Wrong... get your facts straight!
Last edited:
- Status
The "facts" are in my sig - try reading.
.
The game was going to have;
.
Offline
Solo
Group
Open
.
Solo was always online, connected to the BGS.
Again, it is in my sig and in all 3 mega threads.
.
So again, try doing some research. You've gotten this game wrong and are blaming others for your mistakes.
lulz nope - Offline Mode was just meant to be you, alone, offline - and it was cancelled a few weeks before release as FD just couldn't make it workable.
Solo is simply that - Solo. You play online, on your own, and share the same universe with every other player - you just don't see them. All Elite players, in whichever mode they choose to play, are part of the community. Soloists, Groupies, Open-Onlyers, gankers, griefers, combat loggers, pew pews, spreadsheet nerds, complete n00bs and easily irritated Drunks are all part of the community.
Dealing with griefers is one thing, but turning Powerplay into a numbers game of who has the most members should not be the answer, there should be a way to stop them from just steamrolling over smaller factions just because the out number you. I would rather get killed trying to stop people from expanding/fortifying or whatever they are doing than sit there and grind as hard as we can just to realize that there is no use because they don't have to interact with us and they outnumber us. If that is the case of what they intended for Powerplay then it is BROKEN and yes they need to fix it.
The only way to not get steam rolled is to outplay them! Grind harder my friend...grind harder!
Exactly, which is my problem, they designed Powerplay to be a part of the larger "online" community. I don't think Frontier realized that people would use SOLO mode in this way to affect change in Powerplay without any reprecussions or risk.
From the conversations I've had everything about Powerplay is by design.
Solo vs.
Fifth columning
dirty tricks and back stabbing
Everything.
That's the problem though, if you are in an outnumbered faction no matter how hard you grind you will lose 99% of the time. We might as well all just join one faction and say the he&& with it, if they aren't going to give the smaller factions some way of standing up against the larger ones.
Last edited:
.
Wish I could rep you.
Have some bacon in lieu
.
.
Just because you don't like it, does not make it broken. It just does not appeal to you.
FD have the numbers, and are happy over how things are going (again, read the link in my sig - quote in there).
.
It's quite arrogant to start screaming something is "broken" just because you do not like it.
I happen to like it, and so other people. Oh and you're not forced to take part in it - it is OPTINAL. So play the parts of the game you like - simple.
I look and still see all 10 Powers still in the game...and the ones that have come the closest to losing out are some of the biggest!
There are lots of shortcoming with PowerPlay...and you do point out one of them. It does take a decent amount of players to play for a Power...and it takes someone to lead and choose what to do properly. Otherwise the Power will just thrash around.
Power Play was designed around Solo, your assumption about FD not knowing something is rubbish - and I even told you where to find the quote saying just that before you said it
.
[Edit - actually I copied the quote out a few posts back, so no excuse to make that false claim]
Last edited:
Nope. I'm telling you that Powerplay was designed from the start to allow players in all game modes to contribute equally.
Given the game's network architecture, any large scale contest between players will turn into a popularity contest. You can't have more than about a dozen other players in the same instance (so, if there are more than a dozen players, the rest will slip by you), you can't intercept people that are geographically distant from you (as it would cause hideous lag for everyone involved), you can't intercept anyone that plays at a different time, you can't intercept players in another platform (i.e., you can't intercept XBox players if you are on PC, and vice versa), and so on. There's nothing you, or even Frontier, can realistically do about it.
Frontier always knew it. Their first video about how the galaxy would evolve already showed how such events would basically turn into a popularity contest, and they were okay with it.
Nope. It rewards playing in Open, regardless of whether it would be riskier or not.
Which it often isn't; wing up while flying in Open, for example, and it actually is less dangerous than playing in Solo, both because of the extra firepower and because of how the game's matchmaking works. If one were to offer rewards based on the risk taken, then wings in Open actually should get less rewards than players in Solo.
You want to discuss this with people that have been part of the Kickstart since the first day, and that have collected much of what the devs said about the subject, you will need to do far better than that.
For starters, Solo was promised since the first day, and had nothing to do with Offline; the idea of offering Solo without offering Offline was to have the galaxy reflect the changes brought by every single player, regardless of who they played with or if they played alone, and to have the changes in the galaxy in turn affect all players, as the devs explained more than once in posts and interviews. The devs didn't even promise an offline mode until a couple weeks into the fundraising.
Of course, back then Solo wasn't called "Solo". And neither was Open called "Open". They were just extensions of the Group mode; Solo was described as a private group of one, and what would become Open was the default group (called "All") that every player belonged to by default.
Given that they have access to metrics showing how many players are in each mode I truly doubt the amount of people doing Powerplay in Solo was a surprise to Frontier. I mean, they would have to be pretty thick to not see that trend based on how many people did CGs in Solo.
So, you can bet that they did had a good idea about how many players would be doing Powerplay in Solo. The devs even said, more than once, that Powerplay was being built taking into account Solo and Group modes.
Lol 8chars
- - - Updated - - -
May I ask when you bought the game, and how much research you did before buying it?
I know I held off as long as I could before purchasing it... especially when I saw the changes that had been made since the original promises during the kickstarter. Lots of concessions were made to pander to the masses, rather than keeping promises- seems to be status quo these days.
In the beginning- it was deciding between this and SC which I ended up pledging anyway because it definitely raises the bar in terms of development. This game is nice eye candy- but if SC releases with all that has been promised, FD has a long way to go to catch up. I'm a realist, however, and I won't be giving any more toward SC until I see some "food on the table". So far all we've seen is lots of preview and hype- but not much in terms of an actual release. (they could spend another 2 years in development for all we know)
As for ED- it's enjoyable, for now... but saying there's "room for improvement" would be a tremendous understatement. That said, If they worked on the suggestions I gave in my previous post re consequences, a real bounty system, etc. then I'd consider a more long term investment. I might actually start buying the expansion they offer, etc. but until then they don't get another cent (pence?) of my money.
In the beginning- it was deciding between this and SC which I ended up pledging anyway because it definitely raises the bar in terms of development. This game is nice eye candy- but if SC releases with all that has been promised, FD has a long way to go to catch up. I'm a realist, however, and I won't be giving any more toward SC until I see some "food on the table". So far all we've seen is lots of preview and hype- but not much in terms of an actual release. (they could spend another 2 years in development for all we know)
As for ED- it's enjoyable, for now... but saying there's "room for improvement" would be a tremendous understatement. That said, If they worked on the suggestions I gave in my previous post re consequences, a real bounty system, etc. then I'd consider a more long term investment. I might actually start buying the expansion they offer, etc. but until then they don't get another cent (pence?) of my money.
Well, if they followed Roybe's suggestion and cut PvP out of the main game, and left CQC for PvP, they might have some time to be able to concentrate on PvE improvements.
I don't believe for a second they will do that.Regards in-game consequences, I think one of the problems they have, is that they seem to want to push the illicit side of things. More than 50% of missions will potentially result in you getting either a Bounty for murder, or a fine if you are caught / scanned with the goods you are transporting, and recently, I've had system security sitting in a WSS when you drop in to find black boxes and the like, so it's just a trap. Perhaps they read that as Dangerous, I really don't know.
But since they are pushing / encouraging CMDRs to break the law with what content currently exists, if they start to penalize them too harshly, the game will be even emptier than it is now content wise. If they choose to isolate player on player crime, assuming they can do that easily, then Ok, but how long before innocent CMDRs get duped into killing another player and having their game ruined? Then they are back to square one, trying to plug exploits that they never thought of, because you simply cannot account for human behavior.
Well, if they followed Roybe's suggestion and cut PvP out of the main game, and left CQC for PvP, they might have some time to be able to concentrate on PvE improvements.
Regards in-game consequences, I think one of the problems they have, is that they seem to want to push the illicit side of things. More than 50% of missions will potentially result in you getting either a Bounty for murder, or a fine if you are caught / scanned with the goods you are transporting, and recently, I've had system security sitting in a WSS when you drop in to find black boxes and the like, so it's just a trap. Perhaps they read that as Dangerous, I really don't know.
But since they are pushing / encouraging CMDRs to break the law with what content currently exists, if they start to penalize them too harshly, the game will be even emptier than it is now content wise. If they choose to isolate player on player crime, assuming they can do that easily, then Ok, but how long before innocent CMDRs get duped into killing another player and having their game ruined? Then they are back to square one, trying to plug exploits that they never thought of, because you simply cannot account for human behavior.
Hmmm....you might have a point..but this still means that PVE folks can't have the game they want, then. So, why can't we all agree that to make this game profitable and worthwhile make Open PVE only. It's obvious that PVE is where the money is, PVP players are a minority in any game they play...and in this game add little to the game play except pain and suffering to the PVE players...and the risk averse. The PVP player will add less and less to the galaxy over time, as their numbers dwindle in a target poor environment..so let's just shoot the horse now...and let the game go where it is designed to go...the full on group of PVP players collecting PVE trophies.
Truly, I don't disagree with you, except for one thing. Choice. Right now, PvP role-players have the option to do their thing, it may not work, it may be a barren wasteland, but it's there. I'm not sure FD at this point want to cut off that potential market. Who knows.
Of course the game is a PvE game. You'd never get above Novice if all you killed were CMDRs, and you'd never do anything in trade or exploration, never rank up with the Federation or Empire.
I suppose the upside is you might not grind...
I don't think the horse is dead... but it's definitely in need of dire attention.
I also don't believe FD gives a rat's posterior whether the numbers dwindle- because as the business model proves, they've already gotten your money- regardless of how they develop the game hence. The problem with their business model is that "doing and dumping" your customers is never a residually profitable model... and if you wish to keep loyalty in order to continue to profit, you have to continue to strive to meet satisfaction. That said, the "silent treatment" is pretty damning, and it only means your customers (present and future) will trickle away along with the tick-tock of the clock.
I think the current Open system can be saved- but it's going to take some swallowing of pride, rebuilding customer loyalty (especially with broken promises of the past) and getting to work on really fleshing out the current system- rather than hoping it all just "goes away" if they ignore it long enough.
Exactly. How thin-skinned they become when even the mildest form of their own rhetoric is turned back on them.
Because they cannot admit to themselves or to others what they are doing. They try to bury or obfuscate it with 1st-form "debates" and "logics," thinking they are clever. Anyone who's argued with a 5-yr-old knows this. They just cannot face themselves and say, "OK, I like being an *$% ^^!!@" and at least be honest about it.
It's quite different - if you do that behavior in a pub, chances are good that at some point the other pub-crawlers will straighten you out.
... and be the same people crying that "open is a barren wasteland!" The consequences of their own actions are why open is like it is. They can play the way they want to, sure - others will choose to avoid them & not play with them. It's fairly simple.
- Status