My open letter to Fdev

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
They knew exactly what they were doing. Rather then making a real statement and advertising for open, they infiltrate a PvE-Group shooting every ship in their sight and harrasing the players.
They had not the idea of "opposing" in a protest by staying infront of the station blockading the entrance and spamming the local chat advertising it doing it in open. RESPECTING the Group players by not breaking their rules... Showing that a "PvP" group can think behind their gunbarrel.

What they actually showed was exactly what people in solo/groups want to avoid. Giving open a even worse reputation then it already has...beside being overblown. Good work...you made things worse.
Extreme-Facepalm-Gif-04.jpg
 
Solo/Group mode just needs to go. Or at least make it so that it's impossible to influence PP from Solo/Group


A stronger case can be made for Open to be closed...so this argument is DOA...sorry.

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

They knew exactly what they were doing. Rather then making a real statement and advertising for open, they infiltrate a PvE-Group shooting every ship in their sight and harrasing the players.
They had not the idea of "opposing" in a protest by staying infront of the station blockading the entrance and spamming the local chat advertising it doing it in open. RESPECTING the Group players by not breaking their rules... Showing that a "PvP" group can think behind their gunbarrel.

What they actually showed was exactly what people in solo/groups want to avoid. Giving open a even worse reputation then it already has...beside being overblown. Good work...you made things worse.
http://memesvault.com/wp-content/uploads/Extreme-Facepalm-Gif-04.jpg


Have some rep!
 
Frontier has set it up so that the players who are the loudest get their way.

no it is because back when ED was almost not going to be made, FD detailed certain key features, without which many would never have backed.

many people risked significant amounts of cash based on the trust of FD, and now you wonder why some people get vocal when they start demanding FD do a bait and switch?
 
And can and will be used for PvP - Powerplay favored government types and states come to mind. Look at Lockdown and Segova.


No. The environment and the Background Simulation can used to inspire or facilitate PvP but it can not be used or it world be PvE. In an MMO (note E: D is not an MMO) if you "train" mobs (Mobile Monsters) on an other player that is considered griefing not PvP. Similarly delivering more rats than other players is not considered PvP.

I don't know enough about Powerplay to be completely sure about this but unless killing players grant you merrits even that is not PvP.

Now there are a lot of people here who like to redefine terms to fit there need but that doesn't fly. These terms have been given their meaning many years ago and there's really no need to give them a new one.

PvP is when you poke an other players "avatar"/"toon"/"character"/"in game representation" with a pointy stick until he or she falls over. You do not use the enivironment to make said player fall nor do you use PvE mechanics to defeat (gain more points) the aforementioned player.

So could we please stop clouding the issue by using words in new ways.
 
No. The environment and the Background Simulation can used to inspire or facilitate PvP but it can not be used or it world be PvE. In an MMO (note E: D is not an MMO) if you "train" mobs (Mobile Monsters) on an other player that is considered griefing not PvP. Similarly delivering more rats than other players is not considered PvP.

I don't know enough about Powerplay to be completely sure about this but unless killing players grant you merrits even that is not PvP.

Now there are a lot of people here who like to redefine terms to fit there need but that doesn't fly. These terms have been given their meaning many years ago and there's really no need to give them a new one.

PvP is when you poke an other players "avatar"/"toon"/"character"/"in game representation" with a pointy stick until he or she falls over. You do not use the enivironment to make said player fall nor do you use PvE mechanics to defeat (gain more points) the aforementioned player.

So could we please stop clouding the issue by using words in new ways.

i think you need to get on with the times lad
http://store.steampowered.com/app/359320
b4a0cebb63.png

it WAS and IS advertised as an MMO and everyone in Fdev will tell you that Elite is indeed a MMO game
 

Deleted member 110222

D
They knew exactly what they were doing. Rather then making a real statement and advertising for open, they infiltrate a PvE-Group shooting every ship in their sight and harrasing the players.
They had not the idea of "opposing" in a protest by staying infront of the station blockading the entrance and spamming the local chat advertising it doing it in open. RESPECTING the Group players by not breaking their rules... Showing that a "PvP" group can think behind their gunbarrel.

What they actually showed was exactly what people in solo/groups want to avoid. Giving open a even worse reputation then it already has...beside being overblown. Good work...you made things worse.
http://memesvault.com/wp-content/uploads/Extreme-Facepalm-Gif-04.jpg

This, basically.
 
They knew exactly what they were doing. Rather then making a real statement and advertising for open, they infiltrate a PvE-Group shooting every ship in their sight and harrasing the players.
They had not the idea of "opposing" in a protest by staying infront of the station blockading the entrance and spamming the local chat advertising it doing it in open. RESPECTING the Group players by not breaking their rules... Showing that a "PvP" group can think behind their gunbarrel.

What they actually showed was exactly what people in solo/groups want to avoid. Giving open a even worse reputation then it already has...beside being overblown. Good work...you made things worse.
http://memesvault.com/wp-content/uploads/Extreme-Facepalm-Gif-04.jpg

The real facepalm should be for you saying we were harassing players. We were conducting an operation within the bounds of power play. We blockaded one system out of 400 Billion. The players killed were aiding the Federation, our sworn enemy; that made them enemy combatants and they were dispatched.
 
They knew exactly what they were doing. Rather then making a real statement and advertising for open, they infiltrate a PvE-Group shooting every ship in their sight and harrasing the players.
They had not the idea of "opposing" in a protest by staying infront of the station blockading the entrance and spamming the local chat advertising it doing it in open. RESPECTING the Group players by not breaking their rules... Showing that a "PvP" group can think behind their gunbarrel.

What they actually showed was exactly what people in solo/groups want to avoid. Giving open a even worse reputation then it already has...beside being overblown. Good work...you made things worse.
http://memesvault.com/wp-content/uploads/Extreme-Facepalm-Gif-04.jpg
Rep for your on point comment. Wish I could give you massive rep for the extreme facepalm. That itself has got to be worth at least +1000 rep...
 
Not a fan of that either. The player agency is amazing though. Wish we had even half the freedom that game has to create our own place in the galaxy.
you can have more than half & a cockpit, its in eve valkrie though, not elite, toddle on.

hopefully everyone who gets an account ban from this spends their money on the right game next time or buys sc as their next mistake ( or any gasme except elite)
 
The real facepalm should be for you saying we were harassing players. We were conducting an operation within the bounds of power play. We blockaded one system out of 400 Billion. The players killed were aiding the Federation, our sworn enemy; that made them enemy combatants and they were dispatched.
Are you so blind? You joined a known dedicated PvE group, you can spin it around as much as you want. With the intent of breaking those rules, counting as harrasment. You ddint blockaded anything, you did go to their to shoot fish in a barrel. The same thing you could have done legally and without any whining in open too.

You disrespected the group and its players. Its not opposing at all.
 
No. The environment and the Background Simulation can used to inspire or facilitate PvP but it can not be used or it world be PvE. In an MMO (note E: D is not an MMO) if you "train" mobs (Mobile Monsters) on an other player that is considered griefing not PvP. Similarly delivering more rats than other players is not considered PvP.

I don't know enough about Powerplay to be completely sure about this but unless killing players grant you merrits even that is not PvP.

Now there are a lot of people here who like to redefine terms to fit there need but that doesn't fly. These terms have been given their meaning many years ago and there's really no need to give them a new one.

PvP is when you poke an other players "avatar"/"toon"/"character"/"in game representation" with a pointy stick until he or she falls over. You do not use the enivironment to make said player fall nor do you use PvE mechanics to defeat (gain more points) the aforementioned player.

So could we please stop clouding the issue by using words in new ways.


Then why is it called PvP in Eve when you undercut other players in the AH? Why can't PvP be more than just player against player combat? Using the BGS could be considered PvP if the intended consequences were to defeat other players by eliminating their ability to perform a certain task. Just as jumping in on top of them and shooting them while they are trading. Just because they can't fight back adequately yet doesn't mean it's not PvP.

I understand the argument, though. 13th Legion says they wanted to blockade the CG because they don't agree with the outcome of the federation occupying that system. Mobius doesn't want to PvP, so they play in solo/group to avoid it. It's a tough decision to make, but the fact that a decision has to be made is not the fault of either 13th Legion or Mobius, it's the fault of FD for not anticipating something like this would happen.

I don't agree that forcing the CG into lockdown in order to stop it from completing was the right choice. It forced everyone to have to submit to it, even those that don't want to PvP. Nobody should be forced to play a certain style, and if someone absolutely does not want to PvP, that should be their decision, not others. but the other side of argument could be made that even participating in PP or a community goal can be considered PvP, because there are other players that are going to oppose you.

The only thing that I can think of to do would be to make PP and CG's open only, or at least limit the effect that non-open players can have on it, while not limiting their reward for participating. I honestly don't know why they designed the system the way they did, it should have been open only from the beginning, or with solo/groups being separated and run their own BGS.

But that's just me, and I'm of zero consequence.
 
Last edited:
Pssst, do not mention the router setup thing :)

It is my ace in the sleeve, just in case that someone in FD will be crazy enough to implement some Open-only game content or better Open rewards. :)

what about the upnp setting thing in the game files, the one they told us about when they forgot to turn it on in one update?;)
 
The real facepalm should be for you saying we were harassing players. We were conducting an operation within the bounds of power play. We blockaded one system out of 400 Billion. The players killed were aiding the Federation, our sworn enemy; that made them enemy combatants and they were dispatched.


Riddle me this: if you can just barge into Mobius and start murdering people whenever you want, then what is the point of Mobius in the first place?

Those players joined that group for a reason. Let them play the game, instead of using every excuse under the sun as a casus belli to invade them. When your solution to every problem is "invade Mobius", it stands to reason that you don't *really* care about any of the causes you are claiming to represent, but instead care about implementing your "solution" and will accept any cause as a pretext.
 
Riddle me this: if you can just barge into Mobius and start murdering people whenever you want, then what is the point of Mobius in the first place?

That's a good question, which you should ask Mobius himself. Why should Mobius advertise his group as PvE and then let anyone in without asking whether they agree to not shoot other players outside of CZs.
 
Last edited:
Are you so blind? You joined a known dedicated PvE group, you can spin it around as much as you want. With the intent of breaking those rules, counting as harrasment. You ddint blockaded anything, you did go to their to shoot fish in a barrel. The same thing you could have done legally and without any whining in open too.

You disrespected the group and its players. Its not opposing at all.

We did blockade Mobius. After we killed a few dozen ships, we didn't see a soul for days. It was so slow that we started killing NPC's and authority which triggered Lockdown and the market shutdown. And we did blockade Open as well. We had wings in both Mobius and Open. And I'm not sure how to say this any clearer than the first 1000x I've said it... breaking a private server's arbitrary rules DOES NOT constitute harassment per FD's own words.
 

Deleted member 110222

D
You see, the thing is, if Solo/PG had it's own BGS, separate from Open's, I'd be totally down for that, as long as we get equivalent CG/PP treatment on a base level. That is to say we have CG's only affecting our BGS, and a PP that only affects our BGS.

What I mean is, I would be the first to support separate BGS' for Solo/PG & Open.

I know it can work, because unlike a lot of you here, I actually have experience of being in a separate BGS. It was called the Xbox One GPP. That's right. FD did in fact run the Xbox on its own BGS before official launch on that platform.

I don't see why separate BGS' are a problem. I certainly consider it an acceptable solution. But both BGS' need to receive the same content, of course. That's my only condition that I would lobby for. But I think that's fair.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom