We very often get threads from PvP players bemoaning the fact that they can't attack all opposition in Faction gameplay - they seem to be trying to play the game in a manner that it was not designed for (as there's no requirement for any opposition to play in Open). Same goes for Powerplay.
Someone suggesting that the game would be better if there was no way to circumvent players in open while impacting the game in open isn't trying to play the game in a manner that it wasn't designed. They're suggesting that the design should change. And ignorantly because to get what they want would require rewriting the entire networking backend and anything that depends on it's intrinsic p2p nature.
Throwing a hissy fit because you're playing in a mode specifically designed to be one way because you want it to work a different way is entirely different.
Which indicates that those players enjoy the game as it is, doesn't it?
Or they dont care to waste their time on a forum when it wont change anything.
The game was designed around one way of playing and not the other - the latter exists simply because players can shoot at anything they instance with, but players don't need to play with players who want to shoot at them.
pvp exists because fdev wanted to attract those players in the kickstarter and they know it gets players in a game more than non-multiplayer games do in this genre since otherwise it would be little more than a clone of already existing privateer space games made over the last few decades. Yes, obviously it's not necessary to do anything in the game, but the potential to do things not otherwise possible is enough to attract a lot of players.
We give up nothing - we had the choice to buy the game are offering or not.
You most certainly give up a lot by in this compromised version of the game.
You can't play with mods that could include alternate rules, alternate game states or alternate starting states or augmented/additional gameplay because it's a connected online -only game. You can't play with trainers / cheats because it's an online-connected only game. you can't have detailed engrossing narratives and plots because the game has to be a sandbox. You can't experience past events because you're only able to connect to shared game state.
Players who dont want to play with other people give up a lot because fdev wants to pull them in with players who want an MMO version of the game.
The PvE players bought a game with an evolving galaxy and no requirement to play among other players or engage in itsi-PvP. The PvP players bought a game where they can't force any other player to play with them when participating in any game feature (except CQC, of course).
Many players have ideas as to how the game could be improved, for them - not all players want the same things though.
we know how things are in reality. You dont have to keep parroting what actually exists as an argument/response to what players want. We know what it is. Just because we purchased it, doesn't mean we thought it was perfect just the way it is or that many were aware of how crippled such compromises would make any gameplay.
Marketing is never something we can consider as set in stone - i mean the game is marketed as being set in a dangerous galaxy, yet i can't remember the last time my character died - regardless of the extent of the rewards i acquired in a given action.
There aren't many games that try and create a shared game state like elite dangerous has done. I'd call it an experiment ....that should eventually be tallied as a dead end - limiting the developers to what they can do too much for the benefits.
