Modes Mega ships open only content?

[Robert Maynard]

Fight it all you want maynard. Please go on. I wont stop until the hotel is bulldozed.

I'll wait - I'm quite patient.

.... and it's not "fighting it" - it's pointing out the reality of the game we all backed or bought and the choices that it offers players.

Some players want to remove choice from other players by making them "choose" to play as they themselves have chosen to play. Frontier have not changed their stance on player choice in this regard....

 

[Florenus]

Fight it all you want maynard. Please go on. I wont stop until the hotel is bulldozed.

Stop complaining that chess aren't paintball. This game was designed to have different take on PvP that you would like, obviously.
And by that I mean it would be nearly impossible to change things to your liking without complete rewrite of the engine, therefore you're proposing different game.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I'll wait - I'm quite patient.

.... and it's not "fighting it" - it's pointing out the reality of the game we all backed or bought and the choices that it offers players.

Some players want to remove choice from other players by making them "choose" to play as they themselves have chosen to play. Frontier have not changed their stance on player choice in this regard....

The reality is the incorrect people are being blown up.

Damn the kickstarter, Damn the way it came out of the box.

The games evolved. Its way past that now. And the new things they added should be balanced. Especially if its built around the multiplayer aspect.

I literally dont care about what we had then. I am looking at what we have now and have had for quite sometime.

Its inevitable. I cant stress this enough.

Its like the medical marijuana legaliziation across the world.

YOU CANT STOP THIS.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I don't care about what fictional rock you choose to pretend is yours, but I'm definitely glad that when I pass through there, it will be in solo so I don't have to worry about your temper tantrums.

It seems to me, that the people who post these things are some of the most likely to spend time chatting here with those same people they claim to want to avoid.

I don't think I'll ever tire of that!

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

It seems to me, that the people who post these things are some of the most likely to spend time chatting here with those same people they claim to want to avoid.

I don't think I'll ever tire of that!

Id much rather be in the game than here. Id like to face my enemies at the very least.

Why is this such a taboo topic? This really is not much to ask. And these people are acting like I killed their babies.

This place is nuts.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I'll wait - I'm quite patient.

.... and it's not "fighting it" - it's pointing out the reality of the game we all backed or bought and the choices that it offers players.

Some players want to remove choice from other players by making them "choose" to play as they themselves have chosen to play. Frontier have not changed their stance on player choice in this regard....

Well by that reasoning, since they said it's ok to kill anyone at any time for no reason at all, then it stands to reason they ought to provide for a way to do that.

They have used the word "force" after all.

 

[Arindor]

How so?
All platforms in open are equally available to all people/groups.
In a way it's no different than time zones.

The idea is someone can oppose the actions.

Since the thread has degenerated into a PvP open-only BGS discussion, opposition was implied in my post regardless of platform or mode (because it's obvious). I may edit my post at some point to reflect this, if I can be bothered.

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

No thanks to a pvp obsessed minority deciding on development direction; I'd rather FD make the decision with the whole community in mind.​

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Trust me guys, you don't want me and my dodgy connection in open with you!

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Since the thread has degenerated into a PvP open-only BGS discussion, opposition was implied in my post regardless of platform or mode (because it's obvious). I may edit my post at some point to reflect this, if I can be bothered.

Did I need to specify PVP opposition?
You seem to be presenting a zero sum scenario as some sort of "Gotcha!"

I don't get it.

 

[lenna]

Id like to face my enemies at the very least.

If you both play on the same platform, in the same multi-player mode, and get spawned in the same instance (temporal considerations as well as FD match making ones) then you can - in all other cases you will just have to suck it up.

FD have long held a mode agnostic stance and they should keep that stance indefinitely. Should they decide to expand on CQC or create another Elite themed product then your ideas are fair play for consideration.

 

[Brrokk]

If there's a parameter space in which threads move, the Open-only hotel is probably a strange attractor.

 

[lenna]

Since the thread has degenerated into a PvP open-only BGS discussion, opposition was implied in my post regardless of platform or mode (because it's obvious). I may edit my post at some point to reflect this, if I can be bothered.

It was inevitable - whenever the general idea of explicitly constraining gameplay of any sort to a specific mode there is always going to be those that bring up the PvP topic.

Threads like this are mostly pointless - FD have long held the position that gameplay in general is mode/platform agnostic.

 

[JonesTheFilm]

Oh yay! Another "Feature X should be open only!" thread. Waste of internet.

 

[jasonbirder]

Sandro hasn't jumped ship; he is still the Lead Designer of Elite Dangerous.

Of course!!! Only the genius that gave us "magic-Multi Crew" and 3D printed Fighters could have come up with "infinite probes"

 

[Darkfyre99]

The thing I always find amusing about these calls for "Open Only" BGS is that even if (and this is a big if) a group defending a faction they're supporting* can get around:

• The Time Zone issues
• The defacto Region issues thanks to how matchmaking "works " in this game in regards to instancing
• The Platform issues
• The Network Security issues (many firewalls, routers, and even ISPs block peer-to-peer connections by default)

The way the BGS works, PvP will almost always hurts the faction they're supporting. If a player antagonistic to the faction they're supporting knows what they're doing, it's trivially easy to create a scenario where killing that player hurts the faction more, compared to letting them complete their mission in the first place.

It's part of the reason why I enjoy playing in Open, even while doing BGS work. If you think you can defend the faction you're supporting by destroying my ship, you've already failed.

________________
* No player actually "owns" a faction, even the player-named ones. You can support a faction if you wish, but that's the extent of it.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Oh yay! Another "Feature X should be open only!" thread. Waste of internet.

As the internet grows in size, the relative value of one bit of information approaches zero.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

The thing I always find amusing about these calls for "Open Only" BGS is that even if (and this is a big if) a group defending a faction they're supporting* can get around:

• The Time Zone issues
• The defacto Region issues thanks to how matchmaking "works " in this game in regards to instancing
• The Platform issues
• The Network Security issues (many firewalls, routers, and even ISPs block peer-to-peer connections by default)

The way the BGS works, PvP will almost always hurts the faction they're supporting. If a player antagonistic to the faction they're supporting knows what they're doing, it's trivially easy to create a scenario where killing that player hurts the faction more, compared to letting them complete their mission in the first place.

It's part of the reason why I enjoy playing in Open, even while doing BGS work. If you think you can defend the faction you're supporting by destroying my ship, you've already failed.

________________
* No player actually "owns" a faction, even the player-named ones. You can support a faction if you wish, but that's the extent of it.

I think these posts miss the point.
It's more challenging to complete deliveries and it makes for reliable places to hunt opposition CMDRs.
I don't think anyone is suggesting it's the best way to "win", killing CMDRs in open.
There is no win, remember?

It adds gameplay depth for certain.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Preventing a BGS transaction for a faction from happening is not opposing that transaction, it doesn't result in a transaction that hurts the faction or that is helpful for a different faction.
The transaction simply doesn't happen.

The action that results in the BGS transaction to get canceled might have an other BGS transaction effect, but that again is just an other transaction.

The whole BGS is intentionally designed in a way that makes direct opposition to BGS transactions impossible. This is required as the BGS is intended to work in all game modes, in all time zones and between all players no matter their internet connection (lag, ping…).

This might be at first a bit confusing, but is really a quite elegant solution.
By disconnecting the various actions and counter actions the BGS is accessible for everybody and provides a fair chance for everybody. It affects everybody and everybody can affect it (is affecting it).

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Fight it all you want maynard. Please go on. I wont stop until the hotel is bulldozed.

There is change and there is bait and switch. I never would have KSed the game to even close to the level I did had it not been for the modes and knowing direct PvP was entirely optional.
That said FD have seemingly benched some features inhold dearly and added ones I don't care about so I suppose one can never be certain.
And maybe iracing will get burnout style take downs , and super Mario will get an X rated version with princess peach..... Maybe I should go and ask on their forums for those things