palazo
Banned
Want help, we are 10 anacondas, maybe we can get them kicked out of the station
- Status
Want help, we are 10 anacondas, maybe we can get them kicked out of the station
Not blindly, the core designs are working as they are supposed to , some who want the game to be a different way then it is want them changed.. We defend against changing the game to appease a few.
I see that as the point. If you, as a player, don't want to be a policeman, why should you have to? Don't you want to play with those that are happy to be there, rather than those that are just dreading your added content? Wouldn't you rather face an opponent that is prepared, not as an rp pirate but as a basic player, and a willing partner to what goes on? I get your frustration, but a reaction to your personal disappointment shouldn't be the abandonment of many others' ideal of play.
- - - Updated - - -
Spice it up and do it in open if you like. Have your brother, or better yet, you fly cover for your brother. There's some stuff to do right there.
- - - Updated - - -
We don;t defend it blindly. We defend it because we agree with it. Those core design decisions are exactly what has attracted at least as many to the game. Choice is more important than any one style of play.
Isn't that because people just don't want to be robbed and murdered? The modes are fine, as has already been said. It's the behavior of people that makes open bad for (some) people. Stop the terrible behavior and people return to open. Resume the terrible behavior and people leave. Other than forcing people to play in a mode that they hate (which just makes them leave Elite altogether) there is no way to give the harmful players what they want.
tl;dr, non-consent PvPers are getting what they have created for themselves.
I don't have a problem with players making a choice to switch. My problem with comes when there is no reason to not switch. We get to a situation where combat roles should stay in open, because player offer the chance of more cash, but for non combat roles it's only a chance for more loss.
Just like with shield cells, you can do use them or not, but that doesn't make it fair. When we get to the point where we have to use it or we're at a disadvantage, that's when i view it as a problem.
Last edited:
palazo
Banned
Here we have a few men who can defend you for nothing.
We seek pvp up inside stars.
We get the situation where like minded players play in similar ways. I think NPC BH'ing is a combat role. And, it is done handily in a private group. Combat is not exclusive to PvP.
I get your frustration, but the cure is worse than the disease. Forcing players to play in open won;t solve anything. It just makes the disinterested go elsewhere to play. Forcing players to choose a mode and stay won;t solve anything. The disinterested will just choose an option that isn't open and stay there. You can see there is a determined bunch that just won't accept PvP. Do you really think FD's best bet is to enforce open somehow through bribes, disincentives, anything like that? I just don;t see it.
Horizons isn't a cashgrab expansion in the sense that the money will be used to fund purchasing a yacht and a fast car for David Braben. Yes, Frontier are selling Horizons for money but that money is being used to pay for developers to continue working on improving all aspects of the game.
If you don't believe me, you try working at least 40 hours a week (I am sure Frontier developers work longer) for 1 year without being paid. Do you like it? Do you want to? Of course not. How the heck then do you expect the developers at Frontier to work if there isn't some form of income coming in to pay their salary?
Horizons and other expansions is common business sense! There are developers working on features that many of us are happy to pay for which allows Frontier to pay the salary of those developers as well as the salary of other teams of developers to work on the core game.
If you just had developers working on the core game and nothing else so there isn't some form of ongoing income, then Frontier would soon close down and go out of business. We would not only be left with no improvements to the core game but no game itself.
By the way, we must have exhausted all the arguments about Solo vs Open vs Groups (which is obvious by all the circular arguments in the last 3 threads) because I have noticed other topics are creeping into this thread
.
Last edited:
So the open/solo/group modes are still not separate?
FD: Please make a major announcement when you decide to separate Solo, Open and Group. That way, a huge number of players who quit previously, expecting an immersive MMO space experience, will come back to the game. If this will not happen, then all good because most people have quit anyway.
Unfortunately even with Horizon's on the works, the game will only interest elitist gamers who prefer to solo play/switch modes and will continue to turn-off players who are looking for balanced, social and true MMO space sim.
Oh yeah by the way, I think you can also close the thread too. Anyway, even with thousands of threads being created highlighting the numerous imbalances of having shared solo/group/open database, there's no issue with the game right?
It's quite sad to see that FD is only catering to those vocal minorities who prefer to switch modes instead of fixing the core mechanics to make the game more balance. To this day, I'm still baffled why are people so worried about players who shoot on sight if everyone has the capacity to evade and avoid any potential aggressor whether you are on a type 6, sidewinder or an anaconda.
Anyway I wont be reading any replies to this thread so have fun
FD: Please make a major announcement when you decide to separate Solo, Open and Group. That way, a huge number of players who quit previously, expecting an immersive MMO space experience, will come back to the game. If this will not happen, then all good because most people have quit anyway.
Unfortunately even with Horizon's on the works, the game will only interest elitist gamers who prefer to solo play/switch modes and will continue to turn-off players who are looking for balanced, social and true MMO space sim.
Oh yeah by the way, I think you can also close the thread too. Anyway, even with thousands of threads being created highlighting the numerous imbalances of having shared solo/group/open database, there's no issue with the game right?
It's quite sad to see that FD is only catering to those vocal minorities who prefer to switch modes instead of fixing the core mechanics to make the game more balance. To this day, I'm still baffled why are people so worried about players who shoot on sight if everyone has the capacity to evade and avoid any potential aggressor whether you are on a type 6, sidewinder or an anaconda.
Anyway I wont be reading any replies to this thread so have fun
Last edited:
What about the huge number of players that will quit the game of this happens?
Would you bet your future on reattracting users who have already left the game by forcing even more to leave? What happens of the 'huge number of players' you mention fail to come back?
I think you are in the 'vocal minority' here. Most people have nothing to complain about.
What is sad is someone who buys a game clearly advertised with a feature and then constantly complains to have it removed, even if it affects the enjoyment that others get from the game.
To this day I'm still baffled why other people are worried about how I enjoy a game I spent my money on.
If I go to McDonald's I don't worry about the guy enjoying his Big Mac while I eat chicken nuggets.
Perhaps what you find interesting and improved is not aligned with what the majority of players would find interesting or an improvement. Not every gamer is an MMO fan, and this particular game has a undisputably unique demographic. If any of the polls here and elsewhere are to be believed ED's audience is between 10 and 20 (depending on which poll) years older than the average gamer, and that's the just the start of the differences.
As the subscription numbers climb, a dooom thread.. we haven't had one of these in awhile...
FD made announcement... it was that they were NOT separating the modes, and I think they have a better understanding of the # of people who quit and why. Nice try at assuming though..
The game interests more that "elitist" gamers, nice try at an insult though.. gamers of all backgrounds and ages love the game and play it. It actually surprised me how many of us, myself included, are older gamers, not elitist at all. And calling those who disagree with you elitist just because they disagree is rather arrogant.
Your not the first to claim it can close, many of us wish it would.. but people keep trying to alter the core of the game and keep getting merged..
You mean like adding CQC for the PVP community.. if they were catering to the vocal minority than the modes would be servers and the game fractured all to heck.
So you are not going to read replies but decided to post an antagonistic post...hmmm
- - - Updated - - -
I wonder sometimes if posts like that are actually made to keep the thread going .. even though they claim they want it shut down?
I am still at a loss as to why some players are obsessed with how other players are playing and are intent on imposing changes on the original game design despite the fact when polled the majority support the game 'as is' and FD openly and continually support their original design decision.
In the same way I don't get how some apparently intelligent people think that either forcing open mode on others or restricting the ability to move between modes can be anything but detrimental to the open game?
In the same way I don't get how some apparently intelligent people think that either forcing open mode on others or restricting the ability to move between modes can be anything but detrimental to the open game?
Because players like that want YOU to be THEIR content. That's the basic reason.
Last edited:
Bleating of blind fanboys, eh! You really are pathetic!
Thankfully, it doesn't!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Making missiles do significantly less damage to shields was a response by Frontier to the reaction of the community to the use (by some players) of inexpensive ships to Alpha Strike unsuspecting targets (often resulting in their destruction with no hope to mount a defence). The typical justification for those carrying out such attacks was "there's nothing in the rules to say that I can't". Frontier changed the rules to stop such attacks.
Watch this space - torpedoes could be next - there is (was, possibly) a thread in the XBox sub-forums by a player doing much the same in a Viper loaded with 6 torpedoes....
Last edited:
Ships should have been limited to a specific number of missile launchers, i.e. 1, and max 2. No Anaconda walls of death or Alpha Strike vipers. Artificially limited in code, (call it the Federal Missile Act of 3232 or whatever, where the shop will refuse to install more "Your maximum allowed number of launchers has been reached") or with a dire performance impact from the weight & power of more than X launchers per a given ship.
Rather than making the weapons completely useless, stop them from being spammed with a limited number per ship and long relaunch times. FPS games balance rocket launchers with extremely long load times, on top of the low ammo, so if the person can have only 1 or 2 launchers, and fire at most 2 at a time, with the next two being at least 15-20 seconds away, (fire one for general heat buildup, fire two at a time for a x3 heat build up) we don't need to nerf the actual missiles themselves and make them so that nobody uses them.
View them as the auto-targetting version of the plasma accelerator, very slow to fire, powerful when it lands, ultimately not a game changer as you can't just spam them because of the power usage and the recharge time.
Last edited:
This kind of behavior by some players is just another form of cyber bullying. FD is right in attempting to put a stop to it. But there are better ways. Enforce the rules of engagement. Increase the response of in-game security forces. Anarchy regions will be more dangerous, but that's as it should be.
Last edited:
- Status