Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

Do you want a Open PvE

  • Yes, I want a Open PvE

    Votes: 54 51.4%
  • No, I don't want a Open PvE

    Votes: 49 46.7%
  • I want only Open PvE and PvP only in groups

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Total voters
    105
  • Poll closed .
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
I fed my toad this afternoon. Five crickets went in, he pew-pewed four in no time (they were unshielded) but the fifth immediately burrowed under the water bowl, and Mr Toad doesn't even know he exists. Clever cricket :)
 
They will find there are some who even after 200000 posts will still be willing to stand against them

They certainly will. I am over at Cubeo right now, can you recommend a good Hi-res close with some pirates to BH?

I decided to see how long it would take to get there late last night ~ 40 mins in my Python, not bad. The Empire are the last faction I want to get allied to, I am friendly now, I do like a couple of their ships so I need to do a few missions for them.
 
I fed my toad this afternoon. Five crickets went in, he pew-pewed four in no time (they were unshielded) but the fifth immediately burrowed under the water bowl, and Mr Toad doesn't even know he exists. Clever cricket :)

lol - best off topic post I've seen for a while, maybe number 5 is planning to sneak in through the tradesman's entrance to try and rescue his buddies!

:D
 
I could mention the free-switching of open/groups/solo mode, too - but that is basically the topic of this whole thread, so I won't.

You'll discuss everything but the actual point of the thread? LOL.

Now, FD has a boring game on their hands,

You see, this is where its better to express things as opinion rather than blanket statements. Same as your opening statement that "the community did ruin the game". Highly subjective.

You mention missiles - well, you think they are ruined. Personally, i think they are ok, although perhaps a tad weak and could do with a small boost in damage. I've seen missiles put to good use since they were nerfed. You see, its subjective.

Try these phrases instead:

"I feel like the community ruined this game..."

"I think that the game is boring..."

Express opinions as opinions, and only present things as fact when its not as subjective.
 
Of course, the underlying aspect here (semantics withstanding) is "power and control". For those who think they're "running things"... my response would be- "You're not running anything but your mouth." I believe in balance in all things- which we currently have with different modes of play- even if "open" is more stacked to PvP, the fact that solo mode is completely exclusive tends to make up for this. Sure I'd prefer an open mode that completely excludes PvP aspects- but it's obvious that won't change anytime soon- nor will solo be removed for the sake of those who whine because they urinated in the punch bowl and everyone left the party. (or their "friends" did, in which they should be holding them accountable instead of blaming everyone else who left)

Live and let live, quit trying to "control" everything, and you'll soon realize that it all works out for everyone- of course for those who are power hungry it's never going to be enough. You could give them the entire game and they'll still want more.

yes i agree that open should be PVE and require a revocable (instantly by computer, no devs, mods or other humans required) letter of marque to be a pirate.
free for all PVP should need to form a group the way PVE is forced to do now, with the PVP flag turned on for all while playing in that group.

let·ter of marque
ˌletər əv ˈmärk/
nounhistorical

noun: letter of marque; plural noun: letters of marque

  • a license to fit out an armed vessel and use it in the capture of enemy merchant shipping and to commit acts that would otherwise have constituted piracy.
    • a ship carrying a letter of marque.
Origin late Middle English: Law French marque, from Old French marque ‘right of reprisal.’
 
Is it me or has the volume on this thread slowed down?

Seems like we hit 3000 faster in the other two threads....<shrug>
 
Is it me or has the volume on this thread slowed down?

Seems like we hit 3000 faster in the other two threads....<shrug>

Perhaps the detractors are busy making more alt accounts to use, only been 101 one off posts so far.
So not quite enough to claim in this thread the entire player base wants forced PvP yet.
There was quite a few one of posts that restarted the debate in the prior 2 threads - the red links in my Sig will take you to the screen with the numbers.
 
Perhaps the detractors are busy making more alt accounts to use, only been 101 one off posts so far.
So not quite enough to claim in this thread the entire player base wants forced PvP yet.
There was quite a few one of posts that restarted the debate in the prior 2 threads - the red links in my Sig will take you to the screen with the numbers.


I hope that they go to start replying, read, than realize that the argument they want to use has already been proven bumpkus.
 
...forced PvP...

Will never happen. And yes, you may sig-quote me on that. Not arrogance- that's how confident I am it will never happen, regardless of all the whine posts.

In fact, the whole argument reminds me of the spoiled rich kid's attitude in the movie "The Toy" when Richard Pryor finally walks out on the kid after he treats him like pond scum. What did he expect would happen?
 
Will never happen. And yes, you may sig-quote me on that. Not arrogance- that's how confident I am it will never happen, regardless of all the whine posts.

In fact, the whole argument reminds me of the spoiled rich kid's attitude in the movie "The Toy" when Richard Pryor finally walks out on the kid after he treats him like pond scum. What did he expect would happen?

I know it will never happen - been quoting FD saying just that for the best part of year.
Still has not stopped an unusual number of 1 off posts stating the game is broken, then regular posters saying "look at all the complaints".
Then pushing for forced PvP to "fix" their perceived problems.
 
So where is the argument with this?

If you want to interact with players then you play open or private

If you want to interact with players and NPCs then you play open or private

If you want to interact with NPCs but still have other players around you play open or private

If you want to interact with NPCs but not other players you play solo

But the main thing is that open is about player interaction and if you dont want to interact with other players or only interact with certain players then use private or solo, dont ruin open for the people who do want the player interaction, it seems extremely selfish and unnecessary to do so
 
Last edited:
... if you dont want to interact with other players or only interact with certain players then use private or solo, dont ruin open for the people who do want the player interaction, it seems extremely selfish and unnecessary to do so
<scratches head>
 
So where is the argument with this?

If you want to interact with players then you play open or private

If you want to interact with players and NPCs then you play open or private

If you want to interact with NPCs but still have other players around you play open or private

If you want to interact with NPCs but not other players you play solo

But the main thing is that open is about player interaction and if you dont want to interact with other players or only interact with certain players then use private or solo, dont ruin open for the people who do want the player interaction, it seems extremely selfish and unnecessary to do so

The argument is, some PvP people want everyone forced into open - regardless of what the person wants.
Also, some people want to interact with others without the PvP so they want an Open PvE Mode - which some of the PvP crowd also don't want.
Some people, due to technical issues cannot use Open and would not be able to play if forced Open came to pass and some PvP people don't care and are happy to force others out of the game as their personal enjoyment trumps other people being able to play the game.
 
So where is the argument with this?

If you want to interact with players then you play open or private

If you want to interact with players and NPCs then you play open or private

If you want to interact with NPCs but still have other players around you play open or private

If you want to interact with NPCs but not other players you play solo

But the main thing is that open is about player interaction and if you dont want to interact with other players or only interact with certain players then use private or solo, dont ruin open for the people who do want the player interaction, it seems extremely selfish and unnecessary to do so


Don't want to ruin open at all.. the issue is Open is PVP and non consensual. Some of the more aggressive Open PVPers have decided that the other modes harm Open because.. people go there and those Open pvpers have less "targets".

Some of us counter with requesting an Open-PVE mode as it would take some of the pressure of the private groups and allow many PVErs to mingle without being blown to smithereens. As has been shown and even bragged about.. some of the more aggressive PVPers decided to invade the PVE private groups to grief people and to "let them know" they are not "safe" from PVPers.

I find it interesting that you make a claim about us "ruining" open because the only people doing that.. are some of those that play in it.
 
dont ruin open for the people who do want the player interaction, it seems extremely selfish and unnecessary to do so

Doesn't this go both ways?

As in, with the current system the PvP'ers are the selfish ones?

You see, you basically highlighted the core of the entire argument without realizing it. When you draw a line.... there are two sides. If you don't want there to be two sides- don't draw a line.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom