If they did it right the first time, there would be no debate. It's a fact.
- Status
If they did it right the first time, there would be no debate. It's a fact.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, not all opinions are facts nor do they necessarily agree with each other.
We wouldn't be here if they did it right, would we? At a certain point, reality should enter into a discussion.
selfish
adjective UK /ˈsel.fɪʃ/ disapproving US
B1
Someone who is selfish only thinks of their own advantage:
That sums up open players asking to be valued more than other players perfectly, thanks for pointing that out.
Also, knowing the game has mode switching (and it was public info for 2 years before the game went live), you bought the game despite not liking that idea, and now moan about mode switching and are trying to get it changed or nerfed.
Are you the reason they now have to print "Warning, may contain nuts" on a bag of nuts by any chance?
No player should be valued more than another player, right now, they are the same - everyone gets the same and can do the same = balanced.
You will never please everyone. The existence of debate is not proof of error.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The reality of the situation is that we have three game modes and the ability to switch between them on a session-by-session basis. We also have players who wish to have the game changed to suit their play-style by restricting / removing the freedom of choice offered to players by the extant game features. As these features have not been changed, the discussion rumbles on.
It's bizarre talking like multiplayer games are new. FD created problems where none previously existed. That's just poor design plain and simple. They tried to reinvent the wheel and ended up with a triangle.
In fact, no opinion is fact
At least to my simple mind, opinion is formed based on an interpretation of current perception and experienced perception of past events.
We are "here" because people like yourself chose to ignore the "fact" that the design of this game didn't match the design that was "figured out years and years ago" and that you apparently prefer.
You went right ahead and bought the game anyway. Only you know why you didn't save yourself the money and the effort by just not buying the game.
"Tactical switching" is available to all who can or choose to play in open/solo. There are apparently those doing it even though they don't want to.
Some of those people are asking for changes to be made to open so they don't need to switch - this would help them by allowing them to stay in open but wouldn't help people who can't or don't want to go into open.
Your argument seems to be that the people asking for open to be buffed, helped, adjusted or whatever you want to call are doing it for the good of the game which as luck would have it just happens to match their requirements for the game.
But somehow the people who won't benefit from that change and would suffer from it relatively speaking and therefore object to it are just selfish.
Yet again you're making assumptions of fact where you are really merely positing opinion.
This isn't just a multiplayer game. It's also a solo game. You're trying to shoehorn it into a pure multiplayer game to suit your argument. Just because FD didn't follow other people's design philosophy doesn't make them wrong. In my opinion they've done something new and exciting. I love the design and I know a lot of other people do as well.
Your continued insistence that FD somehow "got it wrong" just goes to show how blinkered and self centred you are and how incapable you are of seeing other people's perspective. Several moderators have made very valid points since my last post. You should read them and consider what they're saying until you understand their points as they're valid.
Do tell us what everyone is thinking.
Notice how it's never about the game and what makes it better, it's always this sidestepping stuff. Speaking for hundreds of thousands of other people now? That's just brilliant.
Be honest, if they did it right, we wouldn't be here. That's it.
Solo and private groups are good and should absolutely exist. I find it ironic that even though allowing mode switching really compromises open play (and in game mechanics, CGs, bounty hunting etc) people present the argument that it's okay and not liking that is selfish.
Surely you and the mod can see how hypocritical that is.
Last edited:
It does seem rather odd.
Having an opinion on how one would like to see the game mechanics working, and posting the merits of such mechanics is fine and dandy (and to be encouraged). Arguing with folks who disagree with that point of view is pointless, as they tend to disagree due to having a different point of view which is unlikely to be changed. By all means, state the disagreement and the reasons and leave it at that. Trying to bash down a perceived 'opponent' is rather silly IMHO.
Talking generally here, not aimed specifically at you ianw, in fact, not aimed anywhere near you as you tend to talk sense.
Last edited:
selfish
adjective UK /ˈsel.fɪʃ/ disapproving US
B1
Someone who is selfish only thinks of their own advantage:
That sums up open players asking to be valued more than other players perfectly, thanks for pointing that out.
Also, knowing the game has mode switching (and it was public info for 2 years before the game went live), you bought the game despite not liking that idea, and now moan about mode switching and are trying to get it changed or nerfed.
Are you the reason they now have to print "Warning, may contain nuts" on a bag of nuts by any chance?
No player should be valued more than another player, right now, they are the same - everyone gets the same and can do the same = balanced.
valued... this is a strange concept.
you consider a nerf as reducing your value, but will not (or cannot) explain why.
I asked some specific questions about why it is better to earn 100m in 3 weeks than 5. Can you explain this?
the option to be able to nerf or buff any game mode is not about trying to hurt any players. It is not about adjusting how each player is valued. It is one of many tools that should be at FD's disposal to make ED the most rewarding experience, for all players, as they can.
I am not moaning about switching in general. I am pointing out that it can be used as an exploit. One that I do not believe was appreciated 2 years ago, to how it is now.
you'll be glad to know I don't suffer any allergies, and I actually like nuts. How about you? When I think of you, "nuts" does come to mind, but so does plum. Maybe you like a balance? back to the old paleo diet of the hunter gather.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
How would they suffer?
I don't consider the idea that nerfing or buffing different game modes it necessarily damaging to any mode.
I'm not advocating any nerf or buff. But I would like FD to feel they could use these tools if it provided gains.
The reality is that the existing system requires hard compromises. For example, many mechanics that would be really cool in Solo will never come to pass because they could be exploited in a multiplayer environment (just look at the crime and punishment thread). Likewise, many cool multiplayer mechanics (e.g., blockades and blockade running) are hamstrung by the existence of Solo (look at the community goals debate).
Now, I play in all 3 modes, and I tend to prefer multiplayer PvE these days. That being said, I think it is now established fact that the current implementation makes Sandro's job really difficult, and balancing all these considerations is hugely challenging.
Last edited:
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Please stop the personal comments.
So you have no issues with ED other than instant mode switching?
Because if that's the case, please quote where I've said that is a good thing. As far as I'm concerned the only thing that needs to be done is to disallow instant mode switching in open play specifically. There's no need to in the other modes. They could simply do what the EVE devs have done and keep the ship in space for 30 seconds and then make it emergency FSD (affected by mass locking etc.). That way if your opponent in open play combat logs you still get to kill them.
All the other arguments regarding giving open play people more money for tasks etc. is pointless.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed it does. I expect that the community goal debate will result in a compromise that upsets everyone fairly even-handedly.
If it was easy to implement then we wouldn't need someone as capable as Sandro....
I guess you'd have to ask them that. But they certainly seem to feel they would and logically if you want to make a contribution to a goal and your efforts take X times longer to achieve the same result than you had to before that would be seen as a negative - a hindrance to their progress relative to the timeframe of the event that wasn't there before.
It's all hypothetical at the moment and will continue that way unless FD release some cold hard stats - which I very much doubt they will.
- Status