And this is what I try to tell people who say 'increase PP NPC numbers'. You can't, because the spawn rates would change. The BGS too is interesting but also annoying in that it works to antagonise.
All players have the choice to fly in open, including those on consoles, so that makes no sense. If the pain of console owners' personal choices is too great then console players could be exempted from any restriction, since they are a minority that could be accommodated as a compromise. Just pointing it out.
The problem is it depends on a lot of factors, and that there is a mixing between what Sandro suggested and what happens now. It also does not help the bonuses have been kept at 2015 levels- 50 million was a lot in the day, now its chump change.
Its why in 2014 crime should have paid the most but come with the most baggage. In 2021 the most humdrum lawful jobs pay the most and come with no baggage at all.
Not all console players can play in the multi-player game modes - and premium platform access is not a requirement of playing the game.
Singling out those who choose not to or cannot pay subscriptions for premium platform access wouldn't be a good look.
It was not a good look canning Offline, or the Mac client, or delaying consoles. But they did it.
Tbh, I don't have to satisfy whatever your concept of rationality is. The myths you and others keep peddling against all evidence and explanation to the contrary convinces me that that concept lacks some value, or that you struggle to see outside an ingrained view. It's a hiding to nothing trying to get past that. I tend to think of things, of course from my own constituency's point of view, but also from the point of view of a developer (a) trying to create a good game that they can be proud of and achieves something special that other games don't, while (b) squaring that with growing and maintaining their active player base. Not too niche, not too bland. That's where, to me, the rational motivation to change and improve the game comes from. If pan-modal gameplay always has to be a bland catch-all then no feature will ever shine or be its best. Arguably all that matters is dev time and net player satisfaction (along with general game integrity). I'm struggling to see what is not rational here.
Indeed - and reaped the consequences for doing so. In that respect changing the "all modes are equal and valid choices" philosophy would be a completely aviodable own goal.
It's the rallying point for those seeking to force a PvP-gated feature in to the game. If it happened, regardless of what Frontier said, the demands for Open only "all the things" would continue unabated and with greater fervour (as was seen in the jubilant responses of Open-BGS proponents in the Flash Topic threads regardless of Sandro's clarity on the limited scope of any Open only proposal that formed part of an investigation that was clearly stated not to be a fait-accompli) as the first hurdle would have been overcome
Probably because if he didn't raise it then it would be raised in the thread - noting that it was only ever a proposal, i.e. a potential, "no ETAs, no guarantees", outcome. He later went a bit further in what seems to be his last stream appearance before he left the project:
Sandro Sammarco; Lavecon Recap and Mining Focused Feedback said:
I paid an awful lot for my PC compared to a console. This was a choice. I expect to get what I paid for, even if it wasn't paid to FDev. If I'd paid much less for a console, I'd be accepting (and indeed was when I owned one) of the knowing compromises I was making regsrding performance and online play, however annoying they were.
I too like Status Quo.
Currently, players are forced to go to closed modes for maximum efficiency. Is this not gating? I was sold a game where mode selection was a free choice. Mode selection with mode-exclusive content for all modes would represent an equal restriction to all players, regardless of their mode preference. That at least seems fair to all preferences.
If this were to be in any way consequential (apart from being a forum annoyance), FDev would have to have recognised that OOPP had been a roaring success. Presumably you think this would be the case? Are you against it out of self-interest as a forum moderator?
Of course - there's no requirement to reach any agreement.
I haven't seen anything posted that contradicts the facts of the matter, i.e.:
It's natural for those who don't agree with the game's design to seek to have it changed to suit them - it's also natural for those who would be adversely affected by the proposals to oppose them. There's no need whatsoever for the opposition to give ground.
Problem is, if that was more effective than the current ways of ejecting a power from systems, it'd be the go-to for the opposing powers too. It becomes an argument for just generally making powers easier to dislodge. Which I'm not saying is a bad idea, in fact.
Okay, so I'll see it as you taking a stance for the status quo, even though in principle on other topics you might be more open to change. Fair enough.
Not all players can - minimum spec PCs are not that expensive.
The Eagles have a song that's more appropriate to this discussion.
They bought a game that revolves around PvE, not PvP - if choosing to play among other players who may shoot at them makes them less efficient then that is their choice and their choice alone.
When faced with demands for change to suit a subset of the player-base to the detriment of others, the fallback position is indeed the status quo - as we all bought that, and we would not agree that all proposed changes would constitute an improvement to our gameplay. Like playing in Open, one can choose not to continue along a discussion path at any time.
<Cough cough> Oddyssey
Definitely drinking to forget.The Eagles have a song that's more appropriate to this discussion.
Okay, so you see this (and Frontier as agreeing) that PvE is the privileged game experience, and PvP is an addon (well, really, a nuisance that should be tidied away). And yet, Frontier might find that they've actually created a gem without realising it - the flight model and scenario possibilites that keep PvPers interested in a game that on its other bases doesn't fully engage them. What do they do with that? "Aaah, we were never interested in that, we're not now", or make more of it? BGS, Powerplay and perhaps all of the game features have gone in ways that they really didn't anticipate. And they've run with it, generally. Not running with it re: PvP so far has led to a lot of the dissatisfaction with asymmetry of encounters and with C&P, and the flight by many to closed modes. For some the answer is to, in some form, ban PvP. But it's a short-sighted attitude.
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
