"Encountering". Yeah.
- Status
"Encountering". Yeah.
DBOBE Himself posited the situation where two explorers scouting the same system might try and kill one another to ensure first claiming rights, in a development diary video, so on your specific example there is an argument that even explorers should be exposed to the risk of PvP interference. So yeah, even exploration goals / PPs.
It's a phoney argument that the trade / exploration play styles should be risk / combat free. Sure it makes sense for traders and explorers to avoid combat in an in-character sort of way, but I don't think the intention of the game was ever "play a trader and never encounter combat ever". NPCs attack traders and explorers too remember.
For every solo player that opposes your goal, there'll be one to support it.
Add to that the fact that, due to instancing, you won't even meet the majority of fellow open players,
and this ends up an ideological problem more than a factual one.
The game is a solo and a multiplayer game within the same game world, and was never advertised as anything else.
There is no primary or secondary mode, they're equal, regardless of your personal opinion of solo players...which i rather not comment on.
How can you do it when they live in different time zones, always playing at different times than you? How can you do it when the latency between you and them would be too high, and matchmaking won't put you into the same instance to prevent excessive lag for both of you? How can you do it when one of you is in a full instance of a location, and the other one therefore gets placed in a fresh one?
In order to achieve what you want, the game would have MMO-style non-instancing servers. Imagine everyone doing a particular community goal shoved into a single massive instance. Hundreds of players simultaneously in the same conflict zone. Even if everyone's computer and internet were up to the task, it would be pure madness.
Yeah, that was only his imagination running wild at the time. O
bviously it is not the existence of Solo mode that prevents deadly encounters out there in the unknown, but the facts that
1. A decent exploration ship is built to save weight, two-digit tons of weaponry doesn't really fit in there.
2. Even if you meet someone and had weapons to kill them - chances are high that if both of you already happen to end up in the same system, it is somewhat prominent and someone else had claimed the discovery already anyway.
Last edited:
I think we need to stop thinking about the whole Solo/Open argument as a debate between the two. They both have their merits. The problem is we have many Open players who came to Elite for the online aspect of the game. A lot of us came from a background with EVE, how big or small is irrelevant. Many of us have been influenced by stories from EVE players, and many of us have simply fallen in love with the idea of a 'static' universe that lives and grows by the people who are part of it.
Being able to switch to solo mode eliminates the risks that come with living in the galaxy together. That ability to remove risk changes the way people make their choices in online play, which heavily influences their in game behavior.
This is a long video but it explains what it was that EVE Online offered its playerbase as a game. This is the part of EVE that us eve players were hoping for in Elite. I seriously recommend you watch this regardless of which side of the debate you are on, and after watching that - even if you're a solo player - can you really tell us that you want to deny us the ability to have that atmosphere?
EVE Fanfest 2014 - New Eden is Not Internet Spaceships
I really want this debate to end. I personally feel that this is the most balanced way to handle it if you care to read...
These two simple changes would completely fix the issue separating the game into two distinct play styles. Separating the saves allows players to participate in the same galaxy still shared with everyone. The difference is that open players get their meaningful gameplay, and players who want to control the rules of the game for themselves can use solo mode and more importantly group modes.
I personally feel that creating a distinct separation by save will drastically increase the value of the game to both sides of the spectrum. By doing so you will give the community of Elite a game that supports two completely separate styles of communities and more importantly two separate "types" of games. This would make Elite the gaming version of bilingual.
Also, don't forget that for players who participate in groups can have the ability to participate in two different playstyles during online play. This change gives everyone more choices while retaining the integrity of both Open & Private modes.
Edit: And heres where open players compromise:
As both sides will still share the same galaxy data Open players need to adopt the mindset that Private Mode players represent to us the population of the area. It's easy to try and suggest balancing ideas for this but quite frankly that is up to how they program the background simulation and due to instancing that doesn't matter.
Being able to switch to solo mode eliminates the risks that come with living in the galaxy together. That ability to remove risk changes the way people make their choices in online play, which heavily influences their in game behavior.
This is a long video but it explains what it was that EVE Online offered its playerbase as a game. This is the part of EVE that us eve players were hoping for in Elite. I seriously recommend you watch this regardless of which side of the debate you are on, and after watching that - even if you're a solo player - can you really tell us that you want to deny us the ability to have that atmosphere?
EVE Fanfest 2014 - New Eden is Not Internet Spaceships
I really want this debate to end. I personally feel that this is the most balanced way to handle it if you care to read...
- Create two save slots, 1 for Open play, and one for use with the two private modes. You only get one commander per mode (Open/Private).
- Separate leader boards between Open & Private modes but retain their shared progress. (CG Leader boards, anything added in 1.3, bounties, etc). This change should happen irregardless of whether the first change is made.
These two simple changes would completely fix the issue separating the game into two distinct play styles. Separating the saves allows players to participate in the same galaxy still shared with everyone. The difference is that open players get their meaningful gameplay, and players who want to control the rules of the game for themselves can use solo mode and more importantly group modes.
I personally feel that creating a distinct separation by save will drastically increase the value of the game to both sides of the spectrum. By doing so you will give the community of Elite a game that supports two completely separate styles of communities and more importantly two separate "types" of games. This would make Elite the gaming version of bilingual.
Also, don't forget that for players who participate in groups can have the ability to participate in two different playstyles during online play. This change gives everyone more choices while retaining the integrity of both Open & Private modes.
Edit: And heres where open players compromise:
As both sides will still share the same galaxy data Open players need to adopt the mindset that Private Mode players represent to us the population of the area. It's easy to try and suggest balancing ideas for this but quite frankly that is up to how they program the background simulation and due to instancing that doesn't matter.
Last edited:
If you want to play a game with the atmosphere of eve, go play eve. I signed up for an up to date game of elite, not the game I left during year one.
Jeez I wish this wasn't a family friendly forum...
Yeah its sadly the case as it stands. The annoying thing is if we want to make the most out of the community goals we are almost forced to do it in solo or p/g so we can compete with others to get kills.. Its all about shooting NPCs so we're sort of punished for playing in Open
is ur choice to play open noone forced you to do it ...
- - - Updated - - -
many we feel the same
Frankly, yes, we want to deny you the atmosphere of Eve Online in ED, for it is this very thing why many here don't play that game and only watch it from afar.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It is though - thank you for showing restraint.
I can respect that. The atmosphere of eve can be very violent, but I personally enjoy the rush of surviving in a harsh environment.
Maybe the solution is more along the lines of adding an entirely new mode with its own save for players like me, and leave everything else as is. Truly satisfying everyone... but sadly splitting player population even more.
The fact of the matter is, I don't think it's a winnable debate by either side. Both sides have their positives and negatives and the fact of the matter is we are all arguing about the core of what type of game Elite is to us on an individual level and noone wants their personal vision crushed. I just find it saddening because as a community driven MMO.... The universe of Elite would be so compelling for many years to come.
Irregardless though I'm very adamant that the visibility issues that currently exist between solo and open need to be fixed. Shared leader and bounty boards are pretty much it in those terms. Unfortunately though, it's hard to have two leader boards when the same character can go online or off, making it an obscenely difficult problem to tackle when it comes to issuing rewards to what I like to call "Jumpers" who go between the modes frequently.
Last edited:
Currently, RES may support 1, maybe 2 well-equipped players with a sufficient number of targets. Do you really want combat CGs revolve solely around who can most effectively get the killing blow on an Anaconda that is already being hammered by 4-5 players?
As it stands, the problem is not that Solo exists or free switching or identical rewards, but that RES have too small a volume and therefore the total count of potential pirates at any one time is too small for any sizable number of players. Imho the spawn rates are not the problem, but the lack of space to spread out. Like, 10km from the RES navigation point and there are basically no other ships any more, so you are always going to be within reach of any potential target someone else may already be fighting. I would like to see that zone extended to 100km in all directions. This way, if you arrive at an RES in open play and see multiple players, you could just fly a few tens of kilometers and go about your merry business.
Well, the thing is, the game was announced and heavily backed on the premise of the various modes and the freedom to switch between them, the almost seamless transition between the singleplayer and multiplayer experience. I think this fact should have been more emphasized (is it even mentioned there?) in the games very description in the store, as it seems not few have bought the game on the idea of an "Eve with cockpits", which it clearly is not, and was never meant to be.
But one has to keep in mind the status quo is not just the status quo - the game would not exist if it hadn't found enough backers, backers who looked at the entire concept and said "yes, make it so".
And I am fairly sure even among non-backers, there are more players who prefer free switching as it is, than those who oppose it. As it is always the case, the game forums are read by a minority of the total player base, and then the fraction of people actually posting is even smaller. There are probably tens or hundreds of thousands of players out there who don't even know about this very debate we have been having for so long now, and are just content to take the game as what it is, and who use the modes according to their current mood, overall preference etc. without really caring whether someone in a different mode gets their money faster or slower than them.
Last edited:
We players can "debate" this as long as we like, a fundamental part of the game is being able to swap between solo, private group and open at will, and have all 3 effect the economic data and community goal totals for the entire galaxy.
Elite Dangerous is a networked twitch response (shooter if you prefer) game. I've never played Eve, but my understanding of it is Eve isn't a game played in real time. Elite Dangerous has the same network limitations of a game like Counter Strike has. How many players do you actually have in one game (we could call that an instance) at the same time? Been a while since I played CS but I think 8v8 was max, maybe you can do 16v16 right now, I'd even believe 32v32 but not 128v128. Same goes for team fortress 2, or COD, or whatever real time game you like.
This might seem off topic from the open vs solo discussion, but it isn't.
32 players has been mentioned as the maximum number of players in the same "instance" in Elite Dangerous. Islands seems to be the term used by the developers, and it is different from an instance, but instance is a term that more gamers are familiar with.
If you are in open you can't interact with everyone. You have a maximum of 31 other players. This could be more than all the players in a system at the same time, but not during a community goal. Making everyone play in open wont do what many of the people in this thread want, the ability to not have players "stealth" past them in solo.
Lets say you and 9 people on your friends list want to blockade a community goal station and destroy every trade ship bringing in whatever widgets the cg needs. You can't do that, even if every player is in open. It would be cool if you could, but you cant.
Once you understand the limitation of the "matchmaking" and islands or instances the whole "debate" becomes moot in my opinion.
I think you got it right. The problem isn't the modes, but the scale of things. The combat areas, wether it is RES or CZ is just too small, not suitable for more than 3-4 players. I like your idea about the RES, and I think we should apply it to the CZ too. CZ wouldn't just be random locations in space where a dozen ships are fighting, but the location where two war fleets clashed.
Remember the Star Wars III opening scene ? Am I dreaming too much maybe ?
[video=youtube;ZWoGkrt5Upg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWoGkrt5Upg[/video]
Last edited:
Yes, conflict zones could also benefit from scaling up their volume (while maintaining ship density). Instead of these very confined skirmishes, that would be massive, battles over a big volume of space.
Fergal: (Quote in spoilers for post size sake)
I don't subscribe to the "stealth by me" side of the debate. I understand the technology and I have the ability to view those in private mode as part of the background noise of the citizenry in the universe, which is really how everyone should view others in any mode different from theirs. Regardless of instancing, what players like me are asking for is a mode of gameplay where we only see others who want a similar experience from the game. Just like some people only want solo, or some want to play in groups with their own rules, or others want to be able to take part in everything. The simple fact of the matter is that everyone except for selection of the playerbase not only get their cake, but they get to eat it. This devalues pure-open players interactions with each other, which is an important thing to note because that player to player interaction is why those in the pure-open crowd play.
Memphane: (Quote in spoilers)
Tweaking resource availability in general would help but it still doesn't fix that twist on the Elite universe that a lot of us are looking for. Still though, I'm not against fixing this and highly suggest it.
I don't subscribe to the "stealth by me" side of the debate. I understand the technology and I have the ability to view those in private mode as part of the background noise of the citizenry in the universe, which is really how everyone should view others in any mode different from theirs. Regardless of instancing, what players like me are asking for is a mode of gameplay where we only see others who want a similar experience from the game. Just like some people only want solo, or some want to play in groups with their own rules, or others want to be able to take part in everything. The simple fact of the matter is that everyone except for selection of the playerbase not only get their cake, but they get to eat it. This devalues pure-open players interactions with each other, which is an important thing to note because that player to player interaction is why those in the pure-open crowd play.
Memphane: (Quote in spoilers)
Tweaking resource availability in general would help but it still doesn't fix that twist on the Elite universe that a lot of us are looking for. Still though, I'm not against fixing this and highly suggest it.
Trying to limit solo/private group players "rights" or effect in the game galaxy devalues their experience the same way. Let everyone play how they like in whatever mode they like. You stop complaining about them and they don't complain about you. Even tho the complaining has been very one sided...
P.S. Not saying that you're the one doing all the complaining. More like "live and let live"
Just making sure that it's not an insult or accusation towards you.
Last edited:
Can't say I understand what your position is exactly. Your point of view sounds like you would want to lock players into one of the modes. If I'm understanding what you are saying you don't want players to be able to earn money in solo (trading, res farming) and then only turn up in open with their fully upgraded anacondas?
Is that what you are saying?
layers doing that doesn't concern me, but I can understand someone having that opinion.
In it's simplest form, yes I am saying that I dislike players bringing their fully upgraded Anaconda's to open. The way they earned the ship changes how they act when in open play with it in ways that I feel are negative. I want open play to be where people play. Not a place for people to only be when they want PVP. In its current state open play is primarily a PVP mode. It lets people defecate where they live, so to speak.
- Status