Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... that can be played in Solo.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Yeah 100%. With a good crime and punishment system that works as you would expect it too, i'd be more likely to think about using Open play. As it stands you are simply clicking "i want to entertain sociopaths in my session" rather than the "Open play" button you think you are.
In my ideal Open Play system you would have no station ramming/blocking (just the odd accident) as a cheesy technique, and a real cost to living a life of crime (high fatality rate, high cost of living that life, high chance of active police interference in your activities etc), as a true crime and punishment system would allow only the best most talented and dedicated 'scum and villainy' (tm) to prosper. I see nothing 'git gud' about watching a few youtube videos showing you how to build the perfect 'griefing' system to exploit the game in Open mode as it currently is (going on the reports we see about this).
I'd have a lot more respect for the 'git gud' crowd if they actually lived the life in the game world as it would be with a decent crime and punishment system. Then their goads of 'git gud' would carry more weight, as mostly i see entitled babies that are upset they can't break every other persons fun when they want to.
Unwanted PVP is. You like PVP, great. Go and do your stuff with those who like it. I don't like PVP, I don't do PVP, I do not want PVP from anybody. Very basic thing.
Last edited:
That's in the fine print as an option. The emphasis by Frontier is obvious. People don't throw around words like definitive, massive, multiplayer, if they want to stress the opposite.
Basically I would want to see security levels properly implemented. You can be as bad criminal as you want in anarchy systems, and only thing policing your actions would be other players. On other hand in High Sec, you would certainly feel being hunted enemy.
Yeah, and people never throw around words like definitive, massive, multiplayer, if they want something to sell better. Never.
And actually the tone of the current conversation shows almost perfectly why ED was wisely built with player choice in mind. Imagine having to play the game only how the other person likes (this goes both ways). Frontier were clever in this, and for a reason.
Yes, it didn't involve any grinding for mats or unlocking engineers, thanks.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The ability to play in Solo is mentioned in the paragraph titled "Massively Multiplayer".
The word "epic" implies that's it foremost a RP game. "Massive Multiplayer" here is an adjective. The game is advertised as "Space epic". What's that? A big story with history and a rich world with different factions and important people... And you can pick a role (pirate, trader, faction supporter etc) in this world. Sounds like a RP game to me.
Stressing the opposite doesn't sell as many copies as calling it a definitive, massive, multiplayer experience. It can feel like one, with properly organized events. But it is not.
You believed the marketing hype.
ED is not an MMO.
Well, when you want to attract people to an MMO who want to play with other people, that's how you advertise. ED certainly has that capability but strangely the playerbase strikes as extraordinarily agoraphobic.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Gankphobic, maybe....
As I said previously many people, myself included bought sequel to classic Elite games. NOT some multiplayer arena shooter.
The operative word being 'advertised'...
Not according to Frontier, but hey, they're only the authors of the game. lololol
"with" being the keyword here. I could get onboard with that. playing against other people... no thanks.
We're not talking about CQC.
Mechanically it is built as an MMO.