Why play online?

[Robert Maynard]

So you are saying because I have a forum join date of Sep 2014 (and and bought in to the beta in Aug 2014 I think) that my opinion is automatically invalid and I should not be allowed to express it?

Please bear in mind I have not come in here, hurling insults and levelling threats that I would quit the game if I dont get my own way etc.. (I'm sure plenty other have done, and I myself have been the target of some not-so-veiled insults).

I have tried to hold an emotionless discussion which does indeed include a fair amount of speculation (how could it not at this stage?). I have tried to outline the reasons for my points and the context of my speculation (something that is quite rare it seems on this thread, both from people who may agree with me and those that don't).

I find it weak that some who disagree feel that it is better to argue against me rather than the points.

If anyone does indeed think that I have nothing of merit to say, and that it has all been said before and crucially that FD are smart so clearly wont take my random ramblings on board, then why reply?

Of course not - simply that the information on the game has been out there for quite some time for any person considering buying in to the game to gain an understanding of the game prior to committing financially.

If you took my comment on your join date to be ad hominem, I apologise - it was not made with that intent.

You may not be hurling insults but you are inferring that if some changes are not made then "bad things will happen" in open-online. No-one can know how open-online will be until we get our hands on the completed game. Everything else is simply speculation.

The reply is to allow spectators to see that there are at least two points of view regarding the perceived need to change the character of the game to satisfy those who have issues with the group switching feature.

 

[macdog]

Of course not - simply that the information on the game has been out there for quite some time for any person considering buying in to the game to gain an understanding of the game prior to committing financially.

True, but I am not coming at this from an investment protection angle! In fact, even if no changes are made I may well continue playing, I've never said otherwise. Still sounds like you are saying "it was like this when you bought in, so shut up". To me that's weak, sorry.

If you took my comment on your join date to be ad hominem, I apologise - it was not made with that intent.

No problem, I didn't quite, although re: the previous points it felt it was going that way. I didn't word it as you doing this, and was more general for that reason.

You may not be hurling insults but you are inferring that if some changes are not made then "bad things will happen" in open-online. No-one can know how open-online will be until we get our hands on the completed game. Everything else is simply speculation.

I think I am entitled to express that opinion. Really, there is no need to remind me that "No-one can know how open-online will be", I have made it clear from probably my first post (will need to look that up) that I acknowledge and accept that. However this would be a pretty empty forum is that was a reason for not discussing anything!
EDIT: again, I will point out that I have done more than most to outline why I am speculating the way I am. If you missed that post then please say and I will link it for you.

The reply is to allow spectators to see that there are at least two points of view

Fantastic! But I think it would be more constructive for us to discuss the points, rather than to discuss the discussing of the points which is what the last 2 or so pages seem to be!

 

[macdog]

EDIT: again, I will point out that I have done more than most to outline why I am speculating the way I am. If you missed that post then please say and I will link it for you.

I was curious as to what my first post was so looked it up anyway. I still think it broadly outlines my position/view, but obviously the discussion has (oh so slightly) moved forward from here (or has it?).

Link

Indeed, and that's why its not worth getting worked up over regardless of your slant on how the game should be (well that and its just a game after all).

I'm attracted to the open play model with a combination of taking risks myself in order to progress (or progress faster/further/etc...) and also taking advantage of others taking those risks (works both ways). If/once the game is well balanced, taking that advantage will come with its own risks in itself.

I personally don't like the solo-play toggle approach. Well at least in its current form; but then I remember its a beta and will likely change.

Why? Well I think its obvious to anyone (and has been mentioned many times already) that without incentives to take risks, very few (I would suggest near zero) will do so.

So whats wrong with that? Nothing in of itself, it depends on the type of game FD is trying to create. I guess my interpretation of the various statements made by FD is that this is not the case. There are various styles of gameplay that are wholly dependent on players taking risks (in a online/PvP sense).

The FD team clearly aren't stupid (technically or from a general gaming perspective) so if they want a game world with for example, piracy, then being able to toggle solo and do the exact same trade run in your Lakon-9 isn't going to deliver that. That's not to say you couldn't have a "complete" solo game that is very enjoyable/playable, but I don't see that as being mutually exclusive from having certain incentives from making trading runs in open play (and those incentives could take many, many forms).

I could be wrong, and misinterpreted the FD goal. Maybe they want to create a PvE game with arena based combat or something like that, but its not how I have read things to date...

 

[Glock_17]

Why should a new player play online?

Give me just ONE good reason.



T.K

because its boring playing only the combat scenarios

 

[Ashten]

I must admit I fully agree with macdog.

I will still play the game no matter what changes are made to the game but some things can be seen coming a mile off and online open being used for PVP from commanders who have made many credits from online solo is one of them.

That may turn out to be a good thing who knows but to me it just feels wrong.

 

[Spook]

I must admit I fully agree with macdog.

I will still play the game no matter what changes are made to the game but some things can be seen coming a mile off and online open being used for PVP from commanders who have made many credits from online solo is one of them.

That may turn out to be a good thing who knows but to me it just feels wrong.

To be honest I don't agree with macdog. The "infinate" size of the play area, the instancing mechanics, and many other reasons that have been covered time and time again in multiple other threads have so far only served to re-enforce my personal view that FD understood thier game, better than most from the outset.

Particularly the questionable mechanic of corraling players, either by artificial walls on the galaxy or any other "false" mechanic. They have extended that freedom to grouping which makes more sense in the context of ED.

To all intent and purpose - a boundless galaxy, the alpha and omega of ED. That's the challenge, not pew-pew, not domination. Not who's got the best mount, who has the most purplies, who has the most aquaintances, who controls the most grains of sand on an infinite beach.

Locking players down is pointless in the extreme, better to give them freedom and let them have fun, however they personally choose. They've got it by default anyway.

 

[macdog]

To be honest I don't agree with macdog.

Honestly don't have a problem with anyone who disagrees with me, but after reading your post I'm curious as to what it is you disagree with?

 

[Adept]

Honestly don't have a problem with anyone who disagrees with me, but after reading your post I'm curious as to what it is you disagree with?

That there is any need to limit group switching, I think.

 

[macdog]

That there is any need to limit group switching, I think.

I also thought that, which is why I asked, since I suggest a change/limit to group switching is one of a number of ways to address what I think will become a PvP arena all open mode.

To disagree with me is to suggest that either this won't happen without changes to a/some mechanics or that PvP arena all open isn't a bad thing. Which is fair enough of course!

 

[Robert Maynard]

True, but I am not coming at this from an investment protection angle! In fact, even if no changes are made I may well continue playing, I've never said otherwise. Still sounds like you are saying "it was like this when you bought in, so shut up". To me that's weak, sorry.

Glad to hear that you will likely continue playing if / when no changes are made. What I was trying to say that to buy into a game at this stage that has mechanics that you disagree with with an expectation that they will be changed may be a fruitless endeavour.

I think I am entitled to express that opinion. Really, there is no need to remind me that "No-one can know how open-online will be", I have made it clear from probably my first post (will need to look that up) that I acknowledge and accept that. However this would be a pretty empty forum is that was a reason for not discussing anything!
EDIT: again, I will point out that I have done more than most to outline why I am speculating the way I am. If you missed that post then please say and I will link it for you.

Of course everyone is entitled to express an opinion - that's what we are doing here. It is clear from your first post that you expect the group switching mechanic to change. In my opinion, I don't expect it to.

Fantastic! But I think it would be more constructive for us to discuss the points, rather than to discuss the discussing of the points which is what the last 2 or so pages seem to be!

If one side of the divide is of the opinion that no changes are required, what constructive points are there to discuss?

 

[Carcharodon]

I also thought that, which is why I asked, since I suggest a change/limit to group switching is one of a number of ways to address what I think will become a PvP arena all open mode.

To disagree with me is to suggest that either this won't happen without changes to a/some mechanics or that PvP arena all open isn't a bad thing. Which is fair enough of course!

Given that there are 55 systems and it's easy to earn credits shouldn't we be seeing PvP Open Arena everywhere already if we don't disagree with you by your logic? I've been playing Open almost exclusively since there was a choice and have seen no PvP action. By what mechanism will it turn into a PvP arena with 500 systems if it hasn't turned into one with 55 (never mind billions when they're opened up)?

 

[SurrenderOrHAHA]

If you plan on doing this, be sure that you get a whole lot of money on top of your "best ship with best weapons"
You will lose a lot of those expensive ships when you get involved in PvP the
first weeks.

OTOH online players will be losing their expensive ships to lag, rubberbanding and other latency related issues

 

[Nemesis-T-Warlock]

Given that there are 55 systems and it's easy to earn credits shouldn't we be seeing PvP Open Arena everywhere already if we don't disagree with you by your logic? I've been playing Open almost exclusively since there was a choice and have seen no PvP action. By what mechanism will it turn into a PvP arena with 500 systems if it hasn't turned into one with 55 (never mind billions when they're opened up)?

Now that you mention it, you're right. I wondered why there had been no forum threads about griefers in the anarchy zones!

 

[Carcharodon]

Now that you mention it, you're right. I wondered why there had been no forum threads about griefers in the anarchy zones!

I've only seen thread about griefers in Freeport. There are other anarchy systems, can you point me to the threads about griefers in those?

 

[Adept]

I've only seen thread about griefers in Freeport. There are other anarchy systems, can you point me to the threads about griefers in those?

The griefers would have had to sell their Vipers to have the jump range to get anywhere else... and the whole thing sounds like way too much work. They are happy just ing all over Freeport to mark it as "theirs".

 

[Jorlin]

The griefers would have had to sell their Vipers to have the jump range to get anywhere else... and the whole thing sounds like way too much work. They are happy just ing all over Freeport to mark it as "theirs".

no, it's mine... well partially
and i still keep neutral
.

 

[macdog]

It is clear from your first post that you expect the group switching mechanic to change. In my opinion, I don't expect it to.

True that is clear from my first post, however in that same post I did state that the "fixes" to the actual "problem" (in quotes as its a problem I perceive) "could take many, many forms". For me, the simplest and best "fix" would revolve around the toggle, but I've consistently stated it could be done in other ways. I have more interest in all open being a good experience overall than the specific mechanics that will get it there (while I guess I do have my preferences, but that is a very distant second).

If one side of the divide is of the opinion that no changes are required, what constructive points are there to discuss?

I don't really get this. Discussions often start with and/or involve a difference of opinion. If people didn't discuss things with people of a different opinion where would we all be?

 

[SurrenderOrHAHA]

The griefers would have had to sell their Vipers to have the jump range to get anywhere else... and the whole thing sounds like way too much work. They are happy just ing all over Freeport to mark it as "theirs".

FYI (Well, Im sure you already know this... =) , starting with b2, one will be able to purchase better parts for their ships. In Frontier, you could get a "military" drive (different classes too, whatever a ship could fit) for better jump-range. I suspect something similar will probably happen here. Those Vipers do have ridiculously short jump-range as it is now. (If I wanna grab along some cargo from Ibootis to Eranin I have to sell my heat sink launchers then re-buy them at Eranin.. Thats just annoyng because its like a 5.5 ly jump. Not all that many useful systems closer to each other than that..)
I get that it need to be some balance in the game, but it cant all be annoying either..

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't really get this. Discussions often start with and/or involve a difference of opinion. If people didn't discuss things with people of a different opinion where would we all be?

The discussion revolves around the contention that there is some sort of problem associated with players being able to choose which of the three online modes to play in on a session by session basis using the group switching mechanic. The counter contention is that there is no problem as the group switching mechanic is a feature of the game.

Discussion on a topic is only fruitful if there is agreement that there is a problem in the first place that requires fixing before any remedies are put forward as being suitable to fix the aforementioned problem.

 

[Seonid]

I don't really get this. Discussions often start with and/or involve a difference of opinion. If people didn't discuss things with people of a different opinion where would we all be?

And what does repeating the same discussion on a weekly basis achieve?