That's not really a good advertisement for Open is it?
But i guess you just have bad luck. I've made quite a few friends playing open.
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
That's not really a good advertisement for Open is it?
But i guess you just have bad luck. I've made quite a few friends playing open.
That's your opinion. I say that's exactly what they did worst.
From my point of view, that's exactly why I refuse to play EVE. And is why I like ED... no player controls any territory. The Solo/Group mode coexist with Open and share exactly the same background simulation is the most brilliant solution I have ever seen in preventing players from ganging up and control a piece of territory and pushes others into the left over fringe areas. You told me off this system? Sure... I will just duck into Solo and do as usual. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Although the fact is that I most likely would just stay away from the stink, even in Solo. There is no effective way of controlling a territory, except consuming it to the barebone so that nobody else wants to be there anyway, not even in Solo. Well, that the case, you effectively controlled a piece of territory not worth controlling. Although that didn't stop some former EVE gang from trying to blockade a system, failed miserably, and then come to the forum to post a wall of text complaining about the Solo players and demanding that Solo/Group mode must go. I had a good laugh that day. Priceless! ;-)
The galaxy is so big... I can go get some other area? Why should I? Because you are here? Tsk!
Why don't I like players controlling territory? You have to have sufficient number of players in order to control territory. Once you do, those who don't join gangs are in distinct disadvantages. Join the gang then? No, thanks. You want safety in number? You have to remember that you also have obligations. You receive protection and share of the loot, and you must also contribute to the protection of others. You know what? I get paid big bucks to have obligations at work. No thank you in a game. I play games to relax and have fun, not to have more obligations! I ain't playing gangsta and get ordered around by some unknown pimple face! I am too old for that stuff. Neither do I wish to "serve" an anime princess/dame/brute/slick/do-gooder... hence no PeePee for me either.
Once some players start ganging up and control territories, others are forced to either join that gang or form other gangs. The long wolves have no choice but to go to the "left-overs." No thank you. I ain't playing 2nd class citizen! Nor do I wish to impose something I don't want onto others.
You may want to play gansta blood feud? Sorry, I have absolutely no appetite for that. Leave me out of it! And I am glad ED does not support it! Not even a seemingly benign chat feature!
This is why I think Solo/Group and Open share the same BGS is one of the better design decisions FDev made.
i am seriously starting to lose faith in the people here....Open only means that once you chose Open you stick with it for that commander not that Open is the only way to play the game....my god people these days can't even read
- - - Updated - - -
Yes and some want it to change. Thanks for the obvious facts though, i never knew elite was like this until you told me.
Last edited by a moderator:
First of all "Open only" can mean two things. It can mean, there is only open or it can mean only players who have only played open. Both of these ideas has been expressed multiple times by multiple people. If you can't see that those two words can be taken both ways then perhaps I should question your reading ability? Or maybe you should just explain which you are and leave it at that?
Anyway, the Xbox Live subscription is a valid issue for both of those ideas. Let's take yours. If you play Open, you are locked into Open. Our Xbox player joins Open Only, with his Gold account. Some time down the line they have to cancel their Gold account. What now? Now they must play Solo. They will lose all their progress. Later, they rebuy their Gold account, what now? Do they stick with the save they've been working on last or the one they had originally? Or do they just play the normal modes where they aren't locked into anything?
Your idea just causes more problems and fragments the player base even further.
Last edited:
Nice & elegant post. +rep
- - - Updated - - -
Stop! Don't shoot me there!
This is my No-No square!
I just (re)built a box for retro-gaming after trying many emus and VM combinations that worked more-or-less (including GOG's DOSbox version). You can get find top-of-the-line parts (1995-2000) & build such a retrobox for about $100-130USD off ebay. Can't use VA unless you multiboot with XP. I use 2 Sidewinder FF Pros but some gamepads work off a splitter.
However, if you can't build a box, you'll find this pretty helpful:
TIE Fighter 95 on Win 7 x64
Not only for TF but X-Wing, X-Wing Vs. TIE Fighter and X-Wing Alliance.
Sorry but no, "Open Only" advocates are those who's main goal is to force everyone into open as it would be the only mode. They feel that "interaction" would be better for everyone. That is why they are called "Open Only" people. They want solo gone. Other people want solo and open separate and even others like you said, want modes fixed once you make your commander.
You forgot to add the words "to suit my own playstyle and agenda, regardless of the impact on the rest of community". However thanks for stating the obvious... ;-)
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
maybe i should sign up to it.. nay, wait till it comes out, buy it, and then go on the forums demanding that a solo mode is added with a campaign
(for the record, it not having a solo campaign is probably my biggest gaming dissapointment so far this year. I was so looking forward to a great new starwars game. Sadly to me it just seems star wars flavoured battlefield... oh well... its money saved at least.
Last edited:
so an xbox gold user who has 200 hrs logged into open... and their live expires. People like you would have them delete their character and start from scratch.... or vice versa, after a year with a silver account they get gold live for their birthday and you again want them to start from scratch.
edit.. Damn should have known SteveLaw or one of the other guys would have beaten me too it!
Last edited:
no campaign? awwww, poodle sticks! well, it was fun thinking about the game for a short while, think i will give it a pass too then.. maybe i'll put the money i save in my 'get me some pedals' fund.maybe i should sign up to it.. nay, wait till it comes out, buy it, and then go on the forums demanding that a solo mode is added with a campaign
anywhoo OT.. game play being optional means that there is always going to be a flow of players moving around game modes.. dictate a fixed mode and you are automatically reducing the potential player base in any given mode, more so open. it seems to me that the loudest advocates of 'open only' are pirates, we see them continually trying to shame or goad traders into the open game so they can prey on them, like we really care what you think lol. piracy is all about the pirate vs the trader, or as they like to call it, the wolf vs the sheep.. now, as a trader, i'm trading no matter what mode im in.. soooo.. if im forced to choose a fixed mode.. well.. its a no brainer really.. group play! full of options, play with the kind of people i actually like.. the kind of people who respect other players choices. even in no pvp groups (or limited pvp groups) the work Sarah has done and continues to do on the npc AI makes the npc's sufficiently challenging for my needs.
bottom line.. pirates need us traders, not the other way round, so what exactly will the pirates feed on if most traders decide to forgo open and retain a choice in their game play options.. each other?
Last edited:
because not every one is into or wants any pvp(pewpew you die) interactions being a reason why some would want to avoid it , just because you might enjoy it does not mean every one else does or should be made to. which is why i think you are wrong about people in those groups being unhappy with features , they are using those features as intended to play how they want , the people that are unhappy seem to be those crying about how they cant kill the people that dont want to play with them and want some way to force them to play with them.
Actually, the other day i did just that. I had configured for piracy, went looking for a trader, but instead got interdicted by a (npc) pirate. Did a cargo scan and noted he had 5-6 tons of Iridium. I thought "Nice, that's mine", and used hatch breakers to rob him blind.
yes! if players want to play a pirate in open and there are not enough traders they will just have to mix it up a bit... That being said, FD could do more in beefing up the AI traders to carry more decent stuff (basically mirroring the stuff humans carry). There is no law to state pirates have to feed off pilots federation members.
They also seem to view drones as cargo and will go straight into the "gimme your stuff" mode, so you just wait for them to open fire and get Wanted status (if they don't already have it), rip out all their cargo and then blow them up for the bounty. Huzzah! Pimms all round.
here at Mobius group, we play within the full context of the game, making use of all the features implemented by FDev. with (at the time of this post) 9,782 members, we have a history of hassle free game play, based on very simple, common courtesy rules. and contrary to most peoples thinking there is no pvp.. if we want to, there is always the option to pvp via mutual consent, prior arrangement or conflict zones. i have yet to hear about an unhappy Mobius player.. we bloody well love our set up.. playing through Mobius, i have the opportunity to appreciate and experience every aspect of this game to the full.
Somehow you Mobius guys sound occasionally like some missionary preachers trying to lure others into their sect. "We are happy in our community… you can be happy here, too… joooooiiiin uuuus…"
Last edited:
it works thoughSomehow you Mobius guys sound occasionally like some missionary preachers trying to lure others into their sect. "We are happy in our community… you can be happy here, too… joooooiiiin uuuus…"
Somehow you Mobius guys sound occasionally like some missionary preachers trying to lure others into their sect. "We are happy in our community… you can be happy here, too… joooooiiiin uuuus…"
Its to do with the jerk ratio. Its a quite simple calculation based on what % of players within a particular mode are jerks.
The jerk ratio in Mobius is very low, as most jerks will do something that will get them thrown from the group.
In Open, depending on the time of day, the jerk ratio can reach as high as 23.456%*
* = Statistic made up on the spot for example purposes only. Do not take as valid data.
Last edited:
yeah. that i can appreciate, that is my idea of something that would constitute a fare balance pass. they could even tie in the commodities carried by npcs to match (at least in some proportion) those carried by players. although from how i understand it, the background simulation dictates the number of npc's and the commodities carried based on the systems requirements, which is maybe why in the busier systems they are less likely to carry what players do. couldn't confirm that either way though, so just thinking out of the immediate into the whole lol
- Status