Can't say that would be a good move for the game myself.
- Status
Can't say that would be a good move for the game myself.
I can. I know that some people saw a chance to be a pilot and face other pilots face to face. It has a charm. But to insist that everyone, all of the time, has to play that way is where I draw the line. Open does what it can to offer you that. In general I don;t think that meaningful PvP, or piracy, is anathema to the Multi-mode advocated. It's the rogue killers, and the 'this is my space' types that upset things. Pigeon holing players is the fastest way to cause animosity. My side shouldn't think all your side wants is to put our eyes out, and your side shouldn't think that anyone not in open is hiding. It's much more diverse than that on both sides. Look for the fairness in things and go from there, not just the part that sticks in your paw.
Even those players who shout "hur dur dis MY SPCE 0 u joyn ma CR3W ur U DI!" can be easily laughed at.
They don't like being laughed at. Which is why I laugh at them.
They don't like being laughed at. Which is why I laugh at them.
it is good to thrive on directly opposing bigger forces, in a game that is built that way. Elite Dangerous is not that game though. People object to you trying to change the game to be that way. I loved the single player campaing in Battlefield 2 Bad Company 2. Battlefield 3 and 4 didn't continue on with it, I don't have a right to go on their forums and demand they change the games and make Bad Company 3 & 4 because I missed the storyline and want it to continue.
If you had come into the thread with, "I have thought up a few new ideas and how they could work, here they are." You would have gotten a utterly different response. People may have disagreed with you but it would have been a discussion. Have you ever heard of every action has an equal and opposite reaction? You came in hostile you reaped it back, some even tried to stem it, but nope you had to be hostile and perdictibly you blame others for an environment you created.
Hold up as many mirrors as you like, I know what you are insinuating by your so wrong it is laughable.
Open offers you that experience. What has to happen is the resentment of Solo and Group needs to be toned down. Elite was also advertized to allow freedom of movement between the modes.
Absolutely nobody here is asking for a dilution of that. Those who choose to seek multiplayer experiences can find them. The cutthroat universe exists. All that people are asking for is to defend their ability to play the way they want to in-game, without involving other people.
Surely that is not an unreachable compromise?
But Atak, urm, erm, you can't do that. You (and your latent group) can only play in the modes that FD provides, right?
And that is part of the issue, you claim we won't bend on the issues which is not entirely true, but you won't bend at all. It is your way or no way.
No problem I am always up for a honest debate. I thank you for listening as well. I hope you can find an answer that doesn't destroy the status quo. We should search for the middle ground. Good luck out there.
Nonya
Banned
And if they were separate you would still be able to play in both. You could stop playing in Solo and move over to Open. It's just that anything you did in Solo would not carry over and vice-versa. It's not "stopping" you from playing one or the other. It's not as if you started playing in Open you're suddenly banned from playing Solo - or vice-versa.
I will cut and paste an answer to this very question I wrote not very long ago. Forgive any references that don;t match with your post, or the discussion as it stands.
"From a philosophical point of view it's because the developers promised a seamless transition through the modes. I jump between the modes as my ability, and interests change. If I'm working to support a faction or a power my efforts would only show up in the mode I was playing in for that session. Split the BGS and effectively you penalize players for exploring what all of the modes have to offer. The BGS and PP, like we have in Elite are not for small fries. One player could never have an effect on any system that large. So, a BGS for the solo players would be useless. There are too many reasons people play in solo to just brush them off as negligible. I suggest that, how things are now, open's population couldn't really support the BGS on it's own. That there is one galaxy for all is as much a practical decision, as it is a philosophical one. But, I support it on the philosophical level. One galaxy, play as you like."
Isn't that CQC? PvPalooza, seperate from the other modes.
Nonya
Banned
No it wouldn't. Bad reviews of it being crippled and an exodus of players would sink it.
It's called "economics". When a software company no longer has enough revenues coming in to keep the servers running while still making enough of a profit to make the whole venture worthwhile, the software dies.
PvP'ers tend to talk to their friends and get them to buy the game so they'll have more power in their wings to take on other players.
Eventually even the PvE crowd would get bored and leave too since even now it looks like any changes to the AI have been put on the back burner with recent personnel moves within FDEV itself.
Do you think EVE would still be around if it completely got rid of PvP? No one would remember it ever existed except as a bad joke.
Do you think WoW could exist as a PvE-only game? Nope.
Humans WANT to battle other humans online, period. And they are greater in numbers than the PvE-only crowds. Look at any PvE-only game released and you'll see that the two most-asked questions of the devs for that game are a) when will we get multiplayer and b) when will we get PvP?
The only exceptions to the PvE-only games are RPGs because they are marketed and sold as single-player RPGs and the buyers know there won't be any MMO/PvP aspect to it.
But that's NOT how ED was marketed now, was it?
They have created a whole new PVP arena for them
Nonya
Banned
Wow. Horribly wrong on a lot of points in here.
Nothing would prevent you from jumping from solo to open and vice-versa. It won't "lock you in" to only using one mode having a separate BGS for each. If anything, it would allow you to experiment even more without risk to the primary mode you play in. Try something in Open and if it doesn't work jump back to your primary game in Solo and not do it there.
No it wouldn't. It only shows up in that mode (aka "save") but it persists past play sessions. If you farm a million credits in solo and quit the game those million credits will still be there waiting for you when you log back in.
Wrong. Again, if anything it gives them an "extra life" to use for experimentation with less risk to their primary game mode.
Wrong. The separate BGS would be for both solo AND private groups - again, I repeat, same BGS for both - would exist. If you wanted friendos to play with you without the risk of PvP then you go into a private group that is on the same BGS as Solo.
Wrong again. My own independent research on the matter using the Mobius group as the example shows that the vast majority of the Mobius player-base is actually playing IN OPEN! I know, it shocked me too as I scrolled down the player list and saw that player after player was listed as currently playing in OPEN. The rest were in Private Groups and a tiny minority were in Solo.
The definition of what you're asking for seems to be pretty narrow now imo, and somewhat antithetical to some of the primary philosophies of ED as I understand them. No reason you can't ask for it, but you could also ask for this from any other game with as much expectation of results.
- Status