Modes Mode Feature Exclusivity...AKA..."Render unto Caesar..."

[Jockey79]

Which "lot" is that? Also, is this "lot" a lot?

*yawn.

Thank you for the advice and, more pertinently, your clarification. So you mean the actual gameplay element as opposed to that elements participants (who do, after all, drive the mechanic). You use the words 'small' and 'ignorable' - I wonder why you're so concerned about the proposed changes then? If PP is, as you say, small and ignorable then why the furious resistance? It seems contradictory, does it not? Are concerns about potential bothering you?

Still not got your glasses on I see. I didn't say PP was the small, ignorable part.
I was referring to PvP.

Weird how you're the only person struggling with this.

They do indeed, I remember well. I'm not celebrating as of yet, although I am pleased that the proposals have been refined and are seeing the light of day again.

And what if Frontier decide to not lock it?
I have a feeling you still won't accept the result.

I don't know what you mean by trolls and griefers, I'm afraid. It's in the same lexicon garbage heap as 'pew-pew' and 'carebear' under the focus of my reading glasses.
Excited is subjective and I'm sure you'd celebrate diversity in the game.
I can't understand how you determine it as a face slap when:
PP is small and ignorable (your words)
Nobody is forcing anybody to do PP
Development has always been on the cards for the game.

Again, was talking about PvP being small and ignorable. Nothing in game relies on PvP - so it is completely ignorable.

Funny how your lot keep on about "Development" as if it is a code word for PvP.

 

[Goose4291]

Which "lot" is that? Also, is this "lot" a lot?

The tl/dr of it is that powerplayers are now all griefers in the eyes of the forum 'elite' along with those who discuss open in a positive light.

Welcome to the trenches comrade. I suggest you check your shell scrape a barrage of 'all modes equal' artillery is inbound, your posit.

 

[Perseus]

*yawn.

I'll take that as an anxiety yawn, especially in light of your perceived 'us and them' mentality

Still not got your glasses on I see. I didn't say PP was the small, ignorable part.
I was referring to PvP.

Oh, I do apologize! I'm afraid my glasses are the standard optician type and not 'Mystic Megs lenses of knowing'. Could I trouble you to accommodate my psychic limitations and use the standard grammar formula in sentences by stating clearly the subject of a sentence or a post? This way, I shouldn't have any difficulty with slippy references, be they psychic or semantic in nature.

Weird how you're the only person struggling with this.

Communication is a two way thing (a bit like PvP actually!). Maybe an opportunity for you to develop and expand your writing skills?

And what if Frontier decide to not lock it?
I have a feeling you still won't accept the result.

I'm a player, not a dev. I'll have to accept it.
Unless you mean throwing a wobbler and declaring I'm not going to play, take legal action or any other ridiculous, immature foot stamping? If so, no, I won't be doing any of that.

Again, was talking about PvP being small and ignorable. Nothing in game relies on PvP - so it is completely ignorable.

Hmm, PP is proposed to be though, is it not? I know that now you are/were talking about PvP being small and ignorable but PP is proposed to give PvP an in game significance and hence . . . it won't be small or ignorable for PvPers who engage in PP!

Funny how your lot keep on about "Development" as if it is a code word for PvP.

You said it again (lot)! Whatever or whomever do you mean? Hope you don't fall asleep responding.
Development is a code word for PvP? I thought it was 'emergent gameplay'? Where can i purchase the 'mystic reading glasses'?

 

[Perseus]

The tl/dr of it is that powerplayers are now all griefers in the eyes of the forum 'elite' along with those who discuss open in a positive light.

Welcome to the trenches comrade. I suggest you check your shell scrape a barrage of 'all modes equal' artillery is inbound, your posit.

Thank you, Goose!
No problem about the barrage - they forgot to put the fuses (valid choices) in the 'mode equal' shells.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

The tl/dr of it is that powerplayers are now all griefers in the eyes of the forum 'elite' along with those who discuss open in a positive light.

Absoloutely false.

 

[Goose4291]

Absoloutely false.

Really? Because all I've seen the last few weeks since this change is powerplayers (like Perseus) coming out of the woodwork to support (not demand) this change, making their case and explaining repeatedly how PP works and the issues it faces, and to put it lightly being treated like griefer shills with ulterior motives.

Its okay though if you see no ships Nelson, I wouldnt have expected any less.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

The tl/dr of it is that powerplayers are now all griefers in the eyes of the forum 'elite' along with those who discuss open in a positive light.

Arrant nonsense and a pathetic attempt to frame an argument in a manner which muddies the water.

Really? Because all I've seen the last few weeks since this change is powerplayers (like Perseus) coming out of the woodwork to support (not demand) this change, making their case and explaining repeatedly how PP works and the issues it faces, and to put it lightly being treated like griefer shills with ulterior motives.

Its okay though if you see no ships Nelson, I wouldnt have expected any less.

Okay so one or two players come out of the woodwork in support of the proposal. Other players object to it and have given their reasoning. What you're attempting to do is muddy the water to obscure the arguments of those who object to the proposal.

 

[Perseus]

Arrant nonsense and a pathetic attempt to frame an argument in a manner which muddies the water.



Okay so one or two players come out of the woodwork in support of the proposal. Other players object to it and have given their reasoning. What you're attempting to do is muddy the water to obscure the arguments of those who object to the proposal.

Muddy the waters, you say?
Let me examine some mud of yours. You said "1 or 2" players in support. 2 isn't a very big number, I'm sure you'll agree.
Then, you say "others" object to what the "1 or 2" supported. Others has the implication of many - it certainly does not set a fixed number. Not exactly squeaky clean, is it?
The proposal thread has overwhelming support, if you care to examine.
I agree with Goose - I'm part of a "lot" apparently. I'm ok with that although I think the "lot" I'm part of is actually a sub-part of a bigger "lot" who would like to see the game develop 'Beyond'.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Really? Because all I've seen the last few weeks since this change is powerplayers (like Perseus) coming out of the woodwork to support (not demand) this change, making their case and explaining repeatedly how PP works and the issues it faces, and to put it lightly being treated like griefer shills with ulterior motives.

Its okay though if you see no ships Nelson, I wouldnt have expected any less.

How about not getting personal and sticking to the point? I expect better from you.

Its fine there are people supporting it, and people against it. Its quite normal.

A vast majority of people who support it are not griefers (although i'm sure there are some who are, i hope you agree!) and not all are even combative, they are hoping they will get a challenge running from PvPers.

Now, i'm not sure if I am what you class as a "forum elite" or not, although my forum rank says I am, but i do not say they are all griefers, far from it.

So please, stop with the broad generalizations about the statements of what the "forum elite" are saying, when its patently false, and if that is all you see, you might want to read more attentively.

PS: Mr forum deadly, not long to go until you are forum elite

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Muddy the waters, you say?
Let me examine some mud of yours. You said "1 or 2" players in support. 2 isn't a very big number, I'm sure you'll agree.
Then, you say "others" object to what the "1 or 2" supported. Others has the implication of many - it certainly does not set a fixed number. Not exactly squeaky clean, is it?
The proposal thread has overwhelming support, if you care to examine.
I agree with Goose - I'm part of a "lot" apparently. I'm ok with that although I think the "lot" I'm part of is actually a sub-part of a bigger "lot" who would like to see the game develop 'Beyond'.

One or two players or a 100. Or a 1000. On a forum which not every customer of ED participates in. Whatever.

Here's the thing; if FDEV don't do as has been suggested by myself and others, that is, to have a poll of every ED customer in the same way as has been done before, then all that is left is the argument of those who support the proposal, and the argument of those who oppose the proposal.

In which case, it's the pros and cons which have been pointed out to FDEV by both sides of the argument which count, and not how many forum posters are for or against the idea, given that that entire ED customer base does not frequent these forums or Reddit.

Therefore trying to muddy the waters by posting arrant nonsense won't help.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I'm ok with that although I think the "lot" I'm part of is actually a sub-part of a bigger "lot" who would like to see the game develop 'Beyond'.

Ah, you see, i'm part of the "lot" who want the game develop "Beyond" but in a different direction.

I hope you are not implying that anyone who is against this change doesn't want the game to develop? Because i've seen the odd person try and take that stance before, and it doesn't wash.

 

[Jockey79]

Ah, you see, i'm part of the "lot" who want the game develop "Beyond" but in a different direction.

I hope you are not implying that anyone who is against this change doesn't want the game to develop? Because i've seen the odd person try and take that stance before, and it doesn't wash.

Same here. I love for loads of things to be "developed".

But unless Frontier keep in mind;

On PvP vs PvE
We listen to both sides. While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.

As this pandering to the minority will be harmful to the game. Because of course when the next great thing comes out, they'll all up and leave.

 

[Perseus]

One or two players or a 100. Or a 1000. On a forum which not every customer of ED participates in. Whatever.

Here's the thing; if FDEV don't do as has been suggested by myself and others, that is, to have a poll of every ED customer in the same way as has been done before, then all that is left is the argument of those who support the proposal, and the argument of those who oppose the proposal.

In which case, it's the pros and cons which have been pointed out to FDEV by both sides of the argument which count, and not how many forum posters are for or against the idea, given that that entire ED customer base does not frequent these forums or Reddit.

Therefore trying to muddy the waters by posting arrant nonsense won't help.

Indeed, and bravo for cleaning up the waters. . . a bit.
As I said "1 or 2" vs. "others". Now we are back to the (read 1) argument for and the (read 1) argument against. 1 vs. 1! (My favourite type of PvP, incidently).
Goose still has a point about labelling though so I don't think he was muddying the waters at all. The PvP element is a part of the current debate and an "us and them" mindset is evident from reading the posts. As I said, I'm part of the "lot" although I'm not exactly sure who or what that "lot" are but I see that this "lot" are definitely defined with such interesting concepts as 'griefers' or 'gankers'. I'm not sure about those terms meanings either, to be honest, but I can detect they are not supposed to be complimentary.
Maybe I'm supposed to feel soiled and shamed?

Ah, you see, i'm part of the "lot" who want the game develop "Beyond" but in a different direction.

I hope you are not implying that anyone who is against this change doesn't want the game to develop? Because i've seen the odd person try and take that stance before, and it doesn't wash.

So you're saying it's dirty then? Are we still in the muddy waters?

I'm happy to trust the devs direction - it should all come out in the wash soon.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hi!

I am Ziggy. I am forum 'elite'. I do not believe powerplayers now are griefers, nor do I believe those who discuss open in a positive light are griefers. I have never sported either of these two sentiments. In fact, due to the dubious nature of the definition of griefer I shy away from the label alltogether. I will use more descriptive labels instead.

Have a nice day!

Ziggy happy as a blues pig in muddy waters Stardust

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Indeed, and bravo for cleaning up the waters. . . a bit.
As I said "1 or 2" vs. "others". Now we are back to the (read 1) argument for and the (read 1) argument against. 1 vs. 1! (My favourite type of PvP, incidently).
Goose still has a point about labelling though so I don't think he was muddying the waters at all. The PvP element is a part of the current debate and an "us and them" mindset is evident from reading the posts. As I said, I'm part of the "lot" although I'm not exactly sure who or what that "lot" are but I see that this "lot" are definitely defined with such interesting concepts as 'griefers' or 'gankers'. I'm not sure about those terms meanings either, to be honest, but I can detect they are not supposed to be complimentary.
Maybe I'm supposed to feel soiled and shamed?

My impression from having participated in these forums for going on 4 years now, is that it is widely recognised that within the PvP subset of ED's players, there are;

• the subset of PvP'ers who enjoy the challenge of going up against other players who actually present a challenge, who can fight back - this probably constitutes the majority of PvP'ers and I'd wager they mostly leave obviously weaker ships alone or may even jump in to help weaker ships under attack by...
• the subset of PvP'ers who are just out to blast at any ship with a hollow square regardless of context or reason, because "the game allows it"
• the subset of PvP'ers who only go after weak targets and who would crumble or combat log under the slightest danger of serious resistence

Most of the PvE'ers in my experience refer to the last two groupages and have the most anymosity towards them - I know I do - and I get the impression that the PvP'ers in the first and probably largest groupage also have problems with these last two because those are the ones who 'sully' all of 'PvP' as a whole.

 

[Perseus]

My impression from having participated in these forums for going on 4 years now, is that it is widely recognised that within the PvP subset of ED's players, there are;

• the subset of PvP'ers who enjoy the challenge of going up against other players who actually present a challenge, who can fight back - this probably constitutes the majority of PvP'ers and I'd wager they mostly leave obviously weaker ships alone or may even jump in to help weaker ships under attack by...
• the subset of PvP'ers who are just out to blast at any ship with a hollow square regardless of context or reason, because "the game allows it"
• the subset of PvP'ers who only go after weak targets and who would crumble or combat log under the slightest danger of serious resistence

Most of the PvE'ers in my experience refer to the last two groupages and have the most anymosity towards them - I know I do - and I get the impression that the PvP'ers in the first and probably largest groupage also have problems with these last two because those are the ones who 'sully' all of 'PvP' as a whole.

Commendable sentiments, I'm sure.

However, how fair is it that I,or any PvP consumer, are 'sullied' (or tarred with the same brush) because of other PvP individuals and enthusiasts? It smacks of stereotyping and bias. You posted a limited broad brush list of PvP motivating factors, with the last 2 being contentious for PvEers (I do PvE stuff as well - I'm 100% sure all PvPers do PvE).
I can only say that under the proposal the 'blasters' will now be able to be part of a deeper context in what should be a target rich environment of PP. This could take pressure off CGs, engineer systems, Founders world, ruins and any other 'hot spot'. The boys and girls who live for the fight for fighting's sake are likely to be tempted to join a power to get their fix. The powers will benefit by having combat focused pilots fighting for them. Seems sensible to introduce OoPP with this in mind.
Going after a weak target? I'm afraid there is nothing wrong with that in a PP context. Other Powers are enemies, allies or neutrals. (I'm ambivalent about non PP contexts because: a) Choose your mode. b) Dress appropriately.) If an attacking CMDR bit off more than they could chew with what they thought was a weak target, no real shame in crumbling (waking out) and probably a good youtube video to boot. Certainly some exciting gameplay to be had.
Combat logging is cheating in any circumstance. There is no justification for it. PvP, PvE, open, solo or PG - it's cheating. Clogging is worse in PvP though as you are directly affecting another player. I hope the Karma system is also on the cooker.

One last point, if I may. Most players don't PvP, from a devs post nearly 2 years ago - the question should be asked, why don't they PvP? Maybe they would if an in-game context was available to do so. The huge game map makes encounters slim, unless at a hotspot. This might be what FDev are currently gunning for with the proposal - a potential for meaningful PvP via PP.

 

[Goose4291]

My impression from having participated in these forums for going on 4 years now, is that it is widely recognised that within the PvP subset of ED's players, there are;

• the subset of PvP'ers who enjoy the challenge of going up against other players who actually present a challenge, who can fight back - this probably constitutes the majority of PvP'ers and I'd wager they mostly leave obviously weaker ships alone or may even jump in to help weaker ships under attack by...
• the subset of PvP'ers who are just out to blast at any ship with a hollow square regardless of context or reason, because "the game allows it"
• the subset of PvP'ers who only go after weak targets and who would crumble or combat log under the slightest danger of serious resistence

Most of the PvE'ers in my experience refer to the last two groupages and have the most anymosity towards them - I know I do - and I get the impression that the PvP'ers in the first and probably largest groupage also have problems with these last two because those are the ones who 'sully' all of 'PvP' as a whole.

Its all well and good breaking down the groups into three nice categories, however it doesn't stop what happens here, for example:

Player pirates (proper ones... remember them?) were put into that third box, despite obvious issues.

PvP Groups that RP/Played the BGS (for example, 13th legion who opposed, blockaded and shut down many a pro federal CG).... again its "you're roleplaying wrong... its just an excuse to grief."

That has been the overall tone since day one of full release, remember when pirates who wanted your cargo were psychoanalysed, accused of being RL terrorists/rapists who lived in their parents basements, and all the stuff the forum consensus persists in throwing at anyone who doesnt play in a non 100% e-bushido dueling manner.

And here's the rub... when you put your cards on the table (like the PPers have done these past weeks) all of a sudden its 'ulterior motives' and shadowplay: 'youre a false account created by an SDC member' type nonsense, or my perennial favourite in threads where Ive tried to offer advice to a player who wants to continue in open but is suffering difficulties 'dont listen to him, hes just a griefer who wants to keep easy prey in open' (which couldnt be further from the truth).

Its pathetic to look at from the outside; there's no wonder the reddit community mocks the forums as a whole.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Oh I've had that "sinking feeling" - which is why I now treat it as somewhere to get parts if/when I want them.

PP does need fixing, I've said that for a long time. But locking it to a mode wont fix it.
Heck, even I gave some suggestions to fix it in the PP forums. But too many people suffer with "tunnel vision" atm and actually believe locking it will fix it.

It won't solve 5C in any way, shape or form. Some of the 5C folks have been even bragging about it - but some folks just refuse to see it.

Locking it into Open, along with all the other changes Sandro suggested, would be welcome. Open Only PP isn’t an idea in a vacuum, remember.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

One last point, if I may. Most players don't PvP, from a devs post nearly 2 years ago - the question should be asked, why don't they PvP? Maybe they would if an in-game context was available to do so. The huge game map makes encounters slim, unless at a hotspot. This might be what FDev are currently gunning for with the proposal - a potential for meaningful PvP via PP.

That is a good question, and one i think that has no simple answer as it will vary from person to person.

I'm sure there are plenty of would be PvPers who don't because of the lack of meaningful PvP mechanics - and as we are seeing, some think that making PP open only will provide that (which remains to be seen, but let's see how it pans out if it happens).

I'm sure some would PvP if there was more balance to it and if it didn't require lots of engineering to be competitive. Some people just want their PvP games to be pure PvP, no messing around doing PvE stuff to get to the PvP. I tend to fall into this area. When i'm PvPing I want to PvP, and when i'm PvEing i just want to PvE, and never the twain should they cross.

I'm sure some would PvP if there was zero consequence. (although with how easy credits are to make these days it is practically zero consequence unless you are hauling at the same time).

I'm sure some would be willing to expose themselves to PvP if there were more consequences for the attacker. From what i'm hearing, the new system is still pretty weaksauce as a deterrent to illegal activities for the dedicated PvPer.

I'm sure that some people will never PvP no matter what. Its just not interesting for them.

I'm sure that some people might not mind PvP, but they find the PvE more engaging. I know, some PvPers might not understand this, we see it often on the forums from PvPers saying the PvE is not fun and provides no challenge, etc, and they present it as an absoloute statement of fact, when its just an opinion. For some the PvE is more interesting and enjoyable than the PvP.

And i'm sure there are other reasons.

Personally i'm not against FD putting some effort into giving PvPers a meaningful game within the game... i'm skeptical they can do it, at least not without a lot of effort and a change of mindset, and to be frank, i'm already a little annoyed at how much love the PvPers have got over the last year (two balance passes - totoally not required for PvE) or so compared to the PvE content or changes made because of the PvPers (I'll put the new C&P system and Engineer changes into this latter category)... and now we get the open only thing, again, to appease the PvPers.

But that's just my personal bee in my bonnet. I'm hoping that if FD do this, it will be the last change they make in a long time to appease or deal with the PvPers, and get back to focusing on actual content for the game for those of us who just want to derp around in a space game.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I wonder if Sandro reads stuff like this and just holds his head in his hands?

I have done that, when I read Sandies idea :/