Zac, the answer is buried in the unmarked grave next to Arch Stanton's grave.
Frontier Should Abandon "OPEN" Mode to Save Elite
- Thread starter Larry B Baker
- Start date
If you mean, nuke from orbit, then I agree with you
Indeed.
But as you can see another campaign for the "optional PvP", "picnics without wasps", "no need to interact with other players", "shared galaxy was in the kickstart" etc. has just started. Copy&paste and same annoying stuff
that's what this sub brings out every time the topic is touched with 99% of the feebacks coming from players who never ventured in PvP, wars or powerplay conflicts. 
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The design of the game we all bought is a matter of fact - whether it should be changed, or not, is a matter of opinion. It's not a campaign to introduce optional PvP - PvP is already entirely optional in this game, by design. While the design of the game may be annoying to some, it's what others bought the game for.
Unsurprisingly - given that no game features (except CQC) require any player to engage in PvP in this game - and players of the game don't even need to tolerate PvP to play the game. Not every player finds PvP to be "fun" - and some of those who do engage in PvP aren't much fun to play among. While Sandro indicated that the majority of players play in Open (at least some of the time, no statement was made regarding how many play in Open exclusively), another Dev indicated that Frontier are "well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP". It's clear that some proponents of Open only features would be keen for any and all opposition to their proposals from other players who don't share their preference for an optional play-style to be ignored, even though all players bought the game on the same terms.LOL: that's what this sub brings out every time the topic is touched with 99% of the feebacks coming from players who never ventured in PvP, wars or powerplay conflicts.
Last edited:
Everything is "optional" in ED by design... no one says a CMDR must grind Fed rank and buy a Federal Corvette, or must visit Beagle Point.
We are just saying that using such kind of excuses (because they are excuses) to hide in pg/solo to avoid direct confrontation with the enemy [players] during conflicts shouldn't be optional.
We are just saying that using such kind of excuses (because they are excuses) to hide in pg/solo to avoid direct confrontation with the enemy [players] during conflicts shouldn't be optional.
Can we have a list of what is considered optional and what is considered excuses ? Because it's not very intuitive. Seems awfully like it's optional when you don't want to do it, and it's an excuse when someone else don't want to.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While some players remain insistent that others should be forced to play in Open to affect particular game features, the design of the game that every player bought does not support the preference of those players.
"We" don't all want the same things - and those who don't enjoy PvP are as entitled to affect the shared galaxy as those who do, by design. Only some of "we" want to remove choice from other players when it comes to PvP, oddly enough it's some of those who enjoy PvP.
Frontier have commented on the topic several times:
For fun
That said, it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation.
Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.
Sandro did make two proposals relating to Powerplay, in March'16 and May'18 - the first being an idea to award a bonus to the Power if merits were handed in by the player in Open, the second being the investigative Flash Topic which included as one of the proposals making Powerplay Open only, although he was at pains to state that the thread was just an investigation and not a fait accompli and that Powerplay was the only game feature that would be considered for Open only. The second Powerplay Flash Topic put forward an alternative proposal repeating the idea that a bonus be applied to merits delivered in Open. We're still awaiting the result of that investigation, although in a stream in June'18, Sandro said "So that shouldn't be taken though as a 'so we're gonna do open only power play' that it's absolutely the furthest from our minds."
Last edited:
It's optional to attack a PMF.
But it's an excuse to do it in solo/PG because PvP is optional.
Clear?
so what is an attack on a PMF? if most other PMF offers desireably missions, but the controlling faction does not, then this could be seen as an attack, as the other PMF gain influence, and the controlling is loosing, how would you know?
Very clear, wrong imo, but clear.
"Our enemies are opposing us in solo/pg/on a different platform/ from a different time zone, and is why we are losing!" is the actual excuse.
Just admit that PvP is your thing, and you want victims any way you can get them.
Nobody actually believes that significantly fewer manhours thrown at the BGS or PP can change the outcome via PvP combat. The game just isn't built that way.
That's pretty much manageable (and happens all the way), besides there are certain systems which may suffer more than others from random traffic.
Wars may be declared or not, or even started for power, territories, assets, menace, resources/credits or because one of the parties got offended by salty comments on a YT video (yes, I've seen all of that happening).
Different platforms and TZs don't make a difference, that's why diplomatic relations and alliances exist (unfortunately, completely lacking by ingame tools of course, as they're all managed outside on Inara, Discord, etc [*]).
Second sentence is wrong, I'm a powerplayer.
Third sentence looks like popular belief... on the extreme sides of my records there have been wars ending very quickly with a dozen of PvP wing fights in three nights and parties going at the embassy table for the outcome (having a lot of fun and sharing vids of what happened) vs. grind-like wars lasting weeks, if not months, which in some cases resulted in salty talks on discord (with folks going mad as one set on fire the other's house) or even the dissolution of one or both parties because of frustration and waste of time. So the facts say PvP can be much more efficient and fast to bring a war to an end, without harming the spirit/commitment of who was involved, even if PvP is technically "optional".
If you don't believe me, start a survey... but don't post it here (as it's obviously useless), put it on the dozens of FB groups, reddit subs and the hundreds of discord servers where the ingame things between factions and squadrons happen for real.
[*] that's why I've suggested elsewhere to add some in-game features where alliances between squadrons/PMFs are displayed and represented in game, so PMF 1 does not spawn missions negatively affecting PMF 2, members of SQ1 and SQ2 see eachother as allies, etc.
Last edited:
I'll 100% endorse your position if failed interdictions cause the attacker to detonate due to feed back.
I would consider that a reasonable reward for escaping your attempt to kill me off.
Always up for some comedy reading...
I understand the frustration, but if there was no Open option, then we cant' call it MMORPG. We'd have to call it PVPRPG.
Imaging the network re-work. Might as well build a new Elite Dangerous V. More fun? Probably not IMHO.
I understand the frustration, but if there was no Open option, then we cant' call it MMORPG. We'd have to call it PVPRPG.
Imaging the network re-work. Might as well build a new Elite Dangerous V. More fun? Probably not IMHO.
LOL what the hell people with these threads?!?!?!?!
Honestly, that flash topic would have been better without bringing modes into it. There were so many good things to discuss there, but mentioning Hotel California just meant they got buried under hundreds of open-vs-modes arguments.
Arguably Open in that proposal was the only real new thing on it. The rest was mostly anti 5C and changes that would make Powerplay worse without being coupled with open.
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
I think we should quote this post as a closing one for every thread that requests one of these
/thread
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If the OP of the Flash Topic thread had not had Open only as one of the proposals then it would very likely have been introduced by many of the participants in that thread.
That notwithstanding, the ensuing focus on one particular part of the suite of proposals, whether in support or opposition, swamped the feedback on the rest of the proposals - proposals which seemed to be well received and not at all controversial (and could have benefited all participants in the feature had they been implemented a bit over three years ago).