Perhaps there might be more sympathy to those suggestions if the majority of them were not insisting that players be forced into open? This being the normal approach to such ideas.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Either forcing players into Open or reducing / removing their effect on the game feature(s) in question - a form of penalty for not playing in Open, even if the feature still existed in the other modes.
Imagine for a moment a different situation - if the game had only one game mode: Open. How accommodating would we expect players who liked that to be if other players proposed / demanded that Solo and Private Groups should be added to the game, sharing and affecting the single galaxy?
As if you guys are not forcing others to grind in solo to be most effective.
This is correctAs if you guys are not forcing others to grind in solo to be most effective.
Get solo'd nerd.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
We're not - we all bought a game that does not require any player to play among other players to affect game features (except CQC, of course - but that's out of game).As if you guys are not forcing others to grind in solo to be most effective.
I will say it again because apparently it's the only reasonable thing to say in this long useless feud that only makes the game far less successful that it could (should) be: it's not about Open, PvP, Solo or Private, it's about making such different gamestyles coexist forcefully, it creates exploits and to deny it is simply factious.
Let's duplicate the galaxy in a Open Only one and an hybrid with even a non-pvp open play mode. Then let's see which one will be more deserted after 6 months. I've got my idea about it. Usually the guys from the other side don't even consider the idea to make a try.
Maybe they know that every successful game is founded on meaningful PvP and are afraid to be proved wrong by the market itself? Beware FDev! You've got clients cheering for you to not be successful enough!
Let's duplicate the galaxy in a Open Only one and an hybrid with even a non-pvp open play mode. Then let's see which one will be more deserted after 6 months. I've got my idea about it. Usually the guys from the other side don't even consider the idea to make a try.
Maybe they know that every successful game is founded on meaningful PvP and are afraid to be proved wrong by the market itself? Beware FDev! You've got clients cheering for you to not be successful enough!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Why should any player be forced to coexist with other players - in a game where other players are optional, by design?
It'd be interesting if Frontier did - and I'd probably not bet on the same outcome.
Players would need to be locked to one of the two galaxies - to avoid trivial exploitation.
It seems that not "every successful game is founded on meaningful PvP":Maybe they know that every successful game is founded on meaningful PvP and are afraid to be proved wrong by the market itself? Beware FDev! You've got clients cheering for you to not be successful enough!
List of best-selling video games - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Well we are forced to coexist with different gameplay styles, the fact one doesn't see another player doesn't mean they do not share the same galaxy. Don't try to bend this thing with smart words, you have not enough about that, especially not as smart as you think they are.
So I am confident you will ask for a Open Only Galaxy from now on! You said it! Not me!
Ok I will rephrase: every successful MMO is founded on meaningful PvP. And almost every other MMO is far more successful than Elite Dangerous sadly, and that's so unfair considering the unexpressed potential of Elite Dangerous. Just check Steam data for example, unless you don't claim that the vast majority of Elite Dangerous players deliberately aavoid the most used game online retailer for whatever reason... maybe just because it's useful to somebody's reasons?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Every player experiences and affects the shared galaxy - by design.Well we are forced to coexist with different gameplay styles, the fact one doesn't see another player doesn't mean they do not share the same galaxy. Don't try to bend this thing with smart words, you have not enough about that, especially not as smart as you think they are.
Every player (who can choose to play in the multi-player game modes, and not all players can do that) chooses at the beginning of each session which game mode to play in - a choice that precedes and may over-ride any desire that other players may have to play with them - by design.
Only to exist in addition to the existing tri-mode shared galaxy, not instead of, i.e. players could choose between either the existing game or be locked in to a new Open only galaxy.
WoW seems to be the most successful of those - and PvP is optional in that game.Ok I will rephrase: every successful MMO is founded on meaningful PvP. And almost every other MMO is far more successful than Elite Dangerous sadly, and that's so unfair considering the unexpressed potential of Elite Dangerous. Just check Steam data for example, unless you don't claim that the vast majority of Elite Dangerous players deliberately aavoid the most used game online retailer for whatever reason... maybe just because it's useful to somebody's reasons?
Last edited:
Mario, Pokemon, Sonic.Maybe they know that every successful game is founded on meaningful PvP and are afraid to be proved wrong by the market itself? Beware FDev! You've got clients cheering for you to not be successful enough!
The three top grossing game franchises in the world and only one has anything resembling PvP, and its completely optional.
Probably the one with more options on how to play instead of less. Leaving aside that all you would be doing is splitting the crowd of people that play in Open and the Solo/PV players are still going to be on the orginal server.
Well we are forced to coexist with different gameplay styles, the fact one doesn't see another player doesn't mean they do not share the same galaxy. Don't try to bend this thing with smart words, you have not enough about that, especially not as smart as you think they are.
So I am confident you will ask for a Open Only Galaxy from now on! You said it! Not me!
Ok I will rephrase: every successful MMO is founded on meaningful PvP. And almost every other MMO is far more successful than Elite Dangerous sadly, and that's so unfair considering the unexpressed potential of Elite Dangerous. Just check Steam data for example, unless you don't claim that the vast majority of Elite Dangerous players deliberately aavoid the most used game online retailer for whatever reason... maybe just because it's useful to somebody's reasons?
WoW, FFXIV, Runescape, SWTOR? These are not founded on PvP and unlike what you want to do with Elite, has its PvP completely optional..
Do you mean Battle Royal stuff like Fortnight, cause thats the closest the Full Loot style of gameplay has ever gotten to mainstream success, and its still not an MMO.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That would not meet the objectives of those who want to take content away from those who don't, or can't, play in open and from those who don't want to engage in PvP.
Yeah, you chose the perfect examples: because they are the most notorious open world MMO s.
Crowd is already splitted. Or is it you that need open players to make things move in a galaxy that would be dead instead? I think every hardcore open player would gladly welcome to not share the galaxy with you, no offence.
I guess nobody here is interested in making ED the game that could beat EVE or other real competitors... It's a shame actually.
You are sadly right, in fact I started to propose better PvE in the last two years, but apparently people doesn't like the idea of being "ganked" by the game, they love grinding mechanics even if they whine about grinding being too long. People, right?
Glue doesnt make itself
Anyway, as you can see we've got the usual two sides telling the same old stuff.
Crowd. Is. Already. Splitted.
You don't like to be ganked because whatever freudian reason.
We don't like the solo grinders because it makes the game boring.
Let's aknowledge this as grown-ups and give people two separate ways to play the game without affecting each other. That's so easy. Leave us be, our invisible abusive friends.
Crowd. Is. Already. Splitted.
You don't like to be ganked because whatever freudian reason.
We don't like the solo grinders because it makes the game boring.
Let's aknowledge this as grown-ups and give people two separate ways to play the game without affecting each other. That's so easy. Leave us be, our invisible abusive friends.
I would be perfectly happy if ED went with the WOW pvp/pve regional server model. I would be willing to pay a reasonable sub. 5-10 a month.
I know it's too late for that, and the game would have never made it out of kickstarter if it had subs. It is part of why ED is really only an other players are optional, barely mmo though. A lot of the problems of the PvP crowd can be traced to that decision. Along side the huge game universe and relatively small player base compared to most mmo of course.
I know it's too late for that, and the game would have never made it out of kickstarter if it had subs. It is part of why ED is really only an other players are optional, barely mmo though. A lot of the problems of the PvP crowd can be traced to that decision. Along side the huge game universe and relatively small player base compared to most mmo of course.
Somebody please explain this kind of logic. Why does it make the game boring to -you- when others go about their own thing and don't seek to interfere with you in any way, shape or form. The next sentence you say let's be adults and let each other be, which I agree is the only sane mindset.
Because that possibility can be deliberately used to avoid conflict still hurting the other side, that's the reason why.
Basically: free invisibility.
I think it's pretty easy logic, isn't it? :/
You didnt specify what type of game until later, its right there in the quote.
Your idea is split it more, thus guarenteeing your Open only server is going to have less people than the original, not more.
But by all means go for it, I don't mind.
Eve is, by all metrics, not even close to "All MMOs." In fact thats its selling point. Wanting more Eve is fine, trying to say most successful MMO games are like Eve however is demonstrabily false.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The debate has been running for years - it is unsurprising that both sides have become entrenched in their respective positions.
It always has been - the three game modes that have all formed part of the game design for over nine years guaranteed that the game would attract players with different expectations of the game.
I expect that Freud would have more to say about those who choose to gank than those who choose not to.
Players find different things interesting or boring - and players don't all want the same things (and can't force other players to play the way they want them to).
Grown-ups would accept that the game design was set long before they backed or bought it - and not seek to have it changed for all players just because they don't like the design of a game they chose to buy.