Game loses something by not forcing Open play

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
I too agree. Base on the majority of the comments the most of responders have no idea what they're talking about. It's not about PVP vs PVE, it's about the overlapping concept of open world and solo mode. The simplest solution in my opinion would be to keep two separate credit balances for each instance.
 
+1 to the OP over there
So you would block me from joining you in Open occasionally? Too bad, I enjoyed the old Freeport days in Beta (even thought Instancing was hard to work-out).
If you block people from switching to Open play, I think the real end-result will be less players visible in Open, not more.
 
Last edited:
While the ultimate game would have 1 server no instancing + an offline non competitive mode. This is not that game sadly and due to that, I'm happy that the hermits and co-op people will 'maybe' sometimes grace me with their presence in the open game. At least this way we'll maybe sometimes see them, rather than never.
 
I too agree. Base on the majority of the comments the most of responders have no idea what they're talking about. It's not about PVP vs PVE, it's about the overlapping concept of open world and solo mode. The simplest solution in my opinion would be to keep two separate credit balances for each instance.

That would require Frontier to make two separate games the reason why they cut offline was because they could only afford to run one version of the system. Maybe one day in the future that may happen but it wont happen for the 16th.
 
Are you going to implement seperate credit balances per island instance too?

Exactly to the point.
Back in the Beta "fight for Freeport" days, I am _infuriated_ that some people in Open got in & out of Freeport without having to pay toll or fight their way past the blockade, whereas I got shot-down or had to run a few times.
How dare those people have a "100% Easy mode" just becasue their networking didn't put them in the same instance with the Pirates! Outrage I tell you! ;)
its like a "100% Super-easy I win mode" just because of networking luck, their credit balance should be deducted.

Okay any other false hyperbole about "super easy 100% no risk mode" to be made? yeah thats a strawman argument but it plays so well ;)
 
Last edited:
Here is the real answer, I have been playing just in open since Gamma launched, I am doing missions/ bounty hunting. I am currently 36 ly from where I started and I have not seen another player for the last eight days so it would make no difference if I were to play open or solo. So OP your post is really pointless and there are plenty of threads on the same subject that you could have posted on so get back under your bridge.

I think his point was that if we all could only play in open, you'd see more players.

It's a valid point and probably true but ED has been designed to accommodate those who just wish to play on their own, for a wide variety of reasons. I only play open and would have been fine had the game only provided open, but the chances are many who like to only play solo, or in private groups, may not even have bought the game had it been open only.

In the end, it's a solid compromise and I have nothing against players who purely play solo. I'm just looking forward to coop being supported so I can enjoy Elite Online with my mate. That's basically the biggest draw for me.
 
So Iif I get the concern correctly, being able to earn pixel money with viewed limted risk or with similar adavntage degrades the acheivements of those that do it the hard way?

By this meaure, private groups, wings, allies, those able to play for more hours in a day or at non peak times, etc are also unfair, so these too should be blocked yes?
 
I too agree. Base on the majority of the comments the most of responders have no idea what they're talking about. It's not about PVP vs PVE, it's about the overlapping concept of open world and solo mode. The simplest solution in my opinion would be to keep two separate credit balances for each instance.

Or maybe they know exactly what they are talking about, they just don't see it as an issue.
 
That would require Frontier to make two separate games the reason why they cut offline was because they could only afford to run one version of the system. Maybe one day in the future that may happen but it wont happen for the 16th.

Err, no, Character for solo and character for multi, no need for more work.
 
Will you explain why you feel entitled to bring the kit/money you gathered in a protected, private mode onto the open server? Why should the open server not be reserved for those who choose to play in the open mode?

Why do you feel entitled to tell others (who have also paid) how they have to play the game?

Your no more or less of a backer than I am, FD have my money, they have yours - that does not entitle you to dictated to me, how and when I have to play and how I have to play.

If you don't like the idea of people jumping in / out of open play with ships built up in solo, then create a private group for PvP based play only. The game has the tools for you to play your way without forcing everyone else in to your world.
 
Will you explain why you feel entitled to bring the kit/money you gathered in a protected, private mode onto the open server? Why should the open server not be reserved for those who choose to play in the open mode?

I would be absolutely fine with that. If when creating a profile you had to choose whether you wanted it to be an open profile, or a private group/solo profile. I would have one of the latter and none of the former, and never enter open play.
 
I didn't pay £50 for a MMO/open play game. I have never played open play. I will never play open play. If open play was my only option then I would throw this game in the bin, and I know I am not alone. If you are short of someone to gank then I recommend Eve online. I quit that game long ago because I got fed up with paying to be a victim, plus I find PvP ultra boring.

It is not my fault that there is now no offline mode, so I don't want to be punished for it.
 
Last edited:
I would be absolutely fine with that. If when creating a profile you had to choose whether you wanted it to be an open profile, or a private group/solo profile. I would have one of the latter and none of the former, and never enter open play.

Same, and then PvPers would moan they have no one to shoot at other than NPCs.
 
So Iif I get the concern correctly, being able to earn pixel money with viewed limted risk or with similar adavntage degrades the acheivements of those that do it the hard way?

By this meaure, private groups, wings, allies, those able to play for more hours in a day or at non peak times, etc are also unfair, so these too should be blocked yes?

Correct there should be a timer that kicks you out of Elite after you've played say 2hrs so you cannot gain an advantage. No wings/allies or friend grouping should be added and no social tools either as these all give certain players an unfair advantage.

They should also remove all the ships and outfitting shops and just have the sidewinder with pulse lasers so its fair oh and remove the galaxy while we're at it don't want people running away just one instanced area for everyone we can call it Call of Elite Space Warfare ;)
 
Last edited:
No, it's not that at all, but, for the sake of people who want to play solo being able to dip into open play when they feel like it, everyone who chooses to play open gets those who abuse the switch over system affecting their game whether they like it or not.

Or, put another way, those who put the least stress on the game-system get more consideration, and those who require more get less consideration.

We have seen these arguments before and they don't hold much water, you can still play open and build profits without much interference (see a person, cruise to another system). Seriously, the way people are suggesting open play only should work puts me off open as it heavily suggests being griefed and ganked just to stop a commander from any progress. This isn't the game I backed nor is it the game I'd want to play.

Separate isn't the answer either as its a clunky solution and not everyone wants to play and build up separate commanders based on playing without others, or ones in a group. But I do think some form of cool down should be in effect between switching modes perhaps.
 
Guys. Notice how the OP hasn't posted anything in this thread since the original post? It's a bait thread, a troll for reaction. Don't feed the troll. Have you also noticed how a lot of these, 'post and forget' threads are cropping up? Don't feed the troll. Ok, some of them may be concerns of new players, but a lot of these posts concern topics and arguments that really only could come from someone who has been on the forum for a while, so please... Don't feed the troll.

Maybe griefing from the care bears has forced him into the solo forum?
 
I too agree. Base on the majority of the comments the most of responders have no idea what they're talking about. It's not about PVP vs PVE, it's about the overlapping concept of open world and solo mode. The simplest solution in my opinion would be to keep two separate credit balances for each instance.

So, Richard Garriott and those working at Portalarium don't know what they're talking about either? They have made a similar system and yet not hearing the same amount of whining here and they're world is actually going to be much more affected than the galaxy in Elite...

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

Even in open Play you're not ever going to see every commander possible, 1. Geographic matching. 2 Instance size.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom