 

[ianstrauss]

Sounds like a blast for the baby. And yet you wonder why all these complaints fall on deaf ears. Honestly, you guys should give up. It should be obvious by now that mode switching isn't going to change, and all the tantrums in the black hole (this thread) aren't going to change that. Deep down, I think you all realize that, but are just stubbornly refusing to admit it to yourselves.

Don't be naive to think that if a feature is here now, it will stay there forever.
This is an online game and online game do get constant change

Offline Mode ring any bell?
Nerf of ASP ring any bell?
I can go on and on but at the end of the day, the Devs call the shots. Not you, not the backers and not anyone else but the Devs.

Anythings possible as long as good feedback is provided. Now if the devs already dismissed this suggeston, this thread should have been closed long ago.

If there's a smoke, there must be fire

 

[Joe Spivey]

There is another Dave, with a name like yours! Anyway.

I think you are missing a point also. All the dev posts and videos being linked by most people here, are almost a year old. Now while i am not saying the focus points in the statements made are no longer true, what i am saying is that after a year of development, feedback and then the actual game launch, no one on these forums knows what the devs or DB are still thinking right now. It might be the same, it might not. If people want to say " well we backed it, it cant change ", then they just have to look at offline mode.

In actual fact, the most recent dev posts, that are actually within the last few days, are heavily involved with pvp, its balancing between traders and fighters, and tuning the punishment system for stupidly aggressive players. So yes, pvp is certainly here to stay to the extent it is relevant within the game universe. The only pvp that i think they will 'actively' discourage will be over the top killing people for no reason other than cheap laughs.

I'm sorry. You are very close here to making an argument from ignorance. 'There hasn't been any confirmation from the devs for a year, so maybe they have changed their minds.' It just doesn't work that way. We might never hear another word from the devs ever about anything but you would still have to produce positive evidence that the devs have changed their minds on any particular subject for it to be viable. You are suggesting that the devs may have changed their minds. Ok. The burden of proof lays with you, as the one positing the change to the status quo, to provide evidence to back up this suggestion. It is not up to anyone else to prove the suggestion false.

Sandro's post, although very interesting and clarifies what their plans and thinking are about the PvP against traders thing, is not evidence of any change from DB's original statement that PvP is a minor element of ED and is is discouraged in favour of player co-op. The statement is what it is, an explanation of how they see a specific situation and how the propose to deal with it. There is no evidence to suggest that they are moving away from having PvP be 'rare and meaningful' and in context with the game. Perceived 'griefing' is another matter and FD have always said that they can ramp up punishment for this until the known griefers are left playing with themselves in griefer hell.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

Don't be naive to think that if a feature is here now, it will stay there forever.
This is an online game and online game do get constant change

Wishful thinking on your part. Your argument is a base form of argumentum ad ignorantiam, that is to say that you're clinging to it simply because it has not been proven false.

The devs put the current system in place, and have defended it several times in these threads. I can post quotes if you'd like.

Given that, it's logical to assume that it will remain in place until proven otherwise. ie, the burden of proof is entirely upon those who naively believe that FD is going to reverse thrusters and change it up.

The offline mode lends more credence to no change, than change. It was an ugly little affair for FD, but it's (mostly) over. Do you really believe they're going to make a habit of reversing decisions and gaining the reputation as the developer that routinely backpedals? Of course not. Since they've done it once, they're going to be even more careful about doing it again.

The Asp is ship balancing. Look for more balancing, over and over throughout the life of the game. It's not relevant to this discussion.

Again, I can provide quotes from the devs if you'd like. This thread is open for a reason: It's a place to move all the dead horse beating out of the way, to keep new threads about it from popping up. They created a black hole (mods term, not mine) so you can vent away from other discussions they consider important.

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

I'm sorry. You are very close here to making an argument from ignorance. 'There hasn't been any confirmation from the devs for a year, so maybe they have changed their minds.'

I swear that I didn't read this before I typed my own accusation of arguing from ignorance. GMTA

 

[Cowboy Bats]

I watched this video before i bought the game. It wasn't my sole research for buying, but i certainly watched it. And i have to admit it did make me imagine people everywhere, and lots of exciting interactions doing all kinds of things, including pvp.

Not to be unsympathetic, but it's a trailer. I play Call of Duty sometimes as well. To date Megan Fox has not appeared to hand me a single weapon in times of need. Trailers by their very nature are nothing but heavily produced hype, and that extends far beyond the gaming industry itself. For what it's worth, movie producers and game designers alike are seldom happy with the marketing dept, but accounting loves them because they get results. That's just 1st world life in the 21st century. Would continue, but time to dock.