Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Why include the word Open in the OP not to indicate that those not in Open would not affect the feature?
I want a PP warfront
- Thread starter David Findley
- Start date
@Robert Maynard Well as a moderator change it to "Open and Private" since you can PvP in both of those modes, just for the sake of accuracy, if it's just about the correct choice of words.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
As a participant in the thread I can't moderate the thread.
.... and I don't think that the OP would agree with such a change anyway.
Well you will have to ask them but I honestly think that's just the way they understood the PVP game given if they want to PvP, they click "Open" in the game menu, so they refer to that playstyle as "Open", but I can't say for sure. It seems a lot of debate around this topic gets bogged down on the usage of words instead of the meaning of what is being said.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
As noted, PvP is possible in Open and Private Groups. The use of Open in the OP seems quite specific in that regard, i.e. to exclude those in Solo and Private Groups.
The usage of words gives context to what is said - they're pretty inextricably linked.
Open pp features automatically exclude people who choose for whatever reasons to not participate in open play.
Including those on console that chose, or are unable, to pay for open access.
It would only "exclude" them if they couldn't click on "Open"... and yeah words mean stuff but it seems like this obsession over the word "Open" is a pedantic derail of the OP's request for some content, and it is being misrepresented as a desire to "actively exclude" in you own words, not one perosn who purchased ED would be "excluded" from some PVP only content, in any sense of the word. They would have the same choice as everyone else, so once again, I don't think your argument is valid.
I don't see all this concern for Mac users who can't play anymore and got "excluded" in the literall sense of the word, but there is this almost unbelivevable concern that someone who bought the game 7 years ago might miss out on a few passages of text and a reward in some unknown future date because they might CHOOSE not to log into Open, and that genuinelly amuses me..
Indeed there is innumerable reasons why some don't open/group or even solo play but I'd be here all day listing them.
Given there is no logical reason why the OP's suggestion need be confined to open mode I get the impression that the threads real intention was to stir an argument about open v any other mode.
Well that will just pt ED in line with about every other console game in the universe that has online only content so...
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
For me it's simple: we all bought a game with pan-modal features that all players affect regardless of the game mode they play in (specifically excepting CQC). That design means that PvP is an optional extra that no player needs to engage in to participate in any in-game feature (noting that CQC is out-of-game). I'm not in favour of PvP-gating any existing game feature, or part thereof, to Open as to do so would be to force those who participate to make themselves available for PvP. If the request was for content that didn't affect those who would not participate in it then I'd have no issue.
Regarding the Mac client, that was down to Apple not updating their O/S to include the later OpenGL version required - that's hardly Frontier's fault, and I expect that Frontier knew how few players played on Mac. With respect to PvP, Frontier have indicated that, while the majority of players play in Open (at least some of the time) and Solo and Private Groups enjoy "significant portions" of the player-base, they are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.
The game is still advertised as "In an age of galactic superpowers and interstellar war, each player’s unique journey influences the connected gaming experience." That's from elitedangerous.com today - so it's not that it's limited to those who bought the game seven years ago (it was pitched over eight years ago and attracted backers then, and released a bit over six years ago).
Player emergent gameplay has already provided a war and a front between the Empire & the Federation in Powerplay via the Imperial High Council & Federal United Command. The game mode just needs updating to be more rewarding, less complicated and removing the ability for a Power's commanders to cause 'self-harm'.
CMDR Justinian Octavius
CMDR Justinian Octavius
"we all bought a game" well that much I can agree on.
As for the reasons behind the Mac drop, that's not my point, the point is that's a literal "exclusion" that left invested players without a product.. as opposed to the example you gave, which is just a choice given to all players who bought the game. Anyway that's their fault for gaming on a mac tho (lol jk).
I don't see how the old marketing blurbs from ED have anything to do with the misuse of these terms in this discussion.
I play Elite in solo only and refuse to play in open can I participate in the ops suggested open only powerplay narrative?
You have the choice I guess, which does count for something. I personally woudln't want assets/models and stuff to be "locked" behind a PvP only experience, just narrative stuff that anyone could read on the galnet even if they were not taking part or not interested in taking part. But eveyrone should be able to i suppose. Like if they tired to make CQC more interesting and had some narrative around tournaments, that sort of thing.
Last edited:
Well yes you could participate (I said "you have the choice"), but you said you would "refuse" to so that would be entirely up to you. If you don't like the idea or whatever fair enough but no need to pretend it's unfair on you in any way because you would "refuse" to take part.
Is it unfair for me? No but I didn't pretend it was either I was asking a simple question which is still no.
However it is unfair for those who cant participate in open only pp narrative for technical or financial reasons. They would be excluded out of no fault of their own from content they already paid for because Frontier would have decided to gate some of it behind an open only mode.
I dunno you're answering the question yourself
Yes you could take part if you didn't refuse to do so idk what else to say? The 'gate' isn't locked and no one was proposing that be the case.
Actually op did when they suggested a powerplay narrative specifically for players in OPEN but you might have missed that part with your three pages of arguing over semantics.
Putting content behind open only is a gate to some and not easily overcome.