Its fair because nobody and his Dog is stopping you from doing the sameHow exactly is the gameplay fair when one group doesn't have to make any build concessions to usurp a system
O7
Its fair because nobody and his Dog is stopping you from doing the sameHow exactly is the gameplay fair when one group doesn't have to make any build concessions to usurp a system
Yeah.. no. That defeats the point of having multiple playstyles even being an option.Its fair because nobody and his Dog is stopping you from doing the same
O7
Completely agree, they should scrap Open and make a PVE server like MobiusYeah.. no. That defeats the point of having multiple playstyles even being an option.
Nah i like seeing NPC power ships go boomtake all the weapons out the game
It might surprise you to find out that a lot of traders only get attacked due to the "wrong place, wrong time" situation.
And as I've stated earlier in the thread, you'd see a lot less in the way of random ganking if Powerplay was Open only and we actually had a relevant activity to apply our skillsets too, rather than being washed out of it due to overly weighted influence from Solo/PG and no requirement to interact with other players despite influencing an inherently PvP based system.
See the post regarding efficiency and the Cutter example for more on how Solo/PG impact the system. I'm not going to repeat it.It wouldn’t surprise me at all, given I’ve said as much, repeatedly, on this thread.
For an allegedly “PvP based system,” it has very few features that facilitate PvP, starting with who is hosting the instances.
And there is no weighted influence from Solo/PG, anymore than there is in Open. Outside of, as you say, “the wrong place, wrong time,” the chance of a random hostile encounter is so slim, it’s a distinction without a difference, and the advantages of Open, namely the huge pool of potential players to form a PUG with, by far outweighs that minuscule amount of risk.
The fact remains that some players are simply not fun to play with. If most of those players are playing in Solo/PG for whatever reason, I’d much rather they stay in those modes, thank you very much. I’m already not instancing with 99% of the playerbase due to the real world equivalent of “wrong place, wrong time.” Does it really matter if the modes make that it’s 99.2% or 99.3%?
What this really means is you don't like folks disagreeing with you.You really can't have a sensible discussion on these forums at all can you.
I don't know why I'm even wasting my breath. Frontier needs to start ignoring a lot of the people on here entirely as they don't care about a fair gameplay element, they care about an advantage that only they posses.
If you say so man.What this really means is you don't like folks disagreeing with you.
O7
But the risk of that 1% changes how you play the ENTIRETY of the other 99%...Hypocrisy quiet frankly is saying Open should have a bonus when 99% of the time nothing happens.
But it doesn't, i fly the same ship in all modes, go to the same systemsBut the risk of that 1% changes how you play the ENTIRETY of the other 99%.
^^^But it doesn't, i fly the same ship in all modes, go to the same systems
O7
Noone is getting confused by you being forced to leave an instance. I don't know where you're pulling that from lol.^^^
This.
I can get to my destination much quicker, as well as much safer, with shields than I can without. And those same shields will protect my ship from players just as easily as NPCs. The only difference between a player and an NPC is that I might be willing to try and fight an NPC, and that NPCs don't get confused when I don't follow their script on how an encounter should go.
To be fair mate its a mute point, there is so much exploiting going on Solo/PG/Open makes no difference at all.ou will not be able to compete with how much Solo/PG players will be able to influence the system
You are wrong on my assumption. The suggestion to implement v2.0 PP into an open-world PVP framework molds the player vs. player activities into a massive intergalactic dominance venue where players have an open forum to seek out and engage other rival faction players. You can go through the annexes of online gaming history to learn that games that have boundaries on player vs. player do very well, in balancing the player vs. player activities to coexist within the player-base that do not engage in player vs. player activities. Any game that does not implement boundaries to shape the scope of player vs. player activities divides the player-base, and in this context, which server choice players prefer while playing.This is a somewhat odd twisting of my point, to be clearer:
1. In this specific circumstance, as always, you've assumed the other party is a 'ganker', which to be clear, is nonsensical in a powerplay interaction context (which actively encourages attacking players pledged to rival powers), and shows the weird biases you've built up over the past decade plus.
I am trying to track on what you're saying. There are plenty of online players that engage in PVP solo style, a story unto themselves, in many, many PVP oriented games. Using v2.0 PP does not remove or distract from that player's story unto themselves; however, the story unto themselves is told within the player vs. player boundaries and scope of the game. Just because v2.0 PP is designed to be progressive collaboration of players to support their chosen faction, within the galaxy, does not force players into a team vs. team PVP environment than leaving that type of group play open to the players to decide. Player vs. player activities within the boundaries of the v2.0 PP is only one factor in deciding the progression or regression of their PP faction.2. Adopting a 'central protagonist' (where everything is about you as an individual) rather than a teamplay/compeititive mantra in a game loop which is PvP/TvT is selfish, as it gives little regard to the others playing, or maintaining a healthy gameloop, and leads to a toxic environment with the collapse of said loop.
FDEV can do whatever in the game. I am merely pointing out an option to define boundaries and the "membrane" between consensual and nonconsensual PVP that would be adjoined together without rigid rulesets: a quick isRivalFaction? Boolean validation on FS Interdictions is one boundary to support the scope of the v2.0 PP player vs. player environment.3. To quote your own stock answer "its excluding a feature/option from the rest of the community behind a wall of forcing choice on the player." Any time in the last decade such a mechanic was proposed or floated by FDEV, its been shouted down by the Forum Consensus clutching at their rosary beads about how 'this isnt the game they kickstartered' (usually while ignoring the lack of offline mode, Iron man mode and other undelivered promises) and the such
To be fair mate its a mute point, there is so much exploiting going on Solo/PG/Open makes no difference at all.Vermin said:You will not be able to compete with how much Solo/PG players will be able to influence the system
...said the fox not able to reach the grapes.Open can't compete based on numbers. That's it. Too many are doing their business in PG/Solo for the open die hards to counteract them. Not that PvPers were ever stemming the tide against even other open players. Besides, open only PP2 does not mean more players in open. It means fewer players engaging in PP2.
The whole, "my play style is the correct play style and I should be rewarded over people that don't play like me", thing is pretty annoying at this point. We all have the same ability to choose our mode. If someone wants to sacrifice meta because one way is more fun to them, that is their business, and their choice. They are not somehow worthy of higher rewards.
Some are just looking for additional victims, and others want meta benefits without the sacrifice of following the meta.
Good for you, no reasons to use other than open-play modes then.But it doesn't, i fly the same ship in all modes, go to the same systems![]()