That's pretty much the end of the conversation right there, if anything the game has bent over too far for a loud but tiny PvP community.
Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle
- Thread starter Hans_Oktane
- Start date
That's pretty much the end of the conversation right there, if anything the game has bent over too far for a loud but tiny PvP community.
Care to give some examples?
So you move the decision from: shall I play this game in open, private or solo, to: shall I play this game.
Remind me, one of the benefits for this was to have more people playing, right?
To be fair, Cheese has said they don't want to remove Solo or PG from Elite.
I'm really not sure why they are fighting against the use of the word consent.
If so, my mistake. Could be I have my threads mixed. I can swear I have argued with Cheese about a proposal that would include removing modes.
By the way, I have to ask @Cheese Helmet did you get your name from this:
"I pay my taxes, why can't I have one!?"
It doesn't remove consent. You cannot choose to play the game and simultaneously not consent to the rules that you're entering.
Sure, the option to play without the possibility of PvP would be removed. But it's still your choice to play or not.
Indeed it is. Because, even though your opinion may be the opposite, my opinion is that the game commiting to the MMO aspect would resolve some major gripes and allow the game development to stop trying to straddle lines and therefore make sacrifices that reduce the quality of implemented features.
Similarly, yes I would also appreciate it if the game decided to go full on solo player experience, because.... it would allow the game development to stop trying to straddle lines and therefore make sacrifices that reduce the quality of implemented features.
My position is that elite needs to decide what it is, if it does, more people will play it, imo. I obviously have a preference to which decision, but I'm in favor of a decision either way.
LMAO no but I love it. It's actually a much less intelligent reference.If so, my mistake. Could be I have my threads mixed. I can swear I have argued with Cheese about a proposal that would include removing modes.
By the way, I have to ask @Cheese Helmet did you get your name from this:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-QTJuQhnMU
"I pay my taxes, why can't I have one!?"
Doesn't change the fact that you're replacing the decision: which mode am I going to play, to: am I going to play. Which by mechanism decreases the number of players.
So, you still could argue it will make the game better, or with a clearer philosophy, but you would have to accept it would decrease the playerbase. Because that is a direct result from stopping 'straddle lines'. An all out Open game would get rid of dedicated solo/PG players, and all out Solo game would get rid of dedicated PvP players.
By that logic if I capture your family and douse them in gasoline, then tell you that you must hum an Arianan Grande song or see them burn. You still can consent to hum.
Its ignoring what the word compulsion means to try and present consent as any activity you partake in regardless of pressure applied to you.
For the flat choice to decrease the player count there's a lot of background assumptions made about number of players who prefer which mode, number of players who would or wouldnt quit, number of players who would or wouldn't return, etc. And with open being the most popular, those background assumptions needed for your statement to be true seem flatly wrong.
No, because I make no claims about which is most popular.
Would an open only game not get rid of dedicated solo players?
Would a solo only game not get rid if dedicated open players?
Strawman argument.
1) you're equating physical harm of loved to ones to the choice to play a video game.
2)physical safety is a life altering necessity. Video games are not.
3) tons of games are multiplayer PvP enabled only, and are profitably sold. Meanwhile, murderous kidnappers are often killed irl.
Try a different metaphor friendo. You don't have to agree with my position on video games. But you're being ridiculous.
No, you got it all wrong, Ziggy
By removing the choice, and ergo all of those "cowards" who are "hiding" in Solo and PG many more PvP players would "Flock" to the game and make the playerbase even larger than the current biggest, and every one of them would be able to instance with every other player all at once...
Obvious, innit?
Frontier have stated open is the most played mode.
I'm sure an OO mode would get rid of some dedicated solo players. But I'm sure it would also make lots of open players return.
I'm just saying your statement that the change must necessarily lead to a net loss isnt something we have the evidence to verify. I don't have the hard evidence to verify my opinion, that open only would net benefit the player base either, but we can at least see that frontier have said most people play in open, as well as the popularity of multiplayer sandbox games vs single player ones.
Nope, reductio ad absurdum.
I'm showing that a compelled choice does not represent consent. I made the specific example extreme to underline that.
Compulsion does not require a life altering event, just some threat.
Irelavent, we are talking about one game and you using an inconsistent definition of the term consent.
Did the metaphore trigger you? You spent all your response complaining about it instead of addressing the point. A compelled choice is not consent
To be very clear, in a pvp only game, where that's the mode that devs deliver. Yes buying the game and playing constitutes consent, as long as the game was clear its pvp only. It is not consent if they lie about or hide that.
However this is Elite and consent happens at Open, not at purchase. Removing the options for not open is compelling the people who bought the game under one set of rules to accept the change or lose access to it. That is compulsion and invalidates consent.
Consent remains pertinent to this discussion.
So why all the belly-acking about Open being disenfranchised?
You're sure?
Now who's making assumptions.
But you do understand that this still means you also cannot use the argument: it will increase the playerbase, right?
Although I find it highly implausible more players would return than leave in either case. Gaining players in any game is harder than losing them.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
They have also said that they are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - and designed their game to give players the option of whether to engage in PvP, or not, at their discretion
To assume that any Open only scenario would have no effect on PvP in that mode might be quite naive.
And REgaining lost players is harder still. I've walk away from Elite in the past, and the longer I'm away, the less I'm likely to return. It was only a compelling Interstellar Initiative that brought me back the last time, and Frontier has since killed off that "hook". If I were to quit today, I'm not sure even FCs would bring me back.
Another point is that I think most players aren't single mode players, but enjoy the ability to switch modes dependent on mood.