Or they could leave everything tied to one BGS, institute a new mode, have only one galnet, and save on resources and expenses while giving almost everyone what they want.
- Status
Or they could leave everything tied to one BGS, institute a new mode, have only one galnet, and save on resources and expenses while giving almost everyone what they want.
How about this for MY mind-blowing radical idea (which I think may just be slightly cheaper than running several BGSs) - if you feel upset that other players are influencing 'your' BGS without the possibility for, ahem, 'interaction': just pretend that every other player not in your particular instance is actually playing Open and that the matchmaker just hasn't seen fit to pop you in an instance with them...which is functionally the same as what you have now. 
yeah, I really wish they would muck around with established pre-release design choices and spend the time and resources doing it rather than working on new content too.
What is wrong with the smiley? I am not sure what you mean by that, it was merely an indication that I am not offended at all by his suggestion. I read the first post on here by the Mod indicating that emotion is difficult to read on these forums, so I thought I would augment my point with an emoticon, just so people can see it is all said in good spirit
- - - Updated - - -
I agree with this poster. + rep
Last edited:
I guess they picked the wrong day to be in an open barrel....
...........................
I think a lot of the issues come back to the two very different ways of playing.
To someone roleplaying a pirate it's blindingly obvious that they attack targets of opportunity who are unprepared (and often unwilling - though of course without a flag there is no way of signalling this).
Whereas others are not roleplaying anything - they are just playing a game hoping to bump into like minded people and the idea of finding themselves outgunned and outnumbered forced to comply, flee or blow up doesn't strike them as fun for them.
One thing CQC seems to be showing is that quite a few people who shun open PVP seem to be quite up for CQC PVP - I have no idea of numbers but I've seen quite a few posts along the line of;
"Don't normally do PVP, not very good at it but having a blast in CQC"
There was a big "name" from the Mobius group doing a brief chat on Hutton Radio the other day - apparently he got jumped in open by a wing of 3 (coz sometimes he plays in open!).
So he messaged them on comms and challenged them to a one on one.
He beat the first one. The second ran after they ran out of SCBs and the third refused to fight. Allegedly.
So it seems for some it's not the PVP itself in open they don't like - it's the context in which it presents that causes the problem.
Last edited:
That is because they are not really looking for PVP as most people view it, they are looking for victims. I keep hearing that NPC's are too easy.. yet if you look at the type of target some of the most vocal "PVPers" go after.. they are equal too as or in some cases easier than an NPC... what challenge is a starter Sidey? The form of PVP that is looked for is not usually a fight, but a domination. A controlled and heavily reduced risk for the attacker.. or in truth the severe lack of risk...
Yet the claim that the risk in open is so great they need better rewards.
Plus I've heard a lot of people comment how in Open, PVP constitutes not who has the skill but who has the most SCBs. I think that is one reasons CQC is popular, because it is an even playing field.. for some that is great and they can get back into PVP and it shows off people's skill as pilots, for others though.. it is an anathema. Fairness is the last thing they want, because it introduces risk to them.
aha yes, perhaps they did not have the option to do a casual mode switch
I think ALL the game modes are equal and valid, especially Open
Last edited:
aha yes, perhaps they did not have the option to do a casual mode switch
There is no "casual mode switch" in E: D, so, what are you talking about? Your last sentence makes no sense. You say all are equal and valid, but then you emphasize Open. Is it equal and valid, or not?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed. George Orwell, c.1945.
He really needs his own station. Perhaps near to George Lucas?
Of course! Oh but there is the ability to just casually switch modes, it only takes a few seconds. sorry if you did not understand. All the game modes are equally valid. I like Open play
- - - Updated - - -
He got the reference
Would just like to ask though, people here seem to be asking for the Moebius group to be made an official menu option. The EDC community has 6000 members and are starting a private group. There are 800000 players, and many more to come through Xbox. Why should a group that only represents this small percentage of the player base be given preferential treatment from FD? These other groups are also PvE. Would they not get to expect the same treatment as their group grows? I have a valid solution though, we could have a private groups browser with a filter (players,PvE,password etc...). Would that not be a more egalitarian option for those who just seem to think only Moebius group deserve to be represented?
Last edited:
Not just that. There have been academic articles on the kinds of players that engage in MMOs and other similar games, and how they interact; most kinds of player tend to interact well, making the game richer and more enjoyable for everyone involved, but a specific kind that sits somewhere between PvPers, PKers, and griefers have the opposite effect, making the game worse for others and driving them away.
(Not saying that PvPers and PKers forcibly are like that, just the ones that don't mind when they cause grief to their targets.)
It's what led to a particular definition of griefing being coined by MMO devs, and used as a guideline in more than a few games, starting with UO: "A griefer is someone who, through his social actions, costs you more money than he gives you." It doesn't matter that the griefer is operating fully within the rules, he is still bad to the bottom line of the game. Ever wondered why after Ultima Online almost every MMO put much stricter restrictions on how players could negatively influence one another, removing things like player looting, restricting where and against who the players could PvP, and so on? It's the effect of numerous devs that worked in UO, and saw the game almost close down due to out of control PK activity, going to work in about every big budget MMO being made.
In ED the effect is somewhat different because of the modes. Instead of leaving, players go into Solo instead. It's just as bad for those whose play style depends on having targets, but not as bad for Frontier because the player is still playing, at least for the time being.
Naturally. PvP isn't just one monolithic thing, there are many kinds of PvP, just like there are many kinds of PvE. CQC makes PvP on demand (matchmaking), removes the penalty for defeat, provide a far more even playing field than Open could ever hope to, and guarantees that the opponents are willing to fight; it's a completely different beast, far closer to a LoL or TF2 match than to fighting other players in Open, which means it attracts the large potential player base that loves Arena PvP but isn't interested in a virtual world with PvP included.
*Citation needed.
Last edited:
Perhaps you would care to address the rest of the argument? If you care to scroll up you will see I have been told over and over again that Moebius contains 11000 or so players. Am I incorrect?
Here is a link from May, so I imagine that sounds about right, given it was 9000 then.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/359320/discussions/0/615085406664964351/?insideModal=1
I am sure the actual figures are available from him, you can ask him yourself! However the statistics that are NOT available are the ones regarding Open play, and I find that ironic given people make so many definitive claims about how many people operate there, given they have no data at all..
My solution allows an egalitarian approach, giving ALL player groups a platform to advertise. If Moebius is indeed so popular, it will appear at the top of the list anyway. Think of it like a server browser. Problem solved
Last edited:
If I "cared" to address it, I would have. My question is relevant in regard to your assertion that the group represents a "small percentage" to the playerbase. I think if your going to make such assertions you should provide some factual statistics, which we all know you can't.
Sick and tired of hearing how PvE players are such a "minority" in this game yet hearing in the same breath that "Open is empty" and all that ridiculous speculation to try and justify it.
So in terms of pure "assertion", if there's a mass exodus of players leaving Open for PvE and it causes Open to be "empty" then perhaps it's not such a reach to speculate that PvPer's AREN'T the majority, hmm?
"If I "cared" to address it, I would have."
Sorry, I did not mean to upset you
" My question is relevant in regard to your assertion that the group represents a "small percentage" to the playerbase"
I have answered your "question", though I saw no question, just a statement like you would see on wikipedia
Moebius has 11000 players"Sick and tired of hearing how PvE players are such a "minority""
I think you are just looking for reasons to be offended, it is a statement of fact that 11000 people out of 800000 is indeed a "minority". Again, I think ALL modes are equal and valid......
"So in terms of pure "assertion", if there's a mass exodus of players leaving Open for PvE and it causes Open to be "empty" then perhaps it's not such a reach to speculate that PvPer's AREN'T the majority, hmm?"
Can you please point to where I claimed PvP players were the majority? I said Moebius represented a minority, people only seem to talk of that one group, and not the many others that exist. I think you are confusing me with other posters
Oh Hey, I ranked up to Dangerous whoo hooo!
Last edited:
Seems pretty arrogant to assume you "upset" me. Trust me, you didn't. I'm just clarifying that if I had wished or intended to address the first part of your post, I would have done so to begin with.
Can you please point to where I claimed PvP players were the majority? I said Moebius represented a minority, people only seem to talk of that one group, and not the many others that exist. I think you are confusing me with other posters
Since you like dancing around the point, I'll simply re-quote your original sentence- see below. Your assertion is that Mobius "represents a small percentage of the player base", thus also asserting that it's a minority in comparison as a whole- therefore by logic also asserting that "everyone else" is a majority.
Assert and speculate all you wish... if you don't have proof to back it up- it's simply a theory, not a fact.
In about every MMO I've ever seen data about it PvE players are a majority. WoW, for example, has about 60% of its player base in PvE realms, and this doen't even take into account how most of the largest PvP realms are so imbalanced they don't actually have PvP happening. EVE has enough of its player base remaining in safe, mostly PvP-free sectors that CCP considers it a large issue. Turbine has in the past said that, if you add together all raiders and PvPers, it's less than 10% of the player base and has always been, even though PvPers plus raiders in that game are over half the forum posters. And so on.
Heck, there has been one very interesting result in Star Citizen a couple years ago. Every forum pool seemed to indicate PvPers being the majority, usually in the 75% to 80% range. Then CIG decided to make an official pool, advertised on its home page; the result of that pool, with far more respondents than even the largest of the forum pools, was that PvE players are the majority.
Of course it's hard to tell if this is replicated here, at least without better tools than mere (inherently flawed) forum pools, but I would be very surprised indeed if ED had more PvP than PvE players. Heck, I would be surprised if legitimately solo players (those in Solo because they simply prefer it, that were never chased out of the other modes) weren't the majority.
"I'll simply re-quote your original sentence- see below. Your assertion is that Mobius "represents a small percentage of the player base", thus also asserting that it's a minority in comparison as a whole- therefore by logic also asserting that "everyone else" is a majority."
Well you are free to believe otherwise, but I was told by several of the Moebius players on this thread, in the last few days, that the majority of players are NOT AWARE of Moebius. In fact it was their an often cited reason for it's inclusion into the options menu
I have even offered a compromise, in which Moebius COULD be displayed, along with other private groups, in the interests of fairness. I will repeat, why only Moebius? BTW, 11000 is a minority percentage of 800,000. That is about 1.375 %, it would be stretching to say this is not a minority... This has nothing to do with PvP, so I cannot for the life of me imagine why you brought it up. As I said, I think you confuse me with other posters.
Last edited:
- Status