You are not looking for compromises, you just claim that this is how it should be and you will have nothing to do with it!
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Those who stand to lose out if content is PvP-gated don't stand to gain anything - therefore what is proposed is not actually a compromise (even if what is proposed represents a reduction in scope of demand from those seeking the change).
.... and at least one compromise has been proposed, e.g.:
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
Create a vote !!! It's a dangerous game, not all of it.... Polls, and links to polls, are prohibited by the Forum Rules; Rule #1
Given that all players bought the game on the same basis, why should those who don't enjoy PvP seek to compromise with those who both enjoy PvP and seek to PvP-gate existing content to Open and are not in a position to offer anything in return?
Last edited:
Once something is it shall always be and never change.Those who stand to lose out if content is PvP-gated don't stand to gain anything - therefore what is proposed is not actually a compromise (even if what is proposed represents a reduction in scope of demand from those seeking the change).
.... and at least one compromise have been proposed, e.g.:
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
Create a vote !!! It's a dangerous game, not all of it.... Polls, and links to polls, are prohibited by the Forum Rules; Rule #1forums.frontier.co.uk
Given that all players bought the game on the same basis, why should those who don't enjoy PvP seek to compromise with those who both enjoy PvP and seek to PvP-gate existing content to Open?
A stiff tree in a storm that does not yield only snaps in two. A tree that is fluid and bends lives another day. Something few ever learn.
I advocate for a more robust community in which all sides can participate. PvE get BGS, PvP get power play, both interdependent through triggers being effected by BGS. Something that could in theory foster both sides of the community.
Remove module and weapon locks from Power Play to make it so nothing of value is "PvP gated." I am sorry we likely won't ever agree on this though.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
PvP-gating existing game content to Open would force players to play in Open to continue to engage in that content - Open is a PvP-enabled game mode, so some players they encounter may force PvP interactions upon them.
Attempting to force players to seek protection from other players relies on other players being available - and being able to be trusted, something that cannot be said of all players.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There is no forced social interaction in this game - which seems to be a problem for some players, i.e. other players are optional....
Last edited:
First, forget the flying, donation missions.
Second, deliver/collect missions via APEX.
Third, Data/courier missions via a small fast ship.
Fourth, Salvage missions via a small ship with a SRV bay.
Fifth, cargo missions in the best suited ship you have to hand.
Sixth, exploring to hand in data if you control the station.
It is quite quick to rack up the INF with the first 4.
Steve
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - and the video was posted soon after the game design was published on Kickstarter - the game design which clearly stated that players would be able to play in a single player mode and also in private groups as well as the "all group" (Open as we now know it) - and where players in all game modes would experience and affect the single shared galaxy.
So even then, while optional interaction was expected, it was not going to be forced.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Private Groups are also multi-player - just with a fine degree of selectivity as to who can access the Private Group.
I have one question for you Maynard. Why is it so bad if they gave the PvP community something to have influence over in the galaxy? Why does all of Elite, in your mind, have to be solely PvE in content?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
How did they choose to sell the game to everyone?
.... which is to say that the game features that some want to be PvP-gated were sold to all players, or later introduced, as mode shared game features that don't require PvP. It's been clear for years that some of those proposing that one or more game features be PvP-gated to Open don't care that players who don't enjoy PvP would be adversely affected by the changes - which makes it difficult to sympathise with those seeking to effectively remove existing pan-modal game features from other players in Solo and Private Groups.
Last edited:
Strictly seen, CQC isn't PvE. There are no NPCs/bots in this mode.
Counter-question: Why does there have to be a feature (safe for CQC) in which player vs player has be mandatory?
Personally I wouldn't mind if there was some PvP content. That's not the same as making the game Open-only though. If you're asking for a PvP activity that's OK; if you're wanting everyone to be forced to play in it that's not OK.
Many player groups want more content than there is, and in most cases they organise what they want. For instance, explorers organise expeditions. There's a thread ATM where SRV racers are looking for good racetracks. AX enthusiasts organise groups and cooperate against Thargoids. It puzzles me that PvP players are the only group who don't think they should have to organise what they want and (in threads like this) seem to just want other people to become their content.
Last edited:
