again this imaginary advantages.....
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
again this imaginary advantages.....
Maybe it's time for another sockpuppet purge 
like the pole takers for political questions that go to upscale shopping centers to ask what it is that poor people need to do to get out of poverty.
random sampling at it's best.
What I meant was not necessarily that it was easier to 'kill' NPC's as that's skill related and of course players have a range of skills, but rather that they can't kill you.
This is evident in the fact they take 10 mins to kill something like a Sidewinder.
I think the main point for me is that I never see any players, regardless of the cause or any fixes or any argument in this thread.
I want my galaxy alive with players, that really brings it alive for me.
Ideally I'd want every NPC not to exist, for them all to be players (never going to happen of course).
I'm only 5 jumps max from space controlled by powers, sometimes I go into their territory even, I just never see anyone!
I'm no pirate, I've never even had a PvP fight other than an agreed skirmish to down shields once.
Can someone confirm how high a ping is required to be 'matched' in game?
I'm wondering if it's simply set too low.
Or everyone is in Solo..
This is evident in the fact they take 10 mins to kill something like a Sidewinder.
I think the main point for me is that I never see any players, regardless of the cause or any fixes or any argument in this thread.
I want my galaxy alive with players, that really brings it alive for me.
Ideally I'd want every NPC not to exist, for them all to be players (never going to happen of course).
I'm only 5 jumps max from space controlled by powers, sometimes I go into their territory even, I just never see anyone!
I'm no pirate, I've never even had a PvP fight other than an agreed skirmish to down shields once.
Can someone confirm how high a ping is required to be 'matched' in game?
I'm wondering if it's simply set too low.
Or everyone is in Solo..
Last edited:
Maybe it's time for another sockpuppet purge
I was thinking the same, as some posts recently are exact copies of posts I've seen before under other user names.
I love the one that starts "I don't normally post....." Seen that 4 times now for this one topic
....
Or everyone is in Solo..
It could be your router settings or firewall. Is your uPNP working? Is your firewall set to block new connections?
How about where you are playing, have you tried hot spot areas like Lave?
There are a lot of reasons you may not see anyone, besides Solo Mode.
Not quite:
- Separate servers in WoW, nowadays, are more about having different communities than preventing players from jumping over. In fact, you can just group with someone from a different server and go play in that group's server — which allows, for example, you to pick your PvP character and join a PvE group for some leveling in a PvE server.
- Not only leveling can be done in WoW exclusively in non-contested (PvP-disabled) zones and instances, about everything that offers good rewards in WoW is instanced anyway, with very few exceptions. PvP rewards are to be earned in instanced Arenas and instanced Battlegrounds, and PvE rewards are mostly earned in instanced Dungeons and instanced Raids. Ever since LFD was introduced in WoW, half a decade ago, the difference between PvP and PvE servers for leveling became meaningless.
- Many games don't separate players from PvP and PvE servers at all. Either because they allow players to freely move between them (Ultima Online, for example, added that option back in 1999, DCUO did it in 2011, Runescape launched in 2001 with that option already in place, etc) or because the game simply doesn't allow PvP in the open world and instead restricts it to arenas and battlegrounds (GW2, Marvel Heroes, The Secret World, Lord of the Rings Online, etc).
So, what you have described not only isn't true nowadays, much of it was never true at all, even back when most devs seemed to think players leveling in a PvE server had an unfair advantage — a notion that nowadays has much less support than when WoW launched.
How about introducing new servers for Open play only. I think it would make the game a lot more interesting.
CQC is basically described as this. A separate set of instances, unconnected to the BGS, with PvP as it's goal.
I'd prefer to see elite compared to eve rather then wow. In eve you have safe core zones, but venture out and it gets quite risky. I think this adds an element of risk and also excitement. Something like this could be implemented in Elite.
I think the solo modes and open play modes should at some stage be separated.
Actually I think it would make it less interesting. It would make the universe less dynamic for a start and make GalNet a mess.
Last edited:
And I think DBOBE quite recently said that aint gonna happen
(hint, the quotes section of post 3)
Last edited:
the problem is that prolly wont have many players on it anyway lol ;p
How much more danger? How much better is a player than an NPC? Which player do you use? Me? You probably need to make the NPCs easier then. It's purely subjective.
That's exactly my point. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that exactly 50% of players are in Open and in Solo. Split the universe in two. Only Solo affects Solo, only Open affects Open. Each universe will have half as many players and half as much influence on the galaxy. The galaxy will be half as dynamic as it currently. Each system has a potential of two states - one owner in Solo, one in Open. GalNet will have two narratives. And that's purely a 50/50 split. No-one has come up with a realistic way to treat Groups in this mythical server Utopia, apart from "let Solo/Group share" which makes no sense because it's just an alias for "we only care about Open".
I certainly hope not. Like I, and many others, said repeatedly, ED isn't EVE with joysticks; if it was, I would never have purchased it or supported it in any way.
BTW, the concept of safe zones without PvP and dangerous zones with PvP only works for either players that want easy PvE, or players that want hard PvE with some PvP mixed in; it offers nothing, at all, for players like me, that want hard PvE but no PvP. Implementing that is very much like saying players like me are not welcome in the game.
I'm not against this. But I don't think it would have many players in it, the same way in UO there are far less people playing in the Siege Perilous shards (which don't have the different PvP and PvE world for players to switch between) than in the conventional shards.
It is quite funny.
FD can 100 times explicitly say that there will only one server set (galaxy simulation) for Open, Group, Solo, XBox Open, XBox Group, XBox Solo, lastly they explicitely confirmed this at E3 and yet, there is born another player every day, who start babbling about Solo/Open separation, using the same non-sense arguments 1000x again and again.
Maybe it should be mandatory the read the whole thread from beginning, before posting same things once again.
FD can 100 times explicitly say that there will only one server set (galaxy simulation) for Open, Group, Solo, XBox Open, XBox Group, XBox Solo, lastly they explicitely confirmed this at E3 and yet, there is born another player every day, who start babbling about Solo/Open separation, using the same non-sense arguments 1000x again and again.
Maybe it should be mandatory the read the whole thread from beginning, before posting same things once again.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Mode switching as a perceived problem has been discussed. Any feature of the game will be used by players with the intent of maximising some aspect of their play, whether it be mode switching to engage in unopposed (by players, that is) farming or possibly zapping Sidewinders in a vastly OP ship (just because they can). Does this mean that mode switching needs to be restricted? Not in my opinion - it would detract from the "play the game how you want to" encouragement from Frontier and also it would seem to contradict DBOBE's recent comments regarding the fact that there is, in his opinion, no "right" way to play the game.
Regarding players choosing not to play in Open - there is, as we have been told again recently, no "right" way to play the game - if players in Open feel that it is lacking other players there's not a whole lot that can reasonably be done about it - players are permitted the freedom to choose which game mode to play in on a session by session basis.
A mode switching timer would probably, in my opinion, reduce the Open population further - some players would probably not want to be bothered with an arbitrary restriction on their freedom of choice as to which game mode to play in so would probably tend to stick to one rather - if a player has any reason not to play in Open then it may well be Open that suffers from such a restriction. Also, I would not expect that an arbitrary mode switching delay would deter the Min/Max player in the slightest - they will probably farm in their chosen mode and schedule their Open play to coincide with others of their ilk.
Changing the contribution rates of each mode to CGs (or more recently Powerplay) has been mentioned before - the last clear statement on the topic was from Michael - Frontier have no plans to favour one game mode over the others.
It is quite funny.
FD can 100 times explicitly say that there will only one server set (galaxy simulation) for Open, Group, Solo, XBox Open, XBox Group, XBox Solo, lastly they explicitely confirmed this at E3 and yet, there is born another player every day, who start babbling about Solo/Open separation, using the same non-sense arguments 1000x again and again.
Maybe it should be mandatory the read the whole thread from beginning, before posting same things once again.
Both threads, people should have to read both threads.
If that does not get the message through, then nothing will
It is quite funny.
FD can 100 times explicitly say that there will only one server set (galaxy simulation) for Open, Group, Solo, XBox Open, XBox Group, XBox Solo, lastly they explicitely confirmed this at E3 and yet, there is born another player every day, who start babbling about Solo/Open separation, using the same non-sense arguments 1000x again and again.
Maybe it should be mandatory the read the whole thread from beginning, before posting same things once again.
If that's your stance then I could also rant about why you even bothered to reply, after all surely your argument has already been said in this thread many times over.
Uou're basically saying we shouldn't give feedback. The more poeple that give feedback the better. Otherwise how are Frontier supposed to know what their player base wants if we don't give our opinion.
- Status