It's also a really bad reason.
Powerplay How is Powerplay not open only yet?
Hmm, console player without premium access pledges to PP, logs out, can't log back in because solo is disabled and can't unpledge from PP because can't log in! If you aren't in game how are you actually going to do anything in regards to in-game activities? Player accidently clicks Solo and gets forced out of PP. And that magic "eventually" bit, how long are you planning to lock them out. It's as long as it takes FDEV to respond to the help ticket and fix the players account right?
Just make an exception for console players maybe... or not, because it's not FDevs responsibility to worry about how players access the internet or who charges what to allow access to the internet.
If you log into solo you can't haul merits or undermine. No need to loose progress.
Some players' data are stored locally and sync'ed with the serverd stored data at each log in.
In that case, the player will be automatically unpledged -> ofc player is notified about that and the eventual loss of rank, merits, etc. before clicking to "continue" button.
99% of the current games require some kind of internet connection to be played (just sayin') even if there's no gold/premium licensing.
Last edited:
As I understand it, it's rather the opposite. Players can defend territory all day long but can't fight over it because undermining is crap and the only way to actually fight a power is to join it.
This is going to be another issue... but at least we know it's going to be a temporary one (hopefully
).The Odyssey/Horizons divide, yes.This is going to be another issue... but at least we know it's going to be a temporary one (hopefully
The lack of cross-platform play will remain. For PP it makes no difference whether an opposing player is playing on a different platform or in Solo.
well, they said ED is not a PVP game.
It is a multiplayer game that encourages coop play and allows pvp as an optional activity.
well, they said ED is not a PVP game.
It is a multiplayer game that encourages coop play and allows pvp as an optional activity.
As long as there is no way to avoid an pvp-attack/interdiction in open, you can not say pvp is just optional
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
PvP is optional because playing in Open is optional - no game feature requires the player to play in Open.
.... then there's the fact that Frontier included a block feature in the game at release and have only ever made it more effective and easier to use over the years - which means that individual players can be excised from ones game in both of the multi-player game modes.
Yeah ok we all know what the game is right now.
It's like saying two years ago "space legs are just stupid! You can't go outside the ship right now!".
Let's take a look at new features, new possibilities. Let's keep an open mind about it. It's what smart people usually do: think about things that could be, not things as they are without any possibility to change.
And I think it could benefit FDev too (commercially speaking): new markets, new types of gameplay. It's always a good thing to propose new things even if you are not directly involved. As I am happy every time the game introduces mechanics I know I will not be involved into.
Different market targets = more customers = more money = longer support for the game we love. It's easy and honestly quite rational.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed.
.... which would have ignored Frontier's inclusion of "space legs" in their list of potential features to be released in DLCs (Newsletter #29), all those years ago.
Also, we could go outside the ship two years ago - in an SRV.
Of course things change - and new features are to be welcomed. When designing new features it is likely that making them appeal to as many players as possible is the aim - and one Dev has indicated that Frontier were (at the time of posting) "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.Let's take a look at new features, new possibilities. Let's keep an open mind about it. It's what smart people usually do: think about things that could be, not things as they are without any possibility to change.
Whether Frontier choose to PvP-gate an existing game feature or add a new PvP-specific game feature (in addition to CQC, of course) remains to be seen.
It may do - although I expect that the design of the game we have was informed by any market analysis that Frontier did before pitching the game in the first place.
Whether there would be more customers overall would depend on how changes would affect the existing player-base - as while new customers buy a copy of the game, customers in general buy cosmetics (and may spend significantly more on cosmetics than they did on the game).
The "accessibility at all costs" is a myth usually recalled every time by "anything open only is poop" negationits: a great part of modern game market is driven by PvP-driven competitivity (actually most of the big-money-making games are like that). Game is plenty of "non accessible" features because of various aspect, it dependsbasically on the interests of the single players, and shooting each other is actually an interest in the game, only difference is that there's not currently a game mechanic that could make it meaningful with a strong layer to make it so. So that market is actually not fully explored by Elite Dangerous, because of that a lot of old customers dropped the game because of the lack of such mechanics and many potential customers did not buy the game because of it (and I'm talking about personal experience in this case).Indeed.
.... which would have ignored Frontier's inclusion of "space legs" their list of potential features to be released in DLCs (Newsletter #29), all those years ago.
Also, we could go outside the ship two years ago - in an SRV.
Of course things change - and new features are to be welcomed. When designing new features it is likely that making them appeal to as many players as possible is the aim - and one Dev has indicated that Frontier were (at the time of posting) "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.
Whether Frontier choose to PvP-gate an existing game feature or add a new PvP-specific game feature (in addition to CQC, of course) remains to be seen.
It may do - although I expect that the design of the game we have was informed by any market analysis that Frontier did before pitching the game in the first place.
Whether there would be more customers overall would depend on how changes would affect the existing player-base - as while new customers buy a copy of the game, customers in general buy cosmetics (and may spend significantly more on cosmetics than they did on the game).
Current player base would be not affected by the presence of an alternative way to play the game and be engaged by that: it's like saying that, being Thargoids quite difficult to kill, old players not combat oriented would drop the game because they have no interest in killing bugs.
This simply doesn't make sense in a rational way, it's just a forced argument to try and bring more water to your own mill.
There's a huge part of the community that would like "something" to play the game in a directly competitive way, not spreadsheet war. There's plenty of space in the galaxy of Elite Dangerous to offer something to everybody leaving plenty of things to do for anybody else, with economical benefits for the game itself.
Again: it's simple to understand, unless somebody here is biased.
Last edited:
This is not actually a terribly strong argument. The dominant paradigm in popular PvP games is instantly accessible action with a relatively flat and balanced power curve. There is a part of Elite Dangerous which closely resembles that paradigm.
It's CQC.
The bit nobody does.
Furthermore, restricting the current (boring, opaque, annoying) Powerplay into Open would not actually fix any of the problems with it. Even outside of the already pointed out reasons why players may still not encounter each other, the powerplay tasks would still be tedious, 5c would still be the dominant paradigm for progress because undermining would still be crap, the interface would still be opaque and irritating to try and tell what a beneficial action for the power is, and so people would by and large still just module shop then abandon the whole thing as the collection of malfeatures and warts it is.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If that is the case then it is perhaps interesting that Frontier chose not to chase that market with their game.
The game does indeed offer optional challenges that may exceed the ability of a not insignificant number of players.
That some players dropped the game because they can't force all players engaged in a feature to be available to be shot at is their issue - the game was not sold to them as offering any feature that forces players to play among other players (except CQC, of course). Frontier know that all players bought the game as it is - they do not know how many people who have not bought the game might have bought (or how many of those who have bought it would not have bought) it if it was different.
If no players would be affected by something that they can't themselves affect from their chosen game mode then I would agree.
Whether, or not, those seeking a PvP feature comprise a "huge part" of the community is not easily determined - although I expect that Frontier can use their in-game analytics to see how many players play in each game mode and how many of those players who play in the multi-player game modes ever get involved in PvP.
There is indeed plenty of space in the galaxy to offer something to everybody - which is why I remain opposed to proposals that would PvP-gate particular game features to Open only over the whole galaxy.
I have, from time to time, posted a proposal for a permit locked volume of the galaxy to be created that would only be accessible in Open - which would satisfy the "players in Solo and Private Groups shouldn't affect my gameplay" complaints, to an extent.
Can anyone accurately claim to be without bias?Again: it's simple to understand, unless somebody here is biased.
That some players propose changes to the game to suit their own preference, changes that would adversely affect others' enjoyment of the game, might also indicate a certain level of bias....
My personal preference is simple - I don't enjoy PvP and won't initiate it against other players. That the game supports that preference by making other players optional formed part of my decision making when deciding whether or not to back the game in the first place.
Last edited:
Probelm with CQC is that it cuts out a huge chunck of the rest of the game from the equation:
- ships
- engineering
I would love to have a far more better and variable CQC honestly, even if I am not the PvPer people would think (I am an open only PVE-er actually, a rare breed, the rarest maybe
).And I totally agree that just making Powerplay Open Only would not help that much, I am totally aware that it would need a total redesign (my many threads about it are proof about what I am saying eheh), possibly something designed to value this MMO- like PvE/PvP mixed approach that many players crave from this game.
But it's very difficult to talk about anything "Open Only" and how to make it funny and engaging when we've got some people just flodding with "everything open only would fail" even if they ar enot actually interested in engaging in it.
First let's try something that could work that way. Then we check the feedback by users actually involved in it, to make it better.
As it happens for every part of the game.
Last edited:
You're just doing the same thing you do: telling how the game it is right now.
And my usual answer is: we all know it is this way.
And even if something strange happened with your quote (lol, cellphone typing? I know how hell it can be XD ) the real bias is not asking for new features, the real bias is doing all their might to prevent people to have things that would not affect them directly.
My impression in here is that the "open vs pvt/solo" argument is, at this point, a blind war between two factions.
Something honestly I am not interested into.
What I am interested is: having some way for people like me to play the game better, possibly without forcing other people to play the way I consider the game to be played.
Like honestly you are doing, insisting on denying Open Only to anybody.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Bias is bias - most everyone has them....
This particular debate has been ongoing since the game design was published over eight years ago - the sides are well entrenched at this point and have been for years.
In the "fixed" version of the quoted post I reiterated my proposal to create an Open only volume of the galaxy - one possible way of giving those players who seek Open only game features a way to get all game features Open only without restricting them to Open over the whole galaxy.
I remain opposed to proposals that would retrospectively PvP-gate existing pan-modal game features.
.... just as there are those who would happily remove access to game features from players in Solo and Private Groups.