I think you going to be sorely disapointed. In ED the role you take on reflects how others and the AI see you and interact with you, going all out and shooting anything that moves is going to sorely limit you bank balance I should think as the bounty score rockets up. One wrong move at a station coming in for supplies and and the police vipers will be on to you, still you play how you want to and I'll play how I want, does that seem fair ?
Do credits earned in Solo play contribute towards open play
- Thread starter Lister_of_Smeg
- Start date
I think you going to be sorely disapointed. In ED the role you take on reflects how others and the AI see you and interact with you, going all out and shooting anything that moves is going to sorely limit you bank balance I should think as the bounty score rockets up. One wrong move at a station coming in for supplies and and the police vipers will be on to you, still you play how you want to and I'll play how I want, does that seem fair ?
Ah, another thread, the same arguments.
It's been incredibly vague since the beginning, you can find everything and its opposite. Elite: Dangerous is supposed to be a "massively multiplayer online game" as much as a "singleplayer game with online play".
What we see today might be what you want, it's not what everyone expected.
You can only call it 'cheating' if you first assume that all PCs are in competition with each other.
Since the assumption is invalid the 'cheater' epithet is invalid.
Nemesis-T-Warlock
Banned
Is hacking the game to get a billion credits and invincible ships 'cheating' then? Just wondering if the non-competition bit covers that too.
I cant say I like the idea of your 'hacking', but Im not sure how that would effect my game experience. Im still not in competition with you.
That wouldn't be within the constraints of the game's systems, and wouldn't be an avenue available to all players, would it?
Nemesis-T-Warlock
Banned
I was questioning this 'for cheating to exist we have to assume competition'. Was wondering if anything is classed as cheating then if there is assumed to be no competition. Just thought it a simplistic definition. Of course I think hacking is cheating, but if there is no competition then who is hurt by it?
In Open there is competition even if just to a minimal extent such as who can get to the Fed fighter quickest in the conflict zones. I hope there will be more as it progresses because sometimes I wonder if FD should just have made this an Offline game for all the anti-other player opinions. It would have been far simpler to code.
At most theres competition between 32 in any one instance at any one time. And if friends are working together in an instance then that lessens. Remembering friends will be placed in instances as much as possible.
That is an excellent summary of the weakness of the 32 player instances. IF the instances are a required due to limitations of the p2p network design, then it is also a rather damning indictment of the decision to use p2p instead of client/server (IMO).
In terms of PvP combat, yes. But in terms of affecting buy/sell prices for commodities, the whole player base that plays online (even online solo) will be having some effect, even though there will be a lot more NPC traders than human ones.
Until you realize PvP never has been high on the requirements list, and choices have been made accordingly. :smilie:
The credit hack would mess with the economic sim (and ruin your game), the invulnerable ship would ruin your game and thst of everybody who you attack... As well as scew the universe sim.
What are you trying to equate with this again? Seems like a pretty silly argument.
I promise, that's going to change. This game is going big instances sooner or later (i prefer sooner) Capitalism is just what it is. If its economical preferable it will happen. And huge instances is economical preferable....
Nemesis-T-Warlock
Banned
But with the design being used possibly not technically practical.
Since they have to rewrite the whole game to cater some people here anyway, they could start with the network model
How are you going to massively increase instance sizes when a large proportion of the playerbase are going to be running on ordinary PC's, with consumer grade networking kit, over contended/throttled inadequate ISP connections, over 2 or 3 geographically assigned areas - yet still make it playable for everyone?
Come to think of it, to respond to Nemesis' point, insofar as you engage in PvP combat, yes, obviously hacking yourself up an invulnerable ship would be cheating. Conjuring yourself up a billion credits on the other hand... I can't really see that it would do you all that much good in the game, beyond letting you buy the best ships and outfitting before anyone else (and again, only relevant if we're talking PvP combat). It's not like you can sway prices significantly by buying up all the supply of commodity X in System Y, because the amount you can buy is limited to what you can fit into the cargo hold of your current ship--it's not like you can tell the station, "just send the rest to my warehouse on Zargon 5"
They are not. But if he doesn't know how P2P works, then anything is possible, right?
He was responding me me.
I still dont see how even that level of 'cheating' effects my game.
Last edited: