It is more a case of whether a point of view can be constructive, or disruptive. To be stubborn about a position because you have belief that it is the correct one, or to be stubborn because you feel you have been slighted in the past, and resist for the sake of resistance. Ultimately, there will need to be compromises made by all sides in this and future disagreements.
- Status
It is more a case of whether a point of view can be constructive, or disruptive. To be stubborn about a position because you have belief that it is the correct one, or to be stubborn because you feel you have been slighted in the past, and resist for the sake of resistance. Ultimately, there will need to be compromises made by all sides in this and future disagreements.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
To move to the bargaining phase, firstly agreement that there is actually a problem to be solved has to be reached, secondly a clear definition of what the problem actually is must be determined and thirdly available (also possible) options need to be identified that can rectify / ameliorate it.
If every request for change made on the forum were to end up in a compromise position then the game would be very different from what we have today.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
368 ppl isnt near enough to the player base lol
Of course it isn't - however it's not quite one percent of the forum population - IPSOS and MORI would have it that election results can be accurately predicted using far lower sample proportions (albeit random and not self-selecting)....
Hmm... I've always been very suspicious of pollsters claims!
You must have misread my post. I said that it is succeeding in spite of the danger that is fun. If there was no danger (think ED with no other ships at all) would it be fun?
Of course you will not enjoy being destroyed. But most of the time you are not being attacked, but are aware of the danger.
A man swimming with sharks enjoys the experience. He will not enjoy it if he gets eaten.
368 ppl isnt near enough to the player base lol
It may not yet be a statistically significant sample, but if those numbers hold up it provides further indication that the flexibility to change modes is what almost half want, but doesn't qualify how many of those in solo or open only also support mode switching. Need the qualitative data as well as the quantitative. One could extrapolate that this indicates more than half support mode switching based on an expectation that a proportion of those in solo and open only would also support mode switching even if they don't use it, but the qualitative data is needed to confirm that. Not sure how many respondents we'd need for it to be statistically significant though.
"PVP should be rare and meaningful"
"Don't listen to a small minotrity of pirates and griefers trying to ruin everyone elses gameplay experience"
A "small" "vocal" minitority of pirates, and "greifers (psychopaths in ED terms) sound like 'rare' and 'meaningful' PVP to me in ED's terms. what is the problem with them exactly? And what is wrong with creating gameplay mechanics that satisfy their needs? The more incentive people have to go to solo, the more FD is neglecting this playstyle, which by their own admission is an important part of the game.
I also want to echo another commanders sentiments. These private groups of 7000 people creating their own alternate open mode reality is pretty bunk. Private group mode should be limited to 32 -- the same number of commanders that can fill a single instance. If you want to play with thousands of other people, you should have to play in open mode.
"Don't listen to a small minotrity of pirates and griefers trying to ruin everyone elses gameplay experience"
A "small" "vocal" minitority of pirates, and "greifers (psychopaths in ED terms) sound like 'rare' and 'meaningful' PVP to me in ED's terms. what is the problem with them exactly? And what is wrong with creating gameplay mechanics that satisfy their needs? The more incentive people have to go to solo, the more FD is neglecting this playstyle, which by their own admission is an important part of the game.
I also want to echo another commanders sentiments. These private groups of 7000 people creating their own alternate open mode reality is pretty bunk. Private group mode should be limited to 32 -- the same number of commanders that can fill a single instance. If you want to play with thousands of other people, you should have to play in open mode.
He won't enjoy suddenly noticing one happens to be in his locality, either. In fact, he'll want to remove himself from the environment, as fast as possible.
In fact, he'll want to remove himself from the environment, as fast as possible.And you are quite right to be - in fact there's probably a poll about the reliability of polls somewhere..
and the fun part is that the whiners isnt even the 1/4 of that number ;p
wow, just wow.
Back to trying to force people in front of PvPers guns... loop number 123851355#
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There is no technical reason to limit the population of private groups - after all, all three game modes are simply different settings of the matchmaking system, i.e. match with no players (solo), with players who have selected a particular private group or with players who have selected open play.
To place an arbitrary limit on private groups would seem to be an attempt to reduce their appeal - presumably to pander to those who want more players to "interact" with in open.
Just think of it as a big "clan" or a "guild" - you know what those are right?
Which IMO should be the long term goal, I hope we can get the games mechanics to a point where most of the players play open. You advertised an online (mmo) space sim game, yet the community splits up more and more with each day. Its rather sad every argument ends with "we don't want to play open to be killed by griefers, so don't tell me how to play" instead of thinking about how to discourage griefing. Im pretty sure most people in Mobius would rather play open given the right circumstances. After all player interaction is what people pay for when they buy an online game.
The fact that people resort to private groups and im some cases solo mode is a symptom of many bad design decisions which need to be corrected asap.
Last edited:
to bad many other posts here says otherwise...
The game is an MMO - just because it is not WoW, does not mean anything.
Trying looking up what an MMO is (or use the link in my sig)
What some people pay for, yes!
So, to sum your position up, your playstyle is valid, and should be supported by the devs. The 7k or so people in mobius have a non valid playstyle, and should be prevented from playing how they choose.
What is it about freedom and choice that freaks people out so much? Why do other people have to play the way you tell them? I like the rough and tumble of open, others don't. Why should I care how some fella who's paid the same money enjoys his game?
- Status