Open: Why?

[CMDR M. Lehman]

I find this attitude pretty boring and conservative. For a game, that is. But I didn't really expect you to agree with me, vice versa you neither I guess.
But tell me, what is your argument your premise is based on. Is it realism?
Whatever it is, I have the better cards as the game supports my argument, not yours. Not that it would ring a bell to you, that's clear...

With the way that the BGS is structured, flying around in supercruise hoping to instance with a rival player is actually the single worst strategy that one can adopt... from a strictly numbers standpoint. Fragging the ever-loving **** out of an enemy squadron, however, is fun, immersive, makes things personal (and I daresay real), and demoralizes the hell out of the opposition. In other words, it adds the human element to an otherwise bland, predictable mechanic.

More to the point, it makes BGS wars fun, and forces one to potentially face those they're seeking to undermine. It forces them to have some skin in the game, and to accept some degree of risk. I understand that risk is a foreign/obscene/terrifying concept to many in the solobius crowd, but then again... you are engaging in adversarial gameplay.

 

[jasonbarron]

And? How does it help if you shoot me or my bodies. If you know how the BGS works it would be totally irrelevant. It just would have a certain passive destructive aspect to it: While you would hinder me to make progress on the BGS you would hinder yourself doing the same. A pretty daft lose - lose draw. You can't in all seriousness want such nonsense.

No doubt it's a crummy strategy, but fun nevertheless.

 

[Masta Squidge]

Im really enjoying all the people who missed the point entirely then flew off at the hip to make a point I don't care about lmfao


This exact thing just came up in system chat in game. Two players were berating another one for not playing in open.

Neither of them had any reason to back up their claim that the third player "should be in open". And should "git gud" despite not having shown any interest whatsoever in pvp.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

Oh yes, absolutely. But you're talking about a totally different game here. ED is no such game and would require a rewrite with a completely different design. Can we at least try to keep on earth with this conversation and not pretend this would be 'just' a trivial change? I respect your dreams of course, but that's not something you'd have the slightest chance to convince the devs with. Meanwhile I see what Sandro has done with his proposal, implanting this brainworm in some players head who think the game should be like any other PvP game and thanks to Sandro's incautious brainfart would be sooo close now. That's simply not going to happen, sorry.

Sandro's idea would have gone a long way toward rehabilitating Powerplay and giving PvP its first integrated relevance to the greater PvE environment. It was also extremely well-received by a solid majority of respondents on the old thread, only to be brigaded into oblivion by the usual crowd of dedicated forum manchildren.

I suspect- though cannot prove- that their secret objection wasn't all modes are eekwal! but a concealed dread that PvP stood to suddenly become relevant in "their" game.

 

[Masta Squidge]

But yeah sure y'all can keep incorrectly putting words in my mouth if you want I guess.

 

[jasonbarron]

Sandro's idea would have gone a long way toward rehabilitating Powerplay and giving PvP its first integrated relevance to the greater PvE environment. It was also extremely well-received by a solid majority of respondents on the old thread, only to be brigaded into oblivion by the usual crowd of dedicated forum manchildren.

I suspect- though cannot prove- that their secret objection wasn't all modes are eekwal! but a concealed dread that PvP stood to suddenly become relevant in "their" game.

I think you just nailed it.

 

[Masta Squidge]

Sandro's idea would have gone a long way toward rehabilitating Powerplay and giving PvP its first integrated relevance to the greater PvE environment. It was also extremely well-received by a solid majority of respondents on the old thread, only to be brigaded into oblivion by the usual crowd of dedicated forum manchildren.

I suspect- though cannot prove- that their secret objection wasn't all modes are eekwal! but a concealed dread that PvP stood to suddenly become relevant in "their" game.

I'd have little issue with this.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

<self-delete, misread post>

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

Oh yes, absolutely. But you're talking about a totally different game here. ED is no such game and would require a rewrite with a completely different design. Can we at least try to keep on earth with this conversation and not pretend this would be 'just' a trivial change? I respect your dreams of course, but that's not something you'd have the slightest chance to convince the devs with. Meanwhile I see what Sandro has done with his proposal, implanting this brainworm in some players head who think the game should be like any other PvP game and thanks to Sandro's incautious brainfart would be sooo close now. That's simply not going to happen, sorry.

Sorry i always edit my posts and probably the most interesting point was post script:

EDIT: By outfitting distinction yes i would suggest a very specific balance pass that went and removed the multipurpose cost of also fitting for pvp. Or even better, distill the military slot concept into making combat modules only fit in those and go from there. Its a bit of a straight jacket, but its also pvp.

Creating a even field for pvp > change crying while still having options.

Yes i guess deleteing engineering for combat modules would be good too. EDIT2: Speaking of enginnering and combat, thinking about it they are not the same at all. Its a strong correlation that people who like combat and pvp also like stat based min maxing and gearing, pushing advantage in whatever way possible, but thats not strictly connected to flying around competitively (in a non pay to win environment).

 

[Rick6549]

If you do bgs or powerplay, you should play in open unless you absolutely cannot due to bad internet or lag from other players. Its like menu logging, sure its allowed, but its kinda scummy.

 

[Masta Squidge]

If you do bgs or powerplay, you should play in open unless you absolutely cannot due to bad internet or lag from other players. Its like menu logging, sure its allowed, but its kinda scummy.

To return to my original post:


Why?

Why does a player have to follow your moral objection when the game developers explicitly designed it to not require player to player interaction to affect?

This comes up in system chat constantly. There's always at least one person telling solo players they should be in open. Why? Because you want them to be?

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

I can see your vision, but also why it never works with the current peer to peer structure. It also would lock out any solo player, virtually telling him he's a minor nothing cause it's all about big number squadrons. And since it still looks like solo players (including those who play in Open!) outnumber the multiplayers by a large margin, this would be a devastating blow to the game's future - and a very egoistic one on top of it from a minority as well. It's almost on the same ballpark as if I would propose to shut down Open entirely. You should at least be honest and admit what you want is nothing but EVE in cockpits. Should I say that this game isn't for you perhaps? You can consider yourself fortunate that you still enjoy some sort of minority protection.

Gonna need a citation on the claim that solo players outnumber ones who play in open, especially since it directly contradicts what the devs have stated.

And it's quite simple: you want to knock over someone's sand castle, you do it in a way that they can defend it. It isn't a perfect proposition and never will be, what with instancing, different play times, and the lack of cross-platform integration- but it would be a step in the right direction.

And I fully acknowledge that winning a BGS war, at its heart, is a grindoff that is agnostic to mode. But we in Loren's Reapers did exactly what I described above and had not only a swell time, but established the first-ever anarchy in Colonia. It not only can work, but does work.

 

[Rick6549]

To return to my original post:


Why?

Why does a player have to follow your moral objection when the game developers explicitly designed it to not require player to player interaction to affect?

This comes up in system chat constantly. There's always at least one person telling solo players they should be in open. Why? Because you want them to be?

You cant stop them, you can only watch and hope you can outdo them

 

[Masta Squidge]

If you do

You cant stop them, you can only watch and hope you can outdo them

Then outdo them.

It wasn't designed nor intended for pvp. Open just lets that layer be added on top for those who like it.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

And so we are at ground zero again. Sorry, not with me, try to convince someone else.
Pro tip: try some new arguments next time and don't be such a yawner.

How unfortunate. I thought that we were having a perfectly amiable conversation.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

Sandro's idea would have gone a long way toward rehabilitating Powerplay and giving PvP its first integrated relevance to the greater PvE environment. It was also extremely well-received by a solid majority of respondents on the old thread, only to be brigaded into oblivion by the usual crowd of dedicated forum manchildren.

I suspect- though cannot prove- that their secret objection wasn't all modes are eekwal! but a concealed dread that PvP stood to suddenly become relevant in "their" game.

Those people are stupid. Disagree with them. Unless they delete solo, its none of their business. Also i hate pvp but whats right is right.

Hang on.. that's exactly what happens in the fss threads.. plot thickens.

 

[Masta Squidge]

I think fdev wants to avoid the largely negative associations highly casual players have with pvp.

Only in doing so they created a very novel situation that somehow added a new problem without getting rid of the first one.

 

[Masta Squidge]

We have a perfectly non-amiable repetition of age old arguments now. And you know it.

Doesn't mean we need to dump gasoline on the dumpster fire.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

We have a perfectly non-amiable repetition of age old arguments now. And you know it.

No, we were fighting, dag nabbit! Fighting about not fighting!

 

[CMDR Cknarf]

Eleven pages, boys. Right on schedule.

Keep up the good work.