That's very interesting. I wonder how that compares to Open.
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
That's very interesting. I wonder how that compares to Open.
It's probably a linear relationship to the number of other players in your instance, plus all the instance querying, connecting and setup.
And don't forget about making the instances laggy for others
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
I d say it is the opposite, more than two thirds would be the ones with influence. No selfishness there that I can see.
70% prefer to play in open. My poll is right, yours is wrong.
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/39w6yn/poll_pvp_interest_and_powerplay_impact/
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1l2...-J895P1rHidA20/viewanalytics?usp=form_confirm
Honestly, stop the poll based argument nonsense please? Only FDEV has the actual data.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Again, at least here those polled are registered members of these forums and are likely to have bought the game - the same cannot be said for an open poll on reddit.
Both your links point to the same poll.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
The reddit community is as good a sample as this one, here. Both links are the same poll for context in reddit.
I d say both your poll and mine are exactly as representative. You may disagree but that is you.
If you want to really argue on data the only way is FDEV´s. Everything else, including our polls is pure speculation.
Last edited:
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
ooo mod vs mod fight... interesting.
can a mod issue infractions against another mod
to be honest, 30 % or 70% does not matter. either way it is a large significant number of people, neither of which FD would want to lose ideally. IMO in any such disagreement all we can do is go back to the original kickstarter and see which is right to answer the question as to whether the 3 groups should exist and whether each group should be allowed to influence the game or not.
once that is established the question is, is it fair to change the kickstarter? legally it is clear, FD probably have nothing to worry about either way as a kickstarter promise as i understand it isnt a promise in the legal sense so long as they produce a product... which they have!.
IF FD want to reverse the kickstarter, well I guess it is their game that is fine, but surely in which case it would only be fair to offer refunds to anyone who backed based on those promises? Legally maybe they would not have to, but for the logevity of the company i would say it would be a nobrainer because someone who truly felt burned and did not get their money back would probably never buy another Fd product again.
indeed it is bigger than that really as they may not even back another KSer again imo.
edit for the record and to be clear, there is no veiled threat in my message I am NOT saying Do X or I want my money back!.
IF disaster struck and solo and groups were canned, I would whinge and I would moan...(and I WOULD think twice before buying another FD product outside of the bargain bin)........ but i would not cut my nose of to spite my face, and would certainly keep the game.
can a mod issue infractions against another mod
to be honest, 30 % or 70% does not matter. either way it is a large significant number of people, neither of which FD would want to lose ideally. IMO in any such disagreement all we can do is go back to the original kickstarter and see which is right to answer the question as to whether the 3 groups should exist and whether each group should be allowed to influence the game or not.
once that is established the question is, is it fair to change the kickstarter? legally it is clear, FD probably have nothing to worry about either way as a kickstarter promise as i understand it isnt a promise in the legal sense so long as they produce a product... which they have!.
IF FD want to reverse the kickstarter, well I guess it is their game that is fine, but surely in which case it would only be fair to offer refunds to anyone who backed based on those promises? Legally maybe they would not have to, but for the logevity of the company i would say it would be a nobrainer because someone who truly felt burned and did not get their money back would probably never buy another Fd product again.
indeed it is bigger than that really as they may not even back another KSer again imo.
edit for the record and to be clear, there is no veiled threat in my message I am NOT saying Do X or I want my money back!.
IF disaster struck and solo and groups were canned, I would whinge and I would moan...(and I WOULD think twice before buying another FD product outside of the bargain bin)........ but i would not cut my nose of to spite my face, and would certainly keep the game.
Last edited:
The problem with OPEN
Every day there seems to be a couple of new threads complaining about Open, whether it be getting killed in the Open universe, not finding anyone in Open, why bother playing Open when you can do the same in Solo - well you get my drift.
.
I will be honest, I am very careful when and where I venture into Open. If I am around the heavily populated areas, I admit, I am staying in Solo. Why risk my ship, my credits and my sanity but exposing myself to players who play the game differently to me, i.e. kill without a reason or just there for their own enjoyment often at the expense of others. So I only jump into Open when I am away from the main areas, I have found the number of idiots drops off dramatically by just a half dozen jumps.
.
But I understand that players want PVP, that is one of the reasons why they bought the game. But they complain they often don't find anyone to interact with. That is one of the inherent problems with a game with a sandbox as big as ED has - players don't have to stay in one spot they can go wherever they want to.
.
Here is my suggestions: an bubble, let's say containing a dozen or so systems of different types that is deemed PVP. Once you enter there it is fair game for all. Increase the trade profit between the systems inside the bubble to encourage traders, have increased Security between some high population systems with no security in anarchy at all - let SJA's minions shine playing the police. I would even go so far to have less NPCs flying around ( except for the Security) but have those NPCs all high ranked with high bounties - yes you will have to earn your credits. Maybe even the player bounties could be reduced within the bubble to mitigate some of the risk of combat.
.
At least this way, players who want to play PVP know they have a good size place to go to and know what they will find there. And on the other side of the coin, players who don't want PVP can just avoid the area - simple really.
Every day there seems to be a couple of new threads complaining about Open, whether it be getting killed in the Open universe, not finding anyone in Open, why bother playing Open when you can do the same in Solo - well you get my drift.
.
I will be honest, I am very careful when and where I venture into Open. If I am around the heavily populated areas, I admit, I am staying in Solo. Why risk my ship, my credits and my sanity but exposing myself to players who play the game differently to me, i.e. kill without a reason or just there for their own enjoyment often at the expense of others. So I only jump into Open when I am away from the main areas, I have found the number of idiots drops off dramatically by just a half dozen jumps.
.
But I understand that players want PVP, that is one of the reasons why they bought the game. But they complain they often don't find anyone to interact with. That is one of the inherent problems with a game with a sandbox as big as ED has - players don't have to stay in one spot they can go wherever they want to.
.
Here is my suggestions: an bubble, let's say containing a dozen or so systems of different types that is deemed PVP. Once you enter there it is fair game for all. Increase the trade profit between the systems inside the bubble to encourage traders, have increased Security between some high population systems with no security in anarchy at all - let SJA's minions shine playing the police. I would even go so far to have less NPCs flying around ( except for the Security) but have those NPCs all high ranked with high bounties - yes you will have to earn your credits. Maybe even the player bounties could be reduced within the bubble to mitigate some of the risk of combat.
.
At least this way, players who want to play PVP know they have a good size place to go to and know what they will find there. And on the other side of the coin, players who don't want PVP can just avoid the area - simple really.
Without data, which we don't have, it's simply one preference over another. Can you justify that one preference is better than another? And not only that but is it significantly better enough to justify a major change to a core of the game, a feature that drew in many customers (and backers). Is one preference so much better than the other to accept the outcry, potential bad press and likely refund requests that will be created by such a U-Turn?
Fair? Yes.
Happen? No
After all, the refunds given out so far, had a max time played catch to them. If you'd done more than "test" the game, you could not get a refund after Offline was cancelled. (what the cut off was I don't know).
As the game has been out 6 months, we've all done more than "test".
I think it needs a pvp guide actually, griefers are almost exclusively the worst pvp'ers and avoiding them safely shouldn't be as awkward as it is now.
But the game offers absolutely no training in practical combat skills versus players, as even a bad player is currently vastly superior to the AI.
The OP's suggestion is very similar to traditional mmos, but I really don't think it belongs here, needs to be addressed in other ways.
But the game offers absolutely no training in practical combat skills versus players, as even a bad player is currently vastly superior to the AI.
The OP's suggestion is very similar to traditional mmos, but I really don't think it belongs here, needs to be addressed in other ways.
Last edited:
I don't know if you play open or not FuzzySpider so this might be a question you can't answer, but if they removed the hollow square that represents a commander could you easily tell who was a player and who was the AI?
For myself that is the core of the argument, you get lots of threads everyday complaining about PvP in open, but I think a majority are caused by the fact your greatest chance of a non-accidental death is a player, despite how rare they are.
For example if you boost in a straight line, the AI can't keep up with a python in a cobra. This is literally the easiest task for a player, even the absolute worst pvp'er can do that and by default that makes them a greater threat than the best AI.
For myself that is the core of the argument, you get lots of threads everyday complaining about PvP in open, but I think a majority are caused by the fact your greatest chance of a non-accidental death is a player, despite how rare they are.
For example if you boost in a straight line, the AI can't keep up with a python in a cobra. This is literally the easiest task for a player, even the absolute worst pvp'er can do that and by default that makes them a greater threat than the best AI.
Last edited:
To reduce the huge risk gap between open and solo.
How do you 'deal with anti-social types' ? You can't beat human nature, and you shouldn't try to anyway: anti-social types add flavor to any game, as long as they're not a majority of course.
I know I am now repeating myself, but any public internet poll "do you prefer Open Play or Solo" (or multiplayer vs singleplayer) is automatically biased in favour of Open Play/multiplayer, because it cannot account for all the people who only wish to launch the game and play alone, not bother with other players, online discussions, or anything else about the game.
so true. how can a poll about introverts vs extroverts ever be balanced when as you say, many of the introverts probably have no interest in public forums???
I do not imagine anyone from my dads generation from posting here for instance.... but i know a few retired folk who play the game.
Last edited:
Yes I do, and yes I could.
There has never, not once, ever been an argument presented on these boards to explain why the solo game has to be as difficult as the open game. Nobody has explained why they feel AI has to be as tough as human opponents to those who choose to avoid human opponents.
This is like playing something like Halo and demanding that easy mode not only be removed from your own game but from everyone elses too.
- Status