Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].

[Robert Maynard]

And just to give you another argument for my point of view.
Solo mode takes away a gameplay experience that would have been created without it. Without Solo, situations would emerge that are hard or even impossible to conquer. Without Solo i would have to face true danger out in space while i am doing actions that are hostile to someone else. Without Solo i'd have to think about my next move because it might be my last. Without Solo i'd have to support others because they would suffer. Without Solo i'd have a more dynamic and living galaxy.
Should i continue?
And now tell me that i am still able to enjoy the game as i want.

You can still do all of those things - with players who also choose that way of playing. What you, or any other player, cannot do is dictate to other players how to play. Frontier gave each and every player the encouragement to "play the game how you want to" - that does not mean that we are required to be content for other players (unless we want to, of course).

 

[PavelKCZ]

And if Fdev would have implemented to solve conflicts by just donating credits to a system until it flips it would be ok too, right?

Maybe they should implement a gameplay mechanic like in cookie clicker? that sounds fun too! -.-

As I said, I am not playing PP, but I can imagine that donating credits can be OK. After all, you can help some minor faction in a system via donation mission. So, why not in PP. After all, politics is a game of money and about money, nihil novum sub solis.

 

[Derath]

Everyone does have the same rules.. the ONLY difference in open is PVP

Look, you have an agenda, and I get that, but pretending something is the case doesn't make it so, as to your server comment it is entirely in FD's controls, simpler games have been made with dedicated servers, especially if the steam player numbers are anything to go on. It was entirely their choice to have a multiplayer game filled with multiplayer limiting options, you could barely chat when the game released ><

Its hardly a view of mine alone that says play open exclusively, yes we did choose to be limited by that but its not hard to understand that some number of players would like that to be the core ruleset, not a personal choice, of a server.

 

[Jockey79]

And if Fdev would have implemented to solve conflicts by just donating credits to a system until it flips it would be ok too, right?

Welcome to Power Play

Maybe they should implement a gameplay mechanic like in cookie clicker? that sounds fun too! -.-

Being sarcastic does not help your point.

The game is not what you thought it was, I'm sorry it does not live up to your expectations.
It is however what people wanted and what people backed on Kickstarter, of which I imagine they are enjoying it.

 

[Mouse]

Look, you have an agenda, and I get that, but pretending something is the case doesn't make it so, as to your server comment it is entirely in FD's controls, simpler games have been made with dedicated servers, especially if the steam player numbers are anything to go on. It was entirely their choice to have a multiplayer game filled with multiplayer limiting options, you could barely chat when the game released ><

Its hardly a view of mine alone that says play open exclusively, yes we did choose to be limited by that but its not hard to understand that some number of players would like that to be the core ruleset, not a personal choice, of a server.

I'm not the one with the agenda, if I was I would be trying to get them to change the game....

 

[jonny taco]

I still think the best option is

A 2nd galaxy server with open-only and a new character.

Boom, both parties are happy - and i bet even the solo people would play on it because it would be the more interesting galaxy, they just like to solo swap to max efficiency in safety lmao.

I could not agree more. However I think network problems and instancing absolutely needs to be sorted first.

 

[fademist]

Look, you have an agenda, and I get that, but pretending something is the case doesn't make it so, as to your server comment it is entirely in FD's controls, simpler games have been made with dedicated servers, especially if the steam player numbers are anything to go on. It was entirely their choice to have a multiplayer game filled with multiplayer limiting options, you could barely chat when the game released ><

Its hardly a view of mine alone that says play open exclusively, yes we did choose to be limited by that but its not hard to understand that some number of players would like that to be the core ruleset, not a personal choice, of a server.

and what agenda is he up to? maybe the same with the devs-DB told over and over again?

 

[Dave1235]

<snip>
UK also, just outside of Coventry.
It was a Saturday, I did document it on the forums as I was playing (Steam Bowser, yay), but I think I started sometime around 1800hrs for six hours. Diso was near the start of my route so it would have been before 2000hrs.

The thing to keep in mind is player times, folks go out on a Saturday night. Normally about 2100hrs it thins out a little until the USA players are getting online (East US is -5 to us, west -8?) so 2200hrs is kind of the dead zone. UK folks are in the pubs getting hammered and US folks are just finishing whatever they were doing that day, eating and then getting ready to come online for a few hours. So, I've found that 2200hrs to 0100hrs is quite calm, then most of the states start coming online and we're off again with it being manic.

That how it seems to me anyway, from my "extensive" testing of social habits and online gaming

Thanks for the info, next time I will try a bit earlier or later if I can.

 

[rckstr]

As I said, I am not playing PP, but I can imagine that donating credits can be OK. After all, you can help some minor faction in a system via donation mission. So, why not in PP. After all, politics is a game of money and about money, nihil novum sub solis.

And still PP with its implementation and it's scenario is not just pushing money around. It is more und you refuse to see that. How many people have complained about getting hostile to a big area after they pledged? What do you think the reason for their concerns is? Because pushing money around is dangerous? Right now it is a big time and money sink. If we would have PP just to open only you'd think twice if you pledge or not, because you'd get hostile. What do you think does being hostile to 9/10 factions brings? Danger and possible attacks. Attacks that have to be made to shift your power to the top. This is no charity event we are playing. You are hostile and you should encounter the risks of being so.

 

[Cody]

Extraordinary!

 

[Derath]

and what agenda is he up to? maybe the same with the devs-DB told over and over again?

Thats exactly the agenda, but it doesn't need harshly defending, i merely made some comments about how some players would like the game to be I wasn't trying to leverage them to change the game they can do what they like, the current implementation has lots of pluses. When somebody defends against somebody who isn't attacking, thats because they have an agenda , which you are also doing.

You've assumed by my comments that I'd like an Ironman mode and laid out some reasons why an open only server would be good fun means i'm trying to change the game, and therefore throw devs and DB in my face as a counter argument, I wasn't making an argument, it doesn't need to be countered ><

 

[Mouse]

Thats exactly the agenda, but it doesn't need harshly defending, i merely made some comments about how some players would like the game to be I wasn't trying to leverage them to change the game they can do what they like, the current implementation has lots of pluses. When somebody defends against somebody who isn't attacking, thats because they have an agenda , which you are also doing.

You've assumed by my comments that I'd like an Ironman mode and laid out some reasons why an open only server would be good fun means i'm trying to change the game, and therefore throw devs and DB in my face as a counter argument, I wasn't making an argument, it doesn't need to be countered ><

if I was attacking I would be saying things I haven't. Thinking people are attacking you because they disagree with you is not attacking or an agenda. Claiming both.. now that may be seen as attacking.

 

[Derath]

if I was attacking I would be saying things I haven't. Thinking people are attacking you because they disagree with you is not attacking or an agenda. Claiming both.. now that may be seen as attacking.

cyclical argument, my opinion is my opinion, it being wrong can be your opinion, but it cannot be my opinion, or my opinion would be wrong and not my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone does have the same rules.. the ONLY difference in open is PVP

For example, this, if you cannot understand why people see these as different, why argue? You think they are the same, I think they are different, I didn't seek to change your mind, you did seek to change mine.

I'm stating my view, your trying to change my view, that's an agenda... this really isn't complex.

 

[Cody]

cyclical argument

Cyclical thread!

 

[fademist]

Thats exactly the agenda, but it doesn't need harshly defending, i merely made some comments about how some players would like the game to be I wasn't trying to leverage them to change the game they can do what they like, the current implementation has lots of pluses. When somebody defends against somebody who isn't attacking, thats because they have an agenda , which you are also doing.

You've assumed by my comments that I'd like an Ironman mode and laid out some reasons why an open only server would be good fun means i'm trying to change the game, and therefore throw devs and DB in my face as a counter argument, I wasn't making an argument, it doesn't need to be countered ><

good then i have same agenda with the ones make the shots

 

[Derath]

good then i have same agenda with the ones make the shots

You do there's nothing wrong with that, I suspect they chose what would be right for the most people anyway!

 

[SteveLaw]

You do there's nothing wrong with that, I suspect they chose what would be right for the most people anyway!

Indeed.

I pointed out that there’s frequent contention online about the “right” way to play, be it casual or hard-core, and Braben agreed. “But there shouldn’t be a ‘right’ way,” he said. “You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play. And people have come up with lots of suggestions, some of them very constructive and sensible, and we do listen, and people hopefully have seen that we’ve changed things and adjusted things, but not in a way—we hope!—to upset people. We’re doing it to make the game better!”

There are no changes planned to separate solo and online saves, and players will continue to inhabit the same shared galaxy whether they’re in solo or multiplayer—again, continuing with Braben’s contention that there’s no ‘right’ way to play.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/...-e3-xbox-exclusives-and-qa-with-david-braben/

 

[Jockey79]

.....I didn't seek to change your mind, ....

No, you seek to have the balance changed in favour of one mode - YOUR mode.
He seeks to keep things equal and fair, as they are and have been since the start.

Right now, we all get the same rewards for the work - regardless of what mode we are in.
The only thing that impacts that, is if you are being social and letting others interrupt or enhance your game - and why should you get paid for, for being sociable while those working hard get penalised for not being sociable?

As the game stands, right now we all have the same choices and are equal. Any change will mess up the balance.

 

[Roybe]

Without solo you'd have less players. FD would have less customers and open would be even quieter and you'd still be moaning.
People are not suddenly going to embrace playing a game they don't like, they'll not buy it, or won't play it.

This game was always designed with the idea that people would not like the way it was designed.

The design of this game is completely equal PvP between the modes. This PvP is defined by groups of people pushing PvE goals to either win or lose against each others goals.

Personal PvP- the pew pew type is an offering with very little impact on the game. The balancing that is being done to equilibrate the modes has to do with bringing the NPC AI closer to PC's action.

Once NPC AI is balanced against PC...the ability to min-max the PvE content is removed...and Open-private choice is purely based on personal preference.

 

[Mouse]

cyclical argument, my opinion is my opinion, it being wrong can be your opinion, but it cannot be my opinion, or my opinion would be wrong and not my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -



For example, this, if you cannot understand why people see these as different, why argue? You think they are the same, I think they are different, I didn't seek to change your mind, you did seek to change mine.

I'm stating my view, your trying to change my view, that's an agenda... this really isn't complex.

When you are seeking to change the game to benefit a certain group of players it isn't your "opinion" that is your agenda. At that point it isn't opinions, it is a discussion. It is the right of others to say NO!

Those saying no do not have an agenda, YOU do. Your the one trying to change things to benefit yourself and your play style, others be damned. Claiming that I have an "agenda" against you is a fallacy argument and Red Herring. You can't win the argument that your play style is so important that the game has to be changed to benefit you so instead you start attacking the defenders of the game.