The temptation is always going to exist for Frontier Developments to put all the DDF stuff on the back burner so that they can concentrate on the cheap, reality TV way to generate content: give the players increasingly huge weaponry, tougher bosses, and special loot, and let them fight it out. That's not what I remember being sold, I have to say. Let's hope that isn't the way things are headed, but I am not so confident now that the consolisation of the game is fast approaching.
- Status
It's my honest belief that Offline got eaten by a grue purely to enable console mode.
See, that is also something that has come up - there is only 1 game, 1 background simulation, that we all share.
There is no way of having separate things happen - if there were, they'd have lost the argument over having a truly offline mode.
All this has been covered, constantly, because people are just throwing money at something without even knowing what it is.
That is not FDs problem to be honest. If people value money so little, that they can just throw it at stuff without paying attention - then more fool them.
There always has been more than enough information on what ED is, long before it came out - so those being stubborn and defending the current set up - are well within their rights to do so, they actually read up on the game before spending money and now they want what they paid for and want to protect it - they do not want what some random person does, who didn't even take the time to read the game description properly.
Off Topic
I personally bought the game last November, to play with friends - I really do not care about what other players are doing in game, I do not care who is in solo, who is in Mobius or who is in open.
I don't care that the system I started in lost tons of federation faction rep due to others counter trading me, I don't care when a good trade route dries up from a ton of Type 9s I've never seen and I have to look elsewhere.
This is a game, to be played and enjoyed - which I do, with my friends. FD put a lot of work in to the look and feel of it, and I love the sights, the sounds, the controls.
Going from place to place is simple and can be fun with hidden surprises if you're not careful. The NPCs can provide a great form of entertainment, I've lost hours watching them mess up docking or getting stuck on the way out, seen them smash in to asteroids to avoid my fire (thus blowing up) or go crazy in a station because I cargo scanned them and it freaked them out.
All this misery over the modes and background simulation, is brought on by people being more concerned over what others are doing (or have) and not on what they are doing.
People are making themselves miserable and trying to drag the game down with them.
/Off Topic
they will lose in the end if they do that ;p if they will care or not is on time;p
I can't believe this is still getting argued. Can't you see how utterly pointless it is to argue for the separation of the two modes when Open seperates people due to the P2P connection.
If we were using a standard server-client like most other MMO's, I'll be the first to stand up and say the two modes need to be seperate to be fair. But while P2P is the architecture they're using, your arguments for fairness are trite and pointless as there is no way for anybody to effectively stop anybody on a consistent basis EVEN IF WE WERE ALL OPEN
If we were using a standard server-client like most other MMO's, I'll be the first to stand up and say the two modes need to be seperate to be fair. But while P2P is the architecture they're using, your arguments for fairness are trite and pointless as there is no way for anybody to effectively stop anybody on a consistent basis EVEN IF WE WERE ALL OPEN
Offline got cancelled before release. Not several months after.
^This guy nails it. If they separate Open and Solo, I'll play Open. And if I want to play Solo without losing my progression, starting a torrent or messing with my router will be enough to prevent me from meeting any player.
Last edited:
It makes a difference in community goals when open, solo, and group are in direct competition for rewards and what faction takes over when the dangers faced are not the same between modes
Last edited:
well if this megathread is gonna be treated as the mods trash can for these type of threads you need to tell FD support not to tell players to post there concerns about it here for the devs to see when you are just gonna merge it into a thread with almost 5k posts that devs won't take the time to read
All I see here is waa, waa, waa. We have 3. yes 3 MODES. PvE, Whatever you want, and PvP. FD needs to change the names... that is all. Problem solved. Other games have done it..... Remember Ultima Online? First there was ONLY one world... all PvP. Then they went and changed it to Trammel/Felucca. Guess which one was DEAD after the change? Felucca Died completely... the PvP one.. How bout WoW? Guess which servers are DEAD? I guess I dont need to say any more.
Yes, the difference it makes is that competing community goals don't turn into purely a PvP competition, excluding everyone who would like to take part without doing PvP.
Wrong, there is NO competition in Elite Dangerous, and that is by design. It is not a flaw, but it is a flaw to assume that it is competitive due to it having multiplayer features.
Things such as player controlled systems and/or stations do NOT exist by design.
System and/or station blockading does NOT exist by design.
Ergo, splitting open and solo play serves no logical purpose. There is no reason to change this core design either. Just admit that you bought the wrong game. You joined a hockey club in hopes of playing soccer.
This would be relevant except that even solo in elite dangerous is PVP. Your actions in solo affect the game of those playing in open. Take Lugh for example, where the current mess has devolved into hundreds of small groups of one or two people in private or solo to maximize grind output, while small hit squads roam open to and harass those on the other team trying to grind in open too stupid to realize they are severely handicapping themselves.
The feds are using capital ships to kill craft they have tagged racking up massive bond amounts. Can we go attack them as they completely trash Lugh? No, they are sitting safe in their alternate dimension.
The Crimson state is playing in private raiding the convoy and selling the intel at 43,000 per ton, one having already sold 1500 tons.... which amounts to 64.5 million credits. The feds can do nothing about this nor keep the crimson state from reaching tier 2 over the next 48 hours.
We have essentially devolved to playing PVP through solo mode.
I've asked before but nobody replied as people were too busy insulting and condescending. So I'll ask again:
Would you have a problem with playing solo and private group modes on a different server then open mode? If so please say why.
Two things that I wanna address also:
1. "It's not physically possible to have two servers"
Yes it is. Look at the beta testing of updates that takes places on another server.
2. "P2P limitations makes that even in open interactions between people won't be consistent."
OK, but please consider group vs group interactions. Maybe CMDR X won't meet CMDR Y in combat but he is bound to meet commander Y123. In a MMO the actions of the individual are not as relevant as the actions of the groups of like minded individuals.
DISCLAIMER: I know FDs stance on this but since this thread is open to discussion .... I'll do that ,if you don't mind.
Would you have a problem with playing solo and private group modes on a different server then open mode? If so please say why.
Two things that I wanna address also:
1. "It's not physically possible to have two servers"
Yes it is. Look at the beta testing of updates that takes places on another server.
2. "P2P limitations makes that even in open interactions between people won't be consistent."
OK, but please consider group vs group interactions. Maybe CMDR X won't meet CMDR Y in combat but he is bound to meet commander Y123. In a MMO the actions of the individual are not as relevant as the actions of the groups of like minded individuals.
DISCLAIMER: I know FDs stance on this but since this thread is open to discussion .... I'll do that ,if you don't mind.
Can I have FD's stated stance on this. We are hitting significant problems to similar issues revolving around this in Lugh.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It's in the OP.
Hello,
1. It is named Football not soccer. The other sport is called American football
2. I completly agree with you (and with lots of others here.
@Draggin wrote:
The more ore less PvE oriented left - Game over
Hello,
1. It is named Football not soccer. The other sport is called American football
2. I completly agree with you (and with lots of others here.
@Draggin wrote:
As soon as a game, that starts with traders, explorers, roleplayers, whatever - switches to be mainly PvP, it is dead, because it always became a place for brainless shooters - 'why did i kill you? because I can ho ho ho'.
The more ore less PvE oriented left - Game over
Last edited:
I can understand why open players are frustrated about how the solo mode effects the open play mode and I do agree that they should be separate modes. What I don't agree with though is the fighting that is happening on both sides because of it. Open players shouldn't be insulting solo players and Solo players shouldn't be insulting open players. People shouldn't be looked down or spat upon just because of how they want to play.
Hello,
Hello,
1. It is named Football not soccer. The other sport is called American football
2. I completly agree with you (and with lots of others here.
@Draggin wrote:
As soon as a game, that starts with traders, explorers, roleplayers, whatever - switches to be mainly PvP, it is dead, because it always became a place for brainless shooters - 'why did i kill you? because I can ho ho ho'.
The more ore less PvE oriented left - Game over
As a Brit, I hate to see people do that whole "soccer" Vs "Football" rubbish, so here is a free educational lesson for those who seem to think there is a difference;
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/06/the-origin-of-the-word-soccer/
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/06/the-origin-of-the-word-soccer/ said:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/football
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/soccerhttp://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/football said:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/soccer said:
There we go, this thread became educational - finally it serves a purpose
As a Brit, I hate to see people do that whole "soccer" Vs "Football" rubbish, so here is a free educational lesson for those who seem to think there is a difference;
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/06/the-origin-of-the-word-soccer/
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/football
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/soccer
There we go, this thread became educational - finally it serves a purpose
You deserve rep for this.
- Status