I'd like to just remind everyone to keep the discussions cool and frosty ok?
- Status
No, we really, really need it here...
PLease!!!!! Not all of it.. just a little.. only a few feet ^,^
I'm really enjoying the game at the moment. I play in Solo, with the occasional venture into Mobius. This gives me the chance to play the way I want to, in a way that I find enjoyable, in a way that reflects my personality.
Humans are very diverse creatures. What works for one person may be boring and frustrating for another.
It's up to the individual to find a game that they can work with. Elite works for me, but I don't think anyone expects that it will work for everyone.
Cheers, Phos.
Humans are very diverse creatures. What works for one person may be boring and frustrating for another.
It's up to the individual to find a game that they can work with. Elite works for me, but I don't think anyone expects that it will work for everyone.
Cheers, Phos.
Nope. Solo (and freely switching modes) was offered from day one in the KS. Offline was only added about a month after the KS started. So, while it's true that, when offline was removed in the end, Frontier pointed to Solo as an alternative that should provide a similar gameplay experience, from the start Solo wasn't intended as a substitute to offline.
You can see for yourself by going to the Kickstart page and reading the FAQ and the updates. Pay particular attention to the FAQ question about "How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?", and note the date at which the last paragraph, saying that offline play would be possible, was added.
Origin Systems / EA tried to fix the PvP system for two years. Separating Trammel and Felluca was a last ditch effort to reduce player churn enough to keep the game open (in fact, the dev that ended separating the worlds was originally hired to spin down and close UO, but rebelled against the company's orders).
And, BTW, it worked. The devs do acknowledge that the change killed much of the PvP gameplay and drove away the hardcore PvP players, but it increased player retention enough that UO doubled its player base in short order and is still open to this day. By far and wide, most devs of the time acknowledge the move as having saved UO.
That's the core of the option to go either way, really. Because what those complaining that people can avoid PvP by going to Solo/Group sometimes fail to remember is that there's a third way to avoid meeting PvPers - not play the game at all. And that's a lot of people Frontier might lose.
Has to be something about the sci-fi genre in gaming. Picked up Battlefront recently, and the biggest threads on the related forum? Masses of players who want to play against bots rather than other players. This whole pvp vs pvai thing is bigger than Elite. I find this to be very encouraging.
The market for PVP is very small. The PVP people say differently...however, the way games have been designed over the past 20 years shows differently.
So what happens if I log into Open on a double NAT and reject every IP that isn't an FD connection? Lulz - that is what happens. You cannot reward Open only players - because you cannot control Open only.
Again - you can not reward Open play. Idiots you encounter are easily sent to null. Fly around in an unarmed, unshielded Sidey and find the idiots. Route them out of your game
Not only are you willing to cheat people out of the way they want to play, but you are willing to edit your freakin routing tables to do it?? Im no IT genius, but the amount of effort you are talking about going to... flying around in a ship, somehow nabbing the IP address... (if thats even possible??) by just seeing if they shoot you... and altering the way the game works to perform how you like to play... So hack to win?
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not condoning Asp's point, but it is absolutely valid. The change he is stating is very little work for a large 'reward' and cannot be called a cheat since every computer user has the right to limit who has access to their computer and network. Since the basis of this game is peer-to-peer this action is not preventable, or actionable, by the devs. His point stands that if someone wants to play in Open and avoid people it can be done quite simply.
So many people seem to have completely overlooked my point in that I don't participate in such activity - I merely point it out.
Of course, anyone could do this very easily, the execution is trivial, and if at any point FD are tempted to remove the freedom of Solo mode for those who choose to use it, I'll have an absolute field day with it.
Of course, anyone could do this very easily, the execution is trivial, and if at any point FD are tempted to remove the freedom of Solo mode for those who choose to use it, I'll have an absolute field day with it.
Love how you use words like "cheat" and "hack". Clearly you have no idea.
Using my router in the way it was designed to be used is neither cheating or hacking - it just shows I actually read that little book that came with it - the "manual".
You can also do the same with a software firewall, Zone Alarm for instance. 5 minutes to set up and you're in open yet on your own - that is also free of charge.
Frontier cannot tell you who can or cannot connect to your computer, only your ISP has that power - even then, only if you break any laws (which this does not).
My computer, my rules. Don't like it, then stop trying to force yourself on me - simple.
Also, FD have always maintained - I can choose who I play with.
Kickstarter said:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=169599&page=95&p=2649994&viewfull=1#post2649994
And there, to me, is the answer: most players liked doing things other than pvp. So they let the pvpers have their own little pvp universe and... it hollowed out, just like we see in open now. THAT appears to me to be "emergent behavior" - players reacting to the game world with their own actions. It appeared that most UO players didn't really feed off pvp (and in fact the player base expanded!).
I don't know why the "emergent behavior" thing seems to always be about pvp. There are other player actions/behaviors (such as the Fuel Rats, the Explorers group, Canonn & many others) I'd put in the "emergent behavior" column.
If open is "rotting away" "a ghost town" because many players choose not to play in it unless they deliberately seek pvp, well, that appears to be evidence that perhaps the "pvp over all" crowd doesn't have the numbers they think they do, and do not represent the bulk of current players, so why should they be catered to on this issue?
After many, many hours in Freelancer I decided to adopt "stay frosty" instead of "be cool" as an expression IRL :O
Last edited:
Option A: Come up with a technical solution to stop this from happening.
Option B: Accept that it isn't possible to enforce an 'Open Only/Buff Open' play style.
Tick one box only.
Cheers, Phos.
Last edited by a moderator:
It isn't just about sci-fi. It's about multiplayer as a whole. I've been taking part in gaming forums for over a decade and I've always seen this kind of discussion flare up. The one in ED is even fairly tame compared with what I've seen in many other games (including, for example, Star Citizen).
BTW, main reason I don't even consider purchasing Battlefront? Lack of a single-player campaign worthy of the game's price.
- Status