![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
indeed she has, but she has also added that there will be a limit on what she wants to do. She COULD also program them to fire off dumb fire missles in the station, to ram and try to cut players off to give them a bounty or to deliberately friendly fire them in warzones. (or to sit not choosing a faction until they are right on a target before picking their side) ....... I suspect she wont however
Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
- Status
indeed she has, but she has also added that there will be a limit on what she wants to do. She COULD also program them to fire off dumb fire missles in the station, to ram and try to cut players off to give them a bounty or to deliberately friendly fire them in warzones. (or to sit not choosing a faction until they are right on a target before picking their side) ....... I suspect she wont however
I'm sure someone went back through threadzilla at one point and counted up the number of posters. It came to about 750, presumably with a fairly equitable split between pro and con. Which means you are asking for 639,625 people to have their game changed to suit 375 (more or less). Doesn't look so viable when you look at it in those terms.
greenall and whitley used to make a good mild, not as good as small local micro breweries of course but was the best of the "cooking beer" companies if you catch my drift....I am going back a bit now mind you, they were bought out i think.
Bateman's Champion Dark Mild used to be a great session beer. Low ABV so you could drink all afternoon and into the evening without getting hammered.
Not to many, most who disagree with such a move will probably just stop playing the game and not bother about expressing their opinion on a forum of a game they stopped playing.
Last edited:
You are a bit delusional if you really believe that…
I personally think you are wrong, however even if you are right , from FDs perspective that would be even worse. 1 thing I think we can all agree on regardless of where we sit, FD would rather, if they had to choose, have a toxic forum where people actually care about the game that they still want to play than simply a game no one plays!.
Last edited:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=58789
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=60916
Not the only ones about the loss of Offline of course. Solo was always there anyway and still the loss of Offline mode created a huge outcry, do you honestly think that the loss of Solo which is the closest to single-player offline mode left, would go down quietly?
You might be right.
I notice a pattern here
Yes, it would be very problematic for FD. Those players that stop playing the game will surely talk and write about the "forced Open"-incident on other forums and with friends. It would create a really bad PR. I I guess there will be a huge outcry if they announce such a move. If they just implement "forced Open" I thought most would just stop playing. Guess I'm wrong and just assumed that everybody would just react the way I would react. I know that's most of the time the worst possible assumption.
I never understand why people write "I quit" postings or comment about a game they stopped playing. Guess it's just me.
It's just my opinion but I suspect that most people post "I quit" posts because the game either doesn't work how they want it to or has changed in a way they don't like and they're hoping that their "I quit" post has some effect on Frontier to change the game in the way they hope it would.
I wonder how many people post "I quit" posts but really carry on playing or if they do "quit" come back to the game after a few days.
I've not done the count, but https://forums.frontier.co.uk/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=145309 shows who has posted how many times.
You'll notice that the top 1/3 of the list is mainly those who wish to keep the current set up - they also have the most posts.
The bottom 2/3 are people who have posted 15 or less times and is more people who declare the game is broken, find out this is how it is supposed to be and leave.
Very few pro change people make it to double figures in posting. Only 3 out of 17 people in the triple figures range are pro change.
Go and read again.
There is some faulty logic here, you can't know why they stop posting, it could be as simple as throwing in their ideas then not caring past that.
Ooh, because every owner of the game commented here and left his opinion... Yeah, now I got it.
I previously said that like anybody else, I have no numbers. No one here has them.
With enough voices I am talking about the amount of posts that point to this situation met in game.
Honestly the number of people complaining about it is bigger than the handful peeps that defend the current state til blood. But you keep on insisting that I shall bring proof and number. I have none, neither have you. Things that are currently not planned are not exlcuded automatically. Just like offline, it was planned and at some point they dumped it.
Also you seem to think that I follow this game since 2,5 years. I am not. I knew it is in development earlier then I bought, but I have waited for the release und looked up some reviews.
Last edited:
"Ooh, because every owner of the game commented here and left his opinion... Yeah, now I got it."
If there are more people unhappy with the modes than we see, there are also more people happy with the modes than we see. You negate your own argument.
Offline was not originally planned, it was requested by backers (people who FD listened to more than us) considered, but eventually dropped. Solo/Group/Open and the shared galaxy have been part of the game since before it was even a game.
Last edited:
by this logic maybe they should just drop the whole space ship thing all together, concentrate on the FPS stuff on the planet and go for a call of duty type arena shooter.
after all LOADS of people play COD - more than Elite in its current form - so that is valid (by your logic)
by my logic, Elite is a niche title, it is because of this that they went the way of kickstarter. Many of elites core values will be of no interest to some types of gamers. That does not mean they are bad and should be removed.
As for offline......... This was not originally in the plan. A bunch of people asked for it, and YES FD agreed. over time they claimed it was not possible to implement without breaking the whole game from the rest of the kickstarter plan and so was dropped. AFAIK those who were really offended by this got refunds (albeit after a lot of prodding in some cases).... (IF they didnt - I am not certain - , then I fully believe they should have been imo).
BUT the groups ARE fully in with the kickstarter promises. they ARE already in and working. David Braben himself stated that PvP is a small part of elite and outside of certain areas WOULD be rare and meaningful and that Pilots Federation members were to be dissuaded from attacking and destroying each other by harsh in game penalties, but those who DO choose to do it can but would have lasting consequences .
Arguably the reason many have left open was because they found this not to be the case. you have the idiots to thank for that - of which I am certainly not accusing you of being. I cant speak for all but certainly that is why I left open. Now in my private group it is such a nice place to be I actually see no reason to go back!..
YOU are not seeing people. All i can say is that is unfortunate. I see plenty when i play when i am not solo (which is when my internet allows it)
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
For a change to be made, any change, a compelling case for change needs to be made. The fact that Frontier have not changed the three modes, shared galaxy state or mode switching would tend to suggest that a compelling case has not yet been made for change. The number who seem dissatisfied with the status quo may outnumber those who vocally support the status quo (it may not too) - however, as this debate has been going for over two and a half years now, it may be that players who have already accepted the status quo (or bought the game already happy with it) have got bored with the discussion and don't participate any more....
Didn't take a read on offline, but without intentions to offend anyone.
How can I expect a game where I'll take influence on one shared galaxy to be offline?
That was their main stated reasons for dropping it as it happens.
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=dcbf6b86b4b0c7d1c21b73b1e&id=cea4f4cd56#eddevlopemt
Once you start to separate out the different modes you step gradually closer to this "unacceptably limited and static" galaxy.
Last edited:
So doing changes to this open/solo dilemma would be the same like making a CoD out of elite? Wow....
- Status