C'mon, don't be like that, he obviously knows his stuff - I suppose he kickstarted, designed and programmed at least one multiplatform game that he then redesigned and reprogrammed because someone on forums mistook it for another game.
Modes Mega ships open only content?
- Thread starter Wyldwiisel
- Start date
C'mon, don't be like that, he obviously knows his stuff - I suppose he kickstarted, designed and programmed at least one multiplatform game that he then redesigned and reprogrammed because someone on forums mistook it for another game.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That was in the OP of the recap thread - they possibly thought that it went without saying in the stream itself (as it was not changing):
Even when Sandro spoke of a bonus for Powerplay in Open he was quite clear that Powerplay was the only game feature being considered for such a change (both in Mar'16 and May'18).
We don't know about Squadrons, yet - that's only three days away....
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
Stop living in the bubble that is elite dangerous? When talking about elite dangerous then it's is the ONLY thing that matters. Look some games cater to 1 type of player something's cater to another, it is why games like DCS excist along side warthunder along side ace combat.
Sure FD could do what you demand and some players would be happy....... And some would leave. The problem is no honest Dev changes the core of a game after taking money advertising a different product.
I take it you would not be happy to refund all those who bought into what FD were selling but then got cheated out of your own pocket?
Last edited:
Irrelevant - WoW and LoL are different types of game to ED.
I think people like yourself need to stop trying to force every on-line game to be PvP centric kitsch. Just because some games do one thing does not mean it is wrong for other games to do something different.
FD has made their position clear on matters such as this, I think it is long overdue for the general rhetoric you are talking to be consigned to the Hotel California thread.
Last edited:
No, Frontier's wouldn't. Powerplay can go open - it's possible. People are pledged to a power and that has a cascading effect on NPC interactions. None of the powerplay activities (preparation, expansion, fortification) are reflected on the mission boards. Neither will you see specific missions from Aisling Duval, or Hudson or Mahon etc. Anything that would affect a non-PP player is a secondary side effect of a Powerplay activity, most people won't even connect the two. Powerplay can turn open only and most wouldn't even notice.
BGS is a different kettle of fish. BGS states can affect the mission boards (which everyone uses) in major ways. Which is why PvP hardliners want to turn the BGS into open only mode - it's one way of forcing people to dance to the tune of Open activities regardless of the mode you're in.
But since all player missions and activities affect the BGS in some way the only path to an open only BGS is to have everybody play in the Open. It has a nice circular logic to it but all it really is is a delusion. I've seen several threads where the devs director link PP to open only but not one where BGS and open only is mentioned in the same breath.
It's just wishful thinking on the part of those who badly want ED to be PvP at it's core.
?
The gameplay is possible in any mode. The way they have arranged it. Don’t like it, there are plenty of PvP only games out there.
They are getting confused with between the concepts of design intent and emergent possibilities - they are conflating the later by interpreting it as the former.
ED is first and foremost a PvE game - PvP is enabled but ED is not expressly designed as a PvP game (unlike certain other games that people keep mentioning).
[EDIT]My response ninja'd by your edit, I believe we are on the same page.
[/EDIT]
Last edited:
You ought to try thinking inside the box for a change as opposed to your fantasy of Elite D becoming like LoL's in space.
Last edited:
the take note of this clarification too: i'm not calling any option disingenuous. what i'm calling disingenuous is calling an idea genius just because it satisfies the particular option you like, even if it makes other options impossible.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Well, if your words and FDevs words are in conflict, there really isn't a conflict is there?
Isn't this the point where you should say your positions are not those of FDev?
They(your positions) are meaningless for all intents and purposes.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
And for the rest of you non-reading, silly people:
If you have a problem with the words I quoted take it up with FDev.
I already stated my context clearly and suggestions otherwise are simply dishonest.
I don't fall for that nonsense.
LOL
If you have a problem with the words I quoted take it up with FDev.
I already stated my context clearly and suggestions otherwise are simply dishonest.
I don't fall for that nonsense.
LOL
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Lol....
There is no conflict - the support response can only have been talking about players who meet in a multi-player game mode. Without the original support request for context, we don't know exactly what support were replying to (and what did not require to be stated) - although it would seem that the complaint was regarding perceived combat logging - which can only be viewed by another player in one of the multi-player game modes....
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
That is just you using obfuscation.
Your claims made no such conditions.
You are just another player who loves the game, right?
That's not only relevant when it comes time to CYA.
You do realise the term disingenuous refers to the motivation of the one making the claim, rather than the claim itself, right? So, according to you, I do not find the modes genius. I don't. I'm just being dishonest here. So ... must be I'm trolling, or have some other motivator. I must have used the same motivator when I wrote a thread which you know very well where I explained why I am of that opinion.
The modes allow options, and they prevent options. Your preferred method has the exact same limitations of allowing options and preventing options. In fact, if it's true you would prefer an Open Only BGS, it prevents more options than it allows. It is more restrictive. So, it satisfies an option you like, while making other options impossible.
As George Berkeley posed, if a Ziggy is not playing a game because he doesn't want to be subject to Napoleonic Pillocks, is he still being dishonest?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Going back to the post that seems to have caused this sub-debate:
How does a player force another player to choose to play the game in the same manner that they choose to when that play-style is entirely optional?
Still agreeing with both of you. Which is really odd.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Ask CMDR Vulcan!
I am already forced to deal with BGS changes from other players.
The modes are not equal.
It is ok to force PVP.
Simple enough?
The modes vs force PVP is a stupid argument.
"Oh yeah, but I can pull the plug!" is the same, logically speaking.
I can't believe you are actually trying to float that nonsense.
So yeah, if you want to obfuscate, I'll defer to FDev and ignore that silliness!
LOL
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
***Cough cough***
