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

Ziggy Stardust · Jul 7, 2015

quickr said:
There is nothing sadder than seeing all those "populated" systems without barely any population.

I disagree. Reading the self-victimization coupled with self-grandurisation in this thread trumps it by a country mile.

And no, I don't know what those words mean either.

For me, playing in Open is about that feeling that galaxy is alive. That something is always happening in it.

Those two words you typed there. Very important to realise that when arguing to alter other people's gaming experience.

An experience they paid for mind you. You bought this game knowing either full well that the possibility of mode switching exists. If you didn't, it's a lesson for the next game you buy.

You bought the game. It's your responsibility to inform yourself. It's not the developer's responsibility to alter the game to your expectations. It's not the fault of the players who like to be able to switch modes to give that up for you.

whipdiddywhip said:
the system atm is stupid

An opinion you're entitled to. Does beg the question why you bought a game with such a stupid system.

Do any of you guys put (part of) the blame for the situation you find yourself in on yourselves? It doesn't seem to be the case. I'd have expected a more humble request in the lines of: look, I made a mistake buying this game, but I don't want to disenfranchise those people who want this system in place. Is there a way to solve this?

All I am reading is:"This is how it must/should be"

And all I can say is: not your call.

Arioch · Jul 7, 2015

whipdiddywhip said:
solo should have been proper offline mode

open should be, well as it is now

and groups should be able to be groups in offline or open

the system atm is stupid

Oh good, in that case people can set up a Group of just 1 person when they want to play online.

They could call it Solitary, or something like that

whipdiddywhip · Jul 7, 2015

Arioch said:
Oh good, in that case people can set up a Group of just 1 person when they want to play online.

They could call it Solitary, or something like that

if they wanted to, but like i said groups would be in offline or OPEN

Don Alvarez · Jul 7, 2015

Ziggy Stardust said:
All I am reading is:"This is how it must/should be"

Slight addendum:

All I am reading is:"This is how it must/should be, or game will fail"

Mouse · Jul 7, 2015

whipdiddywhip said:
if they wanted to, but like i said groups would be in offline or OPEN

And groups in OPEN would be unable to be seen by others in open because they would be in a group instance!

Arioch · Jul 7, 2015

whipdiddywhip said:
if they wanted to, but like i said groups would be in offline or OPEN

Are you talking about Wings?

Seonid · Jul 7, 2015

whipdiddywhip said:
if they wanted to, but like i said groups would be in offline or OPEN

There is no offline mode.:S

whipdiddywhip · Jul 7, 2015

Arioch said:
Are you talking about Wings?

i guess so or fleets whatever they want to call them,

- - - Updated - - -

Arioch said:
Are you talking about Wings?

i guess so or fleets whatever they want to call them,

Arioch · Jul 7, 2015

whipdiddywhip said:
i guess so or fleets whatever they want to call them,

So you want to remove the Group function completely? Reduce them down to Wing size? Sounds like a big ask...

Yaffle · Jul 7, 2015

Okay all

Time to calm down, or we'll lock this for a time-out.

Ziggy Stardust · Jul 7, 2015

Don Alvarez said:
Slight addendum:

Of course. In 6 months. And in 6 months, it'll still fail in 6 months.This has been going on from day 1.

whipdiddywhip · Jul 7, 2015

Arioch said:
What about the Groups that are currently numbering in the thousands? I don't think they'd be too impressed.

this game tries to cater to too many ppl, and it will be its downfall, it should have been sold as a sp ggame and not bothered wasting players who want meaningful multiplayer and social interactions time, but hey guess they got our money

*sinks off back to another sapce game that has meaningful content and player interaction* im out

Roybe · Jul 7, 2015

whipdiddywhip said:
this game tries to cater to too many ppl, and it will be its downfall, it should have been sold as a sp ggame and not bothered wasting players who want meaningful multiplayer and social interactions time, but hey guess they got our money

*sinks off back to another sapce game that has meaningful content and player interaction* im out

What game is that? I would like to see it myself.

BTW, you don't have to leave...just play the game the way it was designed!

Ziggy Stardust · Jul 7, 2015

whipdiddywhip said:
this game tries to cater to too many ppl, and it will be its downfall, it should have been sold as a sp ggame and not bothered wasting players who want meaningful multiplayer and social interactions time, but hey guess they got our money

*sinks off back to another sapce game that has meaningful content and player interaction* im out

Sorry to hear that.

If you want to take a positive from all this: Lesson learned for next purchase.

FuzzySpider · Jul 7, 2015

JeffRyan said:
I'm the opposite, I'm an extrovert. But I have enough introvert friends to know that interaction 'costs' them. It has to be their own time and choosing. People take energy from them. They're not anti-social necessarily the way some people seem to think. They just need their own space.

And I /always/ feel honoured when an introvert chooses me as a friend. They're willing to pay the price of what their interactions with someone like me costs them.

Wow.

I don't believe I just read that on an internet forum. I'd expect it in a blog written by a saint maybe, or perhaps in the biography of the nicest person ever. But I never thought I'd get such... social wisdom... posted on an internet forum.

All I can say is, wow. And this man needs Rep STAT!

Mouse · Jul 7, 2015

whipdiddywhip said:
no they should be in open like everone else, suprised some of you even use the internet your so scared of "bad ppl online"

No.. they would not be in open like everyone else. They would be in a group as the game defines them, therefore they would not be in your instance of the game. I am surprised that you did not understand this. With your talk of schooling and wondering what today's youths are being taught I would have thought someone with your supposed level of education would have picked up on this fact.

As for people being scared of "bad people" online, wanting to play solo or not play in an environment of jerks is not being "scared" or anything. Many of us deal with jerks on a regular basis and would like to play a game and enjoy ourselves.

GJ51 · Jul 7, 2015

WARNING

Just my opinion

I think all three modes of gamplay are valid and actually very appropriate. The only aspect of it that I don't see any rational purpose for is the ability to have each mode influence the other modes you play in.

Solo is great for learning the game and testing features undisturbed by other players. It's also nice for casual players not interested in PvP or interaction with other players.

Same with Group Play where groups can be formed to play with like minded players to enjoy the game within their agreed to limits and parameters.

Open Play - the no holds barred free for all where just about anything goes. There will always be an element of danger and unpredictability not present in the others modes.

Fine - let everyone enjoy the game as they want to.

The only issue I have is trying to understand why FD chose to allow a players progress in one mode to transfer into the other modes. it just seems a bit silly to me that someone can play for months in Solo and then bring all his earnings, ships, rank, and so forth into another mode of play. I don't see why any player would be upset about this if they knew that was to be the case from the get go.

The problem now is that the horse is out of the barn and has been for so long, the situation is not likely to ever be changed. it was a poor decision by FD made so early on that like it or not, we're just stuck with it.

relayer · Jul 7, 2015

Player 1: Everyone should be in Open!

Player 2: OK *waves magic wand* now everyone is in Open.

Player 1: But I can't see more than 31* other people! The ones I can't see are unfairly influencing the game!

Player 2: That's because the game was built on P2P architecture. You won't see the majority of players.

Player 1: P2P is unfair!

*often less, especially if there are wings in the instance.

QziQza · Jul 7, 2015

FuzzySpider said:
Wow.

I don't believe I just read that on an internet forum. I'd expect it in a blog written by a saint maybe, or perhaps in the biography of the nicest person ever. But I never thought I'd get such... social wisdom... posted on an internet forum.

All I can say is, wow. And this man needs Rep STAT!

i think i +rep Jeff pretty much any time i see him post, always seems to be sticking up for someone or something.

Arioch · Jul 7, 2015

relayer said:
Player 1: Everyone should be in Open!

Player 2: OK *waves magic wand* now everyone is in Open.

Player 1: But I can't see more than 31* other people! The ones I can't see are unfairly influencing the game!

Player 2: That's because the game was built on P2P architecture. You won't see the majority of players.

Player 1: P2P is unfair!

*often less, especially if there are wings in the instance.

So you're saying that the way the "modes" work is just a matchmaking flag? Everyone is flying around the same galaxy, often in the same place but in different instances?

But that would mean that sometimes people with the "Open" flag will get instanced on their own, just like those with the "Solo" flag. How can that be fair?

edit: I was trying to make a sort of joke here, maybe I should've used a winky emote thing