We need an amnesty on these discussions! But, to stay on topic, play the way you want to play. There's a reason why all three modes have a purpose, and that's to allow you to play in a way that doesn't annoy you or conflict with you gaming time/gaming style. Simple! I played in Solo from 1.0 up until 1.2.05 or thereabouts (3 weeks ago?) and then moved to Open and haven't looked back. From a subjective point of view, up until I moved over I feared that playing in Open in a very weak ship would result in frequent ganking and general loss of cash, but now that I'm exclusively in Open I feel that it's a really nice, chatty, place to play. Sure there are terrorists, but it's a combat game.
- Status
Or it could be that space is big. Sorry, let me put it in terms those players who wish to 'interact' (euphemism) with others can understand... The barrel is bigger than you are used to.
You are just reading things into what I'm saying. To be clear. I want the freedom to choose which mode I play in when I sit down. There is no real reason to get more for playing in open than to get more people in open. I say, don;t make people decide based on their income, but rather upon their mood. As soon as you incentivize one mode, you'll have people, like the OP, griping because the Dev's are forcing them to play in that mode. There is no good reason to pay players in open more than Solo.
.
You can't have it both ways. "I play in open and there is no interaction" and "I should get paid more because of the Open". It's one or the other.
Yeah sorry it's obviously my fault for not knowing how something works in game because I didn't go to the online forums and read the thread about it or the patch notes. Epic logic.
God forbid that a game tell or show you relevant mechanics in the game. Bring on the "this isn't COD" comments...
Thanks for pointing it out, but even super hardcore games like the Souls series tell you at least once basic mechanics of the game *in game*.
Yes space is big, but when I encounter 2 or 3 cmdrs max in a high intensity conflict zone that is part of a community goal...something's not right.
And I don't know if this is what you meant, but I'm pretty sure there's no need for you to simplify the statement "space is big". When you do that it comes across as a passive aggressive way of calling someone stupid.
So what's stopping one of the wing mates sitting in a RES point with 3 others AFK while he farms kills and earns them money while they are ar work?
-Then when they get home they could have +50million each
-
Thats why wing money is shared and why you have to fire on the target to get some of the bounty
-Then when they get home they could have +50million each
-
Thats why wing money is shared and why you have to fire on the target to get some of the bounty
How many commanders you will encounter depends on a lot of things. Leaping straight to the conclusion that 'something's not right' may be premature.
Or I could simply be paraphrasing Douglas Adams. Oh and as for this whole 'passive aggressive' thing, so what? Everyone is passive aggressive to a greater or lesser degree, as evidenced when the term was debunked as a psychological condition several years ago. In fact, carefully used 'passive aggression' is used in debate as an accepted tool. Politicians use it a lot too. So I do not accept your suggestion that passive aggression is negative in the context of this post or in forum debate in general.
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
Well as it stands for now there isn't much information about the more complex mechanics available in game. As it stands now, the online forums are the only source of that information. Ergo, as it stands now, yes - it is your fault for not reading the information, however it's equally FD's fault for not providing clear in-game information.
I cannot do anything about it, sorry. You can do something about it - read the patch notes as they come out.
It's a common practice and nothing new to read what's new in your next iteration of the software you use, no?
And here we go again.
As if nearly 500 pages weren't enough already.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90583
As if nearly 500 pages weren't enough already.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90583
It was just an idea I threw out there, that's why I said "or something like this", I didn't put a lot of thought into it, the main point was for there to be balance to the game to provide adequate normal rewards for playing open instead of penalizing it.
And there are plenty of ways to prevent someone just afk farming. First of all if you do that with strangers they will boot you, and if you try to exploit it with friends, the devs can just implement an afk timer like so many other games do, like Warframe.
Haha touche'.
It's fine if you disagree. But if you don't at least say why when the evidence clearly conflicts with your opinion, you might as well say "nuh uh!"
I wrote about my experience in this game ,which so far has always been to see no more than 2-3, very rarely 4 players in the same area/system.
As for your passive aggressive insults, I really find your mental gymnastics trying to justify your petty insults really pathetic. If this were a debate, as you seem to be under the illusion that it is, and not just a conversation about a game, I would be obliged to point out to you that when you devolve into insults instead of addressing the merits of what someone says, you've essentially given up any merit in your own discussion.
And by discussion, to put it in simpler terms you might understand, I mean when two people exchange ideas via written or verbal communication. lol dude...
I never said this was a debate, where did I say that? If you feel that I have insulted you, please, take it to a mod. In fact, I invite any mod reading this to pass judgement on whether or not I have insulted you. The only possible insult used in our discourse was when you intimated that I was being passive aggressive, but let me state right now that I do not take this as an insult per se, more a misunderstanding on your part that passive aggression is automatically a bad thing.
Last edited:
Never said that. Don't even share that opinion. Don't know where you got that from...
Open players can get whatever bonuses they require for repairs and insurances as it scales with human players.
Credits is a necessity. And I said I'm starting to hate credits.
I would like to see achievments getting implemented.
But it seems most players here will vote that down.
Why is this thread even still going. Just separate Open and Solo. Make 2 different saves, 2 different commander for each. Still doesnt do with combat loggers, but it deals with people grinding the safety of solo and comimg to turn me to dust while i struggle in Open. And before all the Solo players come in "Blahblah i dont want to start again":
1. Neither do i want to get blasted by an Anaconda with 1 hour played in Open in total.
2. So FD can let you choose where to save your CMDR. You get an option for: Solo/Groups or Open. Done end of story
1. Neither do i want to get blasted by an Anaconda with 1 hour played in Open in total.
2. So FD can let you choose where to save your CMDR. You get an option for: Solo/Groups or Open. Done end of story
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... because there are different opinions on the merits (or not) of the three game modes and the ability to switch between them on a session by session basis.
And so the thread inevitably spirals in towards the great black hole... (In before the merge)... lol, or not
Last edited:
I don't care about starting again, I care about choice. I mostly play Solo but sometimes, some days or for a particular event I might want to play Open. You say you have two saves but really, who is going to play two modes side-by-side with no transfer between them? You might as well say you get to choose one or the other.
And that's why the debate is still going on. People disagree. What sounds like the perfect solution to you, sounds like a terrible idea that will only makes things worse, to me.
No I'm sorry, omitting a basic or integral component of a game mechanic and then putting it into the game months later because of a premature release, while compounding that with no in game way to find out that information is entirely FD's fault, and at the very least can be called counter intuitive game design.
The burden is not on me to go researching or looking up past patch notes to learn what the basic mechanics of a game are. The game itself is supposed to show them/teach them to me.
Reading the patch notes is not the issue. Putting in basic mechanics that were supposed to be there from the start and not having any in game reference for them is the issue.
Plus, not all players, in fact I would argue most, are going to belong to that group of players that have played since beta and have kept up to date with each patch note release.
Again, instead of comparing ED to software as if it were the new iteration of Ruby or Unreal, wouldn't it make more sense to consider it like a video game? You know...because it is?
Last edited:
- Status