- Status
Yes. I would walk away if left with PvP Open only.
Backlog of steam games and modded Freespace 2 for space kicks to keep me amused. I might be slightly dissapointed but will hardly shed a tear.
Played Eve Online for a few years, mainly null sec, and enjoyed various aspects of game play that that brings including pvp.
BF 4 is my main pvp kick because its specifically designed for pvp, level playing field etc.
I was sold on elite dangerous purely on the modes, and the simulated exploration of our Galaxy.
I was sold on elite dangerous because of cooperative PvE with possible pvp in its place, not dog eat dog crazy lord of the flies nonsense, Pvp as in consensual and balanced (cqc).
Mainly I was sold on choice.
I understand why threads like this exist and the topic will come up again and again. It's funny, I even saw another very recent thread where the topic of modes was raised. It's not going to stop.
PvPers (used in the "I want to shoot at things" sense) wanting more "live" content are always going to be an issue unfortunately. But I think a big problem, which the OP of this thread is about, is the "all modes are valid and equal" mantra. The fact that the different modes affect the same BGS in the same way. It sounds great until you look at the loopholes. It's like: "Aw.. Everyone gets treated equally. Isn't that... wait, what?!"
It may not have much of a practical impact (at least not at the moment), but it's hard to avoid the "that's not quite right" feeling. So you're going to get people complaining about it. Now, there are clearly a lot of staunch supporters of the modes the way they are. And they are going to counter-argue.
Perhaps the situation could be improved somewhat with some more or better communication from FD. Being fed the standard line of "the developers consider all modes valid and equal - end of story" doesn't really help. It doesn't address concerns, it just overrides them.
So...
* sits back and waits for The Wall of Text*
Not really sure how FD can communicate it any better once you've read The Wall of Text.
I guess I missed something then.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
IF it had been this way from day 1 then i would have bought in at the KSer £20 level just to give it a chance. if it then turned out as it is now, i would do everything in my power to try to avoid being instanced with other "PvPers"/
IF it was bought in now, I would be asking / looking into if i was owed a refund as it would not be the game I backed.
Hypothetically however if open was dropped and it was private player groups or solo only..... I would not bat an eyelid, however I would not dream of asking for this as I feel it would be me being selfish suggesting removing a mode just because i myself am not interested in it. (this is not an accusation/dig at you btw)
Last edited:
12345678...
Ah. That one. Yes, I just flicked back through the pages and found it. Jockey did a good job of putting all that together (shame FD didn't). But unless I missed something deep in there somewhere, all of this amounts to "the developers consider all modes valid and equal - end of story". It does not address the issue that is raised in this thread. That is why (well, one of the reasons) this thread will never die.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which one of the many issues are you referring to in particular?
The three modes, single shared galaxy state and mode mobility are features at the very core of the game design. The game has been pitched, funded, launched and sold on the basis of these features. I don't think that Frontier can put it more simply than:
and
The issue is relative to two different perspectives-
One is a group of players that agree with FD are happy with the Modes and believe that Open + Group + Solo is valid and equal gameplay. This group gets it.
This group respects all modes and all playstyles.
The other group disagrees with FD and consequently the other group, is not happy with the game, believes anything other than full blown pvp open is an exploit, is cheating, is for sad sack losers that have no pew pew skills.
This group does not respect the modes or other players who want to enjoy those different playstyles and does not get it.
In between are a few individuals that see both sides, argue the toss and enjoy the debate.
If youre on the PvP side, you will never get it, no matter how many times FD says, this is how it is, this is how we want it, this is how we are going to continue.
The game isnt the issue.
The players are.
Group getting what they want (FD supporting) Versus Group not getting what they want (FD not supporting)
Override/Address = perspective
Last edited:
This one from OP:
Yes. It is simple. And, like I said, it comes down to nothing more than "the developers consider all modes valid and equal - end of story." It offers no justification, no explanation, no understanding of concerns. It's like what a parent answers a child who asks, "Why aren't I allowed to do that?" with a, "Because I said so." It works for a while, but at some point a better reason is needed.
Now, I'm not saying I'm right. Just suggesting. But, perhaps, there are a few players who are looking for a better reason?
Um that isn't an issue.. that is a Mod Jenner starting a new version of the mega thread and stating what FD has been saying all along
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If Frontier put forward a reason (beyond the fact that their design for the game includes these features) then it will (almost certainly) only cause an argument for the sake of it.
Frontier have stated their position several times recently after having done what they set out to do from the publication of the stated game design at the outset of the Kickstarter - they have delivered a game with the three online game modes, single shared galaxy state (between all game modes and platforms) and mode mobility.
Seeing this conversation this morning made me smile
Devs have commented on modes and on PP / CG saying they are all "balanced" and so on. As for PvP, I've not seen any direct Dev quotes.
However, the Devs must place some importance on PvP as they are bringing out CQC without any form of PvE element.
In contrast, Wargaming.net made PvE versions of their PvP games so teams of 6 can battle AI in arenas in their Tank / Ship / Plane games.
Well, "the wall", doesn't seem to be working all that well.
It would be great if FD would put together an official FAQ somewhere on the Elite Dangerous site. Not just for this issue, but for a bunch of other questions as well. It would be handy to have an official resource like that in one location.
Then, they could possibly add something like this....
Isn't it unfair to allow people to switch modes? Won't it be used as an exploit?
We have heard and completely understand the issues from certain members of the community in this regard. Unfortunately, there is no perfect system. We strongly hold to the belief that offering different modes of play allows for a more inclusive and enjoyable experience for a greater number of players. We understand that there are issues with this, particularly in relation to Community Goals and Powerplay. Again, we maintain that there is greater benefit in keeping the consistent background simulation the way it is. Understandably, some players will not agree with our decisions. We hope that those players will be able to look past this and continue to support and enjoy Elite: Dangerous now and into the future.
I honestly question the reasons behind those questioning FD's motives for their egalitarian approach to the modes. The 'Whys' have been done to death in this thread, yet some are still not satisfied. Just because we paid for access to this game, this does not automatically mean we have the privileges to question and pursue FD's motives as to its design. Its their game. They designed it how they want. It is advertised this way. They have hidden nothing. It clearly states what it is you are purchasing. If what you purchased doesn't suit you and you failed to comprehend the advertising, the explanations, the descriptions etc then sorry. That is not FD's fault. The game is what the game is, the modes are there for all. Everyone. They couldn't get any more egalitarian about it.
As far as I can see this thread exists partly because a group of players feel that other players get something easier than they do. This is driven by envy. Disguised as concern and curiosity. This is then countered by players who reason and allay these 'concerns' and put them into the proper perspective. Yet it continues. Despite FD continuously affirming the validity of all modes the questions remain. Because the real reason this thread remains active is that some players just cannot accept that other players may wish to do things differently to them. Tribalism. Its mods v rockers, crips v bloods or me v the rest of the world.
As far as I can see the only objectivity comes from those in solo or group as they defend their corner from a vocal and vociferous group who care only for their own game. So the tribes as I see it are sharers v selfish. I'm glad to be a part of the former as the latter is so 20th century.
As far as I can see this thread exists partly because a group of players feel that other players get something easier than they do. This is driven by envy. Disguised as concern and curiosity. This is then countered by players who reason and allay these 'concerns' and put them into the proper perspective. Yet it continues. Despite FD continuously affirming the validity of all modes the questions remain. Because the real reason this thread remains active is that some players just cannot accept that other players may wish to do things differently to them. Tribalism. Its mods v rockers, crips v bloods or me v the rest of the world.
As far as I can see the only objectivity comes from those in solo or group as they defend their corner from a vocal and vociferous group who care only for their own game. So the tribes as I see it are sharers v selfish. I'm glad to be a part of the former as the latter is so 20th century.
Well some don't research before they buy then they try to change things to the way they thought it would be. If they can't be bothered to do that.. how can they be bothered to read the wall of text before launching into their tirade on "HOW" this game should be?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
There is an FAQ on the forums here that dates back to the earliest days of the Kickstarter which talks about single player, multi-player and the "groups" (modes).
As to your text - it presupposes that Frontier agree that there are issues. Some players have issues with the core features in question. Some players don't.
Not everyone sees mode switching as a problem though.
Only those wanting forced interactions between players do - and lets be honest, they were never the target audience for the game.
Former Elite, Frontier and Oolite players (the single player PvE games) were the target audience.
And as the Devs have said there is a healthy player base coupled with there is very few people complaining in comparison - people in general like the game.
Also, to put that in perspective, WoW, EVE, PS2, WoT, SW:TOR and every other MMO out there has people complaining about core features that were there from the start.
And some of those games are over 10 years old with the same core game they started with.
You cannot please everyone.
The "reason" has been given - people just don't like it.
It's what was paid for in Kickstarter. Once FD started accepting money based on that design, they were committed to it.
Trying to change that now would be disastrous for the company reputation and for DBOBE personally.
It would also reflect badly on Kickstarter, making future projects less likely to get funds;
as people would know those advertised features they are funding could be pulled the moment any small group of spiteful people start whining about them years later.
I am all for PvP or PvE or solo. I have been out of PvP for a while out of personal choice. Today I started my game in Open and I was exploring. I had my battle Anaconda for this purpose as I intended only short jumps. I was carrying 10 T of Marine Equipment too. On my way outward bound I chatted with a couple of commanders who were very polite. However after being away for about 120 systems and found myself back I was interdicted by a Python. He was wanted and I deployed my weapons. He informed me to dump my cargo which I refused. Then pursued a firefight. I removed most of his shields and he got mine down to one ring. Then he called in reinforcements in the shape of a Vulture. Then both of them started shooting my shields away so I decided to jump away. I did so and headed to the station only to be interdicted again by both of them. I said this is why peeps stay out of open. They just opened up on me so I tried to jump away again but they stripped my shields too quick and disabled my thrusters. I asked them to stop and repeated my request they just continued shooting at me. So I did the only thing left to me I quit the game and quickly!
I returned to the game in Open and didn't see them again.
These useless griefers are why I will not play in Open again unless I am in a wing. With the Python I would have stayed and fight it out because I considered this a fair fight. But him calling in reinforcements put the game out of balance.
So whoever you are, you are responsible for me staying out of open. I am not afraid of a fair fight but you obviously are.
I returned to the game in Open and didn't see them again.
These useless griefers are why I will not play in Open again unless I am in a wing. With the Python I would have stayed and fight it out because I considered this a fair fight. But him calling in reinforcements put the game out of balance.
So whoever you are, you are responsible for me staying out of open. I am not afraid of a fair fight but you obviously are.
- Status