Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That's effectively what PvP proponents are telling PvEers when they suggest PvP-gating any game feature....
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
Nothing you said goes against my point about how they messed up with powerplay from its day 1 vs it's stated intent.Talk about a bad workman blaming his tools
Frontier did not "mess up from day 1" at all.
They made and advertised Elite Dangerous from day 1 with the mode system. It's not their fault if you didn't understand the concept that I (or anyone else) do not have to play with you if I (or anyone else) don't want to play with you. It has been a fundamental game mechanic since the release of the game.
And to emphasise the point even more, if I wanted to play in Open Mode and I (and everyone else) still didn't want to play with you personally, there is a "block" feature as well. So even in Open Mode, people can still choose whom to play with in-game.
Your ability to interact with other players is a privilege, not a right.
Im not arguing against the existence of the mode system or who don't want to play with others. I'm not arguing against the use of block.
Ouch, sorry to hear that. I hope you were not stung too badly on it.
A mate of mine is in for £300 so far, and still is holding on to false hope it will be out before he expires (He's 50yr).
We've got a better chance of an offline mode before SC has a proper release, in my opinion.
No it's not, that's just you being melodramatic and hyperbolic.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not even slightly - as every single player bought a game where PvP is entirely optional in all of its game features (except CQC, but that's out-of-game, i.e. not set in a contiguous part of the same galaxy) - so there's not been any reason for any player to even need to tolerate PvP and PvPers when playing the game as it is.
The PvP proponents obviously don't see the issue with PvP-gating game features, as they don't care about how it would adversely affect those who eschew PvP.
I only spent the cost of an AAA game on it - so no worse than my buying other titles that I didn't like.
I've spent considerably more on ED over the years, and reckon it money well spent for the fun the game has given me.
PP didn't have a "stated intent", though, you're just making that up.
Only 1 Dev ever thought mode locking PP was a good idea, and he was removed from the project shortly after saying it - anyone with half a brain can connect those dots.
There is even a video on YouTube of him backtracking after saying it, because he clearly got into trouble for saying it.
Every other Dev and the CEO at the time said that all content (including PP) would be available in all modes. End of the matter.
(and the quotes are still in my sig link "Wall of Information")
A lot of the problem here is that a set of players talked themselves into an expectation that PP2 would require PvP, then convinced themselves that this expectation was widely-held so FD must surely have stated it. In fact FD never said any such thing, PP2 is more or less as FD described, and most of us are finding it moderately OK. I think the only valid criticism I'm aware of is that it's a bit static because reinforcement is easier than undermining.
A single quote from FD could prove me wrong about this. Let's see if one turns up.
Last edited:
Incorrect, in the stream where they introduced the feature, they stated that the core idea of powerplay is pvp, and pledging to a power is essentially a PVP flag. That video is linked in this forum and timestamped to that part a few pages back.
No Robert, as you've said this to me repeatedly, let me repeat myself once again.
No gameplay would be gated away by making pp open only. Nobody would be "adversely effected" either, since there is no adverse effect, because nothing would be lost.
2 people in Solo mode supporting opposing factions is still "PvP"
They are playing against each other indirectly.
You seem to think direct pew pew PvP is the only PvP - and that's your problem.
PP is a PvP feature, but it isn't a pew-pew PvP-only feature.
You seem to think this is some kind of gotcha lol. Yes obviously pp is not purely PVP. Next.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Thanks for so clearly providing an example of "PvP proponents obviously don't see the issue with PvP-gating game features, as they don't care about how it would adversely affect those who eschew PvP".
Just because some players enjoy PvP does not mean that any other player should be forced to tolerate it while engaged in any existing game feature - we all bought the game on that basis even though some can't accept it.
Why shouldn't they? Are they special? Everything else needs to be tolerated, but not this one thing? People who play in powerplay in open need to tolerate others effecting their gameplay adversely. All this same old tired nonsense you spout, as though it's some special consideration or protected class of people being subjected to some unethical situation is just that. Nonsense.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That some can't, or choose not to, accept that they bought a game where no-one needs to play with them to affect its mode shared game features has been obvious for over a decade.
That they seem to think that their preference should over-ride other players' desire not to play with them is just as obvious.
It isn't a "game problem" as some seem to think.
.... and in this game every player affects the shared galaxy while no player needs to play among other players - that's not "the same tired old nonsense", it's a fact.
Once again, your assigning some moral judgement to a discussion about a game feature and a common opinion regarding said game feature.
All this extra moralizing is purely something you are assigning to this discussion because you seem to think it must be a factor, and you seem to think it adds some basis to your argument, when it adds nothing.
If I couldn't accept it I wouldn't be playing the game Robert. Regardless of my acceptance, is my opinion going to change? No.
Not only Robert, apparently... Pot, meet kettle.
Yes, you're right. They must tolerate.
As simple as that.
You can either throw tantrums here for hundreds pages more (all is safe in here, walls are padded thick) or accept that's how this game is - all mods and results in them are equal - but don't expect FD will change anything into Open Only.
Find a way to enjoy the game as it is.
Lets assume that the encounter has already happened and a ship loss has already occurred. The disparity in power or difficulty in such a scenario is moot, if it even exists; there is no larger direct penalty the game will inflict than the rebuy screen. Yet, there are clearly some players that take greater umbrage in this situation if the aggressor was a CMDR than if the aggressor was an NPC. That's the part I find curious; there seems to be a trend to dismiss PvE encounters as part of the game, while holding PvP separate, no matter how similar the circumstances or outcomes.
That leaves us with the 'bad taste' from encountering human-controlled enemies...who would rather prevail than fight on their enemies' terms? As weird as this seems to me, I suppose it must be a thing.
On a side note, a long FSD cooldown is only inflicted if one fails to submit when interdicted (or they collide with some exclusion zone while in the tunnel, which is quite rare). There is a reason I never fight CMDR interdictions, except to stall for time before submitting; it's a false option. One is safer submitting to ten interdictions and facing ten short cooldowns than succeeding in nine escapes then facing a single long cooldown. A full short cooldown is ten second from the moment one drops out of SC and the difference between being stuck in an instance for 25 seconds (assuming one doesn't have a fast charge FSD) and nearly a minute is enormous. The assumption that one has fought the interdiction is an assumption that one not only has no experience, but that one has either not been given, or has failed to heed, sensible advice.
Also, one doesn't need to be a triangle until the moment they decide to establish that tether. If one is only worried about triangles, they're asking to get caught off-guard.
I'm not sure I agree with that either. While I don't think all, or even most, gankers are really looking for a challenge, some surely are, and if they have to go through twenty or thirty encounters to be surprised by a CMDR, that's still a much better rate than they'll find with NPCs, which will essentially never surprise anyone experienced with them.
Plenty of gankers I've been acquainted with would stop what they were doing to chase my CMDR around and they sure weren't doing so because they thought they'd get an easy kill. They either had some personal animosity toward my CMDR and/or they wanted to test their preferred skill sets against someone who knew what they were doing. They may have had little to fear (though they'd still know they were at much greater risk than against any NPC), but they were clearly looking for more than the easiest of all targets available.
Regardless, any sweeping generalization is going to be a dubious one.
And what factors result in a particular disinterest for a PvP encounter vs. an otherwise similar PvE one?
Hostile NPCs are frequently petty annoyances and while there are certainly calls to change/remove them, I get the distinct impression that there are at least as many people that are more adverse to PvP encounters that would be identical, aside from the sensor contact.
Sardonic or not, Solo is definitely a disadvantage for trade (both due to the impossibility of wing trade and the lack of wing beacons, which can easily cut SC travel times by half or more in some cases) and this is an example of how the modes are intrinsically unequal.
Last edited: