Modes Elite Dangerous PvE vs PvP and who needs a Solo play if you had PvE server

[Jockey79]

It won't be, unless the Devs have worked out how to deal with all the issues that DBOBE mentions in this stream:

Open-PvE Mode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHu3AXw2Q;t=42m30s

The answer to the next question is worth listening to as well.



Can you show the working behind the one rebuy = a month's worth of 5% bonus claim, please?

Pinched that video link - I had the part with Gringador asking about ED being a PvP game, but didn't have the Open PvE part.
Updated it in the Wall of Information, as folks do ask about Open PvE mode after looking at the wall, so it's handy to have on it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That stream's a good one for stuff like that. Later in the same stream there's also:

C&P: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHu3AXw2Q;t=50m28s

and

Ultima online 1 antisocial = 50 leavers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHu3AXw2Q;t=51m08s

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

It won't be, unless the Devs have worked out how to deal with all the issues that DBOBE mentions in this stream:

Open-PvE Mode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHu3AXw2Q;t=42m30s

The answer to the next question is worth listening to as well.



Can you show the working behind the one rebuy = a month's worth of 5% bonus claim, please?

Separate PvP / PvE was refused by Frontier.
PvP Flag system was also refused by Frontier.

They gave reasons on the Kickstarter and again the DDA. Feel free to check it out.

I don't see the point of discussing things Frontier have already said will never happen.
So these 2 ideas are long gone.

What we have now, is what we are keeping. That has been made clear.

So if you have a way to "improve PvP" without unfair boosts or a determent to the modes / PvE - then I'm all ears.

You appeal to Braben whos position is unclear, and a bunch of PvE players which did screwed up the game in that horrible example of pure democracy known as DDA.

I have opinions of Sandro and Blizzard, as well as logic. And I feel that my position is stronger, despite status quo being not in my favor.

I have no opportunity to watch that vid, but I will asap.

 

[Jockey79]

You appeal to Braben whos position is unclear, and a bunch of PvE players which did screwed up the game in that horrible example of pure democracy known as DDA.

I have opinions of Sandro and Blizzard, as well as logic. And I feel that my position is stronger, despite status quo being not in my favor.

I have no opportunity to watch that vid, but I will asap.

Logic?

Logic would dictate you buy a product that meets your needs.

You bought a product that does not meet your needs and you're complaining about it! That's illogical.

You could have gone with Star Citizen, it is small so fewer places for people to hide.
And it has everyone together (no modes) which is what you want.
This would have been logical for you.

And how is DBOBE not been clear?
It was also those PvE palyers that got the game funded, because the previous versions were a single player PvE game.
So without them funding it, there'd be no game.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Logic?

Logic would dictate you buy a product that meets your needs.

You bought a product that does not meet your needs and you're complaining about it! That's illogical.

You could have gone with Star Citizen, it is small so fewer places for people to hide.
And it has everyone together (no modes) which is what you want.
This would have been logical for you.

And how is DBOBE not been clear?
It was also those PvE palyers that got the game funded, because the previous versions were a single player PvE game.
So without them funding it, there'd be no game.

This game is played by less than 5% of owners. PvP minded players are leaving this game.
This makes it all right as long as your safe bubble is not threatened?

If you want best for this game, you have to deal with some potential 1-5% of efficiency you refuse to get.

 

[Jockey79]

This game is played by less than 5% of owners. PvP minded players are leaving this game.
This makes it all right as long as your safe bubble is not threatened?

If you want best for this game, you have to deal with some potential 1-5% of efficiency you refuse to get.

Where did you get 5% from?

As Frontier do not give out stats.

You cannot make a claim like that without proof.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Where did you get 5% from?

As Frontier do not give out stats.

You cannot make a claim like that without proof.

I brought up statistics a couple of times in the past, as well as others did.
I cannot do that again atm, but it is a cold hard fact.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I brought up statistics a couple of times in the past, as well as others did.
I cannot do that again atm, but it is a cold hard fact.

It's one opinion - it has little basis in fact (as the facts are not obtainable).

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

It's one opinion - it has little basis in fact (as the facts are not obtainable).

Well Fdev knows them better. I will bring this up at nearest focused feedback somehow.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You appeal to Braben whos position is unclear, and a bunch of PvE players which did screwed up the game in that horrible example of pure democracy known as DDA.

I have opinions of Sandro and Blizzard, as well as logic. And I feel that my position is stronger, despite status quo being not in my favor.

I have no opportunity to watch that vid, but I will asap.

Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy if the individual is not in a position of influence - and, as DBOBE remains the largest shareholder (by quite some margin) and remains CEO of the company, I'd suggest that he remains in a position to influence this game (and others in the Frontier portfolio).

Frontier offered participation in the DDF as a pledge tier reward. It was an interesting experience for those who participated - and there were certainly participants who advocated for change to the already published game design with respect to the game modes, shared galaxy, etc.. While the DDF could respond to topic led by Frontier, it was Frontier (and Frontier alone) who made the decisions.

Which opinion from Sandro?

How is Blizzard relevant to a non-Blizzard game?

 

[Jockey79]

I brought up statistics a couple of times in the past, as well as others did.
I cannot do that again atm, but it is a cold hard fact.

The only Stat you can see, is from Steam.
That does not include Xbox, Playstation or PC who do not use Steam.

So using Steam is not a "fact", it is a lie.

Only Frontier know how many people play the game and they have never told us.

Edit;

Even the Steam charts do not support your "stats"

http://steamcharts.com/app/359320

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well Fdev knows them better. I will bring this up at nearest focused feedback somehow.

FDev know them well - as they have the in-game analytics to look at - no-one else has access to that.

We do know that those self-same analytics have been used previously - as one Dev has indicated that Frontier are well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

And, by the way, do please notice that all what is left of your arguments is selfishness and the current state of things. Nothing else.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And, by the way, do please notice that all what is left of your arguments is selfishness and the current state of things. Nothing else.

No compelling case has been made for change, in my opinion, in a game where direct PvP is clearly not designed to be a dominant feature.

.... and selfishness applies to demands for change as well as maintenance of the status quo - except that those demanding change are seeking to change the game for all players whereas those seeking to retain the status quo aren't.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And, by the way, do please notice that all what is left of your arguments is selfishness and the current state of things.

In your most humble of badly mistaken opinion.

 

[Zieman]

And, by the way, do please notice that all what is left of your arguments is selfishness and the current state of things. Nothing else.

And, by the way, do please notice that all what is left of your arguments is selfishness and the wish to turn the game to something it never was intended to be.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

In your most humble of badly mistaken opinion.

And, by the way, do please notice that all what is left of your arguments is selfishness and the wish to turn the game to something it never was intended to be.

No doubt I am a pretty angel which does not have a personal gain of better for himself game in that discussion.

But thing is, all which is left for you to attack my reasoning on why PvP-type players are in worse positions than PvE ones, is decribing the current state of things. The fact that discrimination by game rules is present became unquestionable, disregarding some people here trying to defeat the obvious by spamming total bull.

 

[Jockey79]

No doubt I am a pretty angel which do not have a personal gain of better for himself game in that discussion.

But thing is, all which is left for you to attack my reasoning on why PvP-type players are in worse positions than PvE ones, is decribing the current state of things. The fact that discrimination by game rules is present became unquestionable, disregarding you trying to defeat my reasoning by spamming total bull.

Your reasoning is flawed, you bought a PvE game that allows optional consensual PvP and you demand bonus for how you choose to play.
That is selfish and flawed reasoning.

We want the game we bought - which is reasonable, to expect to keep what we bought.

And now all you're doing is being insulting (calling people communists), making accusations (of being selfish) and claiming you are right - all because you lost your argument and cannot prove your points.

The only aspect of Elite: Dangerous that was made for fair and balanced PvP was the Arena / CQC mode.
If that's what you want, then go play it.

 

[Riverside]

Your reasoning is flawed, you bought a PvE game that allows optional consensual PvP and you demand bonus for how you choose to play.
That is selfish and flawed reasoning.

We want the game we bought - which is reasonable, to expect to keep what we bought.

And now all you're doing is being insulting (calling people communists), making accusations (of being selfish) and claiming you are right - all because you lost your argument and cannot prove your points.

The only aspect of Elite: Dangerous that was made for fair and balanced PvP was the Arena / CQC mode.
If that's what you want, then go play it.

Egy is arguing the case for change. I agree with a lot of your post but change isn't intrinsically bad. I absolutely agree the insults and ad hominem attacks should stop.

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement

 

[Jockey79]

Egy is arguing the case for change. I agree with a lot of your post but change isn't intrinsically bad. I absolutely agree the insults and ad hominem attacks should stop.

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement

Oh I have no issue with change. I've even put some ideas forward myself for changes to Power Play, CQC (Arena) and a few other bits.

The only change Edy is arguing for, only benefit himself at the expense of others. Which is a change I'll never support.
I'll also argue against changes that are pointless because they can be circumvented with little to no effort.
As I did with the 100m/s speed limit, which didn't stop the exact thing it was brought out to stop.
Just like an open only bonus wont encourage more open world PvP - it will just encourage people abusing the block feature or tweaking their networking.
Which then is a waste of Dev time and resources.