Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].

[atak2]

You obviously missed why I quoted it.
And apparently never read a single post of mine.

The game was always an online game, offline wa a later idea that was then dropped (but Pinocchio seems to not know this or is being dishonest over it) - that is the KS information on ED.
I've never said the game wasn't dangerous, but at no point does it say I have to play with people I don't know or like.
It does say "you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours..." <- see, there is that pesky word again, choice.

The whole premise for the game, from the very start is choice - you and Pinocchio just don't want to admit you made the wrong choice getting the game without knowing what it was in the first place.
Despite how long you've been in the thread now, you still persist that the game is broken, when it has been shown this is how it was designed, on purpose, that KS page proves it.

But I will give you credit for not sinking to the levels of Pinocchio for attitude and behaviour.

It actually is the other way around. You have maligned the statement to appear what you want to see...

 

[DarkWalker]

I would think it would only apply to players that make hostile intentions i.e. they attack or interdict you. Otherwise they are counted as neutral.

Pick a place for meeting. Everyone shows up, shots a few times at everyone else, and go their merry ways, wallets fatter with a bunch of hostility bonuses.

People have been exploiting similar systems for years. I can't even remember when I first heard about trading kills. If your system requires knowing the player's actual intent to work, it will fail. It's why no one can build a good automated anti-griefing system.

 

[Mercy Killing]

I think it is completely broken. Has been for months. Your opinion that it isn't is the problem.

I'm not pretending, though.

I fixed your quote to more accurately represent the truth of the matter, however. Totally free of charge, too.

You're welcome.

Edit:

It actually is the other way around. You have maligned the statement to appear what you want to see...

The story of the blind men and an elephant originated in the Indian subcontinent from where it has widely diffused. It has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly, the parable implies that one's subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behavior of experts in fields where there is a deficit or inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect for different perspectives.

Just because you do not see what he sees does not make his view any less true.

 

[Asp Explorer]

So what did you mean by "it makes sense to diminish or reduce contribution to the factions and maybe Community Goals."

Some people simply want there to be an enticement to play in Open, wether it be cash bonuses or accelerated ranking, whatever, simply to make Open appear to be the mode to play in. This is simply because certain players want to have more player targets to shoot at and dominate. The thinking goes that if you are not in Open, you are not playing a real game, and all us internet tough guys are going to laugh at you for being so cowardly. Come play with us big strong men, and don't be such a little basement dweller.

Of course, when such players do decide to see what Open is all about, there is a chance they'll get insta-smushed by groups of experienced big strong men, just to tell the newb in no uncertain terms who is boss.

 

[DarkWalker]

All your quotes actually make the game sound like something dangerous. The mark was missed badly...

You know, apart from the multiplayer part, what he quoted might as well be describing any game from the X series.

 

[atak2]

Pick a place for meeting. Everyone shows up, shots a few times at everyone else, and go their merry ways, wallets fatter with a bunch of hostility bonuses.

People have been exploiting similar systems for years. I can't even remember when I first heard about trading kills. If your system requires knowing the player's actual intent to work, it will fail. It's why no one can build a good automated anti-griefing system.

Exactly. Neither of us can think of a "anti-griefing system" that can work. That's exactly why the modes would be better separated.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Some people simply want there to be an enticement to play in Open, wether it be cash bonuses or accelerated ranking, whatever, simply to make Open appear to be the mode to play in. This is simply because certain players want to have more player targets to shoot at and dominate. The thinking goes that if you are not in Open, you are not playing a real game, and all us internet tough guys are going to laugh at you for being so cowardly. Come play with us big strong men, and don't be such a little basement dweller.

Of course, when such players do decide to see what Open is all about, there is a chance they'll get insta-smushed by groups of experienced big strong men, just to tell the newb in no uncertain terms who is boss.

OOOOoooh ho ho ho, you're gonna have to go back around a few pages and read up friend.

Also, where in the world are you getting that last bit? That really isn't the case, at all. How many sides of the picture have you truly seen?

Edit: There already are "Anti-griefing systems" in place already, some of which, are self-policing and working. The modes aren't just there for that atak2, and it isn't the biggest reason.

 

[atak2]

You know, apart from the multiplayer part, what he quoted might as well be describing any game from the X series.

You are welcome to play the X Series. Its very good, staunchly singleplayer - I think you would like it

 

[DarkWalker]

Well, as a few of us have quoted it over and over, I doubt you'll look, but here you go;

You can also go for the full story.

The game's Kickstart launched November 5, 2012; the offline mode was added to the Kickstart page in December 11, 2012 (as far as I know, that was when they updated the FAQ entry about solo mode).

I'm quite certain it wasn't there at the start. I found about the Kickstart the very day it was created, but didn't pledge right then because of the online-only nature of the game.

 

[atak2]

I'm not pretending, though.

I fixed your quote to more accurately represent the truth of the matter, however. Totally free of charge, too.

You're welcome.

Edit:



The story of the blind men and an elephant originated in the Indian subcontinent from where it has widely diffused. It has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly, the parable implies that one's subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behavior of experts in fields where there is a deficit or inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect for different perspectives.

Just because you do not see what he sees does not make his view any less true.

So you basically talked a load of nonsense you don't understand as usual. Got it!

 

[DarkWalker]

You are welcome to play the X Series. Its very good, staunchly singleplayer - I think you would like it

I do. I have each and every one of them. I can't think of another game that has quite that mix of flying and industry, where I can go from a lowly pilot to the owner of half the stations in the galaxy and manager of much of its economy.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. Neither of us can think of a "anti-griefing system" that can work. That's exactly why the modes would be better separated.

I don't see how the conclusion derives from the premise. In fact, the fact eliminating griefing isn't feasible was given by Frontier itself as one of the main reasons for allowing players to freely switch between modes.

 

[atak2]

I do. I have each and every one of them. I can't think of another game that has quite that mix of flying and industry, where I can go from a lowly pilot to the owner of half the stations in the galaxy and manager of much of its economy.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't see how the conclusion derives from the premise. In fact, the fact eliminating griefing isn't feasible was given by Frontier itself as one of the main reasons for allowing players to freely switch between modes.

I loved it very much - especially X3: Terran Conflict. The game lacked PvP multiplayer interaction though. That is why I am here!

 

[DarkWalker]

Edit: There already are "Anti-griefing systems" in place already, some of which, are self-policing and working. The modes aren't just there for that atak2, and it isn't the biggest reason.

Self-policing never worked well. It's what Ultima Online tried to go with, until the griefing situation got bad enough that the devs were forced to split the game into two worlds, one of which didn't allow non-consensual PvP.

BTW, that definition of griefer that I like to paraphrase (and that, in the original, is "A griefer is someone who, through his social actions, costs you more money than he gives you")? From UO devs that were trying to rescue the game from being a griefers paradise.

 

[Mercy Killing]

So you basically talked a load of nonsense you don't understand as usual. Got it!

And you basically dismiss my replies by calling them nonsense and saying I don't understand. Quite expected. Glad you didn't disappoint.

I shall remember this and from this point onward not reply to your inflexible viewpoints because you're always right and it would be useless to show you the error of your thinking.

 

[atak2]

I do. I have each and every one of them. I can't think of another game that has quite that mix of flying and industry, where I can go from a lowly pilot to the owner of half the stations in the galaxy and manager of much of its economy.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't see how the conclusion derives from the premise. In fact, the fact eliminating griefing isn't feasible was given by Frontier itself as one of the main reasons for allowing players to freely switch between modes.

I have been part of many PvP games and I truly believe a system of PvE and PvP mode seperation is needed. FD might not have realised it now (they are trying to please everyone) but soon they will realise they need to mess with the Solo vs Group vs Open rules.

 

[DarkWalker]

I loved it very much - especially X3: Terran Conflict. The game lacked PvP multiplayer interaction though. That is why I am here!

And, as long as the PvP you want don't intrude on my game, I have no issues with that.

Now, of course, we seem to strongly disagree on just where that boundary should lie

 

[atak2]

And you basically dismiss my replies by calling them nonsense and saying I don't understand. Quite expected. Glad you didn't disappoint.

I shall remember this and from this point onward not reply to your inflexible viewpoints because you're always right and it would be useless to show you the error of your thinking.

No Mercy. That was not the case.

You are linking a parable that can be equally be applied to you as it can be to me. Therefore it's a pointless tale that isn't relevant apart from you trying to appear smarter than others! Is that your motivation Mercy!

 

[Asp Explorer]

FD might not have realised it now (they are trying to please everyone) but soon they will realise they need to mess with the Solo vs Group vs Open rules.

Can I ask why?

 

[Dave1235]

<Snip>(Except here where frontier apparently caters to you literal cowards).

Come on then Hero, tell us about your real life medals.

Ever met a real hero or a coward?

You do realise this is a game and all we have to lose is pixel cash right.

I suggest you wind your neck in before you really annoy someone.

 

[TheSpaceTexan]

Self-policing never worked well. It's what Ultima Online tried to go with, until the griefing situation got bad enough that the devs were forced to split the game into two worlds, one of which didn't allow non-consensual PvP.

BTW, that definition of griefer that I like to paraphrase (and that, in the original, is "A griefer is someone who, through his social actions, costs you more money than he gives you")? From UO devs that were trying to rescue the game from being a griefers paradise.

Whoa now, let's take a step back and remind ourselves: All games have different and diverse communities that will always differ. Different game mechanics allow for certain things to happen. So your argument is pretty damn moot. Also the Assassination of Lord British, I've read it and its really damn funny and creative.

Let's stick to the real definition of Griefing. Lest we get confused here!
(in an online game or community) a person who harasses or deliberately provokes other players or members in order to spoil their enjoyment.


No game is free of griefing, but some games are better suited for it than others.