I want a PP warfront
- Thread starter David Findley
- Start date
Sounds like TOS violation, zapping people from your instance using networking tools? If hitting alt-f4 is considered a violation (is it even, i'm not sure anymore on that front?)
That aside as someone who goes into open now and then just fr the thrill of it, it wouldn't actually bother me if some random did this: it wouldn't spoil the fun I was having with other players who were just playing normally. If they want to sit in alone and pretend its a win that they are enjoying content developed for multiplayer all alone then that's their choice I suppose. I just think the majority of people would play it the way it's intended and stream it and talk about it and have fun with it and wouldn't worry about those who didn't want to be a part of it. I suppose it might bother some people that content was developed for a game mode in Elite they didn't want to play, but I just don't understand that jelous mindset and don't really repsect it.
Not a TOS violation. Your network, your rules. Besides, that would incur a TOS violation if you play behind strict networks you have no control over if it was a TOS violation in the first place.
Okay sure it's just if someone got reported to FDEV for say, kicking a player from their instance as they were being attacked? Honestly I get why a coward might do that I don't respect it and think it's kind of pitiful behaviour. I would love some official clarification on that though, anything FDEV deems fit could be a TOS violation if it affects the game. Didn't they shadowban people for social engineering, just for lying to noobs at the starter system?
That's combat logging. But it isn't if you don't encounter the player at all. With firewalling you prevent instancing entirely, which means they can't attack you because they won't be instanced with you.
Well, i'm pretty sure FD does. They're running ED for 7+ years and it raised for them more than 100,000,000 GBP with a healthy profit margin.
My impression is the one not understanding ED and its player base is You.
I dunno, somone doing this has obviously got some problem with the way game was made, I would just choose the appropriate game mode for my playstyle that day.
Forcing a game mode for specific content is never the answer.
I personally never feel forced into one style or the other, it's always a choice for me. If some content dropped in say, CQC I wasnt interested in (or Open) I woudln't feel aggrieved, because I don't feel entitled to every experience the game has to offer. I get that there will be some stuff made for certain playstyles that won't appeal to me, and given a decent chunk of the playerbase play in open and enjoy that particular playstyle, I peronally have no qualms with content being made exclusively for them, and think many of the concerns raised against this are driven by an irrational fear of missing out (why would some PVP narrative from the writing team interest a solo only player? Unless they were just a bit envious some other group was getting some attention).
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which is sound advice at this time - when the game contains no content that is locked to a particular game mode (apart from CQC of course).
and like I said above, even if there was a PVP narrative that could only be taken part in Open play, it wouldn't be forcing me to take part. If I'm interested, I will switch to that mode, if not I won't, I think presenting it like some player is having their arm twisted into doing something they don't want to do is misrepresenting the thing being proposed. It's like saying if I want to play CQC I'm being "forced" into logging on and playing CQC, I think its hyperbolic.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - if the proposal related to a new feature that no-one has access to at this time. The distinction here is that the proposal seeks to PvP-gate existing game content that every player bought access to, even if they can only play in Solo (console players without premium platform access cannot play in the multi-player game modes).
Some players have been seeking to actively exclude players who don't enjoy PvP from having any effect on particular existing pan-modal game features for years - with no apparent regard for the adverse consequences that that may have on those players affected. We all bought a game where there's no requirement to play among others to affect the game (apart from CQC) - some players can accept that fact, some choose not to.
What do you mean by "actively"? I get that people posting ideas on here they would like to see implemented ingame (such as the OP) but I don't see anyone maliciously trying to disenfranchise the existing player-base? Do you think a post like this does that? The term "PvP gating" is kind of odd and I've never heard it before, seems like it was invented just for this forum lol, like I know how old this "Open vs Solo" debate is it's just bad seeing how how Open only players are treated when they lobby for PvP related content by people not itnerested in PVP, they act like it's perosnally unfair against them for others to get any kind of attention.
Last edited:
No, no TOS violation. There is no TOS rule that is saying that i have to allow you to connect to my computer. Or that i have to play with you in the first place.
So people will set the firewall rules before starting the game. And there would be no kicking since you will never be able to instance with someone you cannot be connected with
As a reminder, the game relies on P2P network model which means that direct connection between players is mandatory for direct PVP
What is not mandatory is direct player interaction - see Solo and PG modes and general game design choices (the multi-mode, multi-platform, multi-timezone and all players are affecting the shared galaxy in the very same way no matter the mode or platform or timezone. Then gameplay, missions, activities, the way players are disconnected by the factions, etc)
ED is a PVE game that allows PVP in certain circumstances, but does not mandate it in any way. In other words, PVP is a pure voluntary part of the gameplay and any Open Only proposal is breaking this basic concept.
The only incentives that exists in ED for multiplayer are not even PVP oriented, but simply in the favor of Coop-Play, as in: shared missions, shared wing trade and combat bonuses, etc.
Except CQC, there is not a single part or the game that will require one player to kill another player.
So to conclude, even if you disregard all the game design choices that makes ED the game that it actually is for 7 years already, as long as the game runs in a P2P model or the Block feature exists - Open Only does not make any sense.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Restricting content to Open would actively exclude those who don't enjoy PvP - in a game where PvP is an optional extra that no-one needs to engage in to affect any game feature (apart from CQC).
It seeks to limit participation to an aspect of the game to Open - a PvP-enabled game mode.
I doubt it was invented here - as players of games have been engaged in the PvP/PvE debate long before this game was pitched. It's a term used here to describe the hypothetical situation where game content would be limited to Open.
All of that seems irrelevant though, whetehr or not you can worm your way into an instance in open by banning all other players doesn't bother me personally and doesn't change my POV on this, I just agree with the OP that there could be some fun PvP content added (people can PvP in private as well so it applies there if they want), and if someone cheese their way to that using networking magic, good on them! They can have a participation trophy too!
I'm not seeking to limit participation, it's a choice all players who purchased the product would be presented with, so who would be excluded? The offline players? It seems like a purely idealogical opposition and not a practical one rooted in real concerns.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The OP's proposal seeks to limit participation in the "warfronts" to players in Open - those who don't enjoy PvP would therefore be excluded.
No he proposed some content that would be available to everyone who plays ED, no one is excluded. Those who "don't enjoy it", wouldn't enjoy it. I feel you are abusing the word "therefore", and I think your general argument is spurious. It's an old one that may have served to scare away new forum members who were brave enough to write a suggestion here and there, but with all due respect, I don't think it's valid.