- Status
I doubt we can make accurate assessments of the game world and its 800000 players simply by looking on the forum
It seems to me so many people seem more concerned with what is said here, that the actual game itself, which is fine in my opinion. I do not feel in anyway i was mis-sold the product ( as some have said).
Last edited:
Some posters are saying they are being "Forced" to play it open. I disagree, as you said, nobody HAS to play it, so they are not forced.
I definitely agree...I think we have received exactly what we ordered.
A game where Open is dangerous to play in...completely random as to any moment of play that you are in it.
And places where distress, angst, and other players cannot interfere with our fun....all while remaining relevant to the game at large!
- - - Updated - - -
I would disagree with this. People are forced to play elsewhere...if you want a 'massive' PVE experience with others without any interference from PVP...you are forced to ask permission from an unknown player...through mechanisms that are not obvious.
If you want to have a PVP effect on a CG...you cannot...you are forced to PVE for those trophies...and are forced to private modes to maximize your input into those goals. To play for a CG or PP goal in Open slows down your attainment and COULD cause the goal to fail completely...so there is no choice on that one.
Actually, although it's possible some people have said that, the sentiment on this thread is normally that Solo players are typically happy with the modes, while some Open advocates say that Solo should be chucked (which would force people to play in Open), or sometimes that Open players feel forced to play in Solo in order to maximize their earning potential (or PP effectiveness).
The point drifting around now is whether it would be beneficial to have an officially supported PvE mode, where PvP simply could not occur (unlike the 'gentleman agreement' in Mobius, which can and has been broken).
The only other 'forced' issue is the one on non-consensual PvP in Open, and it ties in with the Open PvE mode. Most here are happy to accept that in Open, you can be attacked by another player for no reason, however, if that is the case, then some feel that FD should provide an environment / mode where you can have player interaction without the chance of non consensual PvP.
Last edited:
"Actually, although it's possible some people have said that, the sentiment on this thread is normally that Solo players are typically happy with the modes, while some Open advocates say that Solo should be chucked"
Well I am an Open player who is happy with it the way it is. I previously suggested an Open only mode, but since realised it would be unfair on these people, so changed my mind. I cannot say much about the 25000 post megathread, but I can only talk about the discussions over the last few days. This sentiment kept getting repeated, so i assumed it was a major issue. Also, people here seem now to be in favour of ditching open alltogether, but I think it is only two people, so not really a majority position worth worrying about.
"The point drifting around now is whether it would be beneficial to have an officially supported PvE mode, where PvP simply could not occur (unlike the 'gentleman agreement' in Mobius, which can and has been broken."
I voted no to this, I like it the way it is, but that is just my opinion. I am fine with the way FD have presented it. I think I would like to see a few tournaments (CQC) and competitions, not much though. A fairly modest position really.
"The only other 'forced' issue is the one on non-consensual PvP in Open, and it ties in with the Open PvE mode. Most here are happy to accept that in Open, you can be attacked by another player for no reason, however, if that is the case, then some feel that FD should provide an environment / mode where you can have player interaction without the chance of non consensual PvP."
I guess it was not in FDEVS vision for Open play, since it was never a part of it in the first place. Either way, people are free to advocate for it, that's cool
I am opposed though.
Last edited:
It is not really ironic though. Someone else can start a group, no problem. Either way, we don;t have PvP in a group only. We have it in Open, and it was like that when we bought it. I am less of a PvP advocate than a status quo advocate though, so maybe someone else thinks differently. We could also say "What are we going to do when FDEV closes and the game ends", there is no safety net for us. It is like that with thousands of games online.
Last edited:
Well I am an Open player who is happy with it the way it is. I previously suggested an Open only mode, but since realised it would be unfair on these people, so changed my mind. I cannot say much about the 25000 post megathread, but I can only talk about the discussions over the last few days. This sentiment kept getting repeated, so i assumed it was a major issue. Also, people here seem now to be in favour of ditching open alltogether, but I think it is only two people, so not really a majority position worth worrying about.
I voted no to this, I like it the way it is, but that is just my opinion. I am fine with the way FD have presented it. I think I would like to see a few tournaments (CQC) and competitions, not much though. A fairly modest position really.
I guess it was not in FDEVS vision for Open play, since it was never a part of it in the first place. Either way, people are free to advocate for it, that's cool
Yep, Jockey seems to be of the opinion that Open should be ditched, and that's his prerogative. It's certainly not a majority of posters on this thread.
I'd have no problems with FD introducing CQC tournaments and the like, and I'd be very surprised if they didn't. CQC, while it is Open mode, is not set in the game's Open mode, so anyone who enjoys PvP whatever mode they choose to play the actual game in can take part. (I'd also like FD to spend some resources on better PvE content, as the mission system is still disappointing at the moment to my mind.)
I'm not sure it wasn't FD's original vision for the game. It's often quoted that David Braben expected PvP to be 'rare and meaningful', and it certainly doesn't seem as though players going around destroying newbies in their Sidewinders would fit into the meaningful part of that. They provided Solo and the opportunity to group up with your friends through Groups, which is fine, but as I have been suggesting recently, Groups might not be the right middle ground, whereas an Open PvE mode might be. I think this would actually divide the community much less, as there would effectively just be two groups, so potentially more chance to engage with players on your terms.
"Yep, Jockey seems to be of the opinion that Open should be ditched, and that's his prerogative. It's certainly not a majority of posters on this thread.
"
Yeah it seems more like a reaction to this forum, than something the game needs. Either way, it is his opinion.
" while it is Open mode, is not set in the game's Open mode, so anyone who enjoys PvP whatever mode they choose to play the actual game in can take part."
Can they still claim they did not consent to PvP after starting CQC though, in the same way they claim they did not consent when clicking on Open? I think it is fine, but some seem to hold the position that they NEVER consent, and thus are being "forced" to do things.
"It's often quoted that David Braben expected PvP to be 'rare and meaningful'"
In my experience, it is.
"I think this would actually divide the community much less, as there would effectively just be two groups, so potentially more chance to engage with players on your terms."
So you would get rid of solo/private? Sorry if this is not what you meant, its just you say "two groups".. I wouldn't mind, but a lot of people would be upset if they lost the modes they play in. Other people have suggested ditching modes, but this is deemed as "offensive", I am fine with them suggesting though.
Last edited:
"FDEV promising to release the server side stuff if ED went down for good."
Good to know. Maybe then I can mod the Enterprise into the game and die happy lol
Last edited:
No, the point of CQC is PVP. If you don't want to PvP, you won't play CQC, at least, I cannot imagine why you would.
Good.
Nope, sorry, I wasn't clear. Solo would absolutely remain. I would get rid of Groups as a way of matchmaking, and suggest that people use the friends list instead (which I imagine most do anyway), and then play in the Open Group of their choice, i.e PvP or PvE.
Last edited:
No, the point of CQC is PVP. If you don't want to PvP, you won't play CQC, at least, I cannot imagine why you would.
Good.
Nope, sorry, I wasn't clear. Solo would absolutely remain. I would get rid of Groups as a way of matchmaking, and suggest that people use the friends list instead (which I imagine most do anyway), and then play in the Open Group of their choice, i.e PvP or PvE.
"No, the point of CQC is PVP. If you don't want to PvP, you won't play CQC, at least, I cannot imagine why you would."
Well they might want to "play it their way" and just have a friendly fly around the stations or something.
Well, I guess somebody might, but then anyone logging into something called 'Close Quarters Combat' to have a friendly fly around a space station and saying they are just 'playing it their way' as a defense would not, I'm afraid, have my support.
They can and should, on the other hand be able to have a friendly fly around stations in the main game, and who knows, FD may introduce such stations from CQC into the main game for them to be able to do just that.
Well, I guess somebody might, but then anyone logging into something called 'Close Quarters Combat' to have a friendly fly around a space station and saying they are just 'playing it their way' as a defense would not, I'm afraid, have my support.
They can and should, on the other hand be able to have a friendly fly around stations in the main game, and who knows, FD may introduce such stations from CQC into the main game for them to be able to do just that.
Yes I hope we see those assets in the main game. As for it being safe, well I am happy if there is still some risk. Others may not be though. Also I suggested putting a warning on open play, a simple solution to ensure people are not under any misapprehension of what goes in in that mode.
Last edited:
There's always risk in this game, whether it's from the environment or other players is just a semantic choice. Players who do not want any risk at all will probably not stay with the game.
Yeah I think this is a good point. It is called "Elite : Dangerous", that is enough warning for me..
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The "Dangerous" in the game title is a reference to the lowest combat rank that pilots are considered for membership of the Elite Pilots' Federation.
Cool to know, thx for the info
I always considered it a warning though.. Out of interest, when you get to Dangerous rank, anything interesting happen? I am at Master now, and thought Elite got you PF privileges. Does Dangerous have any?
Last edited:
- Status