Open Play exclusive content
- Thread starter AndyWeller
- Start date
- Status
I have played in solo for no more than 10-15 minutes. it felt wrong
.
Just kidding. to be honest I didn't see much difference and that worries me for the future of the Multiplayer game I paid £50 + £130 for my HOTAS for. don't get me wrong I don't regret buying either currently but the HOTAS doesn't frustrate me quite as much
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Nope, your incorrect. it is just one of the reasons behind this thread.
Because reading back over these pages the only people who happy with the game as it stands are the solo and group players and open players be dammed.
Except I'm an open player and I am against your proposition, and I am pretty sure I am not the only one. As for the group switching 'problem' can you provide any evidence that this is happening in any significant numbers?
.
if it was an advertised feature from the start it's one I missed and would most certainly have resisted.
Have you considered organising an effort to police the behaviour of those who are driving people to Solo?
I'm not talking about the shrewd pirates here, you know, the ones who fire off a few shots, demand cargo and let their prey go once they've dropped some cargo. Those guys add a lot to the game. I'm talking about the mindless PKers who just want to blow people's ships up for the lulz. Those guys are a pain for traders in expensive ships, but Solo is the solution for them. They pay their rebuy then carry on in Solo - which is actually better for the game than having them quit altogether out of frustration, which is the only alternative.
Those PKers are actually the enemy of the shrewd pirate. Their actions are breaking the pirate game far more than the trader game.
I get how the idea of FD offering some incentive to play in Open might seem attractive, but it would have to be one hell of an incentive to make up for the multiple loss of many millions of credits each time, and as said incentive is there for everyone in Open the benefit would cancel out through general availabilty. Any advantage it confers on traders or whatever would be available to the PKers, and so it would amount to nothing but an escalation.
So, do it yourself. Form a kind of pirates militia to protect your livelihood. It'd be sort of like a gamekeeper keeping your prey safe from poachers.
.
1 is to many. that's the best statistic I can muster unless you can show me the one where it says none.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
my issue with the idiots is that they can just pay off their bounties and therefore will not show up on any GALNET news or in game when they are scanned. it is another mechanic I would like to see improved.
I just don't get this argument any more. Long before anyone could play ED the developers made it clear that players would be able to move between Open/Solo/Group as they pleased, why would anybody buy the game if they felt so strongly against that mechanic ? the other thing is if the developers capitulated on this what then, obviously groups would have to be segregated too ? What about the ignore function, that would have to be 'looked at' as well if the intent of all this is to get more targets into open play, after all being switched off by someone defeats the whole object, call it an exploit perhaps ?
It amazes me that the simple concept that many people who play this game were influenced by the developers design choices in this in deciding to buy isn't given any consideration in all of this, and also what would be said.... 'well, a minority felt it would crimp their jollies so we ditched it' It would make the offline thing look like playschool.
Instead of hiding behind all these quasi-arguments about players benefiting from an easier time in solo and totting their ill gotten games into open, and solo players affecting the outcome of matters and events created in open et al why can't there be a little more honesty ? the desire for more human players to shoot at and the ability to say 'that's just how the game is supposed to work so suck it up'. Well it isn't, it works FD intended it to be and advertised it as.
It amazes me that the simple concept that many people who play this game were influenced by the developers design choices in this in deciding to buy isn't given any consideration in all of this, and also what would be said.... 'well, a minority felt it would crimp their jollies so we ditched it' It would make the offline thing look like playschool.
Instead of hiding behind all these quasi-arguments about players benefiting from an easier time in solo and totting their ill gotten games into open, and solo players affecting the outcome of matters and events created in open et al why can't there be a little more honesty ? the desire for more human players to shoot at and the ability to say 'that's just how the game is supposed to work so suck it up'. Well it isn't, it works FD intended it to be and advertised it as.
.
1 is to many. that's the best statistic I can muster unless you can show me the one where it says none.
As you know, 1 does not make a blind bit of difference when instancing, time zones, play area and a lot more is taken into account, neither does 10 or a 100 quite frankly, beyond that and up towards 1000 or more doing so may be a different story but the evidence does not back that up. As I am not the one promoting change the onus is very much on you to provide the evidence.
Ok, so I think we have heard pretty much both sides of the argument. Now how about instead of looking at what we don't like and why we don't like it, that we use the Steven Covey method of 'Win-Win' negotiation where we look for solutions to problems instead of simply 'discussing' problems in circular and non productive manner?
I have already suggested one way to populate open play that would not force anybody to do anything and would not penalise solo players (those who simply don't want to interact with other people, rather than those who are 'on the fence').
Does anybody else have some win-win solutions that would help resolve lack of players in open which does not unfairly penalise one group or another?
I have already suggested one way to populate open play that would not force anybody to do anything and would not penalise solo players (those who simply don't want to interact with other people, rather than those who are 'on the fence').
Does anybody else have some win-win solutions that would help resolve lack of players in open which does not unfairly penalise one group or another?
Sadly, AndyWeller has expressed that he no longer wishes to have any contact with you and doesn't want to continue that line of discussion with you. A great pity.
I am however compelled to point out that AndyWeller failed to provide any information for how Open is "a facsimile of Solo" or definitive information about what his gripes with Open currently is. He also failed to provide his ideas for improvements to those gripes.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
offline came in at the end of the KSer, it was not in at the start but lots asked for it so it was agreed that it would be added as not too much work. Sadly this turned out to not be the case.
But the Solo/ALL/Groups has been there from day 1 as has the promise of being able to swap into different modes when you feel like being social or a recluse or playing with a set group of mates. My "source" is hard to prove as the FAQ has been updated multiple times so the time stamp is incorrect, but I assure you it was this way from before the time I backed (and i backed in the start of Dec 2013)
oh no, I have been judged. pfft.
You're still dodging the questions everybody is very keen to hear the answer to.
You can poke fun at my avatar, my method of gameplay and my group (click on my signature for info, by the way) all you like but that doesn't change the facts I detailed in my last post.
You are, of course, more than capable of providing that information. Whether or not you choose to do so as opposed to being snarky to someone who was trying to bring some heat away from you to further an actual discussion is entirely up to you.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
IMPERSONATING A JUDGE IS 90 DAYS IN THE CUBES, CREEP.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
From the Kickstarter FAQ, over two years ago (my emphasis):
Elite: Dangerous Kickstarter FAQ said:
I personally don't think there is anything that will persuade the "mode shifters" because I personally believe that the people that do this are doing if for completely benign reasons. If people feel the need to play without human interruption sometimes for what ever reason (bad day or what ever) then why shouldn't they. The question is WHO are these people harming when nobody knows how other people play.
As you walk down the street in RL and see people with nice cloths or a nice car do we immediately think "OMG they must be a bank robber!!!" or do we go and demand to know where they got their money from? I imagine not.
I personally cant be bothered wondering where everyone got their ships from to the level where it ruins my own game, but for the sake of answering your question, wings may help providing there is a mechanism in place that allows players to share profits gained from trade / protect routes be it credit transfer or profit share agreement.
However I don't think anything will really have any significant impact simply because I don't think there are that many people doing it for sinister reasons and as I don't know who is and who isn't, i don't really care that much.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I play in open - what does that make me?
.
am I being thick here or is everybody really saying that I have not given one single reason for any of my gripes over the last 40 pages of this thread?
.
If you can't be bothered to read the content before you spout sanctimonious drivel then I believe the error lays with you.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
a tribble by the look of it.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
a tribble by the look of it.
Never! Tribbles are splitters!! Trumbles are the only true fuzzy balls of annoyance!!!!
- Status