I don't buy any of that. Lots of people, most if I've seen the right stats, play in Open. Xwing was great, in the 90's. Elite is far stronger though.

Graphics, physics, content, gameplay.

The only thing Xwing had over Elite was a solo story where you get to be the hero. Not needed here.

As for emergent gameplay, I meet and play regularly with people who aren't fuel rats.
 
Then you're reading something into it that I never intended. Combat is a part of Elite. Elite is multiplayer. Therefore PvP is a natural part of Elite. It's not that combat should be a powerful tool, but rather that the potentiality of PvP encounters is actually an impactful aspect, the lack of which in certain game modes makes the splitting of the play modes unfair and imbalanced.

Combat is part of, say, NMS too, and NMS is multiplayer also... Yet there are selections to switch out any form of player damage (or even interaction) so surely that illustrates, equally soundly, that a multiplayer game that incorporates combat doesn't imply PvP as a must have, or even other players...

Again, it doesn't accommodate everyone, and it's not about pushing PvP combat. It's about being in the same world where PvP encounters occur, having the potential threat, as well as the potential neutral and friendly scenarios that can occur that would have given life to what is already far too large a game world to suffer low player counts caused by split modes or poor design, particularly with the low quality NPC interactive AI. It's about fairness, achieved by having everyone forced to play under the same conditions.

But every player, on starting the game, is given the choice to incorporate any player, chosen players or no players at all in their game, so where is the issue. No-one has to play any particular way, it is all choice. In this game, as in NMS, other players only exist in the game by choice...

Using NMS as an illustration is not because I consider it a 'great space game' (quite the opposite) but as a recently massively updated multiplayer 'space' game the choices presented in the game could surely be used to compare 'similar' game modes.
 
Open Only Everything is such a stupid demand for ED it's painful. Half the time i think its a deliberate attempt to stifle OpenOnly Something requests. Solo/PG has an effectiveness advantage by opting out of opposition. Many players want to play in Open and affect the galaxy without that fundamental & often chronic strategic disadvantage.
The most sensible home for this is Open-only Powerplay, or a tweaked powerplay where actions are split appropriately across modes (so each mode does not undercut the others)
This would not serve to disenfranchise players or force anyone into anything without consent, it would however create a place for a significant cohort of players, that is missing at present.

The odds are a crapshoot in open, you may find someone, you may not. However Open is totally optional. This means that everyone has equal access to Powerplay and BGS in solo pg and open and if people are willing to take on additional risk, or want to provide it, they can opt in to open.
Each playergroup for every Power take the strategy element of Powerplay seriously. Max effect = minimum interuption. It feeds back into ship design & every approach that's taken to doing anything.

In solo/pg, powerplay is as pure a grind as you'll find in ED. Its pure slog at very simple mechanics. In Open its more dynamic, evolving and variable than any other aspect of the game. But that effect is born from having inefficiencies created by others, and overcoming them. They adapt, you adapt, and so it goes. It makes Powerplay the player-driven team game it was always supposed to be.

The ability to opt-out with a change of modes makes creating those inefficiencies pointless when people take advantage. The end result is grind versus grind, either from the outset, or when one side is backs-to-the-wall.

There arent many folks so determined to prioritise gameplay-for-all over effectiveness, when every other consideration & choice they make is to maximise effectiveness.
Everyone is equal now, you want to have less controll and possibly to freeze out players from the process because they have different play preferences than you.
See above. Everyone isnt equal in Powerplay. Those who opt to avoid the inefficiencies of Open undercut the whole reason Powerplay can be worthwhile. Without it, it's inferior to the BGS at almost every level.

Everyone is not equal now. Rhetorical purity doesnt remake reality and isnt a substitute for practical experience.
Without both, you're blind.
 
...
And no, not everyone's desires are being respected. The desire for fair play is not being met, which would require the game design to enforce the same game conditions and rules on all players at the same time. The choice should not be allowed to players, to have the same impact on the same universe under different "difficulties".
...
We all download the same client and have access to all the same game features all at the same time. I call that fair play. And good gameplay offers choices so of course choices should be allowed to players. I think you're working hard to create the appearance of a problem where there really isn't one.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Open Only Everything is such a stupid demand for ED it's painful. Half the time i think its a deliberate attempt to stifle OpenOnly Something requests.
It's not the players opposed to "Open only [feature]" that are suggesting removing Solo and Private Groups to force all players to play in Open.
Solo/PG has an effectiveness advantage by opting out of opposition.
PvP is an optional extra in this game - players choose to play in game modes that permit it (subject to being able to play in multi-player at all) - and therefore choose to be (potentially, depending on who one meets, block lists, etc.) less effective.
Many players want to play in Open and affect the galaxy without that fundamental & often chronic strategic disadvantage.
Some no doubt do and every player affects the galaxy and how effective they are in affecting the galaxy is down to choices they make, e.g. ship, outfit, game mode. If the choices that players make reduce their effectiveness due to their preference for PvP then that remains their choice. What proportion of the player-base they constitute is open to speculation - however their wants are not supported by the game that they bought.
The most sensible home for this is Open-only Powerplay, or a tweaked powerplay where actions are split appropriately across modes (so each mode does not undercut the others)
This would not serve to disenfranchise players or force anyone into anything without consent, it would however create a place for a significant cohort of players, that is missing at present.
We await Frontier's decision on which of the subset of proposals from the Powerplay Flash Topic that Will mentioned were being considered - as that, regardless of the demands of players, seems to be the only game feature that Frontier consider to be potentially suited to such changes.
 
Last edited:
Pretending that treating someone in a way they don't want to be treated is ok if it's in a game is not ok.

Generally I like your ideas, but your attitude on this needs serious adjustment if you want to succeed in life. Seeing other people as less than you will blow up in your face.
It actually is ok. I don't want my piracy targets to disrespect my actual piracy with combat logging. They often do. Nobody in the history of video games has wanted to lose in a competition with another player. They often do.

It is okay to treat people the way they don't want to be treated because what someone wants is not automatically right. And the key to all this, is that we are discussing video games not dating, or anything else. standards of behavior should operate on your personal morals and values. Not on the whims of others. Do you think my kids want me to discipline them when they get in trouble at school? Or my subordinates at work want me to write them up when it's relevant? Or send them home early? If it's true in real life, it's doubly true in video games.

If you only operate on the whims of others, you'll never be successful and you won't have any consistency in your own behavior.

Lastly, I'm quite successful thus far in my own life. I'd suggest you focus on ensuring your own success first.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
It is okay to treat people the way they don't want to be treated because what someone wants is not automatically right. And the key to all this, is that we are discussing video games not dating, or anything else. standards of behavior should operate on your personal morals and values. Not on the whims of others.
If "It is okay to treat people the way they don't want to be treated because what someone wants is not automatically right" then, on that basis, calls by players for other players to play in Open can be completely ignored.

If "standards of behavior should operate on your personal morals and values" when playing a video game, why do some gankers get so defensive when their targets comment on the character of the player that attacked them?

Similarly, why should any player who doesn't enjoy PvP indulge the "whims of others" who insist that playing in Solo and Private Groups is in some way "unfair" in a game where in-the-same-instance PvP is an optional extra?
 
Last edited:
It is okay to treat people the way they don't want to be treated because what someone wants is not automatically right. ...

...standards of behavior should operate on your personal morals and values. Not on the whims of others.
Wow, that's deep :ROFLMAO:
You want everyone to abide by your standards and morals, regardless of their own stance? My 7 year-old grand daughter tries that approach... it doesn't work for her either...

Maybe this is not the game for you :eek:

(I know I got bored by the Bovine Excrement flinging contest, but ...)
 
If "It is okay to treat people the way they don't want to be treated because what someone wants is not automatically right" then, on that basis, calls by players for other players to play in Open can be completely ignored.

If "standards of behavior should operate on your personal morals and values" when playing a video game, why do some gankers get so defensive when their targets comment on the character of the player that attacked them?

Similarly, why should any player who doesn't enjoy PvP indulge the "whims of others" who insist that playing in Solo and Private Groups is in some way "unfair" in a game where in-the-same-instance PvP is an optional extra?
Softballs today huh?

1. Of course it can be ignored. It's up to you to ignore it.

2. Because you're sending personal insults over video game actions. Which means you're actually the bad person in the PvP interaction.

3. You don't have to indulge, once again. If you choose to indulge in the argument that's your choice.

Anymore brain busters?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
2. Because you're sending personal insults over video game actions. Which means you're actually the bad person in the PvP interaction.
If the player being commented on is acting according to their "personal morals and values", is mentioning their chosen behaviour insulting - or simply commenting on how they choose to behave?
 
Wow, that's deep :ROFLMAO:
You want everyone to abide by your standards and morals, regardless of their own stance? My 7 year-old grand daughter tries that approach... it doesn't work for her either...

Maybe this is not the game for you :eek:

(I know I got bored by the Bovine Excrement flinging contest, but ...)
I've never argued that anyone needs to follow my standards. I stated the individual should operate on their own. I've argued that the game mechanics would be better implemented a different way, yes.

You're quick to get personal there aren't ya super chief. Maybe reading isn't for you?
 
If the player being commented on is acting according to their "personal morals and values", is mentioning their chosen behaviour insulting - or simply commenting on how they choose to behave?
The conflation that video game actions you perceive as bad is automatically indicative of personality traits that are bad is an incorrect one and the entire problem. There's no real logical connection between the two, because of the medium.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
The conflation that video game actions you perceive as bad is automatically indicative of personality traits that are bad is an incorrect one and the entire problem. There's no real logical connection between the two, because of the medium.
I based my comment on this statement: "And the key to all this, is that we are discussing video games not dating, or anything. standards of behavior should operate on your personal morals and values".
 
Last edited:
I've never argued that anyone needs to follow my standards. I stated the individual should operate on their own. I've argued that the game mechanics would be better implemented a different way, yes.

You're quick to get personal there aren't ya super chief. Maybe reading isn't for you?
Always up close and personal, sweetie... That's the way you like it, isn't it 😻
 
Yeah, that's not me, damn :( (see sig) (thx for finding it anyway)

I'd love to see a PvP kill on me from the killers perspective, since I usually cut my engines and start spamming comms.

But I'm still not sure what would make more sense now?
 
Yeah, that's not me, damn :( (thx for finding it anyway)

I'd love to see a PvP kill on me from the killers perspective, since I usually cut my engines and start spamming comms.

But I'm still not sure what would make more sense now?
I'm just being a jerk lol. But it would make more sense that someone killed in a PvP video would be on your side of the argument around open/pvp
 
Back
Top Bottom