Well, yeah, with this view ED will never become a great game unfortunately. ED is missing the entrepreneurial element - there is nothing in this game to support that. It is for the "employee" type only.
Why I and many others will rarely play open
- Thread starter vanishboy
- Start date
You didn't. Someone else did. It's no biggie. I've heard worse lol
I don't even have any animosity towards anyone here. Maybe I deserved it. I tend to get defensive and snarky. And annoying.
It really is a fuster cluck. Different people. Different experiences. Different opinions. But it kinda makes things exciting huh? xD
In your opinion.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I expect that every player has ideas as to what features to add to make the game better (for them) - just as I know that not all players want the same things.
Of course it is my opinion - because I'm the entrepreneurial type and that is as well why I would love a player-driven market in ED as well. But ED has just jobs to offer.
Thanks for the video, btw - he has a very different view on this unfortunately, so it won't happen at all.
Thanks for the video, btw - he has a very different view on this unfortunately, so it won't happen at all.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Given the complaints from some gankers of harassment by lawful players, i.e. the lawful players seek out specific players who gank other players, whereas the gankers aren't accused of harassment because they don't seek out specific players to destroy (even though they may destroy many more players than the lawful players), it seems that an enhanced game response to crimes against players might be the way to go.
Noting that some players are vehemently opposed to crimes against players being treated differently from crimes against NPCs.
Deleted member 182079
D
Lol. I'm not going to get into a "my opinion is bigger than yours!" contest here. It's only a game after all; though it is amusing how personal some people take it.Well, that's your opinion and you are entitled to that. I actually think it's kinda funny and I'm just as entitled to that opinion as you are to yours. Enjoy your game.
Yep, this ^^
And this too ^^
PVP is a choice and Open actually means social play which is more than PVP
However, the only ones that bear the blame for this mess is FD and their naive view regarding PVP.
Rare and meaningful encounters they said...
Which, unfortunately, is only valid for the people that were ganked once, then never ever been to Open again.
Apart from the fact that most people play in Open, and it's common practice to make the most common option the default ...
Deleted member 182079
D
Agreed, though some people would still argue against it. Or fail to read it in the first place.
I agree that an enhanced game response is required, but rather than enhanced compared to NPCs I would prefer enhanced if in high sec, to the point where it becomes virtually a safe zone. This I believe is possible with current game mechanics - as soon as a player achieves notoriety x, the ATR will start interdicting continuously. This for me would add a lot to my 'immersion' - I just can't see why it should be possible to inhabit a high sec system and gank all day. We should also have a bigger distinction between killing and lesser crimes. Maybe here I will be accused of bias (my cmdr is a pirate) but I think that piracy without killing (both against NPCS and players) should be a lot more viable from a C&P point of view than ganking, but currently ganking is easier.
gorankar said:
I really think they need to move the solo mode button to the first position. It will make it harder for players to fat finger themselves into open when they really should not be there, and don't actually want to be there.
I really think they need to move the solo mode button to the first position. It will make it harder for players to fat finger themselves into open when they really should not be there, and don't actually want to be there.
As a virtually open-only player I have to agree, in fact I would even add some warning text under the OPEN button, possibly even a ARE YOU SURE confirmation. I have seen some of the ganker streams, and the endless queue of harmless ships getting ganked one after the other just beggars belief.
I remember them saying, the vast majority is playing in OPEN - so it is ok that it is the first option.
Last edited:
Deleted member 182079
D
There's only very few incidents where I got chain interdicted (I remember 3 or 4, over the course of several years - most players give up after giving them the slip a couple of times) - what I'll do then depends on whether I want anything else done (like finish a mission, hand in bonds, etc.) or whether I don't and can entertain them for a while (and myself of course otherwise I wouldn't do it).
If I'm busy, and someone keeps interdicting me, I low/high wake, switch modes, go to my destination, switch back (sometimes if I want the potential challenge of a port blockage I switch back within 0.1Ls of my destination, so I arrive there in Open).
From my attacker's viewpoint they won't know either way - I could've just ran away elsewhere, or the instancing RNGesus wasn't kind enough towards them. Not that it really matters to me regardless.
If I for some reason get caught in my large ship and am unable to escape then I'll face the rebuy like a grown-up, and say GG to them (in my mind only ofc) for their ability to stop me despite the odds in my favour. Credit where credit's due. (for the record: I have yet to face the rebuy screen in my Corvette or Cutter - and in my T10 I let myself gank by a wing of 4 a few months back, they eventually whittled me down but it took them a good while, so I went in with the intention to see how long it could survive - cost me 40m but worth it for science).
What always happens though is what I could've done differently to not get into that situation; and if the lessons learned pay off next time that's quite a satisfying feeling, as my pilot abilities have grown that little bit more again.
I only use block (and report) if I come across cheaters, pad blockers, and those who leave their verbal garbage in syschat (racism, and the like). For anything else I just don't feel the need for it.
It's all quite simple really.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 182079
D
The problem with that is for many players it'll just be one more extra (and annoying) click that they will still not read.
I see this day-to-day at work as well - I issue solid guidance and there's always a handful of people who don't follow it and make mistakes. Usually the same people who don't learn from their mistakes either unfortunately.
You don't need to move the open or solo buttons or make solo first or anything like that.
Just make it remember the option you selected last time you logged in. If you're a solo player and hit continue, boom, it goes to the mode-select screen with solo highlighted.
Just make it remember the option you selected last time you logged in. If you're a solo player and hit continue, boom, it goes to the mode-select screen with solo highlighted.
Deleted member 182079
D
Almost too easy a solution isn't it. Probably why it isn't a thing.
3.5 seems reasonable, 4 is dubious. FD themselves has on times acknowledged part of game design is considering when mode parity is beneficial and when it's not. I see no real reason why that discussion should be stiffled.
Beyond the obvious reason that you have an opinion on the matter and want to silence other thoughts. But that's be rather petty.
Unless most people play in Open because it is the first button on the screen.
Not to mention that most people might also be a misnomer and/or manipulative, as it usually leads people to believe it means the majority, which again for many it means more than 50%. Which is true when only 2 categories are accounted. When there are 3 or more, things can get fuzzy.
I mean, it could simply be that Open get 40%, PG get 30% and Solo gets 30% of the player base.
Which could be presented as most people play in open (taking into account each mode individually) or most people prefer to avoid Open, playing in Solo or PG.
And both statements are correct.