Everyone? Or are you just expressing an opinion? I just play a game which I like to play and in no way feel negativity over anything in said game - if I was being negatively affected by it, it would not be played...
Thank You FDEV!!!
- Thread starter Cyberblitz
- Start date
A games design philosophy is one of the things I consider when buying. I checked how the modes worked before buying because although I'm usually in open I like choice and don't have any issues with how other people choose. Player freedom is why I like huge freeroaming games like ED, without it I'd not have bothered.
Someone who did no pre-purchase reading and now wants the entire MMO changed from the ground up to suit their inaccurate preconceptions isn't making any good suggestions at all, they want everyone's else's freedom restricted to salve their personal failure to understand what they were buying in the first place. You can't patch that sort of pebcak and the open only suggestions without exception are always based on not understanding the basics of the game.
That's why we used to have hotel California as a dumping ground for it all. While it can be fun to poke holes in it, it's never been a serious proposition.
Yes. I dare to say everyone. May I asked why you joined this particlar forum?
Because I can - possibly as I actually play the game (rather than just have in my collection, probably uninstalled, but it is good to criticise 'whatever')?
So what negative feelings do I have over the game, as I am 'part' of 'everyone'?
(Or perhaps you do not consider me to be included in your inclusive statement?)
But it is hard to grasp the consequences without having actually played, at least from the majority of people.
I mostly agree with the rest of your post, but I don't think it is all down to pebkac, especially in a service game like ED, where things change. Turning the whole game inside out is out the question of course, but it is not that everything is set in stone.
Edit:
Are you saying the game is perfection and you could not criticise a single bit?
With PVP/open only it is a set thing thing though. A single shared BGS, the ability to outjump or outrun, different timezones, platforms, servers, so many locations where you could be. Plus things like logging out or the block function.
PVP couldn't be any more optional than it already is in open mode. You just need to know how to jump and it's always your choice.
It's a requested fix that could never work as nobody can ever be forced to play video game spaceships with other people unless they actually choose to. The game isn't the issue, its people who don't get that.
Sorry, I don't see anyone argueing about PVP or open only. It surely was not my point, as I wanted to point at the general issue with this hybrid type of game.
Which gives players greater choice and options, I regard it as one of the games selling points.
I'd argue, that ED could be a better MP or SP game, if FDev did not try to mix both.
In a niche like spaceship games you can't afford to exclude half your audience so you make it inclusive, as they told us. This is still an argument in favour of people knowing what they are buying.
SWTOR pulled it off decently. It's not impossible - you just have to be sensible and not try stuff that everyone knows doesn't work - like throwing PvE and PvP into one mode.
A good part of the audience is there in the first place because they were fooled by "you can play solo" to think it is a SP-capable game.
Just take the latest addition (and already mentioned) Fleet Carries. They were initially designed for Squadrons, which would have been consistent with game world, but MP-only content just as Multi Crew. Basically waste of dev time for all solo players. FCs could have been more specifically taylored (s. old design descriptions) for Squadrons. Compare that to what we have now, started from cluttered system maps, to running costs and overall expenses.I dare to question your statement as well. Please educate me in what specific way you think I'm negatively effected. Really curious now!
Besides that, do I really have to point out how strange it is for an MMO to have missions, that can be done by more than one player, only years after release and only with very limited variety. While at the same time having to coherent set of missions, not even for ranking up a military career. Which, by the way, is still meaningless to game, besides unlocking some ships. Bottom line is, we neither have good MP missions, nor good SP missions.
And if Fdev does create MP-only content, like the Thargoid "assault" (until Scouts were introduced), they needed to make sure it does not make too much of an impact. Because Solo CMDRs had a far harder life against Interceptors as multiple CMDRs at once. It is a compromise affecting both single and multplayer.
FDEV cant patch people who fail at reading, for example solo mode is single player.
It's been sold as a SP game. Heavily suggested it was a SP game. Some say it's false advertising, some say it's reading comprehension.
I'm a solo player who was surprised how much I like the multiplayer.
Solo mode is SP.
An incredibly poor SP. It's like playing Battlefield solo against bots. Possible, but it doesn't really work well.
If you don't like bots in single player maybe you should reassess your preference for single player games.
We have had this discussion before. For you she sheer presence of a choice and option is (as it seems to me) good enough. Game design basics dictate a choice needs to have an impact otherwise, it can be perceived boring or even frustrating. An option means Devs have to account for all of them. Giving all an equal value is an immense effort or compromise. Example would be the support of input devices: If FDev supported only gamepads, the whole options menu would be a lot simpler and there would be not advantage for using relative mouse input.
I did not say you can't like it, I said it is a compromise for all players (even those, who don't realize necessarily).
Edit:
You are missing the point.
Last edited: