Why is being a "prey" of a pirate in open a bad game design...

[Robert Maynard]

And thus you can use this argument in both ways. That a player don't get involved in pvp doesn't mean that he wouldn't want to. Also the numbers could be due to the fact that most players may not have met a single soul yet, or whatnot. We don't know. Maybe we all should try and not use that argument? It hasn't helped a discussion here very much when I saw it has been brought up.

Indeed it can be used both ways - and, from memory, Sandro's (slightly ambiguous) statement was the first to be brought up in this discussion.

 

[MarkAusten]

Well, I'm not sure. According to the official Youtube channel, video interviews and other similar content were released regularly and this process is 7 years old. and it was only 2020 that was so quiet. If you want, I can count the number of releases of such videos for each year. Just for fun?)

Sorry, I wasn't being clear, I mean in regards to posts on the forum, especially about topics such as numbers, players, what's coming next, please give us some hints, what about bug x I've reported it a thousand times and it's not fixed, that sort of thing.

You could, just for the fun of it, count the number of posts on the forum over the last 7 years that complained about FDev not listening to players. And then count the number of posts on the forums from FDev giving such information.

Even in the official communications from FDev, the meaningful content has been sparse and when it is given, usually tantalising rather than definitive. FDev can be definite but tend to only do that immediately before a release.

I suspect that there is a rule in FDev that in all communications with non-FDev people, no definitive information is to be given out except in the exceptions which are rare.

 

[Robert Maynard]

All the more so if it was only related to the topic of weapons.

Not really, in my opinion, as the statement regarded the relative quantities of feedback from different subsets of the player-base then went on to make a general statement about the relative sizes of those subsets.

It seems to me that this

and this

do not overlap in meaning. Or do I misunderstand?

One leads to the other.

 

[soloe]

Indeed it can be used both ways - and, from memory, Sandro's (slightly ambiguous) statement was the first to be brought up in this discussion.

Oh, my statement wasn't directed at you specifically, hence "we". And by "here" I meant "here on the forums " in case that caused confusion.

Personally I enjoy both btw. Being the prey and the predator.

 

[MadSinUN]

Sorry, I wasn't being clear, I mean in regards to posts on the forum, especially about topics such as numbers, players, what's coming next, please give us some hints, what about bug x I've reported it a thousand times and it's not fixed, that sort of thing.

You could, just for the fun of it, count the number of posts on the forum over the last 7 years that complained about FDev not listening to players. And then count the number of posts on the forums from FDev giving such information.

Even in the official communications from FDev, the meaningful content has been sparse and when it is given, usually tantalising rather than definitive. FDev can be definite but tend to only do that immediately before a release.

I suspect that there is a rule in FDev that in all communications with non-FDev people, no definitive information is to be given out except in the exceptions which are rare.

And I just didn't mean forum) Pro forum I have long understood that this is a place where people just communicate and they are not necessarily players in ED. Don't you find it a funny coincidence that even on the ED forum, many of your actions don't make any meaningful sense, just like in the game itself? (this is just a remark ).

 

[smiths121]

You can hide all you want to avoid confrontation, not my problem. But you're not representative of a majority with this approach.

See its posts like this that encourage people not to explore Open, and to avoid PvP.
With your level of passive aggression with use of "hide" over multiple posts, is it any wonder that players are hesitant to play with you?

Simon

 

[Deleted member 182079]

I do not understand why people are obsessed with the RL jobs, motivations, charity contributions of other players. The chances of me meeting another player in RL is smaller than the chance of me meeting the player in game, and that seems small enough to me. In general thir RL occupation and state of mind is of no consequence to me, as my social interaction is limited to a game.

I generally like the idea of leeching fragments though! Works for PvP and PVE.

Simon

That idea I think I got off Old Duck iirc - it's amusing more than anything else, but the game can be a little bit buggy the way limpets behave. But in general it does work. NPCs are useless miners though, humans are much more efficient

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Why should they? The incessant whining on the forums by a minor part of the player base?

I don't think the complaints of the few PvP players is of big concern to FD.

 

[MarkAusten]

See its posts like this that encourage people not to explore Open, and to avoid PvP.
With your level of passive aggression with use of "hide" over multiple posts, is it any wonder that players are hesitant to play with you?

Simon

Indeed and I clearly remember many, many posts that accused us Soloists of hiding and one or two mentioning the word coward.

For me, I never play games with other people. How is that "hiding". I could never get them to see that, however.

Oh well.

 

[MadSinUN]

I don't think the complaints of the few PvP players is of big concern to FD.

But the complaints of several Pve players have a meaning for them. And I think it is " significant"

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed and I clearly remember many, many posts that accused us Soloists of hiding and one or two mentioning the word coward.

It seems to stem from selective acceptance of the game's features, i.e. the ability to shoot at anything one instances with is "acceptable" whereas the facts that all players affect the shared galaxy state and that other players are an optional extra given each player's free choice of game mode are "problems" for some players.

 

[Melanthes]

See its posts like this that encourage people not to explore Open, and to avoid PvP.
With your level of passive aggression with use of "hide" over multiple posts, is it any wonder that players are hesitant to play with you?
Simon

I don't care about that. Quite honestly I don't want to play with people whining about their destroyed ships. I carefully pick my targets, which are usually in open centered squadrons and these squadrons see combat logging as a reason to exclude someone from their squadron. Apart from that I only shoot pledged CMDRs, which also know what they are doing . And if I go to Shin or Deciat it is to fight, not to gank. So why should I care for someone hiding in solo?

 

[MarkAusten]

It seems to stem from selective acceptance of the game's features, i.e. the ability to shoot at anything one instances with is "acceptable" whereas the facts that all players affect the shared galaxy state and that other players are an optional extra given each player's free choice of game mode are "problems" for some players.

To be fair, and changing the subect slightly, one or two of the complaints about Solo I thought were valid. Being able to affect the BGS without fear of retribution was one of them and in this I would have been quite happy for Soloist play not to affect the BGS. Others would disagree with that, however.

 

[MarkAusten]

So why should I care for someone hiding in solo?

And there it is again."Hiding". Since I never play in Open, how can I be hiding in Solo? It's just you being aggressive.

 

[Melanthes]

So you have no idea what open is like and you keep posting in a thread about open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

To be fair, and changing the subect slightly, one or two of the complaints about Solo I thought were valid. Being able to affect the BGS without fear of retribution was one of them and in this I would have been quite happy for Soloist play not to affect the BGS. Others would disagree with that, however.

Whether the complaints regarding players in modes other than Open affecting the BGS are considered to be "valid", or not, hinges on whether affecting the BGS was ever intended to be for players in Open only.

As the design information published at the start of the Kickstarter makes it clear that the desired game experience for players in single player includes the ability to both experience and affect the galaxy state shared by all players, that rather invalidates the contention that the BGS should be for players in Open only - as no-one bought a game where that is the case.

 

[MarkAusten]

Whether the complaints regarding players in modes other than Open are considered to be "valid", or not, hinges on whether affecting the BGS was ever intended to be for players in Open only.

As the design information published at the start of the Kickstarter makes it clear that the desired game experience for players in single player includes the ability to both experience and affect the galaxy state shared by all players, that rather invalidates the contention that the BGS should be for players in Open only - as no-one bought a game where that is the case.

Correct, and I don't disagree with that.However, that doesn't change the fact that I, personally, would be quite happy not to be affecting the BGS if that situation ever came about. Not that it will.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Correct, and I don't disagree with that.However, that doesn't change the fact that I, personally, would be quite happy not to be affecting the BGS if that situation ever came about. Not that it will.

Of course - each player may feel differently about it.

 

[MadSinUN]

Please tell me. ED is this the only game in the world with such an implementation and concept of an "open" game world? I honestly did not meet such a thing and did not even think that such a thing could be invented. Something similar I met in early versions of DayZ. There you could switch to another server in case of danger, go to another place in a safe environment, and then return to the previous server. But this has already been corrected.

 

[RuckBogers75]

It seems to stem from selective acceptance of the game's features, i.e. the ability to shoot at anything one instances with is "acceptable" whereas the facts that all players affect the shared galaxy state and that other players are an optional extra given each player's free choice of game mode are "problems" for some players.

But why should it be a problem for anyone?

I mean I understand this in other games such as Rainbow 6 Siege where 90% of the game is pure PvP and you get some players playing the SP situations only and still earning in game rewards (albeit a lot slower than the PvPers).

But as I said in my last post, Elite caters for everyone, which is very rare these days and as far as I'm aware there is no benefits or extra reward for killing other players in game, no extra combat rank gains, it seems the only benefits PvP gives you is the satisfaction of beating another player in combat, which is fine of course.

But many of us don't want to be subjected to that. Personally I find flying through asteroid fields blowing up rocks to be a relaxing and enjoyable experience. Yet PvPers are whining that there isn't enough players for them to satisfy their virtual bloodlust. And resort to saying we're 'Hiding in Solo'.

We're not hiding, we're enjoying this game without some Boba Fett wannabe spamming you with "cOmE @ mE bRo!"