We have players on every console in my group. They can defend or attack in the same places together. Just like they are now. Bringing meaning to PVP not just on PC. But every console they play on.
Dont let jockey fool you. Everyone will have the same capabilities.
Ask ever watch ED's stream? Get ganked on Ps4?
That alone proves Jockey wrong. But he probably doesnt want to hear that.
Eh, people have to give on both sides. I see nothing wrong with personal progression though. Where people can bring their ship they have worked on into the multiplayer experience at any time. Its only fair. People have to learn the game first. Its not fair to dunk people in that have 1000 in pvp experience and 2 billion in rebuys. They wont learn anything that way.
Thanks for hearing me out.
I dont want to be a griefer. Thats not why I am here. I am looking for healthy PVP. Believe it or not. Thats what a lot of people want.
Indeed. And I would like an enjoyable SP experience. To be completely honest, less influence on the BGS, isn't really going to hinder my ability to play. I mean, even if I did smash the BGS like some do, what's a player with a measly few million and a Cobra going to do?
BGS influence or no, I'd still be able to buy commodities, accept missions, intercept pirates, sell said commodities for credits... And then have those credits available for spending.
Now that I think about it like that, suddenly, reduced BGS influence doesn't seem so bad. As I'm getting the same personal rewards, it doesn't matter.
And in case anyone says it, no, satisfaction from BGS work is not a tangible reward, personal or no. That's just objective fact.
Indeed. And I would like an enjoyable SP experience. To be completely honest, less influence on the BGS, isn't really going to hinder my ability to play. I mean, even if I did smash the BGS like some do, what's a player with a measly few million and a Cobra going to do?
BGS influence or no, I'd still be able to buy commodities, accept missions, intercept pirates, sell said commodities for credits... And then have those credits available for spending.
Now that I think about it like that, suddenly, reduced BGS influence doesn't seem so bad. As I'm getting the same personal rewards, it doesn't matter.
And in case anyone says it, no, satisfaction from BGS work is not a tangible reward, personal or no. That's just objective fact.
Me. Because there will always be Solo. Until you stop me from taking off in my Solo instance, you've done nothing.
Anyway dude, at this point I think you're a troll. I hope you're a troll.
Because if you're not a troll, I'm genuinely worried about your view on the world. The way you seem to think you have influence in the FD boardroom is... Queer.
I agree with this. I'd rather enjoy a discussion with opposing views, if nothing else it give me some perspective on how other think, but this just seems like willful trolling rather than a genuinely held opinion. I find it difficult to respect the views of one who simply shows no indication that they understand the opposing view.
Mostly though, I am annoyed by exactly the kind of blinkered thinking that has resulted in FDev giving us so little info on the future direction the game is likely to take. Because if even the most polite response of 'realistically no, but never say never' is taken as a solid 'yes' it is understandable that they never say anything any more.
Proper dog in a manger behaviour, can't get what they want so do everything they can to spoil it for the rest of us.
I agree with this. I'd rather enjoy a discussion with opposing views, if nothing else it give me some perspective on how other think, but this just seems like willful trolling rather than a genuinely held opinion. I find it difficult to respect the views of one who simply shows no indication that they understand the opposing view.
Mostly though, I am annoyed by exactly the kind of blinkered thinking that has resulted in FDev giving us so little info on the future direction the game is likely to take. Because if even the most polite response of 'realistically no, but never say never' is taken as a solid 'yes' it is understandable that they never say anything any more.
Proper dog in a manger behaviour, can't get what they want so do everything they can to spoil it for the rest of us.
PvP hasn't given up anything. We can currently build "monster" ships in Solo/PGs - so that isn't PvP'ers giving anything up, that's them accepting what we have now.
I also remind you the game was sold so every person in every mode influences the connected BGS.
It's not just Solo/PG you're looking at, but also Xbox has Open / PG / Solo and PS4 has Open / PG / Solo - all effecting the same BGS.
You're just penalising PC PG/Solo mode with that option of yours without considering that Xbox and PS4 will still have full influence.
Or the fact that Xbox and PS4 Open mode cannot be stopped by each other or by PC Open mode.
So no that isn't a compromise at all. It's no where near one.
It's just taking away from PC PG/Solo players for no good reason.
I don't know dude. Look, the problem is, what can you actually take away from PvP players? It's a difficult question, because those on the high end of that spectrum... Well most of what they have is in personal ability. The only way FD could take that away is by inflicting brain damage on them. Obviously that's very illegal.
So what instead? Take away their ships? No, that would be disastrous.
As I said somewhere earlier, my posts need much discussion, and are subject to much change.
What compromise would you suggest?
I do feel a compromise of some sort is the only solution to the years long flame war.
We have players on every console in my group. They can defend or attack in the same places together. Just like they are now. Bringing meaning to PVP not just on PC. But every console they play on.
Dont let jockey fool you. Everyone will have the same capabilities.
Ask ever watch ED's stream? Get ganked on Ps4?
That alone proves Jockey wrong. But he probably doesnt want to hear that.
Yes, I'm sure all half dozen of you can defend every instance on every platform. lol.
The game is far too instanced for any organised defence or blockade to work - Elite is a PvE bean pushing exercise.
Those who push the most PvE beans wins.
PvP is for giggles, it's an optional past time. A distraction.
Heck I alone can attack any faction, in Open and never ever see you or your "defence" team.
You're the one trying to fool people here, not me.
You have another poster in a different thread to thank for my change of tune. (I know it's sudden, but we all reserve the right to change opinions at any point.)
Do I like what I'm saying though? Not particularly, no. But I'm actually starting to think there are no "good guys" in this debate whatsoever.
Yes, I'm sure all half dozen of you can defend every instance on every platform. lol.
The game is far too instanced for any organised defence or blockade to work - Elite is a PvE bean pushing exercise.
Those who push the most PvE beans wins.
PvP is for giggles, it's an optional past time. A distraction.
Heck I alone can attack any faction, in Open and never ever see you or your "defence" team.
You're the one trying to fool people here, not me.
Is that why I went directly into mobius private group. Seen one of the guys I was fighting against in less that 10 minutes?
VIDEO PROOF SON.
Is this why San Tu was flipped to anarchy and people PVP from all over the world? Your own link about the PVP hub proves that wrong. Better take that down.
My streams at CG's PVPing with people from all over the world. more than 30 people in one instance fighting it out all proves that wrong. Oh Fdev was there for those too
How many more excuses you got? lets go baby. I can do this all day.
You are confirming my point. You are unable to understand or accommodate views that differ from your own, you are blinkered and short-sighted. You capitalise on the politeness of others to accommodate you, and give only false pretence in return with shallow ulterior motives. The community would be, on average, better without such a bigoted mindset.
You repeatedly ask others to re-read what you say thinking that they have not understood, when it is you that are seemingly unwilling or unable to understand that there is more to a multiplayer game than having enemies.
I'd really like you to understand just how badly this kind of attitude affects the community as a whole, in-game or out of it. It simply makes people keep their cards close to their chest, because you cannot be trusted to take a reasonable stance, and accept that part of 'winning' is learning to compromise for the greater good.
You are confirming my point. You are unable to understand or accommodate views that differ from your own, you are blinkered and short-sighted. You capitalise on the politeness of others to accommodate you, and give only false pretence in return with shallow ulterior motives. The community would be, on average, better without such a bigoted mindset.
You repeatedly ask others to re-read what you say thinking that they have not understood, when it is you that are seemingly unwilling or unable to understand that there is more to a multiplayer game than having enemies.
I'd really like you to understand just how badly this kind of attitude affects the community as a whole, in-game or out of it. It simply makes people keep their cards close to their chest, because you cannot be trusted to take a reasonable stance, and accept that part of 'winning' is learning to compromise for the greater good.
I don't need excuses, I have the words from the CEO and from other FD staff.
Words from the beginning, up to way more recent posts than your Sandro one - from Sandro.
You're the one needing excuses to take away game features from other players, I however have Frontiers words they are building a game for everyone, not just for PvP'ers.
Before we get in to Frontier promoting and defending the mode system and mode switching for Elite: Dangerous (plus other related information), a quick look at the history of; and tech used to bring you this game (explains why some things are not possible).
Thanks to Roybe for for the link to the video.
The Wall of Information;
From the Kickstarter; *And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*
The part about it being as much a MMO as CoD is already in your Wall of Text, the second KS post. His exact words were "I don't see this as an MMO in the traditional sense, unless you think of Call of Duty as an MMO."
About he not wanting to call it a MMO early on, well, besides that very post hinting at it, and the Kickstart page not using that term even once, I remember hearing it in old video interviews from the KS era. The "I don't see it as an MMO in the traditional sense" line came out quite a few times before fans managed to finally convince DB that Elite Dangerous, as pitched, would qualify as an actual MMO.
There are other interesting things to find in those old interviews. For example, just from the Gary Whitta interview with David Braben and Chris Roberts, you have: (Part 1)(Part 2)(Part 3)(Part 4)
As reference for the following quote, here is Chris Roberts speaking about the Star Citizen equivalent of this thread (part 3, 5:30):
"And the key is kind of what David alluded to, which I think it's a debate that David has with his community and it's a debate I have with my community because there is definitely this whole sort of PvP and PvE sort of factions that go on and they're all pretty rabid. And so I think, and I think David also believes that you can sort of create a game that can cater to both sets of players and it will be okay. But it certainly is, that is, I would say if I were going to give you a touchpaper to set up a fight with your community that's the one to do it."
The immediate follow up by DB about PvE groups (part 3, 6:01):
"Well, the discussions have come up already. We have this concept of groups where you can join a group which doesn't allow or does allow it on the user choice."
Or this about the kind of game DB would want to play (part 3, 7:09):
"You know, so what I would I want from a game? I want to be able to play a great game without being griefed by teenagers, but having said that I do want there to be a feeling of risk out there."
Also this about what player interaction in ED was supposed to be about (part 3, 2:06):
"And so, I don’t mean necessarily every ship should be a player because then you get into a frame of mind that you can’t kill anything without really upsetting someone. I mean with Elite: Dangerous it’s still…a lot of the ships you encounter won’t be real players but we will call out, of the ships that you meet, who is a real player. We have a way of distinguishing them within the game. They’re actually part of this group of pilots that you’re part of and it will call out, above them say. Essentially what it means is “this is a real player,” but in the game fabric: “so this is a group who a member of the same organization as you.” We…you know, in other words we, we don’t want this game to be all about player vs. player kills, but the point is it encourages a lot of cooperation. And, it will be possible to do player vs. player kills if that’s what people want to do. "
All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)
Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."
Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)
Wikipedia; A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.
Oxford English Dictionary (Online); An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .
The Steam Store page;
Please note, "Single Player" and "Multiplayer" with "Co-op".
So not just an "MMO"
Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.
On that last point, Producer Ben Dowie reiterated that Xbox One and PC players won’t be playing head-to-head—although they’ll be playing in the same simulated universe, they’ll never encounter each other in space, likely because Microsoft’s Xbox patch cycle adds complexity to Frontier’s game update procedure. This means that PC players and Xbox players will often wind up on different clients, which means no head-to-head play. To that end, anticipated PC-centric features will likely land on PC first.
I pointed out that there’s frequent contention online about the “right” way to play, be it casual or hard-core, and Braben agreed. “But there shouldn’t be a ‘right’ way,” he said. “You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play. And people have come up with lots of suggestions, some of them very constructive and sensible, and we do listen, and people hopefully have seen that we’ve changed things and adjusted things, but not in a way—we hope!—to upset people. We’re doing it to make the game better!”
Look at the current posts on the subreddit and the forum. Your core player base is simply stopping playing. You might be selling copies but if your core community is splitting or stopping playing then you have a problem.
I'm not going to be talking about active player numbers explicitally but I can tell you without question that the game has a very healthy and thriving community who enjoys hours upon hours of Elite. You really don't need to worry on that point.
From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.
What we are doing is new in many ways, both technically and in terms of how we are realizing our long term ambitions for Elite Dangerous. As we evolve the game we are trying to give the best value we can to both existing and new players, for the long term benefit of everyone. That’s why we’ve worked hard to keep backwards compatibility for the Elite Dangerous: Horizons season, and are continuing to release updates for ‘season one’ players. Everyone will continue to fly in the same galaxy, and be impacted by, participate in and help to drive the same events.
19:42
"Well I think the problem is this: Different people mean different things by saying MMOs, you know. I think we're massive (19:53) by most measures, in terms of we have a lot of people playing, all at the same time. We have instancing, but then you know so does every other or every MMO out there. (20:10) The case, you know, you look at the way Warcraft does it. Now the case is (20:15) where do you set the number. So currently it's you know around 32 players in a session plus NPCs and all that sort of thing. (20:23) You know we could go higher if it weren't for the NPCs, we could go higher if people had perfect network connections. You know if we had a LAN we could go way higher. You know this is the point. (20:31) And it's a case of balancing the experience and also how much data you have to exchange. You know it's a quality of the experience that I expect over time we will increase it.
"But are we an MMO? I think we are by all measures."
Ed speaks and then David adds:
"It's not an RPG in a sense that (21:09) you increase your personal stats but a lot of people play it as a role playing game. I think if that's what you want it to be then so it is I suppose. I don't think it really matters. Someone said 'That's a silly question. Such a waste of time.' Well there you go."
And since I'm in the mood for pulling hand grenades , here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.
My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo. So the playing field is basically uneven as it stands and in this case, maybe change could make things better.
Now, one final Caveat. *As it stands currently*, we have time allotted in season two to work on Powerplay. These suggestions are just a part of that work - there is other stuff as well. However, I can't commit to the Unbreakable Vow, because it's very possible that in the fluid world of development, things might change!
I just wanted to set these ideas free and see how well they settle, so, comments welcome!
* This change, which remember is nothing more than a suggestion at this point, would have no effect on personal gain. It would affect success values for expansion, fortification and undermining only, not the merits you earned.
* It does not, and is not, meant to be a panacea to make the actual activities of Powerplay better. It's best to think of it as activity agnostic. That's not to say that we don't want to improve the activities (we do!), just that this is not aimed at that.
* The reason this benefit would only apply to Open as opposed to in Private Groups is fairly clear I think: we have no way to control distribution in Private Groups. Folk could start a Private Group where everyone was pledged to a single power. This would effectively then be Solo in terms of dealing with the potential threat of other Commanders.
* I would not want to introduce this into any aspect of the game except Powerplay because Powerplay is the only aspect of the game that explicitly uses the concept of adversarial multiplayer, as opposed to the more vague ways that minor factions operate.
The first one's from Robert Maynard and he's saying "Has the pin been pulled on the hand grenade I posted in a Collusion Piracy thread?". Just for context this was, I was musing out loud about potentially Open Play Powerplay having some benefit to success over and above Private Groups and Solo - I just want to reiterate that was just me musing, we're not going to do that at the moment, there are no plans to do it, but it is still an interesting thought, nothing's ever completely off the table but nothing to announce at the moment.
On PvP vs PvE
We listen to both sides. While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP. A few changes here are more focused on one or the other (torpedoes have no real place in PvE at the moment for starters), but overall I think they promote variety of loadouts in both styles of play, and will make both more fun. On a personal note: I play more or less entirely in PvE, so if anything my bias in favour of that .
In this instance, blocking the Commander might prove quite useful.
When you block somebody, a couple of things should happen.
Firstly, you will receive no communications from them.
Secondly, during any transition where matchmaking is at work (so basically, hyperspace jumps, entering and exiting super cruise) you are much less likely to be matched with the blocked Commander.
Blocking becomes weaker when it comes up against friends (and next year, player wings), because if a blocked Commander is in the same session as a friend (say, because they haven't blocked the Commander, the blocking effect is overruled by the friendship matchmaking.
Outside of this case though, blocking should work fine.
The block effect is asymmetrical, in that it is much stronger when the blocking player is arriving at a location where the blocked player already is - effectively more of the onus is on the blocker to change their game than the blocked player.
Instancing is a pretty complicated calculation, affected by a significant number of checks, such as instance populations, quality of player connections, friends, wing members, blocked players, blocking players, recent connections (and possibly more - far cleverer folk than me work this out). The weightings for these elements varies as well - wing membership, for example, is an extremely strong weighting towards allowing a match up.
Whilst I'm sure that to some degree matchmaking can be influenced, the complexity and number of elements completely out of the player's control (or even knowledge) are a strong limiting factor.
At the end of the day, ignoring players is a completely personal choice, that *influences* the chance of meeting ignored players, reducing the *potential* for match making with them.
The reality here is there are a HUGE number of players that play the game for their own reasons and they may or may not align with yours. For others reading this post, I apologize for the sheer length of it, but I'm really tired of having these same old debates with people and I'm covering a wide range of questions/answers that normally get covered in multi-page thread-noughts in advance. I've wrapped my own thoughts in a spoiler tag to minimize the "wall".
The Technical Here's a bit of reality. FD created ED with P2P core networking, the BGS is tied into that, and ALL THREE MODES are tied into this as well. "Removing Solo/PG" to throw everyone into Open isn't going to happen because there's no central server system, and as of now, you can "block" using P2P. So to accomplish what you're asking, they would need to completely redo the entire base networking system to prevent people from blocking others on that level. Do you really think they're going to do that for just a (arguably "small") portion of their player base?
The Financial Let's just posit a small theory, shall we? All of these tired arguments usually allege that there's a "huge" portion of players that wish for this change, and that if it doesn't happen there's going to be some sort of (DOOOOM!!!) "mass exodus" of players who will leave the game, and "FD will be losing potential income", yada yada. Now, bearing in mind all the people who have already bought this game, the amount of money that's been spent so far, and a change to base gameplay functionality (if it were to happen) what do you think the financial repercussions would be? Just affection ONE of any of the three modes would result in a MASS request of refunds... so let's talk actual numbers, shall we?
Mobius PvE was created to help facilitate players who did not want PvP but still wanted to play together online (Co-Op gameplay)
This Private Group has far exceeded the 40,000 player limit and additional "Private Groups" had to be created to facilitate the additional numbers...
Think about that for a minute, then multiply just that number by the base cost of this game, not including any LEP's, Backers, Horizons purchases or additional Store (paintjobs, etc.) content purchased.
Are you getting the picture yet?
Now keeping numbers in mind- let's stick to the financial aspects here. The PvE content included in this game is available to ALL three modes, regardless of PvE or PvP playstyle. If you removed any one of the three modes, that would still be the case, correct? Let's now think about doing the same with PvP content, which is ONLY available to Open mode. How much more money do you think FD spends in addition to what's already existing in the game to ADD more PvP content and accessibility to it? Think of people coding, maintaining the equipment that helps to facilitate networking, logistics, etc.
So, keeping in mind all the aforementioned numbers here's a question:
Do you think it would be more financially viable for them to strip all the PvE content and make it completely PvP, or do the reverse and make it only PvE?
Here's a couple more questions:
How many times have you seen the PvE Community opening threads and spewing posts about removing content from Open and making it exclusively accessible to Solo?
How many times have you seen the PvE Community throwing tantrums and stomping their feet in the Forums or on Reddit about "Leaving the game" if more PvE exclusive content doesn't get added to the game?
Are you getting the "bigger picture" yet?
(Granted, you'll see the occasional post from a PvE player who is "bored" or whatever, but that's to be expected in any game. You'll see those on any forum, because a developer can't make everyone happy, all the time.)
PvP Players If you want Open to be "better" and want to draw more players into Open, I'd suggest you start banding together, organize some groups and "take out the trash", so it becomes a much cleaner place to enjoy the game. I'd love to see it become what it should have been originally- a huge expansive universe full of life, full of a wide range of players and game play, all doing different things and co-existing together. Pirates, Traders, Explorers, RP-er's, Miners, etc. People enjoying the game they love amongst others, with some being able to cooperatively play in PvP and some being able to cooperatively play in PvE, and some just doing their own thing on their own, without being bothered.
It's not going to be like that when you've got GSP's running around acting like psychopaths and there's (relatively) no consequence for them doing so. You want it to change? Then CHANGE it. You shouldn't need incentive, if your true motivation is "PvP combat", you've got all the incentive (and targets) you need. They're out there waiting for you. And if you keep laying into them, they'll eventually get tired of acting like they have been and quit or change their attitudes and start learning to co-exist.
"Wolf against wolf", not "wolf against sheep".
P.S. for those who care to read it (included in Spoiler tag to reduce the wall of text)
I only speak for myself- and have only done so. No one made me the "voice of Solo/PG's or PvE" here.
I really didn't want to start a "crusade" of PvE vs PvP or any of that. At first, I tried to reason with them... and that didn't work. They won't listen to reason. So now we have to defend our game-play styles because all they're doing with the negativity is driving away new customers because a few people didn't get what they wanted. And because they've got just as much of a right as "customers" to come into the forums and voice their opinions, there's no recourse but to continue to keep laying down reality. I/we don't get "paid" or "compensated" in ANY way, form or fashion for doing this, either. (neither does Jockey79, or any of the other more vocal players of the PvE community) I/we do it because I love the game and don't want to see it destroyed because of a minority few.
I see some in the PvP community spreading falsities, throwing tantrums, and trying their absolute damndest to get FD to change core functionality that affects ALL modes that would affect all players (PvE included) in order to facilitate their "Free For All Killfest" COD-in-space style gameplay. When throwing tantrums didn't work they started to spread toxicity into Reddit, the Official forums, Discord, and anywhere else they feel they'd garner support and be "heard".
Essentially the whole argument is "Remove Solo/PG's and give us our fish for our barrel or we'll burn down the game!!"
(That's it folks, that's the WHOLE strategy)
If you really want to see this game succeed, you should be very concerned. Make your own opinions known, because THEY certainly are.
You have personal opinion videos and fake reddit "majority" thread.
Absolutely nothing "factual" or "relevant" in any way.
See your opinion is worth the same as mine, so I automatically counter you.
So when you move to adding the odd friend, I just point to Mobius - you're out numbered 40,000 to 5? 6?
Heck even at this point your 273 still doesn't cut it.
All our personal opinions are worth the same. And far more people enjoy the mode system and optional PvP than those who want EVE in cockpits.
You also ignored the follow up to your favourite Sandro post you keep harping on about;
The first one's from Robert Maynard and he's saying "Has the pin been pulled on the hand grenade I posted in a Collusion Piracy thread?". Just for context this was, I was musing out loud about potentially Open Play Powerplay having some benefit to success over and above Private Groups and Solo - I just want to reiterate that was just me musing, we're not going to do that at the moment, there are no plans to do it, but it is still an interesting thought, nothing's ever completely off the table but nothing to announce at the moment.
Hows powerplay working out in that regard? Because people have created their own outlet for direct PVP. Instead of using powerplay because of it. A link you have right there on your own profile.
And hardly anyone uses it because of it. instead, people would rather meet up at CG's and use the PVP instead of fighting over the imbalance the modes bring when it comes to powerplay.
The proof is in the links you have provided.
Well done. Bravo.
And when they do use it for its intentional purposes this happens, (direct pvp) Just as Sandro said.
Hows powerplay working out in that regard? Because people have created their own outlet for direct PVP. Instead of using powerplay because of it. A link you have right there on your own profile.
Yes, because Power Play was designed around getting those modules and not having pride and enjoyment for working for you faction.
Once you have those modules, there is no reason to hang around or defend them.
It has nothing to do with the modes. It is everything to do with how it was made.
The first one's from Robert Maynard and he's saying "Has the pin been pulled on the hand grenade I posted in a Collusion Piracy thread?". Just for context this was, I was musing out loud about potentially Open Play Powerplay having some benefit to success over and above Private Groups and Solo - I just want to reiterate that was just me musing, we're not going to do that at the moment, there are no plans to do it, but it is still an interesting thought, nothing's ever completely off the table but nothing to announce at the moment.
Yes, because Power Play was designed around getting those modules and not having pride and enjoyment for working for you faction.
Once you have those modules, there is no reason to hang around or defend them.
It has nothing to do with the modes. It is everything to do with how it was made.
oh look, 1 less comment that the last GSP Reddit moan you linked.
(272 when I looked).
How about all the threads there saying how great the game is?
The whole front page is way more interesting that the same few people moaning.
I have. And they created a part of the game that is made for direct PVP. And instead if you read that reddit thread. You have people min maxing in solo and private. And sending others into open for people that primarily play in open to kill their hauling ships.
That alone shows everything. But because its coming from reddit. All their experiences are discounted.
And everything else Sandro has said about the imbalances about solo and private are moot. Only because you say so.
That quote you provided above, you seem to ignoring one fact about it.
"but it is still an interesting thought, nothing's ever completely off the table but nothing to announce at the moment." If it wasnt possible at all. They wouldnt have even entertained the idea Jockey....
And thats why I am here. Showing the videos to prove it.
And people are intentionally opting out of the direct PVP they put time and effort in for an outlet based around those actions. Ignoring a major part of the intended gameplay mechanics intentionally to attack others. Thus the meta was created, removing any need for direct PVP over objectives.
If they really intended this to work this way. Remove all the weapons. And allow people to just haul against each other.
The people doing it are perfectly capable of PVPing. But they know they can min/max against others in solo and private against their adversaries. Removing the need for any PVP. So in turn everyone has fallen back to solo and private because there where you get most of your work done for maximum results.
Removing the need for PVP. Creating toxicity when it happens. Instead of it being an understanding of real gameplay.
Keep cherry picking this argument all youd like.
I have video proof of why there is an imbalance based around PVP activities created in this game. And the rest of the PVP community knows it too. Thats why the PVP hub was created. Instead of using the outlet frontier has provided for us.
The communities actions speak for themselves.
And have proven every single word I have spoken since I have arrived here about 6 months ago. Showing the people doing it in the videos I have posted.
Showing the post of Sandro admitting Open is a lot more riskier in these scenarios.
Its over jockey. The Hotel is burning.
I must ask, what are you going to do when they eventually make these changes? Sue them?
