To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
No one who's a core PPer likes it.

Only exploiters say it's all good, then it is an exploit (as there's a flawed implementation behind).

Having shopped all PP modules doesn't make someone a power player...
That players who prefer PvP don't accept that players who don't prefer PvP can affect game features shared by all players in a game where other players are optional is not surprising - and the first complaints started not long after the game design was published. Affecting game features in any game mode is no more an exploit than shooting at players in ones instance.

Those players bought the game on the same terms as all players - and that they don't like the game design is neither Frontier's fault nor that of players who accept the game design for what it is.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say that. Exploiters can do what they want...

There's a very simple fact about it: they couldn't do it, if not exploiting the game mode.
No, all game modes are available to all players for any game activity, by design. The design could be criticised, but the fact that you don't want other players to use particular modes for particular activities doesn't make doing so an exploit. Trying to misuse the word in this way to hide a value judgement is arrogant.
 
An exploit is using a game feature in a way that was not intended for an unintended benefit.

Power Play is working exactly as the designers intended it. Your definition is "I don't like it".
The general pattern of the "concerned PvP" player here is that other players earn stuff they didn't earn because they aren't worthy and it's best to keep them weak and vulnerable and easy targets anyway. No one wants a fair fight. After all, the concerned PvP player has acquired leet skills, toxic attitude and is entitled to determine what and how other players play the game.
 
The general pattern of the "concerned PvP" player here is that other players earn stuff they didn't earn because they aren't worthy and it's best to keep them weak and vulnerable and easy targets anyway. No one wants a fair fight. After all, the concerned PvP player has acquired leet skills, toxic attitude and is entitled to determine what and how other players play the game.
Yup, also known as gatekeeping.
 
Even better, but i hear there is an age requirement or the ability to take early retirement.
Forced into early retirement in my case. The high-tech industry (I was an embedded software/firmware engineer) here in the US is rampant with ageism. Too many worthless young programmers (and managers) felt threatened because I could actually design functional systems. So they threw me out. Once over the initial shock, it actually worked out OK for me. :)
 
It took an honest whistleblower to reveal the practice of duping mats on the forum to force FD to roll back the cheated gains. The exploit was widely used for a year or so and of course the honourable PvP community kept it to themselves to limit the harm this would do to the overall game. Such things should not be allowed in the hands of the unwashed, unskilled PvE peasants.
 
It took an honest whistleblower to reveal the practice of duping mats on the forum to force FD to roll back the cheated gains. The exploit was widely used for a year or so and of course the honourable PvP community kept it to themselves to limit the harm this would do to the overall game. Such things should not be allowed in the hands of the unwashed, unskilled PvE peasants.
This is not only the honorable PvP community...

I've stumbled over lots of exploits in the years and every community tried to keep them under the rug 🤷‍♂️
 
That players who prefer PvP don't accept that players who don't prefer PvP can affect game features shared by all players in a game where other players are optional is not surprising - and the first complaints started not long after the game design was published. Affecting game features in any game mode is no more an exploit than shooting at players in ones instance.

Those players bought the game on the same terms as all players - and that they don't like the game design is neither Frontier's fault nor that of players who accept the game design for what it is.

I don't care about the "players" and "complainers" you're mentioning... LOL who are the ones you're speaking on behalf of?

"Affecting game features in any game mode is no more an exploit than shooting at players in ones instance."

WHAT??? :LOL:

Exploiters wouldn't exist at all, there's no "forcing an exploiter to go on a game mode and kaboom it". As simple as that...

Also, I am not talking about PvP, kabooms, complains, that's all things you've copypasted from somewhere else buddy...
 
No, all game modes are available to all players for any game activity, by design. The design could be criticised, but the fact that you don't want other players to use particular modes for particular activities doesn't make doing so an exploit. Trying to misuse the word in this way to hide a value judgement is arrogant.

Ok, ciao.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
"Affecting game features in any game mode is no more an exploit than shooting at players in ones instance."

WHAT??? :LOL:
The mode shared galaxy is as much a part of the game as the ability to shoot at other players.
Exploiters wouldn't exist at all, there's no "forcing an exploiter to go on a game mode and kaboom it". As simple as that...
Just because some players can't accept that other players don't need to play with them to affect mode shared game features does not mean that they are exploiting the game - they're just playing in a way that some players don't like.
 
Back
Top Bottom