Elite not very dangerous ?

[Backelaer]

I know - however there's no necessity for any player to enjoy adversarial gameplay.

Hence solo and PG exist.

Not in most cases, no. However the fact that it can be used to harass would seem to be indisputable.

At the moment it is. You know not everything is set in stone? Changes can be made? Including ones that may minimise harassment?

Other Developers have embraced it and called it gameplay. Frontier chose not to do that.

Yeah, on a forum meant to discuss a game "This is the way it is" is hardly an argument.
Or see the above "Not everything is set in stone".

Why not petition for a fourth mode to be added - Locked Open - with no menu exit, no blocking, no mode changing - rather than making Open as it is even less attractive for those who don't enjoy the attentions of other players?

Because I really don't think FDev are keen on adding another mode, nor would I think that'd be a good idea. But by all means let them remove the limit on number of players allowed in a PG.

 

[Vetinari]

Edit: Only the 1st quote is off RM, the rest are responses but the quoting system messed up.

If I go to football match I don't particlularly want to stand near the homophobic, misogynist, racist chanting idiots.....for reasons.

If I go to a music gig I don't want to be in a crowd full of people in between every single song shouting 'TOON ARMY! TOON ARMY!'....for reasons.

In short I don't want my paid for supposed to be enjoyable experience spoiled by an imo genuine Neanderthal idiot low-life type.

I really don't see how that's hard to understand unless you want actual power over me to force me to be where you want me to be and not where I want to be? Well you can't have that and you never will so grow up.

These days people see logging and blocking as go to 'win' buttons which is misuse- it also muddies the waters for those who do use it properly.

See above for why you don't get to decide if I 'use it properly'

They can't. Hence Frontier left it up to each player to decide which mode to play in, when to leave the game and who to add to their block-list.

TOON ARMY! TOON ARMY! block

Not in most cases, no. However the fact that it can be used to harass would seem to be indisputable.

Other Developers have embraced it and called it gameplay. Frontier chose not to do that.

Why not petition for a fourth mode to be added - Locked Open - with no menu exit, no blocking, no mode changing - rather than making Open as it is even less attractive for those who don't enjoy the attentions of other players?

RM - Why not play one of the other games that embrace this, theres a lot of them but here you are saying ED needs to change? Please explain? Why aren't you on their forums saying they need to have better gameplay and game mechanics like ED that actually suits the style they are set up for? Why do you complain that your actions lead to other players actions meaning you can do less of your actions? Why don't you stop yours instead of demanding that others stop theirs or somebody else stops theirs so you can do yours as you want? Are you God or have a god complex? Genuinely hard to comprehend how another adult fails to understand this simple relationship between actions and consequences.

 

[Zeke Drexel]

Maybe FD can release a set of decals with bumper sticker themes, like "Interdict me please", "I'm a pro, try your best" etc. etc. … then whilst wearing said decals it's all hell breaks loose

 

[Robert Maynard]

Hence solo and PG exist.

As do the block list and 15-second delayed exit.

At the moment it is. You know not everything is set in stone? Changes can be made? Including ones that may minimise harassment?

Of course. However not everyone wants the same changes (although changes that further reduce harassment potential would be welcomed).

Yeah, on a forum meant to discuss a game "This is the way it is" is hardly an argument.
Or see the above "Not everything is set in stone".

We do indeed discuss the game. We don't all want the same changes - and Frontier walk the line between those who want one thing and those who don't, for all of the things.

Because I really don't think FDev are keen on adding another mode, nor would I think that'd be a good idea. But by all means let them remove the limit on number of players allowed in a PG.

I doubt that there's scope to remove the cap on PG membership - as the 1,000 member limit on consoles came after the PC/Mac limit was much greater (and stands at 20,000 members from what I understand). Membership management is likely to be the limiting factor.

 

[Rubbernuke]

If I go to football match I don't particlularly want to stand near the homophobic, misogynist, racist chanting idiots.....for reasons.

If I go to a music gig I don't want to be in a crowd full of people in between every single song shouting 'TOON ARMY! TOON ARMY!'....for reasons.

In short I don't want my paid for supposed to be enjoyable experience spoiled by an imo genuine Neanderthal idiot low-life type.

I really don't see how that's hard to understand unless you want actual power over me to force me to be where you want me to be and not where I want to be? Well you can't have that and you never will so grow up.

Which is fine until what you want simply negates any legitimate gameplay that happens in Open according to your internal rules. What you describe would mean that if you did not agree to be pirated you'd log out- which defeats the object of a dangerous galaxy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Maybe FD can release a set of decals with bumper sticker themes, like "Interdict me please", "I'm a pro, try your best" etc. etc. … then whilst wearing said decals it's all hell breaks loose

Maybe suggested in jest - however it might just work....

 

[Rubbernuke]

If players could be trusted to "play nicely" then I'd agree.

They can't. Hence Frontier left it up to each player to decide which mode to play in, when to leave the game and who to add to their block-list.

Which then relegates most Open activities to being optional, and pointless- hence why people see no value in them and you get silly behaviour.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which is fine until what you want simply negates any legitimate gameplay that happens in Open according to your internal rules. What you describe would mean that if you did not agree to be pirated you'd log out- which defeats the object of a dangerous galaxy.

Frontier set the challenge posed by the galaxy - for all players. That some players are entirely dismissive of the challenge is obvious - that hasn't changed Frontier's stance.

.... and the optional play-style that is PvP is not the yardstick for measuring challenge.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which then relegates most Open activities to being optional, and pointless- hence why people see no value in them and you get silly behaviour.

Indeed they are optional - just as in-the-same-instance PvP itself is.

That some players choose to express their displeasure in forms of "silly behaviour" is up to them - thankfully no-one needs to play with those players though.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Frontier set the challenge posed by the galaxy - for all players. That some players are entirely dismissive of the challenge is obvious - that hasn't changed Frontier's stance.

.... and the optional play-style that is PvP is not the yardstick for measuring challenge.

But its all pointless because even then its you rather than the game that decides whats a challenge- with most people simply doing the easiest option. They don't think "hmmm, maybe if I get organised with others, we could break through this blockade" they go "euh- solo it is".

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indeed they are optional - just as in-the-same-instance PvP itself is.

That some players choose to express their displeasure in forms of "silly behaviour" is up to them - thankfully no-one needs to play with those players though.

And yet it destroys any possibility of higher gaming, pretentious as that sounds. NPCs in ED are incredibly hobbled and don't scale to skill at all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But its all pointless because even then its you rather than the game that decides whats a challenge- with most people simply doing the easiest option. They don't think "hmmm, maybe if I get organised with others, we could break through this blockade" they go "euh- solo it is".

Which goes back to the design philosophy of the game that has been in place from the outset - PvP is optional.

It was recognised pretty much immediately that blockades would only ever be a role-play event between those who wanted to participate in them.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Which goes back to the design philosophy of the game that has been in place from the outset - PvP is optional.

It was recognised pretty much immediately that blockades would only ever be a role-play event between those who wanted to participate in them.

Which then defeats the 'blaze your own trail' ethos of ED, in that CGs then are impossible to lose if you wish to oppose them.

FD have built a great foundation and then set fire to it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And yet it destroys any possibility of higher gaming, pretentious as that sounds. NPCs in ED are incredibly hobbled and don't scale to skill at all.

It does, a bit. Especially as the inference is that PvP is "higher gaming".

NPCs don't scale with skill as we all inhabit the same galaxy. There is no difficulty slider, other than ones choice of ship, equipment and level of engineering when undertaking a particular task.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It does, a bit. Especially as the inference is that PvP is "higher gaming".

NPCs don't scale with skill as we all inhabit the same galaxy. There is no difficulty slider, other than ones choice of ship, equipment and level of engineering when undertaking a particular task.

Go play Assassins Creed Odyssey for NPC mercs done right- in ED the Elite rank is meaningless since its about grind and not skill. There is no progression, just a very low, flat ceiling. Open and other players provides a much healthier challenge but the disparity between the two is stupid.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which then defeats the 'blaze your own trail' ethos of ED, in that CGs then are impossible to lose if you wish to oppose them.

FD have built a great foundation and then set fire to it.

Whether Frontier chooses to implement opposing CGs, or not, remains up to them. There will always be those who wish to impose their definition of gameplay on others however Frontier don't seem to subscribe to that as the no-notice removal of UA bombing suggests.

Whether the foundation has been razed to the ground, or not, rather depends on ones preference for PvP.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Go play Assassins Creed Odyssey for NPC mercs done right- in ED the Elite rank is meaningless since its about grind and not skill. There is no progression, just a very low, flat ceiling. Open and other players provides a much healthier challenge but the disparity between the two is stupid.

Not my type of game.

Elite rank has always been about time served.

Whether the challenge posed by other players is "healthier" or even welcome is a matter of opinion / preference.

 

[Northpin]

Whether the foundation has been razed to the ground, or not, rather depends on ones preference for PvP.

Definitely
What PVP-er always forget is that they're a minority.
A very vocal one, that also want to impose pvp to everyone else.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Whether Frontier chooses to implement opposing CGs, or not, remains up to them. There will always be those who wish to impose their definition of gameplay on others however Frontier don't seem to subscribe to that as the no-notice removal of UA bombing suggests.

Whether the foundation has been razed to the ground, or not, rather depends on ones preference for PvP.

Whether Frontier chooses to implement opposing CGs, or not, remains up to them.

Every CG in Open is up for opposition, thats the emergent part.

those who wish to impose their definition of gameplay on others

This is where without base gameplay definitions you have some players logging the minute they get pulled because its 'griefing'.

Frontier don't seem to subscribe to that as the no-notice removal of UA bombing suggests

Another example of taking away tools to affect the game.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Which then defeats the 'blaze your own trail' ethos of ED, in that CGs then are impossible to lose if you wish to oppose them.

That was always an issue apart from the Lugh war that had opposing CG's.

In my view most CG's should have an opposing one, but they would need to be well balanced which isn't Fdevs forte.

FD have built a great foundation and then set fire to it.

Thats a matter of opinion. As I am not at all interested in PvP I find the game perfectly fine. Most of the game isn't designed around PvP anyway.