Well, if it's member of The Code, I wouldn't deem that a loss…
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
It's this simple...... FD (WILL) Loose Half or more of it's players if you make solo and open different. I would prefer open personally, but ED was originally promised an option for offline mode and that got taken away and then players are forced to play online solo. And now in the future if that changes then you are changing the dynamic for all the single player minded people again. especially with this powerplay nonsense where it forces you to HAVE to work with everyone else to effect a change that has no effect on you personally whatsoever. You will loose them. For me I play all three versions of the game and they should all stay the same as the game develops. If FD wanted to what you guys are talking about they should just take away solo and group and go all online and focus on putting the real content originally promised into the game.
Majinvash
Banned
Sick Burn...
I know.
Peeplz come for the pew pew?
Not enough Pew Pew?
Peeplz go find pew pew somewhere else...
And so the wheel turns.
Whilst those who bought the game knowing it was not "full to the face shootiness with da pew pewz" continue to play the game they bought, no doubt with minor frustrations on the way.
At least all those leaving can go and play SC straight away...
Not enough Pew Pew?
Peeplz go find pew pew somewhere else...
And so the wheel turns.
Whilst those who bought the game knowing it was not "full to the face shootiness with da pew pewz" continue to play the game they bought, no doubt with minor frustrations on the way.
At least all those leaving can go and play SC straight away...
Robert plays in Open... read some of his posts, maybe?
More codswallop!
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
The thing is, I do not see people dropping off the game as being proof that it will die....... But I am no money man so i accept I may be wrong, but elite has been out for what, 9 months now (for those who had access to gamma).
I dunno about you, but I have bought loads of games which I personally have reduced my playtime on after 9 months of gaming on (elite for me is NOT one of those titles, I still play it a lot).
but is it such a bad thing if after 9 months people relagate it from their "play all of the time" pile to their " have a breather & come back to at a later date" pile?.
So long as FD continue to add stuff, many people (not all) who walk away for a few months will continue to come back to it imo, and so long as people like the core of the game, imo they will still consider buying future content if it looks good and is not too expensive.
As i said, I am not a money man, so i have no idea what profits FD need to make the game a continual going concern, however with no big name actors, no major licencing issues to have to pay for "random pop idol crud hits" music tracks, & no real life trade marks in there I cant imagine its production costs are as high as your average EA title.
ED is a niche title.... it was kickstarted on the promise of it being a niche title. Whilst I am sure FD would celebrate if they got COD or GTA like sales, I do not for one second believe their profit predictions were ever banking on that.
take it to the other extreme, ED is WAY less of a niche title than say ETS2 or DCS World and yet both of these titles seem to survive and indeed keep churning out more content, so why not elite, which I suspect makes more money than either of those titles.
I dunno about you, but I have bought loads of games which I personally have reduced my playtime on after 9 months of gaming on (elite for me is NOT one of those titles, I still play it a lot).
but is it such a bad thing if after 9 months people relagate it from their "play all of the time" pile to their " have a breather & come back to at a later date" pile?.
So long as FD continue to add stuff, many people (not all) who walk away for a few months will continue to come back to it imo, and so long as people like the core of the game, imo they will still consider buying future content if it looks good and is not too expensive.
As i said, I am not a money man, so i have no idea what profits FD need to make the game a continual going concern, however with no big name actors, no major licencing issues to have to pay for "random pop idol crud hits" music tracks, & no real life trade marks in there I cant imagine its production costs are as high as your average EA title.
ED is a niche title.... it was kickstarted on the promise of it being a niche title. Whilst I am sure FD would celebrate if they got COD or GTA like sales, I do not for one second believe their profit predictions were ever banking on that.
take it to the other extreme, ED is WAY less of a niche title than say ETS2 or DCS World and yet both of these titles seem to survive and indeed keep churning out more content, so why not elite, which I suspect makes more money than either of those titles.
It doesn't matter if he's 1000% biased.
He doesn't speak for FD except when he is "moderating" - his opinions on the game and how it should work are just as worthless or fantastic (take your pic) as mine and yours.
Player A: Fancy a game of football this weekend?
Player B: Great idea but I would like to play in solo mode.
Player A: Huh?
Player B: I want to be able to stand in an empty field and kick the ball into your goal as many times as I can in 90 mins..
Player A: What's the point of that?
Player B: YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DICTATE MY PLAY STYLE!!!
Commentator A: And there's the final whistle of what has been an outstanding World Cup final. Brazil win 3 - 1
Commentator B: Yep an amazing display of skill from the Brazilians but of course we still need to wait for the solo scores
Commentator A: And the solo scores are coming in now... and Argentina win it 474,382 - 12
Player B: Great idea but I would like to play in solo mode.
Player A: Huh?
Player B: I want to be able to stand in an empty field and kick the ball into your goal as many times as I can in 90 mins..
Player A: What's the point of that?
Player B: YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DICTATE MY PLAY STYLE!!!
Commentator A: And there's the final whistle of what has been an outstanding World Cup final. Brazil win 3 - 1
Commentator B: Yep an amazing display of skill from the Brazilians but of course we still need to wait for the solo scores
Commentator A: And the solo scores are coming in now... and Argentina win it 474,382 - 12
So what?
.
How does that change anything? He is an "official" in this forum, supposedly a "Moderator" yet is he ADVOCATING!.........how can those against his point of view feel safe? I know I don't. I fully expect a ban for this......even though I think it is a perfectly fair question...
.
If he wants to argue his case, use another login without the Moderator badge.....
Ah, the salty tears of the "open mode only" crowd taste so delicious
I'm practicing for "Open Mode only" game play. So please don't get angry, I'm still learning.
I'm practicing for "Open Mode only" game play. So please don't get angry, I'm still learning.
Player A - in open "there he is - get him!"
Player B - in open "Where? I can't see him - or you for that matter!"
He is advocating is FD's official take on the matter.
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Are you now saying that the forum having moderators is a problem ?
This arguement about moderators expressing an opinion gets wheeled out every couple of weeks, usually when they make points that are valid and difficult to refute. Go figure.
The Argument now shifts to retention. Anecdotal info used to support doom and gloom unless the game is redesigned for the Open-Only crowd. This argument is completely useless. It has been tried over and over again in any number of forums, and any number of issues, and any number of games. It's the last resort of the disaffected, claim the sky is falling all because players have a choice. Ridiculous in the extreme.
I still challenge the Open-Only supporters to justify changing core mechanics of the game because of a sub-set of the players personal gaming ethics. Once you examine this question fully, I'm sure you will see the light and embrace choice.
I still challenge the Open-Only supporters to justify changing core mechanics of the game because of a sub-set of the players personal gaming ethics. Once you examine this question fully, I'm sure you will see the light and embrace choice.
Don't be ridiculous - if you questioned a moderating decision then yes you could expect an infraction/ban.
You can tell him (politely) all day long that you disagree with his views on game mechanics.
If you can't see the difference between the two things then you seem to have a comprehension issue.
I started a thread yesterday that pointed out a small catch 22 in power play: namely that underminers generally meet media delivery ships and vice versa; that this could be solved by handing out a few merits for defending your factions systems as well, i.e., combat ready underminers meet combat ready defenders. However, although my thread did not suggest a fix that that affected other modes, challenge the system as it is, or even suggest a fix at all, but merely a way to make pvp more fun, it was abruptly closed after a threat to put it here. Can we not discuss how to make player interaction more fun without the threads being closed or put here because a comment underneath suggests a side issue? It just gets lost in here.
- Status