The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Robert Maynard]

Hence why my position is adjustment of an already existing feature, powerplay.

Which, if it's the "Open only adjustment", means it's a typical "stop those other players in Solo and Private Groups affecting this existing game feature that formed part of the base game" (even though those other players bought access to all of the game's features on the same basis as those proposing the PvP-gating of existing content) proposal.

.... which means it's just another case of "remove the choice available to those players who don't play the game like I want them to (because it's optional)".

That said, if (as @ethelred has suggested) Powerplay PvP missions were added where both sides take on the mission of their own volition, there would likely be little opposition.

 

[SteveWW57]

Self defeatism isn't an argument.

It is a rational assessment of the situation. Better to avoid a losing unequal fight than to lose an unequal fight when you get nothing from it but the opposition does.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

What self defeatism ? or I'm not allowed to play til I get guid ??
I don't care for it, my mind is not wired to blow up commanders if I actually find any for being in my space ? Quite irrational to be truthful at least to me.
I have played the game for 9 years quite happily without the need for it .
Open isn't a magical place where we meet everyone .
PvP in my opinion is inconsequential doesn't increase your standing in game or your influence there is no objective in game need for it.
Any losses in PP or BGS means you and your team didn't fill as many buckets as the other team . You don't need to know who they are you've just got to work smarter.
They may be half way round the world and playing when you are at work school or sleeping . Just stating that they are in solo or PG doesn't mean it's true , I mean technically we are taking you on your word that you play in open like you take me playing in open .
Möbius has no PvP in it's PG proves in numbers that PvP isn't a thing needed to play and enjoy the game and that's been going since Elite started .
DB wanted a cooperative galaxy right at the begining well before Sandro comments .
My own thoughts PvP has only carried on because of the broken C&P where the PvPer carries less risk.

No you are not. At first you must pay your dues, like becoming laughingstock in videos where you are blown up for the lulz. Then you must learn to do your own engineering at solo, get your gankboat engineered and then graduate to blowing up "noobz" for the lulz yourself. Then you can start your on "pvp" career. Random trolling in mailslots and so on is also recommended to build up your reputation.

 

[Morbad]

It takes one mouse click at the start of the game session to avoid (in the same instance) PvP entirely - that's not "a great deal of effort".

Only if you're also avoiding Open, which is something I was never going to do, nor was it something most people, especially early on, wanted to do.

Which speaks more to Frontier's position on player choice (as to when to leave the game) than to a desire to make players stick around for PvP engagements.

I think it speaks to Frontier's apathy more than anything.

Regardless, pretty much all of those issues I pointed out, and a slew of others, degrade Open in general, not just the overt PvP aspects. They reduced meaningful player choice.

The block feature was introduced unasked before the game launched - as Frontier knew it would be needed - it's as much a part of open as menu exit and the ability to shoot at anything one instances with is.

The block feature's instancing weight hasn't remained static, it's gotten stronger. Anything that craps up instancing also degrades Open, PvP or not.

There's also the fact that until the fold-down of Horizons into the base game only about half of players had access to Engineers.

Yes, that was also a problem.

It was never there to lose - as no player has ever needed to play with other players to play the game.

I have utterly no idea what the logic behind that statement--which I find to be patently false--could possibly be.

You, or anyone else not needing to directly encounter other players does not in any way imply that the game everyone in Open had wasn't there.

To play the game I play requires at least the potential for encountering other player controlled characters and it requires the possibility for violence between those characters. NPCs sure aren't up to filling the gap, either in terms of verisimilitude, socially, or difficulty. The game I had was predicated on the myriad of encounters (the vast majority of which were non-violent, but still shaped by potential for violence) made possible through instancing with other players. Likewise, every new mechanism that has disincentivized Open, which is quite a few of them, has taken a piece of that game away.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I have utterly no idea what the logic behind that statement--which I find to be patently false--could possibly be.

There's no game feature that is dominated by PvP (well, apart from CQC - but that's not set in the same contiguous galaxy) - that's what is usually meant when complaints about a lack of "meaningful PvP" are made.

You, or anyone else not needing to directly encounter other players does not in any way imply that the game everyone in Open had wasn't there.

Of course - but the Open game is not the only game that affects mode shared game features.

To play the game I play requires at least the potential for encountering other player controlled characters and it requires the possibility for violence between those characters. NPCs sure aren't up to filling the gap, either in terms of verisimilitude, socially, or difficulty. The game I had was predicated on the myriad of encounters (the vast majority of which were non-violent, but still shaped by potential for violence) made possible through instancing with other players. Likewise, every new mechanism that has disincentivized Open, which is quite a few of them, has taken a piece of that game away.

Likely because other players don't need or want to play the game the same way.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Which, if it's the "Open only adjustment", means it's a typical "stop those other players in Solo and Private Groups affecting this existing game feature that formed part of the base game" (even though those other players bought access to all of the game's features on the same basis as those proposing the PvP-gating of existing content) proposal.

.... which means it's just another case of "remove the choice available to those players who don't play the game like I want them to (because it's optional)".

That said, if (as @ethelred has suggested) Powerplay PvP missions were added where both sides take on the mission of their own volition, there would likely be little opposition.

If that's what it takes to get people like yourself from not having a meltdown in the forums over something you don't even care about to begin with, sure.

 

[Doctor Dread]

If that's what it takes to get people like yourself from not having a meltdown in the forums over something you don't even care about to begin with, sure.

Again insulting, arrogant language... Robert never had a meltdown here, nor has any of us trying to calmly explain why your requests are futile.

"We" are not the ones who melts down and throw tantrums here.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Again insulting, arrogant language... Robert never had a meltdown here, nor has any of us trying to calmly explain why your requests are futile.

"We" are not the ones who melts down and throw tantrums here.

And yet you made this comment.

Y'all take any proposal toward the game adding something for PVP as a personal attack because you have hard feelings about getting ganked once. Powerplay was clearly designed for conflict, so the idea of making it open only in some way shape or form, is reasonable. Let the module shoppers shop and earn merits in solo, for their personal narrative but feature is a perfect candidate for pushing players into open to actually influence the map, because it naturally has activity bottlenecks (the systems being acquired/reinforced/undermined) but not so few bottlenecks, because there's many of these aforementioned systems, that you are not being counter productive due to instancing.

Now you'd think I just suggested deleting solo and going to your house and stealing the good silver based on how you all react to ideas like this. Maybe check the mirror friend.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

People have a strange definition of meltdown these days. Especially when other people disagree with them.

 

[Doctor Dread]

There are two very simple (yet seems so difficult for you) points to understand about this game:

Y'all take any proposal toward the game adding something for PVP as a personal attack because you have hard feelings about getting ganked once.

No, this is not true at all. Please don't project what I feel.

You all are talking self-indulgent nonsense here. No one is "running away from you", "hiding in Solo" being scared of what you guys did or might do to them.
You are not scary, dangerous tough guys - but a simple annoyance, irritants with whom people don't want to waste time.

feature is a perfect candidate for pushing players into open

Please read carefully what you wrote: to push people into open.

If after all this time you haven't understood that FD will never do any pushing people here or there, then you fundamentally don't understand this whole game you are playing.

 

[Brrokk]

...
Y'all take any proposal toward the game adding something for PVP as a personal attack because you have hard feelings about getting ganked once. Powerplay was clearly designed for conflict, so the idea of making it open only in some way shape or form, is reasonable. ...

I don't mind any PvP features being added to the game, nor does anyone else as far as I know. CQC exists, and no-one is the least bothered by it.

I have no hard feelings about being ganked, what do gankers have to do with anything? The game has tools to let us exclude them from our galaxy. This can be done proactively as they helpfully make a list of themselves on a web site.

The idea of making PP Open-only is reasonable, as long as FD don't set up a situation where people want the rewards but don't want to play in Open. If they do that, all our P2P instancing will be mangled as I previously described. So I agree that they'd have to somehow remove module-shopping from PP.

However, there's no evidence that FD ever intended to make PP an Open-only feature or remove modules from it.

Where I think we disagree is this: you want all of us to accept that PP should be an Open-only feature even though FD haven't made it so, and promise to play it in Open. I reply that, no, I'm playing the game FD have made for me, not an imaginary one you've thought up.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Where I think we disagree is this: you want all of us to accept that PP should be an Open-only feature even though FD haven't made it so, and promise to play it in Open. I reply that, no, I'm playing the game FD have made for me, not an imaginary one you've thought up.

Not quite. I think PP would function best as feature that was effected by open play, and not the other modes. If the other modes can pledge and get the modules and perks, no skin off my nose. I don't expect you to promise to do anything, I'm not going around asking for signatures for people to pledge to do anything.

 

[Darrack]

Therefore it seems an issue with the mode - or do you not agree?

There is no issue with Open mode for the majority of PVErs, we understand the mode is the wild west, that's why we prefer to play with friends in PG or on our own in Solo.
It really isn't us on here complaining, its those who have either run out of folks to gank or those who think everyone should play their mode ie Open.

O7

 

[Darrack]

Self defeatism isn't an argument.

The reality of the situation is.

O7

 

[Darrack]

I think PP would function best as feature that was effected by open play

The majority including Fdev don't think so.

O7

 

[Cheese Helmet]

The majority including Fdev don't think so.

O7

Source on the majority: "I made it up"

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

Certainly Frontier do seem to think so. Source: No change whatsoever in the recent overhaul.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Certainly Frontier do seem to think so. Source: No change whatsoever in the recent overhaul.

No change by frontier is hardly a statement on something being fine in its current state lmao

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

No change by frontier is hardly a statement on something being fine in its current state lmao

It is what counts.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

It is what counts.

No it isn't because it holds no value. Is the state of multi crew and it's integration into srvs, fighters, teams(formerly wings) good? No. How about just the balance of pve activities for merits in powerplay? Several are just flat disabled but never turned back on or balanced. Are the Odyssey on foot weapons balanced well, or are some complete unusable garbage? Etc. lack of action by frontier to change something is not a metric for it being in a good state.