General Remove private Lobby and single Player

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Which is not talking about the point I was making really, is it? My point is that Open in Powerplay is about that direct confrontation as you go about your work, and taking that away diminishes that feel.

Which again is not what I was talking about, was it?
"crazy real time group on group fighting" can happen in Open, for those inclined to engage in it, as Powerplay is currently implemented. Noting that no-one other than those inclined to engage in that approach to Powerplay have ever needed to do so to engage in Powerplay. The point seems to be related to a desire to preserve something that is still possible but remains entirely optional.
 
"crazy real time group on group fighting" can happen in Open, for those inclined to engage in it, as Powerplay is currently implemented. Noting that no-one other than those inclined to engage in that approach to Powerplay have ever needed to do so to engage in Powerplay. The point seems to be related to a desire to preserve something that is still possible but remains entirely optional.
Which is not what I was talking about in my point- which was just talking about Open gameplay, which for some reason compelled you you go on about things unrelated to the feel of Open and what it brings.

Its as if you have to qualify everything I say with "this excludes these people" or "this is purely optional etc" even when its not appropriate.

So again- Open brings a new spin to flying about, and with Powerplays imposed rules adds interest because it enhances the PvP aspect. If PvE is to be successful (since its going to be a very repetitive loop) it needs to have this random element as well.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Which is not what I was talking about in my point- which was just talking about Open gameplay, which for some reason compelled you you go on about things unrelated to the feel of Open and what it brings.

Its as if you have to qualify everything I say with "this excludes these people" or "this is purely optional etc" even when its not appropriate.

So again- Open brings a new spin to flying about, and with Powerplays imposed rules adds interest because it enhances the PvP aspect. If PvE is to be successful (since its going to be a very repetitive loop) it needs to have this random element as well.
Open has always offered a different spin to flying about as it contains players who may wish to shoot at other players at any time - that is not new in any way, in Powerplay or in the rest of the game.
 
Last edited:
Open has always offered a different spin to flying about as it contains players who may wish to shoot at other players at any time - that is not new in any way, in Powerplay or in the rest of the game.
Well yes it does, because Powerplay in Open allows you to kill other players for a strategic reason and gain, and to team up in groups to overcome other groups. If you make that a central pillar then you enhance what exists considerably, which is paper thin PvE against inept NPCs. The UI, setup, features all allow for this, the only issue is networking.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Well yes it does, because Powerplay in Open allows you to kill other players for a strategic reason and gain, and to team up in groups to overcome other groups. If you make that a central pillar then you enhance what exists considerably, which is paper thin PvE against inept NPCs. The UI, setup, features all allow for this, the only issue is networking.
Only if playing in Open is the only way to engage in an the feature - which is where the opposition to retrospectively PvP-gating an existing pan-modal game feature is introduced, given that we all bought the same game on the same terms regardless of play-style preference. Such a change would actively exclude players who prefer to play in Solo and Private Groups and completely excluding those who can't play in Open.
 
Last edited:
Edit 1: so many people are upset about getting pulled out of theier comfort zone. ...

Edit 2: Man, so many people who are afraid of that they could meet a griefer in over 400 billion star systems, smh. ...

Just a few forum people here which are better in typing then playing the game.

Would be way more interesting for the mass with an OpenOnly server! or at least 1 game mode for PvP without influence without risk.
 
Only if playing in Open is the only way to engage in an the feature - which is where the opposition to retrospectively PvP-gating an existing pan-modal game feature is introduced, given that we all bought the same game on the same terms regardless of play-style preference. Such a change would actively exclude players who prefer to play in Solo and Private Groups and completely excluding those who can't play in Open.
Which is a choice FD have to make, depending on how they want to update the feature. If they go the PvE route, they have to make it as diverse as possible, because its got to serve all three modes and sustain a player doing it multiple times in isolation. Its not impossible, but its a big ask.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Just a few forum people here which are better in typing then playing the game.
One can play the game perfectly well without ever engaging in PvP....
Would be way more interesting for the mass with an OpenOnly server! or at least 1 game mode for PvP without influence without risk.
For which "mass"?

A new Open only server with its own galaxy state would be an equitable solution to this problem.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Which is a choice FD have to make, depending on how they want to update the feature.
Indeed - in the knowledge that whatever decision they make there will be players unhappy with the outcome.
If they go the PvE route, they have to make it as diverse as possible, because its got to serve all three modes and sustain a player doing it multiple times in isolation. Its not impossible, but its a big ask.
It's a way to provide an inclusive outcome rather than one which actively excludes a not insignificant subset of the player-base for the benefit of a different subset of the player-base in a game where all players bought the game, with all of its pan-modal features, on the same terms.
 
Indeed - in the knowledge that whatever decision they make there will be players unhappy with the outcome.
Well, they have to look to the future and see where they want ED to serve players, and ensure there is a diverse number of features.

The very worst outcome is FD look at 5C and say thats it, because its not really updating the feature in a meaningful way.

It's a way to provide an inclusive outcome rather than one which actively excludes a not insignificant subset of the player-base for the benefit of a different subset of the player-base in a game where all players bought the game, with all of its pan-modal features, on the same terms.
It depends- making non repetitive PvE on Powerplay scales is going to require a large rewrite of the feature.

Remember inclusion can also mean having dedicated Solo and PG Powerplay content that works with the PvE we have, and then making Open replace PvE gameplay we have now too.
 
One can play the game perfectly well without ever engaging in PvP....

For which "mass"?

A new Open only server with its own galaxy state would be an equitable solution to this problem.

1. Playing the game without any risk is a little bit boring isn´t it? I mean, its ED its made for fragging! jesus.

2. Yea yea... But hey, is it to much to ask for 1!! mode for people who want to mess with each other? Where you really need the upgrades, where the whole upgrade system makes sense?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
1. Playing the game without any risk is a little bit boring isn´t it? I mean, its ED its made for fragging! jesus.
It certainly offers players the option to engage in fragging, or not - but does not force any player to engage in PVP - and players don't even need to tolerate PvP to play this game. Three from five in-game Elite ranks don't need the player to fire a shot in combat....
2. Yea yea... But hey, is it to much to ask for 1!! mode for people who want to mess with each other? Where you really need the upgrades, where the whole upgrade system makes sense?
Players in all three game modes equally affect a single shared galaxy state, noting that those who play among others may be less productive due to the presence of the other players they chose to play among. CQC is the only game feature which requires players to play with other players who are going to shoot at them. We all bought the game on the same terms - and some players can't accept that other players don't need to play with them to affect the galaxy we all share.
 
Last edited:
1. Playing the game without any risk is a little bit boring isn´t it? I mean, its ED its made for fragging! jesus.

2. Yea yea... But hey, is it to much to ask for 1!! mode for people who want to mess with each other? Where you really need the upgrades, where the whole upgrade system makes sense?
what what and what ??? ED made for fragging ? since when, I think you have a wrong game
go mess with each other in CQC.
sostupid.gif
 
I don´t agree. Better surrounding better fragging.

The Fragg is more fun when there are systems and people which don´t praise the Fragg.
 
Seriously PVP takes place in about 33 systems;
Engineers 20
CGs 1/2
PP 'Under threat' 11
Of course it's been 7 years and the penny hasn't dropped so Captain Oblivious will carry on for the forseeable.

That said from a traders perspective the bubble is on the small side, back in the original when we had 7LY range it was a fair challenge to traverse the 'galaxy' In ED the game considers the standard jump range to be 20LY however my trade ships do 30-35LY which makes traversing the Bubble rather trivial, certainly nowhere near traversing Galaxy 1 in terms of challenge.
 
Last edited:
I´m not sure about your intension in your words.

Every system I visit since release was PvP area. I visit many systems, soo there is that.
 
Back
Top Bottom