Last edited:
- Status
Wrong. hearthstone has PVE events and raids, as well as heroic modes and hard challenges. And skirmish
Why would you put guns on a t9
Solo has no threat because highwake exists (a flaw in the game design arguably, if not a flaw - really bad design)
Currently, Open = 32 maximum theoretically connected players
Open Only Server = 32 maximum theoretically connected players
Yes, I can now see the improvement - wow, what a fantastic change, it will revolutionise the gaming industry.
How did we not see that Zadian, we were blind not to see the massive benefit of adding nothing to the game!
Wow this proof that you have no idea what the argument really is.
Right on.
Last edited:
All you folks hating on lumbersexuals are just jealous of my plaid and beard.
Y'all wish y'alls maple syrup was as sweet as mine.
Y'all wish y'alls maple syrup was as sweet as mine.
1 out of 5 game modes are PvE, the other 4 are PvP.
http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Game_mode
Hearthstone may "have" PvE - but 4 out of 5 modes being PvP, it is primarily a PvP game.
So you can keep your "wrong".
Why would you put guns on a t9
Because you can get 4 beam turrets on a target as long as you keep them above you.
It is more than enough to deal with most small threats. And you'd be amazed at how often NPC sidewinders and Eagles pull you over in a T9
Again, you are just trolling with this comment - it was made clear not everyone is OMGWTFUBERL33THAXX0R pilots.
Just because you find it easy, does not make it easy - it just means you spend too much time on the computer, as SJA said the NPCs are balanced around an *average* player.
Also, just because you do not like HW options, does not make them bad - learn to play in accordance with them.
You know, become a better player and not look for cheap kills.
And this is proof you have no idea how the game works and why open only will not help you out 1 bit.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/peer-to-peer-vs-client-server-networks.html
http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/3887/how-can-i-make-a-peer-to-peer-multiplayer-game
Some great pros and cons in that 2nd link. Including the one about ping times and how peer to peer networks suffer from pings - something the matchmaker takes care of by not matching too many people together to avoid high ping times.
It would by why in the Lugh experiment they only got 16 players in 1 instance. 32 would make the game unplayable for all involved.
You obviously wouldn't, because you only use a T9 in 'easy' solo mode to grind credits for your true career in Open. We actual solo players might, simply to make the illusion of flying a spaceship in dangerous space more real (also, because I'd put lasers on my car, my sofa, my lighter, my cats and everything else if I couldWhy would you put guns on a t9
). We also might not be looking for the easiest route through every aspect of the game (ease / challenge doesn't figure anywhere on my list of priorities, for example) and so not high-wake away from the first sign of disruption to our trade route, which would OMG mean solo mode isn't necessarily so easy after all*.*I'm not a trader, don't have a T9 and don't have any real problem in solo / group unless I go looking for difficult situations. However, it's been pointed out so many times that I question my sanity in bothering to say it again; other players, for a whole slew of reasons including disabilities or whatever, may find it far harder than you or I.
So what is the argument? That you should have the potential to shoot absolutely everyone and anyone who is playing ED at any given time? That no one should have the option to drop into 'easy mode' solo and grind credits to bring back to open and go on a coke-fuelled orgy of death and destruction in an A-rated Conda that they totally 'exploited the game modes' to obtain?
If it's the former; suck it down. A whole bunch of us have absolutely no interest in playing with you or people like you, and we care exactly as much for what you want as you do for what we want. If it's the latter, if that goes against your gamer ethics or whatever, don't do it. Doing it and then complaining that it's possible is gross hypocrisy, and no one else on the planet is obliged to follow your particular set of ethical standards. And what the hell does it matter how anyone else gets their ship anyway? Given enough time playing, everyone is going to eventually end up with every ship however they choose to play, so just enjoy your gaming and don't waste your time stressing about others'.
For what it's worth, I'm not even against a completely separate, open-only, locked BGS to which you can all emigrate and shoot one another all day every day. Fair play to you. But I'm not paying for it, and I'd resent dev time being 'wasted' on it for very little real gain.
Why would you put guns on a t9
For fun. Something you would hope to expect from a game, no? I had everything from all turrets to all (pre nerf) missiles and there were a few comedy moments to go with it.
[video=youtube;UbFjLwRn5wA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbFjLwRn5wA[/video]
As a trader, and someone who owned a T9 - I love this video.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In a similar vein to these?
[video=youtube;4eR0mJfGhbk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eR0mJfGhbk[/video]
I think you've just summed up every Pro-PVP / Pro-Open argument right there. Me, I'll continue playing solo or group or even open when I'm out in the middle of nowhere (which is most of the time) and all the PVP'ers can do nothing about that.
That chopper has never been used...so..this is a new lumberjack?
- - - Updated - - -
Hater! Haters gonna...ah....umm...bacon! Bacon is good.
There is an innuendo there regarding lumbresexuals;
But I may get told off for it - so make up your own joke
Do you have any numbers to back that statement? Despite all those games, except for SC2, being made just for PvP, Playing against the AI is still popular in each one of the games you mentioned, given that each of those games either had PvE modes from the start or added PvE modes due to popular demand. And, in the case of DOTA2 at least, the player base itself took providing PvE modes on their hands and created a fair number of quite popular mods to provide it.
UO itself is proof that players wanted a game without the constant threat of PvP, given what happened when Trammel was introduced:
"After the change which broke the game space into PvP and PvE worlds, the player base and income nearly doubled (we went from 125k to 245k subs). So from a fiscal responsibility standpoint it was a totally winning move." — Gordon Walton, former Executive Producer of UO.
And, for reference, Gordon Walton is a strong proponent of open PvP. He disliked having to separate UO into Trammel and Felucca, he preferred the "more intense" game from before that change, but even then he had to recognize that the forced PvP wasn't what most players wanted, and without fixing the player retention issue UO would likely have been closed down a long time ago.
BTW, new and shiny often can't beat tried and tested in the MMO market. The biggest subscription MMO in the Open PvP genre, in the West, is EVE, a 2003 game; meanwhile, the biggest subscription MMO of all is WoW, a 2004 game. As far as I can remember, before launch neither the EQ devs nor the WoW devs expected to surpass UO exactly because it was already well established.
Whether you are the attacker (more specifically, the attacker that hides behind superior numbers in order to avoid a fair fight) or the victim.
I see neither of those as enticing.
Last edited:
[video=youtube;uKOrpyO0z48]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKOrpyO0z48[/video]
Thank you Robert, you made this ol airman's day.
Puff was a converted C-47 named Spooky.
The current AC-130 Spectres take pride in being the next generation of gunship.
I don't think that it has ever been argued otherwise. Seperate but complete background sims for each mode would be the bees knees for everyone but Frontier. The BGS, with it's accompanying Galnet is expensive to run. The man hours alone would probably shock most forum readers. While it might be more fair, it would be prohibitively expensive, that's why the idea keeps getting shot down. It's not that anyone would be opposed to it on the basis of fairness, but because we see how the diversion of resources from development to maintaining a second BGS would be a loss for everyone.
Someone hasn't watched The Wrath of Khan.
Hey man, like working at a barista all day is hard work ok? I burnt myself on the milk-foamer.
Jeez, I'm just like... trying to pay off my student loans for post-modernist english 17th century goth poetry degree. Hater.
- Status