Indeed. I really hope no one tells me about that. That would just aggravate me to no end.*Hopes no-one tells Ziggy about the $15000.00 completionist package!*
(yes - actual dollars)
Last edited:
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
this confuse me also a little bit , i only play open and some times i leave a system because of too many commanders and i get little paranoid <-- in a good way , like checking scanners , dont go in a straight line supercruise , check for bountys etc etc. the feeling with me is that more ppl play open since PP ,. but thats ofcourse we are packed in certain systems for a while , wich is a good thing in my opinion.
Last edited:
That's like saying "I prefer to get intimate with people I fancy but if someone chucks enough imaginary money at me I'll do it with anyone that fronts up the cash - but if money didn't exist they'd I'd just do it with anyone anyway!"
So you appear to be suggesting that min/maxers are rent boys/girls - or that they just have a ripcord on their underwear for anyone that gets close enough.
You really have a low opinion of min/maxers, no?
I've been following this thread on and off and occasionally getting involved for months now. I think i have a fairly solid idea of what people have been saying. Nothing new has been said since the first few pages of the original thread on the topic.
The problem is, you want to change the existing system, which FD have said is the way they want it, and the way many people like it, to benefit your preferred playstyle and others like you.
In other words, those who bought into the game knowing what it was, and liking it for what it was, would end up with a different game from what they purchased (hence people also bringing up offlinegate which was a similar thing, if not quite so clear cut).
Those who bought the game and didn't understand what they were buying, and don't like the separation of modes, seem to think they can influence the devs into changing things.
Do you see the problem here?
Again, its a simple question, one you can choose to ignore again, just like you refused to answer my previous question as to whether you understood that some people don't like the idea of separation, and saved some negative responses, by simply saying "Yes" instead of going on the offensive.
Oh yes. And I block all those websites too.
And I'm the pen tester who goes "Really?" *clickety* *click*
Welcome to our world, where we have to explain the core game design over and over and over.........
does not mean we cant say its horrible design
Of course you can. As often as you want (as long as it doesn't become spam).
It would be more constructive though to look for ways to encourage people to play open that doesn't mean separating the modes or making solo or group a second class mode of play. Both of those just lead us back to referring to the dev quotes on page 1.
The thing is, it's only 'horrible design' in your opinion, and many people on this forum and presumably in the game actually think it's very good design, as do the people who made the game.
As Agony_Aunt says, it would be probably be more constructive to try and get people who are already in Open to play with you, rather than continually snipe at the way the game is made. There are posts on the forum doing just that, and they do get responses, and presumably those people are happily interacting in the game right now, having fun.
Trying to force people to play a game in a way that they don't want to will never work, that should be obvious.
A bigger issue is why people think the game is something that is not.
When marketing (and the fan base) insist on selling the game as a sandbox PvP "shape the universe with your actions" type game that some people get the wrong idea.
Elite is not a sandbox. It has no user created content whatsoeveer. Role playing does not equal sandbox.
It is PvP in the absolute weakest sense of the word. Especially when the attacking other players is considered rude or flat out griefing.
The only way the players shape the universe is through PvE grinding faction play.
Maybe people would be less disappointed with the game if it lived up to the false expectations that marketing and the fan base set. Be honest with the public and fewer people will be disappointed ... because fewer people will buy the game.
Stop using buzzwords to the sell the game and sell it for what ever it is suppose to be and people will stop complaining.
This is a problem of expectation management and nothing more.
I know the "Blaze your own trail" slogan, where did they use this one?
even if they had done what u say the expectations still would have been high...
"Shape the world with your actions" is implied when talking about a sandbox particularly when coupled with the notion of PvP.
But of course, we all know that Frontier did not technically lie about anything. The problem is the use of some overloaded buzzwords in marketing. Its not all Frontiers fault. I have heard the fan base refer to it as a sandbox. Up until Powerplay, I thought it was heading towards a true sandbox.
I don't think that now.
I think the most important thing is to be more open about what this game is and what the gameplay is. Its time to stop "selling" and start taking honestly if you ever want this thread to die.
Its a PvE faction game. Combat with players is possible but discouraged.
You can say that all you like, I have no problem with that.
What I have a problem with, is people pretending to like the game, but saying removing core features would make it "better".
It's a load of tosh and everyone knows it. Those people are trying to ruin the game for everyone else because they don't like it, so no one else is allowed to - simple as that.
I don't like the direction Star Citizen is going, so I don't play it. I don't like the way Star Trek Online went, so I no longer play it. I don't like Star Wars Galaxies, so I don't play it.
What I don't do, is be disrespectful to those communities and try to get the core game changed. There are plenty more games out there, some suit my tastes and some don't. I leave the ones I don't like to those who do like them and play the ones I actually like.
Last edited by a moderator:
Whether the game meets your definition of 'sandbox' or not, it was never marketed as "a PvP game". A game in which PvP is possible, certainly, but that doesn't mean PvPers who fixate on the mere mention to the exclusion of all other details and then complain vociferously that it isn't "Deathmatch #5982: This time it's in space!" aren't utterly and totally wrong.
Wait, what? Overloaded buzzwords in marketing?! This is outrageous, I shall call my lawyer upon the instant, this must not be allowed to set a precedent or we'll never be able to trust in hype again!
What can I say, that's marketing for you.
When buying games, you need to check gameplay footage.
And lets be honest, David Braben has described the PvP aspect as rare and meaningful. Before I bought the game I thought there would be even less player interaction than there is. The suggestion was that meeting another player was an event.
So you can't blame him for overselling the PvP part.
Scudmungus
Banned
Dis talk of Sandbox like it bein some kinda proper adjective or somtin.
Closest I gettin, wid real-actual-kinda dictionary:
an
Websters got noting. Oxford got noting. Dem good enough fuh mi.
Rest of yuh mons be right - fah fi yuh own specific definitions of sandbox.
In oder words - wid regards to gamin, there be no agreed consensus regardin de definition of sandbox.
Unless wi be countin dem wo shout loudest as definitive!
Closest I gettin, wid real-actual-kinda dictionary:
an
Websters got noting. Oxford got noting. Dem good enough fuh mi.
Rest of yuh mons be right - fah fi yuh own specific definitions of sandbox.
In oder words - wid regards to gamin, there be no agreed consensus regardin de definition of sandbox.
Unless wi be countin dem wo shout loudest as definitive!
Dis talk of Sandbox like it bein some kinda proper adjective or somtin.
Closest I gettin, wid real-actual-kinda dictionary:
an
Websters got noting. Oxford got noting. Dem good enough fuh mi.
Rest of yuh mons be right - fah fi yuh own specific definitions of sandbox.
In oder words - wid regards to gamin, there be no agreed consensus regardin de definition of sandbox.
Unless wi be countin dem wo shout loudest as definitive!
a Sandbox game.. is like UO or SWG where you were not locked in a path. you could go up down back and forth any way you wanted to.
Scudmungus
Banned
'is like' be a simile, not a definitive definition .
Be representin an mappin yuh experience witin yuh mental modal an attemptin to communicate experiences wid language. Be why so much confusion. Yuh focus on navigation. Mi focus on freedom of opertaion. Example.
Be why dictionaries exist!
Right now, regardin gamin - no definitive definition of term 'sandbox'. Each mon attemptin to place term witin fi dem own mental modal. Be ok. Not be ok when mons state fi dem definition as definitive an wonder why oder mons not agree or no seein what dey meanin.
It all gud. Like luv aal got own way of representin.
Unlike luv, nah wut fightin over.
BUYER BEWARE: When sales person sayin 'it be sandbox11!' - it meanin anytin dey tink dey get away wid!
Last edited:
The discussion is now being re-opened.
The thread was cleaned up from off-topic, inflammatory content, and trolling.
This thread is to discuss The Solo vs Open vs Groups, meaning that discussions of other games, bashing them are considered at least as off-topic. In case the thread is going to be de-railed again the repercussion will follow.
The thread was cleaned up from off-topic, inflammatory content, and trolling.
This thread is to discuss The Solo vs Open vs Groups, meaning that discussions of other games, bashing them are considered at least as off-topic. In case the thread is going to be de-railed again the repercussion will follow.
Last edited:
- Status