Or, simply accept the fact that the differing game modes are here to stay and move past that and start looking at what aspects of the game you enjoy.
- Status
Or, simply accept the fact that the differing game modes are here to stay and move past that and start looking at what aspects of the game you enjoy.
I wish I could rep all your recent posts. But this last one makes me laugh mainly because "risk" has been thrown about so much... by those who never really had risk in the first place.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Which would be what I suggest, but to each their own.
A the current rate, that should open OvS&PG MK VI in mid 2017. I don't think you thought that comment through.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If the game was designed around PvP and required it as part of core gameplay then your gut feeling might have proved to be the case. However, a player can reach Elite in the three in-game ranks without firing a shot at a player (and can reach two of them without firing a shot at all). There are three game modes, available to all players on a session by session basis, that allow the likelihood of encountering other players to be chosen by the player (i.e. none, members of the Private Group, all players in Open) - if the game revolved around PvP then there'd only be Open play.
The fact that the dedicated PvP only game feature is an extra game mode that does not impact the single shared galaxy state directly (and only affects a player's Commander in terms of credits and the fourth rank) would suggest that while Frontier are happy to cater to players who want guaranteed PvP, they have not done that in-game, rather with an extra game mode.
Maybe something can be done outside of the game world by looking at a players behaviour/stats and joining them to an instance of the game that might suit them?
EG: -People who carry a lot of cargo but rarely shoot are put into "trader" instances. People who dogfight a lot are put into "Bounty hunter/Pirate" instances. Transparently to the player, of course. Also players with lots of experience go into different instances to newbies - especially if the player is violent.
To be honest, though, the main thing I'd change is that when you micro-jump you get a random station within 100 LY to respawn at. That would mean you'd be unlikely run into the same player again, so if they're harassing you they'll probably not be able to do it for long.
EG: -People who carry a lot of cargo but rarely shoot are put into "trader" instances. People who dogfight a lot are put into "Bounty hunter/Pirate" instances. Transparently to the player, of course. Also players with lots of experience go into different instances to newbies - especially if the player is violent.
To be honest, though, the main thing I'd change is that when you micro-jump you get a random station within 100 LY to respawn at. That would mean you'd be unlikely run into the same player again, so if they're harassing you they'll probably not be able to do it for long.
Interesting idea. However, one possible issue is that people may want to play different roles on different days. Meek trader on Wednesday, gritty miner pirate on Thursday, and crank things up to become a ferocious pirate on the weekend, etc.
Cheers, Phos.
I switch between those activities and more in one evening, let alone the fact I like shooting stuff when in my trading ship. Personally speaking, no thanks.
If I may ask, how would this be better than a Open PVE, Open PVP where people can choose where they want to play at the time?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Found this in the Xbox One forum (my emphasis):
So, it would seem that while Private Groups have not yet made an appearance on the Xbox One version of the game, their lack does not represent any shift in Frontier's stance, rather it would seem to be due to technical challenges in their implementation on that platform.
So, it would seem that while Private Groups have not yet made an appearance on the Xbox One version of the game, their lack does not represent any shift in Frontier's stance, rather it would seem to be due to technical challenges in their implementation on that platform.
Last edited:
It also shows why PC and XBox players being in the same instance isn't likely. On the PC they can do anything they want; on the XBox "it's not as straight forward" and they have "multiple dependencies". Keeping the clients in sync, thus, is very hard to do without delaying PC patches and feature releases to match the tied down XBox version.
(Which is kinda obvious. Both Sony and Microsoft want to keep the experience bug free due to consumer experience and, more important, their requirement of keeping their hardware locked; bugs in games are often the entry door for jailbreaking and modding consoles, as was with the 3DS. Due to that, there's far more rigorous, and third-party audited, testing for anything released to the consoles.)
Last edited:
Well, that's good news for XB1 players.
Now will Mobius be making the XB1 group, or is someone else taking up that... erm... honour?
(* = Bold and underline added to highlight, not in the original quote which was plain text)
Boo Hiss, I thought you were posting a link to the SOG support group! it has been quiet
.Sorry, what was that? private groups on the Xbox you say, FD giving the Xbox players the same CHOICES as the rest of us, Hurrah for the Xbox CMDR's. All modes equal rings a bell.
I hope Mobius dodges that bullet (honour), geez how many mouses (mice) did he wear out accepting people already (that's a lot of lost play time o7).
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh if had found this thread I wouldn't have opened one myself. My bad.
To the people from the recently closed thread who asked why I even bothered
to create it if I knew it was a dead horse:
Like I said in the thread opener, I just wanted to make my opinion heard.
Yes the devs already said no, but many have gone back on their initial
answer and changed something after all.
And at least now, if someone says something along the lines of "Well if you
complain about it, have done something to incite change?" I can say I have.
To the people from the recently closed thread who asked why I even bothered
to create it if I knew it was a dead horse:
Like I said in the thread opener, I just wanted to make my opinion heard.
Yes the devs already said no, but many have gone back on their initial
answer and changed something after all.
And at least now, if someone says something along the lines of "Well if you
complain about it, have done something to incite change?" I can say I have.
Last edited:
Since no action by solo or group effect you directly, and sometimes even benefit you, why do you belief there is justification for expecting the expenditure that would have to be done and the whole lot of extra work in keeping two universes going storywise? This is something that no open only advocate has ever really answered to any satisfaction.. it always comes down to anything happening in the BGS they feel they are justified in seeing and shooting, even when if there was a Open Only Verse they still wouldn't be able to say 90% of the time.. so there would still be "ghost" people affecting your BGS just as if you were still in the original BGS.
So again.. please justify
I struggle a bit to put it into words ( non-native and all that ), but I wonder why I need to justify my opinion.
How should I put this... I never expected FD to act upon my opinion in a direct manner. I just want to add
one more voice to the pond of people that vote in favor of two seperate universe.
If you want me to elaborate what I hope to gain from this, I guess for me personally it boils down to choice.
As it is now I only have the choice to counter other players actions in the BGS by "pushing harder" myself,
but I can't hinder my opponent from pushing.
For this reason I like how people used the turmoil mechanic in the last cycle.
Pranav Antal has pushed so hard to obtain Kenna and fought out over 700% advance over the opposition.
And in the end it was all meaningless, because they were sent into turmoil.
That the possibility for this exists is really cool and I would like to see more like that.
If other people fight in Violents Protests to push their faction I would like to be able to dissrupt them directly.
Spy on them, do intelligence runs. Be able to achieve something by thinking outside the box, not only
in Powerplay, but in other aspects too.
As of now, I feel like I am treading on beaten paths, with no option to stray.
Now that I think about it, it was like this for the whole of ED from when I started playing back in 2014.
Back then the experience was so shallow and to a degree it still is.
But I digress.
In terms of justifying the extra work on FD side, I couldn't care less.
I respect that the extra workload is a reason for them to say no, but if or if not
a feature is hard to implement is not my concern, after all I don't demand change, I voice my opinion.
If I demanded change that would look very different and also I am not entitled to it, however
I am entitled to voice my opinion and suggestions to the developers and the developers are
entitled to say no.
Ninja edit: Entitled is maybe a too strong word for what I meant in
the last sentence, I guess allowed would fit it better, but not perfectly.
Last edited:
I never said you needed to, I was asking you to as the argument for never seems able to be justified.
The thing we keep trying to explain though is even if there was a second universe that was open only, you would still mostly only be able to counter other's actions by "pushing harder". You would have about the same amount of opportunities to hinder your opponents as you currently do in Open.
This is because of the way connections to the universe are handled and the match making. You can have 2 people in open, in the same system, doing opposite things.. but they are put in separate instances.
You can... in the current Background Simulation just as you saw in Kenna last cycle, it doesn't require a whole new universe for it to happen.
so again the argument for open only pretty much boils down to pvp....and hoping your target and you are in the same instance
I am not trying to sound mean, but this last part.. doesn't make ED look shallow, but you. Yes you are allowed to voice your opinion, we all are, but I disagree with you. When we voice our opinion and suggestions.. not caring about the effects if those opinions were attempted seems shallow to me. But that is my opinion on it, I could be wrong. I would love to make it so that those who loved PVP could feel better about the game, maybe there could be a way to connect CQC to it? Make it reflect CZ's or something? Open PP Battles or maybe interdiction of spies?
Even if there was an open-only universe, you would never be guaranteed to meet everyone. For example, PC and XBox players share the same universe but can't see each other. The same is true for people that live far from each other, or that have bad connections, thanks to how the matchmaking works — and, in fact, it's possible to manipulate the matchmaking so you never see anyone else despite playing in Open.
So, it still wouldn't "fix" how other players can do actions without you getting the chance to directly counter them, spy on them, etc.
And fixing that isn't just a matter of being a lot of work. It's a matter of physical impossibility. You can't have a single worldwide server in a fast paced game, not without causing plenty of lag issues.
I cant believe this thread still exists, I must of been here 40+ days ago at least, laughing at people defending this poor excuse for a Sandbox MMORPG.
But to answer your statement about "no action by solo or group effect you directly"
If traders are trading in Solo, and there is less people in Open - then it does effect me because It takes longer to find people. Now, if they play and stay in Solo 100% of the time - That's totally fine because Solo was made for that reason IMO (You know, a replacement for OFFLINE mode). But even people who PVP in Open use Solo because it's more efficient, thus less people in PowerPlay systems or CG's because they are busy farming ezpez AI in Solo.
Now, I'm no pirate and certainly think the Open crime system is garbage (The only traders in Open are masochists IMO). But to say Solo/Private has zero effect on Open is total rubbish. This is just one of the many dozen examples. Why bother making a trading wing with Escorts when you can just run 4 Traders in Private Group for 10% more group profit? Of course, on the other side of the fence there is no gameplay for pirates either.
It's like the Trammel fiasco in Ultima Online , Instead of fixing the pvp-system, griefing (if you want to call it that) or crime system. They just gave everyone a pvp-off switch. What happened? Every single trader, miner, lumberjack, crafter and monster-hunter (PVE player) went into Trammel while Felucca and emergent gameplay rotted and died. There was zero point to doing any non-pvp activity in Felucca. (Anyone who played Sandbox MMO's in the 90's and early 00's will know the story of Ultima)
Last edited:
I wonder why you want to convince me that my opinion is wrong,
because it really seems that way to me.
Also you criticize and accuse me of being shallow because I don't think of
the consequences.
I am aware of the instancing problems, of the additional workload for the devs,
the problems with XB1, that it could and probably will split the playerbase,
that they would have to go back on a few things they said during the backing phase.
I could imagine that I even know more overall cons than pros.
But I don't invalidate them. They are there and they are probably the reasons why it isn't happening.
I understand that.
Yet many of the main reasons I read were of technical nature, but I don't really see
why these would be substanical arguments in a player discussion.
Technical problems that would arise from implementing features only concern the developers.
It could even be that every player agrees that a change would be benificial and it still wouldn't
be implemented, because the devs are not able to do it.
They are still valid concerns and hurdles of course, but I sometimes wonder
why player cite them.
You only state one interesting argument
that is really worth to discuss:
The consequences.
I wonder what the consequences would be.
A split playerbase is obvious.
Furthermore it could be that players even quit because
they want a social experience and go open, just to be heavily harassed by players.
I can see that possibility, it doesn't mean it would come true, but it's there.
And this brings us to the end
Something I sadly see many a time in internet discussions
( weirdly enough it doesn't happen so often face to face ).
You explained it and I understood it, but that doesn't necessarily mean
that it changes my opinion.
If I had seen this post before I created the thread I made,
I would have probably just written "I vote for seperated universe" after reading through it
for some pages.
So pretty much PVPers run everyone away to play in other areas then complain that they have no targets..
And Trammel wasn't a fiasco, it allowed players to actually play the game instead of logging in and hoping some PKer didn't spot them and destroy them just for kicks... You keep blaming everyone for the issues with PVP except the ones who were truly the problem. Some think that online means they can do anything they want and be as big a jerk as they can be, then they are surprised and whine when others pack up their things and play elsewhere so they don't have to deal with the idiots.
You call it a fiasco.. the rest of the gaming community saw it as fixing the problem with UO..
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I don't need to convince you, I am just explaining why what you want won't work..and why the justification from the Open Only side still has not happened at all. And at what point did I call you shallow? I never did... I pointed out that what you said did not make FD look shallow, but you. You say that English is not your native language, you are doing well with it, but there is a difference in saying that you look shallow and actually criticizing you and saying that you are shallow. Which I never did.
- Status