Hannah Fry's bugbear right here. Frankly, I don't blame her for how irked she gets. It annoys me to no end too.
I do also follow ships into CZs, CNBs, RES... sometimes had to save new players from being shot down.Honestly the issue is that the BGS is being brought into the foreground in the first place. I mean, I guess it was inevitable that people would figure out how the black box works and start playing it against each other, but then you get the problem that people who have no intention of "playing" the BGS in the first place and are just doing their own thing start getting yelled at and called cowards on the forums, and groups that want to plant their flag over the map run into people who want to be solo agents and it all turns into a big acrimonious mess, especially where PMFs get involved because opposing something that has a squadron's name on it makes it personal even if your intentions are "please don't steamroll over the one system in fifty lightyears where I can buy e-breaches".
I honestly think that's the core issue.
By design - DBOBE's comments at EGX2014 are quite telling in that regard.
Given the EDH / EDO split in Open, there's no guarantee that players would be in the same Open, much less the same instance in one of the two Open modes in the live game.
In a game where other players, and therefore PvP, are optional extras, where all players have the same tools to affect the mode shared galaxy, we are on an even playing field, unless having the same tools as those in Solo and Private Groups is in some peculiar way "unfair"? That some players choose to try to make a PvP feature out of a game feature shared with players, who may have no inclination to engage in in-the-same-instance-PvP, and then complain that those others aren't forced to play the game the way that they want them to is obvious - and has been for approaching a decade. It's clearly not a PvP game, i.e. a game where players must play among those who want to shoot at them when affecting the game - it's a game where players may choose to engage in PvP, or not, as the case may be..
There was not a single cmdr in open last time i wrecked Razor Whips settlements and fought in ground combat zones for 3 days in a row. As requested i did it all in open. You are either all in solo or cowards or you were smart enough not to cross my path... or it could be just that it is ridiculous seldom to encounter another cmdr during that activities what makes the whole "play in open" approach pointless beyond believe.
What I find nonsensical about this situation is that it is antithetical to the notion of a genuine competative conflict, i.e. I can accomplish a task within the realm of a competative conflict without any opposition from other players because I want to.
... and those players are free to agree to abide by an out-of-game ruleset if they so choose - however that has no bearing on those players who don't choose to abide by an OOG ruleset created by some players and choose to play the game by the in-game rules instead.
Competitive does not require PvP, in this game.
I know that, and I think it's silly. I realize that isn't an argument per se. It's just my opinion.
Understood - noting that we don't all want the same things - the only thing that some of us may have in common is that we play the same game.
Only in the most general sense. Yes, we are all playing Elite Dangerous. Are we all playing the same "game" though? Not really.
The game can be played in many different ways - and players can't be forced to play it in a particular way, outwith the rules of the game, by other players .
It makes sense, from the perspective of a player who tolerates / prefers PvP (and wants other players to have to play among those who would engage them in it, given the opportunity) it may seem odd.
That's the thing about Elite, though: There is no structured framework ensuring a level playing field for any of the many different play styles the game allows for. Players are free to interact in Open regardless of play style, and are free to move to Group or Solo while still able to influence the BGS. From a birds-eye perspective, the playing field then is level. However, when immersed in either of the many ways to play, the field won't look level when interacting with players approaching the game differently.
SRazor Whips?
Well stated. I mean, you're right; by virtue of playing this game, we're willing participants in a system that allows players to affect competative outcomes without resistance. I am, however, critical of this approach. I don't mind avoidance of PvP if you're going about personal or group business in Solo or a PG such as exploring, logistics, PvE combat, Thargoid hunting, mining, etc. I do that all the time. I am, however, critical of avoiding PvP in conflict scenarios. Not because it frustrates PvPers, but because PvP should be unavoidable when you are fighting someone over something.
