Ironman as it stands is something you decide to do and action yourself via the table, so you can disregard any dodgy deaths accrued through eejit shenanigans.
Elite Dangerous is the Largest Empty Sandbox Ever Made
- Thread starter Cosmo
- Start date
- Status
Ironman as it stands is something you decide to do and action yourself via the table, so you can disregard any dodgy deaths accrued through eejit shenanigans.
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
Don't worry, there's no need to differentiate between the pink-haired ones. They all have the same arguments (or lack thereof).
That is hairism! You're a hairist.
With 400 billion stars it's not a sandbox, it's a desert.
No wonder it feels emty.
No wonder it feels emty.
It's not like they don't have arguments, they are just playing the wrong game.
Counter-Strike for example has two opposing teams, one needs to plant a bomb at a specific spot and the other team tries to stop them. The game is obviously online multiplayer. Now imagine someone could just plant the bomb while being solo and nobody could stop him. This would make any deep and meaningful gameplay pointless (like developing strategies and tactics, getting good, using teamspeak etc.). What they say makes absolute sense, they just want to play a different game.
Tru dat
I'm just waiting on their arguments as to why THIS game should become THAT game.
('Deep and meaningful' is not an argument)
I think we need a lecture on "Emergent Gameplay" I still dont understand what it really means beyond MOAR PEWPEW
You do not promote balance at all. The concerning thing to me is that I think you know that you're not promoting balance, despite the words you keep using.
By pushing "multiplayer aspects" "into Open", you are demonstrably and forseeably promoting deliberate imbalance.
(Sorry I'm a bit behind in this thread I'm trying to catch up...)
Tru dat
I'm just waiting on their arguments as to why THIS game should become THAT game.
('Deep and meaningful' is not an argument)
Probably because Eve sucks
Yes they are. I didnt touch PVE for months, strictly PvP atm. As for now its a PvP game for me.
You like a bit of pvp do you?
Goose4291
Banned
The problem is your blurring two different types of people here.
You've got folk like me who want BGS/PP/anything in-direct PvP to be done in open due to the reduction in bad blood and toxicity it generates (as seen in that powerplay reddit post someone linked yesterday, or for example that rise to power poo throwing incident we saw with the UGC/Achenar Immortals 'war'), as we believe it would result in a mainstream return of fun player group mechanics, with the old Powerplay convoys/interception groups and the like.
Then you've got people who played as pirates (both actual and not-really) who for their game to thrive, need others in open with them, who will cite the above as a valid argument, while also not caring about the BGS.
Goose4291
Banned
I wish. I've got to go to Portsmouth to pretend to look interested in a 20 mil gun course... without any actual firing.
With the associated stringent alcohol policy... Bloody mental
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... then there are those who eschew direct PvP - and, from what one Dev has indicated, Frontier are well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.
Removing content from those that don't choose to PvP will not, in my opinion, reduce the "bad blood and toxicity".
Not forgetting that some players can only play in Solo (console players without premium platform access) - and they were sold the game with the ability to both experience and affect the single shared galaxy state (like all of the rest of us).
Last edited:
verminstar
Banned
.
Emergent gameplay is player influenced action and consequences...pvp is but one aspect, there are a great many other examples that dont include any pew pew at all. No need fer a lecture, its a fairly simple concept if ye think about it...another example was when all the lone wolf explorers came together and worked together to get jacques back up and running. At the time, that was emergent gameplay because it was player choice having real consequence on the game itself...or so we thought but thats another story...the example is the same however and no combat was needed to get jacques up and running again, just players working together to actually build something special ^
life ... if it is any consolation, that's an internet pic
right now i'll have to make do with a cup of tea. but that's ok!!I was talking about SDC. Since it was a member of SDC making the argument and I have a statement from them about the BGS. Which is why I wondered why for that particular person the game would be more meaningful and deep, instead of simply a way to have more targets, which doesn't create meaning or depth, just quantity.
Not making any assumptions outside of that, so not blurring any people together.
You like that sort of thing, fair enough. Do you believe that forcing people into your preferred playstyle is more enjoyable for those people? If people already enjoy that playstyle, they would already be in Open.
So you assume that those who do not chose Open at this moment who would be forced into that will adept happily to what you like?
Again, for pirate to thrive they need other in Open who enjoy the interaction or risk of being pirated.
In both occasions the requirement is there to force players who don't have Open as preference into Open. Do you think that's a good thing? Do you think the game will be more meaningful and in depth for them?
verminstar
Banned
life ... if it is any consolation, that's an internet pic
It looks like tea thats been stewed in the pot fer 3 hours with added creamy froth ^
- Status