Ah yes, the answer to the problem is apparent insults.Meh, carebears
Yeah I recognise this. But amongst the people i game with (not an exhaustive list or representational cross section by any means) we don't want an offline mode where nothing affects the background galaxy. We enjoy pottering around and playing with the BGS and to a lesser extent PP. An offline mode wouldn't be interesting to us and we certainly dont want a solo campaign style mode where we play along Frontier's storyline - the whole draw of the game is the fact that it doesn't have that sort of forced direction. Yes, we enjoy goal setting, planning, cooperative working for personal and team objectives.The "problem" in this case is that, while Frontier added an offline solo mode to the Kickstarter pitch about halfway through, offline mode was cancelled before release - much to the chagrin of some players (with consequential fallout aimed at Frontier, resulting in refunds in some cases).
It ignores the face that the three online game modes (with single shared galaxy state and mode mobility) pre-dated the addition of offline solo mode to the pitch and that every single player either backed or bought the game with these features either as part of the stated game design or part of the released game.
Yeah, it was just an idea, to be honest the main reason I want it it so I can attack pvpers in their taxis or when grinding, so I can test the cognitive dissonance. Maybe get some prized salt as well. I shoot enough shieldless type 9s outside Jameson's as it is.Frontier have been clear that they are not going to split the modes, in terms of the BGS. There is only one BGS and it is shared between all modes and, with releases on consoles, all platforms.
+1 for candour....Yeah, it was just an idea, to be honest the main reason I want it it so I can attack pvpers in their taxis or when grinding, so I can test the cognitive dissonance. Maybe get some prized salt as well. I shoot enough shieldless type 9s outside Jameson's as it is.
I get now that it's unlikely to happen
No, what you are suggesting is that Frontier run at least TWO different galaxies.I'm not saying remove the option of solo
Ok, well lets think abut that.This means bgs/pp can't be manipulated from another mode, but played in whichever mode suits you. But no one misses out.
Is that instancing means the game engine deliberately limits the number of assets in each instance to reduce the kind of technical problems that have plagued every other massively multiplayer game and that's degradation of performance due to the number of players in the same location. So forcing more people into open would by design not mean that you got congested areas at all.It means there is a natural nerf to credit exploits as people would be fighting to get on pads. Which would also be interesting because people would have to bring enough firepower when trading.
And best thing about this is that it would populate open more.
Thank you. Quite the compliment.You wear the badge well
He may well mean that, but it is explicitly NOT what he wrote.I think OP means that you get an account for each mode that is independent from your others I think XBox players have multiple accounts now. I like the idea and it would get rid of the constant compromises FD are making to attempt to make it fair. The power play issue is a good example, where half of the PvP element was removed, and that was related to a PvP specific mechanic.
But you keep using terms like "Exploit the BGS and PP from solo".Yeah separate accounts.
All that changes is you cannot transfer your assets.
I guess this means people could still exploit the bgs and pp from solo so I'm wrong about that. Apologies
You really haven't read or understood anything I've explained or others have said here.Yeah cool. I retract the word "exploit".
So, can we have separate accounts then pls, this is my appeal to council of carebears
But solo and private could be shared
Sort of like a solo+1 mode ��