Because it doesn't suit your views. How convenient...
- Status
Because it doesn't suit your views. How convenient...
Sure, and that's why they will stay. But Open Play is required to keep the game going for a long time, not to mention the cash shop. Solo players are not so big on buying ship skins only they can see. I'm not saying solo/group will be dumped. But they will not trump Open Play as far as priorities go.
You can't support this statement one bit. Accept it as your, and few others' opinion. I think it's called 'grasping for straws'.
The only grasping for straws here comes from solo enthusiasts which seem that "it's your opinion" somehow constitutes a counter argument.
As an Open player, I do NOT WANT to entice or "force" people to come into Open. Open is for those that like risk, and can accept losing something they earned with their time. Likewise, I do not want, nor do I want to force anyone to play in Solo. I don't want to force anyone to play where they don't want to play.
.
That being said, I put little value in having a big bank of credits, nor big bad ships. I will strive to get a ship that does a job particularly well, but otherwise don't feel the need to grind. Where I put my value, is in the background simulator. I will never be the head of a big group, nor do I expect to ever be able to start my own faction or build my own station or anything of the sort. But when I retire from this game for whatever reason, I want to look back and say, "I helped the Federation expand into XX new systems." Or I want to be able to say, "I did my best and at least slowed down the Empire/Alliance to keep the Federation from bleeding away too many systems."
.
And without a doubt, the best way to manipulate the background simulations, is to go into Solo. Then FDev introduced opposing Community Goals that were tied into the ownership of a system. And without a doubt, the best way to "win" at those community goals, is to go into Solo.
.
So right now, the game mechanics are pushing me really hard into playing in Solo mode, instead of playing where I want to be, in Open mode. So equality is what I want. Right now Solo mode players are "worth more" than open mode players with respect to the background simulation. So it makes me laugh at the crying found in this thread, of people not wanting Solo mode to play second fiddle to Open mode. Because what the pro-Solo players absolutely don't want, is what I am l living right now. I don't presume to speak for others, but I will point out that organized groups like the Mercs of Mikuun and the Sons of Conn (CSG in Lugh) have summarized exactly the same thing, so I am not one lone player in this matter.
.
If you want equality, then you have to give Open a boost for things to BECOME equal.
The only grasping for straws here comes from solo enthusiasts which seem that "it's your opinion" somehow constitutes a counter argument.
More zo than people putting words in FD's mouth. You can see it in others, but fail to recognize it in yourself....
No. Because as an Open player, it seems really baffling that in this day and age, a majority of people would play a game like this by themselves. Don't take that comment out of context, the important bit is "MAJORITY OF PEOPLE". I do not criticize or belittle reasons why people would and do play in Solo. Just that I personally doubt a majority would avoid conflict and challenge in a video game. From my perspective, it seems like Open would be the more populous mode.
.
So if we continue down this road, it would just be a circular argument of "I'm right. No, I'm right," when neither of us knows or can prove it. It's not a matter of dismissing what isn't convenient, it's a matter of avoiding a ing match that can't be proven unless FDev release data.
As I said, I don't care for words. Only actions. And actions are quite obvious.
I wish they did. The absence of a sanctioned PvE multiplayer mode suggests otherwise. Consider that Solo is Solo. And Group is run by the same PvPvE rules as Open. The only thing that separates Mobius from Open are the players themselves. People can grief in Mobius the same as anywhere else.
FD, bring on a proper PvE Open Mode. I beg you.
(Not to mention that Mobius the player is a possible single point of failure of Mobius the group...)
Last edited:
You make it plain that you will only accept ideas that you 'understand'. It has been pointed out many times that a considerable portion of commenters here prefer solo play. The furvor over the dropping of the offline mode should have been an indicator..
.
The only real option FD has is to stay the course. Making a significant change to the modes now would betray a significant amount of the players, never mind how it would effect FD's relationship with the Backers.
.
It is hard to justify changing things to a more restrictive format, because of some players personal convictions. If a player chooses to restrict themselves to one mode or another, rather than enjoying each as they like, then that is their call. Insisting that others pay for that choice is untenable.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - as I put forward when the requirement for the Race to Elite to be completed in open was being discussed, I expect that the Titan Black competition *has* to be completed in open to avoid complaints of unfairness with respect to the ability to avoid other players in the other game modes.
Yes. I suspect the reasoning has not changed, and may be more important now than ever before.
I think the way to ensure you enter a new instance would be to block a player who is part of the blockade. You would still be in open but the matchmaker would put you in a separate instance, I believe.
LOL....I know you are trying to cling on any way you can..........but lets re-wrod it shall we?
.
This competition is being used to promote FDs and Elites most important mode of play..............it would not make sense for FD to promote a dead area of the game.......if there are Millions in Solo, well, that's where their important market would be.......correct?
.
But, it ain't.......
I bolded and underlined everything that is CONJECTURE.
.
I also fail to see how FDev are bound to the Backer's wishes. I would be absolutely astounded if there was no disclaimer stating that it was quite possible the game would not meet every goal or objective and would continue to evolve once released. The whole "backers" thing is hubris. They got what they paid for... access to participate and influence the design of the game, up to launch. I paid extra to join and participate in the Beta, should I not be awarded extra influence based on your presumption?
.
The FUROR over the loss of Offline mode was hardly a furor at all. In comparison to other games launch decisions, the loss of Offline mode barely made a blip in gaming news, or even in these forums. I don't see a "bring back Offline mega thread" where moderators continually dump new threads into, constantly at the top of the forums. Again, either hubris or PURE CONJECTURE.
.
NPC's are just dumb. It's not a ED thing, no insult meant towards Jane. But they do not offer any challenge and being forced to make the choice to move to Solo to affect the background simulation, either in the launch mechanics or with these new opposed Community Goals, is as much an affront to me, as being goaded to play in Open is to you. If you fail to see how my being forced to play in Solo is the EQUIVALENT of buffing Open and forcing you to come play in Open, then you are debating in bad faith.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I would agree. We are at a point where the questions raised by the recent community goal are yet to be answered (even if the answer were to be nothing is changing - although I would not necessarily bet on that outcome).
LOL....I know you are trying to cling on any way you can..........but lets re-wrod it shall we?
.
This competition is being used to promote FDs and Elites most important mode of play..............it would not make sense for FD to promote a dead area of the game.......if there are Millions in Solo, well, that's where their important market would be.......correct?
.
But, it ain't.......
I tend to fall in the "needs fixing" camp, but no I don't agree with you.
They want the competition in Open so that:
(1) people don't complain about the winners "taking the easy way out" (perceived or real)
(2) they want some stories about player interaction and emergent gameplay that they can use for marketing (it doesn't matter how common, popular or coerced it is)
I think you miss my point.........
.
IF as others say, "Open" is dead.......it makes NO sense for FD to promote that area of the game............if 90% of the players enjoy the Solo game, as claimed, then that is what FUTURE players will enjoy too..........so then FD would stear the game toward a Solo mode........to please the masses..........but that s not happening........
.
If the Vast majority of your players enjoy "X".....it makes sense to give them more "X", to promote "X"......it makes NO sense to try and shove a dead and unpopular "Y" down their throats.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
As I mentioned in the competition thread there's technically one mode to ED and solo and group are there for players to self police the amount of perceived griefing they encounter (Sandro's words not mine, Robert Maynard the mod posted the quote a few pages back).
Whilst FD might have had the best of intentions for pvp to be a rare and meaningful occurrence they made the mistake many developers have done over the years and not factored human nature in to the equation.
The problem has been the labelling of group, solo and open as modes as it gives the impression that they are actual different modes of game play rather than the way to set a pvp flag.
The other problem is you have essentially two entirely different communities wanting to play with completely different values that are anathema to each other as seen in this thread. The problems aren't pvp vs pve it's all down to FD's labelling and lack of communication on how the game is supposed to work, well that and the awful punishment mechanics for player killing.
As usual I doubt anyone will read or comment on this as it's more fun to argue and beat a dead horse
There is indeed only one mode with different settings on the matchmaking system.
While Sandro does indeed talk about the possibility of a target of perceived griefing switching to solo or private groups from open - that is not the only reason for the modes existence - all of the game modes have been part of the stated game design from the outset.
Your comment about human nature is absolutely spot on in my opinion - at this time not all of the consequences for attacking players that were discussed in the DDF have been implemented - we'll see how those affect the incidence of PvP....
I would disagree regarding groups equating to setting the PvP flag off - anything goes in private groups that the groups want to support - it's up to them.
We'll see how things develop with respect to meaningful consequences for player killing.
- Status