Not sure this is true - I played MMOs for years without ever entering PVP. It is always going to depend on your play style. If people need the risk of potential PvP action to give them the adrenaline rush necessary to continue playing then perhaps this is it's own reward.
- Status
Not sure this is true - I played MMOs for years without ever entering PVP. It is always going to depend on your play style. If people need the risk of potential PvP action to give them the adrenaline rush necessary to continue playing then perhaps this is it's own reward.
I can play in Open, doing missions for days without seeing another CMDR and if I see an other CMDR I can do a lot to avoid any conflict with that CMDR. There is only a theoretical risk in Open Mode. In practice there are so many ways to avoid that risk that it doesn't matter. Should I get more rewards just because there is a theoretical risk of getting an unpleasant interaction with an other CMDR?
At the same time Open Mode players get the benefits of players in Solo Mode.
Playing in Open mode doesn't require courage, playing in open isn't "being a little bit braver" - it's just different and requires different solutions to different problems.
Brave Brave CMDR Robin.... When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his bit torrent and netflix on and became a single player island due to terrible ping times... Yeah, buff Open, we will all come and play real nice 
I'm the biggest coward in the galaxy and I play in Open. I only do this because, outside of CGs, it swimmingly easy to avoid other players.
The biggest reasons I have against giving players in Open "a bit more"
a. I'd be embarrassed by getting a bit more for no effort whatsoever.
b. It confirms the delusion of some Open players how they are oh so brave and solo/group is a bunch of scarypants.
c. Open should have the total amount of 1 big incentive. Meeting other players.
The biggest reasons I have against giving players in Open "a bit more"
a. I'd be embarrassed by getting a bit more for no effort whatsoever.
b. It confirms the delusion of some Open players how they are oh so brave and solo/group is a bunch of scarypants.
c. Open should have the total amount of 1 big incentive. Meeting other players.
Would it matter to you if "Open players got a little bit more" for the "theoretical risk of getting an unpleasant interaction with an other (sic) CMDR?"
Why?
The biggest reasons I have against giving players in Open "a bit more"
a. I'd be embarrassed by getting a bit more for no effort whatsoever.
b. It confirms the delusion of some Open players how they are oh so brave and solo/group is a bunch of scarypants.
c. Open should have the total amount of 1 big incentive. Meeting other players.
edit, voiced it better before. 'pologies for the edit.
Last edited:
This, this, and this all over. If it wasn't for the solo mode I wouldn't have bought the game, and it's refreshing for the online galaxy to have an effect on everybody, open or solo. Online modes just aren't for me, whether it's PvP in an MMO or a console FPS, and so solo just makes the game that much more relaxing for me, especially out in the fringes with next to no risk.
After all, we all get enough grief at work one way or the other, so isn't a nice peaceful time sort of the point?
Just... er... Why?
You select Open knowing that some script-kiddie can take you out. Surely that is enough reward for you. That is, after all, the attraction of PvP. So your reward for choosing Open is meeting missus "I hate all humans" in open.
I find it hard to believe that they didn't want to promise an offline mode but did so anyway, especially since they then had to go back on that promise and deal with refunds. And my solution does not prevent Solo players from being involved in Power Play or community events. The only thing it affects is influence.
I'm just as entitled to have, and share, my opinion as you are to declare that doing so is selfish. Personally I don't think players who choose to not interact with others should have the ability to affect the game in such a meaningful fashion. Nobody is arguing about how things currently are. I personally wish to see things be different.
If you play by yourself, the only person who should be impacted by your actions is yourself. I agree that PowerPlay needs work but that's for a different topic.
As I see it the BGS is affected by player actions. Having the option to stop those player actions directly, instead of countering them indirectly through PvE, should be mandatory if factions are to be affiliated with player groups. That's not to say that PvP itself should be mandatory, just that the option be there.
Precisely. Power Play and community goals would still be affected, but influence would be read only.
Why would it matter to Open players to get a bit less since they have the option to wing up, reducing the risk?
By the way, being an Open player I'd get a little more as well, and I'm still against it!
I'm against it too. Not exactly for your reasons, though.
I don't know if the 'option' to wing up can really be used to suggest that Open is safer (is that what you're getting at?) Your theoretical attackers might avail themselves of the same 'option' as well. Now, reduced benefit when you choose to wing up? That's interesting. Does that happen already? I know very little about wings.
Overall, though, I don't think it would bother me if I earned less in Open. I think it would be a little backwards if I thought about it. But I would just progress the best I could with the rewards that my chosen mode will give me.
- - - Updated - - -
Too late.
Absolutely! That's why I like to play in Open
Sometimes if I'm feeling a bit tired or just want to play on my own I go in Solo. I love having that flexibility and I think it's a good design.
I don't think there's anything brave about playing in Open. It's just a game - you do your thing, other players do their thing and sometimes interesting things happen when your things bump together!
I'm satisfied with the reward of interacting with others on my adventures. But even if Open play did have some reward that excluded the other two modes, it could be exploited with a bit of tinkering with your firewall and router.
My take on it all is simply play and let play
Not really.
Some of us knew what we were buying in to when we bought it - so "reasons" and "feelings" have nothing to do with it.
I want to keep what I paid for, so do the rest of the advocates for the current system.
To put it in to an analogy;
You and your neighbour both need toasters, so you look for toasters. As you're a family person you look for and buy a 4 slot toaster.
You neighbour sees how happy you are wit yours and rushes out to buy the same one. A few weeks later you neighbour stars to complain about the toaster.
Turns out, your neighbour is a single person who didn't need 4 slots but only 2 and is now upset over the wasted slots.
The neighbour tells you they are going to demand all 4 slot toasters be recalled and exchanged for 2 slot toasters, as that is what they want and they do not need 4 slots, so no one is allowed 4 slots.
Do you just willingly hand over your 4 slot toaster for a 2 slot one that no longer meets your needs?
Or do you point out your neighbour is a moron, who should have looked at what they were buying before they bought it and have no right to complain about their own idiocy as everything they needed to know about the 4 slot toaster was available to read and they would have understood from the very start the 4 slot was not for them and perhaps bought one of the other toasters on the market more suited to their needs.
/analogy off
See there is a principle involved here.
It is called Wheaton's Law.
People who shove their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and scream "la-la-la-la-la-la" while randomly purchasing something, have no right to complain about it.
By doing so, they breach Wheaton's Law.
Everything was available, I did all my research BEFORE the game went live. I bought it on the 1st of November 2014 (a month and a half before release) and even then a lot of the information was over 18 months old.
Beer, you are a good person with good opinions. Throwing my $.02 in on pretty much all of the above. Especially the last part.
Yeah, that post turned out to be a bit of a mess, so I edited the previous post in which was a little clearer.I'm against it too. Not exactly for your reasons, though.
I don't know if the 'option' to wing up can really be used to suggest that Open is safer (is that what you're getting at?) Your theoretical attackers might avail themselves of the same 'option' as well. Now, reduced benefit when you choose to wing up? That's interesting. Does that happen already? I know very little about wings.
Overall, though, I don't think it would bother me if I earned less in Open. I think it would be a little backwards if I thought about it. But I would just progress the best I could with the rewards that my chosen mode will give me.
I was clumsily trying to make the point, that, indeed, you can have the occasional encounter with another player, but even then it's not that hard to run away if you're not feeling up for it. On the other hand, you get the option to cooperate. Running a trade-convoy is safer than running on your own. All in all, I feel it's a little more complicated than going: NPCs are easier than players, so Open is the harder mode.
I also feel that looking at Open/Solo and Group in terms of hard/easy is missing the point of the modes.
never to late to pologizeToo late.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
What is the point in participating in Powerplay or Community Goals if not to affect the outcome?
Frontier have been very clear that both of these activities were designed for players in all three game modes.
The single shared galaxy state between all game modes has been a core feature of the game since the beginning of the Kickstarter (very nearly three years ago). Frontier recently announced that another platform will affect it, the Xbox One - a group of players that we don't expect to be able to cross-play with and therefore cannot directly interact with.
Frontier's game design allows every player to experience and affect the single shared galaxy state - the player affected galaxy (with tweaks from Frontier themselves) would seem very much to be their vision for the game.
Frontier did not design either Community Goals or Powerplay to have mandatory direct countering of players actions - they designed them for all players - not just those who prefer PvP.
This last is unclear - how can players affect something that they cannot influence?
This (highlighted) is where your argument falls down.
Open does not equal a guarantee that this happens. Because... XBone, Horizons, Instancing. So what, are you going to argue that XBone Open players should not be able to influence the BSG? What then about Horizons when it comes. Are you going to suggest that those who didn't buy Horizons but still play the original in Open should be cut out of influencing the BSG... Actually, maybe you want to argue the other way round, after all, if you don't have Horizons you can't interact directly with the Horizon's player after they go sub-orbital. So maybe you should suggest that in that case, the Horizons player should be excluded from influencing the BSG.
In fact, why don't we go the whole hog and just suggest why not just exclude everybody from influencing the BSG except the people you choose at a whim. Because your suggestion is like catching water in a colander.
Beside which, the option to interact is already there, both in Open and Groups, you just have to do a bit of organizing in advance. Put a community event on the forum and see how many people come to your bash fest. It's been done before. Check out the Buckyball Races, the Sidewinder League (can't remember the name.)
Why don't you just go blow raspberries at Glutteny Fang and done... and leave the rest of us to enjoy what we are doing.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. Or I misunderstood Zadian? I was replying to this:
I took that to mean that the pro-change lobby were demanding whatever they were demanding without sensible reasons or just simply saying that it "feels" right a certain way. If I am mistaken, I apologise.
My point was that there are a lot in the anti-change lobby whose arguments for mode status quo come down to largely emotional reasoning. There are a lot of, "I want Solo because I refuse to play with other people." While I accept that is a valid reason for them, I wouldn't exactly call it anything other than emotional.
Research, expectations, etc, didn't really come into it.
You're in danger of feeding more examples to Dogoncrook here.
Meaningful?
Every player Solo - Group - Open fundamentally payed the same amount of real money to play the game. Just cause they ain't in a gang or choose to play with friends or alone don't reduce the meaningfull contribution they made to keep FD in business.
So they get to experience and influence the game in just as meaningful way as anyone else.
Looks fine where I'm sat.
Every player Solo - Group - Open fundamentally payed the same amount of real money to play the game. Just cause they ain't in a gang or choose to play with friends or alone don't reduce the meaningfull contribution they made to keep FD in business.
So they get to experience and influence the game in just as meaningful way as anyone else.
Looks fine where I'm sat.
- Status