Tell me what faction you support and I'll make sure I do everything related to that faction in Open. [up]
Modes Mega ships open only content?
- Thread starter Wyldwiisel
- Start date
Tell me what faction you support and I'll make sure I do everything related to that faction in Open. [up]
Sorry but I don't get your point at all. If I understand you correctly (and it's entirely possible that I don't) you are saying that FDEV is fine with people playing in Solo being forced into PvP, ignoring the fact that it isn't possible due to the design of the modes and your source for that is a support ticket which clearly refers to activities that happen outside of Solo. Did I get that right?
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Im with Privateers Alliance. But im not touching it until it changes. You better bring some homies with you. Brap man and Psykit will tear you guys up.
And if it gets really bad Ill login to watch you logout
Edit: That was a good one. IM ON FIRE BBY!
Im with Privateers Alliance. But im not touching it until it changes. You better bring some homies with you. Brap man and Psykit will tear you guys up.
And if it gets really bad Ill login to watch you logout
Edit: That was a good one. IM ON FIRE BBY!
The Privateers Alliance, eh?
I hear things are a'changin' in those parts.
2 Adams, One Will, and One Bulldozer.
https://youtu.be/VCy1ZYjLvdQ?t=872
The other Adam: "But more importantly than that, it represents how player's actions represent the world around them. We're talking about actions from players no matter what platform, or mode they're on"
Adam: "Yeah"
Adam & Will nodding
The other Adam: "It's all part of one shared galaxy, which is something amazing, in the same way we're doing things with exploration [...] every one is part of Elite is part of the same shared world"
Will: "Yes"
The other Adam: "And that I think is a really special part of our game"
Those who have checked out of Hotel California will now be allowed to leave.
"It is something amazing and a really special part of our game"
https://youtu.be/JIuYQ_4TcXg?t=6
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
The Privateers Alliance, eh?
I hear things are a'changin' in those parts.
Not much really. Lots of people taking a break.
Everywhere everyone is taking a break.
We are excited for Beta changes, and since this is a BGS group it will bring oh probably 250 members back at once. Plus we usually recruit quite a bit too when things are poppin off.
PA is a bunch of cool dudes. It will be nice to have everyone working together again. A well oiled machine.
We usually stay to ourselves, but we wont lie down and take it either.
We have some awesome dudes leading the charge. This is not some 10 man operation. There are multiple people responsible for multiple things.
Imho, it seems to be the contrary though,
When Bob meets another player in Open (where PvP functionality is forced and non optional by design), he has multiple options such as countering the other player actions or directly stopping them or even stopping&countering at the same time.
Yes, Robert is talking one step before that, when choosing a restrictive mode to play in order to force other players to play in a restricted way offering a single option : doing that PvE counter only.
So yeah, PvP can't be forced by players but PvE can because of the BGS design being totally disconnected from any risk/reward concept and all differences accross platform and modes.
Weird thing about BGS is that i remember Sandro saying it was not about winning or reward but only to simulate life and players effect of actions. And yet, new BGS gameplay through scenario is coming where people will be able to compete in order to win from different playing field...
I don't play in open, by choice, so some forum dad suggesting that MY game should be played the way HE dictates "as the community voice" is ridiculous!
BGS will continue to be played out in all modes, is that so hard to understand, like it or not, and bleating about it isn't likely to change things. There have been some excellent descriptions of the BGS mechanic by some members of the forum but it seems that no matter how simply it has been phrased it is still way TOO complicated for some. Give up folks, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink!
Although I must admit that I have had my interest in BGS mechanics tweaked just because of said forum dad's fear of non-open players affecting the game universe
BGS will continue to be played out in all modes, is that so hard to understand, like it or not, and bleating about it isn't likely to change things. There have been some excellent descriptions of the BGS mechanic by some members of the forum but it seems that no matter how simply it has been phrased it is still way TOO complicated for some. Give up folks, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink!
Although I must admit that I have had my interest in BGS mechanics tweaked just because of said forum dad's fear of non-open players affecting the game universe
That's not new, it always existed in ED. They are just making it more fun.
from what it looks scenarios are just glorified combat zones. no change.
the whole talk about options and modes and 'a shared galaxy' just excuses poor (or non-existent) design and celebrates any possible open conflict turning into a parallel grindfest. if that suits somebody that's just fine, but praising it as a genius idea is just ... disingenuous.
Actually, most of the “Open Only” BGS posts I’ve seen insist they can’t “defend” “their” factions from other players without the option of killing them (example in this thread: 90s/WGFD).
If it was about the challenge, they would support the modes and mode agnosticism, because it clears the proverbial playing field of people who really don’t want to be there, and are likely to combat log if forced to do so. What’s more challenging, a player who explicitly chooses Open, has a ship designed to complete missions despite player opposition, and views you as a challenge as well, or a player who would much rather be in Solo?
Your job is not to repel invaders- You might try if you happen to find yourself in the right place at the right time, but your job is to do something else that will score your side defensive points to counter those points scored by invaders.
This game is not about 3 or 4 player pilots fighting and winning war in some star system against 3 or 4 other players. It simulates war that is fought by sometimes billions of people, and players can only indirectly influence the outcome.
It's painfully obvious after dozens of posts that you don't understand the idea behind this game core mechanics (that PvP global interactions are based on influencing world objectives, not players), refuse to acknowledge explanations why that is and why it can't be any different and insist on looking at it from your own point of view, which is detached from reality of this game.
It's kinda sad to see that valid points are essentially ignored. And then discussion continues about "Burning down Hotel California" as if nobody had a good argument against making the BGS open-only.
But ignoring things is not a valid basis for discussion. And apparently this is not about discussing a proposal, it's about burning things down without thinking too much about it. Which is a shame, but by this time... kind of expected.
But ignoring things is not a valid basis for discussion. And apparently this is not about discussing a proposal, it's about burning things down without thinking too much about it. Which is a shame, but by this time... kind of expected.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Fix griefing, Objective based gameplay. All good points.
Burning down the hotel is required to fix this mess.
The game is toxic because of the problems that exists.
Its gonna burn. Not because I or others say so. Because of the cause and effect the game design has had on the community.
There is your reality.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
How are contentious points addressed in the context of a game that is not sold as requiring PvP? Indeed a game that explicitly states in its advertising that players in Solo affect (the BGS).
PvP is optional in this game, as sold. Some players don't like that, others bought the game *because* PvP is optional.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Nearly six, in the case of this particular topic. Some were convinced that the "game will die" if it had been released with the features in question - they were wrong.
I do wish an individual didn't keep expressing his own views as those of the community - it has as much value as my saying that the community wants only Solo, none at all!
