The best answer is the one that should have happened all along. When you first launch the game you are presented with a choice to play in Open, Group or Solo mode. You should make that choice and then, from that point on, that is the mode you are in. If people wish to play solo that is their choice. They should not be able to transfer gains made in the safety of solo into open play. That is the part that is the problem. Make your choice but stick with it.
- Status
The best answer is the one that should have happened all along. When you first launch the game you are presented with a choice to play in Open, Group or Solo mode. You should make that choice and then, from that point on, that is the mode you are in. If people wish to play solo that is their choice. They should not be able to transfer gains made in the safety of solo into open play. That is the part that is the problem. Make your choice but stick with it.
Then what's wow got to do with elite.?
i responded to that wow commit.
You're the one that derailed it in the first place.
The bottom line is the pvp'ers are crying because they don't have many easy human targets to shoot at. it's as simple as that.
You don't see the pve players coming on here asking to take away open mode now do you.
The way it is now is the best option and that's not going to change.
Last edited:
No; the best answer is the one we have, to do what you like when you like.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I fully respect your right to hold such an opinion - just as I respect Frontier for creating the game in a way that specifically includes the ability of players to play in whichever game mode they wish to (with the same commander and assets) on a session by session basis.
Your opinion would necessitate removal of a major feature of the game - it is not surprising that there are others, who do not share your opinion, who will object strenuously to any proposal to remove the game features being discussed here.
And again you are strawmaning what I am actually saying.
You say above: " By comparing the safety of Lave in solo to the safety of the back of beyond in open. He makes an erroneous comparison." I am comparing anywhere and everywhere in Solo, that is what I mean when I say 'Solo'... the whole thing, in toto, as a whole. Never once have I mentioned Lave. How then is the comparison erroneous when Lave is something YOU came up with?
You go on to say: "Ask him to compare Lave in solo with Lave in open and he will just bluster as to why a direct, exact comparison somehow ISN'T the correct way. We have been here already with him in this very thread but he is mistaken in his method. " Why do you keep bringing Lave into it when in every example I give I always categorically say 'when you are out of/away from/not in the core systems'? I am not comparing Lave or any of the core system exactly because THEY ARE THE PLACES PIRATES HANG OUT. The POINT is that once you are NOT IN the core systems, risk diminishes to almost nothing.
Ok, now that I've made that clear... yet again. Please explain how I am mistaken in my method.
Best for who? You or the future of the game? Leaving it in it's current, unfair state, will make it a non-starter for large swathes of the multiplayer community thus affecting possible future sales. I imagine that a large part of the playerbase are only aware of this game at all thanks to various youtubers. These people are making video content mostly out of multiplayer gaming and as such are attracting multiplayer gamers. Once it becomes common knowledge how easy it is to (I won't say cheat - I'll wait to see how FD handle stream-snipers before I use that word) "play unfairly" it will just turn a load of potential customers off.
To what benefit for FD? So that self-confessed solo-players, who only want to play in solo can still have the choice one day, if they want to, to play in open or, and this has been threatened in this thread, they will begin a class-action lawsuit or leave the game and bad-mouth it to everyone and anyone.
Why would they jeopardise future sales to please a handful of entitled backers? They already have your money.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
"Best" is very subjective and relies on the opinion held by the person making the judgement. Similarly, making assumptions as to who will or will not buy the game is an opinion.
As to jeopardising future sales, which games sell the most, and why?
Your reply, like most of this thread, is a waste of time and effort. It isn't going to change. 79 pages of arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. It is better to have a choice because choice inevitably suits a greater range of people. There's a reason companies offer choices on price and features, it's because they want to suit all tastes and budgets. I see nothing wrong with the model as is; they've had a successful launch, attracted a lot of people, most of whom are playing the game and not wasting their time arguing about something that is not going to change. The majority are not represented on these forums because they never come here, they're in the game doing their own thing and not worrying about it.
I fully support this... Switching modes only provides unfair advantage to those who switches modes whenever a human pirate poses a threat. Thus creating imbalance to the game and negates the effectiveness of how other features are implemented.
Trading:
Switching creates unfair advantage in trading To those who only play in open play mode.
Pirating:
Switching creates imbalance to pirating as those who only play as pirates on open play cannot compete to those who " switch modes and trade now without any human risks, and buy a anaconda later" type of player. You got to ask your self, how much does a pirate earn pirating in open play?
Exploration:
those who trade in relative safety gains unfair advantage over those who trade only in open, thus earning them more CR which is a clear disadvantaged to those who only play in open play.
switching is a major flaw that the devs should redesign asap. The longer this feature stays in the game, the greater the impact is on the playerbase and game balance.
Exactly. With each day that passes the gap widens.
Ok, besides the fact that what you are suggesting will require a whole redesign of the way the game is built and is therefore never going to happen, let me once again post this to refute your suppositions.
The concepts of Solo being safe, Open being risky and reward being commensurate with risk are all demonstrably fallacious. While it is true that Open play contains the human player element, the actual risk of PvP is minimal once you are outside of the core systems. Minimal because there is only a very small chance that you will meet another player and even if you do, the chance that it will be someone who wants to PvP is even smaller. Total risk factor, therefore, negligible.
Solo is not so safe either, according to FD. The devs have said that the NPCs in Solo are or can be 'beefed up' precisely to avoid Solo being considered 'safe'. I don't know about beefed up because my experience in Solo is small. All I do know is that I am attacked more often by NPCs in Solo than I am in Open.
As for the risk/reward thing? I have just explained how the, so called, risk amounts to hardly anything. So what about the presumed increased reward for this presumed increased risk? Please explain how someone makes more cr in Open than they do in Solo and how this extra reward is related to any perceived 'risk'?
Whether you accept that mode switching is what the game is about or you don't. It isn't going to change.
All I ask for is the removal of the ability to switch modes at will on the same save. How is this a major feature?
The ability to play in solo or open could be considered a major feature, heck they advertise that on their site, the ability to switch at will isn't advertised at all. It just strikes me as a temporary concession to those who complained about the lack of offline mode.
It creates demonstrable unfairness, irrespective of attempts at sophist arguments to downplay the impact, and this will be harmful for the game's reputation. Harm the game's rep and you harm sales. Harm sales and you harm development. For what? So you can feel "like you got one over on the PVP crowd"?
No difference between trading in open and group/solo. I've done both. And who is stopping you going to solo if you think it is such a great advantage; only yourself. If you perceive it to be a problem then it seems a purely self-inflicted one. Open/Solo/Group - not going to change. Move on.
Ah this thread again...
I play only in open play, even when I took off my lakon type 9 without the rebuy cost. I like to play in an open world where everything can happen, not just bad things more likely fun things, but this is a matter of oppinion and personality.
After my side is cleared in the universe, I can tell you that theese threads worth nothing more then a halfpair sock. You just turn them (open and solo/group)against each other. And forget about deéeting a base feature of the game, IT WONT HAPPEN!!!! If you/we (yes I would be happy too) want to force the people to play in open play, then you should make that gamestyle more attractive. Make threads about events, and make videos aobut how much fun we have when we are playing in open play. Create a respectfull community which also does not tolerate trolls. This is just the place of heat and rabbiting. If you think it will solve anything you are just as blind as a player who completly decline the open world.
I am really sad when I see a group with 2400CMDRs. How much fun we could had if we play together... But as long as we havent got a solid community with some unwritten rules to stop the trolls... It wont happen. If you want to sell sg that the people dont want, dont force it down there throat... make them want it!
I dont think we can achive that the soloplayers choose to play only in open play, but if we can achive to visit us more often, then It's a win. Let's work on that
I play only in open play, even when I took off my lakon type 9 without the rebuy cost. I like to play in an open world where everything can happen, not just bad things more likely fun things, but this is a matter of oppinion and personality.
After my side is cleared in the universe, I can tell you that theese threads worth nothing more then a halfpair sock. You just turn them (open and solo/group)against each other. And forget about deéeting a base feature of the game, IT WONT HAPPEN!!!! If you/we (yes I would be happy too) want to force the people to play in open play, then you should make that gamestyle more attractive. Make threads about events, and make videos aobut how much fun we have when we are playing in open play. Create a respectfull community which also does not tolerate trolls. This is just the place of heat and rabbiting. If you think it will solve anything you are just as blind as a player who completly decline the open world.
I am really sad when I see a group with 2400CMDRs. How much fun we could had if we play together... But as long as we havent got a solid community with some unwritten rules to stop the trolls... It wont happen. If you want to sell sg that the people dont want, dont force it down there throat... make them want it!
I dont think we can achive that the soloplayers choose to play only in open play, but if we can achive to visit us more often, then It's a win. Let's work on that
to balance the game, i think its best to keep single player but whatever progression and cr you get from single player stays in single player. If you play in open you get a totally unique CMDR.
that way single players will be contented and open players will be contented as well. Anything in between That allows anyone to switch modes to gain advantage over others in open play is a game deign flaw in my text book which should be balanced by the devs.
that way single players will be contented and open players will be contented as well. Anything in between That allows anyone to switch modes to gain advantage over others in open play is a game deign flaw in my text book which should be balanced by the devs.
OR it forces the pvp player to do more than the usual gank and run because if they overdo it they are soon alone in open.
And that is the beauty of it.
I do not know.. like .. maybe.. duh... play his role good... like.. more than shooting at stuff .... maybe even turn bounty hunter at players who abuse there role...
Because, if you are honest with yourself, ask yourself, would there be more traders in an forced open, or if they can not switch to solo to make up losses through PK players (an T9 blown up rates easy in the 15-20 million damage to the player, and it IS an sitting target)
Elite is quite lax with penalties for PK and already some of them are whining it is unfair, picture an Elite where choices are limited as you propose and how populatet open then would be.
If i there wanted to play an trader the hell i would not choose open, or i would go to the outer systhems, but only to the more populated areas in an ASP for trading, something fast enough to evade or with enough teeth to defend.
Turn it as you want, no change in the way the game is designed will add more targets for you, i dare to say even less.
I have seen it over and over in online games, pvp junkies overdo it, the other players leave or switch to chars/roles that can defend better or are outright not desirable for the pvp player to interact with, the pvp player throws a fit and demands that things have to change.
Now what i ask myself, where and when was an law made that forces players who paid the same price for the game and have to sacrifice there free time for it too to serve as amusing feature of the pvp player or leave the game?
You can discuss it for an back but enforcing an no switching of modes will not give you more targets, rather less because there will be only traders in small agile ships, or as soon they have the money big well armed ships, and if that does not work no traders at all.
Way back there was an online game, very wow like just with offcourse way less good graphic where one character class who was cleric like was very handy to have around, but at the same time very vulnerable, so prime target for pvp players.
One day they where all gone because players who played clerics where annoyed.
The whole game came to an grinding halt for everyone who had not such an priest in an character slot to do certain tasks.
and the pvp players where whining without end but never once did they consider that it was there own actions that caused it, not ONCE.
And the same will happen for the pirates, there will be no traders to have, and they will point there fingers at everyone but them self.
By all means carry on thinking that, as long as you also accept that it is never going to happen. The core design feature of players swapping from mode to mode as an when they want to is fixed and has been fixed since conception. Any attempt to change it would not only be a massive undertaking programming wise, time wise and expense wise but it would also change the fundamental premise of the game. FD have always maintained that they are building the game THEY want to make. So, whether you accept the game for what it is or not, it isn't going to change.
The problem with the game currently is that theres no ecosystem at all. The food chain doesnt exist while in paper, it was designed to have a living breathing ecosystem.
how can pirates exists without human targets?
How can the game promise more than " space trucking sim" without pirates?
Everything boils dows to the feature allowing you to switch modes.
if you want this to be a " space trucking sim" as what gaming sites are getting the impression for now the keep the switching feature open.
If you want the game to be a AAA title in the long run that promises dynamism and depth of game play, remove that switching feature
how can pirates exists without human targets?
How can the game promise more than " space trucking sim" without pirates?
Everything boils dows to the feature allowing you to switch modes.
if you want this to be a " space trucking sim" as what gaming sites are getting the impression for now the keep the switching feature open.
If you want the game to be a AAA title in the long run that promises dynamism and depth of game play, remove that switching feature
Because being a pirate does not mean just attacking players. Being a pirate means attacking NPCs too as per the intention of the game.
The core design feature of players swapping from mode to mode as an when they want to is fixed and has been fixed since conception. Any attempt to change it would not only be a massive undertaking programming wise, time wise and expense wise but it would also change the fundamental premise of the game. FD have always maintained that they are building the game THEY want to make. So, whether you accept the game for what it is or not, it isn't going to change.
likewise, you can also keep on convincing youself that it wont change in the future.
unless the devs will say they will change or not change something you cannot stop people to provide constructive critisisms here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions
are you a dev to say with finality that it wont change?
Last edited:
- Status