To be fair, I think the reason they get pecked at is because they are not really very compelling...
- Status
To be fair, I think the reason they get pecked at is because they are not really very compelling...
It's hard to try and find a "cohesive" argument when you have 1 person using the excuse "not enough players" and another saying it's more dangerous "due to other players" - contradicting each other devalues what you are trying to do and shows the flaws in your own arguments.
That's before the 5 people start pecking at the arguments.
Look at it this way. If you can't convince the sods in this forum, what chance do you think you will have pitching this at Frontier.
I have yet to see a convincing argument for it. And in fact, there's a much more compelling reason to get rid of Open altogether, hence destroying the sea of self-entitlement that causes the swamp of eternal stench to exist in the first place.
I said this months ago, drop Open and let PvPers move to a private group like PvEers did.
Without wanting to argue whether or not said arguments are compelling, even the most compelling arguments gets drowned out by with enough voices against it.
Gasp, it's almost like 2 different people can have 2 different opinions, for 2 different reasons, but still want the same thing.
Last edited:
This! No doubt about it!
Last edited:
But they counter each other - but nice way to ignore the points.
They also do not always want the same thing either (some just want boost, some want locked modes, some want a new BGS), but as long as their arguments cancel each other out - who cares.
Good luck making a statement against a game feature in front of people that purchased the game for that feature without being pecked. Or in front of people that have that feature as the fall-back for when Frontier decided to remove the offline mode, for what matters.
The game was sold from the start as one where players could choose who they play with, and where that choice wouldn't have any drawbacks. This means that the game attracted a large number of players that like that feature, and thus defend it. Those players will obviously be very displeased with any suggestion that would remove that feature, be it by limiting how and when we can choose who to play with, be it by adding drawbacks to that choice.
It is part of why radical changes in direction after a game has already launched are typically disastrous, too many people invested in the previous design, even if that design is less than ideal — and any changes to the modes or how they work would be radical ones for much of the player base.
Give some examples of opposing/contradictory arguments.
All the suggestions you said do want the same thing, to change the game. They are just different ways to do it.
I have done, twice - and you know what they are, you've chosen to ignore them.
What? "Not enough players" and "dangerous because of players"? Those are two different Opinions based on the same thing. Again, everyone has different opinions which can lead them to be for, or against something. People, even on the same side of an issue are not of a hive mind. I can guarantee even players for the status quo have different, equally conflicting opinions on why they want it to stay the same.
Last edited:
I have a third opinion. Get rid of Solo and/or groups, and you will lose a heap of players. Get rid of Open, and players will migrate to Groups. Few, if any, will be lost.
Those are 2 opposing arguments that counter each other out.
It cannot simultaneously have too many players making it dangerous (thus needing a buff to earning) while being devoid of players and empty (so messing with a core feature to fix).
It also does not help those on the defence side that play in open (myself included) have show open is neither empty nor more dangerous. I even have a video and a transcript of me doing rare runs in open and was perfectly fine - also ended up chatting with someone.
So both conflicting arguments have been show up for what they are, complete nonsense.
If every opinion, and thus argument, on this whole forum got thrown out because someone had a conflicting opinion, there would be no posts left. Hell, you could probably apply that to the internet as a whole.
Last edited:
Ok i understand is a p2p protocol is a limitation for what i say........ maybe the problem is that this game was structured with wrong base to become a real open MMO game.. If many things are P2P there isn't a really complete controlled world.. maybe because this request a monthly fee and need more resources..
Your drama aside, it is not "someone" is it - we see the same 2 points being made over and over.
How may times have I put your own quotes side by side now, that contradict your own arguments to mess with the core feature of the game?
So even you cannot make your mind up if there are too many or not enough people in open to justify your demands.
It was never intended as an open world MMO in the conventional sense*, which is why the devs never structured it as one. As I said earlier, being able to choose who we would play with was an important part of the initial sales pitch, and this by itself precludes attempting to lock all players into the same instance.
The idea, from the start, seems to be making a game where players are able to seamlessly play with each other if they so desire, but without forcing them to do so. And many players bought into that idea.
* The actual quote from David Braben is "I don't see this as an MMO in the traditional sense, unless you think of Call of Duty as an MMO."
*Walks into the bar, casually tossing his helmet at the coat rack, missing by a good foot. One eye looking at the bartender, the other at the group of pilots in the corner*
Old fashioned, yes thanks. Keep the change.
Well, if I were to chime in my two cents, I'd say I don't see how that makes much sense. Sure, could be their original intent and where they want to go with things. But does that preclude the possibility that it is wrong? I think it's good people are voicing their opinions. The game ain't written in stone. Right now it's actually quite difficult for me and my boys to get in the same instance. Wouldn't exactly say it's seamless, least not right now.
Again, if they don't want to make it a real MMO that's fine, it IS their game. Just think they'd stand to get more players and more cash if they would listen and give a little. They are also a company, after all.
i understand this post,, and i think it is good. maybe change, is good
- Status