Not true. There has been at least one cycle that was decided by a lone CMDR, who with his wingmate stopped four Federal Corvette- flying players from delivering their merits and at the last minute changed the outcome of an entire cycle. Even if you don't like open, you've got to admit that that's pretty exciting! Exciting, and the exact sort of thing that would make PvP relevant to more than the immediate situation. And you do want a game where PvP has the potential to be relevant, don't you?
If I want a random PvP game, I go play a game that was made for random PvP that doesn't have a mode system like this one does.
War Thunder, World of [tanks / warplanes / ships], Fortnite, Battlefield etc....
Direct "pew pew" PvP in Elite: Dangerous is completely optional.
Anyone at any time can opt out of being able to shoot other CMDRs or be shot at by other CMDRs.
That was the game design, that is why I bought it. I have no issue with anyone wanting to be shot at or go shoot at others - have at it.
What I am against, is people trying to force their game play choices on others.
Your example is absolutely fine, because all involved chose to be there and play that way.
But it's another story if someone is being forced to be involved in that.
Also, you don't have the data to prove that example made the difference in that cycle, you have no idea if a few more people elsewhere happened to play an extra hour in PG/Solo, or if fewer folkso n one side logged in that week, etc.
So please don't claim to know that was a fact, when you're actually guessing. Without the actual proof, you have nothing. There could be a number of reasons the outcome went the way it did.
Some, sure. But if the focused feedback thread (and Reddit. And Facebook) is anything to go on, still overwhelmingly in favor of. Anecdotal evidence, yes- yet still the only solid thing we can point at. Your "split" isn't exactly between equal camps.
So you're claiming social media is proof of something?
Reddit, 133k Subscribers
ED Forum, 100995 Members
Facebook (EDC), 23,960
This does not account for overlap from people on more than 1 service (I'm on all 3).
The game has sold over 3.1 MILLION copies.
You have no idea what they majority of Elite; Dangerous owners want or believe.
You only know what a vocal few want to say, and they are split. Some like OOPP, some don't.
I know 2 game owners who have never registered on the forums, never used any FB group and don't post on Reddit - guess what, they hate the idea of any part of the game being locked to a single mode.
I'm very sorry that you equate raising concern over a clearly unintended exploit to "whining". I wonder what your inevitable lamentations should be called if OOPP is ever implemented.
I was going to ask, but Ziggy did and you said this means 5c.
Funny how some of the 5c community read the open only idea and laughed about it.
Locking content won't stop 5c. So claiming it will is a lie.
It may change how they do it, but it won't stop them doing it.
The vote system will have a greater impact on 5c, and that can work from any mode...... so.....
I understand that "but the opposition does it too so HA!" is your go-to reply when you have nothing else, but I genuinely can't recall a single instance of what you're alluding to (open-only zealots endlessly drawing attention to a perceived shortfall and then brigading any suggestion from the devs as to how to fix it). Perhaps you'd be so kind as to cite an example?
The OOPP zealots go about getting threads locked that don't agree with them or have suggestions to fix PP that don't involve mode locking.
And it's the same few names, with the over used insults they post to get threads locked.
Not just on here either, but also on Reddit I've had to PM mods over it to keep threads alive.
So yes, there are people both sides who have no respect for others.
