Modes Will 3.0 Increase, decrease or have no effect on Open population?

[Mohrgan]

I'm well aware of all the mechanisms in place that enable you to hide from me while manipulating my BGS, which is why I started out with the word "unfair" right from the beginning. I have no intention or interest in hiding from you, I want to destroy you every time I see you, but my method is not accommodated, while on the other hand, pacifistic and sneaky players are explicitly catered to. Not only unfair by design, but stupid and not fun. In order to pander to one group of people, Fdev has messed up that whole aspect of gameplay for everybody else.

@Sylveria, I see that I have you all worked into a lather. I'm going to leave you to simmer while I take a break to go watch Ash vs The Evil Dead with my better looking half

The same old sour grapes from those that didn't understand the game they were buying. Sprinkled with the passive aggressive tropes that those without a plank to stand on take solace in. Your 'Open Rep' has been buffed for today. Huzza.

 

[jasonbarron]

And others see Open being PvP only as "catering to one group of people, unfair by design, stupid and not fun", as well.

You see, our perceptions aren't so different after all.

No, Open is not "PvP Only" but rather "Open is the full range of game play possibilities where everyone has access to the same tools"

The same old sour grapes from those that didn't understand the game they were buying. Sprinkled with the passive aggressive tropes that those without a plank to stand on take solace in. Your 'Open Rep' has been buffed for today. Huzza.

Huzzah indeed my friend

 

[Mohrgan]

The difference is that if I, or any semi-decent PvP trained player even, was in the same mode as you and you were engaging in system specific activities where I knew when and where to find you, I would kill you so many times and so often that you would quit messing with my little slice of the BGS. You say that PvP isn't a good way to influence the BGS, but that is only because you can effect my BGS from the safety of a mode where I cannot reach and destroy your ships until your morale broke or the cost of doing business in my neighborhood became too high.

Look, any adult knows this stuff, and I know you guys do, too.

Chest thumping nonsense. The day I have to use a video game to prove anything, is the day I put a hole in my head.

 

[relayer]

I'm well aware of all the mechanisms in place that enable you to hide from me while manipulating my BGS, which is why I started out with the word "unfair" right from the beginning. I have no intention or interest in hiding from you
...
pacifistic and sneaky players are explicitly catered to.
...
In order to pander to one group of people

Dood, dial it back, eh?. Mouse was talking about a mechanical part of the software, instancing. It's a technical thing and well-known. "Look, any player knows this stuff, and I know you guys do, too."

You turn it into some dastardly plot that is used against you personally to deprive you of your kills or something. You invent and then jump on a whole train of verbiage, laced with contempt, that only lacked effectiveness.

And the thing is, stripped of polemics, you didn't address or advance your argument at all; you went tharn.

Dial it down, dood. It makes any reasoned argument you make for your case null.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The difference is that if I, or any semi-decent PvP trained player even, was in the same mode as you and you were engaging in system specific activities where I knew when and where to find you, I would kill you so many times and so often that you would quit messing with my little slice of the BGS. You say that PvP isn't a good way to influence the BGS, but that is only because you can effect my BGS from the safety of a mode where I cannot reach and destroy your ships until your morale broke or the cost of doing business in my neighborhood became too high.

Look, any adult knows this stuff, and I know you guys do, too.

It's clear that those who prefer a play-style that is entirely optional in this game are frustrated that they cannot demand that those they oppose engage in that play-style. Some of their opposition, who share the same play-style preference, will make themselves available for that interaction - but there's no requirement to.

 

[Sebastian Rooks]

Mouse was talking about a mechanical part of the software, instancing. It's a technical thing and well-known.

Yeah, isn't it 32 possible for pc / mac and 16 for the game plats? I think I read that somewhere...

Rooks o7

 

[SuBSynk]

The difference is that if I, or any semi-decent PvP trained player even, was in the same mode as you and you were engaging in system specific activities where I knew when and where to find you, I would kill you so many times and so often that you would quit messing with my little slice of the BGS. You say that PvP isn't a good way to influence the BGS, but that is only because you can effect my BGS from the safety of a mode where I cannot reach and destroy your ships until your morale broke or the cost of doing business in my neighborhood became too high.

I hope you do not really believe that?

Your PVP efforts would be a complete waste, would not affect the BGS in anyway and would lead to failure 100% of the time.

The basic fact here is that you cannot ever blockade a system or stop BGS activity from taking place. Even if a single shard, one mode system it makes no difference as your actions are not even counted..

Factor in instancing etc renders any attempt at stopping players completing BGS activity -with PvP- pointless. Simultaneously you would be wasting all the time you could have spent filling a bucket to counter their activities with pvp that has zero effect by design.

Seems to me like you wish you were playing another game entirely, one were pvp activities mean something and are actually counted...

 

[znôrt]

Claiming it's "unfair" because you don't have physical access to others is a blatant lie and nothing more.

it is not a lie, but is also something more.

it's unfair from the perspective that actions can't be hindered (remember you don't have to agree with a perspective to understand it), only countered. it means you can freely desecrate holy land and stuff and nobody can stop you.

then again it's kind of a moot point since even if someone could, cmdrs with a disproportionate amount of free time and willingness to waste it on a daft grind would be in a position of unfair advantage. by that token it could be argued that pvp is unfair in itself.

it becomes hilarious the moment you realize the irony: the grind is pure pve and mostly done in the "unfair" protection of modes. so he's claiming it is unfair that he can't stop you from messing with the bgs thanks to his unfairly obtained superiority.

*slow clap*

imo "fairness" isn't even a valid concept here. the word is "daft". a daft mechanic that foregoes the possibility of emergent pvp, but given how daft pvp is in the game it may actually be a good idea.

i actually would have agreed with jason ... before engineering changed everything.

 

[Monkey Pants]

It will have no effect on me. That is all I can say.
I think chapter 1 is a very good update so far, but I just don't care for multiplayer in any shape or form.
I'd pay full retail price again if FDev would do a single player off line version of ED with all the advantages that would bring to the game.
As far as I am concerned multiplayer is holding the game back.

^^^^+1^^^^

 

[Jockey79]

The US version I've been in for nearly 2 years, whenever they originally created a new group. And before you go "Aha! That must be it!" I'll just point out that they're all supposed to be swollen to the point of bursting with players eager to avoid the evils of Open. If you believe Mobian press releases and propaganda efforts here on the forum, that is.

Weird, because I played in Mobius EU over the weekend and it was packed.
In the week if I use PGs I play in the generic Mobius (the original one) as that seems to be the only one with folks in at the times I play.

YMMV

The "plot" has been well known for a long time, I don't need to uncover anything. And, unlike Jockey's constant spamming on this thread about dwindling Open numbers (which I assume you're down with, confirmation bias being what it is and all), my "anecdotal" evidence was at the very least factual, because I just spent the last ten hours flying in Mobius visiting one player hotspot after another, unlike you lot who know so much about everything that you don't actually try or engage in, but love to expound on at length on the forum giving the impression you know what you're talking about.

"Open is bleeding players" argument comes from Open Only advocates, so if that isn't true then perhaps you'd better have words with your team for spreading misinformation.
As I've only had limited experience in Open myself (couple of hours top, over 4 years) and when I mention this, Open Only advocates keep going on how Solo is evil because it is taking everyone from Open and leaving it barren.

So are your comrades telling porkies on the forums then?
Because I'm "unchallenged" on that assertion due to it coming from folks your side of the discussion.

 

[Jockey79]

You'll notice that I don't rely on real world comparisons to make my case about aspects of the video game environment of ED, because one is real, while the other one is a game set in a dystopian future where these kinds of things (shooting the stockbroker in the face with my lazerz) are encouraged.

How is shooting people in game "encouraged" ?

Block feature to avoid other players.
Mode system to selectively pick who you play with.
The "PvP" feature Power Play doesn't reward PvP.
Less influence on the BGS with PvP, missions are faster doing PvE.

If PvP was removed, hardly anyone (from a BGS / PP point of view) would notice.

So I ask, how is shooting people encouraged?

 

[Jockey79]

The difference is that if I, or any semi-decent PvP trained player even, was in the same mode as you and you were engaging in system specific activities where I knew when and where to find you, I would kill you so many times and so often that you would quit messing with my little slice of the BGS. You say that PvP isn't a good way to influence the BGS, but that is only because you can effect my BGS from the safety of a mode where I cannot reach and destroy your ships until your morale broke or the cost of doing business in my neighborhood became too high.

Look, any adult knows this stuff, and I know you guys do, too.

Something you know yet ignore;

You'd get one kill and they'd put you on block.
Then they'd carry on in open hurting your BGS game, without you being able to do a thing about it.

Tell me again how PvP helps the BGS if everyone is in Open

 

[Mouse]

I'm well aware of all the mechanisms in place that enable you to hide from me while manipulating my BGS, which is why I started out with the word "unfair" right from the beginning. I have no intention or interest in hiding from you, I want to destroy you every time I see you, but my method is not accommodated, while on the other hand, pacifistic and sneaky players are explicitly catered to. Not only unfair by design, but stupid and not fun. In order to pander to one group of people, Fdev has messed up that whole aspect of gameplay for everybody else.

@Sylveria, I see that I have you all worked into a lather. I'm going to leave you to simmer while I take a break to go watch Ash vs The Evil Dead with my better looking half

Who's hiding? Ahh... so you think people are hiding from you? Is that like proclaiming people are "scared"? Same .. different word. You claim FDev is pandering to pacifists and sneaky players... yet the modes were there from the beginning.. you know.. before anyone was actually playing the game. You are just shoveling and hoping others swallow it to agree that it is "unfair". When in actuality it isn't, while ignoring things that are unfair... like the traders getting blown to smithereens by overly engineered ships they have no chance dealing with. But that is "fair" to you while people being able to play without your direct input on their game infuriates you.

 

[Mouse]

it is not a lie, but is also something more.

it's unfair from the perspective that actions can't be hindered (remember you don't have to agree with a perspective to understand it), only countered. it means you can freely desecrate holy land and stuff and nobody can stop you.

then again it's kind of a moot point since even if someone could, cmdrs with a disproportionate amount of free time and willingness to waste it on a daft grind would be in a position of unfair advantage. by that token it could be argued that pvp is unfair in itself.

it becomes hilarious the moment you realize the irony: the grind is pure pve and mostly done in the "unfair" protection of modes. so he's claiming it is unfair that he can't stop you from messing with the bgs thanks to his unfairly obtained superiority.

*slow clap*

imo "fairness" isn't even a valid concept here. the word is "daft". a daft mechanic that foregoes the possibility of emergent pvp, but given how daft pvp is in the game it may actually be a good idea.

i actually would have agreed with jason ... before engineering changed everything.

Um.. just so you know. If you counter someone.. you are hindering their progress.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Unfair would mean that one group of players have an advantage others don't have access to. All players have the same access to the same tools. So fairness is guaranteed. The advantage the attacker has goes for all players. Otherwise you would have to say that PvP is inherently unfair. The attacker has the advantage to instigate encounters. The attacker is in charge of choosing the target and the occasion. As an explorer you can't say: hey, this is unfair, my ship is equipped for exploration, yours is equipped for combat. So to level the playing field I will choose a combat ship as well for this engagement.

Now notice I don't say the situations are exactly similar. Because I can already hear the rebuttal to an argument I'm not making: "But Ziggy, in PvP you can see the attacker" or "But Ziggy, in PvP you can evade the attacker". I am only using PvP as an illustration. My point is about fairness, the options available are the same for all players. Therefor the situation cannot be called unfair.

I'm well aware of all the mechanisms in place that enable you to hide from me while manipulating my BGS

Your BGS. lol.

 

[Seonid]

The BGS being able to be influenced by separate modes where by definition the players cannot themselves be reached by their adversaries is so stupidly unfair that I can only imagine it turns away a huge demographic of possible players from ED. That demographic being players who appreciate fairness.

In that case can you please explain to me how you "reach adversaries" on the other 2 platforms whom you cannot ever meet irrespective of game modes? How about all those players in different TZ's that you will never meet as they will be working/sleeping when you are not and vice versa? How about all those players that you will never be instance matched with due to geographic location and internet connection speed?

 

[Mouse]

fairness.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[znôrt]

Um.. just so you know. If you counter someone.. you are hindering their progress.

as i said, one thing is agreeing, another is getting the point. you seem to do neither, fine.

 

[Old Duck]

Your BGS. lol.

Do PvPers really care about the BGS? I'm pretty sure if Solo players got their own separate BGS, PvPers would still complain...

 

[jasonbarron]

Do PvPers really care about the BGS? I'm pretty sure if Solo players got their own separate BGS, PvPers would still complain...

I certainly don't. I'm only commenting on it because I genuinely perceive it as being set up both stupidly and unfairly, and because of this wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Ditto for power play.

I noticed that all of the comments centered on me overnight; it's good to be loved, my friends

Edit: technically speaking, I make a very slight exception to PP