A bit like your self with your constant barrage of what you want, others have explained over and over for you. You know what they say about Power Play if you don't like it you don't have to do it the choice is yours.
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
A bit like your self with your constant barrage of what you want, others have explained over and over for you. You know what they say about Power Play if you don't like it you don't have to do it the choice is yours.
First, your expectations are flawed...you need to readjust them. If everyone is in Open....your chances to stop a large group from doing something would be identical to stopping them in Solo.
Second, you might be able to pew pew one or 4 of them...but the other 15-20 people are hustling just as hard...with out interference. You also have to remember your beloved interaction with those 1 to 4 players...just stopped your attempt to save your beloved system. So they still win...every second you engage a player is a second lost to improve your systems standing.
Third, there is no ownership in this game. All your play time to make a system home, is for naught. Anyone can make the numbers do anything.
Finally, I can hear you say...'and this is wrong'. What you leave out is '...because I feel this is unfair.' You feel this way because you have been trained by years of PvP gaming that everyone must be able to be killed to have a PvP system be fair. This is a fallacy. Fairness means everyone has a way to fight against an action. In this game, the designed PvP is accomplished through PvE activities. Someone is messing up your special system...fight back by pushing your faction up using PvE missions. If you know who is doing this...let them mess up your numbers...and go to their home system and mess up their numbers...in Private group...alone..or even better with a few friends.
Now....you might find the above many things...disgusting, wrong, heinous, poor game design...whatever. All I can tell you at this point is this:
This is a conscious design choice at the most basic level of this game. It is not changing. The game is working as designed. In a sentence: This game is designed as a PvP game...where the PvP is fought by gathering PvE trophies at a rate faster than some one that is opposing you.
When you fully comprehend THIS discussion, and embrace the design, you will see the level of duplicity, hate, fear, paranoia, etc. the game can create. This game is going to be hard on people....believe me. Watching the debate over 'fifth column' tactics was amusing. I have lots of popcorn on hand for future debates of this nature, since it means many are learning how this game is meant to be played.
Ultimately, in understanding comes choice. If you do not accept the premise of the game...the only option is to find games that you CAN accept. I wish you well in your choices and decisions!
Last edited:
Wow you still don't get it. The game is not just about YOU. You mention modes spoiled the opportunity you would have to do something. No it doesn't, Modes GIVE you the opportunity to do what you want, just as it GIVES someone else the opportunity to do what they want. Going to a single mode would rob a whole lot of people of the opportunities they wanted while continuing to grant the opportunity to a small minority. You think this is fair and a good business practice? You would be beyond livid if you were suddenly forced into solo, so how can you even think to justify forcing others to Open?
I can bring any argument example including election examples if I want. You don't' get to tell me what to do.. ever, even if you were physically here and had a gun to my head. Remember you brought real life into this first, and you feel your example is valid. Just as I feel my election example is.
Had to pick on this, small chance > no chance.
However your post was very informative and a good read, one of the best rundowns i've seen.
We've explained countless times why the game is like that and why it'll stay that way, yet you're camping on your "I WANT TO STHAP HIM" argument and saying we don't understand just because we disagree with you.
0% to 0.00001% is still 0%. All that changes is your feelings. It's all about personal perceptions.
And thanks. o7
Last edited:
I killed him because it seemed like he was invading my system... Hehe.
I appreciate that you show interest in my intentions and i gladly give you an answer to your question.
I repeat myself and keep on repeating because my "opponents" in this discussion give me the feeling that they don't understand or even undermine my arguments with little twists intentionally.
I think in all honesty (if you followed my arguments) some of them are reasonable- from an encouraged multiplayer point of view. And i have assumed that with specific rules that might be created we all might take benefit of it.
If the proper rules are set to stop excessive and unreasonable attacks with some kind of safety net and at the same time encouraging mechanics are implemented to give open a try, to realize that not all people out there just want the meaningless pewpew, we might come to common ground where the Soloists might see the benefits (generated by more immersion, etc) of not excluding others. A "world" where the trader can trade in peace and the new guy can start putting his feet out of the first system without being eaten alive. Sure there still would remain incidents that not everyone might like. But those would be reduced in a proper manner and fit in the lore of this game. I, and i really hope the majority of the remaining people in open, don't want cannon-fodder, or get stimulated by killing blindfolded helpless players.
I would love to see a healthy society generated by the community, where you greet those that you know and welcome those that are new.
I would love to continue my explanation but i am running out of time. But i do hope that my answer satisfies you and my intentions become reasonable.
Your ideas are antithetical to the game design. This game is not about creating a 'healthy community'. It is about creating a vicious, backstabbing, hateful, galaxy. This will mean, until the community 'groks' the intention...it will appear 'toxic and unhealthy'. To many feel this game is built with an idea of 'protecting peoples desires'...it isn't. It does this...but also allows for more human game play choices to be made by everyone on how to affect the other players.
oh...I don't play in private. Open only player.
Last edited:
It was done with Mobius, except very little PVP. You could create your own group with these ideals if you wanted to. Your "Universe" can see the light of day, but you must put effort into it.
It would be cool if all the con's would just stop defending their argumentation just because of current conditions.
This should be a constructive discussion to- what could be if.
Though i have to admit mistakes on my end and on some posts.
Well thought out. +1.
You wont get a response though, well constructed posts that like this are quietly ignored
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Are you really suggesting that those who are quite happy with the three game modes, mode switching and shared galaxy state should just give up so that those who want to change the game go unopposed?
That sounds rather like you want the opposition to be segregated into a separate mode and not affect the galaxy state....
The point most thread dwellers try to make is, this is so basic to the game, there is no use in discussing 'what could be if...'. My explanation is to why this will never change. It is because the devs are trying something that hasn't been done before. It will not be a game to everyone's taste...but it will be a dirty, conflict filled game.
They have admitted there could be a problem..and that was with forcing folks out of Open to min max in Private. Check this thread for the discussion Vox Populi. They are balancing this issue with more reactive and harder to kill AI. Basically, increasing the difficulty to kill NPC's, will equilibrate the rate of gaining the PvE trophies, so that min maxers can play where they want.
Adles Armada can call a system a home and got a Lore based entry in the Gal-Net. They don't have do be the exception.
Feel free to replace every "this is wrong" on my side with "i think it is unfair that...". And also i think it is reasonable to expect possible skirmishes and an acceptance of them occurring in a game where this scenario is a game feature.
- - - Updated - - -
With creating my own group i would exclude my self even more from others and even more i would exclude others from me.
I am leadership in Lugh, Crimson State Group. I promise you, declaring home, and playing to keep it home, are very difficult. The more polarized the community is against you, the harder it is to maintain. However, any group leader, or player out there, will tell you....they do not own their system...the reside there, they play out of there, they do not own it.
You are correct! I want to see hundreds of groups declare systems home. And truly play this game the way it is designed.
Again...you have to adjust your beliefs on what is unfair. In this game, your beliefs are wrong. If you do not adjust these beliefs, you will not be playing long.
As to your last point...you first have to accept that skirmishes between players is counterproductive to the task at hand. They are fun, they fulfill a role play need, but ultimately they dissuade you from your goal.
Last edited:
They are players simply who, like you have opinions. None of us have the power to directly change anything so why do you feel the need to keep going and going round and round? It's rather telling that you still haven't posted something in the Vox-Populi sticky thread on this very forum, where your views are likely to be seen by FD. And regards "discussion", I'm still waiting to see some but that's OK, my wife is used to disappointment as well.
To 1.,2. and 3. If the proper ruleset is established and Open play has an incentive to be played i assumed it would be possible.
4. I have to admit that those are the trigger for me, raising my voice and bringing up my complaints and proposals.
5. Could be solved via matchmaking and a ruleset.
And to add- I don't want to force anyone to anything. I would love to have content that makes people curious about Open play that gives them content in form of "user experience" under certain rules, they acknowledge as an enrichment without taking content if they once in a while don't participate in open, or just with their group.
Do i really give you the feeling that i want to harm you with my ideas? I mean really, without twisting details or trying to read between the lines?!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
By seeking to change the ability of each and every player to affect the shared galaxy state regardless of which game mode they play in, yes, sadly.
Last edited:
I simply feel that using election mechanics in PP is wrong. Just because of the scenario. The major factions are hostile to each other. There wouldn't be elections to solve problems. Diplomacy? Yes. Agreements? Yes. Fights? Them too.
- Status