Do "purple-haired heroes" scare everyone into Solo?

"That and I signed up for Mobius, for things like CGs when I want to do some hauling without an immersion-breaking ganker gauntlet."

Yes, because we all know how immersive having everyone grinning and offering to hug you is in the dystopian future that is the ED universe:)
It isn't like that at all.... Non pilots federation members still attack us in mobius... It is just that actual pilots federation members
I'd think anyone who has played enough board games or table-top RPGs, with enough people, would generally be immune to being caught off guard by "dingleberries" in video games.
indeed...... I guess this is why I usually only play with real life friends, or failing that a community of people who i trust enough that our goals for in game gameplay are compatible.

I do PvP in some games on occasion, but only in games where i am not bothered about versimilitude. arena shooters like cod or gears of war or BF4 or CQC arena and the like..... but these games, the main thing is for me, invariably there is no setback for destruction, there is no narrative - either spoon fed or implied - to follow and the entire reason for those multiplayer modes existance is just to pew pew.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Because it can be abused, it’s that simple.
Whether mode switching is a problem or a feature is a matter of opinion - that mode switching on a session by session basis exists is a fact, as it has been since before the game was launched.
 
Sandro publicly posted that leaving the game using menu exit, at any time, is acceptable (and he acknowledged that not all players would agree).
I have examples that I am confident Sandro would consider abuse of the feature.

With those two and the existence of the three game modes and the single shared galaxy state - what else needs to be said?
Your example are just a reiteration/clarification of specific rules, not a description of the game that is supposed to result from them.

The rules are not really in question, what Frontier is trying to do with them is. The latter is far more important than legalisms, but since we lack this, we have only the rules, which, as implemented and enforced, result in a totally incoherent, implausible, setting. If everyone knew what was supposed to be, interpreting the rules that are, and filling in the gaps of rules that aren't, would be a simple matter.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I have examples that I am confident Sandro would consider abuse of the feature.
I don't doubt that you have - and it may well be that they form part of the collateral damage that particular design decisions have resulted in (that haven't changed the design decision).
Your example are just a reiteration/clarification of specific rules, not a description of the game that is supposed to result from them.

The rules are not really in question, what Frontier is trying to do with them is. The latter is far more important than legalisms, but since we lack this, we have only the rules, which, as implemented and enforced, result in a totally incoherent, implausible, setting. If everyone knew what was supposed to be, interpreting the rules that are, and filling in the gaps of rules that aren't, would be a simple matter.
I would expect that those reiterations and clarifications were made in the hope that players would understand what is supposed to be. There are those that still consider affecting the BGS from Solo and Private Groups to be "cheating" or "exploiting" - even after Frontier's reiteration.
 
I have examples that I am confident Sandro would consider abuse of the feature.



Your example are just a reiteration/clarification of specific rules, not a description of the game that is supposed to result from them.

The rules are not really in question, what Frontier is trying to do with them is. The latter is far more important than legalisms, but since we lack this, we have only the rules, which, as implemented and enforced, result in a totally incoherent, implausible, setting. If everyone knew what was supposed to be, interpreting the rules that are, and filling in the gaps of rules that aren't, would be a simple matter.
If you take the existing rules, expansion of those rules (Block), and FD's defense of these rules one could, and should, reasonably infer their intent. The way I see it is, they have a dedication to a single state galaxy, with three broad points of access, the modes. Every feature is solidly built around PvE mechanics. Even with all of that material with which to deduce, FD have plainly said what they are trying to make.

FD are making a game that is inclusive and adaptive to the entire spectrum of player types. This makes some players crazy. But, that's what's going on here. FD are making a game that each player can tailor their exposure, to the game and other players. Again, this makes some players crazy. The problem is not with FD and knowing their intentions. The problem is with players who can't accept what we have. Nothing more.
 
I would expect that those reiterations and clarifications were made in the hope that players would understand what is supposed to be.
They are still too specific, too piecemeal, and not where most will see it. That they also often aren't reflected in how the game actually appears to work is another problem.

There are those that still consider affecting the BGS from Solo and Private Groups to be "cheating" or "exploiting" - even after Frontier's reiteration.
This is true, but again, Frontier has generally said that this is intentional and that all the modes are supposed to be equal, without really explaining why...unless I've missed those posts (such a 'mission statement' sort of thing should be the first page in the game's manual).
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
They are still too specific, too piecemeal, and not where most will see it. That they also often aren't reflected in how the game actually appears to work is another problem.
That's a fair point - digging up relevant quotes was difficult enough even before the forum migration lost many "go to" threads.
This is true, but again, Frontier has generally said that this is intentional and that all the modes are supposed to be equal, without really explaining why...unless I've missed those posts (such a 'mission statement' sort of thing should be the first page in the game's manual).
Frontier set out their stall at the beginning of the Kickstarter - their vision for the single player game was and remains that every player experiences and affects the single shared galaxy state:

The Background Simulation (BGS) is a representation of how the actions of all players, no matter on which platform or mode, impact the galaxy. The factions that inhabit these system battle for influence over the population and control of the starports, installations and outposts. Player actions can push these factions into various states; such as economy, security, health and influence. With concerted effort players can help grow a faction's economy, destroy its security status, or help win a war.
 
They are still too specific, too piecemeal, and not where most will see it. That they also often aren't reflected in how the game actually appears to work is another problem.



This is true, but again, Frontier has generally said that this is intentional and that all the modes are supposed to be equal, without really explaining why...unless I've missed those posts (such a 'mission statement' sort of thing should be the first page in the game's manual).
Maybe they don;t feel the need to spell out directly, what you can see functionally. Saying that PvP is not important to the game, would make those enthused about PvP angry, and possibly not consider buying the game. Just as them saying PvP should dictate game play would drive off those players not interested in PvP. Much of what E|D is has to be discovered through playing it. I believe that if people just accept the reality of the game, we could get past this circular, by design, conversation.
 
This is true, but again, Frontier has generally said that this is intentional and that all the modes are supposed to be equal, without really explaining why...
well, if you want to appeal to an audience so varied that it includes even opposing extremes of the spectrum you got to be creative with ambiguity ...

(such a 'mission statement' sort of thing should be the first page in the game's manual)
... and never ever do that! 😂
 
It's the elephant in the room. The game environment which proves most popular in other MMOs and ED doesn't yet offer.
I would be a big Open PvE supporter, if it weren't for the fact it would rely on PvP flags or such convolutions. In my Elite Universe, when you shoot at something, it takes damage. In that regard I wouldn't know how to implement an Open PvE mode without seriously tampering with the Elite Universe.
 
I would be a big Open PvE supporter, if it weren't for the fact it would rely on PvP flags or such convolutions. In my Elite Universe, when you shoot at something, it takes damage. In that regard I wouldn't know how to implement an Open PvE mode without seriously tampering with the Elite Universe.
Smart rounds - they are already in the game.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Smart rounds - they are already in the game.
.... and remove the menu exit delay if the "In Danger" flag is due to another player - or implement a "shift to new instance" feature whereby the player could absent themselves from the instance holding the player with whom they are at odds rather than leaving the game.

Basically a form of the Private Group "rules" (for PvE PGs) I proposed a while ago:

For PvP:
  • Enable mass-lock delay on hyper-jumps if due to player ship? [yes/no]
  • Increase menu exit delay if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
  • Disable menu exit option if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
  • Disable weapon healing effects? [yes/no]
  • Disable premium ammunition? [yes/no]
  • Disable Shield Cell Boosters? [yes/no]
  • Lost connection while "in danger" due to player attack results in destruction / rebuy? [yes/no]

For PvE:
  • Disable player / player interdiction? [yes/no]
  • Disable player / player wake following? [yes/no]
  • Disable player / player wake dropping? [yes/no]
  • Kick player on attacking another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
  • Kick player on destroying another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
  • Remove menu exit delay if "in danger" flag was only set due to player attack? [yes/no]

For all play-styles:
  • Move player to another instance after a period of inactivity on a landing pad.
 
Top Bottom