My open letter to Fdev

[Craith]

Well, I thought I'd stay clear of this thread, especially since some narcistic persons wouldn't get that the world doesn't revolve around them and their actions.
Still, there are so many errors in the argumentation, that I felt the need to clarify something with all the authority I posess (so none, but at least I know that I am just one player).

"I didn't know about the rules about Mobius" - ... Suuuuure. Hey, can I interest you into some 100% safe financial transactions? There is this uncle of mine in Uganda, who ... At least I now know what the target audience of these emails is.

The Imperial Navy is the Imperial military, noone else, no matter what they claim. I can claim that I am king of my country, still doesn't make it true, even if I get a few hundred or even thousand people to support me. All CMDRs are part of the Pilots Federation. From a military standpoint they are all mercenaries, some of them chose to support only one superpower, one power or even just one faction - still, they can change their allegiance from one day to the next, so they can't really be trusted and are only allowed to react to orders from the real military, not act on their own (at least not as representatives of any military). The only reasons why we are even accepted by the superpowers is because they are able to deny any responsibility for our actions.

Helping another group that has planned the whole affair to succeed at a change of the BGS is influencing the galaxy, so again, well done Task Force Athena *claps*. Blatantly cheating your way into Mobius to shoot up CMDRs that don't shoot back (because THEY keep with the rules of the private group) is not. You lost all respect right there. There were players and player groups that really influenced the galaxy - Sacra Oculus free rare goods from oppressive governments, making the galaxy a more profitable place. Cannon did an awesom job decoding the UA code and finding the barnacles. The Fuel Rats had a real impact in the game of thousands of players. The curing of the Cerberus Plaque and the prevention of a second plaque, both endeavers that looked impossible from the start, the 749 bottles of Epsilon Indi, Great First Expedition and The Distant Worlds, CMDR Cly who found Jaques Station, the Hutton Truckers, the Buckballers ... all these and more had a real and lasting impact on the game. 13th legion had a chance - but they have blown it, betrayed their honor, and they keep digging their hole deeper and deeper.

What a few people don't seem to understand, it is ok to play the bad guys in the game - but extending this bad behaviour to the meta-game (forums, invasions) is not ok. Maybe it is not forbidden, its definately not criminal, but it is bad sportsmanship. Some people still have honor in real live.

 

[Dave1235]

one of the major selling points of the game is player interaction with other players, it is advertised as a multiplayer/MMO game to this very day.
are you going to pay for the refunds of people that got baited in to buy the game now ? from 1.7 million copies sold(i know that some of you bought it multiple times to "support" Fdev) you have maybe 2500 players in game right now and it will peak at around 4000 again tonight(european time) are you going to pay refunds to around a million of players?

One of the major selling points is solo, its top of the steam ad, did you miss that too?

not all of that million have reading comprehension problems, so I guess not.

 

[Raisa]

You have all of that. You also have no idea how many people are in game. This game has multiplayer. It also has solo and private groups which have equal impact, as advertised.

you can get a rough idea of how many people are in game since statistics exist.

@mad mike. You are comparing apples to oranges here. your sole objective in both WoT and WT is to eliminate the clearly defined enemy. There's no persistant world where you get assigned as tank crew, or a shipmate, or [insert airplane type] crewmate in those two games

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

you can get a rough idea of how many people are in game since statistics exist.

@mad mike. You are comparing apples to oranges here. your sole objective in both WoT and WT is to eliminate the clearly defined enemy. There's no persistant world where you get assigned as tank crew, or a shipmate, or [insert airplane type] crewmate in those two games

I do not see your point?

how does this relate to David Braben saying

I don't see this as an MMO in the traditional sense, unless you think of Call of Duty as an MMO. In E you will have the concept of saving and reloading, and choosing a limited group of real people that can appear in your game (which could be just you alone), including allowing strangers to appear.

The BGS is an MMO part, as we all, everyone of us affect it, that is 1000s (1000000s) of players all having an effect on the game....

whether it is a good mmo is of course a whole new can of worms.

but it is massively multiplayer, and its online.

personally to me WOT or WT are not MMOs in any sense, certainly no where near as much as ED is even in solo... but they are still marketed as such and no one seems to care

 

[[DOOK] Droogie]

you can get a rough idea of how many people are in game since statistics exist.

@mad mike. You are comparing apples to oranges here. your sole objective in both WoT and WT is to eliminate the clearly defined enemy. There's no persistant world where you get assigned as tank crew, or a shipmate, or [insert airplane type] crewmate in those two games

What statistics? FD do not publish these numbers.

Also, nice shifting of the goal posts.

 

[ROSS-128]

I never got why WT and WoT were advertised as MMOs. They're much more accurately described as arena combat. I mean sure, if you take the literal definition anything that is both a: multiplayer and b: online can qualify as long as you are vague enough with "massive".

However, the defining feature of an MMO in the common understanding of the term is a persistent open world that, in theory at least (ie instances, servers, and privacy settings aside), holds the entire playerbase simultaneously. An illusion that is generally achieved by syncing the persistent elements across servers/instances. WoT and WT do not have that. Planetside 2 kinda-sorta does with its continents, though its servers aren't synced with each other, and has a stronger claim on "massive" anyway when its team size is about 300-ish per map. Elite kinda-sorta has this too, in theory at least we're all in the same galaxy even if we can't necessarily see each other. An anemic playerbase wouldn't make it not an MMO since it still has the ability, in theory, to host more players. It would just make it an MMO with an anemic player base.

Having more support for player groups, larger wing sizes, and more players per instance would certainly help it *feel* more like an MMO. The first one should be relatively easy, the last two may require more hamsters to power the servers.

 

[willowfan]

you can get a rough idea of how many people are in game since statistics exist. @mad mike. You are comparing apples to oranges here. your sole objective in both WoT and WT is to eliminate the clearly defined enemy. There's no persistant world where you get assigned as tank crew, or a shipmate, or [insert airplane type] crewmate in those two games

and yet they are both marketed as MMOs... - - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

What statistics? FD do not publish these numbers. Also, nice shifting of the goal posts.

Presumably steam, which shows statistics only for those that launch the game via the steam link and not direct from the FDev launcher

 

[Raisa]

I never got why WT and WoT were advertised as MMOs. They're much more accurately described as arena combat. I mean sure, if you take the literal definition anything that is both a: multiplayer and b: online can qualify as long as you are vague enough with "massive".

However, the defining feature of an MMO in the common understanding of the term is a persistent open world that, in theory at least (ie instances, servers, and privacy settings aside), holds the entire playerbase simultaneously. An illusion that is generally achieved by syncing the persistent elements across servers/instances. WoT and WT do not have that. Planetside 2 kinda-sorta does with its continents, though its servers aren't synced with each other, and has a stronger claim on "massive" anyway when its team size is about 300-ish per map. Elite kinda-sorta has this too, in theory at least we're all in the same galaxy even if we can't necessarily see each other. An anemic playerbase wouldn't make it not an MMO since it still has the ability, in theory, to host more players. It would just make it an MMO with an anemic player base.

Having more support for player groups, larger wing sizes, and more players per instance would certainly help it *feel* more like an MMO. The first one should be relatively easy, the last two may require more hamsters to power the servers.

large ammount of players playing online "together" equals to "massive" but the talk about this should be in a whole diffrent thread. And one could argue that WT and WoT are under the "not traditional MMOs sense" category.

Bottom line of it all(disregarding the whole deal with a group of people doing something that other people claim to be "not fair" according to their 3rd party rule since me and a vast majority of players don't care about someones personal RP) is that CGs and how online/group/solo affect the universe needs a look under the hood, like CG connecting every mode so solo players can't "hide" from group and online and group not being able to "hide" from both solo and online. Instances should still be in place, like number of docks in the station + 2-5 players per instance(since noone wants to wait 2-3 hours just to land on the station to deliver their goods)

It won't fix all of the problems, but at least it could ease some of the problems

and if you only see left or right, black or white then i invite you to not discuss it with me and others that want positive changes and visit a politics forum and argue about your far [x] views there

 

[Roybe]

large ammount of players playing online "together" equals to "massive" but the talk about this should be in a whole diffrent thread. And one could argue that WT and WoT are under the "not traditional MMOs sense" category.

Bottom line of it all(disregarding the whole deal with a group of people doing something that other people claim to be "not fair" according to their 3rd party rule since me and a vast majority of players don't care about someones personal RP) is that CGs and how online/group/solo affect the universe needs a look under the hood, like CG connecting every mode so solo players can't "hide" from group and online and group not being able to "hide" from both solo and online. Instances should still be in place, like number of docks in the station + 2-5 players per instance(since noone wants to wait 2-3 hours just to land on the station to deliver their goods)

It won't fix all of the problems, but at least it could ease some of the problems

and if you only see left or right, black or white then i invite you to not discuss it with me and others that want positive changes and visit a politics forum and argue about your far [x] views there

I am just telling you that your hearts desire isn't going to happen in this game...it cannot. So you keep applying all your effort to telling the devs how their mode choices suxors and keep damaging the game by doing stupid raids into PG's....you only hurt yourselves by shooting yourselves in the foot...again and again!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I bought the game knowing about the modes so I wouldn't have to put up with the kind of people the 13th and SDC represent. This was known to me well before I bought the game.

If you don't like the way the modes work, you should have thought of that before you bought the game. Do your research. Don't make me and anyone else who did infor4m theirselves suffer because you're to lazy to look into what you're buying. You made the error of judgment. Blame yourself.

Don't like it, get lost.

 

[MottiKhan]

I bought the game knowing about the modes so I wouldn't have to put up with the kind of people the 13th and SDC represent. This was known to me well before I bought the game.

If you don't like the way the modes work, you should have thought of that before you bought the game. Do your research. Don't make me and anyone else who did infor4m theirselves suffer because you're to lazy to look into what you're buying. You made the error of judgment. Blame yourself.

Don't like it, get lost.

Spot on. +1 virtual rep until I spread some more around.

 

[StewartScott]

I can not say I agree with OP methods of implementing their blockade, but the OP makes some very good points.

The intention was well I think when the Dev's designed being able to play in single player, and private groups, while also effecting the same galaxy as when playing in open play, unfortunatetly, it was a bad game design decision ultimately.

Community goals really are supposed to be 'community goals'. As in 'live people' playing is what 'community' means to me. What fun is it to pit players of different alliances against each other, then remove the ability make any difference by playing 'your role' in the community goal? Or missions for that matter.

Giving the ability to simply bypass organized player opposition by just playing in single player mode or private groups nullifies the whole idea. Why bother???? Gives no incentive to play the goals themselves.

Here is how it should work, CG's should be open play only. Greater rewards means 'greater risk'.

Those who rather play against AI in single player or private groups can keeping doing what they do, but they can not and should not effect live CG's just by simply 'bypassing actually seeing any of the community' in the first place!

There should be high reward Open play only community goals.

Overall the fun factor of ED would go up 5000%

 

[Raisa]

I am just telling you that your hearts desire isn't going to happen in this game...it cannot. So you keep applying all your effort to telling the devs how their mode choices suxors and keep damaging the game by doing stupid raids into PG's....you only hurt yourselves by shooting yourselves in the foot...again and again!

i have never said that the mode choices suck, just that specific parts need to be looked into to balance it out. and When did i raid a private group ?
and why is a change not allowed to happen according to you ?

@ziggy how about you simply go and educate yourself that this game is not only for you, and that there are people knowing about Elite: Dangerous since the very first days of the Kickstarter. And if you simply don't respect other views, You should be the one to get lost

 

[Roybe]

I can not say I agree with OP methods of implementing their blockade, but the OP makes some very good points.

The intention was well I think when the Dev's designed being able to play in single player, and private groups, while also effecting the same galaxy as when playing in open play, unfortunatetly, it was a bad game design decision ultimately.

Community goals really are supposed to be 'community goals'. As in 'live people' playing is what 'community' means to me. What fun is it to pit players of different alliances against each other, then remove the ability make any difference by playing 'your role' in the community goal? Or missions for that matter.

Giving the ability to simply bypass organized player opposition by just playing in single player mode or private groups nullifies the whole idea. Why bother???? Gives no incentive to play the goals themselves.

Here is how it should work, CG's should be open play only. Greater rewards means 'greater risk'.

Those who rather play against AI in single player or private groups can keeping doing what they do, but they can not and should not effect live CG's just by simply 'bypassing actually seeing any of the community' in the first place!

There should be high reward Open play only community goals.

Overall the fun factor of ED would go up 5000%

..and they cannot change it the way people want them to. It, is the only thing that, literally, would destroy the game.

 

[Jenner]

Mod hat on

The only thing that needs to get lost is the personal attacks. Let's keep it civil please.

 

[ROSS-128]

large ammount of players playing online "together" equals to "massive" but the talk about this should be in a whole diffrent thread. And one could argue that WT and WoT are under the "not traditional MMOs sense" category.

Bottom line of it all(disregarding the whole deal with a group of people doing something that other people claim to be "not fair" according to their 3rd party rule since me and a vast majority of players don't care about someones personal RP) is that CGs and how online/group/solo affect the universe needs a look under the hood, like CG connecting every mode so solo players can't "hide" from group and online and group not being able to "hide" from both solo and online. Instances should still be in place, like number of docks in the station + 2-5 players per instance(since noone wants to wait 2-3 hours just to land on the station to deliver their goods)

It won't fix all of the problems, but at least it could ease some of the problems

and if you only see left or right, black or white then i invite you to not discuss it with me and others that want positive changes and visit a politics forum and argue about your far [x] views there

Mobius and solo aren't "personal RP", they are effectively separate servers with their own rules. It's not uncommon at all for MMOs to have PvE-only servers, and yes, those PvE-only servers have the same influence on those games' persistent worlds as the PvP servers. Arbitrarily dragging people out of solo and groups would defeat the purpose of having those modes in the first place.

Is it really so horrible that there are people enjoying the game, and you can't stop them from enjoying it?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@ziggy how about you simply go and educate yourself that this game is not only for you, and that there are people knowing about Elite: Dangerous since the very first days of the Kickstarter. And if you simply don't respect other views, You should be the one to get lost

Irony. Since you are so concerned with the views of those who enjoy playing in private groups.
Irony. Since you cannot comprehend that the "positive changes" you talk about are negative changes for others.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Look here is the thing...... I am all for hearing suggestions for improving the game, but these have to be additive, ie do not BREAK THE GAME for existing players who knew what they were buying.


Hell if you want to petition FD to make your own special snoflake BGS with players locked into its own special open and no players can drop out of it, or join it without starting a new CMDR, with FD makign their own alternate story based on outcomes made by you then fire away and i will wish you good luck.

but so far all of the suggestions kill the game for those who want to contribute to the BGS and the community goals but do NOT want to do PvP. .... but these are ADVERTISED features of the game that we can do this.... ED offers no encouragement to PvP if yo udo not want to do it. PvP is in and of itself its own reward IF you want it and you do it with like minded players.

and whilst Raisa you may not have invaded a PG and griefed but that IS what a large part of this topic is about. invading a PG with the intention of blockading despite forced player blockages being something FD have said are not supported.

imagine if i was playing iracing and all i want to do is stock car racing so i ram all other racers deliberately..... would i be right for saying "screw you guys i want stock car racing", regardless of if it spoiled it for everyone else?

 

[Cupcake]

Private groups are private. The reason I play in Mobius is to avoid griefers like the above OP. I'm now doing the CG in solo and recommend everyone else do the same.

I love how the term "griefer" is thrown around by the bleaters, especially when the game is DESIGNED to pit players against each other players.. The mechanics are working as intended, crying about being killed by players is not only childish, its sad. The game has a huge PvP element, PvP is not griefing and I doubt that the ones throwing that term around actually KNOW what griefing is SO, please do a bit of research before unloading your butthurt on the PvPers, it makes you look even more foolish.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I love how the term "griefer" is thrown around by the bleaters, especially when the game is DESIGNED to pit players against each other players.. The mechanics are working as intended, crying about being killed by players is not only childish, its sad. The game has a huge PvP element, PvP is not griefing and I doubt that the ones throwing that term around actually KNOW what griefing is SO, please do a bit of research before unloading your butthurt on the PvPers, it makes you look even more foolish.

How about PvPing in a Private Group well known for PvEing?