Can we drop the "ED is not EVE" moaning?

[Stigbob]

Yeah, put on the back burner like it has been in the past. A thread created to pretend a problem doesnt exist. Well it does. If it didnt. The thread would have never been made. And it will show its ugly face IN EVERY SINGLE THREAD that revolves around this games features. I wonder why that is???????

Has it occurred to you that the "ugly face" approach is counterproductive, in that it actively deters people from agreeing with you on principle ?.

Ask the open only advocates how far they've got with their three year campaign of calling people names due to what they consider wrong menu selections in a video game.

 

[Goose4291]

Has it occurred to you that the "ugly face" approach is counterproductive, in that it actively deters people from agreeing with you on principle ?.

Ask the open only advocates how far they've got with their three year campaign of calling people names due to what they consider wrong menu selections in a video game.

I think we've gotten as far as the 'ban all pvp' brigade I suspect, in that Frontier simply dobt care

 

[Martian Successor]

The right action would be to fix that problem of the BGS and not to give player groups more advantages. Especially since player groups can use exact the same methods (that really should be fixed).

The BGS seems to be built around favouring the 1 transaction method as it involves every transaction method:
- Combat bonds
- Bounty vouchers
- Exploration data
- killing sprees

The only one that got patched out was the 1 ton trading one. Only Frontier really knows what's going on and why, at least I hope they do.

And I'm still not convinced that adding content for groups is a bad thing. If they make these carriers purchasable by a Squadron of 1 like Harley Quinn suggests then all the better.

 

[Robert Maynard]

People that enjoy doing their thing in solo. can still do their thing in solo. They are playing for themselves, not the rest of us. They picked solo for a reason. Private groups the same thing.

Every player bought or backed a game with three game modes where every player experiences and affects a single shared galaxy state.

It is unsurprising, therefore, that there is pushback regarding proposals to reduce the effect of players who choose to play in two thirds of the game modes.

 

[Harley Quinn]

Has it occurred to you that the "ugly face" approach is counterproductive, in that it actively deters people from agreeing with you on principle ?.

Ask the open only advocates how far they've got with their three year campaign of calling people names due to what they consider wrong menu selections in a video game.

You are right. But as noted earlier I have some PvP friends so I see both sides of this. For many they have given up on trying to make their case on the forum because no matter how reasonable they are, they get hit with insults, griefing accusations and many who simply refuse to see any point other than their own.

It's frustrating for them to have people arguing principles but not seeing that those principles are not being applied fairly to both sides and refusing to see it.

Frustration has an impact on how people react and it's often easier to play the part when outnumbered and effectively ignored.

I'll give kid points for still trying to make the case to a hostile audience without resorting to insults. A bit of righteous anger and frustration is understandable.

 

[Phosphora]

I would argue that they do need consequences since you are always playing in a shared world that always affects other players albeit indirectly.


Whole groups of players can take actions in Solo/PG. As a single player, sure you're actions can be countered but a whole group striking in a coordinated and calculated burst, not really on the same level of perceived insignificance as a single player.

You have the capacity to respond to strikes like this with strikes of your own. You may have to retaliate through trading or similar, as Elite is a game where not every action can be countered with violence. I can support a certain party in an election campaign with leafleting/canvassing/commenting on websites. My actions can be undermined by my opponents doing the same thing, but they can't use violence without severe, election-losing penalties. Peaceful actions don't always require violent responses.

Elite is a game - it can be player vs player, or player vs economy. Either play style is valid.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[EvE4evah]

Proud Minmatar for life, Missile scum.

lol look at my profile picture

 

[Stigbob]

You are right. But as noted earlier I have some PvP friends so I see both sides of this. For many they have given up on trying to make their case on the forum because no matter how reasonable they are, they get hit with insults, griefing accusations and many who simply refuse to see any point other than their own.

It's never been reasonable, the default position has always been calling people cowards. You get the odd pro-PVP poster who is capable of making a coherent argument without insults and does so, however they are always drowned out by the flood.

It's frustrating for them to have people arguing principles but not seeing that those principles are not being applied fairly to both sides and refusing to see it.

It's not driven by principle, I simply don't care what mode people play in and think players should be allowed to decide for themselves. The entire open/solo/group thing to me is just people getting upset over something really trivial that they can't change, with regular comedy teddy throwing.

Frustration has an impact on how people react and it's often easier to play the part when outnumbered and effectively ignored.

How frustrated are the people who said their piece three years ago, yet see this same non-issue crop up everywhere over and over and over again.

I'll give kid points for still trying to make the case to a hostile audience without resorting to insults. A bit of righteous anger and frustration is understandable.

You know what I've never seen in three years of this rubbish ?, someone explain what's in it for me. What does a split BGS or compulsory mode choice add to my game ?.

Persuade me.

 

[Harley Quinn]

Every player bought or backed a game with three game modes where every player experiences and affects a single shared galaxy state.

It is unsurprising, therefore, that there is pushback regarding proposals to reduce the effect of players who choose to play in two thirds of the game modes.

Can understand that, but many things have not worked as expected, many things have been exploited and others have changed. FDev accepted groups when they allowed for PMFs. They accepted PvP from day 1. BGS may not have been intended to be worked but it has and that has been accepted.

The game needs to evolve to allow groups, but not at the expense of lone players which is the origins of the game and many who funded development. It needs to ensure that people can play how they want when they want, but that has to be both ways fairly.

The C&P system has changed after all and people signed up knowing what that was, so there is no reason other things that don't work shouldn't be changed if they need fixing, don't work or unbalance things. Other than the Anaconda of course.

 

[EvE4evah]

There are plenty of real world instances where you can affect other people without facing threats of physical violence. I can buy and sell in the real world and affect markets by a tiny amount, and Elite is a virtual version of that. I'll continue to nudge the real world without facing violence, and I'll keep doing the same in Elite, thanks very much.

Cheers, Phos.

If you're so keen to compare BGS manipulating in ED with real world interactions, keep in mind that Real Life(TM) is Open mode. You can hide, you can become filthy rich, you can lock yourself into your basement, but you'll still be subject to disease, Nature disasters and risk of violence. There's no Solo or PG IRL.

 

[EvE4evah]

I did my research before backing the game and I'm happy with the three modes and the BGS as they are, mostly because I knew what I was buying before I bought it and thought it was a clever approach.

A little more reading before buying would benefit you in future.

Hey Stig, nice to see You around again! Always nice to PvP against someone who generally kills me with clever arguments. I'm trying to git gud tho!

See, you're right. An informed buy was the way to go in ED. There's two issues though:

1. Lots of people, such as yours truly, love the game for diverse reasons. The eye candy, the flight and combat controls, the multi-player possibilities, etc. Shouldn't these people have bought the game, only because of a few aspects they find annoying?

2. Lots of the same people want some things to change. They even provide strong arguments here and there. Shouldn't ED ever change some of its Ethos, although it's a multiplayer, 10-year-plan game, with shifting community, shifting tech times, shifting demographics? Shouldn't it cater to expanding the playerbase (without nerfing the game's intelligence and complexity of course)?

Cheers friend! (OMG I'm so jealous, 36h shift here IRL, while so many CMDRs roaming around)

 

[EvE4evah]

I remember wormeholes being added. Even then it was moving to force you into groups if you wanted something like a POS for crafting and the organised groups had a louder voice and more influence over changes.

It was fun poking around some alliances null sec space via wormholes but even as a loner a few of us created our own corporations and alliance to gain access to what we needed. I was lucky with getting to know the right few people with us all having different but complimentary game styles, although the other [insert appropriate insults] members voted me in as boss so I just gave full access to everybody and we got on with things. But if I hadn't been lucky content would have been closed unless I joined others petty politics. Done that in other MMOs and regretted it.

Fair, but it didn't really "force" anybody into groups. For a long time I've played solo in EvE. Loved to fight against 3-6 frigs in an Imperial Navy Slicer. Also I've set up a POS in J space by myself. Farmed tons of Isk in a Naglfar or a Moros, doing Sleeper Scalations in my static C5.

You're right, the game progressively stopped catering to the lone guy, because of the whole Null Alliance influence and its CSM powermongers. Still…

 

[Harley Quinn]

It's never been reasonable, the default position has always been calling people cowards. You get the odd pro-PVP poster who is capable of making a coherent argument without insults and does so, however they are always drowned out by the flood.



It's not driven by principle, I simply don't care what mode people play in and think players should be allowed to decide for themselves. The entire open/solo/group thing to me is just people getting upset over something really trivial that they can't change, with regular comedy teddy throwing.



How frustrated are the people who said their piece three years ago, yet see this same non-issue crop up everywhere over and over and over again.



You know what I've never seen in three years of this rubbish ?, someone explain what's in it for me. What does a split BGS or compulsory mode choice add to my game ?.

Persuade me.

Few things to note first on your comments. It has often been reasonable but drops to name calling on both sides. There are reasonable coherent arguments on both sides but also people who drop to insults on both.

The argument always drop to "I want to play my way and you can't force me to play yours" which is fine until you see that actually means for many "you should therefore play my way and let me attack you only through my chosen game style". Again both sides can be guilty of this.

That's the principle that needs to be applied fairly.

I play in all 3 modes as the mood takes me, although there are things I will only do in open. That is because I try to stick to the principles I argue. It's not that much of a principle really, I simply play against people in their chosen mode and style, nothing more.

While you may not care and consider it a non issue, which is your right if none of it bothers you, for those who do care and have 3 years of being ignored it is frustrating. That's understandable. You don't have to care about the argument to accept others do though. The fact it keeps cropping up and hijacking threads just shows the issue is continuing.

As to what's in it for you. Well if the argument doesn't bother you probably nothing other than a lessening of this same old argument on the forum. But how would it harm you to address some of the issues may be a more relevant question, because if the answer is not at all then why not address them. If changes would bother you then that would be part of listening to everyone and trying to reach a fair compromise.

I would hope that compromise would allow everybody to gain overall rather than being bad for everyone, but as the only other option is to continue the same arguments endlessly I think it's worth a go.

 

[Harley Quinn]

Fair, but it didn't really "force" anybody into groups. For a long time I've played solo in EvE. Loved to fight against 3-6 frigs in an Imperial Navy Slicer. Also I've set up a POS in J space by myself. Farmed tons of Isk in a Naglfar or a Moros, doing Sleeper Scalations in my static C5.

You're right, the game progressively stopped catering to the lone guy, because of the whole Null Alliance influence and its CSM powermongers. Still…

I'd take the "Still..." as "Still it was good while it lasted"

The creep was there and you could see where it was going so I hope ED would find a way to enable groups without the negative aspects or creating 2 tiers of content access.

 

[EvE4evah]

The theatre this thread has turned into illustrates quite well why ED needs to avoid slipping towards being Eve. A small fraction of players are desperate to gain control over everybody else. All the demands for Eve-like mechanics (and special privileges for playing in open) are nothing more than an attempt to realise that goal.

Theatre. That's what it means to express opinions different than yours.
Gain control over everybody else. Entirely possible with Solo and PG modes, slash sarcasm.
EvE-like mechanics. That happen to exist in almost every other multiplayer game, even before EvE.

 

[EvE4evah]

So many "I flew all my belongings afk from Jita to Amarr and got suicide ganked" people here.... so funny.

Exactly.

 

[EvE4evah]

Sorry but the game was never advertised as some kind of strategy or territorial based game where people would pvp over such. This game is far far too niche for that to ever fly....

Also we do not ALL pvp. Which seems to be the major thrust of your argument. Say for example FD gave in to some of the people in these forum and got rid of group or solo play...guess what would happen.

We do all PvP indeed. When you can manipulate the BGS from Solo, even if it's unintentionally (dropping loads of exploration data at a station, trading loads of commodities back and forth for hours one end to the same station, farming loads of bounty vouchers and combat bonds, transporting loads of passengers in Rhea or wherever), you are playing against other players' efforts. You affect their results.

It's what is called indirect PvP and it sucks. Bad game design period.

 

[CMDR Pugwash]

Personally, I am very pleased that ED is not EVE. Spreadsheet Simulators are dull.

 

[Tel Prydain]

I know this thread has turned into yet another "Open Vs Private/Solo" Thread.... because every thread with that 90s Kid turns in a "Open Vs Private/Solo" thread... But I hope you'll forgive me for a post that's actually on-topic.

I'll stop my "ED is not Eve" moaning the same moment ex-Eve players stop advocating the integration of Eve features into ED. The title of this thread and the original post are essentially demanding, "Stop providing a counter-point to my feature requests". Well.... no. If you keep suggesting dreadful, lamentable ideas, I'll keep suggesting that they are both dreadful and lamentable.

That depends very much on what owning means. Can you put your name on it and customize the interior and/or available services? Can you raise trade taxes? Can you do that for specific player groups or only for everyone? Can you deny docking to certain player groups or otherwise restrict features?

Pretty much exactly that - there's a line.
I'm dead set against factions being able to limit access of other players or factions in any way. That includes limiting access to stations, station services, missions, equipment or other resources. Slap a name on a station and paint it your team colours... sure. But limiting access to features or locations because you haven't signed up to some other player's fascist fiefdom is the antithesis of one commander blazing his trail and everything else the Elite franchise embodies.
A carrier like the Gnosis is fine - obviously it's open to everyone. More limited squarian carriers are fine (presuming they don't offer anything you can't find at a station) since they're in addition to the other stations in a system, not locking access to the normal stations there.

But it's a fine line.

 

[Stigbob]

Hey Stig, nice to see You around again! Always nice to PvP against someone who generally kills me with clever arguments. I'm trying to git gud tho!

Always make sure you have forum rebuy.

See, you're right. An informed buy was the way to go in ED. There's two issues though

I miss demo disks (showing my age here) you always knew exactly what you were getting and if it ran well on your system, any company that didn't bother with a demo was either hiding a bad product or technically incapable (in my opinion).

I tried the ED combat training demo and immediately backed ED, just for the look feel and sound of the flight model. Everything else is a bonus.

1. Lots of people, such as yours truly, love the game for diverse reasons. The eye candy, the flight and combat controls, the multi-player possibilities, etc. Shouldn't these people have bought the game, only because of a few aspects they find annoying?

Nope that's not what I mean, annoying will always happen and it's individual choice time. You choose to take the rough with the smooth, for example I like mods there are some great ones out there for Mount and Blade Warband like The Last Days of Middle Earth (lord of the rings) it's a fantastic mod but with some crippling bugs, I play it anyway and just save a lot in case of a crash. I'd never start having a big old whinge about the bugs as on balance it's worth it, if I angrily detested games that were unstable I'd just not play it.

Another example is Dead Space it's a great game in a genre that's right up my alley, but it's 3rd person which I just can't stand so I never played it. Every year or so I check if there a patch or a mod that's added 1st person view, and if there ever is I'll wipe the dust off the box and play beyond the first twenty minutes. But I'll never complain about it.

There seems more angry detestation than minor irritation involved in the PVP/E/mode debate.

2. Lots of the same people want some things to change. They even provide strong arguments here and there. Shouldn't ED ever change some of its Ethos, although it's a multiplayer, 10-year-plan game, with shifting community, shifting tech times, shifting demographics? Shouldn't it cater to expanding the playerbase (without nerfing the game's intelligence and complexity of course)?

It's bound to change over the course of the ten year plan, and that's a good thing as even the best games get boring after a while. But I'd say adding anything strictly PVP focused is a poor risk, as most players don't bother with it at all and CQC which was pure PVP was hated by most of the PVP'ers. Also inflicting something that seems unpopular on the majority of players may be a disastrous move.

I don't think there's a vast untapped market of gamers out there waiting for open only, space games are a niche to be as successful as ED is they have to cater to all the space fans, hence choice at the menu being a good idea (IMO).

Having said that FDEV's expanding into other language versions of the game, who knows how many new players there could be.

Cheers friend! (OMG I'm so jealous, 36h shift here IRL, while so many CMDRs roaming around)

Don't work too hard.