Modes If Open is to get something exclusive then PG and Solo also need something

[bigity]

And PvE didn't get what they wanted, either. You're not the only one with disappointments.

Blaming PvE players for your misfortune isn't going to solve this. Mouse is simply highlighting the recent direction of how much multiplayers in general have had things "their" way at the cost of single-player. BOTH were advertised as equally valid ways to play ED.

Think about it.

Oh I have. I just understand my way of thinking isn't the only way to think, or even the most important one (which would be FDev). I'm not the one crying about 'equality' and 'features added to Solo/PG' because FDev wants to change their game.

We'll see, IF the proposal goes through, won't we?

I would bet that one goes through regardless of the open only concept.

 

[Sylveria]

Oh I have. I just understand my way of thinking isn't the only way to think, or even the most important one (which would be FDev). I'm not the one crying about 'equality' and 'features added to Solo/PG' because FDev wants to change their game.

And those "crying about equality" as you put it are simply demonstrating their own disappointment with a proposed removal of features that exist currently, yes?

What about if FD proposed to remove Open tomorrow? Would you call it the same thing (i.e., "crying") or would you call it voicing displeasure?

We're all not so "different" as you think. We're all customers, and we've all got our "bones to pick". Changing one's tone from directing at each other might go a long way toward solidarity.

Or not.

 

[bigity]

And those "crying about equality" as you put it are simply demonstrating their own disappointment with a proposed removal of features that exist currently, yes?

What about if FD proposed to remove Open tomorrow? Would you call it the same thing (i.e., "crying") or would you call it voicing displeasure?

We're all not so "different" as you think. We're all customers, and we've all got our "bones to pick". Changing one's tone from directing at each other might go a long way toward solidarity.

Or not.

Yes. If they are going on about refunds or quitting the game, they are definitely whining. So you don't agree/want that. Then either play, or don't.

 

[Sylveria]

Yes. If they are going on about refunds or quitting the game, they are definitely whining. So you don't agree/want that. Then either play, or don't.

And does this same logic apply to the PvP community whining about how the BGS and PP work, too? Oh, that's right- it's "different" when the perspective is reversed, isn't it?

Food for thought- ignore it as you wish.

 

[bigity]

And does this same logic apply to the PvP community whining about how the BGS and PP work, too? Oh, that's right- it's "different" when the perspective is reversed, isn't it?

Food for thought- ignore it as you wish.

Actually it does. Wanting (and stating why or often) something is not the same as 'don't do this or ill quit'. If you can't see that, then feel free to ignore Pro-PP Open posts from now on.

 

[Sylveria]

Actually it does. Wanting (and stating why or often) something is not the same as 'don't do this or ill quit'. If you can't see that, then feel free to ignore Pro-PP Open posts from now on.

It's not about "from now on", it's occurred for YEARS now. The same threats have been made by the pro-PvP community over time, too.

Now, as I said- we can all go back and forth with the witty banter, or we can all agree that it's not one group or another who created the game this way, therefore penalizing one group or another doesn't resolve the issue.

 

[bigity]

It's not about "from now on", it's occurred for YEARS now. The same threats have been made by the pro-PvP community over time, too.

Now, as I said- we can all go back and forth with the witty banter, or we can all agree that it's not one group or another who created the game this way, therefore penalizing one group or another doesn't resolve the issue.

Nobody is being penalized. Everyone will still have access to PP. Except those edge cases of console players without gold tier subs. Blame that on them and the console makers. FDev can't work a game around those folks.

People 'threatening' to quit on any side of the argument are being silly, no matter how long it has or hasn't been going on.

 

[Sylveria]

Nobody is being penalized. Everyone will still have access to PP. Except those edge cases of console players without gold tier subs. Blame that on them and the console makers. FDev can't work a game around those folks.

Thanks for your response. You've already made your decision, then- please respect that others disagree with you.

 

[bigity]

Thanks for your response. You've already made your decision, then- please respect that others disagree with you.

I have no decision to make friend. I don't design the game.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Nah, if you read the other changes proposed you will see that the BGS effect on PP will also be vastly reduced.

If the thing with missions contributing to PP goes ahead, then i see PP affecting the BGS massively. God help any player faction in a power system with the wrong superpower alignment. People grinding missions for their power are going to destroy their influence.

People should think about this. Do you have a player group in a power controlled system? Does your superpower match the power's supepower? If not, come the change, its probably going to be a nightmare for you.

 

[withnail]

They can flag the mission so they it has no rep or influence.

We're into just making up arguments and avoiding any thinking that will adversely affect the argument.

 

[Goose4291]

If the thing with missions contributing to PP goes ahead, then i see PP affecting the BGS massively. God help any player faction in a power system with the wrong superpower alignment. People grinding missions for their power are going to destroy their influence.

People should think about this. Do you have a player group in a power controlled system? Does your superpower match the power's supepower? If not, come the change, its probably going to be a nightmare for you.

You're talking like manipulation of the BGS for PP is a new feature. It isn't. Players have always been fiddling with it to improve that edge (Chapterhouse of Inquisition, an ALD group, made it their business to do just this).

If anything, this change will be better for PFs, as theyre only going to want to change one control system, rather than 51% of all systems in its sphere of influence, reducing the number of systems that need to be brought to heel, so to speak.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

They can flag the mission so they it has no rep or influence.

We're into just making up arguments and avoiding any thinking that will adversely affect the argument.

If they do that then it would be great. However, Sandro's suggestion didn't seem to imply that. It seemed to imply that regular missions would contribute.

You're talking like manipulation of the BGS for PP is a new feature. It isn't. Players have always been fiddling with it to improve that edge (Chapterhouse of Inquisition, an ALD group, made it their business to do just this).

If anything, this change will be better for PFs, as theyre only going to want to change one control system, rather than 51% of all systems in its sphere of influence, reducing the number of systems that need to be brought to heel, so to speak.

Sorry, but there is a difference here. As things are, PPers might flip a system to a government more suitable to them. If the governemnt is one that is good for them though, no need. You don't even need the same superpower.

What we might now face though (depending on implmentation) is PPers running missions (because let's face it, running a variety of missions is a lot more intersting than that boring PP repetitive mechanics) for factions that are aligned. It won't even necessarily be intentional to hurt a player faction. Just people grinding out regular missions to help with PP.

 

[popuptoaster]

What we would gain is not having PP interfere with our game play, can't count the number of times I've arrived at a station only to find it mostly shut down.

Get rid of PP from any mode and that's the mode you'll find me in, it never fit with the games ethos of being a lone pilot trying to make a living in a galaxy that doesn't care much about you.

I'd pay extra to get rid of PP (and multiplayer to be honest, I backed for the single player experience and was seriously disappointed when the offline mode was cancelled).

 

[Goose4291]

Sorry, but there is a difference here. As things are, PPers might flip a system to a government more suitable to them. If the governemnt is one that is good for them though, no need. You don't even need the same superpower.

I think we're down to arguing semantics on this. Because theyre still changing a BGS faction to gain an edge, except replacing the one or two government types with the broader spectrum that 'superpower' allegiance offers.

What we might now face though (depending on implmentation) is PPers running missions (because let's face it, running a variety of missions is a lot more intersting than that boring PP repetitive mechanics) for factions that are aligned. It won't even necessarily be intentional to hurt a player faction. Just people grinding out regular missions to help with PP.

See, I didn't for one minute see this as the way he's envisaged it. I'm under the impression we'll have PP cookie cutter missions where the rewards are merits instead of BGS Influence ticks.

As a side bar even then, as bad as it would be for a few PFs, it'd be interesting attempt to get the playerbase to groundskeep the lore on their behalf, seen as superpowers would actually feel more like a superpower, and mitigate the odd idea we have at the moment where an independent PF for example can be the prime controller of the federal heartlands.

 

[Robert Maynard]

They can flag the mission so they it has no rep or influence.

We're into just making up arguments and avoiding any thinking that will adversely affect the argument.

If that happened then I'd expect that many of the concerns would be removed.

 

[Electric Kite]

Game is for 7 years and up.
Forums for 13 and up.

Was there a point?

Spoken like a true 12 year old.

 

[Perseus]

They can flag the mission so they it has no rep or influence.

We're into just making up arguments and avoiding any thinking that will adversely affect the argument.

This is how I'm seeing it too. Pure merit based, maybe not even with a financial aspect to it (save merits earned per cycle, of course).
I would hope that PP missions are a separate menu from regular missions. This would prevent complaints about PP clogging the standard board and non PP CMDRs could just ignore the feature. Actually, maybe have the PP missions in the PP menu itself.

edit - I see Goose already touched on it.

 

[Jockey79]

Spoken like a true 12 year old.

Aww bless, you still don't have a point to make - but you need to be noticed.
Now the grown ups are talking, so go play with your pacifier as you've nothing to contribute.

 

[OOF Waffe PR]

Aww bless, you still don't have a point to make - but you need to be noticed.
Now the grown ups are talking, so go play with your pacifier as you've nothing to contribute.

You mean that tantrum you threw at the feedback thread is an adult behaviour?