The reasoning was not sufficient. You haven't convinced your audience that your ideas would improve the game. Disagreeing with you, doesn't mean people don;t understand what you are saying.
Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle
- Thread starter Hans_Oktane
- Start date
The reasoning was not sufficient. You haven't convinced your audience that your ideas would improve the game. Disagreeing with you, doesn't mean people don;t understand what you are saying.
The reaction of what 4-6 people who like to reply to me? I've seen it stated many times that the forums are not representative of the player base at large. And I'd agree with that based on the % of people here who whine about their own mistakes costing them.
I always play in open these days, mainly because money is so easy to make. Thus rebuys are nolonger painful.Insurance could cover the basic costs of a stock-standard ship similar to the one lost (minus a fee). I'm all for losing engineering mods upon destruction. That will require a bit of a re-jig of the engineering system though.
S
IF, I knew I would lose my engineering if I got ganked, I'd NEVER PLAY IN OPEN AGAIN.
I would like changes to be made accompanying open only, that would indeed allow them to play as close to that as the scale of the galaxy and bubble allows. That said, the possibility would and should (imo) be there, that you just might see someone.
And yes I do appreciate blunt discourse. Brevity is the soul of wit after all.
Im aware I'm not going to convince the same people who I'm typically responding to. You're not the target audience, because your mind isn't going to change.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - however Frontier will consider more than a single player's wants when changing their game.
Given that their game, as designed, renders PvP an optional extra - and that every player bought it on that basis (whether they appreciate the freedom of choice for themselves, or others, or not, as the case may be) - I'd not expect them to go out of their way to alienate players who don't enjoy PvP.
I completely enjoy the postive discourse between us, as such disparate views of the game options makes for some amusing observations.
If it wasn't the same old re-hash of a topic that, like the metaphorical horse, is pointless discussing, it may even have proven to be interesting. I'm not even going to suggest that I disagree with every point you proposed, only the one
Still hard for you to bluntly acknowledge that "No, they wouldn't"? (As it is obvious that to say otherwise is just side-stepping)
Are you being captain obvious or just condescending?
You know I've suggested that a change to the modes should accompany gameplay changes to also still allow all player motives.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Stating the obvious is quite often required - it brings the discussion back to reality.
Indeed - and not everyone does or would agree that those changes constitute an improvement for them - and it is highly likely that Frontier would be aware of that before even considering such a change.
Last edited:
I don't bluntly say it because I don't think that a person who doesn't want to see anyone, would be unable to accomplish that, even in open only. A key motivation I have in my suggestions is allow players to solve their problems and desires, via the sandbox, rather than the modes. And with FC and stuff like base building potentially on the horizon, that's doubly true.
The obvious bears repeating when it's necessary to regain perspective. In this case, you're asking for a change, and then justifying those changes by saying that other accompanying changes will balance that out... somehow.
You're trying to eat your cake, and still have the cake.
I don't play in solo, but I would guess that the solo player is there solely as they are playing the "single player" option, rather than banished there by 'nasty gweefers', your proposition would remove that option entirely, fact, so those who have elected to play alone, would be either 'forced' to accept a play style they have no interest in, or to stop playing altogether.
Perhaps a 'solo' player could reduce dramatically the chance of an encounter with other players by playing outside of inhabited systems, but even if they have a passion for deep-space exploration thay would still have to return to a station to off-load accumulated exploration data and complete any repairs, and at that time could encounter other players... The proposition, even with your caveats, does not permit a 'solo' player to continue to play as they wish.
I'm actually asking for the layers of the cake to be changed to create a different flavor of cake it's still cake.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not everyone else would enjoy the reconfigured cake - and have a reasonable expectation to be able to enjoy the cake they bought - and haven't authorised anyone (other than the Developer) to change it on their behalf.
Not entirely no, that is true. It's a problem the player would be tasked with addressing themselves, which is how I think it should be. These new problems give rise to more player agency, more room for imagination, and maybe demand for new cool additions to the game to serve as tools.
Example. I like to pirate player cargo ships.
I'm immediately faced with the fact that I need to use specific in game tools to accomplish this, and must also find somewhere that offers what I want to do.
I do not have some button to press and make it happen. So that means I have to make ship build choices. These choices mean that a dedicated PvP ship will out do mine should I try to face it. So I'm faced with how to confront that problem too. The onus, to deliver the experience im seeking within the sandbox, is on me. I argue that should be the case for everyone.
So solving the desired player experience of wanting to be alone, should be on the player. It also opens up potential for new tools in the sandbox (which I have tons of ideas for too as I imagine everyone would) to help the player thrive in it via smart ship choices and decisions.
Like I've said previously, the problem would be better solved through game mechanics than modes, and the existence of modes means the problem no longer exists to be solved.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The problem still exists to be solved for players who wish to play in Open - however it seems that, for some, that's not enough - and they seem to want to force every other player to play according to arbitrary rules and not the rules of this game.
Frontier gave precedence to the choice of each player as to who they want to / don't want to play with over the desire of players who may want to play with them - I doubt that that will change.
You're being purposefully ignorant of how players approach games.
I'm a player who enjoys combat primarily. I do not enjoy mining. Why have I mined over a billion in credits, rather than go for it via combat? Because it's the most efficient way to solve the problem of needing credits.
Players will solve the individual problems they encounter in the most efficient way most of the time despite preferred motives. You know that. Why would braben have said he doesn't want any one activity to pay insanely more than the others so players to don't feel forced to do that, if that path of least resistance wasn't the way players will approach the game? He knew that the paths you provide forward in the game dictate player behavior. Don't present purposefully ignorant arguments, you only devalue your own position.
So I argue the path forward for the goal of playing totally alone should be through gameplay not modes, so you have to solve that problem and the game doesn't do it for you.
Almost there
The 'problem' is introduced in your proposition as it doesn't currently exist. In our current game the solo player has already addressed the wish to play 'alone' by choosing solo, they will never meet another player even if they made their home base Deciat (or Borann currently) and played during 'peak hours' because that is precisely what they chose.
We all build to our requirements, sometimes with compromises, as we must.
...nothing wrong with piracy!