Yes but they need to give people flexibility too.. like as Mobius can assign others to be able to accept invites or to kick.. and if he decided to step down he could choose a successor. Or if he is off line for a certain amount of time
- Status
Yes but they need to give people flexibility too.. like as Mobius can assign others to be able to accept invites or to kick.. and if he decided to step down he could choose a successor. Or if he is off line for a certain amount of time
Suspicious minds might almost come to the conclusion that they intend for things to be the way they are.
My thinking exactly
Not just yours, P2P vs C/S anyone?
I guess that might be what Zac's "groups post" was about, I am guessing its group management rather than guilds, IIRC correctly the thread mentioned that the leaders of large groups might get skype calls with FD.
I would guess if it was full on guild support we would have heard by now, maybe Mobius could give us some insight into what Zac was talking about?
ETA although I reckon its management tools for private groups.
Last edited:
Lone Wolves Anonymous are in the mix!
That's the first time in over 20,000 posts that I've seen the word risk used appropriately.
Also, a good post in it's entirety.
Last edited:
do we really need 2000 posts x 3 threads to conclude that open and solo and group modes existing is viable but switching a single commander between them undermines multi-player modes. Either protecting all emergent multi-player gameplay is important or you choose to allow that to devolve and disappear...in which case you're left with a game with no campaign, no branching missions, nothing really.
You can obviously have both, but it seriously weakens the strength of multiplayer and without that you just have elite licensed ships in a sandbox with absolutely nothing to really attract a player to want to play vs just loading up X3 from a decade ago.
There is no poor experience in multiplayer unless you come across a player who is cheating.
You can obviously have both, but it seriously weakens the strength of multiplayer and without that you just have elite licensed ships in a sandbox with absolutely nothing to really attract a player to want to play vs just loading up X3 from a decade ago.
There is no poor experience in multiplayer unless you come across a player who is cheating.
I think it'll probably be organized Group PvP where you can easily organize private matches with those signed up to it.
This would probably help with instancing.
They may also need to work on how to reflect such events with regards as to how it works with say PP / BGS.
Basically, if you're organized and you want to have a fight with other PvP entities, this would allow it.
Kinda like PvP Focused Events where the results would be put into the BGS.
I dunno how you guys would feel about that though. Would it work?
Edit:
I didn't see "Cody's" post & link but it looks pretty similar to what I'm suggesting.
Last edited:
That's your opinion. Other people have different definitions of poor experiences.
Lol the group that's not a group, I notice the Drunks of Sol tried to get on the bandwagon, unfortunately they are not as agile as the once were and fell flat on their face
I disagree, having a commander that can switch does not undermine multi-player, not at all, in fact it enhances multi-player. Lets not mince words or deceive here... It isn't multi-player that has an issue with the ability to switch mode it is PVP. Some "Purists" hate that others may get their ship in solo and come to Open to pvp.. others gripe about those that come in wreck things then retreat to solo, which I agree is a cheap thing to do, but PVErs are not doing it.. it is abuse of the system by PVPrs. And Some just hate it that some will PVP in Open but trade in Solo or elsewhere.. how dare they PVP but not give themselves up as targets when others want to PVP.
So I'm sorry but your argument is extremely misleading.
Lol the group that's not a group, I notice the Drunks of Sol tried to get on the bandwagon, unfortunately they are not as agile as the once were and fell flat on their face
Bar Stools are a know bug.
Had to look that one up, good one...
Why can I never rep you when I want to?
To answer your question, even though you didn't use a question mark. No, we don't "need 2000 posts x 3 threads to conclude that open and solo and group modes existing is viable but switching a single commander between them undermines multi-player modes". We don't "need" the three threads at all. We have the three threads, because there is disagreement on several points, One of which you gave your opinion on in the quoted post above.
As for "poor experience" define "poor". I have had what I consider "poor experiences" due to multiplayer while playing in open. Would they meet your definition, or even Frontiers definition? Who knows? But it really doesn't matter. They meet my definition of a "poor experience", so I don't play in open any more.
You are welcome to your opinion, and even to share it, but don't assume everyone else is of the same opinion.
The 3 threads are just the ones that happened recently, you missed all the discussion about this that started over two years ago, back in the first week of the Kickstart, where there were already both people suggesting that allowing players to choose who they meet would undermine the game and players praising that choice as the best feature of the game.
And even with a hundred times more posts I doubt a consensus, specially the one you are asking for, would be reached. After all, even not counting the players that (like me) got into the game for the since removed offline mode, for many players being able to choose who we play with, without the need to grind another character anew in order to do it, sits high among our reasons for choosing this game.
I respectfully disagree. For me, any encounter with another player that results in unwanted PvP will completely ruin my gaming session. I simply can't stand any PvP that wasn't previously, and explicitly, agreed upon.
I agree with this. The most interesting PVP situations (not just the fight, but the SC chase, the intrigue, the frantic paranoia of allies, etc.) to me result from non-consensual PVP. It is probably the most interesting thing to me in this game, actually.
For you it is and that is good, why do people believe though that what they enjoy all others must as well? And I would hazard a guess that the non-consensual PVP you described is wrong, it was unplanned not non-consensual, there is a big difference in it
Yes, perhaps "unplanned" would be a better description. I did not say "hey guys, let's meet in this instance and fight it out!"
- Status