![[VR] Orodruin](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/237/237188.jpg?1614840532){kind=avatar}
FA off is, unfortunately, not based on Newtonian flight although it is closer than FA on.
A possible way to inspire people to play in Open
- Thread starter SouthernGorilla
- Start date
- Status
![[VR] James Constantine](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/275/275309.jpg?1622437385){kind=avatar}
Sure, but the point I was making is that the greater realism in ED is something that attracts players. There seems to be an obsession here with trying to debunk that point on the basis that the realism is flawed or limited, despite my never having claimed that it was not. Sure it is, but in its genre, it's probably the least flawed.
Not even FAoff is totally Newtonian. It's unrealistic in many ways like extreme accelerations and limited speed. It just happens to use the best unrealistic limitations to keep some sense of Newtonian motion while making WW1 style dogfighting possible in space. What's more, it does it in a very enjoyable way, but it still requires skill, for example your flying will determine how you can or cannot land shots. It's a good flight model to do some fun space pewpew, but it's not a simulation.
I never suggested it was - I've repeatedly said ED is of limited accuracy. You're still trying to push this straw man argument, despite my having pointed this out repeatedly. Why do you feel the need to do that?
I was replying to the "but if you want Newtonian physics, then just switch off FA" part. Hardly a strawman.
Okay, you seem to accept that the flight model is not completely realistic.
Surprise, surprise: neither are the player vs player interactions.
So what is your problem with that? Why do you demand more realism in one of these things but not the other?
You mean you bothered to actually read what I wrote finally.
No, but they could be improved, which was my point, and not even one I feel terribly strong about as I concluded the existing model is probably the best existing solution.
Because that's the topic of this discussion? Maybe if you want to start on on the flight model, I might contribute? Any more blinding insights?
Last edited:
There's only one thing you need to improve in that regard, and it's your own flying. Once you've done that, your imaginary problem with player vs player interactions will magically evaporate.
And if that isn't the primary reason I and others play the game? You seem to be under the false belief that your reasons for playing ED should be the same as everyone one else's...
Then maybe the Open mode of ED is not for you (at least not in those couple of systems out of the 4B where there is a nonzero chance to meet other players).
Fortunately ED has 2 other modes to choose from.
![[DOOK] Droogie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/124/124078.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
I think most people play in solo to play in solo. They don't want to encounter other people, whether they're pirates, gankers, or anyone else.
Otherwise, they'd be playing in private groups.
Otherwise, they'd be playing in private groups.
Late to the party, but my bingo card is doing well.
Modes are a thing. In most "let's encourage ppl to play in Open" threads I usually comment that the proposed solution doesn't really address why ppl choose not to play in open.
I take on board arguments about realism - it's borderline an exploit that long range rails can crisp ships from well out of a station's (equally arbitrary) gun range.
In the same way, a murderdeathobo is unlikely to be welcomed into a Faction capital system with anything less than extreme prejudice.
However, I am committed to Open only play, having done Ironman mode in the past.
To my mind, the best advert for encouraging CMDRs to choose open is to show what fun it can be, especially from a "thwart the wiles of a ganker" perspective.
Ultimately though, play your own way.
Modes are a thing. In most "let's encourage ppl to play in Open" threads I usually comment that the proposed solution doesn't really address why ppl choose not to play in open.
I take on board arguments about realism - it's borderline an exploit that long range rails can crisp ships from well out of a station's (equally arbitrary) gun range.
In the same way, a murderdeathobo is unlikely to be welcomed into a Faction capital system with anything less than extreme prejudice.
However, I am committed to Open only play, having done Ironman mode in the past.
To my mind, the best advert for encouraging CMDRs to choose open is to show what fun it can be, especially from a "thwart the wiles of a ganker" perspective.
Ultimately though, play your own way.
Good lord, we have another one!
It's actually really simple. If you don't want to be bothered by other players utilising the unrestricted PvP nature of the game, whether that's temporarily or permanently, don't hit the open button. Gankers are in open and there's nothing that's going to change that. The options are avoid them entirely by appropriate mode selection to suit how you wish to enjoy the game or build and fly your ship to survive an attack.
Plenty of us are happy with open as it is and quite frankly I see no good reason for encouraging people to use that mode who don't want to be there.
It's actually really simple. If you don't want to be bothered by other players utilising the unrestricted PvP nature of the game, whether that's temporarily or permanently, don't hit the open button. Gankers are in open and there's nothing that's going to change that. The options are avoid them entirely by appropriate mode selection to suit how you wish to enjoy the game or build and fly your ship to survive an attack.
Plenty of us are happy with open as it is and quite frankly I see no good reason for encouraging people to use that mode who don't want to be there.
How on Earth are we even still having these threads? Let alone it getting to11 pages of posts after all this time.
Everyone! Just do what you want. The modes are there for you do do just that.
Everyone! Just do what you want. The modes are there for you do do just that.
Just don't read it. EZ
All they need to do is make 1-5 systems open only with reward incentintives to battle. Attribute yourself to a superpower, and depending on what station, installation, and system it controls, all players across the galaxy pledged to that superpower gets bonuses.
This then gives natural, meaningful combat and will lure many of the gankers (that just want some pvp), tho not all, to it. This you will have at least less ganking, and the pvp crowd will have gameplay. But fdev idiotically won't do it even tho it should be very easy to implement.
1-5 neighboring systems in a galaxy of billions.
This then gives natural, meaningful combat and will lure many of the gankers (that just want some pvp), tho not all, to it. This you will have at least less ganking, and the pvp crowd will have gameplay. But fdev idiotically won't do it even tho it should be very easy to implement.
1-5 neighboring systems in a galaxy of billions.
Which brings us back to the topic of this thread which clearly has swooped over your head.
Who said people don't want to be there? It is quite clear that people might want to be there, but avoid it because they consider it broken. Yes, I know this is where gankers will turn around and start complaining that this is how the game works and they want to go around and murder, death, kill, whahh, whahh... but in doing so they are completely missing the point of a discussion on this topic, which is about an abstract discussion about what could be changed to the game.
Honestly, the only thing I've learned from it is that some people are incapable of having abstract discussions and reminded that the left-hand side of the Bell curve is just as large as the right.
- Status