Great New Article About Elite Dangerous

[Red Anders]

We want to have fun, it's quite simple to understand. If that means we have to go on about killing other cmdrs to have fun then that's what we are going to do.

Can't speak for anybody else but I understand that perfectly. It's a very simple concept. It's a shame that your own understanding of what the term 'emergent content' actually means isn't on the same level.

Ironically enough the game that many of you apparently came from is one of the defining examples of a game which produces it, which once again begs the question why keep trying to make another game into what you seem to wish it was when you were supposedly already playing one which delivered that experience?

Genuine question by the way.

 

[Sandmann]

The point you're missing is that a PvP group was being forced to engage in a significant amount of PvE or give up the system.

And the point you're missing is that PvE (in whatever mode you like) is the ONLY way to keep or take a station. PvP has close to zero impact on the BGS. The ONLY thing having SDC shooting at us and not engaging in PvvE while we played the BGS would have done would have been to slow us down slightly.

 

[Red Anders]

This paragraph highlights the concerns of every single person who's been accused of being a SDC apologist, plant, troll, griefer or whatever the name of the day we all take for suggesting that perhaps in a game where you have laser guns bolted onto the front of your ship, you might want to use them on another player.

So to temper those concerns with some realism, how many players do you know who have been banned for simply killing another player in open?

 

[Roybe]

Have nothing to do with "learn to play, noobs" in ED. More like life with your choices.

You have the hardcoded choices Open/Group/Solo
You have under that the soft choices...- do i want to fly to that particular area that has most certainly high player activity and therefor potential hostile encounters against players. If so am i cool with it if not, choose either to not fly their or use a hardcoded method to not let it obstruct your playing mood.

Simple as that. Play accordingly and dont let fool yourself from hardcore PvElers that Open is full of grievers, or self-proclaimed PvPlers with different "moral" standards that PvP is always a meaningfull and thrilling experience.

Complaining that people can beat you from the other modes IS not understanding how to play this game.

PvE IS the only way to move the sticks in this game. IMO, this was glaringly obvious during the first CG's last February, PVP is a waste of energy, as it is something that the game does not reward you to do. Trying to force the issue just shows the PVP crowd does not understand the way the game is designed.

 

[bitstorm]

And the point you're missing is that PvE (in whatever mode you like) is the ONLY way to keep or take a station. PvP has close to zero impact on the BGS. The ONLY thing having SDC shooting at us and not engaging in PvvE while we played the BGS would have done would have been to slow us down slightly.

I'm not missing the point, that IS the point.

 

[Sandmann]

I'm not missing the point, that IS the point.

So... your point is what? PvE shouldn't affect the BGS? PvP should affect it? PvE should only affect it in YOUR favourite mode?

 

[Roybe]

Well I'd say dropping to solo to undermine or whatever is different to hoping instancing gets you through.

I don't agree that because of instancing an invulnerable mode is valid, sure there are flaws but that does not mean the worst solution is acceptable, that just seems to be a way to argue not to even attempt to improve things.

I don't think anyone has ever asked for the game to be centered around PvP but while PvP exists in open PvP should have some sort of meaning.

All PvP is is the ability for players to interact more directly. Which enables is the potential for a more dynamic and interesting galaxy. I don't see it as about PvP per se, more about allowing what's unique about open to not be rendered irrelevant solely because solo/pg exists.

I don't think anyone is asking for unrestrained PvP or anything, folk have been petitioning Frontier to differentiate security levels so high security is indeed high security so something like this actually possible.

The failure in this logic is that shooting at someone would somehow change an outcome to a situation. It doesn't in this game. All that needs to be done is to out pace the other side by delivering more PVE trophies.

For those that do not like the design, find another game that has rewarded PVP in the game system.

 

[Ziljan]

You're kidding right? Completely oblivious to the fact that 'harm' is not simply physical it seems. A complete disregard for the FACT that one's actions, even in a fictitious online environment such as this, can indeed inflict harm on others, and does......every day. I suggest you're the one that needs to come back to reality on that score if you honestly think that some of the actions being carried out aren't inflicting harm, even if only emotional harm, or is it that you simply don't care about how such activities impact on others?

I don't buy this argument. Sure people are entitled to their feelings, but claiming "emotional harm" is like someone getting angry at gravity for spilling their beer.

At some point we have to put on our big boy pants and realize that bad stuff happens. It doesn't mean the world hates you or is out to get you. It just means that forces exist. Including natural and unnatural forces of destruction. It's not personal. You can choose to take it that way, but that is choice. And your reaction says just as much about you as SDCs choices say about them.

Someone has to be the villain in this play. Just be glad that it isn't you.

 

[bitstorm]

The failure in this logic is that shooting at someone would somehow change an outcome to a situation. It doesn't in this game. All that needs to be done is to out pace the other side by delivering more PVE trophies.

For those that do not like the design, find another game that has rewarded PVP in the game system.

Well obviously Sandro has proposed a change that makes open more relevant in Powerplay.

The game can evolve, just because a game was designed as X does not mean it has to stay that way for ever. I'd argue ED *has* to evolve, I'd also argue players must let it, and should actively push for change.

 

[Sandmann]

The failure in this logic is that shooting at someone would somehow change an outcome to a situation. It doesn't in this game. All that needs to be done is to out pace the other side by delivering more PVE trophies.

For those that do not like the design, find another game that has rewarded PVP in the game system.

Yup. We've been saying it for years now, this is a PvE game with some PvP elements.... just like DBOBE said it was gonna be. Yes you can do PvP in it, but that's not actually the game.

 

[sutex]

ED private open solo.... Are the mice experimenting on us....

 

[Asp Explorer]

Trying to force the issue just shows the PVP crowd does not understand the way the game is designed.

Indeed.

So many people seem to expect this to be Super Crisis Hedgehog Call Of Battlefield Duty Citizen Gorefest Massacre in Space XVII with Day 1 Pew-Pew DLC

 

[Sandmann]

Well obviously Sandro has proposed a change that makes open more relevant in Powerplay.

... and has quite plainly stated that it's to the benefit of the powers not the players and that they have no intention to extend it.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Super Crisis Hedgehog Call Of Battlefield Duty Citizen Gorefest Massacre in Space XVII with Day 1 Pew-Pew DLC

Bet you can't say that three times quickly.

 

[bitstorm]

So... your point is what? PvE shouldn't affect the BGS? PvP should affect it? PvE should only affect it in YOUR favourite mode?

Well my *actual* point was about the article, that it should have covered the SDC system undermining for the reasons I stated and that they missed a trick there due to the "ironic twist".

The conversation moved on with folk picking isolated points out of context and arguing those, which is where we are, currently it's the usual and probably inevitable discussion around solo/open/bgs since this (as always) is at the heart of the issue.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

... and has quite plainly stated that it's to the benefit of the powers not the players and that they have no intention to extend it.

That's irrelevant to the point you were replying to.

 

[Ziljan]

Well obviously Sandro has proposed a change that makes open more relevant in Powerplay.

The game can evolve, just because a game was designed as X does not mean it has to stay that way for ever. I'd argue ED *has* to evolve, I'd also argue players *have to* let it, and actually actively push for change.

No rep to give currently

 

[Sandmann]

Well my *actual* point was about the article, that it should have covered the SDC system undermining for the reasons I stated and that they missed a trick there.

Sure but it was already a very long article, and to engage in that extra bit would have required explaining the BGS, detailing the "other side of the story" yada yada yada, none of which would have directly furthered the actual subject of it which was the growing gulf between PvE and PvE in MANY online games, using ED as a prime example.

That's irrelevant to the point being made.

Not really, the clarification IS important because it's being conflated with FDev giving some sort of tacit approval of the idea that open is some sort of "superior" mode. Bringing Sandro's SUGGESTION up in this context demands the clarification that it's only for powerplay and only benefits the powers to avoid misinterpretation. It'd be like me bringing up his SUGGESTION for stronger crime and consequence, it would easily be misconstrued in this context without clarification.

 

[bitstorm]

Sure but it was already a very long article, and to engage in that extra bit would have required explaining the BGS, detailing the "other side of the story" yada yada yada, none of which would have directly furthered the actual subject of it which was the growing gulf between PvE and PvE in MANY online games, using ED as a prime example.

It was the ultimate twist though.

That the whole story, PvP being forced onto PvEers, in the end turned to PvE being forced onto PVPers, who then lost a station.

From one angle it's the PvErs winning YAY!

From another angle it can be seen as unfair and you may sympathise with the PvP "side", because the game is such that the PvPers are ultimately powerless and at the mercy of a game mode they don't even play in.

There's then the question of whether the abused became the abusers.

It's the grand finale with two endings and further questions only the reader can answer depending on where they sit, and putting the reader in that position is right exactly where we and Frontier are right now.


For me I'm not sure there is a *right* answer, I feel both actions were wrong, but all this tension that's led to this comes directly from the decision to share the BGS over asymmetrical game modes. SO my view is this has to be resolved in some manner because if it's not the arguing will continue without any resolution. I don't think this is going to magically go away.

 

[Sandmann]

Replying to the edit...

Why does that matter, it it encourages people into open it enables PvP to a degree.

If it has that side effect that's great, but it shouldn't be misconstrued as the purpose of the suggested change.

I could equally suggest that having stronger consequences for crime would encourage people into open, but that's less popular with certain (not all) PvPers.

 

[Asp Explorer]

it would easily be misconstrued in this context without clarification.

I think that is what most people would like to see - wether it's SDC, Mobius, you, me, anyone - is clarification from FD on what "context" they have in mind when they consider swinging the banhammer or not.

Just to reiterate - I don't like what SDC did one tiny bit. I think it's distasteful. However, it was legitimate gameplay within the confines of the game. It broke Private Group rules, so they were rightfully banned from such, but that doesn't warrant a ban from the game.

Cable pullers and router tweakers may deserve a ban in the eyes of some people, but they are operating at a level over which FD has no control. Some may see it as illegitimate gameplay, but as those actions don't occur within the game itself, how can FD legitimately ban them for breaking in-game rules?

It's all a huge can of wriggly squirming worms, well past it's sell-by-date

 

[Sandmann]

It was the ultimate twist though.

That the whole story, PvP being forced onto PvEers, in the end turned to PvE being forced onto PVPers, who then lost a station.

From one angle it's the PvErs "winning" YAY!

From another angle it can be seen as the ultimate abuse because the game is such that the PvPers are ultimately powerless and at the mercy of a game mode they don't even play in.

It's the grand finale with two endings depending on where you sit.

That's the thing though, unlike the incursion into mobius where players WERE forced into PvP, PvE wasn't forced on SDC. The BGS runs on PvE but if (as they professed) they had no interest in the station, the BGS, of PvE then no-one was forcing them to engage in it. If however you're suggesting that their station should have remained untouchable simply because they chose not to defend it I'd probably laugh at you. PvPers are fond of saying that if you choose to play in open you must accept PvP... well if you choose to engage with the BGS by having a faction & station then you must accept PvE. Simple.