- Status
What is the topic again?
It either has something to do with the game modes, or the magnificence that is don henley on the guitar. Your pick.
Honestly though, I just stick with solo and PG for most of my needs, keeps headaches to a minimum.
Hotels in California.
Ahh right. I'm off to San Francisco in a couple of weeks, I'll report back
@thirstyfish, I vote for Joe Walsh
Regards
G
ps what's a colitas?
Yaffle
Volunteer Moderator
Ahh right. I'm off to San Francisco in a couple of weeks, I'll report back
@thirstyfish, I vote for Joe Walsh
Regards
G
ps what's a colitas?
It's the bud off a plant which is way off topic for the whole forum.
Back to solo v open v groups with you.
Well....there is onionhead. Not that I have ever carried it on my ships. But I would say this thread was due for some levity. At least I think so after my first post here.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I will only ever use open mode for fuel rat ops in a dirt-cheap ship. Not worth my time otherwise.
Jockey not understanding the game, thank you for a great laugh this morning. As for what you commented to me...The great thing about ED is that it is a sandbox. A lot of us playing in this great sandbox that is ED don't mind other people having a tussle if they want, and some of us join in. Others prefer to play in the corner or in small groups and sometimes our toys break and we have to get new ones... the difference in you and me is you do not care if someone else acts like a cat, drops their shorts, and drops a load in the sandbox then goes over to someone else and breaks their toy just to do it, while I emphatically do. "Losing your ship is the same anyways" is a cop out phrase. There is a huge difference in losing your ship to a game mechanic and having fun vs being specifically targeted because you are a "hollow box" and destroyed without even an effort by someone who only wanted to mine salt and purposely tries to make you upset or ruin your gaming experience.
Sadly I've not been able to Rat in a long time, but when I do it is in an Asp to try and limit the # of jumps I have to do
Last edited:
Anyone claiming that you can "win" a sandbox game such as Elite Dangerous is wrong. Of course, it is always possible that I am wrong, but you need to explain how. So go on, how do I win the game?
That depends on the router.
But yes, in general the further you go down the rabbit hole the more technical it gets and the fewer individuals have the knowledge, hardware or inclination to mess with the system. But the point remains that if FD were to introduce CGs with "Open only" benefits (or especially, as some would love, if they got rid of Solo and PG altogether and insisted that every single-player game suddenly became multiplayer) such knowledge would be all over the net in a matter of hours in the form of step-by-step guides.
Nobody can force anyone to play with anyone else using this architecture, not even FD. But the genius of the modes / filters means they don't have to.
*Cough* (so to speak) *Cough* I guess you missed that part and just focused on the word "win" and decided to try to trash him over it and say he doesn't understand the game. As for you asking me how to "win" a game such as ED... well I thought you were good with sandbox games. In all Sandbox Games personal enjoyment and fun is how you win. Currently in ED though... unless you go to solo or private groups and hope you don't run into them... the personal enjoyment and fun is somewhat one sided, even with the new Karma system it still isn't balanced out.
I quoted exactly what I was responding to. I didn't miss it, you can see specifically what I am replying to. And no, you can't "win". The game is about flying a spaceship. Not all games are about winning. Just as not all games are about balance.
To be fair to Jockey (I'm sure he is capable of defending himself), you might be taking his words just a tiny bit out of context...
See, if games are not balanced and if EVERYONE doesn't get a fair chance at winning the game (so to speak) - then people don't play. Simple.
4x PvP combat ships, pulling over a single T9 and killing it for giggles - without any sort of penalty, isn't fun gameplay for the T9.
He's clearly referring to balance in combat, and to be sure, even in a sandbox you can win (or lose) a fight.
But you are absolutely correct, most contributors to this series of mega threads that support equality of modes have said many times that ED isn't a game that can be won, or that even has an end game. Some contributors from the "open is the only way..." side of things though, well, let's just say some of them definitely seem to think that it's possible to 'win', at least it would be if they could shoot everybody.
I don't disagree that being in a T9 and being destroyed by a wing of people may not be fun. However, it's also something that can't be balanced, nor should it be. Another example is a Sidewinder being destroyed by a couple of Vultures. We could think of hundreds if not thousands of encounters where one side is seriously disadvantaged.
However, these "not fun" encounters don't actually happen that often, and I find them useful to learn from (yes, similar has happened to me). If you have planned things well, the most you'll lose is a rebuy and some stock. If you don't like having to plan for these kind of setbacks, then Open is not the mode you should be playing in.
Even if the players that attacked you had huge bounties put on them, or were banned from the system due to the encounter, how would that help your own situation? You've still lost your ship and stock, etc. You're still in the same position. Other people can still attack you; it could happen again. Again, the answer is not to prevent these things from happening in Open - the answer is to use a game mode that you are comfortable with. And if this kind of setback upsets you that much, then Open is obviously the wrong choice.
You are far too reasonable and sensible for this thread.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... which is why some players would prefer that Frontier implemented an additional Open group (mode) where the rules are different to suit a different play-style, i.e. PvE.
The possibility of multiple Open modes was contained in the original design information (as were Solo and Private Groups) - however Frontier have only chosen to offer one Open mode (per platform) so far.
Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that at all (in fact, I think it is a good idea). But right now, we can only use what we have. And I really wouldn't want to lose Open as it is now (but am absolutely not against other modes that create more options for players).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In my opinion, changes to Open made (or yet to be made) by Frontier in attempts to persuade more players that Open is the best place to play will very probably mean that Open will change for the worse in the likely opinions of some players even if it improves Open for other players.
Sometimes it's about the bigger picture. Someone banned from the system (if such a thing were possible) would be unable to do the same thing to any other pilots for a certain period of time. So that's a temporary threat reduction of at least one for everyone, possibly more than one if the threat of sanction puts other aggressors off, or encourages them to be aggressive elsewhere. So my loss might result in someone else, possibly several someones, not suffering a loss. And perhaps the next time I make an uninterrupted run through that system it's because another pilot's "sacrifice" has also resulted in a temporary reduction in the threat level.
It's not always about "your own situation". In a shared environment it goes beyond that, or at least it should. Perhaps that's part of the problem with the game as a whole. The universally dystopian environment does little to encourage anyone from thinking beyond their own immediate desires. Even things like PowerPlay, Wings and Multicrew often boil down to "What's in it for me?"
It's a valid point, and I also have no objection to some harsher penalties being given out in certain situations. But they need to be reasonable, and personally I don't think completely banning a player from a system for destroying another one would be reasonable. Of course, hurling system security vessels at said offender would be great.
But, on the couple of occasions where I have been destroyed for no reason, it has actually taught me things about the game. One occasion I'd just come out of glide above some ruins, and I was attacked. But, there was nothing on the radar. I could see where I was being hit (from the HUD), but I never managed to actually locate my attacker before I was destroyed. I didn't even realise that it was possible to do things like that (yes, I knew about silent running and heat signatures, but I didn't know it was possible to be completely invisible to the scanner throughout an attack - normally a ship would appear as heat levels rise due to weapon fire). I actually lost a fair bit of time and exploration data from that encounter, but I don't begrudge the attacker one bit. And of course, this was in an anarchy system, so it was entirely fair anyway.
- Status