This is not about Solo vs Open but about how strange this design decision is.

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Damn I just don't like the game Elite is and I must agree with that 0_0. I hope that Star Citizen will be something more interesting for me, till this time my superb HOTAS home cockpit needs to wait...
I should play Playerunknown's Battleground...

this is totally fine.. to be dissapointed with a game. i was super dissapointed with star wars battlefront for instance when i learned it was just a cruddy arena shooter and not the cool narrative co-op experience it could have been (stunning assets tho)

but i would never dream of demanding changes to the game which would kill it for those who DO enjoy the game. Vote with your wallet imo... it is what i did when i read the KSer/dev diaries and DDF. I paid more for ED than i have ever paid for a game, largely because of how the MP is made. it means i can get involved and feel part of the game in a co-op or lone wolf environment depending on how i am feeling.

perfect for me.**

**that is not to say I do not have huge issues with the game... but these issues come down to stuff which was expected to be in the game due to the early marketing and not due to stuff which is in the game which was always meant to be in the game if you catch my drift.

 

[RamirezKurita]

Gates will be always open to anyone not Hostile, because in essence the Factions run the show, not us.
We can trigger stuff with them, but we don't get to decide who gets Docking Permission or not - or who gets which Missions for which Faction.
That's just not us.

I feel that this is something that needs to be quoted for emphasis over and over, both in solo vs open threads as well as when player groups go on a power trip and start demanding power and authority over "their" faction.

We are just pilots, just like the NPCs you see flying around minding their own business. That mission giver you speak to? Far more influential than any individual player. We are just the local couriers, the irregulars who help out the navy, the independent guy who is always just passing through but is eager to help (or hinder). Eventually, players might work their way up to a point of notoriety, becoming somewhat a celebrity within a faction who gets mentioned on the news and gets to shake the hand of the vice-president for a photo-op, but don't mistake that for importance.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Damn I just don't like the game Elite is and I must agree with that 0_0. I hope that Star Citizen will be something more interesting for me, till this time my superb HOTAS home cockpit needs to wait...
I should play Playerunknown's Battleground...

Well, yes. If you don't like how a game is designed, there are always plenty of other games out there. Its rather silly to play a game you don't like.

If you do like Elite, there are other areas to campaign on where you might have more success in changing the devs minds, but not likely anything too fundamental. The devs know what they want, and it doesn't always please everyone, and you won't get them to change their mind on those things. This is something more people could do with understanding.

 

[kilvenny]

ED is an instanced game, even in open players not in your instance are "hiding" from you. In a WAR multiple battles and skirmishes are going on simultaneously, as a combatant you see the only the one you are directly involved in. The collective impact of the battles and skirmishes has a net result which is what the BGS is achieving.

What the OP is really asking is for visibility of all players so they can be directly impacted by a single player or more likely group of players. ED is instanced so that is not possible. In a sense this Open V Solo argument is a none issue once you reach the limit of players in a single instance.

 

[Xender]

Well, yes. If you don't like how a game is designed, there are always plenty of other games out there. Its rather silly to play a game you don't like.

If you do like Elite, there are other areas to campaign on where you might have more success in changing the devs minds, but not likely anything too fundamental. The devs know what they want, and it doesn't always please everyone, and you won't get them to change their mind on those things. This is something more people could do with understanding.

Soo I like space sims, I spend huge amount for high end HOTAS, head tracking and more still Elite is kind of disappointment. I can play other games ( and I do) still there is no other modern space sims with at least partial support for multiplayer.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Soo I like space sims, I spend huge amount for high end HOTAS, head tracking and more still Elite is kind of disappointment. I can play other games ( and I do) still there is no other modern space sims with at least partial support for multiplayer.

From the day that the first design information was published for Elite: Dangerous it was obvious, to me at least, that it would not satisfy those players that absolutely must be able to oppose every other player.

 

[Sandmann]

Just look at EVE Online, how well designed game it is. How advanced and living. It is true meaning of sandbox.

Sure, Eve online - which has been around since 2003 - is far more evolved and "full". This is hardly surprising, it's had 14 years to create content compared to ED's three years. Nobody is surprised by this.

The biggest advantage of Elite is dynamic combat.

The biggest advantage... TO YOU! This is the feature that keeps many of us AWAY from Eve online, and the LACK of it here is what brought us to ED. Please stop demanding that ED turn into a first person version of Eve.

Let me say this really clearly so you get it....

MOST OF US PLAY ED BECAUSE IT IS NOTHING LIKE EVE ONLINE AND WE DON'T WANT EVE FEATURES!

FOR MANY OF US THEIR LACK IS NOT AN OVERSIGHT, IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT!
​

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

From the day that the first design information was published for Elite: Dangerous it was obvious, to me at least, that it would not satisfy those players that absolutely must be able to oppose every other player.

And would satisfy those who want to chose to play with other players, or have a little private session.

@Xender, it's unfortunate you don't like the layout of the game, but that's just how it is. Keep in mind that people do enjoy that element of the game, and have bought the game because of that. What you're asking is to change the game in a way that wasn't communicated, which would mean screwing over every player who did look into the landscape of the game, liked what they saw and decided to purchase the game.

I too like space games, but I looked into EVE and decided it's layout wouldn't work for me. So I didn't buy it. When (if?) Star Citizen is released, I'll do the same there.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

EVE have nothing to do with WOW. It is totally, extremely different game. I would say that WOW have much more common with Elite than EVE...

*lol*

 

[Stigbob]

Well, i'd have shut this down and off to Hotel California with it, because it absoloutly is an Open/Solo debate.

But since Rob has charged in, i'll add my bit.

It always amazes me that those who don't like the setup seem to have actually zero clue about how the BGS actually works. You don't need to see your opponents ships. Seeing them doesn't help you at all. You have no idea what those ships are doing. Maybe they are running missions for your faction. But hey, doesn't even matter. They could tell you to your face they are working against your faction. Not like you can do anything about it directly.

What you have to watch for is the effects they are having. You have ship statistics in the stations telling you how often the system is being entered and by what ships, that gives you an idea of traffic. But mainly, the way to work the BGS is by doing things that increase influence for your faction and reduce any opposing factions.

To use the chess analogy you used. Its like both seeing the board but not seeing each other. Both sides have all the information they need to play the game. You don't need to see your opponent. Another way of putting it, its like playing chess over the internet... or having an internet argument... erm...

That's a well thought out post and it makes lots of sense but you've missed a really key part, when people complain about the shared universe what they really mean is "immediately force everybody into open, I am a player killer and I want to shoot them". No alterations to the BGS will ever effect the level of moaning, because it's not the BGS that bothers the people who complain about it.

 

[Sandmann]

That's a well thought out post and it makes lots of sense but you've missed a really key part, when people complain about the shared universe what they really mean is "immediately force everybody into open, I am a player killer and I want to shoot them". No alterations to the BGS will ever effect the level of moaning, because it's not the BGS that bothers the people who complain about it.

Apparently I must spread rep around a bit more before giving you more.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Soo I like space sims, I spend huge amount for high end HOTAS, head tracking and more still Elite is kind of disappointment. I can play other games ( and I do) still there is no other modern space sims with at least partial support for multiplayer.

Rather than lobbying for Frontier to change a day 1, fundamental design choice (Open, Solo, Private Group), I think your energies would be better spent lobbying for Frontier to make open more fun, WITHOUT trying to bribe players into open. Personally, I spend some of my energies in two areas:

1) Rewarding healthy PvP conflict.
2) Punishing toxic players in open.

The former can be done simply by deciding what good PvP conflict is, and then designing game mechanisms that encourage it. Personally, what I favor the following:

1. Repurposing the ingame CQC stat to reflect a players ELO standing, relative to the rest of the player base.
2. Winning a fight does not require ship destruction. You still win if you do significant damage to your opponent, and they flee.
3. All rewards are proportional to the relative strengths of the opponents. An underdog winning a fight is rewarded more than someone who attacks players who don't stand a chance against them. All penalties, likewise, are proportional to the relative strengths of the opponents, with the underdog being penalized least.
4. Allow players to pledge their loyalty to an minor faction, a major faction, and/or declare themselves a pirate. Pledging themselves to a faction can only be done in a station, not in space.
5. When two players who are pledged to opposing factions meet in battle, the winner gains rewards for themselves and influence for their faction, while the loser loses influence for their faction.
6. Pirates can gain rewards and influence for their faction (or local criminal faction if their faction isn't present in system) by attacking anyone and getting cargo from them WITHOUT destroying the ship in the process. If you destroy their ship, YOU LOSE!
7. Anyone can gain rewards and influence for their faction (or whoever's in charge locally) by winning a battle with a pirate.

The latter requires a robust crime and punishment system that discourages any combat outside the rules above, the use of combat logging or exploits, and especially the illegal destruction of a ship. Such punishments should again be proportional to the relative strengths of the players involved.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Sure, Eve online - which has been around since 2003 - is far more evolved and "full". This is hardly surprising, it's had 14 years to create content compared to ED's three years. Nobody is surprised by this.



The biggest advantage... TO YOU! This is the feature that keeps many of us AWAY from Eve online, and the LACK of it here is what brought us to ED. Please stop demanding that ED turn into a first person version of Eve.

Let me say this really clearly so you get it....

MOST OF US PLAY ED BECAUSE IT IS NOTHING LIKE EVE ONLINE AND WE DON'T WANT EVE FEATURES!

FOR MANY OF US THEIR LACK IS NOT AN OVERSIGHT, IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT!
​

Alas, I am all out of rep to give you again.

I played the 14 day trial, and I quickly realized that it wasn't the game for me. Primarily because I could easily see that game becoming the equivalent of a full time job, and I already had one of those.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Alas, I am all out of rep to give you again.

Fortunately I wasn't out of rep, so some has been applied

 

[Spiridon]

The white player plays in Solo mode, the black player plays in Open mode. They see each other figures, they can play together and influence each other, however white king is unreachable for black player because he is hidden behind Solo curtain. Black player can eliminate almost all white figures, still he can't win.

In my opinion this is stalemate situation, no one can win here. Solo (white) player can't because he have only one king, Open player (black) also can't win because Solo player is unreachable, still both of them are on the same chessboard.

No.

BGS wise, it's fully equal. Both Open and Solo players can influence the same system equally. Only they can not kill each other. Open player would like to kill Solo player but he can't enter Solo. But then again, neither the Solo one can kill an Open one.

So they do the BGS with exactly the same influence. Isn't that the point of BGS?

 

[Xender]

No.

BGS wise, it's fully equal. Both Open and Solo players can influence the same system equally. Only they can not kill each other. Open player would like to kill Solo player but he can't enter Solo. But then again, neither the Solo one can kill an Open one.

So they do the BGS with exactly the same influence. Isn't that the point of BGS?

At any point Solo player can enter Open play and kill Open player, from the other hand Open player can't enter Solo and kill Solo player. In that case, Solo player is privileged.

 

[Robert Maynard]

At any point Solo player can enter Open play and kill Open player, from the other hand Open player can't enter Solo and kill Solo player. In that case, Solo player is privileged.

Any player can play in Solo - if they want to guarantee that they cannot be shot at by other players.

.... and both players chose to be in Open - knowing that there are potential consequences for doing so.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

At any point Solo player can enter Open play and kill Open player, from the other hand Open player can't enter Solo and kill Solo player. In that case, Solo player is privileged.

Killing the other player is pointless. One minute later they're back in the black in an identical ship. All you've done is slow them down by a tiny, tiny amount, and cost them a rebuy.

 

[RamirezKurita]

At any point Solo player can enter Open play and kill Open player, from the other hand Open player can't enter Solo and kill Solo player. In that case, Solo player is privileged.

And all you have achieved is killing a player, not actually influencing the game.

Plus, at any point the Open player can switch modes into Solo, it works both ways.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

At any point Solo player can enter Open play and kill Open player, from the other hand Open player can't enter Solo and kill Solo player. In that case, Solo player is privileged.

Correct, but the open player can go into solo mode themselves to avoid the other player should they go into Open. So its still equal.

And the solo player entering open to kill the open player would be making a bad strategic move in terms of the BGS (which as far as i understand was the core of the discussion).

They would get a bounty, possibly with the faction they are trying to support, not good. They would also potentially move their own faction a tiny step towards lockdown. If in enemy territory, the bounty still isn't great to pick up, and really doesn't do much for you or the BGS anyway. You're 10x better off running missions. Killing players is no way to win any sort of BGS war, unless you are at the state of War/Civil War, and even then, killing players can be at best a sideshow.