PVP vs. PVE

[A C Ender]

I'm not here to be entertaining, my points don't need to be "interesting" they need to be honest and relevant to the discussion.
And the fact of the matter is that your ego or your opinion isn't relevant to how others play the game. As long as people are not cheating and playing within the Frontier approved use of their software, then people can sit in any more they like and play the BGS as much as they like.

It is the whole point of the game.

The fact you don't like it means absolutely nothing to anyone else but you. It doesn't change the game design or the rules of the game.
People are not being "rude", mean spirited, cheating or any other way your hissy fit may want to describe it. They are simply playing the game they bought.

Or to put it another way, I think the "offside rule" ruins football and I don't like it.
Is FIFA going to remove it because I don't like it?
Nope, they are not. My feelings don't matter on the topic.

This is a PVE game (because all of it can be played in Solo) with OPTIONAL PvP
So even if people are "avoiding" PvP, they are not doing anything wrong and they are not being "rude".
You are being "rude" by complaining about people who are playing the game legitimately.

I don't think that "the Devs designed it that way" add anything meaningful to the discussion. That line of reasoning shut down discussion more than anything, because you can use it to any single suggestion or complaint about the game.

You can't hold an intellectual discussion without adding meaningful comments. If you're not interested in an intellectual discussion where we come to an understanding of eachother then that's fine, but then why are you still here talking?

I value discussion and voicing your opinion, what you think, why you think a certain way, learning the other individuals point of view, and why they think so. So far you (addressed not just to quoted person) have only provided what you think, not why you think it. Why do you think that "it's allowed" can be used to justify any behaviour?

I'd also like to note that for several posts several of you have made assumptions of what I do, what I think, and what I feel. But not once have anyone of you bothered to ask about it. Why? Are you happy living with assumptions instead of knowledge?

I'd also like to point out that I've been specifically trying to discuss now is why I find being an aggressor in BGS but playing in Solo/PG to avoid any retribution rude; I'm not discussing Open-only. That's a topic for another day.

 

[Jmanis]

Don't put words in my mouth.

I have specifically said people who choose to oppose someone in BGS and who pick Solo to avoid the chance of being seen or opposed. I understand there are legitimate reasons for people to chose solo. I only find it rude by people who chose to do it to avoid opposition while actively opposing you.

Note that I use the generic form of "you" - I don't care if it's someone else they oppose or me, I find the reason to do so rude, whoever the target.

BGS isn't a PvP activity... so...

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

Right, the problem lies in that some are trying to force it to be.

 

[Jockey79]

I don't think that "the Devs designed it that way" add anything meaningful to the discussion. That line of reasoning shut down discussion more than anything, because you can use it to any single suggestion or complaint about the game.

You can't hold an intellectual discussion without adding meaningful comments. If you're not interested in an intellectual discussion where we come to an understanding of eachother then that's fine, but then why are you still here talking?

I value discussion and voicing your opinion, what you think, why you think a certain way, learning the other individuals point of view, and why they think so. So far you (addressed not just to quoted person) have only provided what you think, not why you think it. Why do you think that "it's allowed" can be used to justify any behaviour?

I'd also like to note that for several posts several of you have made assumptions of what I do, what I think, and what I feel. But not once have anyone of you bothered to ask about it. Why? Are you happy living with assumptions instead of knowledge?

I'd also like to point out that I've been specifically trying to discuss now is why I find being an aggressor in BGS but playing in Solo/PG to avoid any retribution rude; I'm not discussing Open-only. That's a topic for another day.

You're not having an "intellectual discussion" at all, you're complaining your feelings have been hurt by people not playing with you.
You have directly called me "rude" several times because I don't want to play with you. That isn't a discussion of any type, it's you being insulting towards someone who is playing the game how the Devs said they could play it. (and you seemed surprised I'm being hostile, yet you started this whole thing by being insulting)

This whole thing is all about you and what you want. You're not trying to discuss anything, proven by how you've responded to every answer you've received by myself and from Robert. You're just constantly repeating the same insulting line over and over: "You're not playing with me, so you're being rude".

The fact of the matter is, no one is being "rude" in any way, shape or form. We are simply playing the game and we don't have to play with you.
If you don't like how we play, then that is your problem, not ours. So stop trying to push your hurt feelings on to us.
I play the BGS from a PG (and CG's + PP) that is my choice that I'm allowed to make because it's how the game was made.
You can lump it, or go play another game to be blunt, as it's the game you knowingly bought.

But either way, it's not our problem you don't like it and coming on to the forums to call anyone "rude" is quite simply you just being insulting and trolling because you think your feelings are more important than everyone else.

You should have taken the design into account before buying the game, I did.
Caveat emptor

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why do you think that "it's allowed" can be used to justify any behaviour?

Simply because it is used to justify any behaviour - case in point, PvP in Open. It has also been used to justify PvP in PvE Private Groups - as the game does not stop any player attack on another player. Thankfully those who break the out-of-game rules they agreed to on joining a PG are now session kicked if they are playing in the PG when they are removed from the membership of the PG.

I'd also like to point out that I've been specifically trying to discuss now is why I find being an aggressor in BGS but playing in Solo/PG to avoid any retribution rude; I'm not discussing Open-only. That's a topic for another day.

The topics are so close as to be almost inextricably linked.

 

[Hellrider]

Imagine, how simple would be world without solo mode, but with offline mode
I don't care about mode, where are you playing, but this arguments are so funny especially "this is allowed, so this is ok", gnaking is ok, too?
but to be honest, I don't see difference between modes, because 99,(9)% of galaxy is empty, so i prefer open and meeting with random explorer in random POI. This is one of the funniest momments in game.
I think, that CG and PP should be open only, but if you don't think in this way I can't prohibit it, do it as you like, I haven't special problem with it. It is rude?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Imagine, how simple would be world without solo mode, but with offline mode

.... but for the fact that the three online game modes were simultaneously announced at the start of the Kickstarter - whereas Offline mode was added to the scope about halfway through (and subsequently cancelled before launch).

We'll never know if the pitch would have succeeded if any one of the four game modes had not been part of the scope of the Kickstarter.

 

[Hellrider]

.... but for the fact that the three online game modes were simultaneously announced at the start of the Kickstarter

Yes.
And?
I wrote "imagine" because we have solo mode, which is online xD
Imagine- no discussions about BGS, PP, CG in different modes, no complaining about bad, evil, toxic gankers in all of systems

 

[Robert Maynard]

I wrote "imagine" because we have solo mode, which is online xD

Fair enough.

Imagine- no discussions about BGS, PP, CG in different modes, no complaining about bad, evil, toxic gankers in all of systems

Oh there would be complaints - as I expect that the 15-second menu exit and block feature would still exist - and those prone to behaviours aimed to adversely affect the player, rather than just playing the game, would still exist - therefore complaints about them would still exist.

Plus the fact that there are three platforms sharing a single galaxy - with no cross-play.

 

[aXeL]

.... but for the fact that the three online game modes were simultaneously announced at the start of the Kickstarter - whereas Offline mode was added to the scope about halfway through (and subsequently cancelled before launch).

We'll never know if the pitch would have succeeded if any one of the four game modes had not been part of the scope of the Kickstarter.

Actually, in the beginning FDev did not at any point highlight that you had to be 'online' for single player. There was lots of upselling and evangelising of multiplayer back in 2012 but it was much much later we found out that single player was forced online play. I only remember because it's the reason I dropped alot of my funding for the game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Actually, in the beginning FDev did not at any point highlight that you had to be 'online' for single player. There was lots of upselling and evangelising of multiplayer back in 2012 but it was much much later we found out that single player was forced online play. I only remember because it's the reason I dropped alot of my funding for the game.

Reading the FAQ, online was implied from the outset (in my opinion at least) in the first paragraph of the single player answer:

How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?

The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.

The other important aspect for us is that we can seed the galaxy with events, often these events will be triggered by player actions. With a living breathing galaxy players can discover new and interesting things long after they have started playing.

Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server. You won't get the features of the evolving galaxy (although we will investigate minimising those differences) and you probably won't be able to sync between server and non-server (again we'll investigate).​

.... especially as the Offline mode section, the last paragraph, specifically mentions that Offline mode would not require to connect to the galaxy server - the implication being that the other modes would have to connect to the galaxy server. That scope addition was made about halfway through the Kickstarter.

 

[aXeL]

Reading the FAQ, online was implied from the outset (in my opinion at least) in the first paragraph of the single player answer:

Recall that the FAQ was frequently changed and looks nothing like it did at the outset which why I checked the update history instead

 

[Robert Maynard]

Recall that the FAQ was frequently changed and looks nothing like it did at the outset which why I checked the update history instead

Have you got a link to the update history, please?

 

[aXeL]

Certainly sir, the trail is here. If you, like me, have been sick enough to stare at the videos and history all over again rather than actually play the damned game!

Elite: Dangerous

Take a ship and 100 credits to make money legally or illegally - trade, bounty-hunt, pirate, assassinate your way across the galaxy.

www.kickstarter.com

VR with flu just doesn't work unless a pounding heading is considered a way to kill time.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Certainly sir, the trail is here. If you, like me, have been sick enough to stare at the videos and history all over again rather than actually play the damned game!

Looks like a change to the FAQ w.r.t. single player requiring online was made on or before 10th December 2012, i.e. about half way through the KS period.

 

[A C Ender]

Simply because it is used to justify any behaviour - case in point, PvP in Open. It has also been used to justify PvP in PvE Private Groups - as the game does not stop any player attack on another player. Thankfully those who break the out-of-game rules they agreed to on joining a PG are now session kicked if they are playing in the PG when they are removed from the membership of the PG.

The topics are so close as to be almost inextricably linked.

Let me repharase myself so that we might be able to have a discussion then. Do you think that it should be used to justify any behavior? I don't, because this implies that everything must remain static, that nothing can chance. I believe it's better if thinks that aren't good can be changed to become better, and that things that are already good might be changed to become even better.

I'm actually interested in why you think the way you do, and if your reasons are compelling I might even change my mind about it. That's why I've been trying to understand why you think the way you do. There is the possibility that you are a very strong supporter of authority and that rules and reasons are not for you to question or want changed. I'm not going to assume so without you telling me that's the case though.


On the topic of open only, I do realise that It's often discussed, which is partly the reason I'm not interested in holding that one here. If I wanted to read different opinions on that topic, there's plenty of material to go through already.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Do you think that it should be used to justify any behavior? I don't, because this implies that everything must remain static, that nothing can chance.

If things don't remain static then they may change - we would not all want them to change in the same ways.

I believe it's better if thinks that aren't good can be changed to become better, and that things that are already good might be changed to become even better.

Whether a change constitutes an improvement, or not, is subjective - and depends on each player's opinion on the status quo and the proposed change.

I'm actually interested in why you think the way you do, and if your reasons are compelling I might even change my mind about it. There is the possibility that you are a very strong supporter of authority and that rules and reasons are not for you to question or want changed. I'm not going to assume so without you telling me that's the case though.

I don't enjoy PvP - so I made sure, before backing the game, that there would be no need to engage in it to affect and enjoy the game. There are certainly things that I'd like changed or added - an Open PvE mode, sharing the single galaxy state, being one thing that I'd like to see added (although it seems to have been ruled out due to the complexity of removing all PvP interactions).

On the topic of open only, I do realise that It's often discussed, which is partly the reason I'm not interested in holding that one here. If I wanted to read different opinions on that topic, there's plenty of material to go through already.

It's often discussed because those who want it have been petitioning Frontier for over seven years now - to no avail.

 

[A C Ender]

If things don't remain static then they may change - we would not all want them to change in the same ways.

Whether a change constitutes an improvement, or not, is subjective - and depends on each player's opinion on the status quo and the proposed change.

Absolutely, I agree with you on both counts.

I don't enjoy PvP - so I made sure, before backing the game, that there would be no need to engage in it to affect and enjoy the game. There are certainly things that I'd like changed or added - an Open PvE mode, sharing the single galaxy state, being one thing that I'd like to see added (although it seems to have been ruled out due to the complexity of removing all PvP interactions).

I can see why some people (such as you) would like a PvE only Open mode, and I can certainly see the appeal - I'm playing Open as I want to see other players, or at least have a chance to see them. I also like PvP (however almost exclusively doing duels with squadron members), so it's not a mode I would prefer. Like you said though, there is a significant problem to remove all possibility of PvP interactions (how could you prevent ramming come to mind). I think the most viable way would be moderating, where PvP activities gets reported for someone to review. Presumably repeated actions would need to be done to rule out accidental before actions could be taken.

It (open only*) is often discussed because those who want it have been petitioning Frontier for over seven years now - to no avail.

I do see the appeal of this (and probably not surprising to you) I would pick this mode. I like the uncertainty of not knowing what await me in the next system, and be prepared to defend myself at any moment. I think this makes the game feel more dynamic and interesting. The only way I could see anything like this happen would be if in a patch/expansion all existing commanders got to choose one or the other, and thereafter all new commanders would pick one during commander creation. These two versions would start identical, but not communicate and as such would diverge over time.

How would you see on that, where the galaxy is split into two, one for each mode?

*added for clarity

 

[Robert Maynard]

The only way I could see anything like this happen would be if in a patch/expansion all existing commanders got to choose one or the other, and thereafter all new commanders would pick one during commander creation. These two versions would start identical, but not communicate and as such would diverge over time.

How would you see on that, where the galaxy is split into two, one for each mode?

Frontier would seem to have already ruled out a running a second BGS:

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.

No.

Michael

When the XBox One version was announced, rather than add a second BGS for it, players on it (and subsequently the PS4) were added to the number that share the original BGS:

I’m also pleased to announce PC, Mac and Xbox One players will all share the same overarching narrative and galaxy state. That means even more players contributing to the wars, power struggles and Community Goals across the galaxy.