I don't understand this, honestly. It is for chat?
I mean, all interactions are "intermediated" by pixels.
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
I mean, all interactions are "intermediated" by pixels.
I'm really getting sick of the "it's just pixels, bro" excuse. At one point or another you need to accept that for one reason or another, or even no reason at all, some people don't want to play with certain other people. And even though "it's all pixels, man", your "pixels" reflect your playstyle and possibly in-game behavior, the same as my "pixels" represent mine.
Is it so hard to understand that I might not want to play with you, for whatever given reason (not you personally, the proverbial you
)?
I don’t consider cheaters, exploiters, those who weaponize the logjn screen, and those who display unsportsmanlike behavior to be fun to play with. YMMV, naturally.
Consensual PVP I can understand, even if I don't participate. But those people (not pixels) who enjoy blowing up other people's ships and generally ruining another person's gameplay for fun are not people I would consider engaging with in a game or in real life. Lots of garbage humans out there.
A step down from lead/plastic toy soldiers which some of us get very attached to.
If it's all just pixels, ganking, griefing and pad blocking are OK, but so are combat logging, blocking and playing in Solo. (Black pixels are just as good as other colours).I'm really getting sick of the "it's just pixels, bro" excuse. At one point or another you need to accept that for one reason or another, or even no reason at all, some people don't want to play with certain other people. And even though "it's all pixels, man", your "pixels" reflect your playstyle and possibly in-game behavior, the same as my "pixels" represent mine.
Is it so hard to understand that I might not want to play with you, for whatever given reason (not you personally, the proverbial you
Last edited:
Its not just a pixels. It is time and effort Players are investing in "moving" those "pixels" and usually expecting to have some positive emotions and some fun in return.
If that is just a pixels then why in the Galaxy particular group of people so focused on finding opposition from human-driven pixels? What is wrong with NPC-driven pixels? Or those NPCs also refusing "to play" with that particular group of people?
If that is just a pixels then why in the Galaxy particular group of people so focused on finding opposition from human-driven pixels? What is wrong with NPC-driven pixels? Or those NPCs also refusing "to play" with that particular group of people?
But how you can remember all people... huh I have like 1200+ "friends" across my various accountsI'm really getting sick of the "it's just pixels, bro" excuse. At one point or another you need to accept that for one reason or another, or even no reason at all, some people don't want to play with certain other people. And even though "it's all pixels, man", your "pixels" reflect your playstyle and possibly in-game behavior, the same as my "pixels" represent mine.
Is it so hard to understand that I might not want to play with you, for whatever given reason (not you personally, the proverbial you
usually my behaviour is "look name / looksquadron / look pledge -> if enemy -> engage or die" very flat tlined lol. Others can do same with me, fair enough... I can't see where's the line that could lead me to a point where I can say "I don't like to play with you".Because humans are unpredictable.
I know very well a young girl who robs CMDRs and kaboom ships too... but she's a nice girl IRL, loves animals etc. so I bet that statement is impossible to prove.
I don't want your pixels in my game. I don't have to have them in my game. So I'm not going to have them in my game.
And I don't think about you or your pixels when I play, so why are my pixels so important to you?
Are they?
Can you imagine your pixel doing something other then just pew-pew anything on-sight?
But my pixels are mining, hauling, exploring, doing some RES cleaning, blowing pirates, covert stealing from settlements, delivering packages, restoring power, etc. So, all what you want in ED is that my pixels abandoning whatever they (me) were doing and pew-pew with yours because I'm unpredictable?! Sure I do unpredictable to some degree, but to be punished for that in game I paid for?
Here is somewhat unpredictable proposition: my pixels will pew-pew with yours (till re-buy situation), but I would expect something in return: when I go mining, your pixels will be mining same asteroid that I do. When I'm hauling something, you are hauling next to me. Same for exploring and on-foot.
Self-destruct button is "disabled" for you. That is all lasts till one of us goes into re-buy situation (have to warn from the beginning that my character has significantly more moral principles then I do IRL but sneaky and careful so it could take pretty long till re-buy situation).
Sounds boring to you? How "unpredictable" it is...
In modern game design, players are often categorized into four archetypes:
- Killers
- Achievers
- Socializers
- Explorers
Their interactions create the unpredictability and challenge that make multiplayer environments dynamic and engaging.
Instead of dismissing them, it's worth recognizing that they contribute to the game design as intended.
If you're interested in exploring this further, you can start with the Bartle taxonomy of player types.
Excellent breakdown, BTW!
Exactly. Nobody ever stated that Killers are not valid gamestyle in ED. In fact you will not be able to find a single user without at least some Combat experience.
What is really happening is that 3 other categories losing hope to explain Killers that they are not only archetype in ED and other 3 types are not willing to be a target-on-demand for Killers if they don't have to. And they don't have to - exactly this is major selling point for many ED Players, including me.
P.S. another topic to be converted into endless "Open-only" rumble.
They don’t have to until they join Open.
However, if they do (and I’m not an Open-only integralist), I believe they should be rewarded more for activities like trade, mining, exploration, merits, or influence.
The additional risk taken in Open should be acknowledged and incentivized.
By doing so, Open becomes an opportunity rather than just the risk of having one’s personal gameplay disrupted.
This approach encourages more players to participate in Open by offering tangible benefits, making it a choice that balances risk and reward effectively.
Yes, yes, yes!!! That is a key point from my side. I don't want to speak for others, but for me that is crucial point: when I decided to take that
Again personally I would be very, very interested in a wing-type Convoy guard, or opposite, Convoy attack missions. Would be very cool to have in Open a settlement defence missions. Basically there are endless opportunities to have really exiting activity in Open (not Open-only, see about decisions above), but we have what we have.
In short words my point is and always was: Being pew-pewed while hauling/exploring/mining is not a risk, it a major time wasting inconvenience. Being attacked in Open - interesting opportunity, since I'm not just prepared, I'm willing to fight. Decisions.
Unfortunately, due to known behaviour of some people in Open currently mode switch in Main Menu frequently used more like unwanted Combat off/on switch (AFAIK).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Are they really though? Those who preferentially target weaker ships are very predictable....
Thank you, but I am not interested. And IMO the players I described are not worth recognizing. But that's just me.
To which 'statement' are you referring to?