I feel I have said this many times. I do not begrudge people for the way they play. I am in no way, no how, no why... advocating removing solo or groups. I think they have the absolute right to play how the wish. I do not think they have the right to demand an open server all for their needs.
- Status
I feel I have said this many times. I do not begrudge people for the way they play. I am in no way, no how, no why... advocating removing solo or groups. I think they have the absolute right to play how the wish. I do not think they have the right to demand an open server all for their needs.
I find it strange that you say that.. maybe if Open, as it itself is essentially an open ended private group, were controlled by one person instead of by Fdev you would instead want something better than just Toolsets for group management.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
yet it is right for PVPers to keep an open server for their needs plus a private arena?
They don't need to demand one - they can create their own using nothing but an IP whitelist shared between their members. That might even be easier for enormously huge private groups to manage than Private Groups as they stand in the game. Of course, there's the moral side of that kind of activity being "wrong" towards everyone else in Open, so giving Private Groups better management tools is very probably a good thing for everyone
But "open" isnt controlled by a person. So there is no need to debate it's membership ability. The term "open ended private group" is a contradiction in terms.
"Open mode" isnt FOR pvp'ers. Its for everyone. CQC isnt anything more than a combat arena. If I am supposed to be content with CQC, it would be the same as suggesting that your own area be limited to a single station and a resource site.
EDIT OUT STUPID AUTO MERGE
They don't need to demand one - they can create their own using nothing but an IP whitelist shared between their members. That might even be easier for enormously huge private groups to manage than Private Groups as they stand in the game. Of course, there's the moral side of that kind of activity being "wrong" towards everyone else in Open, so giving Private Groups better management tools is very probably a good thing for everyone
I agree! And I would be totally for better group management tools to help players find their niche. However some are not willing to compromise on what they would be willing to settle for, and demand the entire purse of the PVE promised land.
Goodnight fellas. This forum makes me wish I took debate class. Ill be back tomorrow when I climb into my cube at the salt mine.
o7 Fly safe.
Last edited:
If feels like an adult has told two children that they can have cake and ice cream, yet one child notices the size of the cake and wanting it all for themselves tells the other child that they don't need cake as they have ice cream and instead hordes the cake plus ice cream to themselves.
You say Open is for everyone, yet I find that statement not true.. .if it was for everyone then there would not be a need for groups and the such..
Where can you play in Open with PVP... everywhere.. even inside stations if you feel like getting killed.
Where can you play Open without PVP... nowhere at all.. no matter where you go if you run into someone they can pvp you.
So please explain to me how a second open is unfair and that open is really for everyone.. because it clearly isn't.
And at no point did I suggest taking open away from you, you can be content with Open as it is pvp... yet you blatantly say that those who don't like PVP should be content with what they have (ice cream) while pvpers have an open mode (cake) instead of thinking it would be fair if there were 2 Opens clearly marked PVP and PVE and people can play happily with social interactions how they would like too.
night and you fly safe too
Last edited:
Dear Frontier
Please make system authority in high security systems much more efficient. If you turn up with a big bounty, expect to hurt extremely quickly. If you're not a problem, expect anyone who murders you to face consequences.
That way. People wanting a good barney can go and have one in Anarchy systems, and people wanting a quiet, trading playstyle can have that, too, in high security systems.
It's not FSD science!
Please make system authority in high security systems much more efficient. If you turn up with a big bounty, expect to hurt extremely quickly. If you're not a problem, expect anyone who murders you to face consequences.
That way. People wanting a good barney can go and have one in Anarchy systems, and people wanting a quiet, trading playstyle can have that, too, in high security systems.
It's not FSD science!
Only have time to quick scan, but there is no "compromise"
Open is controlled / dominated by PvP'ers getting what they want. PvE'ers are forced out of open in to private groups out of the way....
Either Open PvP + Open PvE modes, or no Open mode and everyone is forced to private groups.
That is a "compromise", as everyone would have the same choices. Currently, PvP'ers are the only players that get to play the "MMO"
Which brings up an idea I had before.
" I think that if someone has a bounty above a certain amount (say $5000) then he can't sell his ship, modules, or even re-arm/repair in a civilized sector. He can't dock in stations only outposts, and if his ship is too big.. he's in trouble. BUT.. if he can get to a station that is controlled by pirates then he can.. though the price would probably be higher than normal to get repaired. Maybe even have station personnel who can take care of their bounty for a hefty cut allowing him access back into civilized sectors .
I mean if someone wants to play as a wanted player, lets make it at least partly realistic with actual punishment. Their victims usually are punished by their actions but there is no real punishment for pirates.. oh and to make sure that no "farming" bounties for credits.. the bounties come out of the Wanted player's account. And if they don't have enough.. ships are sold till they do.. but if they are back down to only the starter sidewinder.. they get a reprieve.. as long as they are still using any loaned equipment.. commit a crime and have bought gear and not enough funds for the bounty.. gear gets sold.
I don't understand being "hostile" to a system and the station allowing me to dock and fully repair, rearm and everything.
Last edited by a moderator:
Very naive to think PvP player killers are the only people who enjoy open play.
Think about all the refunds that frontier would have to issue to people who have bought lifetime expansion passes or backed the game specifically to partake in open play... it would cost them millions to remove it.
I've been playing elite since 1991 (Archimedes version) and am a backer of ED... but I understand that things move on, the games market is a different beast these days and I accept that.
I would be asking for the £180 I've spent on ED to be refunded if they removed open play, and I'm sure lots of others would too.
Last edited:
I have to ask.. do you not think the amount would be close or even more if Solo/group was removed and everyone forced to Open.. while Jockey has facetiously called for Open to be removed before, there have been multiple advocates of removing Solo and group and forcing people to play open.
And as Jockey said couple posts up... there currently is no compromise... PVPers have Open, they have CQC, they have Groups.. PVErs have playing alone in Solo (which some like) Groups.. and oh that is it.
Yet when asking for a balancing Open PVE.. you and other complain.. you have your cake and ice cream.. why should anyone else get it.. You even want to claim that instead of bringing people together a Open PVE mode would "splinter" the community. Why.. because suddenly people have a social choice of PVP or no PVE and it is clearly marked... so you lose soft targets that can't fight back ?
I'm not calling for any of those game modes to be removed, I think players having the choice of solo/group/open is a good thing as it attracts more players to the game overall, resulting in higher revenues and therefore more updates/expansions.
All I'm saying is that I would only support another game mode (Open PvE) if Frontier incentivized open play(regular Open play only) with a credit bonus which would discourage PvP-induced rage-quitting.
Last edited:
I've not once said I want any game modes removed.. and that meme is overused.
For a start, the lifetime pass is to have access to the game and its content + all future content.
Solo has full access to the game + content. Groups have full access to the game and its content.
So the removal of Open to make the game an even playing field for PvP'er and PvE'ers would not cost them a penny in refunds, as the Lifetime has nothing to do with the modes.
And you can ask for a refund all you like, if you bought the game for forced PvP then you bought the wrong game for the wrong reasons.
Right from the Kickstarter it was made clear that people have the choice to PvP or not. So your request would fall flat on its face, as the modes are just a way to choose who to play with, which you can do via Groups.
Open = Group set to accept all join requests.
Solo = Group set to decline all join requests.
Groups = Group set to player admin controls and not an auto accept / decline.
All Solo and Open are, are auto controls for the matchmaker. Both could be removed and not impact the game play.
Last edited:
Personally, I'm not in favour of any kind of incentive for Open play.
For me, the opportunity to encounter other players is both the risk and the reward. I've made a couple of enemies and I've also made a few friends - the chance to make both is what makes Open special and appealing for me
*sigh*
They're not going to remove open play, I wouldn't waste your time lobbying for it as many players enjoy it in its current format - and there would be commercial consequences for frontier if they did so, despite your dismissal of that notion. I mean lets face it, they can't even change minor features of the game without the community going nuts... can you imagine how it would react if they totally removed open play.
lol, you guys...
I'm not sure if giving players in Open mode more credits would motivate those who don't like some aspects of Open Mode to stay. If somebody doesn't like something and wants to play in an other mode a bit more credits won't change the reasons to leave. Some might stay for the credits, but in the end they will become even more frustrated.
The only way to keep those players in Open Mode would be to change Open Mode in a way that removes the reasons for them to quit that mode. I guess many Open Mode players don't want that. Let those who don't want to play in Open Mode go and don't try to lure them into a game mode they don't like. Nobody gets an advantage from that.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Players who prefer / need their targets to be unwilling would benefit from a lure to encourage more players to play in Open.
Personally, I'm not in favour of any kind of incentive for Open play.
For me, the opportunity to encounter other players is both the risk and the reward. I've made a couple of enemies and I've also made a few friends - the chance to make both is what makes Open special and appealing for me
Fair enough, I only support the idea as some players tend to say things like "why should I trade it open? There's no benefit to the risk" etc.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Exactly - piracy has always been part of Elite so this perspective is a valid one.
- Status