I find the entire thread rather alien, I mean what does it matter what mode people play in? Just let them have fun, if your fun requires you to beat up on other players, whether directly via PvP or indirectly via the BGS that's a you limitation, nothing to do with other players and however they choose to play within the rules of the game is 100% fair and justifiable! I say this as a rather proud "never engaged in PP or tried to manipulate the BGS ever." player. Mind you might have accidentally triggered someone when I used to come in and sell billions worth of exploration data in one sitting, but that's thier problem!
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
I find the entire thread rather alien, I mean what does it matter what mode people play in? Just let them have fun, if your fun requires you to beat up on other players, whether directly via PvP or indirectly via the BGS that's a you limitation, nothing to do with other players and however they choose to play within the rules of the game is 100% fair and justifiable! I say this as a rather proud "never engaged in PP or tried to manipulate the BGS ever." player. Mind you might have accidentally triggered someone when I used to come in and sell billions worth of exploration data in one sitting, but that's thier problem!
Actually, more than you think (but knowing it require playing in this mode), because I never had issues with finding random people in high traffic areas
More is simply better, as long as instances works.
Would be interested how two muppets deliberately blocking a station mail slot and yelling "dis iz a blockadze" could be interpreted any differently than them being said creations of Jim Henson
O7
Then that makes the entire argument moot, does it not?because I never had issues with finding random people in high traffic areas
So it's one or the other: either there are plenty of people playing Open and all of these threads are worthless crying or there are very few people playing Open and the Open people don't like that they're alone.
It can't be both, but here we are with people literally saying both.
Not much, you could understand it by reading whole post, instead focusing at first few words
In my cutter yes, sadly at the time i was in the Cobra so me vs 2 T10s wasn't an option.Blockade?
"set throttle at 100% and boost"
O7
Not much, you could understand it by reading whole post,
Pal, it's been the same junk for years: MAKE PEOPLE PLAY OPEN!!! or "I DON'T LIKE PLAYING OPEN".
Let's be honest, it's a parking space not dissimilar to the suggestion forums, so all the "ganker" and "open only" threads don't clutter the other forums beyond recognition.
This thread has been nice and quiet for such a nice long time, but now and then the odd ganker thread pops up and gets closed with a link to this thread, then the "open only" and "solo and PG is cheating" folks take over, and here we are, 100+ pages later.
A lot, it seems. Mostly to those who want to take away solo or PG in some form of another. Some people have a hard time with the concept that there is a subset of players who just don't want to play with them.
I've definitely enjoyed the game play involved in attempting to blockade, or attempting to evade blockades, around starports. Far more often that not, though certainly with a few exceptions, most participants weren't violating any rules, nor engaging in any non-contextual harassment. I don't think think I'd apply the 'muppet' designation to people mutually enjoying a game well within the bounds of the game's rules either.
However, you may witnessed one of these occasions and dismissed it all as disruptive muppets ruining your experience.
It's both, it's neither, and it's a lot more.
Some people do want more people in Open and some subset of them think this could be achieved by eliminating the other modes. Some people aren't particularly concerned with the population of Open, but think they should have the opportunity to directly counter any player activity they can perceive. Some people want more people in Open, but would be happy even with fewer people in Open if the game were more internally consistent. And those positions just scratch the surface of the spectrum of opinions possible, even from the nominally 'Open-only' crowd.
If a game can be played multiple different ways and one way is technically superior to the others, but results in subjectively less enjoyable gameplay, then tighter constraints would result in their preferred method of play deviating less from the optimal method of play.
Someone pushing for Open-only PP might enjoy being able to take direct action against their opponents more enjoyable than hauling merits, and would prefer systems that equally incentivized direct action against opposing CMDRs.
Someone pushing for Open PvE might enjoy non-confrontational interactions with as many people as possible, and the absence of their preferred mode, or simply the presence of multiple non-preferred modes diluting the population they could encounter, runs contrary to that ideal experience.
Someone may want a true single-player offline game that is incompatible with anyone else being able to alter the setting they perceive.
We have a game that fairly prominently depicts explicitly player directed changes to a shared setting. Failing to engage in the degree of solipsism required to ignore all of that, while simultaneously having to mentally divorce the objective mechanical impacts from their player-induced causes, is not a 'me' limitation, it's a large segment of the game. If I wanted to construct a setting for my character wholly within my own mind, I sure wouldn't be using a multiplayer video game to do it.
Those who have issues with the current system--which is most of us in one way or another--generally aren't saying that playing by the rules isn't justifiable, but that their ideal version of the game would feature different rules.
Who has a hard time with this concept? I mean, I'm sure there must be someone out there who can't grasp it, but I can't think of a single post I've read during my entire time on this forum that would be suggestive of your assertion here. I don't imagine any relevant fraction of those who want to take away Solo or PG somehow believe that people are using those modes to play more directly with those in Open.
From what I've read here, that's it indeed... and as far as those CMDRs don't share anything in the game it's fine.
But others might have a counter argument for that stance: something like "if you don't want to play with me [in open] then do not come in my backyard".
May be such backyard owner just wants to know who's coming to mess it up and why... then take the most appropriate countermeasures instead of wasting time wandering around (or posting on some XXX PMF's discord server).
Regarding the other explanations provided by several contributors, it's also clear that their decision to select one game mode vs. others is a consequence of their very personal experience.
Played in open -> got ganked once/mailslotted/stationrammed/robbed/etc [...any negative experience outcome] -> open play is no more (never again, may be).
The latter kind of player may even have days ruined by NPCs (thinking that PvE is a safe mode) or for crashing into a high-G planet without complains [how many "oops, lost data/cargo because of planet/NPC interdict me
At the end of the day, some players believe that other players may not provide any better game experience (and somehow believing that presence of other players is a threat)... some others believe that other players are an essential element of the game experience (and somehow believing that presence of other players is a challenge).
The certain point is that there's no additional reward for being in the second group, where risks (seen as game difficulty) are without doubt higher.
Let's start the loop again
If I have jumpa conda - I don't land. At all. However, if I fly in bubble using it in Open, I will die before I restore control after interdiction. That's the problem - no good choice for me, fly heavy armored slow ship , or don't use Open. And that is decided by some random guy from internet
Why he should decide?P.S. And yes, when you went to trip day 2 of owning the game, returned, and lost your data (yes, you had no idea what is open or so) because of the random guy's wish - it's frustrating. Even heavy pvp based la2 protects you HALF of the whole progression: 1. you cannot be attacked by over progressed character, 2. you lose nothing at all, except 5 mins to run back on spot.
Last edited:
Well, ED does offer the players the possibility to explicitly change a shared environment.
But it does so offering 3 different modes of playing so the game can accommodate different playstyles.
Out of those 3 modes there is a single mode (IMO) that allows players to change the shared environment in the most efficient way from a competitive point of view
And that mode is obviously the PG mode since it allows multiplayer with all its advantages but without most if not all its disadvantages (that would be Coop mode without any shenanigans from players that are not exactly into friendly coop play)
And the clashes usually appear when a certain segment want to impose their playstyle to anyone else and claim that not playing the game as they say so, is lame boring whatever.
Well, modes are here since the beginning.
It not like you got a PMF then PG (and Solo) was added to the game.
If you know this and you still care for a PMF and while doing so you still waste time in open in pvp and piracy instead of tendering your PMF in the most efficient way - then you are playing the game wrong (or the wrong game)
I mean as far as i'm concerned PVP (including piracy and even ganking) is fine as long as it happens between like minded players.
What is not fine is complaining about other players playing the game, by the rules, in any of the other modes.
Nope, my case is simpler.
Most of the time (if not Everytime) i log in the game i have an agenda and a limited time for that game' session agenda.
And that agenda doesn't include shenanigans from other players - from station traffic to pads blocked to mindless interdictions to missions ruined or not unfolding properly due to other players in the instance or simply to be forced to run builds unoptimized-to-the-task.
Even simpler, i'm not hating anyone else - i just love the quality of my gaming time more.
Precisely - but i would replace the "challenge" at the end to "annoyance"
Nope, under no circumstances.
You knew what you signed for, and now you want to change the deal - No Sir / Madam
Not to mention that "risks" are totally subjective and mostly non-existent.
Maybe you're reading different forums than I am.
This gets watered down a bit in the swamp between BGS and powerplay, but I'd argue it's not "your backyard". It's a public area you have adopted as "your backyard". I don't care. I fly wherever I want and do whatever I want whenever I want to in whatever mode I fancy at the moment. This might align with someones BGS play at the time, or run against it. I don't care. If you do, fill your bucket faster. I know the BGS and PP people think they have some higher claim than those who don't do BGS or PP, but they don't.
Not so much, more 'space is big'. Certain PvP enthusiasts tend to hang around 'popular systems and events', as we develop we have visited all the tourist spots etc. so don't feel any need to return there.
Thus traffic in the systems in question would be expected to decline over time.
Those whose interests lie in 'interacting with the traffic' see the decline and assume that people are in solo/Pg.
To some extent this may be true as that was the advice some time ago but the enthusiasts tend to jump to frequently flawed assumptions.
Let's start the loop again
If I have jumpa conda - I don't land. At all. However, if I fly in bubble using it in Open, I will die before I restore control after interdiction. That's the problem - no good choice for me, fly heavy armored slow ship , or don't use Open. And that is decided by some random guy from internet
P.S. And yes, when you went to trip day 2 of owning the game, returned, and lost your data (yes, you had no idea what is open or so) because of the random guy's wish - it's frustrating. Even heavy pvp based la2 protects you HALF of the whole progression: 1. you cannot be attacked by over progressed character, 2. you lose nothing at all, except 5 mins to run back on spot.
That's what I said... ye
like "frustration" of "risk of being frustrated" drives players' choices (to a certain extent).I meant for flying in open, other players are a challenge. Annoyance may be for other game modes (if you don't want to see them).
Risks are different depending of activivities, i.e. let's look at a CG sistuation, where rewards are same no matter of the game mode.
Ofc if you're 5k away from Sol, there's no difference at all.
The higher claims are coming from exactly the same point where you say they don't have claims.
The "mine/yours" is ok, but stll remains subjective... you see it as public space, they don't: there's no absolute term (btw your argument is right, and I mostly agree with your points).
I think clashes on this topic are inevitable, no matter how accepting players are of other player's choices, as long as the game itself tacitly imposes suboptimal playstyles through mechanisms like the only partial segregation of modes.
It's not your, or anyone else's, desired experience that offends me, it's that the game doesn't allow me to completely excise them from my own. Whatever play styles are catered to by the mode system are all tainted by each other.
Many aspects related to this have evolved significantly, even since Rebel Yell joined--there was no formal PMF system (there was no system at all until August 2015 and it was purely discretionary and NPC only until 2018), no way to link one's CMDR to a minor faction, no Squadron mechansims, and no Engineering in early 2016, for example. Personally, I bought this game before the offline mode had even been canceled.
Not that I see anything wrong in the slightest with the desire to evolve the game in a direction one believes to be an improvement.
I doubt it.
Can you point out any specific examples of posts you believe express views opposed to the existence of PG and/or Solo, where the poster also seems to think that those who have selected these modes want to play with them in Open instead? The closest I can find are posts suggesting that more people would like Open if they tried it, but those are a minority, and such views don't being to imply that they think everyone is going to enjoy playing with them. In general, people voluntarily do what they like, and don't need to be forced into it.