Sterling MH
Banned
How? Do you put the ship in the figure? Hours played? What about the lack of exposure when in a combat doing pewpew compared to the same person doing cargo in a brumbrum?
How? Do you put the ship in the figure? Hours played? What about the lack of exposure when in a combat doing pewpew compared to the same person doing cargo in a brumbrum?
The ideal Open mode doesn't have ats in it - that's why I'm quite content with Mobius.
Not because of the group ban on PvP, but because of the slightly more mature population.
I just wish that there wasn't a membership limit on it.
Not because of the group ban on PvP, but because of the slightly more mature population.
I just wish that there wasn't a membership limit on it.
Why not turn it around and have 500 systems where only pvp is allowed? Create incentives to go there. Leave the rest of the galaxy for PvE. It would certainly be easier for the hunters to find their (willing / learning) prey that way.
The rest of us can role play in peace.
Part of my reasoning for this thread is that it doesn't seem good to have some features in some modes and have them missing from others with the only difference being the multiplayer connection. It needs to be available to all or available to none in my opinion. Otherwise its basically saying that a feature has gameplay issues and the Dev's don't know how to really fix it without heavily changing the game. If Open-Only Power Play goes through, then the game modes are no longer equal and the whole "Play it your way" element is pretty much thrown out. If we're going to do it, we need to go all in and not have another half-baked part of the game.
With regard to the OP, I agree to the extent that if you are going to make a multiplayer game, make it entirely multiplayer and don't try to combine it with solo play.
I'd prefer it if the game was offline entirely, but since we didn't get that, I'm holding them to the standard of how multiplayer games should be.
I'd prefer it if the game was offline entirely, but since we didn't get that, I'm holding them to the standard of how multiplayer games should be.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
Jesus ENOUGH already please. Stop trying to kill a game which has already accepted millions of £ based on certain core features.
I get it some would prefer ED was a different game but FD have already accepted a lot of money based on different criteria.
Stop demanding FD screw over those who bought into the game FD sold.....please!
I get it some would prefer ED was a different game but FD have already accepted a lot of money based on different criteria.
Stop demanding FD screw over those who bought into the game FD sold.....please!
And this applies to exploration gankers how? Explorers would suffer most by this. Besides you don't want people like me on PvP on a game that uses a lot of peer to peer. People like me get mad easily, peer to peer means people can find people easily, and violence is the most probable means to solve problems.. I'm not a threat to anyone (unless they come to my house) as I would simply quit (already contemplating it), I don't need the legal problems.. problem is I am not the only one of my kind (nor do I associate with others, I'm completely anti-social) and not all others have as much self restraint (or are as xenophobic). Forcing people to do what they don't want to do on a game they PAYED FOR is not good.
Besides, the day they do that is the day FDev ceases to exist as they would get sued into oblivion in the EU and the US. Especially in the US because that's false marketing, and that is against federal law, which means those in control would also face (unlikely but) possible criminal charges and extradition (because the U.K. does extradite to the U.S. and vise-versa). If this were free-to-play, then it may work, but a premium title.. nope.
Last edited:
Open Play is obviously the ideal and only mode for an on-line game. If FD want to make it always Open then that's fine with me. I've had enough of this nonsense. Just refund what I've paid, including all I've spent in their shop and I'll call it quits. I'll quite happily re-purchase an off-line, static version of the game if they make one. There are other, more satisfying things to occupy my time. End-of-line.
No thanks! I bought ED because I loved the original Elite Plus from back in the day. For that I set my own goals and enjoyed it. I tried open once, got shot up without warning or provocation from some rando. So I prefer to play solo and set my own narrative, none of this MMO rubbish for me thanks. If I wanted to play multiplayer, I will play a game that has been designed for that. Not one that's tacked on.
Last edited:
Fdev have already made their intentions clear on where E-D is heading. They laid the foundations announcing Squadrons as a purely multiplayer tool, Fleet carriers that won't serve any purpose in solo play due to a multicrew requirement...even earlier with the forced multiplayer Wings and multicrew bolt ons we got instead of the broader focussed and oft requested NPC crew members and hireable NPC wing members for those with a dislike or disinterest of multiplayer only content.
Obviously, the plan to coerce the player base into an open multiplayer environment is now gaining pace with the proposal to add power play to that purely multiplayer content list, along with commentary that they would like more players in open mode as opposed to PG or solo.
I've no doubt that using the player base to create it's own content is more attractive for them as developers...after all, why use expensive developer time to create further narrative or gameplay improvements for a 4 year old game when you have comparatively inexpensive players inventing their own for free using slightly rehashed content already in place.
Obviously, the plan to coerce the player base into an open multiplayer environment is now gaining pace with the proposal to add power play to that purely multiplayer content list, along with commentary that they would like more players in open mode as opposed to PG or solo.
I've no doubt that using the player base to create it's own content is more attractive for them as developers...after all, why use expensive developer time to create further narrative or gameplay improvements for a 4 year old game when you have comparatively inexpensive players inventing their own for free using slightly rehashed content already in place.
This is probably the most meme worthy response to Rinzler’s video I’ve ever seen.
That said, considering the content of your post, video games might not be for you!
That is kinda funny since long before they stated..
Originally Posted by Michael Brookes
(Source)From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...(23-07-2015)?p=2581431&viewfull=1#post2581431
So if they go through with this, then what other statement will become false? Any new statement or promise by them immediately becomes suspect.
The game and other video games are for him, people trying to force him to play their way is wrong.
As for the OP's statement.... perfect way to make it open only. As long as you are a member of the Pilot Federation you cannot shoot at another member at all. IFF will keep your weapons from firing on any other listed Pilot Federation player's ship. Any grievances can be taken care of in the CQC arena in ships provided their or bring your own ships in and settle the score.
Rinzler o7o7o7
Banned
Well then I'd say it'd be a huge relief for you to discover that powerplay is entirely opt-in and not mandatory in any way. If you sign up for powerplay, you sign up for it willingly.
One that can be used in Solo mode - or did you ignore that part of the Dev replies?
Multiplayer does not mean open, even Solo mode is still a multiplayer mode.
As you can use voice chat and forums to coordinate the actions of a group of Solo players.
More information that didn't come from a dev.
Come on, when did you dream that up?
Which can be used in Private Groups with just your friends.
Oh, and it's not "forced" - you can play without them.
It's only a question at this point in time, to improve 1 aspect of the game.
Sandro clearly stated it is not a done deal.
This applies to PvPers as well, crying about the mode system and claiming to be victims.
Look ma! Mode snobs!
Yup, a guild interface that we can even use in Solo - and rabid PvPers are proclaiming some type of victory.
Love how delusional they are.
No. They said they are considering it.
However, i suspect if they don't do it now, the forum meltdown we are having now will be tiny in comparison with the meltdown that will happen if Sandro goes back on this.
Goose4291
Banned
Have a read through the Dogmaa threads on this forum, before you start accusing a whole demographic of players of being 'degenerates'.
He is referring to the demographic who are degenerates like described. How big this demographic is is anyone's guess, its probably only a handful of people who truly want to deprive others of pleasure, but they can have a large impact.