I’d like more commanders in the Open

[Rat Catcher]

There isn’t one. If you look I’ve never stated that wanting the easier option is bad. I’ve simply stated that solo is the easier option. It’s people trying to argue it because their own decisions to use it for that fact somehow makes them feel defensive when it’s put in plain English.

it’s not bad. I for example played doom eternal on easiest difficulty because I wanted the bigger margin of error. If you want the bigger margin of error, cool dude. But let’s not pretend that people use solo because involuntary combat is some sort of unexpected anomaly, since it still exists there just from less threatening NPCs

I'm sorry - I've had tremendous fun in the past in this comon debate Baiting the usual "Us & Them" comments has become almost habit (so apologising for the wind-up)

As long as we have modes in the game snide comments will be passed to those who have no wish to 'socialise' in open, by those who appear upset that they are unable to 'socialise' with those same players

It is a constant circular debate, and the reasoning behind it appears to be solely an ego one to me.

Personally, I play in solo only in sites where instancing with another player would potentially disadvantage both of us (think Guardian sites, Dav's etc), the remainder of game time on this account is PG (for a couple of friends) - my main is 99% in open (same collecting premise)... entirely my own choice

 

[Ouberos]

It's basically people like you with this pathetic attitude that makes people like me not want to play in Open. I just don't want to see you in the game - in any game. You're not the poor victim you portray here, you're the cause. Think about that.

I'm guessing you dont want to be Solo buddies?

Also, what are you on about? Have my light hearted posts upset you in some way? Have they touched a triggering nerve that's driven you to insults ?

By the way, out of interest what am I the cause of? I'm just a simple Solo exploit miner. How can i be the cause of anything?

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Mr. Hopkins is acting out a scripted story. He's giving his input to a role that's predetermine with an equally predetermined outcome and predetermined interactions. Yes, he's good at it but he's not functionally doing what we're doing in Elite. We're creating characters to live out our fluid and ever evolving fantasies while he is taking an outside fantasy and deciding how to best represent it. Not really an apt comparison in terms of role. If Anthony Hopkins decided to instead step on the lines of the other characters who were trying to play their roles and that was the whole of his acting style people would probably think differently of him as an actor, wouldn't they?

They'd probably think he on some level enjoyed that interference with another actor or felt it somehow beneficial even with their disagreement.

These things don't really fully separate. The rush of PvP is personally felt for most that I know who engage in it. It's not the character that exists to be the pirate that they'd never be in real life feeling it but the characters piracy that helps fulfill the players desire for PvP combat encounters and the associated real feelings.

The best actors own their roles just as much as we own ours. It may be introduced to them from outside, but if the shoe fits, they wear it.

That's why we identify some actors so strongly with their characters.

And yes the feelings are real. But if we're playing pretend and the rules allow for acts that illicit bad feelings that's not on the perpetrator. It's on YOU to handle them like an adult.

 

[Rat Catcher]

My point is sailing over your head. I'm not talking about indulging in my personal fantasy. Let's back up.

Can personal preferences inform our fantasy? Sure. When you get into fantasy that's often where you start. It's familiar territory.

But as you grow and mature in the art you take on characters and situations that are removed from your preferences. In fact, exploring things you would never, ever do yourself is quite fun.

Go back to Mr. Hopkins. Some people are SO good at it we pay them money and give them little gold statutes for letting us watch!

Sorry, Phisto...

I've 'associated' with this allegedly maladjusted player for about a year on my main account, and, of course, in the Squadron Discord.

I went out to Colonia when Phisto made an appeal for help in advancing the Colonia engineers, went to say 'hello' to this known ganker and avid PvP player and was warmly welcomed (no, not those PA's...), had a lot of fun with the squadron and great chat in Discord.

Going by the attitude displayed by him and other members of Loren's Reapers squadron to me, and conversations held, that meeting all of them for drinks and snacks in real life would be a hoot, even for a carebear such as I

 

[House0fDerp]

The best actors own their roles just as much as we own ours. It may be introduced to them from outside, but if the shoe fits, they wear it.

That's why we identify some actors so strongly with their characters.

It's not a matter of owning the role or not. It's a matter of creating a role for the sake of indulging in the feeling of living it or being given one to skillfully replicate the act of being it.

Then again maybe Anthony Hopkins really likes playing characters with ASPD.

And yes the feelings are real. But if we're playing pretend and the rules allow for acts that illicit bad feelings that's not on the perpetrator. It's on YOU to handle them like an adult.

I swear this part wasn't there when I replied. Anyways:

The whole point here was that there are real feeling involved, real feeling being sought by various roleplays and that those feeling were from a real person and acknowledging that doesn't mean someone is "a newbie at playing pretend."

 

[Just Paul]

D&D is PvE if you play it as such. If the setting calls for a tournament between players it becomes PvP. If a player doesn't like what another one did IE stealing from the group it becomes PvP. If a player is a teamkiller it becomes PvP. Essentially, much like elite, the thing that keeps potential PvP encounters from being actual PvP encounters is the choice to not engage.

So is the stealing or teamkiller player's character judged by the in-game role-play and actions, or not?

Mr. Hopkins is acting out a scripted story. He's giving his input to a role that's predetermine with an equally predetermined outcome and predetermined interactions. Yes, he's good at it but he's not functionally doing what we're doing in Elite. We're creating characters to live out our fluid and ever evolving fantasies while he is taking an outside fantasy and deciding how to best represent it. Not really an apt comparison in terms of role. If Anthony Hopkins decided to instead step on the lines of the other characters who were trying to play their roles and that was the whole of his acting style people would probably think differently of him as an actor, wouldn't they?

They'd probably think he on some level enjoyed that interference with another actor or felt it somehow beneficial even with their disagreement.

These things don't really fully separate. The rush of PvP is personally felt for most that I know who engage in it. It's not the character that exists to be the pirate that they'd never be in real life feeling it but the characters piracy that helps fulfill the players desire for PvP combat encounters and the associated real feelings.

Elite's story is not fully scripted but a fair amount of roles and settings are defined already through the lore. Playing an outlaw in Elite is not much different to Mr. Hopkins playing Hannibal. Somebody has to play the bad guy or it would be a boring galaxy. Elite's own marketing material says "it's a cutthroat galaxy there you need combat skills to survive". I posted a screenshot in an earlier post, I think. So it's just natural that people want to explore all the possibilities the game offers and being an outlaw is one of them. Same as I can't fault anybody who doesn't want to play with other people and plays in solo. So long the player's actions are within the rules set by FDev it's fine to me and I reserve the judgment of a player's character for real life interactions with that individual.

For example: Loren's Reapers adopted The Nameless faction in Carcosa and some people don't like it at all. They say it's not how it's supposed to be. But the thing is we are just following what FDevs writers wanted The Nameless to do in the Colonia region. In this respect we are breathing life into the characters and keep writing the story of Anarchy at humanities frontier.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

It's not a matter of owning the role or not. It's a matter of creating a role for the sake of indulging in the feeling of living it or being given one to skillfully replicate the act of being it.

Then again maybe Anthony Hopkins really likes playing characters with ASPD.

I added another bit at the end. Sorry I wasn't quick enough.

And in regards to Elite, who cares? We're all playing pretend. Negative emotions are possible. It's on me to manage that ride appropriately.

And I bet he loved playing Lecter. It's common to hear actors proclaim how fun villains are.

 

[Rat Catcher]

...
For example: Loren's Reapers adopted The Nameless faction in Carcosa and some people don't like it at all. They say it's not how it's supposed to be. But the thing is we are just following what FDevs writers wanted The Nameless to do in the Colonia region. In this respect we are breathing life into the characters and keep writing the story of Anarchy at humanities frontier.

As Carcosa is The Nameless' home system, and they had been overthrown by player groups, it is entirely within Lore to claim, and hold, Carcosa in their name

...and it is fun when players try to destabilise this state

 

[House0fDerp]

So is the stealing or teamkiller player's character judged by the in-game role-play and actions, or not?

They are judged by both RP actions and by those real people at the table. The character is a construct created by the player after all.

Elite's story is not fully scripted but a fair amount of roles and settings are defined already through the lore. Playing an outlaw in Elite is not much different to Mr. Hopkins playing Hannibal. Somebody has to play the bad guy or it would be a boring galaxy. Elite's own marketing material says "it's a cutthroat galaxy there you need combat skills to survive". I posted a screenshot in an earlier post, I think. So it's just natural that people want to explore all the possibilities the game offers and being an outlaw is one of them. Same as I can't fault anybody who doesn't want to play with other people and plays in solo. So long the player's actions are within the rules set by FDev it's fine to me and I reserve the judgment of a player's character for real life interactions with that individual.

For example: Loren's Reapers adopted The Nameless faction in Carcosa and some people don't like it at all. They say it's not how it's supposed to be. But the thing is we are just following what FDevs writers wanted The Nameless to do in the Colonia region. In this respect we are breathing life into the characters and keep writing the story of Anarchy at humanities frontier.

The idea of someone needing to play the bad guy in elite is wholly personal. For some the cutthroat galaxy is nothing more than a marketting tagline and they just want to be a peaceful space trucker. I bet a lot of explorers don't need or feel enriched by bad guys on the level of other players because their role in the game isn't boring to them. Same for a number who probably would like their PvE experiences undisturbed and evidence that by not playing in open. And yes, the mechanics determine what there is to explore but the players choices within that still exist.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So you’re saying they want the game to be.... easier. To allow for poorer choices or allow for a greater margin of error.

To classify a choice as "poorer" that suggests that there are "better" choices - however what constitutes "better" or "poorer" depends on the context.

In the context of "having fun" for a player who has no interest in PvP combat and no interest in getting interested in it, the "better" choice may well be not to play among those whose interactions constitute a repetitive, predictable and tedious waste of game time.

Exactly what I said.

Not really.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

To classify a choice as "poorer" that suggests that there are "better" choices - however what constitutes "better" or "poorer" depends on the context.

In the context of "having fun" for a player who has no interest in PvP combat and no interest in getting interested in it, the "better" choice may well be not to play among those whose interactions constitute a repetitive, predictable and tedious waste of game time.

Not really.

There absolutely are better choices and worse choices, as well as better ship builds and worse ship builds. Regardless of PvP, your build determines your ships survivabiliy, general performance and ability to complete a task efficiently. You’re grasping at straws.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There absolutely are better choices and worse choices, as well as better ship builds and worse ship builds. Regardless of PvP, your build determines your ships survivabiliy, general performance and ability to complete a task efficiently.

Except the choices are not limited to choices regarding ship build.

You’re grasping at straws.

Simply reiterating the fact that not all players find PvP to be "fun" - and, as it is an optional extra in the game, some choose to play where they will never encounter players who wish to engage them in it.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

They are judged by both RP actions and by those real people at the table. The character is a construct created by the player after all.

But I presume you judge the quality of the character as an artistic creation not as a reflection of its creator's moral fiber.

Do you see the difference?

That's the problem we run into with Elite. You can criticize gankers for being unimaginative bad guys but you can't claim the person behind the keyboard is a jerk.

They may BE a jerk but legitimate in game acts do not make them so.

 

[Darth Ender]

this thread's OP isn't about open vs solo vs group vs pve nonsense.

It's about why is there no escort mechanic in this game after 5 years ? It's a valid, common role that you would assume would have to exist in this galaxy. That's all the OP wanted really. Nobody cares if you think pvp is hard or unwanted or if shooting things makes you anxious and that you demand that the game be your safe space because that's how you want to play. Dont we have a billion other threads for pvp vs pv-nothing ?

 

[Mohrgan]

That escort mechanic is called Wings. Nearly the 1st thing FD added to the game.

 

[Rat Catcher]

this thread's OP isn't about open vs solo vs group vs pve nonsense.

It's about why is there no escort mechanic in this game after 5 years ? It's a valid, common role that you would assume would have to exist in this galaxy. That's all the OP wanted really. Nobody cares if you think pvp is hard or unwanted or if shooting things makes you anxious and that you demand that the game be your safe space because that's how you want to play. Dont we have a billion other threads for pvp vs pv-nothing ?

The first part is a great observation
Sadly the highlighted part is just invective - but I guess gives you reason to touch yourself once again

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Except the choices are not limited to choices regarding ship build.

Simply reiterating the fact that not all players find PvP to be "fun" - and, as it is an optional extra in the game, some choose to play where they will never encounter players who wish to engage them in it.

Sure you have more choices than ship build. Doesn’t change the fact that there is objectively speaking better and worse options.

If they chose they are choosing because of difficulty levels and they prefer that greater margin of error provided by solo. Which is fine, but don’t act like pvp is some outlier game mechanic. The mechanics that allow PvP exist in all game modes, the only difference is the difficulty presented by the various foes you are presented with or lack there of.

 

[House0fDerp]

But I presume you judge the quality of the character as an artistic creation not as a reflection of its creator's moral fiber.

A bit of both actually. General consensus is that if a character is doing something that is making people at the table upset the player needs to fix it by either fixing or making a new character and failure to do so reflects on the player as does the creation they already made not keeping the temperament of the group in mind.

But in another setting, IE a group of disfunctional backstabbers that only hangout to have scapegoats, that same character may be fine.

That's the problem we run into with Elite. You can criticize gankers for being unimaginative bad guys but you can't claim the person behind the keyboard is a jerk.

That was never said. What I said was that the creations in game aren't fully divorced from the motivations of the player. But also, because of conflicting motivations for their RP some others may not want to play along. Hence why a number don't/won't want to accept ops offer.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sure you have more choices than ship build. Doesn’t change the fact that there is objectively speaking better and worse options.

Indeed.

If they chose they are choosing because of difficulty levels and they prefer that greater margin of error provided by solo. Which is fine, but don’t act like pvp is some outlier game mechanic. The mechanics that allow PvP exist in all game modes, the only difference is the difficulty presented by the various foes you are presented with or lack there of.

PvP isn't an outlier - it just isn't required in any game feature except CQC. It is possible simply because players can choose to shoot at anything they instance with. That some players really enjoy it is obvious. That some eschew it completely is also obvious. The game offers options for both of those types of player.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

The game offers options for both of those types of player.

Indeed, but the types aren’t “I like pvp” vs “I don’t”

they are “ I Iike having my mistakes cost me” vs “I don’t like having my mistakes cost me”and the modes of open for the former and solo for the latter available to each.