Goose4291
Banned
I think you misunderstand.
I mean what benefit does having their own 'guild' hall really give to a single player?
Modes Confirmed - All Modes are not Equal
- Thread starter Powderpanic
- Start date
I think you misunderstand.
I mean what benefit does having their own 'guild' hall really give to a single player?
Don't panic
.Apparently that number is up for change.
The devs said that there is a reason they asked for feedback.
How many MMO's have you played? I've seen many people who do it. Especially if they can decorate it. ^,^
I think you hit the nail on the head - Solo players might want to use a carrier like a garage they can customize, and, well, that sounds super cool!
The more I think about it, they really should consider letting solo players buy a Carrier to use as a home/garage.
I just re read the summary, you need to have a minminimum amount of players to own a carrier, and to make it jump you will need to grind resources in the amount a single player will unlikely archieve.
So no carriers fo soloists.
I can't imagine the level of anxiety this must be causing the more delicate members of the community.
To have a new trinket in the game dangled before your eyes....
... yet being unfairly forced to deal with multiplayer content in order to enjoy a multiplayer feature.
To have a new trinket in the game dangled before your eyes....
... yet being unfairly forced to deal with multiplayer content in order to enjoy a multiplayer feature.
I'd rather have a garage on a planet.
Goose4291
Banned
Loads as we've discussed before, but specifically UO, SWG, BSGO and WWII Online were my more preferred ones.
To draw a parallel, I think what would be a better way of doing it might be akin to SWTOR where you have your individual player 'housing' thats predominantly a vanity item and storage item (assuming we could fight through the poorly concieved 'flood bgs market' fear that still occasionally arises), and the Guild Ship thing they introduced which drives the content perks of being in a group.
See above
.... while forgetting that if such a feature gives a force multiplier to player actions, they might be enabling a group of 100 to have 100 carriers, throwing the concept of balance out of the window.
Exactly
Why do Solo players care so much about PvP in Open?
For the reason PvP'ers keep trying to take things away from Solo players.
Why do Open care so much about Solo... everything affects, but only one complains that others affect...
The only thing that PvPers want to take away from solo players is a snivelry-based worldview.
where do you come up with this crap? ALL the mode discussions have been because some PVPers decided that their way was the best and should be the only one to effect the universe.
Thats because they dont deserve it to begin with by deliberately opting out of the multiplayer game yet somehow feel justified to indirect grief and solo undermine said players that they hate so much.
Because the modes are unbalanced. Npcs in one vs npcs and Cmdrs in other.
The mods are mean to us PvPers [cry]
We want the PvP section to be a safe space PvP echo chamber but those meddling PvE players dare to disagree with us there [cry]
Wow, talk about desperate. Calling designed game play "griefing" shows just how useless your arguments are.
People deserve what they bought - and that was made clear from the start. A game where direct interaction with others is optional.
You really should admit you bought the wrong game. If you ask nicely, EVE Online will take you back, I'm sure of it.
(my comments from elsewhere on this)
Honestly, I have no problem with them having carriers for groups only. It just make logical sense.
BUT
They should really have something else to make up for it as well for the solo player. An asteroid base for example (of the kind often mentioned in the forums, basically a personalised garage). That's something that's been whispered about as a possibility for ages now, and this would work perfectly here.
Basically most people who want a carrier want a "base" - well, it's only fair that a true carrier intended to carry a squadron of ships be incredibly expensive and hard to maintain, and one person owning one makes about as much sense as one person owning an aircraft carrier today. That said, a person CAN own their own airplane and their own airfield or hanger on an airfield.
Asteroid bases are often referred to for a number of reasons (it dates back to the Rock Hermits referred to in the old 84 edition), but it also makes sense. An asteroid base would be affordable to a single player, could be used to store their ships and modules, could be customizable as well (since they talk about carriers being upgradable).
Game wise, it would make sense to have it an asteroid instead of on a planet due to instancing issues and potential griefing - if you've got a base in an asteroid belt and only you can see the signal beacon, there's no way someone can randomly find it, so you don't even have to have it "exist" other than in your game. But if it's on a planet anyone with the right coordinates should be able to find you and would complain because either a) your base isn't there unless you are or b) people will inevitably find ways to grief people's bases. So asteroids are best.
Now personally I think this is the perfect compromise between single player and group content. A solo player is only essentially being denied the ability to jump from system to system. But chances are they only want this as a garage anyway. Their carrier ship is for going from system to system after all, and providing support to large numbers of players.
Honestly, I have no problem with them having carriers for groups only. It just make logical sense.
BUT
They should really have something else to make up for it as well for the solo player. An asteroid base for example (of the kind often mentioned in the forums, basically a personalised garage). That's something that's been whispered about as a possibility for ages now, and this would work perfectly here.
Basically most people who want a carrier want a "base" - well, it's only fair that a true carrier intended to carry a squadron of ships be incredibly expensive and hard to maintain, and one person owning one makes about as much sense as one person owning an aircraft carrier today. That said, a person CAN own their own airplane and their own airfield or hanger on an airfield.
Asteroid bases are often referred to for a number of reasons (it dates back to the Rock Hermits referred to in the old 84 edition), but it also makes sense. An asteroid base would be affordable to a single player, could be used to store their ships and modules, could be customizable as well (since they talk about carriers being upgradable).
Game wise, it would make sense to have it an asteroid instead of on a planet due to instancing issues and potential griefing - if you've got a base in an asteroid belt and only you can see the signal beacon, there's no way someone can randomly find it, so you don't even have to have it "exist" other than in your game. But if it's on a planet anyone with the right coordinates should be able to find you and would complain because either a) your base isn't there unless you are or b) people will inevitably find ways to grief people's bases. So asteroids are best.
Now personally I think this is the perfect compromise between single player and group content. A solo player is only essentially being denied the ability to jump from system to system. But chances are they only want this as a garage anyway. Their carrier ship is for going from system to system after all, and providing support to large numbers of players.