Yeah. Sorry. I didn't initially grasp what you were referring to. But see my other response...
- Status
Yeah. Sorry. I didn't initially grasp what you were referring to. But see my other response...
Just checking in… any new arguments here in the last few weeks? Hmm… nope. None at all. Signing off.
Hello
- - - Updated - - -
One allows PvP encounters. One allows PvP encounters with a limited group. One does not allow PvP encounters.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not different rules then. Different matchmaker settings, certainly.
Well, in Solo it's a rule enforced by circumstance. How about we say different environmental arrangements? Which leads to potentially different risk factors.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It's simpler than that - different modes with differing numbers of players to encounter (zero; some; the population of Open).
Different risk factors - yup - it's a lot safer in Open in a Wing than it is in Solo with no backup....
It's simpler than that - different modes with differing numbers of players to encounter (zero; some; the population of Open).
Different risk factors - yup - it's a lot safer in Open in a Wing than it is in Solo with no backup....
Yes. PvP is the factor. And it doesn't matter which mode is safer. The point is that they are different but affect the same BGS. So you can have someone who chooses to progress in an easier mode (be that in a wing in Open or in Solo) but still has influence on the same BGS as someone who is doing it harder. And they can switch modes at will.
All of which was an advertised feature of the game BEFORE any money changed hands to make the game.
So how can anyone complain that the game was made the way it was advertised and sold?
I didn't buy a 2 wheel drive, manual transmission car then complain its not a 4 wheel drive automatic.... I knew what I was buying BEFORE I bought it and accept what I bought.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
How players choose to play will largely determine how "easy" their game is, regardless of mode. If players want to go out of their way to make the game harder for themselves then that is entirely up to them.
Frontier have made a selling point of the fact that all players in all game modes and on all game platforms affect a single shared galaxy state.
Then if you want to "fix" you need to come up with some way of measuring risk relative to the situation in any given scenario. Trying to nail it down to a mode is too clumsy.
FD have said they only want one background SIM - and let's face it they're having enough trouble running one.
Maybe people should just accept it's not a competition in any fair sense of the word when there is no control over balancing player numbers supporting each faction - or over what ships they fly - or making sure that numbers are balanced at any given time.
How about "fixing" those things first before messing around with stuff that would severely affect people that don't even bother with CGs or PP?
Last edited:
See this is the inherent flaw in any system that allows Player versus Player.
Someone wins, which means someone has to lose. It is a competitive system.
All the complaints about the modes stem from PvPers who want to "win".
Solo players are happy, Group players are happy, PvE players (if left alone) are happy, explorers are happy, traders are happy (some even play open as a trader).
It is player killers, pirates and bounty hunters who limit themselves to human only targets, in open mode that are the ones that are unhappy and complaining.
Not saying PvPers don't have genuine problems, but perhaps FD should not have taken a PvE game, dangled the idea of PvP in it then built it around a PvE system.
I think both sides, FD and customers have their own share of blame. FD have dug their heels in and said they are not changing it and there is not right way to play.
But PvPers still wont own up to their part of lack of research before parting with cash.
Perhaps FD should make a demo version or enforce a 14 day trial of the game before taking money from people.
At least that way, some folks (even the lazy no research people) wont feel so hard done by once they understand how the game works.
Then if people like it after the 14 days they can buy it. otherwise the account locks out.
Yes. Yes. Yes. FD said they were going to do it. It was a masterstroke of pure genius. They did it. Yay.
All I'm doing is pointing out that the system is slightly less than perfect. I think I personally can live with the unevenness. But it seems that many players don't like it. Or maybe they are just calling it out like me.
As I said...
You can argue with people that it shouldn't change (or that they should have understood it before purchasing). But at least understand where they are coming from.
I understand what they're saying but I think it's based on faulty logic given the built in unfairness of ED.
I like competition but not when it's pointless and in my opinion there are many many factors in ED that render it pointless and they have nothing to do with mode switching.
That may very well be true, but the topic of this particular discussion is modes.
Well my point is fix those somehow - specifically things that relate only to CG and PP - don't change the whole game for the benefit of those two things that a lot of people aren't interested in. Which does relate to modes.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Fix how? Community Goals and Powerplay have been very intentionally implemented to allow all players to affect them, regardless of game mode or platform, just as all players experience and affect the single shared galaxy state (of which Community Goals and Powerplay are a part).
I forgot the "air quotes" - I meant "fix".
As you know I don't think they're broken - but if other people do perhaps they should campaign on specific things that affect the thing in question rather than the mechanism for the whole game.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Ah - understood!
I don't expect that Frontier consider them broken either - they implemented them in the first place....
The OP/Solo issue is a part of something bigger. In one sentence: almost a year after release, the ED is still background simulation but not a game. Something like a theatre scene without actors and some mouses passing through it. From the equal NPC/Player fines, through the Power Play, to the Community goals, it seems that FDevs tell us: “Look people, we are creating the VR that will exist and function with or without you. But unless they didn’t found a way to receive their real salaries from the NPCs, they should consider more the players wishes than the background simulation balance.
Is this so difficult to apply PvP/PK system? I think no, but obviously nobody cares. There is no difference if someone kills a player or NPC. The fine is 6000 cr. For FDevs both NPCs and players have the same value - 6000 cr.
About PP – they are still trying to attract the players to participate in it… In other words: to make human beings to lose their time for the honor, glory and prosperity of an NPC… Seriously?
And in 1.4, instead of player controlled fractions, they gave us the CQC. “Come on kids, stop willing for power, it is reserved for NPCs, go play with puppets! Don’t bother us; we have a job to do!”
In order to grow up from background simulation to the game, this background simulation should be ruled from the players. This is the point and implementing the PvP/PK system is part of it.
Is this so difficult to apply PvP/PK system? I think no, but obviously nobody cares. There is no difference if someone kills a player or NPC. The fine is 6000 cr. For FDevs both NPCs and players have the same value - 6000 cr.
About PP – they are still trying to attract the players to participate in it… In other words: to make human beings to lose their time for the honor, glory and prosperity of an NPC… Seriously?
And in 1.4, instead of player controlled fractions, they gave us the CQC. “Come on kids, stop willing for power, it is reserved for NPCs, go play with puppets! Don’t bother us; we have a job to do!”
In order to grow up from background simulation to the game, this background simulation should be ruled from the players. This is the point and implementing the PvP/PK system is part of it.
No system is perfect.
There are people who have limited time to play games get faced with the same old choice "PvE Server" or "PvP Server" to be locked into for the rest of the characters life.
What if that person prefers PvE game play most of the time but likes PvP now and then? Being locked in to 1 style of play is not fair on them, but has been the only option for a lot of online gaming.
I watch The Wright Stuff on channel 5 every morning, great debate show with live phone in, Twitter and email feedback.
Yesterday, a man was on one of the phone in topics and he suddenly started swearing to the point the host had to cut the conversation short and give his apologies to the nation.
So, should the phone in segments be removed? Should the show stop being live and move to a pre-recorded format?
Does the system need to be changed due to one person deciding what they find acceptable was more important that what everyone else finds acceptable for daytime TV ?
What is the perfect system for The Wright Show and Channel 5 ?
(Also the host spent today still being apologetic for yesterday - not very fair on him is it)
Nothing is perfect.
Expecting perfection is expecting the impossible.
And why should others have to "understand" where lazy people (or those who think they are more important) are coming from?
It is was their lack of effort that lead to their problem, no one else.
Also, is it not better to raise people up to a higher standard of expectations than keep lowering the bar all the time?
- Status