Apart from the huge range of posts from FD in the OP? Fair enough, that's your opinion which you are certainly entitled to. In the same vein, FD are entitled to theirs and after over 2 and a half years, how's your campaign to split the modes going?
- Status
Apart from the huge range of posts from FD in the OP? Fair enough, that's your opinion which you are certainly entitled to. In the same vein, FD are entitled to theirs and after over 2 and a half years, how's your campaign to split the modes going?
If the cap fits…
Last edited:
Philip Coutts
Volunteer Moderator
Okay folks take a breath and leave the personnel attacks out of this thread please.
Thanks
Thanks
Really, have you not seen the list of words use by open advocates to generalise anyone who does not play exclusively in open?
Cody was keeping a running tab on it;
Cody said:
And Mouse said "get rid of the jerks" - which shows he was not saying every one is one, but you have enough to put people off and need to get them under control.
(Though, "jerk" is a valid style of play, which is why FD will not interfere)
Funny how most open advocates say its a barren waste land
Good job we have one.
Everything you do in open, is worth exactly the same as in Groups and Solo - cannot get more fair than making sure every one can earn the same no matter where they are.
We don't need to argue anything.
Frontier told us we can use our same commander for Solo / Group / Open - which is exactly what they have provided - exactly what they said they would.
I've been posting again and again what FD say on this topic, Nick S seems to understand and you've been around long enough to have seen my wall of information.
It was updated 5 days ago with a new statement by Michael Brookes;
Originally Posted by Michael Brookes
From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.
Michael
How many times do some of us need to tell you, we use all three modes.
When I'm in a bad mood, I play in Solo and ignore all direct messages I recieve (from friends).
When I'm having a normal day and trading / RES camping I play in Mobius.
When I'm having a care free day, I go mining or exploring locally in Open.
I'm using the game how it was advertised and sold to me, and I'm using all the features that are part of the bundle I bought.
This coming from someone who is clearly ignoring the Devs statements on the game and what it is, and saying it should changed to suit you better - despite how many people it would upset.
(And I say clearly as you first started posting in Mk2 thread in the last week of May and I've posted the Dev quotes a few times since then - so you must be ignoring it)
Last edited:
I think you really need to work on other angles of attack other than selective fairness and selective difficulty/risk.
If it was meant to be "fair" FD would have us flying all the same ships with the same weapons and loadout for combat and they'de match by skill - or they match by ship type and skill - and they would only match single player with single player in a private combat instance where no-one else can interfere - or the same thing with equally numbered wings.
They don't do that so we can safely assume "fair" isn't intended to be designed into the game.
Difficulty and risk is measured by relative skill, ship type and weapons, numerical advantage etc. It isn't created by the mode selected.
And those of us defending the status quo don't need to justify it - we got what we bought. The onus is on the people wanting change to make a case for it and so far there doesn't seem to be one compelling enough to change FD's oft stated stance on the matter.
Why? Why does open need to be "more inviting"? All modes are legitimate ways to play. I see no need to make any mode "a privilege". Modes are a choice. not a privilege. As to having to be a certain level to play in open, over 99% of the persistent galaxy, is the same in open, group, and solo. The less then 1% that is "different" is the area where a higher concentration of players hang out. If that less then 1% of the galaxy was >1000ly from the starting systems, I might agree, but since we've been told we can go where we want, when we want, with who we want, probably not.
Open needs to be more inviting because it's more offputting than any other mode. It needs the extra incentive to balance it out, since in many ways there's no incentive to play in open.
The point of this thread should be to reconcile features of the game so that open/solo/group doesn't matter, not to change the features per mode or change the modes themselves. It's pointless to argue about the merits or difficulties of the modes unless you suggest a feature that works the same across all modes.
EDIT: even if open was more difficult/dangerous, who cares? There are no leaderboards, therefore no competition. If you feel you can make better credits in solo, go do that. There's not enough of a difference to matter though.
EDIT: even if open was more difficult/dangerous, who cares? There are no leaderboards, therefore no competition. If you feel you can make better credits in solo, go do that. There's not enough of a difference to matter though.
Last edited:
Your "social interaction" is your "incentive"
Meeting random people is your "incentive"
Putting the "danger" in dangerous is your "incentive"
And they are all based on personal choice. Which the game is based on.
I am perfectly incentivized to play open. The traders have better cargo, are more challenging, and can actually interact. It works out perfectly fine for me, better in fact. The traders I'm stealing from....not so much. You can throw out the word choice all you want, but when one choice is better for some than others it's not a fair choice.
Last edited:
Like wings you mean?
Wings work great for some, like pirates, who increase their chances, reduce their risk, and simply ask for more cargo the more members there are in a wing, not so much for me who doesn't want to be winged up.
So the choice for people to wing up isn't fair.
And how many times have I read: Elite isn't fair, deal with it?
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=169932
Last edited:
4 FDL versus a single Type 6. Please explain how that is "fair"?
Or 4 Vultures who do not speak and just blow up that single Type 9, how is that "fair"?
Forcing traders to stay docked for hours on end, while they try to convince near by players to escort them for the laughable vouchers - how is that "fair"?
What choice do peaceful players have when griefers ram kill them, or glitch out in a station and spend hours killing people through walls - what choice do other players have then? Besides retreat to Mobius or Solo until cheaters are dealt with.
Not an apt comparison, Wings have both upsides and downsides. They are also balanced across all professions, every role can benefit from being in a wing.
Last edited:
I agree with all of what you're saying. None of that is fair. That's why I'm saying add some extra incentive to open, because all that stuff does or can potentially happen. Right now it's all downside for noncombat players in open with very little to no upside.
Last edited:
heheh, sure JC
Suggestions? It's easy to see that open could be more appealing, but much harder to come up with suitable changes.
So, what kind of incentives are you thinking about that only affect non-combat players? Something in the line of:
a 10% decrease on FSD cooldown time?
a 10% decrease on FSD warm up time?
a 20% decrease on being subject to being masslocked?
That kind of thing?
Last edited:
Again words like "offputting" add nothing to the discussion unless you provide specifics. what puts "you" off, may be attractive to someone else.
If someone finds "no incentive to play in open", then don't play in open. It can't get any simpler then that.
- Status