Page 5 of 86 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 1286

Thread: These arguments are tedious.

  1. #61
    Originally Posted by ALGOMATIC View Post (Source)
    "There are people in PG and solo who play for power".

    Ok! Nothing is changing for them. They can influence power of any NPC faction.

    I gave you tons of compromise. Extra rewards in SOLO for influence of NPC factions. OP weapons in SOLO only.
    Restricting existing content / features currently available in all game modes to a single mode is not a compromise.

    i.e. player Factions are no different from NPC factions (as far as the game is concerned) and can be affected by players in all game modes.

  2. #62
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    Restricting existing content / features currently available in all game modes to a single mode is not a compromise.

    i.e. player Factions are no different from NPC factions (as far as the game is concerned) and can be affected by players in all game modes.
    Ok this has to change thats why this forum section is very active snd hotel California exists for 5 years.

  3. #63
    These arguments are tedious ...... but damn good entertainment though!

  4. #64
    Originally Posted by ALGOMATIC View Post (Source)
    Ok this has to change thats why this forum section is very active snd hotel California exists for 5 years.
    This topic is active simply because Frontier have not capitulated to the demands of a subset of a subset of the player-base regarding the access to existing game content.

    Whether it needs to change is a matter of opinion.

  5. #65
    Originally Posted by Rob At Work View Post (Source)
    These arguments are tedious ...... but damn good entertainment though!
    Agreed.

  6. #66
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    This topic is active simply because Frontier have not capitulated to the demands of a subset of a subset of the player-base regarding the access to existing game content.

    Whether it needs to change is a matter of opinion.
    What like they did with C&P. The only consistency is the inconsistency - IMO

  7. #67
    Originally Posted by Rob At Work View Post (Source)
    What like they did with C&P. The only consistency is the inconsistency - IMO
    I expect that the changes to C&P were as a result of Frontier's apparent desire to encourage more players to play in Open - and the previous disparity in consequences for the targeted player (rebuy, loss of cargo, exploration data, NPC Pilot, etc.) and the attacker (6,000 Cr. bounty) did not seem to encourage those who might, more often than not, be the target in such an interaction.

  8. #68
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    This topic is active simply because Frontier have not capitulated to the demands of a subset of a subset of the player-base regarding the access to existing game content.

    Whether it needs to change is a matter of opinion.
    "It" has to change, "it" being content geared towards PvP.

    "It" cannot be done by restricting gameplay from players who have paid and are actively engaged in this gameplay.

    It's obvious, if anything is going to be changed, it's going to be an addition. Either by adding a layer on the existing BGS/PP mechanic, or by introducing a new mechanic.

  9. #69
    Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post (Source)
    "It" has to change, "it" being content geared towards PvP.

    "It" cannot be done by restricting gameplay from players who have paid and are actively engaged in this gameplay.

    It's obvious, if anything is going to be changed, it's going to be an addition. Either by adding a layer on the existing BGS/PP mechanic, or by introducing a new mechanic.
    The "it" I was responding to was the contention that Player Factions being the same as NPC Factions, in terms of the BGS and pan-modal interaction, "has to change" to suit those players who prefer PvP.

  10. #70
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    The "it" I was responding to was the contention that Player Factions being the same as NPC Factions, in terms of the BGS and pan-modal interaction, "has to change" to suit those players who prefer PvP.
    Fairy Nuff. To be honest, I started reading the thread and by the end I was confused about what "it" was. The "it" that needs to change is quite a dynamic concept and changes from post to post ("L.A. to Chicago")

    But then a diddy sprang to mind, as it always does.

    https://youtu.be/ZG_k5CSYKhg?t=108

  11. #71
    Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post (Source)
    Fairy Nuff. To be honest, I started reading the thread and by the end I was confused about what "it" was. The "it" that needs to change is quite a dynamic concept and changes from post to post ("L.A. to Chicago")
    Those seeking changes to the status quo don't present a single focused proposal - it varies from "remove Solo and Private Groups" at one extreme to the more benign "increased reward for Open play based on the increased risk".

    The former is extremely unlikely to happen due to the fact that all three game modes have been part of the published design from the outset and the fact that Frontier have stated, on more than one occasion, that they consider the game modes to be equal and valid choices.

    Going down the risk based reward route might end up with unexpected (to those seeking such a change) outcomes - as many decisions made by the player contribute to the level of risk (or lack thereof) that they experience.

  12. #72
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    Those seeking changes to the status quo don't present a single focused proposal - it varies from "remove Solo and Private Groups" at one extreme to the more benign "increased reward for Open play based on the increased risk".

    The former is extremely unlikely to happen due to the fact that all three game modes have been part of the published design from the outset and the fact that Frontier have stated, on more than one occasion, that they consider the game modes to be equal and valid choices.

    Going down the risk based reward route might end up with unexpected (to those seeking such a change) outcomes - as many decisions made by the player contribute to the level of risk (or lack thereof) that they experience.
    Common, my proposal is good. There are like what, 100 PFs out of thousands NPC factions. Make those open only the rest stays the same.

    PP, it is a failure anyway why not make it OPEN only and let PvP rule this domain. You can still haul cargo but cannot avoid direct resistance.

    SOLO, add any features that would be if ED is a single player game. I just dont know what additions SOLO players miss because of balancing the MP part, I know they are restricted in some ways.

  13. #73
    Originally Posted by ALGOMATIC View Post (Source)
    Common, my proposal is good. There are like what, 100 PFs out of thousands NPC factions.
    They are all NPC factions. Just because you convinced Frontier to change the name of one, doesn't make it yours.
    It's still an NPC faction you try to influence, from any mode, just like the rest.

    Originally Posted by ALGOMATIC View Post (Source)
    PP, it is a failure anyway why not make it OPEN only and let PvP rule this domain. You can still haul cargo but cannot avoid direct resistance.
    There are lots of options for PP, of which quite a few have nothing to do with the mode system.
    That's just another red herring and you know it.

    Originally Posted by ALGOMATIC View Post (Source)
    SOLO, add any features that would be if ED is a single player game. I just dont know what additions SOLO players miss because of balancing the MP part, I know they are restricted in some ways.
    Solo currently miss out on Wingmen and Multicrew.
    Frontier cold make AI ships/crew to fill those roles but currently have not.

  14. #74
    Originally Posted by Jockey79 View Post (Source)
    This is why I've been quiet, because I tried this over a year ago and got the same response.
    That's how I discovered the difference between real PvP'ers and just griefers / gankers.
    Those making demands, are not real PvP'ers and are not trying to improve PvP or Elite.

    Lucky for us, Frontier do read the forums and have seen what these "vocal few" are up to.
    I just gave a good proposal to make PF and PP open only to force direct opposition instead of PG wars, will give meaning to PvP, SOLO players will remain un affected and are free to interact with NPCs bgs factions.
    I also suggested for vastly improvements of the SOLO player expirience by giving them things that wont be availble in OPEN.

    Does it sound like griefing to you?

  15. #75
    Forcing players to play in Open to be able to influence their Faction seems to be a non-starter, given that the majority of players don't seem to get involved in PvP (i.e. the majority of Player Factions may also have been introduced for player groups that don't get involved in PvP).

    Making changes to Solo would affect Open indirectly - as players can mode switch at will.

Page 5 of 86 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast