[*sips coffee and reads up on the latest*
Good to see the thread hasn't continue on a "devolution" route with "mine is bigger!", "no isn't!", etc. posts and people are actually throwing ideas and reasoning into it.
Apologies in advance for the length of the reply. and also if I didn't rep certain people it's that damnable 24 hr cooldown... I promise I'll catch it up. This is just what I've caught up on in posts so far.
I say we give up Open, it's the root of all the issues so just cut it out and all the issues are solved.
It does rather seem that there's an unwillingness to negotiate a middle ground, doesn't there?
That's the thing isn't it, it would be a tough one (not an impossible one) for FD to backpedal on.
Money changed hands because of it.
Yep, and either way there's gonna be hell to pay from one side or t'other in terms of financial backlash if they made any definitive changes to the game in this respect.
*Snip* so the question is, with resources being finite, do FD
1) throw all their energies into PvE content that every single player in the game does or has done at some point.
or do they
2) focus on content which a large portion of the player base have no interest in.
in some games, option 2 is definitely the way the devs have gone compare the battlefront reboot to the classic battlefront game, where they took a single player game with optional multiplayer and turned into a multiplayer arena shooter ***... but is it the right way for elite?
personally i say no. I think FD should add sand to the sand pit which everyone can use not just the special few.
*** not commenting on battlefront 2, where single player has made a bit of a comeback.
We actually agree completely on this point... which is what I was highlighting when posting regarding the "PvE vs PvP" thing originally... it would make a lot more sense for FD to just drop any MP in the game whatsoever and focus on SP content. Financially, logistically, etc. I am, however, trying to get people to do a little more "reasoning", because they seem hell-bent and adamant on pushing a "PvP only" universe.
See? This isn't about gameplay, it's about ego.
Yep, and that's why a lot of these threads devolve into pointless "epeen" comparisons, rather than ideas
We already know this, too... survived Hotel California.
Not much of one. It is essentially the same proposal that the GSPies keep promoting: "Lets get people who don't enjoy PvP out of Solo and Private Groups, so we can have easy targets to kill." Those of us who are, in any way, tolerant of "spontaneous" PvP are already in Open, and hard to kill. That's why GSPies want to force the rest of the player base out of modes where they can't kill them, because they simply aren't good enough to kill someone who is, in any way, prepared to be attacked.
I'm all for being able to pledge alliegance to a minor faction, or even a superpower, and allowing other pledged players to earn influence for their faction via PvP, with the usual huge list of rules to prevent the usual exploits. Toss in a "pirate" flag for those who just want to loot and plunder, and have it apply to the local anarchy faction.
Any compromise should be add to people's gameplay, not take game play away from others. I would love a revamp of Powerplay or the BGS to also take into account PvP.
I totally agree with you- the point of my throwing it out as an option was to get people to realize that their real problem has NOTHING to do with the BGS, but that's always the FIRST excuse they use when arguing over these things. The BGS actually affects relatively little in terms of their "game play style", as it does for SP in Solo or PG when the situation is reversed. It's NOT the BGS that's the "problem behind Open being so empty", after all.
What really baffles me, why are we discussing the design concept of a game that was released 3 years ago?
Discussing the 3 modes or the instancing system is pointless, nothing is gonna change unless they fund, market and develop a new version of Elite with a new server architecture.
This thread is about what content do you want to see added into the game.
Content that fits into this game, not content that would require a different game.
I agree. The mode discussion arose when people started throwing ideas about removing content from solo into the mix, rather than adding more content to the game. You see, their idea of "adding content" means more fish in the barrel for them to shoot, rather than something to engage in that isn't "another player". (and thus we then see "Why am I forced to engage in PvE content so I can afford my ship rebuys???" etc.)
It's a very special mindset of a very special player group.
Here are some other brilliant examples of their logic:
If you say that griefing and ganking is stupid they always act like you want to take their Peen Vs Peen away and call you a carebear who shouldn't be allowed to affect the same universe because you aren't good enough. But when you ask them why they find it fun to destroy explorers coming back from trips or sitting defenseless at alien ruins they always say "I don't do such things". Apparantly nobody does and yet it happens and gets justified all the time. If you say ganking is not a good way to get players into Open they ask you why you want to destroy piracy.
There is no logic involved.
Oh there's a logic- and an agenda. The agenda is to strip everything that makes this game what it is and turn it into a COD-style arcade shooter or EVE clone. We all know it, but they continue to hide behind the facade of "emergent gameplay" and "player content" blah blah blah. I'd have more "respect" for their attitude if they were just outright honest with it instead of being deceitful with their intentions.
This is exaclty why BGS design is a limit to any deep and meaningful gameplay.
The BGS isn't your real complaint, it's the lack of "fish for your barrel" which we've covered ad naseum.
The game is not designed to be dominated by direct PvP.
Ding, ding, ding... we have a winner!
It's not like they don't have arguments, they are just playing the wrong game.
*snip* What they say makes absolute sense, they just want to play a different game.
Agreed completely.
I think we need a lecture on "Emergent Gameplay" I still dont understand what it really means beyond MOAR PEWPEW
We all KNOW what it means when they use it in this context= "players become content" They're not "fooling" anyone with the masked vocabulary.
WHEW! *wipes forehead*
(we really need to figure out a better way for this kinda stuff. Ugh. Having to create "digest" versions all the time is kinda tedious!)
