Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The thread needs to exist - it is the merge target for all of the new threads with "new" arguments in favour of changing the game to suit a particular playstyle....
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
The thread needs to exist - it is the merge target for all of the new threads with "new" arguments in favour of changing the game to suit a particular playstyle....
The three people who only and exclusively play Solo wouldn't care, that's right. The thousands of players who like to change between modes occasionally, however... Those see this as a bad thing.
Also why keep people forgetting the group mode? If some friends want to play together, do they get a third instance, or are they thrown together into the galaxy of Solo? Together with Open? Also what if those people are all Open-players and only occasionally form a group, do they need to buy two accounts now, one for group mode, one for Solo? (Or one for Open, if group-mode instance is the same as Solo.) Hey, let's force them to have three accounts if everything gets it's own instance. I see no problem with that. Frustrating players until they stop playing is a good thing, right?
Do you see where this is going? The entire idea of making several instances of the same galaxy just so a few sociopaths are feeling better (and I'm including the crazies only playing Solo and demanding changes only good for them, too), is insane.
Last edited:
That's completely unfair. Why should one Group affect another group? Every group should have it's own separate instance. Wouldn't be fair otherwise. (But really Open players won't care about this because they don't really want balance and fairness, they only want everyone else to be limited like their own self-imposed abandonment of 66% of the game's options.)
<chuckles>
My apologies to everyone for repeating myself here.
I am an Elite player who plays Solo sometimes, Open sometimes, and Mobius sometimes. I've got a handful of ships, including a fully specced Anaconda, a Type-9, and a pretty impressive Cobra as well as a Python and Clipper currently on bricks. I've got 350,000,000 in the bank too. So you seem to want lock that into Solo and make me play a new CMDR if I go into Open?
While that's not exactly fine with me I but won't argue about it if FD decide to go that route. But one thing I'll never do is touch Open again. Not because I will sulk, not because I hate FD and I'm hurling my toys out of the pram, but simply because I won't be able to play with the ships and assets I've gained when I'm playing Elite.
This idea would see me, and a hell of a lot of other sometimes-Open players like me, abandon Open completely. Is that really what you want?
Last edited:
Yes of course, this is the core point. +1
- - - Updated - - -
No, much better for many of us.
Indirect interaction, though. Players working for different powers don't ever need to meet. It's specifically made to allow players in every mode to contribute.
Only intrinsic advantages of open for those that crave for direct PvP interaction, or the chance of it, at all times. But, in a game where one of the main selling points was the ability to choose who we play with — which implicitly includes the ability to choose who we don't play with — I believe you will find that a fair part of the player base doesn't quite enjoy being forced to fight others against their will.
Intentionally so, I might add. The idea seems to be that players are equally valuable, regardless of the mode they are currently playing in.
If five other players are working against you, then it's quite likely they would win, open mode or not.
Also, if, for enjoying a game, you require being able to hunt down and face any other player, then ED might have been the wrong choice from the start; thanks to how its multiplayer works, there will always be large swaths of the player base that are in open mode, influencing the same galaxy, but you won't be able to ever see. More so now that it's been confirmed that those playing the game's upcoming XBox version will share the same galaxy but be unable to direct interact with those playing the PC version.
It's a truly great mechanic that allows those not interested in direct PvP conflict to keep playing, without having PvPers ruining the game for them. All while allowing PvPers to still play and fight among themselves and find the enjoyment they want.
Unless your enjoyment is killed by knowing you will only ever fight those that have chosen to take part in the PvP.
BTW, comparing it with DoTA is like comparing a sardine with a dolphin. They might have some superficial similarities, but underneath they are completely different. Unless you are asking for Frontier to add some kind of evenly matched, instanced, consequences-free Arena PvP mode to ED
Yes that is exactly what I want.
Why do you play solo sometimes and open others?
- - - Updated - - -
Indirect interaction, though. Players working for different powers don't ever need to meet. It's specifically made to allow players in every mode to contribute.
Only intrinsic advantages of open for those that crave for direct PvP interaction, or the chance of it, at all times. But, in a game where one of the main selling points was the ability to choose who we play with — which implicitly includes the ability to choose who we don't play with — I believe you will find that a fair part of the player base doesn't quite enjoy being forced to fight others against their will.
Intentionally so, I might add. The idea seems to be that players are equally valuable, regardless of the mode they are currently playing in.
If five other players are working against you, then it's quite likely they would win, open mode or not.
Also, if, for enjoying a game, you require being able to hunt down and face any other player, then ED might have been the wrong choice from the start; thanks to how its multiplayer works, there will always be large swaths of the player base that are in open mode, influencing the same galaxy, but you won't be able to ever see. More so now that it's been confirmed that those playing the game's upcoming XBox version will share the same galaxy but be unable to direct interact with those playing the PC version.
It's a truly great mechanic that allows those not interested in direct PvP conflict to keep playing, without having PvPers ruining the game for them. All while allowing PvPers to still play and fight among themselves and find the enjoyment they want.
Unless your enjoyment is killed by knowing you will only ever fight those that have chosen to take part in the PvP.
BTW, comparing it with DoTA is like comparing a sardine with a dolphin. They might have some superficial similarities, but underneath they are completely different. Unless you are asking for Frontier to add some kind of evenly matched, instanced, consequences-free Arena PvP mode to ED
Great, awesome, let the people afraid of PvP not affect real CMDR's. Let them play and affect the galaxy for other people afraid of PvP, but not affect real players.
Last edited:
Why should you be allowed to try to change the game I bought a year ago partly because of some of these features? were you aware this was a part of the game when you bought it? if yes why did you buy it, if no why didn't you research it a little first?
Who's afraid of PvP? I'm sorry to inform you that none of the "Solo players" posting in this thread appear to be afraid of PvP in the slightest. It just isn't what we want from Elite: Dangerous. Partly, in some cases, because it clearly isn't really designed for that primarily. It's not a PvP game why would we want to play it as a PvP game all the time? Clearly it's very unsatisfying if you do that, look at this thread and the one before it.
The intention was that the multiplayer would be mostly cooperative with rare but meaningful PvP. That was David's vision and that's what the majority of design decisions have been based on. Think about it. Look at the game as competitive PvP and then look at it as cooperative multiplayer. Not which you would rather it was, look at what it actual is and isn't. Which has the fewest "balance" issues? Which makes the least sense or needs to most changes to make it work?
Last edited:
So you are afraid of pvp because people are bigger jerks to you than you had hoped. Glad we cleared this up.
We can agree on part of that statement.
Why are you so bothered that we aren't afraid of PvP that you repeatedly ignore us telling you that we aren't? Does it hurt your PvP pride that we aren't scared of you and are just bored by you?
Last edited:
Well I'm sorry you are not hand-held as much as you'd like. Perhaps you should stick to group play or solo play exclusively, it'd be a shame if a real challenge presented itself.
We've reached the point in the debate where it has degenerated (again) into name-calling, which is the end of all civilized discourse.
Thanks for that but it seems that FD gave us that option already, only they allowed us the freedom to choose for ourselves rather than let someone who is blissfully ignorant of our needs decide for us.
(PS. Along with not being afraid of PvP we also aren't affected by your childish name-calling. We don't care what you think except that it misinforms your decisions and suggestions.)
Last edited:
atak2
A
Pretty much, but also imagine that the end score is determined by all lanes, and each lanes individual score is meaningless.
atak2
A
- Status