That would be cool.
I don't think game development is really my 'thing'. Although, there was a time when I really wanted to. I'm slowly developing an ED companion app as a side project now. That's close enough.
- Status
That would be cool.
I don't think game development is really my 'thing'. Although, there was a time when I really wanted to. I'm slowly developing an ED companion app as a side project now. That's close enough.
In fairness, Khelder (Oh my, did I really make that pun?) I can see the imbalance. However, there is a counterbalance. That counterbalance is Wings. A Solo player, who plays Solo not by choice, of which there are a handful: Due to technical reasons (poor hardware, lack of uPNP, bandwidth concerns) or personal reasons (Disability, being a old sod with just a keyboard) These people cannot join up in a wing. And so fairness is served by using a counterbalance.
Of course there is the other aspect of fair. Which is this: Each person pays the same amount of money for the game. Those categories I mention above, do the same. Should they then find that their efforts are invalidated by which mode they work in. They might even be a part of a community. Just because they do not see each other in an instance, does not mean they are not playing in the same sandbox.
It is a testament to FDev that they have served equality (in terms of disability) well by being inclusive. If they ever changed this, I guarantee there would be a vicious backlash on this.
Of course there is the other aspect of fair. Which is this: Each person pays the same amount of money for the game. Those categories I mention above, do the same. Should they then find that their efforts are invalidated by which mode they work in. They might even be a part of a community. Just because they do not see each other in an instance, does not mean they are not playing in the same sandbox.
It is a testament to FDev that they have served equality (in terms of disability) well by being inclusive. If they ever changed this, I guarantee there would be a vicious backlash on this.
I don't know if you can say that Wings is a true counterbalance. It's optional (and not always available) for a start so it is only an advantage for those who take it. Solo players have already taken the advantage (so to speak) of player avoidance. Wings, if anything, is just another reason why the modes are not equal. For arguments sake, I'm not really concerned with which mode is safer, more fun, whatever. They're just different.
The aspect of everyone paying the same amount... same response as to Jockey. That's an out-of-game issue.
I do agree that FD have been more inclusive by going down the path they have. I'll rep them for that.
Wings, like the "added risk of other players" - is optional.
It is a choice we make when we login.
We all can play Solo, Group or Open and all get the same experiences as each other.
Cannot say fairer than that - letting us all do the same, have the same, be the same - if we choose to do so.
Yes. On an individual scale, everyone has the same options available to them (network handicaps and XBox players aside). It's only when you look at it from a group level playing in a particular mode (any mode really) that there is a minor issue.
The more concerning thing for me now is that the server API is written in PHP!
Last edited:
<squints> What's wrong with PHP?
I played as part of the AEDC group for a while, and I can only play in Solo at present (not a choice thing.) Nothing stopped me being part of that group and undertaking the various activities that group presented us with, despite my mode.
Here we go... or not...
Definitely looks like not on this occasion.
Definitely looks like not on this occasion.
Last edited:
There's no reason why a group of players has to have an issue with different modes. It's just that some do. Hence this thread.
Here's a good rant: PHP: a fractal of bad design
I use C#, personally (and professionally).
There's no reason why a group of players has to have an issue with different modes. It's just that some do. Hence this thread.
Ah. But does having an issue with the different modes mean there is something wrong with the modes, or just that players have issues. (Shrink advised...
)I moved from VB.Net to C# a couple of years ago. I still have to maintain VB.Net stuff but I'm much glad to move.
The problem with a compiled languages is the rapid development methodology that comes with text based beats compiled hands down. With text based sites (PHP, ASP Classic) you can fix on the fly and update without having to throw everyone's session out the window during the reset.
Using the definition that I gave, the only way to really make it fair (or even/whatever) would be to have separate BGS for the different modes. But, as has already been discussed by others (as well as myself), that would come with a whole lot of downsides. That's why I support the mode status quo.
Right - time for a virtual drink. \~/ Cheers. Mine's the mighty black stuff from St James' Gate.
Ah. But does having an issue with the different modes mean there is something wrong with the modes, or just that players have issues. (Shrink advised...
We all have issues.
Sorry. I refuse to have anything to do with VB.Net.
Tempting as I'm sure it is sometimes, "fix on the fly" is one of those things I generally try to avoid.
We all have issues.
Sorry. I refuse to have anything to do with VB.Net.
We all have to start somewhere...
Tempting as I'm sure it is sometimes, "fix on the fly" is one of those things I generally try to avoid.
In a perfect world and all that... I'm all for module testing and QA and proving, but when you have a tiny team...
And while the relevant upsides and downsides of various programming languages are fascinating for some, for others they are of little interest, and more importantly, its off-topic.
Back to topic please.
Back to topic please.
In my entire gaming history, not a single NPC has ever threatened to my deceased mother. I can't say the same for PC's. In COD alone my dear late mother has been threatened multiple times. If you look at any game, they clearly state next to the game's rating that online interactions are not rated. That's a huge deal when a game is rated for younger players.
You can have a game that online only and age appropriate, but communication has to be curated. Hearthstone is a good example of this as there is no chat, but players may select from half a dozen pre-defined messages from a wheel.
Last edited:
I used to ride my bike without using my hands because I liked the added challenge. Was it fair that others had it easier by using their hands?
And that is assuming playing in Open is harder or less efficient somehow. Because, well, at least as far as pushing forward one's faction goes, it likely isn't, even now. If you are playing in Open and don't meet anyone you are being just as productive as someone in Solo; if you do meet an opponent, your direct contribution becomes smaller, but you are contributing indirectly by preventing an opponent from contributing, which means your effective contribution to the conflict is still roughly the same as in Solo.
Besides, different players have different local communities they are matched with, or might even not see anyone else due to some misconfiguration on their router/PC/ISP. If you consider that having a different chance of meeting other players makes things unfair, then Open is inherently unfair due to the game's networking model and real world connection issues.
To be fair as you defined it though there would have to be multiple BSG's.. all depending on factors as controllers used, type of internet connection, Operating system..
My empathy drive just got blasted with an alpha strike from an apathy weapon and is limping home in survival mode .
There have been a few suggestions recently that open should be removed, as that is where all the problems / complaints seem to originate from, I avoided posting as it seemed a little too radical even for me.
So my question to our resident games / legal experts (that's not a dig, I know a bit about the UK "sales of goods act", contract law etc but some of you know a lot more about the law and what other games companies have done previously than I ever will).
Where would FD stand legally (and morally if you wish) if they deleted open?
If they created a private group called "open" or "open PVP" alongside another one called "open PVE" I can not see an issue legally (or morally).
All of the players in open are free to rejoin the "open group" and no more arguments as there is no more open vs solo vs groups, just groups, solo & happiness.
And as an added bonus FD would likely save money on the forums storage space, with no open mode there would be a hell of a lot less posts about how solo / groups need to be fixed because they are breaking open. Cowardly, cheating, easy modes etc you know the drill.
.There have been a few suggestions recently that open should be removed, as that is where all the problems / complaints seem to originate from, I avoided posting as it seemed a little too radical even for me.
So my question to our resident games / legal experts (that's not a dig, I know a bit about the UK "sales of goods act", contract law etc but some of you know a lot more about the law and what other games companies have done previously than I ever will).
Where would FD stand legally (and morally if you wish) if they deleted open?
If they created a private group called "open" or "open PVP" alongside another one called "open PVE" I can not see an issue legally (or morally).
All of the players in open are free to rejoin the "open group" and no more arguments as there is no more open vs solo vs groups, just groups, solo & happiness.
And as an added bonus FD would likely save money on the forums storage space, with no open mode there would be a hell of a lot less posts about how solo / groups need to be fixed because they are breaking open. Cowardly, cheating, easy modes etc you know the drill.
Sorry. I'm not directly answering your question. I'm no legal expert and I try to avoid thinking about it if I can. The thought of people willing to take legal action against a game company because they changed the game (core feature or not) just infuriates me.
My main thought was that I don't think creating an "open group" would really resolve anything. You're just rearranging the furniture. The only change that would resolve the argument (I think) would be to remove PvP. Keep Open as a way to interact with others. But Open technically becomes Open PvE. That would take away the "I can't challenge them face-to-face" argument because there would no longer be any way to "challenge". It would also upset a lot of people. Which would probably lead back to the legal thing. *facepalm*
FD: "Sorry gamers, we've had to delay Horizons. We needed some additional storage to maintain surface data, but we seem to have run out. There's this thread...."
- Status