Game loses something by not forcing Open play
- Thread starter Archaegeo
- Start date
- Status
They clearly knew too much about masturbation for their own good. I am still not convinced by the arguments for the 'separate game modes camp'. I have yet to see an obvious case of open play being detrimentally affected by solo mode being used as an exploit.
To me it seems PvP players are scared of other PvP players playing the system and so they think it is unfair. They obviously don't trust other PvP players just as much as we PvE players don't. Only difference being their solution.
Thing is the whole argument is moot because there is no intended purpose or endgame and there will always be newbies and old timers who have played the game for varying amounts of time and experience. It only matters on day 1. Forever after the game will never be fair for newbies once the first release players have gotten a few mods in their sidewinder.
This whole argument is simply blowing hot air for the sake of being contrary and why FD ignore it and carry on with game as it is intended.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Rapists, obviously..
Thing is the whole argument is moot because there is no intended purpose or endgame and there will always be newbies and old timers who have played the game for varying amounts of time and experience. It only matters on day 1. Forever after the game will never be fair for newbies once the first release players have gotten a few mods in their sidewinder.
This whole argument is simply blowing hot air for the sake of being contrary and why FD ignore it and carry on with game as it is intended.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Rapists, obviously..
Maybe they see it as a denial of an opportunity to stroke their epeen...LOL
No, disagree. -1
Careful Kremmen you've fallen into his trap - 2 minuses make a plus!
Careful Kremmen you've fallen into his trap - 2 minuses make a plus!
-1 + -1 = -2
It's for the same reason World of Warcraft has PvE servers with optional PvP (self-flagging for PvP anywhere, plus Battlezones). It's called "reaching a wider audience" with a wider range of playing styles than just one.
No, it is just that some people may occasionally prefer not to play in the company of others, for whatever reason. And because in this game, PCs are not considered "masters of the universe", but just everyday people making a living, it doesn't matter whether certain actions influencing the galaxy are made by PCs or NPCs. There isn't an "endgame" to be won or lost, there isn't a "leaderboard" to climb; just the freedom to make your living however you please. There really isn't any reason not to allow switching between open and solo (with the caveats already in place regarding bounties, etc.).
Regarding the word "minority", it's perhaps worth noting that every single poll here on the topic of mode switching (and there have been many) has turned out with those favouring the current setup achieving a strong majority.
NOTE: The following is just my opinion.
I always thought that the shared universe design was brilliant. With this one decision, the designers have completely eliminated the worst parts of EVE from occuring in ED.
By "worst parts" I mean the area denial, forced PVP, and stuff like the Hulkageddons.
The design of ED is mostly about coop and I think that the shared universe supports this.
If the Open mode with its consensual PVP truly offers the best gaming experience, then most of the players will be there. If Open gets too toxic, then some players will go groups or solo until the toxicity decreases.
It is entirely possible that the free switching between modes will make the toxicity level self correcting.
Even if I am completely wrong; I trust that the professional ED designers know what they are doing. And I trust them more than I trust all of the amateur designers in this thread.
You have just mandated how people should (in your opinion) play the game.
You just did.
There is nothing wrong with having a solo play mode (other than it might lower the total number of multiplayers, but that's hit or miss)
The entire issue is that your actions as a solo player has an effect on those who choose Open play. If you want to affect the open play world, you should need to be in it.
No-one loses this way. You can play solo and advance to your hearts content, even learn the ins and outs of the game, or you can play Open World an interact with other players.
The entire issue is that your actions as a solo player has an effect on those who choose Open play. If you want to affect the open play world, you should need to be in it.
No-one loses this way. You can play solo and advance to your hearts content, even learn the ins and outs of the game, or you can play Open World an interact with other players.
Oh look, this dead horse is, amazingly, still dead!
Events in open affect group and solo, not the other way around.
Actually its one server. The only thing that changes is what people will the server introduce to you. None if you are playing Solo, your group mates if you are in Group, all the rest in Open.
You want special treatment for being available for PvP? Why do you think PvPers deserve special treatment over anyone else? Why do you insist on trying to introduce mechanics that will: split the player base permanently; offer greater rewards for PvPers over PvEers; or treat PvEers as lesser players? You complain that PvEers want the game to cater to them, but isn't that what you are doing? As a PvPer, I have always wondered about that. In the end, PvPers will PvP without incentives, because PvP is it's own reward. Maybe PvP isn't really the thing you are hoping to enjoy about Open. I think all the reasonable people know what's going on.
I'll ask the same question here as I asked in another thread on the same subject, because I have yet to see a valid, coherent answer to it - everyone who thinks it is so unfair that someone can switch to solo to avoid PvP, given that you can just as easily avoid any individual PvP fight by simply evading the engagement and logging out for a while (or possibly even simply logging out and immediately logging back in), do you also advocate removing the ability to log out? If not, why not? The only real difference between the two is the relatively minor one that the person avoiding PvP doesn't continue playing for that short while.
As far as I know, there is an open-only mode planned for Elite: Dangerous.
It's called "Ironman" mode.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5323
It's called "Ironman" mode.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5323
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Exaggerated or not - and we won't know the full scale of the problem until the game goes live. Whether you agree that the problem exists or is valid in your opinion is moot - the only opinions that matter are those of the affected players - to allow a group of players to block other players group switching because they do not consider there to be a problem would be favouring one group over another - something I do not expect Frontier to do. Any player who is sufficiently put out by the actions of other players to want to group switch can - that's the beauty of the freedom offered by Frontier.
So, the presence of players whose play-style is considered by some to be at odds with theirs to the extent that the latter wishes to group switch is to be expected and tolerated? Asking the less combative players to "step forward" is merely asking them to play into the hands of the more combative players by adopting a more PvP oriented play-style - again, one group does not need to change, but the other does....
.... and yes, it is about changing - you seem to contend that players who would wish to play outside open should change their minds and accept anything that happens in open including those players that they would wish not to encounter because "Their existence is a normal thing" - someone is having to change their game and you're not proposing it is those who some wish to avoid.
Who knows how many there are? There are those who have never seen any - there are those who have had unpleasant encounters that they consider to be griefing - there are those who look at those encounters and say that it was not griefing - there are many opinions as to what does and does not constitute griefing with no definitive, agreed, definition. Creating a situation where players who do not crave PvP action are encourages to play in open and may be subjected to it - only to feed the need of others to be called in as defenders is a bit tenuous (the galaxy is big - the likelihood of a player defender being available in the vicinity is too small to count on). I'm glad that you're enjoying your choice of play-style - it's not the only one out there and other players will no doubt make different choices (and not necessarily with to be dependent on others to enjoy their game).
You seem to be of the opinion that the only behaviour that will adversely affect the game is that of the players who do not wish to be in the same game as players that they wish to avoid - you seem to consider that the players whose play-style may upset other players have carte-blanche to carry on regardless of the effect that their play-style may have on the game. If there is no chance of the more extreme players changing then adding unwilling victims to open is not going to cure anything - it will only satisfy the more extreme players by giving them a larger herd to cull.
You talk about community and talk about some elements making the effort to improve it while in the next breath (paragraph or post) defend the "rights" of the more extreme players to play how they want to with no regard for that community. Odd.
How any player gained their assets is, while not beyond understanding, still of no real consequence - there are many ways to do so - some earned, some gifted.
You still can't say never - and that is not enough for some players who have no wish to have their game spoiled (in their view) by the actions of others.
.... and I sincerely hope that it is a great place for everyone - but everyone needs to want to play there, not be forced to play there. As to what constitutes a "proper argument" - that's your opinion - other opinions vary.
Indeed - the more extreme players could tarnish the game for many new players at the outset.
- Status