And yet your ability to affect the open climate is entirely the opposite of what you're discussing here. Either split both into their own progression or merge it. You're forcing the people in open to accept your influencing of an inherently competitive mechanic without any competition. If they were all split, sure that's agreeable; but it isn't. You can affect the shared pot by means that are entirely unfair and unengaging for the the open players. I call that irony, aye.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
Chill truckers should not sign up for warzones, lol. Going to engage with my previous comment or not?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not in the slightest - for as long as the game design has been available the ability of all players to both experience and affect the mode shared galaxy has been part of it - along with the choice of who to play among. Every single player bought or backed the game on that basis.
That some players can't accept the game design, or only accept bits of it, has been obvious for over a decade - that's neither a game problem nor a problem for those who do accept that no-one needs to play with them to affect the game.
When the definition of "fairness" relies on adherence to out-of-game rules it fails - as no player needs to follow any out-of-game rule set created by players or groups of players.
Last edited:
There is a case of mismanagement of expectations on both sides of the fence right now, this is the conclusion that I've come to, and to boot; This is a cultural matter that has nothing to do with the game at all.In my particular case: Do not wait for me there. And in general: it is not about to be unprepared before, it is about to be un-enjoyed after
The open players are not more entitled to the shared galaxy than the players in other modes. In the end, it's all bucket filling. Again, neither you nor I nor anyone else has any right to define what the correct level of "challenge" is for any given player. Want to win? Fill your bucket faster. The opponent you don't see while they are trucking away in private or solo might as well the opponent you don't see because they are at the other and of the world, have crappy internet or instancing, or just plain blocked you.
I guess removing the ability to block would be the next on the agenda after open only I guess.
The notion of splitting the game play into two different galaxies with their own background simulations is really off the mark.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
... and not a small amount of the discord between players exists because some players are simply not fun to play among, and those who some players don't find to be fun to play among can't accept that others don't need to play with them.
It is not about splitting as separation, that is about training people to be prepared to pay for what they want from others.
P.S. why it is so hard to understand? If you hear "do not train me", "do not prepare me", "leave me with what I was already have/ was doing" only from particular me then better just to ignore it. If you keep hearing that again and again from tenths of different unconnected people then it is (probably) something to think about. Perhaps.
Last edited:
You know, honestly I'd be fine with that. I recant.
Just split the PP progressions between closed and open. That'd solve the unfairness.
I'm not specifically speaking about AX, as you well know, but even there, in its initial, unwatered down form, this proved to be the case.
I would genuinely say yes predominately this was the case, which is why you got folks like GluttonyFang or other players who wore their 'combat badge' on their sleeve so to speak, championing things like AXO (or whatever it was called), leading the charge on understanding the AI/meta and learning the processes required to defeat it, whilst others (from what I saw) complained bitterly from the Forum Consensus was bitter complaining about how hard/unrewarding (ah, cr/hr) it was.
Much like we saw with the watering down of ATF Response (once PvE playing BGS groups realised (or experienced) that they could be on the recieving end of it as well, or the post engineers AI overhaul you and I so often talk about.
Aye i'd like to see how you would react if the status quo wasn't in your favor. Just cause the devs for some reason back your position doesn't mean it should be so.
It is inherently unfair for some others to have to work harder with more risk for the same results as someone who works less hard with no risk. Even less so when they're able to undercut your progression with it.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If the game as pitched had been limited to one PvP-enabled game mode I would not have backed it back in 2012. I also backed another space game at that time that pitched with a PvP-slider (that has since been removed from the scope) - I'll not be playing that one, if it ever releases.
No-one who wants every other player to be forced to play their way was forced to buy a game they don't like the design of.
The status quo isn't in Robert's, my, or anyone else's favor in many aspects of the game, and Frontier does very little or very late to rectify it. Just look at the ganking dilemma. Seal clubbers in the starter systems or at grandma Farseer have been a problem for a long time, a lot of players don't like or even dispise gankers, but Frontier's stance is: As long as they don't break the rules, it's fine. I'm sure everyone has some aspect of the game where they feel treated unfairly.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Given the broad brush claim it was not clear.
Some players enjoy combat, some don't. Frontier don't just listen to those players who do. Noting that three of the five in-game paths to Elite rank don't require the player to fire a shot in combat.
It's a really tricky area, some groups of people find fun in playing with their like minds where as other groups like playing with another types of like minds, some introverted others extroverted, some deep others shallow; Not a simple thing to manage at all.
So the definition of who or what is fun is really very subjective, but it is exactly in this domain, this field of play, that different similar subjective slants transform into highly objective gangs. It's both cool and overwhelming all at the same Time!
If you are playing with others, you have to get into step with the game, that is the essence of communal play.
Who would argue with that? BTW I do not believe that existing Power Kill reward 37(?) / 77(?) merits is even close to be fair. It should be x5-7 at least. Why I think so? Because people in Open have to wait at least for hostile human Players became on-line. Also coordination is completely absent in-game thus that is a separate PITA, that cost bunch of time and at least that time has to be rewarded accordingly. Not much to discuss about.
From the other side, let's imagine that hauling in Open brings +30-100% on profit. And we can haul with supporting ships. And wing could be built to attack enemy convoy. That would be interesting for many, including me.
Last edited:
I'm not playing with others. We all flying in ED (EDO) not interfering each other in a pretty balanced way. Have no single idea why would somebody be so unhappy with that.
I don not have to step into anything, I'm already there disregard do you like that or not so much.
You don't have to only kill other people, that is not the sole purpose of open mode, you are supposed to be going after the NPC's too, the original intent of the game was to go only for the NPC's; If you want only humans to fight against, get yourself over to CQC.
Did you consider forming a wing to protect a convoy from attack?
This has very little to do with the post you are quoting: which was that (particularly in this forum) PvE players seem to enjoy the game 'just fine', but only after as much challenge or requirement to pay attention to/engage with the game as a player has been removed from an element as possible.