I keep seeing this here, and I wanted to ask: Where is the line drawn? At what point does the way someone wants to play the game no longer become acceptable and they have to play the way someone else wants them to play? This isn't necessarily pointed directly at you -- think of it as a gimbaled question rather than a fixed mount. =)
- Status
I keep seeing this here, and I wanted to ask: Where is the line drawn? At what point does the way someone wants to play the game no longer become acceptable and they have to play the way someone else wants them to play? This isn't necessarily pointed directly at you -- think of it as a gimbaled question rather than a fixed mount. =)
I think: There where someone else gets limited in his game experience, the line should be drawn.
(Old) Chestnuts roasting on open fire..
Ok, that's my stunning contribution. Back to the game.
Ok, that's my stunning contribution. Back to the game.
My instinct is to say that this point is reached when one person's choices are reduced to one in number. When one person has no option but to submit to the will of another.
If I am a trader, for example, and some people start blockading one of my favourite systems I have choices.
I can ignore them and hope they don't interdict me.
I can let them interdict me and try to escape.
I can tool up and fight for the system.
I can change my route to avoid the system.
I can pay some people to fight for me.
I have options.
If, on the other hand, somebody was following me to every system and repeatedly destroying me with a fleet of friends until I had only a starter Sidewinder and certain death upon launch, then I have no options. I can't even pay people to fight for me as attrition has exhausted my reserves.
A clumsy example, I will admit, but my point is it is all about options. In a multiplayer game it's not over if you still have moves you can make.
I can switch to solo. ;-)
True, and at that point you remove all of your opponent's options.
And you've been told time and time again, you can play your way - you just refuse to actually do it and expect FD to set it up for you under the guise of not "trusting" other players (how hurtful !)
If things were good with the system there would not be zillions of threads on the subject.
Erm, no - the opponents can find a new target to shoot or shoot each other or shoot NPCs - the attackers always have options and are never left with zero.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Funny how they are by the same few people however.... hmmm
Wow, a shooting range ranging over 400 billion systems?! They must have extremely superior tech than anybody else to detect and shoot enemies from every point in the galaxy!
Funny how you want them to be by the same people... =)
But all of that takes place outside of the encounter. How are you establishing relevance? We were discussing the impact of one player upon another, an interaction. You have stepped outside of that interaction in order to assert options within it. That doesn't work.
Last edited:
Yes, quite - so why try and force open mode when people can just wander off anyway leaving you with the same number of targets as you get now - what do you gain?
Plus, people with bad internet connections can no longer play.
And it is a P2P system, so all anyone has to do is tinker with the firewall or router settings and bingo, back in solo mode via a work around, unless you use the in game "block" and just block everyone you see (apart from friends)
So again, nothing to gain as there are loads of ways to remove these people from your game.
You explain to me, how 1 person switching to solo, removes options from a pack of players intent on destroying another player (as per your example)...
1) there are other players in open (as proven by them shouting up in these threads)
2) they have each other to shoot at and are never short a human target as long as the group plays the game
Your the defending this fictional group saying solo takes options away - how? There is 2 to start with.
This would be an awesome answer regarding bugs in the system. I gotta remember it.
Sure, considering the scale of the universe the distinction of open and solo seems absolutely redundant since there is enough 'empty space' to wander off to for everyone.
Hence, getting rid of those different modes will not harm people who want to play alone and, likewise, will put the solo vs open discussion to rest.
Except that doesn't work at all for the people that don't have the internet connection to support Open. Also, as has been established and explained time and again, getting rid of Solo isn't an option. It would be a bait and switch and they'd get sued. Its just not an option.
You missed the "poor internet connection" part then - there are people who can only play in solo as other modes take up too much of a connection. So you will harm some players if you remove solo.
On the other hand, if the other crowd will end up the same as they are now - then there is nothing to argue over, leave the system as it is. They still get the targets they get now and those with bad connections get to play as well.
- Status