Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
Yes I guess that's a genuine reason. People may be attracted to that without actually wanting the associated risk.
Random interaction in a game with guns and factions and pirates is inevitably going to carry some risk though, even if it's not that you seek.
Maybe some better security zones and proper repercussions would help in this respect.
Last edited:
I'm suggesting that your definition of "risk" includes to much things that it becomes completely meaningless.
Not wanting to encounter players who use the chat out of character is a good reason to create a private RP group. Not wanting players in that group that don't RP isn't about avoiding risk - unless your definition of "risk" covers everything that could possible happen or not happen.
What about players in Open, they avoid the "risk" of not having social interaction.
The only other thing I can think of is, you may make a new friend in open you might not make in a private group or solo.
I know people who met future partners in online games, a love of a game sparked a love of each other.
So open benefits include;
1) Risk of being blown up for any and all reasons (or no reason)
2) Chance of finding the next Mr/Mrs (delete as applicable) Malkov
3) Possibility of making new friend(s).
I have a Mrs Jockey and 5 small Jockeys (and the smallest does jump on the dogs back and yell giddy up)
I have all the friends I could ever want / need
I don't want any more risk than what SJA provides.
So Open really holds nothing for me.
I only use Mobius 2 - 3 times a month. I've spent more time on the groups Facebook page than I have playing in the actual group.
Not sure if anyone can add to the list of reasons/ incentive to play open???
"...And then I rolled a 6 and a 5!"
<grins> No dice - pure strategy!
I'm suggesting that your definition of "risk" includes to much things that it becomes completely meaningless.
Not wanting to encounter players who use the chat out of character is a good reason to create a private RP group. Not wanting players in that group that don't RP isn't about avoiding risk - unless your definition of "risk" covers everything that could possible happen or not happen.
What about players in Open, they avoid the "risk" of not having social interaction.
I don't have any magical definition of risk, it's a fairly straightforward word.
I ask these questions and discuss these things not because I want to throw stones but because I want the game to be better, for everybody.
I might stop my kids playing in Open because I don't want to risk them being exposed to inappropriate language, subject matter, griefers etc.
That seems a perfectly valid use of the word and a perfectly valid justification for group and solo modes.
TBH I'm not really sure what your point is.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not quite the right moment but...
vv No argument there, but I couldn't find the bit Tuub t Tute was quoting from (Rimmer playing Risk!)
Last edited:
Open protagonists make Mr Flibble very angry...
I don't know you, I don't like you, I don't want to meet you in my game (general 'you' obviously, not you) therefore, I play in private group with my friends. If I played in Open, the 'risk', by your definition, would be meeting anybody for any reason. That's just an insanely broad definition of 'risk' which renders the term basically nonsensical yet still borderline insulting with its connotations of cowardice. I think that's the issue people are having with your use of the word.
You know somebody will disagree with that though ....
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Of course - new players will continue to create new threads on "new" issues (that'll probably get merged into this one or one of its successors) - we're only fifteen-and-a-half pages away from "Part the Third"!
Well that is just silly. Why should using the word "risk" result in a discussion being completely derailed?
Why on earth does it carry an association of cowardice or get seen as borderline insulting?
"Crossing the street without looking is a risk" - does me making that statement imply that you are a coward if you look before crossing?
I am just asking what other reasons people might have to choose Open.
If there are genuine reasons (such as more social interaction) that people want but don't choose because of other risks they want to avoid then perhaps there are solutions that can be suggested.
Once again people are turning this into "us and them" when it is really just "us".
That is because some people cannot just leave the rest of the player base to enjoy the game.
With suggestions of locking out Open mode, removing mode switching or giving buff just to Open mode only players - that creates the divide.
Every idea put forth from the excuse of being a "pirate" was shot down, all that needs to fix it is NPCs having better / more loot - equal to what human traders do carry.
Every point made about "social interaction" is defeated by the existence of the Mobius group - "social interaction" without the pew pew.
Every point made about Mode switching, every gripe about it is countered by the KS information and the Devs constantly stating it is part of the design and not going to be changed.
The points made about Combat Zones, is an NPC issue with spawn rates and not "having to share" (as you don't "have to share", you choose to share by playing in open).
So far, the only thing I can see for people trying to force open mode on everyone - is them forcing us in front of their guns for their laughs at our expense.
And that must be the reason, as all others have been countered - repeatedly.
Well maybe it's the assumption that somebody is trying to "force open mode on everyone" that is the problem.
Some people react to simple questions I ask as if that is what I said, when I have never said any such thing.
No assumption - that attitude has been quite common in this thread (unfortunately).
Where do you actually stand, Malkov? What are you trying to achieve here?
- Status