Lestat
Banned
I hope it about Planetary landing and walking around your space ship.YES! That's what the 2020 patch has for us, I believe, I believe.
PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"
- Thread starter CMDR KOBAL
- Start date
Sorry, your argument falls flat. Sure, they made adjustments due to how popular it was, but solo was in from the start and so were PGs. FD effectively said, you want a PvE game, you can have it. And a decent percentage of the community took that option.... more than FD expected. Sure, they wanted open to be the default mode, but even in open you can have a 100% PvE game if you want as long as you stay away from core or focus systems.
The option for a PvE game was totally on the table.
Also, you totally went off on a tangent and didn't actually consider what he was saying, which is based on the history of many online games. There are few open world online games that have thrived with PvP with the obvious exceptions of those designed from the ground up to be all about PvP, specifically EvE.
Either they become toxic wastelands until players quit or the devs refocus the game to make PvE or PvP the primary factor, thereby driving one or the other demographic away. Or, they separate the PvPers from the PvEers. This is what Ark did. From the start they separated out the PvP and PvE servers and it works fairly well. Not perfectly, i've heard some bad stories about some PvE servers (people spamming pillars all over the island to stop other clans from building in the prime areas), but its rare to hear about PvEers screaming about gankers beceause they are playing on PvE servers where PvP is disabled. On the other hand, the stories i've heard about the PvP servers... ugh. On one server the main clan would camp the spawn points and as soon as a new player dropped in they would club or tranq them into unconciousness, then put them in a cage. Once in a cage, no way out unless released. Someone tries to break the cage, they get put to sleep again.
PvP has a habit of breeding toxicity and attracting the most toxic players in online games, often ruining the servers for those who wouldn't mind a bit of PvP, but are turned off by the toxic elements.
That is why for my PvP fix i prefer pure PvP games, where there is no PvE or little. Its all about getting the kills, with everyone starting on the same footing, and 20 minutes later, its over, gg, and next round. Toxicty can still exist of course, but it has a lot less impact on the game.
So, what about ED getting a lot more PvP focus and deliberate PvP elements to keep the PvP crowd entertained? Well, for a start, the toxic elements would still get their jollies trying to mine salt from PvEers regardless of how much PvP content was added, and secondly, this is FD we are talking about, who seem to be rather innocent when it comes to development of PvP mechanics. I'm sure you yourself have said words to that effect. Could FD even make add good quality PvP oriented gameplay? I'm not certain, and doubtful without taking something away from the PvE side of things... which would be catering to a minority while annoying a majority.
Once again, i'll point to the missile nerf. Missiles use to be great fun to use, good for PvE, and a nice option. But what happened? That's right, "PvPers" happened. And FD, took a rather draconian approach and nerfed them into the ground and then took a year to make them even slightly useful, and to this date, they remain a very niche weapon, only a bit less so thanks to engineering, all because of the toxic behaviour of a few "PvPers". Note the use of quotes, because to my mind a PvPer is someone who is looking for a good fight against another player, not someone looking to take advantage of game mechanics to harvest salt from an unsuspecting player. Sure, some blame can be laid at FD's door for the "fix", but it happened because of a toxic element within the community.
So, i cannot support any change that is designed to appease the PvP community (with apologies to the non-toxic majority of the PvP community) that will come at a cost to the PvE community. If FD said they were separating PvP out to a different server, where people who wanted to PvP and those who wanted PvE with the risk of PvP could play, i'd be cheering FD along the whole way. Not beause i want that to happen per se, i think PvP has a part to play in ED. But it would contain a lot of the toxicity then on that server, and while the PvE server wouldn't be a paradise by a long way, PvE has its own toxicity at times, it would mean there are no longer changes made to appear the PvPers at a cost to PvE. FD could restore missiles to their former glory, and then the PvEers could use them happily, and if the PvPers start shooting them at each other inside stations, then that's their business.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Oh no, you mean they are making changes based on the PVP part of the game. Maybe thats because the feedback is taken from players that take part in all of the game. Instead of the ones whining when they get blown up or complain about PVPers in general.
Who would have thunk it.
Shocking I know.
This forum right now.
Last edited:
The flaw with that line of thinking is that there is no server as such - at least not in the way it is with the average MMO... other than that singular point, I probably agree with the reset of your post to one degree or another.
Personally, I think the best course of action for FD would be to not change PP to OO but to create a whole new set of optional and separate look-aside mechanics that have no impact on the universe state for those that do not choose to participate. PP could probably still do with improvement but that is a separate matter and should be done in a way that maintains it's current mode-agnostic nature.
yeh you were transparent. What is odd tho, is there I was thinking if any were "crazies" they were the old forum Solo/PG mode-warriors, who've hardly earned a merit in powerplay, arguing speculatively against a bunch of powerplay leaders. I wonder which side has the more informed opinions, and which side is just taking the P-roverbial.
Here's the thing, though. Even in Open, your risks vary wildly, based on where you go in the game, what time you play at, and where you are located on this planet.
Until recently, my typical play windows were during weekday global peak players on days I worked, combined with weekday global minimum players, on days I didn't have to work. My risk was practically non-existent, since I was playing outside of my local prime time.
Back then, should I have been rewarded as heavily as those who were playing during global peak players, which roughly corresponds to European Prime Time? On paper, my risk was greatest at that time, but in reality, due to how instancing "works" in this game, my risk was about as great as it was during global minimum: almost nil. Should the players in Tokyo, Japan, who were playing during their local prime time, have been rewarded poorly due to playing during global minimum players, despite their much greater risks?
And should the player who still connects via dial-up through AOL be rewarded as heavily as the one with the fiber optic connection, even though they're playing in the same city at the same time?
And should an experienced Buckyball Racer flying a blockade runner fit for purpose be rewarded as heavily as someone who insists on following the "forum recommended Supercruise technique" in an unshielded Type-9?
That's the problem with rewarding mode choice as opposed to rewarding actual risk. An Open player would get the same results, regardless of whether their risks are the same as those who are in Solo/PG because they play outside of their local prime time, or as great as the European Prime Time Player who is facing three times the number of players as the East Asian Prime time player.
And you really can't reward actual risk either. Once you start taking player actions into account, you inevitably get collusion between players, or between a player and their alt account(s).
That's why I'm not fussed about the fact that all modes are rewarded equally. I'm absolutely fine with that. My reward for playing in Open is a more interesting game. I don't care that I'm flying under a self-imposed handicap, because I've also got other self-imposed handicaps above and beyond playing in Open, such as the pilot ejection rules. Should I get an even greater reward for that, compared to an Open player? Of course not.
I want an Open that is fun to play in, with as many players as possible, with as little cheating and toxic behavior as possible. To me, the best way of getting that is ensuring that everyone who is in Open is there voluntarily, free from coercion, whether that coercion takes the form of gating gameplay people enjoy behind a PvP-wall, or simply bribing them to play in that mode. It won't eliminate it entirely, but for a PvE/PvP hybrid, Open Mode Elite Dangerous is a far better environment than others I've played in the past, and Powerplay better still in my experience.
Are you referring to those nasty players bothering other people by hauling merits in solo/pg with little risk... or those nasty open only griefers bothering people by attacking trade/exploration vessels in their uber engineered combat Vessels?
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Those two comments pretty much cancel each other out. Well done good sir.
Tell me, youre in a BGS war with another group in colonia. You see them exploring with a bunch of data to horde and bomb with during the next BGS phase before a flip.
Now would it be important to kill that explorer to halt their progress against you?
The answer is yes.
People that arent participating in that sort of thing should still get to explore. But shouldnt get to have an impact on anyone else with that data. Personal gain is fine.
Same goes with powerplay or whatever you want to put in its place. There has to be give and take from both sides. Personal gain would be the rewards you get for participating, or the money/credits you get for turning things in.
So while your comment, I see you trying to make a point and be funny. Is pretty ironically spot on; on how the game is played and where PVP makes a difference.
Last edited:
So now you want Micosoft etc., to bow to your demands?
Lestat
Banned
Kinda reminds me of a Drunk trying to blame the Cops for his DUI.
First Online game was 1960 it was mainstream in the 1990sHas online gaming even been around for 30 years?
Has online gaming even been around for 30 years?
First MUDs starting appearing in the 1970s, IIRC. I started playing them in the late 1980s, myself. If you think people are salty about PvP now, imagine a time when you had pay by the hour for online access, you were on a limited budget, and modem speeds were measured in bauds. I still remember how glorious it was when AOL started offering a flat monthly fee for unlimited access, combined with the power of a 33.6k modem, and Ultima Online, before the Trammel/Feluca split.
Plus they could be playing Elite exclusively, or that was why they brought the game, because they can play an off line mode. I have burned out two xboxes, over the years and never played anything on-line.
You know, there are so many ways I could define you; but they are just not allowed, to be written here.
To night, I have read over 10 pages of your pure selfishness. You make the O.P. look like a saint.
You want change: You claim that concessions and compromise is required, but not from you. Basically, you are demanding change, at any cost to the player base and you are happy to sacrifice the little guys; more than happy: According to you; it is all their fault!
Your campaign to make Elite great again, is hindered by your own input.
Q.E.D.
We have no agenda. We are just defending, the status quo.
Your own agenda however? Well, you have made that, very plain.
Yes, longer actually. Online gaming predates the actual public use of the internet. In the days before the internet we had online services that charged hourly connection fees which hosted various games and also games that allowed you to play online with friends via a direct connection. I had bills of 100's of dollars per month for the former...Has online gaming even been around for 30 years?
That is an opinion, not a fact. The feedback I mean.
A while ago, a big guy in F.D. made a proposal to the players. That feedback, is now reflected, by the inaction, to implement said proposal. That is a fact. Otherwise you would not be here, whining and refusing to accept any reasonable argument against your own demands.