Why not? Famously, ship interiors "not at launch" was something Frontier presented themselves about ten years ago.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
I don't see how the topic is banal outside of you pretending it is. I don't understand how you think you know what keeps players engaged in elite either seeing as you're pulling these assumptions out of the blue. These new features aren't going to keep popularity high, they are not fun in and of themselves; they are only fun in the broader context of large communities fairly duking it out in open. There is a reason why all the Power squadrons have a rule to play in open only. You dumb down powerplay to it's individual activities; but these activities are exactly the same as they were before PP 2. Bouty hunting, trading,...; the new feature is the grand scheme of competition from a Faction V Faction war system, which is kept alive by player interactivity. Without these interactions the entirety of PP will become niche again as above user mentioned and I fully agree with it.
If you cut out player interactivity, which you do arguing for solo play, you lose everything that makes this feature interesting; and you're just left with gaining merits through gameplay aspects that have been in the game forever. You also lose it's meaning as the FVF is just an oversight in your closed safety bubble.
Lmfao, if you do think playing in open means you're getting ganked every 2 minutes then I cannot help but tell you to cut the crap. It's just not true. I'll stop telling you what to do if you stop spreading misinformation.
Been playing in open since 2014; ive only been attacked twice now in the entire time I've played, because I was looking for it. Come on.
Yes, they are. Maybe not for you, but who are you to tell others that they don't enjoy what they are doing?
Frankly, maybe pledges like yours are taken more seriously by the "other side" if your side wouldn't constantly diminish the other side's viewpoint and acting like you have the sole claim on the truth. Maybe try to sell your arguments more from a subjective viewpoint rather than "you can't enjoy it if it's not open only. Fact!". Might people want to listen to you a little bit more.
Truth is: Different people enjoy different activities differently. You might not want to believe it, but open only is just a dream for some, and those don't have a claim on any game feature, no matter how brazen they act.
I have skimmed through this thread and felt the same diminishing and holier than thou attitude from people on "your side" before I even commented. This has to do with discussion etiquette and I agree, it would be nice if we were more understanding. But given that this isn't the case, your hostility towards my position does not influence my decision making on the matter. If I end up agreeing then so be it, I'll always hear you out either way.
Everything I say is, in essence, my opinion. I argue for why my opinion is more likely to be correct, but nothing should be taken as me saying "this is fact, get with it". If we had facts, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Which is why I do advocate for a playerbase survey on the matter, but that's another story. For example, I argue that OOPP is more enjoyable to most people who are invested in it, because most, if not all, powerplay squadrons have a OOPP rule and think it ought to be played solely in open. I gave it context by way of expanding on what the features are and how they are not novel given the removal of player interactivity.
If people don't want to listen to me, that's alright, I'm just a rando on the internet. If your feelings about me keep you from engaging with the substance fairly then I would prefer you not to listen and enage. It is what it is.
Aye, but looking at it from the outside, if you remove the player interactivity, what is new? What would make this feature fun for you and where is the novelty? You say it is a dream for some, and if I may direct you to what you have said above, you don't know the amount of people who "dream" for this. You simply don't know the amount and yet, if I take your position above, present it as fact. Now I know it is your opinion but I don't see any justification for it.
Saying it's just a small amount as opposed to 50/50, which it might very well be, gives the entire issue an air of banality. Which is detrimental IMO.
There is no hostility. There is the constant reiteration of the open only proponents to tell those who don't want it that they are having fun wrong and don't understand what the game is designed for that I take issue with. You never see "my side" asking to take open away from you. It is your argument to take something away from players who don't align with your idea of fun. That's a problem, and Frontier seem to agree.
You chose to make an account specifically to tell us that we basically have no clue how to enjoy the game, so expect some resistance to that.
Sounds like stating a fact to me. Maybe you forgot to add "not fun for me". The open only side habitually does that and tends to give the impression to speak for everyone. It's a common mistake here.
Don't be too disappointed to learn that I have no feelings about you. I have, if at all, feelings about people wanting to take away gameplay from me because I might choose the wrong mode.
You are not able to get to the point, don't you.
Let's put it simplest way possible: existing game mechanics allows me completely do not care about what you thinks, what you do and the most important: what you want me to do. This is why I love ED and it is the only game that worth my free time at the moment. Lucky me, it seems like FDev moves ED exactly the way that new and existing features will not be restricted from me in any possible way only because you want so.
P.S. I would suggest to FDev: If sufficient number of players wants to play Open-Only or whatever mode they prefer to launch a separate servers for them and share maintenance cost among those Players. Subscription, one-time, whatever. Let's just vote with our own money, that is always the best argument. More Players play Open-Only = less maintenance cost for each. That would be Interactivity we deserve.
Last edited:
The real shame of the matter is that the flight and combat in CQC is nothing like PvP combat in game. I think that if CQC was developed well, it could completely transform the game.
I love the compliance with immersion that the notion of it being a simulation brings, the idea of a dedicated system too. But man you can't just palm PvP training off with some shoddy backwater, it has to be centre stage if you want it to work, and forget it if the shoddy backwater is a prize for winning. Every power ought to have a PvP training ground and you could then look towards having galactic competitions in which all of the powers put their best pilots forwards for a tournament. Ideally to, a solo player with no affiliation could also enter and win.
Last edited:
The situation of such could also be used to initiate pilots into flying in open, to prepare them for it. Much of the discordance stems from the massive void that exists between veteran pilots and fledglings.
Just to prevent going circles: from what I can see at the moment, PP2.0 is an introduction of dynamical Politics and Economy mechanisms into ED. How functional - only time will tell. If so, Economical + Political mechanisms are never ever Open-Only. In RL also. By design. When last time one directly "interacted" with Prime Minister of one's Country? Ever? Despite that fact Economy and Politics are still functional thus affecting that particular one also at every moment of time.
And here I was, trying to make the conversation more agreeable only for you to do the opposite again lmao. Nobody told you to reiterate, if you did not want to and if you indeed did not care, then you shouldn't have. You want the issue to be silenced but the very fact that people, like me, choose to speak up about it, means the issue is worth reiterating.
And yeah, I do indeed see your side taking the fun away from me, because solo play FVF makes no sense and I think it's the most unfair thing that takes away player interactivity. So no, you are taking my fun away. But you won't hear me going all "pity me please these monsters take away my funtime!"
I chose to make an account to ask why on earth you wouldn't make PP open only, cause it makes no sense. I don't care how you enjoy the game. For all I know you find it enjoyable to just fly in circles all day. You however do, directly or indirectly, dictate how OOPP proponents should play the game, by advocating an unfair and weird system that allows solo players to affect a FVF system while not engaging in FVF at all in their safety bubble.
So yeah, I resist your normalising of such a silly thing. And I resist your insistence that I should just call it "your way of playing the game".
By merit of what I said above; everything I say is in essence an opinion. If you want facts then you must try and make a science out of the issue. You also seem to be guilty of what you're accusing the "open side" for doing while ignoring all I said about how I see the discussion.
Petty as can be huh; you so sorely wanted to have decent discourse that you immediately forgot to be decent. Hypocrisy?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Is there an assumption that AX combat is only engaged in by those interested in PvP?
Uhh, I've gotten to the point repeatedly. You are not engaging with what I am saying so what do you expect from me? lol.
And yeah sure, lets split up the playerbase even more, great idea!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
At what point were players given the right to dictate to others what the acceptable frequency of being ganked is?
Noting that for some players they cannot be ganked, as they enjoy every interaction with other players, and other players don't want to be ganked at all as they don't find that the gankers offer anything of value in gameplay terms.
Ganking is simply a more difficult AI interdiction. If you don't like challenge then maybe the game isn't for you? There's other games like star trucker, where combat is not a thing. Methinks this is less about the person aspect and more about not wanting to lose.
I also think there is an argument to be made about why open exists in the first place. This game functions more like an MMO than a singleplayer "I do what I want, me me me!" game.
If you don't like the concept of mode choice, maybe the game isn't for you? There's other games like EVE or SC, where being free to choose a mode isn't a thing.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Given that the game does not require any player to play among those who would gank them, there's no reason for players disinterested in the gank mini-game not to play it. For those who insist that all players must present themself to be shot at, on the other hand....
The three game modes are simply settings on the matchmaking system that underpins all instancing between players - Open exists for those who want to play among as many players as possible, Private Groups exist for players to be able to select who they play among, and Solo exists for those who don't want to play among other players.
It's somewhat ironic when those who don't choose to play among other players are accused of having a "me me me" attitude by those who want to force others to play the way that they want them to.
In my particular case: Do not wait for me there. And in general: it is not about to be unprepared before, it is about to be un-enjoyed after
and in case you accuse me of hostility again: The fundamental concept of ED is to blaze your own trail - choosing your own level of threat and security and the modes included. You can do your challenging dangerous open shenanigans all day long if you like, I don't care. But it's not yours to say that the chill truckers are less entitled to the game than other players. ED unifies a lot of play styles, it's one of its strengths.