We have to live with one-dimensional NPCs.
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
We have to live with one-dimensional NPCs.
Pictures are overrated, I prefer cave paintings myself.
Well some of them are in solo because they "feel forced" to be there by the aggression of other players - anything familiar sounding about that - "feeling forced" into solo to be effective in CGs/PP for example?
Last edited:
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
We are, of course, but we don't know who's doing it or what mode they are in (or even which platform, soon). Players who prefer direct, rather than indirect, interaction rely on like-minded individuals to choose to play the same way. As we were reminded the other day by DBOBE - there's no "right" way to play the game (even if he himself seems to prefer Open).
Players that don't like to play with others don't rely on the choices of other players to enhance their gameplay. We are not required to be content for other players - we are all told to "play the game how you want to".
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Unless he's on the train I believe?
Good point - the benefits of a low bandwidth game mode and a 3G mobile hotspot....
Good point - the benefits of a low bandwidth game mode and a 3G mobile hotspot....
And the benefits of a game that allows free switching of modes of course.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed....
And that is a problem too.
Depends on your definition of a picture, now doesn't it?Pretty sure a painting is a picture.
OT perhaps but I'd love to see a definition of a picture that doesn't include a painting. (Without adding "not including paintings" on the end.
)
Last edited:
Us our friend Asp said: Procure for me a decent gaming rig, a sufficient internet connection, and electricity to run such. Buy me a copy of the game, negotiate the hours and pay me the going rate and I'll happily be your content. Until then, lulz.
Unless if course your goal is to have the biggest impact on PP, then there is a right way to play.
I don't care if you're my content or not, I only care that those who wish to play in open have as much of an impact as those who don't.
Last edited:
I see your point yes.
I care that those who wish to play in a European or American timezone don't have as much impact as those who play in Japan. Let's face facts, if you're over the far east you're probably playing when the Americans are in bed or the Europeans are all at work. This is a grossly unfair advantage. Maybe EU and US timezone players should get an extra 10% to trades?
Last edited:
That would be by doing as many missions for your Power, earning as many merits, voting most effectively and organising (well) as many other members of the power as possible.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If that is your only goal then the choice seems clear - if you have conflicting goals, i.e. maximum potential impact on PP and Open play then you may have to compromise one of them.
Wanting to play in Open puts those of us who do in the situation where what we want may differ from what any other player that we encounter wants - I, for example, might want to trade away uninterdicted in Open with no shields on a Type-6 - any other player that I encounter may have a different view as to my desire for remaining uninterdicted.
I'm only worried that they were fairly acquired. It's like at a job where you are doing the exact same job with the exact same responsibilities as someone else, yet they get paid more than you. That's just not fair.
Nobody is paid more. Your analogy is flawed. You have one person who prefers to do their paper work at the bar in a night club and another who chooses to work in a quiet private office. Each person is paid the same for each piece of work they complete but the person trying to work at the bar actually gets less done because they are constantly jostled, interrupted and can't concentrate.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It's up to Frontier really - they have included the three game modes, the single shared galaxy state and the ability to switch between game modes on a session-by-session basis in the stated game design since the beginning of the Kickstarter, over two and a half years ago now.
Just the other day, DBOBE gave an interview to Arstechnica at E3 where he reiterated his stance that there is no "right" way to play the game.
The freedom of players to "play the game how you want to" has been granted to all of us - however that freedom does not allow any of us to dictate to others how to play.
Presumably players who choose to play in Open do so to affect other players and in turn be affected by them. To then complain that rate of progress in the game is adversely affected by other players would seem to be a bit of a contradiction.
Last edited:
No. Not now, not ever. Completely non-negotiable, and if you actually have this point of view and isn't just saying this for the sake of argument I'm really grateful the game allows me to simply exclude you from my game.
BTW, the existence of players with that point of view is one of the reasons why many players either eschew Open or demand a way to leave Open whenever they want without punishment. Games are meant to be enjoyable, and playing with those that only find their own enjoyment in ruining it for others isn't exactly enticing.
Yep. When PvP is by consent only it's far more enjoyable. Might be why the most played PvP games, by a really wide margin, are games where PvP is fully consensual.
- Status