It's the idea that two separate groups of one over-all, large population being segregated due to certain characteristic that is not threatening to the overall sovereignty. Then the freedom provided to both that is suppose to be separate but equal turned out to benefit one group over the other on a comparative scale.
- Status
It's the idea that two separate groups of one over-all, large population being segregated due to certain characteristic that is not threatening to the overall sovereignty. Then the freedom provided to both that is suppose to be separate but equal turned out to benefit one group over the other on a comparative scale.
I think that's the problem
Problem A: Unfair treatment of the different modes
Problem B: Problem A is not a problem
Problem C: Open mode should be different
Problem D: there is no Open PvE mode
Problem E: semantics
Problem F: different people thinking different things are THE problem
…
Putting everything remotely related to the modes of this game into on big thread results in a lot of people wanting to discuss a lot of different things at once.
Well, then we can compare that to I can dye my skin to be another color, just to get "better" treatment.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
You mean that Open is better off because players can form Wings to reduce risk?
.... and what is "supposed to be separate"? Where does sovereignty come into it?
Last edited:
As I've done many analogies I can understand analogies quite well.. A good one is ED is a mountain and the modes are faces of the mountain..
A comparison to a legal ruling asserting lawful racial segregation to the modes in ED is not an analogy. That would be a fallacy argument same as if I were to compare certain PVP players and groups actions in Open to the
's actions within the Warsaw ghetto or the actions of U-boats in the Atlantic. While if you dig hard enough you can find some similarities.. the argument in itself is invalid and nothing more than shock value really.
Open is faced with "more" risk, therefore having more assets than Solo to counteract with the risk. However, that isn't the central point I am arguing, but instead that the concept Open depends on is very vulnerable when compared to Group/Solo. I am challenging the idea of "equality" introduced by the developers.
"Suppose to be 'separate but equal,'" "separate but equal" is a phrase of its own, read it like one word.
Sovereignty is just another word for describing the state, in this case, it's FD.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
As I've done many analogies I can understand analogies quite well.. A good one is ED is a mountain and the modes are faces of the mountain..
A comparison to a legal ruling asserting lawful racial segregation to the modes in ED is not an analogy. That would be a fallacy argument same as if I were to compare certain PVP players and groups actions in Open to the
While if you dig hard enough you can find some similarities.. the argument in itself is invalid and nothing more than shock value really.
Or that you want to perceive the shock value? I am insensitive to the analogy of anything to anything as long as one can make a coherent, logical connection between the two. Perhaps you are investing too much emotion into the argument or that you find the need to exercise strawman to dismiss another's perspective?
Do the different modes really affect each other in an undesirable way?
Is there really a dependency between the modes?
If there is a dependency, does this really negatively affect the other mode?
Is the mode system the cause of the problem or just the aspect of the game that makes the problem visible?
Can the problems players have with the game only be solved by changes to the mode system or are there other ways to solve the problems?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Open is faced with a risk, yes - the risk that the play-styles of some players may discourage other players from playing in it thus depriving the former of "fun". That being said, Frontier created the game modes, implemented mode mobility and encouraged each and every player to "play the game how you want to" (i.e. not "play the game how other players want you to"). Naturally, the play-styles of some players will conflict with those of others and the latter may exercise their choice not to play with the former. Players who depend on other players for entertainment will always be vulnerable to the possibility that no-one wants to play with them.
Geebus that's a lot of questions.
Open depends on something different than Group/Solo as I've pointed out, and the mentality of the two populations depend on different matters. Former feels unsatisfied due to influence from another mode while the latter feel entitled to influence the former mode under different conditions. But the former mode finds those conditions unacceptable due to the former mode's players' mentality and setting. The latter mode is privileged and protected in their mentality and has no conditions to be given consent to from another portion of the playerbase. I'm not giving pointers to which is "right" or "wrong" since that is completely unproductive, but I'm pointing out the difference in dependency between the two groups, and the idea of "equality" the developers seem to champion.
Solving the problem will create more problems in the sense that separation of the modes is an economic burden and counter the original design as Maryland have pointed out. Multiplier difference in monetary reward between modes will create indignation in the latter portion of the population and force them to feel the frustration some former population feels right now.
I'm here to question the idea of "equality" the devs advocate, that's all.
You can't give a logical argument so you accuse me of aunt sallying and being too emotionally involved in an attempt to deflect the fact that your argument was invalid to begin with and already been called out?
Maybe you should dredge up Dredge Scott and claim that someone who's played in open needs to be forced back into open even though they have been playing in Group for awhile because they must abide by Open since that is where they came from originally.
Makes as much sense as your Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 "analogy"
Well, what you're describing is actually the discriminatory factor that separates the two groups of population. For example:
Scenario: Trader got blown up by a wing of randoms.
Open mentality: Oh, I guess I didn't maneuver and watch out for that wing coming up behind me, I should pay more attention next time, or maybe join an organization of hire some protection. Or get into a larger ship.
Solo/Group mentality: Oh, griefers, I'm done, all there are in this mode are griefers, all Open players are griefers, I'm done with this mode.
The above might be stereotypes, but it covers the general difference in mentality.
Yes, Frontier did allow mode mobility and wanted players to play the way they wish to, however, Open is a supplementary mode instead of being a closed system of entertainment like Solo/Group. Therefore saying that the modes are equal is something I personally find questionable. Players, on the other hand, are certainly equal in their inherent sense.
"Players who depend on other players for entertainment will always be vulnerable to the possibility that no-one wants to play with them."
Yes, that is true. However, as we know, Open mode is still populated, but the intrusive element of shared universe under different conditions make modes unequal, in the sense that people feel discouraged to play in Open for rational reasons other than player interaction going sour. In the sense that players that do not play in Open can still influence and gain monetary reward at the same rate with less risk.
Thus, FD actually encourage any rational player to play in any mode but open if we base the rational choice model on monetary reward, which I'm certain that it has a large influence on any players' rational decision. Hence, modes are not equal.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
You have not made any valid argument toward the invalidity of my comparison, at least I haven't seen any.
And since now you are entertaining yourself with slippery slope, I'll leave you to have fun with yourself.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Discriminatory in what sense? No-one is forcing the remaining players in Open to do anything. Players who leave Open are making that choice themselves. What you characterise as "Open " and "Solo/Group" mentalities would seem to be PvP and PvE traits. Some players thrive on playing against other players; other players thrive on playing with other players.
Open is as closed as Solo and Private Groups - you will only encounter those players who are playing in the same mode. Every player can choose which mode to play in. When considering inequality, it should be considered that all players can choose to play in whichever mode suits them - therefore, those who choose to play in Open only and complain that the other modes have a perceived advantage have chosen to play Open only but want changes to be made to suit their chosen play-style.
Which group should Frontier favour?
1) Those who choose to play in only one of the three game modes and request that other players do not affect the galaxy state that they play in (i.e. make changes to the game);
2) Those who choose to play in any of the three game modes and are content that they experience and affect the shared galaxy state that all other players experience and affect, regardless of mode (i.e. as the game has been designed / delivered).
Having read none of this thread except a few at the start and end. I shall throw in my opinion!
I play in Open to see other players, chat, help out newbies, etc... However I do feel the risk is greater because of PvP random attacks, but at the same time Bounty hunting is a busy RES is much harder.
I usually only play in solo if I either don't have a very good internet connection (ie; work! Lol), when I'm online for a short time(1 hour or less) or if I feel my 'home' system has been invaded by a troll which I don't feel like dealing with (only happened once).
I've never used group mode.
But I feel that each mode has its own ups and downs.
Solo is safe from trolling, and RES hunting is more profitable solo. But its lonely and nothing that exciting will ever happen.
Open, on the other hand can allow trolling, but also other interactions, and bounty hunting in a wing can be much more profitable than solo because you can beat them faster. Also just seeing other players doing whatever it is they like is actually fun... People watching essentially!
So basically I prefer which ever mode suits my needs at the time. But mostly open.
I play in Open to see other players, chat, help out newbies, etc... However I do feel the risk is greater because of PvP random attacks, but at the same time Bounty hunting is a busy RES is much harder.
I usually only play in solo if I either don't have a very good internet connection (ie; work! Lol), when I'm online for a short time(1 hour or less) or if I feel my 'home' system has been invaded by a troll which I don't feel like dealing with (only happened once).
I've never used group mode.
But I feel that each mode has its own ups and downs.
Solo is safe from trolling, and RES hunting is more profitable solo. But its lonely and nothing that exciting will ever happen.
Open, on the other hand can allow trolling, but also other interactions, and bounty hunting in a wing can be much more profitable than solo because you can beat them faster. Also just seeing other players doing whatever it is they like is actually fun... People watching essentially!
So basically I prefer which ever mode suits my needs at the time. But mostly open.
You are taking the word "discriminatory" with the context of intended prejudice, I'm utilizing the word as mere criteria for distinction.
As you have explained yourself, it's the mentality between PvP and PvE, and the modes that correspond to both these different mentalities. However, the mode of game play provided to these different mentalities are unequal in the sense that they share the same universe, where the open mentality has to accept influence produced under a complete different and separate mentality under conditions that is unsatisfactory to the open mentality, while vice versa doesn't exist due to the mentality of solo/group doesn't require any consent.
What you are describing is equality between players, not modes, modes represent mentalities catered to. I am questioning the equality of modes, not players.
FD shouldn't favor any specific group, but their set up and philosophy no doubt favor one over another, and when they utilize equality in their philosophy, I bring myself to question and challenge that idea for the reason I have explained thus-far. I'm not making an economic argument nor moralizing argument, as I have made clear earlier in my arguments.
Edit:
To emphasize, this is a philosophical challenge to the idea of equality of modes the developers brought forth, nothing more and nothing less.
Last edited:
Thank you for admitting your "argument" was nothing more than than a slippery slope and if you cannot see the invalidity of your argument with the examples i've given then nothing I can do about it and the argument in the first place was made to stir things up and not to give an concrete objection.
as for your insinuation that I am here to "have fun" is so off base it is laughable. I came here looking for info, I stayed because what I read from people who think their gameplay trumps everyone else raised a lot of red flags to me. I want ED to be the game it can be, not hamstrung and hampered by the selfishness of some who can't deal that others play differently.
If you want to compare things we can and if you want to discuss the difference in Open and Solo and Group and how you feel that effect things we can, but to jump in here and try to compare the modes that people can play in a game to the legal travesty of forced segregation of an ethnic group in the United States is beyond asinine and so off base I am shocked you even attempted it.
If you want to try and blow smoke of people's skirts I will catch it later.. need sleep
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It seems that the only group that are wishing to segregate themselves are the inhabitants of Open who are unable to accept Frontier's design choice to have every player experience and affect the same shared galaxy state. This design choice has been part of the published game design for over three years now - Frontier have not made any change to it indeed, with the release on the Xbox One, we have another whole platform of players experiencing and affecting the same shared galaxy state (players that we cannot crossplay with) and we can reasonably expect that additional platforms will be added down the line (PS4?).
The modes exist. Players choose to play in a mode. If a player is not happy with their chosen mode they can either choose another mode or petition Frontier to make changes to the game to suit their choice. Frontier do not seem to be receptive to requests / demands to add additional galaxy states (with the associated hosting costs / curation costs / development costs).
Frontier cannot please all of the players all of the time - they require to make decisions based on their vision for the game as a whole, backed up where possible with game analytics.
From the outset, the game has not been designed around PvP. PvP is possible but not explicitly rewarded. It seems that you seek to have that changed.
Hah, oh well, it just shows that you have no understanding of my arguments, oh well, I guess some people are special...
No you weren't, as your careful choice of language in the scenarios you describe clearly shows.
We can then make the same argument about closed/group mode, they are exclusive by nature, as well. However, players with these mentalities do not have to complain for that they exclusivity is being protected by FD and the design philosophy.
I have made it clear, my purpose in my argument is to challenge the idea of "equality of modes" the developers brought forth, which I think I have accomplished my task.
To clarify, do I want things to change? Of course, anyone want things to go their way. However, I understand the economical strain and playerbase issues changes will cause, thus I am merely criticizing the the philosophical standpoint of the developers, not the actual development of the game.
Despite my name being recognized more with piracy than anything else, I actually enjoy mining just as much as piracy, therefore it's not like I'm completely disgruntled with the game, for that PvP isn't the only I do in this game. I merely wish to voice the concern and criticism of a portion of the playerbase might have against FD, and I have done that.
Edit:
I remember when limpets first came out with 1.3, before I got busy with being the coordinator of Archon Delaine and what not, I even abandoned my duties in The Code for a brief period just to mine all by myself in Delkar...
I was so happy...
Oh dear someone in The Code is going to read this and kill me >_>...
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Well, then we can play the game of strawman.
"No no, you meant this and that!"
"No that's not what I meant."
"No, that's totally what you meant."
"No it isn't."
"It is!"
"It isn't!"
"It is, shut up!"
"Nope, you're stupid."
"No you're stupid."
*Moderator arrives and flips picnic table*
Last edited:
The problem is that it comes across as criticising players for their choice with the options that the developers have offered.
- Status