Modes Reworking the game modes

[Darkfyre99]

Traders in open should get significant increase in sell prices.

Same with bounty hunting and player bounty hunting.

Criminality should pay as well, local pirate factions should give missions to assassinate players for rewards.

BGS/PP activity should give extra rewards in open

Why?

The only difference between Open and other modes is the degree of control over the players you can potentially be instanced with. Even in Open, Frontier has given players a great deal of control over that as well. Most days in Open, I rarely see any players in Open, even in hot spots like CGs and Engineers.

I am also very rarely get bothered by so-called “Pirates,” the the point where I’d almost welcome being attacked... if it wasn’t for the fact that the type of player who attacks unarmed, novice ranked trade ships are so pathetic at PvP, I feel the safe to play the “lets see how long it takes them to get a clue” game, if I’m in the right mood. Most of the time, I’ll just shake them off and be on my merry way. They simply aren’t worth my time or effort otherwise.

Players don’t play in Open because they are “scared” to. They don’t play in Open because certain players demand other players be their intent, but are unwilling to return the favor. This type of player simply isn’t fun to play with, and different people have different tolerance levels towards that kind of behavior. Main is fairly high, so I primarily play in Open.

The only time a player should earn a reward for playing in Open is if they face actual opposition, not some nebulous threat that may or may not materialize, based on instancing, friend or block lists, time zone, region, and platform. Personally, I think playing in Open is it’s own reward, but I wouldn’t say no to a boost in influence or merits (should Powerplay missions be added) if I make a so-called “pirate” look like the incompetent they are.

 

[Haggbad Celine]

The modes debate has been going on for so long now. All attempts to persuade / coerce / cajole / force Frontier to change their stance have failed thus far.

Changing one's viewpoint is a normal bargaining strategy in the face of opposition. That not all players agree that there is a problem that needs to be solved suggests that the position of those seeking change is not that great.
Also, nothing is being offered by those seeking change.

Perfect meme here.

An adaption of one's viewpoint is not also a normal bargaining strategy but the core of diplomacy as bargaining is a necessity when bringing together the interest of potentially conflicting parties.
If all attempts have failed so far, maybe the correct argumentation to summarize the issue were not found yet.

I am not sure how am I not offering anything within my argumentation.
I think I've made several suggestions already, but if you like I can be more concrete.

Maybe perfect is too strong - however the modes certainly offer the functionality that they were included in the game design, over five years ago, to provide.

True, they offer the option of choosing with whom you play.
I was arguing that the private vs public modes are biased towards certain actions.
Resulting in aspects that make the game less enjoyable for everyone.

Mobius is an example I'd like to mention at this point.
50k people create a private group to be able to have a multiplayer experience of this game, while not being annoyed by terrorists.
I am not critizing their choice, as it's totally reasonable. Also I don't want to force them to open.

Why is there such an amount of meaningless murder that 50k people decide to not visit that place for most of the time?
Also why is the game not able to keep the terrorists in check in the first place?

Everyone (apart from console players without premium platform access) can choose to play in all game modes - in that respect the modes are balanced. That some choose to play in a mode where combative player interaction is possible (but not guaranteed) is very much their choice.

The crux of the matter is, in my opinion, as follows:

1) direct PvP was designed to be, and remains, completely optional.
2) all players both experience and affect the single shared galaxy state.
3) due to 1) some players feel that "their" game is being influenced by "hidden" attack - when there's no guarantee that any opposition is deliberate, conducted by players on the same platform, in the same timezone, on the same continent (i.e. could they instance with the other players even if they played on the same platform at the same time?).
4) players can (dependent on relative skill, numeric superiority, ship loadout, Engineering, etc.) pose a greater hazard than NPCs.
5) players that prefer direct PvP cannot dictate the terms of engagement on any opposition.

Direct PvP being optional does not conflict it having impact. It being reduced to meaninglessness is what creates scenarios of like SDC showcasing balancing issues by terrorizing open (esp. missions like healies for feelies). The possible impact you can have from PvP is creating forum outcries, exodus of playergroups and of course celebrating yourself after winning a noble duel as well sometimes being able to protect the innocent noobwinder from a gank. Feel free to add anything to this list I may have missed.

The three modes / single shared galaxy state design does this pretty well, in my opinion - for a game where direct PvP is optional.

Well in my opinion the current design doesn't do it pretty well and I've stated several reasons why.

As some players have found, they cannot dominate the game through PvP (no matter how much they might wish otherwise). That some players then resort to simply annoying other players says more about them than the game, in my opinion.

It's not about dominating the game through PvP, yet it could be argued that having a 50k player exodus into a private group would be such a thing...
How annoying players are to be interpreted and if they are all sociopaths or if the game incentivizes that behaviour is a matter of this discussion.
An opinion without any explanation behind it, is pretty pointless in that regards. So please argue why it say more about the players than about the game.

I already stated the symptoms and why they are not sociopaths and unfairly get labeled as such.
As well as that it speaks for how a such delicate matter of psychological and sociological impact is handled.

What constitutes "meaningful consensual PvP" and how would it be ensured that the disinterested weren't bothered by those that engage in it?

If you don't want the change the fundamentals of the game modes, consensual means joining open.
Meaningful means the engagement didn't primarly aim at destroying a vessel but used that as a tool to achieve a certain goal.

Total disinterest in any player engagements can still be assured by joining private groups or playng solo.
But that's not the point, the point is to give player engagements more of a variety in meaning so the PvP aspect doesn't come down to terrorism.

Must have missed that bit.

At this point I can't tell if you are not able to understand my argumentation and why that is or if you just don't want to.
If you don't want to, there is no point in arguing with me, except boasting yourself in front of the community.

The only consent in this game is implicit in one's choice of game mode, i.e. choose to play in a multi-player game mode and one's ship can be attacked by any player that one encounters. There is no PvP flagging in this game. So it's not a case of being able (or not) to participate in a direct PvP fight, it's more a case of being engaged in one regardless of whether one finds it to be "fun".

Yep. I emphasize making PvP more fun by giving it meaning and impact.

 

[Robert Maynard]

An adaption of one's viewpoint is not also a normal bargaining strategy but the core of diplomacy as bargaining is a necessity when bringing together the interest of potentially conflicting parties.
If all attempts have failed so far, maybe the correct argumentation to summarize the issue were not found yet.

I am not sure how am I not offering anything within my argumentation.
I think I've made several suggestions already, but if you like I can be more concrete.

Indeed - the viewpoint may not change but the offer / demand might (when it is recognised that some things are not viable options).

My point regarding nothing being offered is that, when requests / demands are made to change the relationship of the game modes (e.g. to make player actions affect the single shared galaxy state differently in two of the three game modes), it's "taking" only, offering nothing in return for the change to those players who might be affected by the change.

True, they offer the option of choosing with whom you play.
I was arguing that the private vs public modes are biased towards certain actions.
Resulting in aspects that make the game less enjoyable for everyone.

Mobius is an example I'd like to mention at this point.
50k people create a private group to be able to have a multiplayer experience of this game, while not being annoyed by terrorists.
I am not critizing their choice, as it's totally reasonable. Also I don't want to force them to open.

Why is there such an amount of meaningless murder that 50k people decide to not visit that place for most of the time?
Also why is the game not able to keep the terrorists in check in the first place?

Mobius has changed the rules recently - the existence of the group is not just to permit players to not be annoyed by "terrorists", it's to permit them to play in a PvE environment (i.e. players that attempt PvP in those Private Groups are kicked out).

Mobius offers what the game does not - an "Open" game mode where PvP is not permitted, by consent of all members.

Direct PvP being optional does not conflict it having impact. It being reduced to meaninglessness is what creates scenarios of like SDC showcasing balancing issues by terrorizing open (esp. missions like healies for feelies). The possible impact you can have from PvP is creating forum outcries, exodus of playergroups and of course celebrating yourself after winning a noble duel as well sometimes being able to protect the innocent noobwinder from a gank. Feel free to add anything to this list I may have missed.

It rather sounds like the fact that PvP is optional is enough for some players to consider it to be meaningless.

Well in my opinion the current design doesn't do it pretty well and I've stated several reasons why.

I'll agree to disagree on that point then.

It's not about dominating the game through PvP, yet it could be argued that having a 50k player exodus into a private group would be such a thing...
How annoying players are to be interpreted and if they are all sociopaths or if the game incentivizes that behaviour is a matter of this discussion.
An opinion without any explanation behind it, is pretty pointless in that regards. So please argue why it say more about the players than about the game.

I already stated the symptoms and why they are not sociopaths and unfairly get labeled as such.
As well as that it speaks for how a such delicate matter of psychological and sociological impact is handled.

The game does not incentivise poor behaviour - there's no reward for destroying clean players (no cargo, no materials / data, etc.). That players who are frustrated that players can continue to play the game without encountering them resort to it only serves to add adverse feedback to the negative feedback loop for those that don't want to encounter players that don't provide "fun" encounters.

Players don't need to be tagged with labels for other players to not have "fun" when interacting with them - play-styles differ and when one player's preference is destroying other players' ships that necessarily conflicts with the play-style of players that don't like being destroyed by players - especially when the latter are not in ships outfitted for combat (with combat being only one of the three paths to Elite).

If you don't want the change the fundamentals of the game modes, consensual means joining open.
Meaningful means the engagement didn't primarly aim at destroying a vessel but used that as a tool to achieve a certain goal.

Total disinterest in any player engagements can still be assured by joining private groups or playng solo.
But that's not the point, the point is to give player engagements more of a variety in meaning so the PvP aspect doesn't come down to terrorism.

For some, meaningful direct PvP requires that the content being engaged in *cannot* be engaged in in either Solo or Private Groups.

Examples of what could constitute meaningful direct PvP, in the context of no game content being restricted to a single game mode, would be useful.

At this point I can't tell if you are not able to understand my argumentation and why that is or if you just don't want to.
If you don't want to, there is no point in arguing with me, except boasting yourself in front of the community.

Apologies, you missed my edit:

Open works in exactly the same way as the other two game modes - in and of itself, Open is just a different setting on the matchmaking system, i.e. which players one can possibly meet.

My point is that, with player interactions being optional and PvP being unrestricted in the multi-player modes, Open is "working as expected".

Yep. I emphasize making PvP more fun by giving it meaning and impact.

Giving reasons for direct PvP does not guarantee that players that don't enjoy direct PvP will find being on the receiving end of unasked for PvP to be "fun".

Frontier would seem to want the population of Open to increase - I doubt that those that eschew direct PvP would be more likely to play in Open if the likelihood of direct PvP were to be increased.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Indeed - the viewpoint may not change but the offer / demand might (when it is recognised that some things are not viable options).

My point regarding nothing being offered is that, when requests / demands are made to change the relationship of the game modes (e.g. to make player actions affect the single shared galaxy state differently in two of the three game modes), it's "taking" only, offering nothing in return for the change to those players who might be affected by the change.



Mobius has changed the rules recently - the existence of the group is not just to permit players to not be annoyed by "terrorists", it's to permit them to play in a PvE environment (i.e. players that attempt PvP in those Private Groups are kicked out).

Mobius offers what the game does not - an "Open" game mode where PvP is not permitted, by consent of all members.



It rather sounds like the fact that PvP is optional is enough for some players to consider it to be meaningless.



I'll agree to disagree on that point then.



The game does not incentivise poor behaviour - there's no reward for destroying clean players (no cargo, no materials / data, etc.). That players who are frustrated that players can continue to play the game without encountering them resort to it only serves to add adverse feedback to the negative feedback loop for those that don't want to encounter players that don't provide "fun" encounters.

Players don't need to be tagged with labels for other players to not have "fun" when interacting with them - play-styles differ and when one player's preference is destroying other players' ships that necessarily conflicts with the play-style of players that don't like being destroyed by players - especially when the latter are not in ships outfitted for combat (with combat being only one of the three paths to Elite).



For some, meaningful direct PvP requires that the content being engaged in *cannot* be engaged in in either Solo or Private Groups.

Examples of what could constitute meaningful direct PvP, in the context of no game content being restricted to a single game mode, would be useful.



Apologies, you missed my edit:



My point is that, with player interactions being optional and PvP being unrestricted in the multi-player modes, Open is "working as expected".



Giving reasons for direct PvP does not guarantee that players that don't enjoy direct PvP will find being on the receiving end of unasked for PvP to be "fun".

Frontier would seem to want the population of Open to increase - I doubt that those that eschew direct PvP would be more likely to play in Open if the likelihood of direct PvP were to be increased.

Man you're really against PVP huh. This is crazy.

 

[Para Handy]

Man you're really against PVP huh. This is crazy.

Actually I read it as them being against any idea of forcing (overtly or covertly) players to play in a mode in which they can be preyed upon as content for others.

All the various arguments put forward by PvP aficionados against solo and PG are really just trying to give themselves more player targets.

"Engineers" killed any remote possibility of a single-mode system so basically the argument is just wasted effort.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There's a difference between being against something and neither enjoying it nor wishing to take part in it. In the context of this game, it has been rather clear from the very beginning that direct PvP is optional - therefore no player is required to participate in it to engage in any game content.

I'm one of the apparent majority of players that Frontier would seem to be well aware don't get involved in PvP, because I simply do not enjoy direct PvP. That's not to suggest that I don't recognise that other players do enjoy and participate in direct PvP though.

Frontier gave players options in regard to who they might meet in the game - those options remain contentious for some players, however Frontier's stance rather seems to remain the same on the matter (and they're aware that not all players agree).

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

There's a difference between being against something and neither enjoying it nor wishing to take part in it. In the context of this game, it has been rather clear from the very beginning that direct PvP is optional - therefore no player is required to participate in it.

I'm one of the apparent majority of players that Frontier would seem to be well aware don't get involved in PvP, because I simply do not enjoy direct PvP. That's not to suggest that I don't recognise that other players do enjoy and participate in direct PvP though.

Frontier gave players options in regard to who they might meet in the game - those options remain contentious for some players, however Frontier's stance rather seems to remain the same on the matter (and they're aware that not all players agree).

And thats okay! I am with you. When I played world of warcraft. I played on a PVE server. EVEN though the game was built on Horde Vs Alliance.

But in WoW if you attacked The Alliance( I was horde). You were flagged. There was no undermining when you attacked their home bases. Meaning if you tried to kill the town boss. You were automatically flagged and the Alliance had the chance to stop you. EVEN ON A PVE SERVER.

Thats all anyone is asking for here with Powerplay and BGS. Stuff thats built around effecting each other.

If you dont have intentions on effecting someone else. Then you should be good right.

Listen I know we've has our internet battles. But there has to be some give and take here.

You just cant continue to attack another player faction. Without giving meaning to "Direct PVP" Whether you like it or not.

Whats super frustrating out of all this is; You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You want to attack someone without being directly stopped. Just because YOU dont like it.

Well you gotta remember there are people that dont like being attacked through the BGS either. People should at least have the chance to defend themselves against UA bombers and what not. Oh we have to farm in return? Because someone else made the decision to attack a players system. But they opted out of PVP because they dont like it. Farm or lose.

Sorry man thats not gonna fly. I dont care what game you're playing.

David Braben himself can come in here and tell me this. And I will tell him the same thing. Hes Wrong, Hes wrong about Solo balancing out actions in Open. When objectives are taken in solo due to min maxing +++ and removing yourself from direct PVP so you cant be stopped. Simple ship bulds and NPC interaction can confirm this.

Its not balanced Maynard. Its not fair to the community. I respect your opinion but there are two sides to every coin. And you need to look at both of them.

If you are PVEing and playing with a little faction somewhere thats fine. But as soon as you intentionally start effecting other players. The rules need to change.

What does it take to meet in the middle with you here?

 

[Robert Maynard]

The game is based on all players both experiencing and affecting the single shared galaxy state - that's Frontier's desired player experience from the outset. There's no caveat regarding which game mode they play in.

To suggest that some players should have their effects on parts of the game negated simply because of their choice of mode is unreasonable, in my opinion - in a game where direct PvP is, and remains, optional.

It's also a binary state - there is no compromise. Either all players affect the game, regardless of game mode, or they don't.

Sandro mused briefly about an Open play bonus for Powerplay (for the Power only and not the player and for PowerPlay only, not anything else) two years ago (this week) - then confirmed 9 months later that he had just been musing and that there were no plans to do so. A bonus for one part of the game was as far as he went in his musings, i.e. not removing the effects of players in Solo or Private Groups, and even then those were only musings (that proved contentious at the time) and were not implemented - that in and of itself might be rather telling in relation to the stance of Frontier as a company with regard to the issue.

Everyone's options are equal in relation to attack / defence through the BGS - however no player can dictate the terms of engagement (i.e. players that want to oppose using direct PvP can't demand that their opposition make themselves available). That some consider playing in Open to be worth "more" is unsurprising - however Frontier, in the three years since launch, have not chosen to introduce increased rewards just for choosing one of the three game mode options.

Regarding the cake - every player bought (or backed) the cake that is described in either the Kickstarter or on Frontier's game website (which continues to state that players in Solo can affect the economy, politics and conflicts of the shared galaxy). I know which cake I bought - that some players want the recipe to be changed is obvious - Frontier have not chosen to do so though.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

The game is based on all players both experiencing and affecting the single shared galaxy state - that's Frontier's desired player experience from the outset. There's no caveat regarding which game mode they play in.

To suggest that some players should have their effects on parts of the game negated simply because of their choice of mode is unreasonable, in my opinion - in a game where direct PvP is, and remains, optional.

It's also a binary state - there is no compromise. Either all players affect the game, regardless of game mode, or they don't.

Sandro mused briefly about an Open play bonus for Powerplay (for the Power only and not the player and for PowerPlay only, not anything else) two years ago (this week) - then confirmed 9 months later that he had just been musing and that there were no plans to do so. A bonus for one part of the game was as far as he went in his musings, i.e. not removing the effects of players in Solo or Private Groups, and even then those were only musings (that proved contentious at the time) and were not implemented - that in and of itself might be rather telling in relation to the stance of Frontier as a company with regard to the issue.

Everyone's options are equal in relation to attack / defence through the BGS - however no player can dictate the terms of engagement (i.e. players that want to oppose using direct PvP can't demand that their opposition make themselves available). That some consider playing in Open to be worth "more" is unsurprising - however Frontier, in the three years since launch, have not chosen to introduce increased rewards just for choosing one of the three game mode options.

Regarding the cake - every player bought (or backed) the cake that is described in either the Kickstarter or on Frontier's game website (which continues to state that players in Solo can affect the economy, politics and conflicts of the shared galaxy). I know which cake I bought - that some players want the recipe to be changed is obvious - Frontier have not chosen to do so though.

Indeed. But thats why people are asking for change.

Some people dont want it.

but the difference between me and everyone else here. Is I bring facts to an opinion fight. I show the need for change with math, screenshots and so many other things. And im not the only one. There have been countless people that has came through here showing the reasons for change.

I got news for you Maynard. Games change man. For example back to World of Warcraft. That game is no where close to the same when I bought it. Same with League of Legends. Its changed. Everything about the games have changed.

You maybe disappointed in change if and when it happens to Elite. Because it will. Changes are made to games to revitalize them. To shake things up. To bring more people in. To cater to all sorts of gameplay. Not just one.

And just like every other game developer out there. Its only a matter of time before Fdev changes this one too. Its just common sense my man.

I know you mean well. But the game is not in a healthy place when it comes to this stuff. And thats not an opinion. That a fact.

I really do try to leave my opinions out of it. And just show facts based of ship builds, what and how the community acts. Even being able to find the people I fought in the BGS in their modes.

Optional PVP in a place where people are attacking each other is not healthy. People are beating each other up over this stuff. How long have you been a mod now? I know you see it maynard.

So lets stop pretending there doesnt need to be change. Just because you wont like those changes.

Its as simple as this, if there is a part of the game thats changed. Where PVP is NOT OPTIONAL. Then dont take part in it. You are free to do anything else you'd like. But stop trying to snub a playerbase because of your own opinions.

Again, as games continue to grow they change. Sooner or later they will give meaningful PVP. I mean even ED said it on stream. "We hear you and we are working on it". Right after they laughed about the meaningful PVP thing with Bo. But everyone tends to forget and leave that part out.

I didnt.

 

[Theodrid]

The game is based on all players both experiencing and affecting the single shared galaxy state - that's Frontier's desired player experience from the outset. There's no caveat regarding which game mode they play in.

To suggest that some players should have their effects on parts of the game negated simply because of their choice of mode is unreasonable, in my opinion - in a game where direct PvP is, and remains, optional.

It's also a binary state - there is no compromise. Either all players affect the game, regardless of game mode, or they don't.

Sandro mused briefly about an Open play bonus for Powerplay (for the Power only and not the player and for PowerPlay only, not anything else) two years ago (this week) - then confirmed 9 months later that he had just been musing and that there were no plans to do so. A bonus for one part of the game was as far as he went in his musings, i.e. not removing the effects of players in Solo or Private Groups, and even then those were only musings (that proved contentious at the time) and were not implemented - that in and of itself might be rather telling in relation to the stance of Frontier as a company with regard to the issue.

Everyone's options are equal in relation to attack / defence through the BGS - however no player can dictate the terms of engagement (i.e. players that want to oppose using direct PvP can't demand that their opposition make themselves available). That some consider playing in Open to be worth "more" is unsurprising - however Frontier, in the three years since launch, have not chosen to introduce increased rewards just for choosing one of the three game mode options.

Regarding the cake - every player bought (or backed) the cake that is described in either the Kickstarter or on Frontier's game website (which continues to state that players in Solo can affect the economy, politics and conflicts of the shared galaxy). I know which cake I bought - that some players want the recipe to be changed is obvious - Frontier have not chosen to do so though.

Indeed RM, and the whole issue is compounded further by the fact that a decent number of those calling for restrictions on how and when solo and PG can be used are the same people that tell folk to leave open because they can't or don't want to fight, or because they have less than optimal internet connections, It really is an attempt to rub salt into a wound they inflicted, 'hey guys, get out of open, your internet sucks, oh, and by the way, we're nerfing your game experience too, you can't do x, y and z now, what do you mean you paid as much as I did for the whole game? - that's irrelevant I want pew pew'.

 

[Jockey79]

Is I bring facts to an opinion fight.

You've brought exactly 1 fact, which was;

[video=youtube;nvMYy0ry9mA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvMYy0ry9mA[/video]

Everything else is opinions of your friends, which are not facts.

There have been countless people that has came through here showing the reasons for change.

Less than 50.

Mobius has over 40,000 members - long way to catch up.

Frontier did add some compulsory PvP however, called Arena (CQC) - feel free to enjoy it.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

You've brought exactly 1 fact, which was;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvMYy0ry9mA

Everything else is opinions of your friends, which are not facts.



Less than 50.

Mobius has over 40,000 members - long way to catch up.

Frontier did add some compulsory PvP however, called Arena (CQC) - feel free to enjoy it.

Im in mobius. GG. you're really bad with numbers btw. Active people during certain activities and all that stuff. There are lots of technicalities and variables here to when people use the modes. People are always going to take the option when it benefits them.

[video=youtube;cnYXTh4TCVo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYXTh4TCVo[/video]

And CQC was so much of a failure they pulled it off steam.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If the spin-off game that was dedicated to direct PvP (and there were no NPCs - so it was pure-play direct PvP) was so unpopular that it was removed from sale, what might that suggest to Frontier regarding the popularity of PvP in general?

.... bearing in mind that they can (and I'd expect do) mine their in-game analytics for useful information regarding the play-preferences of the player-base....

 

[Jockey79]

Im in mobius.

Congratulations, you're a hypocrite.
You spew only only propaganda but play PGs.

Try living up to your forum posts before demanding the rest of us do so.

you're really bad with numbers btw. Active people during certain activities and all that stuff.

I never said anything about "active" members, I said it has 40,000 members - not when they play or how many play.
So much like your "facts" you're making things up as you go along.

For member information go to;

https://elitepve.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYXTh4TCVo

And again with the fictional information.
You know anyone can remake this video in Open Mode right, with exactly the same results.

In a court of law, this would be laughed out of it - and I know, I've made actual real life evidence packs for court.

And CQC was so much of a failure they pulled it off steam.

Showing just how little anyone cares for PvP around here.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

I dont understand all the people who argue against giving OPEN extra benefits? WHY THE HELL NOT?

Is it pure jealousy? If you are a solo player why do you care about increased benefits in OPEN? I dont get this selfish stuburness that is coming from players that HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENTS, meaning they never stepped into OPEN to begin with.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I dont understand all the people who argue against giving OPEN extra benefits? WHU THE HELL NOT?

If there's no argument against offering a bonus for a single game mode then why not offer it in all modes?

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Congratulations, you're a hypocrite.
You spew only only propaganda but play PGs.

Try living up to your forum posts before demanding the rest of us do so.



I never said anything about "active" members, I said it has 40,000 members - not when they play or how many play.
So much like your "facts" you're making things up as you go along.

For member information go to;

https://elitepve.com/




And again with the fictional information.
You know anyone can remake this video in Open Mode right, with exactly the same results.

In a court of law, this would be laughed out of it - and I know, I've made actual real life evidence packs for court.



Showing just how little anyone cares for PvP around here.

CQC is nothing to do with PvP.

 

[Theodrid]

I dont understand all the people who argue against giving OPEN extra benefits? WHY THE HELL NOT?

Is it pure jealousy? If you are a solo player why do you care about increased benefits in OPEN? I dont get this selfish stuburness that is coming from players that HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENTS, meaning they never stepped into OPEN to begin with.

Cut it out Al, there is nothing more selfish than your real agenda here, more pew pew targets, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Robert Maynard]

CQC is nothing to do with PvP.

Interesting - the only gameplay feature in CQC is combat - direct PvP combat at that.

I'm curious, why does PvP combat in CQC have nothing to do with PvP?

 

[ALGOMATIC]

If there's no argument against offering a bonus for a single game mode then why not offer it in all modes?

But why would you care about a mode you dont play in? It doesn't affect you in any way.
Some murderhobos in OPEN will get more credits here and there by playing some aspects of the game. You wont neet them, you wont interact with them, they dont exist as far as you are concerned.
Why would you care if someone got richer a bit quicker in OPEN?