No, because I don't want to do anything about it - and what influence are you talking about? Making one planet go to the other side, or the price of this drops or rises a bit? Go on, change the world - I won't notice.
- Status
No, because I don't want to do anything about it - and what influence are you talking about? Making one planet go to the other side, or the price of this drops or rises a bit? Go on, change the world - I won't notice.
Everyone take a breath and count to 10, then remember to target your discussions at the post, not the poster.
It's a heated topic I know, but please discuss it without the name calling and sniping.
It's a heated topic I know, but please discuss it without the name calling and sniping.
Or the bad solo players deliberately messing with systems while hiding in solo. Because they pay so much attention to whats happening in open. tut tut
This was brilliant. Thank you for the link.
And that's exactly what I'm saying - you just want to kill more, that's all.
EDIT
And for being "the bad solo player" - I'm just a week away from making my fourth Elite status. First three were made on C64, Amiga and 486. Just look at my signature
Last edited:
If you are not seeing anyone, or else seeing too few players, there is a good chance you have some issue with the matchmaking. Perhaps there are too few players close to you in the real world (i.e., with whom you would have a low ping), or there is some issue with your router or firewall configuration, or your net connection has some other issue that the matchmaking algorithm sees as degrading the experience for everyone else. Those issues can reduce the number of players you see, or even block them completely, while still allowing you to play.
Anyway, if ten pilots trading in solo are having ten times more influence than a single pilot in open, it's working as intended, and to change it would be unfair to the solo players. If a single pilot trading in solo is having ten times more influence than a single pilot in open, then there is a bug that must be fixed. Only frontier can see specific influence numbers (and the number of players in solo and private groups), so only Frontier can tell if there is an issue.
They undermine what you see as the game's major mechanics. It's not something all players agree, and it doesn't seem to be something Frontier agrees.
You seem to think that denial — as in, preventing another player from doing something he wants so you, or your faction, can get an advantage — is an important mechanic, and that everyone should be subject to it. To be fair, it's a common point of view in the hardcore open world PvP crowd, so you certainly aren't alone. But Frontier went in a different direction.
You see, a peer to peer architecture allows for less laggy connections and much lower operational costs, but it does have some disadvantages, such as making it impossible to force specific players to meet each other. So, denial as a tactic would never work on a global scale anyway. To avoid issues with this, Frontier went for a different system, one where denial can still be used, and effective, on a local scale — it can be a lot of fun if everyone involved is playing that game, after all — but where what truly determines the result is aggregate effort instead.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If the game had been designed from the outset to be allow player control then you would have a point and the game would probably have a different network model to cope with increased numbers of players in the same area without using instances. However, the game has been designed to allow players to influence (i.e. not control).
If you believe that Frontier have trivialised their own game then I would suggest that you may well be trying to force their game into a mould from another game with different goals.
Allowing switching is feature from an enlightened developer who does not expect that all players would wish to be corralled in the same mode.
Just because you do not wish to attack / destroy other players does not mean that the restrictions proposed would not benefit those who do a the expense of those who prefer to have freedom of choice.
How can a developer undermine "their whole game"? Again, I contend that you don't want to accept that the developers have a different vision for the game than yours.
Again you contend that the developers are wrong and cannot accept that there is always the possibility that you may be the one in the wrong. One player's "areas for improvement" may well be another player's "favourite features" - opinions vary, of course.
The developers made the game that they want to play - they were not trying to re-create the multi-player framework from other games.
The evolving galaxy is a benefit to all players - just as all players can affect it through their actions. That's why it exists. It would appear not to exist to be the domain of players who wish to exert control over other players, however.
The game title has been explained many, many times. The cinematic trailer is neither here nor there - as soon as it adds the "not in-game footage", or somesuch caveat, one knows that it's marketing.
What about all the people who don't engage in a pointless forum battle to undermine the freedom of Open Play and instead politely go and form a group so they can play by the rules they enjoy. Now they are just using the tools put at players disposal. How dare they! Plotters! Isolationists! Cultists!
How dare they go and play by the rules they enjoy instead of trying to bully others into playing by them as well.
/s
How dare they go and play by the rules they enjoy instead of trying to bully others into playing by them as well.
/s
Unfortunately the players bleeting about encouraging people into PVP ARE looking for more targets. I have asked the direct question "Why do you want more people in PVP?". They either don't answer or pull up the rubbish about solo players hiding and making money, i mean how dare they do something that is obviously against the game mechanics of a trading game pffft.
The developers should NEVER had let the credits from Solo transfer into Open. That is the source of the divide.
C'mon, it's always about the money, whether virtual or not. I wish the developers would perhaps comment on it. It may seem that it is too late to just disable that and now separate the two modes in terms of credits and saves, but it only seems that way. Whether FD likes to admit it or not, they have a multiplayer game and they need to treat it that way.
C'mon, it's always about the money, whether virtual or not. I wish the developers would perhaps comment on it. It may seem that it is too late to just disable that and now separate the two modes in terms of credits and saves, but it only seems that way. Whether FD likes to admit it or not, they have a multiplayer game and they need to treat it that way.
Last edited:
By tweaking my firewall so I was playing solo anyway. I would also look at creating a program to dynamically control the firewall to mimic the group feature between players using it.
The answer is this: People that needs PvP, guilds and similar MMO productions, will always be worried about the lack of people, to kill or co-op with (most to kill than co-op, for sure). So, if there is the choice to play solo (or in PvE groups), they feel alone and hurted by the possible lack of victims. We, the people that love in first the environments of the game and not the social part of it, don't care about who is there and where is, but MMO people can't understand this.
In conclusion, there will be no solution to the problem. Multiplayer people will always want to force you multiplayer. You, simply, don't care about that.
OP Be Honest are you are just flamebaiting? there is already a thread to debate the pro and cons of playing in open and solo...
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90583
But heck why bother adding to a thread when you can create another!
- Status