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

[Crank Larson]

The implication from the first post is that players are either Solo or Open players. This is wrong from the outset. I play in all modes, depending what I am doing. Usually I'm in Open mode, but in busy places I often have to switch to Solo mode to actually get anywhere (otherwise instance transitions can take ages - literally minutes at a time). When I take part in expeditions, there is usually a private group for that (strangely, busy instance transitions don't seem to take long in private group mode).

So, my view is that FD made a very good decision with the three modes.

 

[EddyRockSteady]

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.

Precisely.

The 'unable to kill somebody' argument is nonsensical, even more so considering the lack of any meaningful crime/punishment system. What would be more relevant is considering the following: Blockades.

2 factions vying for a single system. If contested across Solo and Open, any attempt at a meaningful blockade is laughable. Now compare this to the scenario where a blockade is contested in a single mode. Outcome will obviously be different.

Elite attempts to cater for all and in doing so, falls short.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Now compare this to the scenario where a blockade is contested in a single mode. Outcome will obviously be different.

On which platform, continent, internet connection quality and at what time of day?

 

[Sandmann]

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.

So what? Why do you HAVE to shoot at players that DON'T want to be shot at? Is there some problem with shooting players that DO want to be shot at instead?

Also, YOU can go to solo too... if you think it is such a priviledge go play in solo yourself! STOP DEMANDING WE ALL PLAY AT YOUR CONVENIENCE. We're not here for your entertainment, we are here for our own!

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Elite attempts to cater for all and in doing so, falls short.

it doesnt really fall short of those in solo.....
it only falls short in those in PG in so far as group sizes are limited to 20K and it is hard to punish cheaters and liars playing in the mode... but "generally" it works.


it only truly falls short for those who want to control the game by direct combat..... which is possibly down to not understanding how the game is meant to work

edit.. how is this not a SOGgy thread again?

 

[Stigbob]

Elite attempts to cater for all and in doing so, falls short.

Elite does cater to all by offering choice whilst needing only one BGS sensibly saving time effort and money. It's just that one subgroup of the one mode that has the least player interest dislike other players being able to choose.

 

[halo jones 101]

Just look at EVE Online, how well designed game it is. How advanced and living. It is true meaning of sandbox. Yup it is much more hardcore, still compared to Elite is like comparing World simulator (EVE) to Mario (Elite). The biggest advantage of Elite is dynamic combat. Everything else is better in EVE sadly. Still EVE with point and click combat can't substitute Elite.

Why dont you encourage the EVE Online community to call on CCP too dump click and point combat, and remodel there game engine, mechanics and rule set to allow first person 'dynamic combat'...

 

[EddyRockSteady]

On which platform, continent, internet connection quality and at what time of day?

Yeah, you are quite correct. Cannot even remotely be reliably done. The Peer-to-Peer instancing mechanic alone will be sufficient to tank any meaningful attempt at a blockade.

Scratch that idea at an attempt of meaningful gameplay.

 

[Noctover]

I know that in Elite are Solo and Open players. Both of them are interested in different kind of experience. I agree with that and I think that solo players maybe totally satisfied playing in Solo if they are looking for single player game but Open players may be a little disappointed because of Solo and Open system and of course consoles which share the same universe. I created an analogy for this game design, I will use chess for this:

Imagine two players are playing chess. One of them have black figures and second one white. 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.


Don't get me wrong, it is amazing that Frontier tried create game where all game styles (solo and open) are equal but will you agree with that it work properly?

It is strange, imho it was a very bad decision, but whats done is done. It wont change. Having 2 modes whilst on the surface makes it sound like "more" what you actually get is less because they take away from each other. It was a very bad move i really do think.

 

[Kaa Mchorror]

So what? Why do you HAVE to shoot at players that DON'T want to be shot at? Is there some problem with shooting players that DO want to be shot at instead?

Also, YOU can go to solo too... if you think it is such a priviledge go play in solo yourself! STOP DEMANDING WE ALL PLAY AT YOUR CONVENIENCE. We're not here for your entertainment, we are here for our own!

You are here for your entertainment to the detriment on mine. If I kill you enough you would leave or log out no longer effecting the BGS of the system that I'm working on. It's that simple.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Yeah, you are quite correct. Cannot even remotely be reliably done. The Peer-to-Peer instancing mechanic alone will be sufficient to tank any meaningful attempt at a blockade.

Scratch that idea at an attempt of meaningful gameplay.

It wasn't a good idea anyway.

 

[EddyRockSteady]

It wasn't a good idea anyway.

It does not need to be a good idea as far as you are concerned.

Others might disagree.

It might be a meaningful game mechanic for others, specifically excluded due to FD's design and coding decisions.

Choice/variety is always a good thing.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

Always interesting how this returns and returns....

Killing a player is one of the few activities in this game that has (virtually) no effect on the Background Simulation. Unlike mining, trading, exploration, (NPC) murder, combat and bounty hunting, missions, etc.

If there is any "chess" in ED, it is the BGS, and both parties will need to play the BGS to "win". If one plays the BGS, and the other only tries to kill the opponent, the player playing the BGS will achieve his objectives. For the PvP'er, it will be a frustrating affair.

 

[Skyjack]

imo the situation is perfect. no one wants another Goonswarm winning another EVE (save for obvious exception). you can't 'win' Elite.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

… Now compare this to the scenario where a blockade is contested in a single mode. Outcome will obviously be different.
…

Not that different. People will complain about how unfair it is that players in a different time zone can affect their game.

It's a nice idea that simply doesn't work. Main problem being the players - even those who want that type of gameplay.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Precisely.

The 'unable to kill somebody' argument is nonsensical, even more so considering the lack of any meaningful crime/punishment system. What would be more relevant is considering the following: Blockades.

2 factions vying for a single system. If contested across Solo and Open, any attempt at a meaningful blockade is laughable. Now compare this to the scenario where a blockade is contested in a single mode. Outcome will obviously be different.

Not really.

Blockades are losing BGS strategy, any way you cut it. In order to be successful, the blockader needs to be strong in all locations, on all platforms, 24/7. The blockade runner, OTOH, needs to be strong only in one location, on one platform, for a short period of time.

The blockader is spending all their time on the look out for the blockade breaker, and are not doing a THING to influence their chosen faction during their play time. The blockade runner, OTOH, are spending most of their time working to influence their chose faction during their play time, and some of the time evading the forces of the blockader.

And heaven help the blockader if they have their friends in their friends list. Because the blockade runner is sure to have THEIR friends in their friends list.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You are here for your entertainment to the detriment on mine.

That can also be said of the attacker by the target....

 

[Robert Maynard]

It does not need to be a good idea as far as you are concerned.

Others might disagree.

It might be a meaningful game mechanic for others, specifically excluded due to FD's design and coding decisions.

Choice/variety is always a good thing.

Choice is a good thing - and when one play-style requires the choice of other players to be restricted that's not so good.

 

[RamirezKurita]

Yeah, you are quite correct. Cannot even remotely be reliably done. The Peer-to-Peer instancing mechanic alone will be sufficient to tank any meaningful attempt at a blockade.

Scratch that idea at an attempt of meaningful gameplay.

It would be workable if the BGS could be improved to the point where it understands blockading. If sufficient players hunt down system security and traders, particularly traders carrying certain types of goods, then the BGS could react by generating far more and better equipped pirates in the system and around a station. That way, a player in solo that blockades a station and spends his time hunting down traders approaching it while fending off the system security would also contribute to a wall of pirates blockading the station in other game types.

 

[Kaa Mchorror]

That can also be said of the attacker by the target....

Except for the fact that the target is just suffering the consequences of their decision to effect my systems knowingly or not.