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

[W0OCQCK]

It's just not that kind of game bud, a fair fight will be extremely rare unless it's pre-arranged. PvP in ED is gank or be ganked, fine for those who enjoy that, I personally don't see the attraction of either side of that coin. I enjoy balanced PvP where I get to test my skill against a willing opponent, for that I play games that were built around PvP from the ground up; Battlefield, occasionally Heroes and Generals, I'm currently having a real blast in World of Warships. ED on the other hand, I play PVE (Mobius' group), apart from the odd pre-arranged scrap.

Nice to meet a like minded individual. My PVP fixes are from DayZ, and Planetside II. I just don't have much interest in PVP in Elite. I play Elite mostly for a little relaxing down time, which I enjoy very much. Even in eve I never had much use for the Ganking type of PVP.

I don't however think is anything wrong with the Ganking type of PVP in Elite. That's what, "PVP Open" is there for. it's just not my cup of tea.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

I feel like mode switching is a weight tied to open and the game, holding it back. If elite locked players to one mode so many more features could be added. Proper tracking for player pirates,open players couldn't switch to solo to grind community goals, no more easy money from solo then wreaking havoc in open, pirates wouldn't be able to hide in solo while they pay their bounty, we could even have competing missions and most importantly solo and open can be balanced separately.

 

[SteveLaw]

I feel like mode switching is a weight tied to open and the game, holding it back. If elite locked players to one mode so many more features could be added. Proper tracking for player pirates,open players couldn't switch to solo to grind community goals, no more easy money from solo then wreaking havoc in open, pirates wouldn't be able to hide in solo while they pay their bounty, we could even have competing missions and most importantly solo and open can be balanced separately.

What about Group? (What about freedom of choice depending on mood or personal situation at the time?)

 

[Robert Maynard]

I feel like mode switching is a weight tied to open holding it back.

.... and others (myself included) feel that the mode switching feature, as pitched from the outset, is valuable for the purpose of allowing all players to "play the game how you want to".

If players are seeking changes to the game to facilitate their personal play-style (i.e. remove the freedom of choice for other players), that's a different matter entirely.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

What about Group? (What about freedom of choice depending on mood or personal situation at the time?)

Group could be lumped with solo. start a different character for solo or open. Freedom of choice only extends so far. Game balance should be ideal not choice.

.... and others (myself included) feel that the mode switching feature, as pitched from the outset, is valuable for the purpose of allowing all players to "play the game how you want to".

If players are seeking changes to the game to facilitate their personal play-style (i.e. remove the freedom of choice for other players), that's a different matter entirely.

Lots of ideas were proposed from the onset and aren't or won't be in the game. Play the game your way is all well and good but when it destroys balance and prevents potential features it shouldn't be allowed.

The meta game already removes choice from the players. When solo or mobius become the money making/community goal mode and open becomes the pvp/ kill all players mode, how is freedom being preserved?

 

[SteveLaw]

Freedom of choice only extends so far.

I disagree. Freedom of choice was part of the game from release and is one the primary reasons a lot of people bought the game.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

The meta game already removes choice from the players. When solo or mobius become the money making/community goal mode and open becomes the pvp/ kill all players mode, how is freedom being preserved?

But you KNEW this (or had the opportunity too) before buying. IF it offends you so you should have voted with your wallet. IF FD wanted to create an all new "CLOSED" mode which once you started the game with a new you were locked in, complete with your own server.***... Personally I could not give too hoots... but please, stop trying to remove important features which were advertised from day 1, and which will completely bork many of our playstyles, who want to be able to play with friends.


*** I know Michael B has said they currently have no interest in doing this, which may mean you are out of luck, but sadly that is just the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[Lestenio]

Group could be lumped with solo. start a different character for solo or open. Freedom of choice only extends so far. Game balance should be ideal not choice.

Do you really think many people are going to grind out several saves? Highly unlikely

Lots of ideas were proposed from the onset and aren't or won't be in the game. Play the game your way is all well and good but when it destroys balance and prevents potential features it shouldn't be allowed.

And because some features didn't make it into the game, its somehow the fault of solo players?

The meta game already removes choice from the players. When solo or mobius become the money making/community goal mode and open becomes the pvp/ kill all players mode, how is freedom being preserved?

Freedom of choice. I chose what mode I want to play rather than have it dictated to me. No one forces you to take part in a CG, no one forces you to take part in open. You do so because you choose too.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

But you KNEW this (or had the opportunity too) before buying. IF it offends you so you should have voted with your wallet. IF FD wanted to create an all new "CLOSED" mode which once you started the game with a new you were locked in, complete with your own server.***... .

How can you know the meta game of a game before it's released and you've have played it?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Lots of ideas were proposed from the onset and aren't or won't be in the game. Play the game your way is all well and good but when it destroys balance and prevents potential features it shouldn't be allowed.

The meta game already removes choice from the players. When solo or mobius become the money making/community goal mode and open becomes the pvp/ kill all players mode, how is freedom being preserved?

Indeed. However, the three game modes and the ability to switch between them on a session by session basis has remained part of the design, through the Alpha, Premium Beta, Standard Beta and Gamma phases and on past release of the game. So to compare extant game features with not (yet, maybe) implemented design is not really a valid comparison, in my opinion.

I really don't see how the game can be balanced - there are so many ships and uncounted numbers of equipment permutations for each of them.

From the outset, it has seemed to me (at least) that E: D is not a purely competitive game.

All players remain able to choose which mode they wish to play in - if open devolves into a simple PvP mode (which I doubt as it is too big for PvP seekers to quickly find all of the available prey) then players can choose to play in either Solo or one of the many Private Groups. Each player can create a private group of their own and controls the membership of that group - Mobius' PvE group is simply the biggest (that is known).

I would expect Frontier to act if Open becomes a desert - however that may be to significantly beef up consequences for attacking other players rather than stopping players from switching modes.

In the OP, Michael Brookes is quoted:

Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.

Michael

Thanks for that clarity Michael.

Are you in a position to confirm that group switching between the three game modes will remain as a feature of the game?

We're not planning on changing that.

Michael

Hi Micheal

I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?

None are planned at the moment.

Michael

In the announcement of the forthcoming XBox One development / release, DBOBE says:

I’m also pleased to announce PC, Mac and Xbox One players will all share the same overarching narrative and galaxy state. That means even more players contributing to the wars, power struggles and Community Goals across the galaxy.

So, far from segregating the modes, we will see the effects of the influx of XBox One players - but, presumably, not the players themselves.

More recently, with respect to PowerPlay, Michael has said:

Not sure FDEV has stated anything of the sort... yet. I remember Sandro Sammarco started that discussion some time ago in this forum but Im not sure a public decision was made, no?

Would be nice to have a clarification about mission contribution "weights" that is for sure. Although whatever route FDEV goes in this issue there will probably be a large number of players who wont like it .

We're currently not planning any weighting of effects between the different play modes.

Michael

We have a single galactic background simulation - all players, regardless of game mode and platform, affect it - this is by design. Yes, plans change - it would be very surprising if they did not - however I would not place any significant wager on Frontier segregating the play modes in the manner that some seem to want.

 

[Distance]

I really hope they can get crossplay working with consoles (although at times it won't due to different patch implementation). They've never said no to it so it's still possible.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

I disagree. Freedom of choice was part of the game from release and is one the primary reasons a lot of people bought the game.

I disagree with your disagreement. I'm sure more people bought the game a fair and balanced game then switching modes.

 

[ianw]

I really hope they can get crossplay working with consoles (although at times it won't due to different patch implementation). They've never said no to it so it's still possible.

Can't recall exactly where or when but I think DB said recently they'd like that but it looked very unlikely to happen.

 

[SteveLaw]

I disagree with your disagreement. I'm sure more people bought the game a fair and balanced game then switching modes.

However, only one of those was offered at point of purchase so only one of those has to be honoured. The game is fair though, because everyone has the ability to change modes equally.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I really hope they can get crossplay working with consoles (although at times it won't due to different patch implementation). They've never said no to it so it's still possible.

I think you have a better chance of getting ps4 players sharing the game with PC and Mac. Sony have said they have no issue with it and it has already been done (warThunder and Portal 2)

Xbox and PC was trialed once before and then canned promptly. Since then MS have been less than keen about that..... Though perhaps with windows 10 that could change... BUT, even if it does, I cant imagine them liking cross play with the PS4 user base, so it would not surprise me even IF MS allow cross play platform with PC, they will allow it with PS4. (assuming PS4 version comes)

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree with your disagreement. I'm sure more people bought the game a fair and balanced game then switching modes.

I am sure a lot of people bought it thinking it was primarily a PvP competitive game.... Half of the ranting in this thread has been people who did not know what they were buying and wanting something different from what the devs were promising for the last 2 years.

However ignorance of the product should not be a reason to change the balance of the game imo.

of course, I could end up with egg on my face and the whole argument turning on its head, in which case it will be ME whining about changing game mechanics because its not fair!.

IMO the only chances which need to be made (and there are some imo) are ones to bring it CLOSER to the game which the devs were advertising in their development videos.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Xbox and PC was trialed once before and then canned promptly. Since then MS have been less than keen about that..... Though perhaps with windows 10 that could change...

Regarding the XBox and PC trial, were PC players allowed to benefit from point and click mouse aiming? As we already have M/K, controller and sticks as control choices for the PC / Mac versions, I would expect that console players would be at no more of a disadvantage than players using controllers (they may need the chatpad though).

After a bit of googling, apparently the XBox One will recognise keyboards plugged in to it - so controller with conventional keyboard should be possible.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Is there any evidence this is happening? People grinding in solo just to wreak havoc in Open?
There are ways around this in pure Open as well. Log off before contact is made when you see another player, and log back on for instance. The solution here is not in Open/Solo. The solution is a persistent state of being a fugutive for a period of time, depending on the severity of the bounty.

I'll grant you the community goals angle.

No hard evidence, I have a lot of anecdotal evidence. I know a few people on my friends list who do it.

Even with persistent wanted status switching between solo and open can be abused. Attack a bunch of players, when the bounty hunters show up, switch to solo, go somewhere else, log back in, rinse, repeat.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No hard evidence, I have a lot of anecdotal evidence. I know a few people on my friends list who do it.

Even with persistent wanted status switching between solo and open can be abused. Attack a bunch of players, when the bounty hunters show up, switch to solo go somewhere else, rinse, repeat.

Hopefully the Crime Update expected from Michael Brookes in the not too distant future will go some way to dealing with issues relating to players with bounties for attacking / destroying other players fleeing to Solo / Private Groups to avoid player Bounty Hunters.

 

[Distance]

What you are overlooking is I mentioned persistent fugutive states. This does not only affect PvP, but would also affect docking permissions in non-Anarchy systems. So it's all well and good being a sneaky Pirate and going solo, and logging off to avoid BHs, but you cannot avoid the concequences of your actions.

Currently it's broken. The only thing that stops you docking is actually getting scanned outside a station.

 

[SCADVID]

I
I am sure a lot of people bought it thinking it was primarily a PvP competitive game.... Half of the ranting in this thread has been people who did not know what they were buying and wanting something different from what the devs were promising for the last 2 years.

In the last 2 years they said they'd have a offline solo mode, too.

And for others who played games like Skyrim with an online solo mode, I believe there will be still confusion over ED's idea of an solo mode for a long time coming.

Spending 3 days researching a game just to tease out these little details, is the problem. The solo mode in ED isn't the solo mode people would even consider solo. It's not even a phased instance, because phasing stops the clock within the instance until a player leaves that instance. It's essentially a MMO and people are just exluded from it.