Frontier are not only smart enough to "stay above those little fights.", they are also smart enough to see how random PVP has ruined other games for a lot of the player base and deliberately built their game to allow people to avoid it. A stroke of genius and I would guess part of the game they are making for themselves.
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
Frontier are not only smart enough to "stay above those little fights.", they are also smart enough to see how random PVP has ruined other games for a lot of the player base and deliberately built their game to allow people to avoid it. A stroke of genius and I would guess part of the game they are making for themselves.
Let me guess, you aren't able to explain it to me either?
Totally. Its actually a really good idea to allow solo play that still affect simulation. But detach it from open play. There, everyone is happy.
- - - Updated - - -
Last edited by a moderator:
atak2
A
Everyone is totally aware of what you do.
You ask inane questions over and over until your eventually wear people down and find some (very slight) contradiction in what they say. Then you use that (slight) contradiction wrongly to make it appear as if you have won the argument when you have not at all but no one can be bothered with you anymore.
Gee I only stuck my head in here a page or two ago and already I'm fed up with this nonsense. Time to close this thread down and reboot it again as Part 3.
-
Love it or hate it FD made the right choice with the three gameplay modes and appealed to the broadest possible playerbase. But it sounds like there is a vocal minority who just wont be happy untill it turns into Battlefield in space, railing to the Moon about game design they cannot change.
-
Love it or hate it FD made the right choice with the three gameplay modes and appealed to the broadest possible playerbase. But it sounds like there is a vocal minority who just wont be happy untill it turns into Battlefield in space, railing to the Moon about game design they cannot change.
First off, I said "Ew. I'm lost for words." for something I truly saw a page behind that. I am still kinda saying Ew to it. Something so Cringeworthy.
I don't know where you're getting this sort of condescending attitude from, but I'll be more than glad to reply in a light manner. (Also like I've said, yeah, the mac and xbox versions are gonna need it. I'm optimistic.)
We like the story and the game for what it is (Even though some of them don't work that well), you silly billy you!
We've known quite a lot of the stuff you're just so willing to be oh so smug about as if we didn't know yet!
Unlike the many great posters here that are throwing out constructive criticism and wonderful debatable topics, you are really falling behind. Please stop posting bad and actually contribute. A+ for effort on trying to be witty though!
MMO is so overrated and overused, ideally the phraes 'MMO' needs more specific things as to what in their individual game really means.
Last edited:
Lol no one is saying solo or group play shouldn't exist. We are saying it should have a seperate simulation from open play.
Glad you don't think this aspect will ever change, when you have no evidence its permanent (they've made major changes before, it could happen again).
Nope, those who can read properly know what they bought, and they bought a game with flexiplayer / mode switching - because that is what was advertised.
Sorry Pinocchio, keep wishing on that star - this game is this way on purpose.
Tsk tsk very good; but instead of 'ducky' your more Ostrich like (head in the sand). Please don't dig yourself in deeper...
Last edited:
They also originally said true offline which solo play is not sooooooooo
Yup, I keep saying the game should not have the MMO tag.
Even if there was only 1 mode, with how much folks can spread out - it'd look no different to what it does now anyway.
At no point does it resemble the assumptions people make over the term MMO, so it should never have been called one.
And that term needs to be redefined. WoT, MWO and so on - less players than some other normal multiplayer non-mmo games.
WoT and MWO are arcady styled games, but yeah, I see your point and I completely agree.
My god, solo players everywhere.
That wasn't there to start with - that was an added idea part way through the development, then dropped as FD wanted us all in the same BGS regardless.
See Pinocchio, this is why I said "read properly".
I've supplied the information, over and over. Page 1, post 3 (I reposted it just for you, did you miss it?).
Can I take a guess, my guess would be 32 for somewhere between 5Mbps & 33Mbps, am I close?
One for you Asp, a bit harder as I know you understand how packets work over the internet etc, can you estimate to the nearest billion dollars how much it would cost to upgrade the entire internet to make the 32 player hard limit increase from 32 to 64 or maybe 128?.
Bonus question, how much would a PC able to handle this improvement to say a 128 cap cost and if not available today, how many years before the hardware will be able to handle it too?.
I need to ask questions to explore your point of view. I could just make incorrect assumptions if you prefer?
atak2
A
Thats because I play Solo we get more credits here.
atak2
A
and you're trying to start it again lol.
Okay then I'll just do that. You are an Open player you want to force everyone into Open so you can grief them because that's what amuses you. That was so much easier, you're right. Goodnight.
Last edited:
- Status