Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Goose4291
Banned
Judging by the drama you see from the PvE BGS Wars and powerplay groups (because remember the party line that 'indirect pvp isnt real, but a justification made up by PvPers for their pro-Open arguments'), I think you're very wrong on this.
This discussion isn't about your perceived notions of "abusing mechanics to attack PMF's" it's about players who wish to play cooperatively in Open without having to "squirrel off to a limited size Player Group" in order enjoy the game without harassment from players who wish to engage others directly. (in other words, PvP players)
Yes, more constructive feedback, other than using inflammatory terms like "carebears", baiting with "ego battles", and so forth would indeed be greatly appreciated. I seriously doubt your ability to do so, given your post history- but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here.
If you wish to discuss your other issues regarding the BGS/PMFs and so on, there's plenty of other threads where you can do that. This isn't the place for it.
Robert. Please. For the love of the gods, you’re embarrassing yourself.
I’ve seen marching orders from group leadership to operate in Private Group because of Open Play opposition. If there was a PvP flag it would be similarly abused.
If you don’t understand this you are naive to the extreme. Beyond words, I reckon.
I’ve seen marching orders from group leadership to operate in Private Group because of Open Play opposition. If there was a PvP flag it would be similarly abused.
If you don’t understand this you are naive to the extreme. Beyond words, I reckon.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It's not how some players (that would normally play in Open) are choosing to use it - that's not in dispute - it's the fact that, by design, everyone can affect the BGS, etc. without engaging in PvP - in this game.
.... and the fact that some players that might normally prefer PvP are "abusing" it is not a compelling case for its removal from those that don't prefer PvP - in a game where direct PvP is entirely optional, by design.
.... and the fact that some players that might normally prefer PvP are "abusing" it is not a compelling case for its removal from those that don't prefer PvP - in a game where direct PvP is entirely optional, by design.
Last edited:
I suspected you wouldn’t really engage or address my feedback. That’s fine - I’ll just make sure to trash this idea as much as I can (whether that be here on FF or elsewhere) in order to keep support for it as low as possible.
In any case, if you would ever like to play the game together the offer stands. You might have fun!
I’m pointing at a massive flaw in the Op’s design and you’re choosing to stick your fingers in your ears and sing the Star Spangled Banner at the top of your lungs.
Oh well! [haha]
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The effect of an Open-PvE mode would be little different, from a BGS perspective, than PvE Private Groups or Solo - any player could use any of the three modes (other than Open) to affect the game, just as the two other game modes do now.
What it would offer is a mode, for players that don't like PvP, with an unlimited population.
Exactly this. The proposal does NOT address BGS mechanics specifically because it cannot. FD created the BGS at the heart and core of the game, and players of ANY style have absolutely no choice but to affect it by play. Changes to the BGS must be dealt with separately- because players are not given a choice. (excepting not to play at all, which for a customer who purchased the game isn't a choice)
Aye, and the proposal removes nothing that PvP players don't already have available to them in the game... if anything, they GAIN a more immersively populated environment where they can continue just as they had before, only with more players around to communicate with, as well as people they may also join if they wish to engage in PvE activities cooperatively.
PG's are limited in not only capacity but also the ability to control whether PvP occurs within those groups- the ability to enforce rules against it by kicking players exists, sure- but it shouldn't even have to come down to that to begin with. That's why PG's are not "the answer" for players who wish only to engage in PvE activities cooperatively with other players.
Open PvE gameplay would make the need for PG's irrelevant. People could still do so if they wished, but a vast majority of players who joined PVE-based PG's solely for this purpose wouldn't need to do so with such a change.
It’s clear neither of you have meaningful experience with player groups in Elite. I’ll try to boil this down as easily as I can for you.
The fact someone could use the OP’s PvP flag system to undermine a player group’s faction in the game without any risk isn’t a problem?
Pretty simple question. So, yes or no?
The fact someone could use the OP’s PvP flag system to undermine a player group’s faction in the game without any risk isn’t a problem?
Pretty simple question. So, yes or no?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The game does not currently require any player to play in a multi-player mode to affect Factions - per the quote from Michael that was summarily dismissed earlier.
That's the game we all bought or backed.
There's no requirement to engage in PvP, whatsoever, in the game - and every player both experiences and affects the single shared galaxy state, by design - which includes player supported Factions (as it has done for approaching three years now).
Last edited:
As has been stated previously- regarding affecting the BGS/PMF's any action that is taken which undermines another PMF can be countered in similar fashion.
Currently from ANY mode. This proposal has naught to do with any of that. Those perceived "problems" would exist regardless of the proposed changes.
I’ll go ahead and chalk both of those answers up as ‘No.’ Thanks for the responses!
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It's not a problem - in a game that is not designed to be dominated by direct PvP - and that offers PvP as an optional play-style.
Happy to oblige.
Happy to oblige.
Last edited:
Chalk it up to whatever you wish. We've already responded to your concerns in kind.
This proposal has naught to do with those concerns. It cannot, simply because the BGS is part of all styles, all modes.
There's no "choice" involved, and therefore no "intent" implied.
I just checked. Still bad.
And you've right to your opinion
This is where we inherently disagree- (and I agree to disagree) because mine is that a more unified approach toward the player base is not only warranted but necessary. As long as we have a fractured community in the form of Open, Player Groups, and Solo made necessary by the exclusion of game play styles due to the default nature of PvP in Open, we're going to have a lot of other issues that will never be addressed (such as the BGS, PP, Wings, Squadrons, Insert whatever other topic here, etc.)
Every change they introduce to the game currently has to consider the Mode system... if that were made irrelevant, we'd also not have half of the issues that currently exist. (IMO)
Again, it doesn't take anything away from PvP players that they don't already have available to them. They'd have much more to gain from a more unified Open, however.
I'm not advocating for a removal of the Modes. I'm advocating for a more unified Open- but with the provisions that PvE players have the ability to play as they wish without direct hindrance from other players.
I would very much like an Open PvE mode. But the measures that have to be taken are really game breaking for me. You fire at something, it gets damage, that's a pretty basic core mechanic right there. Even if that damage is nullified by some counter system, it still had the potential to do damage.And you've right to your opinion
This is where we inherently disagree- (and I agree to disagree) because mine is that a more unified approach toward the player base is not only warranted but necessary. As long as we have a fractured community in the form of Open, Player Groups, and Solo made necessary by the exclusion of game play styles due to the default nature of PvP in Open, we're going to have a lot of other issues that will never be addressed (such as the BGS, PP, Wings, Squadrons, Insert whatever other topic here, etc.)
Every change they introduce to the game currently has to consider the Mode system... if that were made irrelevant, we'd also not have half of the issues that currently exist. (IMO)
Again, it doesn't take anything away from PvP players that they don't already have available to them. They'd have much more to gain from a more unified Open, however.
I'm not advocating for a removal of the Modes. I'm advocating for a more unified Open- but with the provisions that PvE players have the ability to play as they wish without direct hindrance from other players.
A PvP flag would mess with that basic core mechanic. It messes with the persistence of a game that already has a lot of persistence problems with regard to NPCs and mission boards and such.
So yeah, I do like the idea, I don't like that players need to make Private Groups with rules they can't enforce and need to manage thousands of players. But I don't see a practical solution to implement the idea that doesn't mean introducing very intrusive gamebreaking mechanics to make this happen.
I don't see a solution that doesn't introduce "very intrusive gamebreaking mechanics" outside of what already exists as such for PvE players with "Open being PvP by default", either, Ziggy.
That's why it's necessary. It's already "game breaking" to those who wish to engage in Cooperative PvE without harassment from those with differing styles of game play.
It's also why we all go round-n-round in circles here in "Hotel California", too- because PvP players will never accept PvE players game play styles, and vice versa. Therein lies the inherent differences.
TL;DR - It's already "broken". Even PvP players insist on it with their countless threads and posts opposing the Mode system. We need to fix it.
Last edited: