Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[Sylveria]

Personally I don't see the crime / bounty system as being the savior of Open. Not saying certain elements of it cannot be improved, but as I've said before, and as Roybe keeps pointing out, it's really tough to allow and even encourage illicit behavior and then punish it with an iron fist. Murder is either something that can happen in the game, and the perpetrator walks away from it with minor inconvenience and continues playing, or it is forbidden, and punished harshly enough that it does not happen (i.e. players that do it are stopped playing). I really don't see a middle ground here, but I accept that is just my opinion.

Agree that it's not the "savior" of Open- but I believe it would definitely make the environment more palpable. The lack of a real consequence system is what stands out for me currently.

I've done enough of the "meat grinder" PvP to know it's VERY boring. Hours upon hours of the same useless slaughter for what, exactly? If the only enjoyment you get is that of killing, it's really time to take a step back and question who you are, IMO.

 

[Roybe]

So extending that logic - can we assume the same thing about the reason combat logging is still here being "obvious" seeing as the latest is "we need more data to be honest"?

A purposeful, ungraceful exit has been stated to be an exploit by the devs. A few times. Where have they stated that PVP in Open, or even more specifically, non-consensual PVP, is an exploit?

Non-consensual<=>griefing so, please, do not venture into that area. If you feel this way...then we can agree to disagree. (BTW, I did answer your question on my personal thoughts on morality)

They have telemetry...probably want more...they are ultimately taking back a product with no refund...or changing the gameplay of the accused to be vastly different than what the accused paid for. They better be sure of what they are doing.

 

[Arkadi]

I wonder - what is it about this discussion? Gamers who like space and spaceships cant agree how they want to play out theire fantasies? Frontier gave us a big place to play. Why cant we agree to disagree at some points and have serveral games going on on the same playground?

Why are some people so against some change in the actual gamedesign, I wonder? There would be place for the journeyman of space, for the group players to cooperate, for the lone wolve to fight the npcs and tinker with the background simulation, witch should not be called this - it should be called the game-world - its not background, its the only thing living in this universe, next to circeling objects in space - and some cmdrs in solo, group or open play flying back and forth in space.

So please give also those players some freedom, who want to play a serious powerplay simulation where confrontation (pvp) is not only an option of mutual agreement but something we must deal with, when diplomacy fails - or when territorial borders are infringed.

No one would be forced to take part in this "rough" game-world. Every cmdr can also be neutral and not pledge - or keep his ship in secure or neutral territory. No problems there.

Everyone can have his share - only powerplay may not live to its full potential? Why that?

You may have read, that I proposed to have only commanders who pledge allegiance to be forced into open play when they carry fortifications or preperation cargo or when they enter territorry of other factions. Everything else woult not be touched. Would that hurt anyone? And for the X-Boxers - they would have to pay theire online fee - its x-box and online gaming is extracash, they knew it when they bought it.

Q: have you ever worked for a political campaign (in real life)? I have. It's dull work; going door-to-door or in a mall with a clipboard, talking to people, trying to get them registered to vote, trying to give them information on your party (leaflets), telephone trees, co-ordinating papers back at the central organizing location... that's exactly what Powerplay is. Politics are not war. If you go to war it's because your politicking has broken down.


Maybe because many people do not find it a grind [usually]. I personally like planning multiple trade hops, avoiding those nasty white dwarf stars or double-suns, figuring out where I'm going and what is profitable there, working on a "perfect landing" with various ships, trying to figure out how to face a waypoint so that I pop out of SC facing the station & don't have to run the whole length of it to get to the slot, occasionally firing off my scanners... a long-tail game, and that's only trading.


Again, your perception of "what is a grind" is not shared by everyone.

- - - Updated - - -


TOtally. Add on to that the people who come to forums and talk about the game when they've previously said they haven't been playing for months!

Its exactly this. Some people are happy with the game as it is. Very good. Some people want a little bit more. I am one of them and I dont see how my wish should ruin the day for any of the content gamers who dont care about pvp and a consequent powerplay vision that could support a real strategy game-play and competition between player groups. I dont see how the wish for stricter rules for powerplay can interfer with anything postetd above.

Still I am ready to be content with the situation as it is and depend on the willingness of my fellow powerplay gamers to share the world in open and not abuse soloing too much - so we also have the need to watch space and react to the open actions of our fellow gamers.

 

[Roybe]

Agree that it's not the "savior" of Open- but I believe it would definitely make the environment more palpable. The lack of a real consequence system is what stands out for me currently.

I've done enough of the "meat grinder" PvP to know it's VERY boring. Hours upon hours of the same useless slaughter for what, exactly? If the only enjoyment you get is that of killing, it's really time to take a step back and question who you are, IMO.

..and yet it still happens! LOL! I do understand the problem you are attempting to fix...however, there cannot be vast changes to the system...or punishment to strong that destroys the ability to play the 'bad guy'...they have just as much a right to play their role as the 'good guys' (in WoW the Horde has the same access to all parts of the game, just as the good guys, the idea of PVE only servers notwithstanding)...in all parts of the game...punishment should not limit them to areas of the game...since the 'good guys' will not be limited in the same way (the idea that because you want to be a bad guy, you give up all rights to stations except anarchists...is to limiting).

The fact that there are no public PVE modes should make the idea pretty clear that FDev desires people have conflict within Open...and have offered the conflict wary places to play.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder - what is it about this discussion? Gamers who like space and spaceships cant agree how they want to play out theire fantasies? Frontier gave us a big place to play. Why cant we agree to disagree at some points and have serveral games going on on the same playground?

Why are some people so against some change in the actual gamedesign, I wonder? There would be place for the journeyman of space, for the group players to cooperate, for the lone wolve to fight the npcs and tinker with the background simulation, witch should not be called this - it should be called the game-world - its not background, its the only thing living in this universe, next to circeling objects in space - and some cmdrs in solo, group or open play flying back and forth in space.

So please give also those players some freedom, who want to play a serious powerplay simulation where confrontation (pvp) is not only an option of mutual agreement but something we must deal with, when diplomacy fails - or when territorial borders are infringed.

No one would be forced to take part in this "rough" game-world. Every cmdr can also be neutral and not pledge - or keep his ship in secure or neutral territory. No problems there.

Everyone can have his share - only powerplay may not live to its full potential? Why that?

You may have read, that I proposed to have only commanders who pledge allegiance to be forced into open play when they carry fortifications or preperation cargo or when they enter territorry of other factions. Everything else woult not be touched. Would that hurt anyone? And for the X-Boxers - they would have to pay theire online fee - its x-box and online gaming is extracash, they knew it when they bought it.





Its exactly this. Some people are happy with the game as it is. Very good. Some people want a little bit more. I am one of them and I dont see how my wish should ruin the day for any of the content gamers who dont care about pvp and a consequent powerplay vision that could support a real strategy game-play and competition between player groups. I dont see how the wish for stricter rules for powerplay can interfer with anything postetd above.

Still I am ready to be content with the situation as it is and depend on the willingness of my fellow powerplay gamers to share the world in open and not abuse soloing too much - so we also have the need to watch space and react to the open actions of our fellow gamers.

You wish does not affect anyone. However, what we are trying to explain is, the devs do not wish there to be very different than what it is...there is no PVE mode...because they do not want it. No amount of reasoning, logic, or argument will change that. Mobius exists...and that is, apparently enough, (and sometimes I wonder if it's in spite of) for the devs.

 

[ianw]

A purposeful, ungraceful exit has been stated to be an exploit by the devs. A few times. Where have they stated that PVP in Open, or even more specifically, non-consensual PVP, is an exploit?

Non-consensual<=>griefing so, please, do not venture into that area. If you feel this way...then we can agree to disagree. (BTW, I did answer your question on my personal thoughts on morality)

They have telemetry...probably want more...they are ultimately taking back a product with no refund...or changing the gameplay of the accused to be vastly different than what the accused paid for. They better be sure of what they are doing.

I know they said it it was an exploit - actually they said it was cheating. And as they make the rules who are we to argue?

They also said lots of other things that turned out to be forgotten, mislaid, on the to do list etc. and haven't happened.

Your argument unless I'm mistaken is that we should take what we have now as evidence of their intent moving forward. I'm saying logically that must apply to combat logging too.

As despite their declaration that it's a cheat, here we are again - with it royally kicked into the long grass again - on the basis, in part at least - that they "need more data".

They need more data in spite of the legions of hurty people spamming reports about "combat logging" regardless of the fact they have no clue as to why someone "exited the game ungracefully".

You like to tell everyone over and over again that they should divine FD's true intent for the game from what we have now - so what does this say to you?

 

[Roybe]

A purposeful, ungraceful exit has been stated to be an exploit by the devs. A few times. Where have they stated that PVP in Open, or even more specifically, non-consensual PVP, is an exploit?

Non-consensual<=>griefing so, please, do not venture into that area. If you feel this way...then we can agree to disagree. (BTW, I did answer your question on my personal thoughts on morality)

They have telemetry...probably want more...they are ultimately taking back a product with no refund...or changing the gameplay of the accused to be vastly different than what the accused paid for. They better be sure of what they are doing.

I know they said it it was an exploit - actually they said it was cheating. And as they make the rules who are we to argue?

They also said lots of other things that turned out to be forgotten, mislaid, on the to do list etc. and haven't happened.

Your argument unless I'm mistaken is that we should take what we have now as evidence of their intent moving forward. I'm saying logically that must apply to combat logging too.

As despite their declaration that it's a cheat, here we are again - with it royally kicked into the long grass again - on the basis, in part at least - that they "need more data".

They need more data in spite of the legions of hurty people spamming reports about "combat logging" regardless of the fact they have no clue as to why someone "exited the game ungracefully".

You like to tell everyone over and over again that they should divine FD's true intent for the game - so what does this say to you?

Well...I guess the devs suck at this point...they promise one thing and continually fail to deliver...so, does that mean we all quit? Because complaining isn't going to get the problem addressed any faster...obviously. Showing thousands of minutes of video throughout the internet hasn't lit a fire under them...so how do you expect a few voices to make a difference on the forums.

As someone that worked with groups to hold their feet to the fire for the first few months over the BGS...I see the problem. I'm trying to tell folks...change might be coming...but it is not on a timetable that anyone can discern...and some of the most basic choices the devs have made...will not be changed by any pressure people want to put on them. This includes the Open vs. issue, as well as the Justice issue, including 'unwanted' PVP. There might be incremental changes (no blocking, bonuses, huge penalties, etc.)...but it will be past the first of the year...if ever...if anything really changes for these issues. People can accept this, or not. Discussion is fun...but it really is non-productive.

On an interesting note, if I understand the XBone people correctly, they cannot even make a Mobius group (it appears they do not have private group capabilities..or it is in some way limited..if someone can verify this...it certainly would be interesting) hree's where I saw it. (If this is not returned to the Xbox players...it is definitely an interesting turn of events)

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=186070&p=2864504&viewfull=1#post2864504

'Unfortunately for us on Xbox, FD have withdrawn the option for wing or private group play, forcing the likes of those, like me, who prefer the interaction of open but are being forced into a pointless and destructive gameplay mentality that is taking much from the complete ED experience. I can only hope that FD reinstate the wing/private group option on full release of the Xbox version set for October 6th.'

 

[ianw]

A purposeful, ungraceful exit has been stated to be an exploit by the devs. A few times. Where have they stated that PVP in Open, or even more specifically, non-consensual PVP, is an exploit?

Non-consensual<=>griefing so, please, do not venture into that area. If you feel this way...then we can agree to disagree. (BTW, I did answer your question on my personal thoughts on morality)

They have telemetry...probably want more...they are ultimately taking back a product with no refund...or changing the gameplay of the accused to be vastly different than what the accused paid for. They better be sure of what they are doing.


Well...I guess the devs suck at this point...they promise one thing and continually fail to deliver...so, does that mean we all quit? Because complaining isn't going to get the problem addressed any faster...obviously. Showing thousands of minutes of video throughout the internet hasn't lit a fire under them...so how do you expect a few voices to make a difference on the forums.

As someone that worked with groups to hold their feet to the fire for the first few months over the BGS...I see the problem. I'm trying to tell folks...change might be coming...but it is not on a timetable that anyone can discern...and some of the most basic choices the devs have made...will not be changed by any pressure people want to put on them. This includes the Open vs. issue, as well as the Justice issue, including 'unwanted' PVP. There might be incremental changes (no blocking, bonuses, huge penalties, etc.)...but it will be past the first of the year...if ever...if anything really changes for these issues. People can accept this, or not. Discussion is fun...but it really is non-productive.

On an interesting note, if I understand the XBone people correctly, they cannot even make a Mobius group (it appears they do not have private group capabilities..or it is in some way limited..if someone can verify this...it certainly would be interesting)

I'm tempted to say something about cheapo console peasants - but I don't think that would be helpful at this stage - and I don't mean it! (I really don't)

I think Mobius has an Xbone so maybe he can clue us in at some point?

 

[Faded Glory]

I wonder - what is it about this discussion? Gamers who like space and spaceships cant agree how they want to play out theire fantasies? Frontier gave us a big place to play. Why cant we agree to disagree at some points and have serveral games going on on the same playground?

Simply because FD want everyone, in every mode to play in one BGS, not several.

So please give also those players some freedom, who want to play a serious powerplay simulation where confrontation (pvp) is not only an option of mutual agreement but something we must deal with, when diplomacy fails - or when territorial borders are infringed.

No one would be forced to take part in this "rough" game-world. Every cmdr can also be neutral and not pledge - or keep his ship in secure or neutral territory. No problems there.

Everyone can have his share - only powerplay may not live to its full potential? Why that?

But some players would be forced into playing in your 'rough' game-world. The players who wish to pursue their PP objectives in Group or Solo mode.

Perhaps you will counter that at the moment, Open players are being 'forced' to play Solo, perhaps to be more efficient...

Still I am ready to be content with the situation as it is and depend on the willingness of my fellow powerplay gamers to share the world in open and not abuse soloing too much - so we also have the need to watch space and react to the open actions of our fellow gamers.

...but you are not. If playing in an Open, PvP rich environment is important to you, nobody is stopping you, but your fellow PP gamers (presumably) don't share your views, and find it more important to 'win' in the most efficient way.

You can play PP in Open, and you can blockade and PvP as much as you wish with others who want that, and if there's no-one there to blockade and PvP with, then you are free to fortify or undermine in PvE ways in Open, unopposed.

PvP will generally have to be consensual (it certainly should be for it to be enjoyable), and if there are not enough people to PvP with, then that is not a problem FD can really address, it presumably means that not that many people want to PvP.

 

[Roybe]

I'm tempted to say something about cheapo console peasants - but I don't think that would be helpful at this stage - and I don't mean it! (I really don't)

I think Mobius has an Xbone so maybe he can clue us in at some point?

Honestly, I was hoping that there would be x-platform capabilities for group affiliation. Without private groups..the Xbox experience will be vastly different than the PC/Mac. I am hoping, for their sake that this is a test server limitation...rather than a permanent choice. Of course once the populations equilibrate to the various modes...the influx of complaints to this thread will be huge! Yay...modes!

 

[ianw]

Honestly, I was hoping that there would be x-platform capabilities for group affiliation. Without private groups..the Xbox experience will be vastly different than the PC/Mac. I am hoping, for their sake that this is a test server limitation...rather than a permanent choice. Of course once the populations equilibrate to the various modes...the influx of complaints to this thread will be huge! Yay...modes!

I seem to recall Sandro or DB or MB saying they'd like Xboxers to share the same space but I'm pretty sure that's been written off?

Though we will all share the same BGS.

I doubt you could have shared private groups across the 2 systems as I've seen reports that say people can use the same CMDR name on the Xbox as they have on the PC. No idea what the limitations are on a private group in Xbox - maybe Mobius managed to snag the Mobius name in Xbox there could be a parallel group?

 

[Roybe]

I seem to recall Sandro or DB or MB saying they'd like Xboxers to share the same space but I'm pretty sure that's been written off?

Though we will all share the same BGS.

I doubt you could have shared private groups across the 2 systems as I've seen reports that say people can use the same CMDR name on the Xbox as they have on the PC. No idea what the limitations are on a private group in Xbox - maybe Mobius managed to snag the Mobius name in Xbox there could be a parallel group?

Yeah...I knew that...but it means game play choices are vastly different between the two different platforms. Working for a group on the Xbox...becomes much more difficult if everyone is stuck in Open. Basically, the lack of modes on XBone..would mean that FDev have given up on the modes...which means nothing or something...

 

[Mouse]

I have to say I think it is funny that you have ignored everything I've said to you including a question to be answered..

No its not

its actually about who can grind more npc's in solo.

You can make up roleplay stuff all you like doesn't mean that it is actually gameplay here and now. Or good gameplay which is exactly what the guy your responding to is talking about.

Actually is it NOT about who can grind the most NPC's in solo, most actual MISSIONS for Powerplay are delivery to either prepare, undermine or fortify, and missions are available in all three modes, not just solo. I know this because I do not play in solo, yet I have everything available in solo available to me as well. To call it role play means you actually don't understand what Power Play is, heck or even what good game play is. To you everything is PVP.. which is is not, you can choose to PVP, but it is not a requirement and people have enjoyable and ACTUAL game play without it. I have two systems that my power is weak in, I've been told to deliver certain cargo to those areas so they don't loose them. THAT IS ACTUAL GAME PLAY. You deciding that you are going to shoot me down so that I can not deliver the cargo.. THAT IS ROLE PLAY as you have decided that you will assume the mantle of your power's enforcer and look for enemies of your power to kill. So maybe you need to relearn the definitions of what things are before you state them as facts and get them bass ackwards.

The possibility of other players is what makes the grind go bye bye and emergent gameplay say hello. They keep trying to explain that but people like grinding, it's odd.

You assume that the way you like to play a game is the way everyone does, and you have been told repeatedly... no. And what you feel is a grind others don't. I trade, I look for new routes, I see what resources stations want delivered or need, and I help my power.. the only "grinding" I did was to get from Lord to Baron and that was just doing everything as fast as I could repeatedly.. hence "grind" you for some reason keep thinking that the actual playing of the game is a grind unless your playing against other humans.. and it is NOT. So you keep trying to explain false information and wondering why people keep schooling you on what you are trying to say.


The guy you are talking to is in love with grinding NPC's and has never experienced an amazing sandbox social experience before.

Again a clear indication that you have not looked at ANY replies I have given you before (hence the color change of text from my normal color to maybe make it more noticeable to you.)

I am not in love with grinding NPCs, I am though in love with the ACTUAL GAME PLAY.. which in no way includes PVP, in fact I CANNOT PVP. Due to experiences acquired while serving my country PVP can trigger things I don't want triggered and I could end up in a Hospital again, but you don't care.. you are so dead determined to FORCE OTHERS to PVP that you give scant or no thought that people have bloody good reasons why they DO NOT WANT PVP FORCED ON THEM. As for your "sandbox social experience" comment.. I have to laugh, because I have been playing Sandbox games since probably before you were even born and still do, and again you are using a definition wrong. From Techopedia:

"A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.


A sandbox game is also known as an open-world or free-roaming game."

One glaring thing I notice is no mention in the definition OF PVP or even of anything SOCIAL.. Yet I am social in this game, I was social in Ultima Online, I was social in EVE, I was social in Star Wars Galaxies, I've been social in every sandbox or open world MMO I've played. So again as with many other things you've said through the pages of this mega thread... YOU... ARE... WRONG.


They simply don't understand the side of the argument we are going for. It's not about enforcing ganking or murder (I'm completely against ganking and murder with no penalty. I love PVP anywhere but hate murder for fun) - but about adding depth to our actions outside of who can grind the most npc's wins. Or a more simply put answer - giving more choice of recourse in PowerPlay outside of grinding.

The person who does not understand things.. is you. I know you are against ganking and murdering, you and I both agree on this and have both made suggestions to fix the problem. But you equate PVP as to be the only way to add depth to your actions and think that actual game play is a grind and that forcing PVP on people will suddenly get them to realize they have been playing the game wrong. Many people myself included have instructed you that you are wrong and that PVE can add depth and that actually playing the game does not equate a grind. And also that FORCING PVP onto others is bloody wrong and to many akin to ganking and murdering and is a main reason people are leaving open and going solo or adding to the 12,000 strong and growing PVE group in Mobius.

But you will not listen and instead clamp your hands over your eyes so you do not have to read the text then bray like a mule spouting the same comments over and over again thinking that people will suddenly think you are right because of your repetitiveness.

What you fail to understand is in Power Play you do have a choice and you invoke it, you can role play and PVP.. it is not a mechanic for it but you can do it, with those who choose to do it with you. If you look at history you will understand that Power Play GAME PLAY is shadow play, a political behind the scenes tug of war.

This is fun. I go away for like 2 days and come back and boom - 10 more pages!

I would like to know also how you say you were gone for two days when looking at your posts.. you were replying here yesterday..

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
Basically, the lack of modes on XBone..would mean that FDev have given up on the modes...which means nothing or something...

Or perhaps they are working on an Open PvE mode...

 

[Jockey79]

....
I would like to know also how you say you were gone for two days when looking at your posts.. you were replying here yesterday..

I love when people forget the forums log EVERYTHING.

 

[Sylveria]

I love when people forget the forums log EVERYTHING.

What a tangled web we weave, indeed.

Busteeeeeeeed!

- - - Updated - - -

Or perhaps they are working on an Open PvE mode...

Would laugh hysterically if FD released it without announcement, too.

 

[Jockey79]

Would laugh hysterically if FD released it without announcement, too.

Oh don't. I'd have to buy a new PC chair, as I'd wet myself laughing in this one

 

[Mouse]

I love when people forget the forums log EVERYTHING.

I'm still awaiting an answer from them on this..

He quoted this.

Originally Posted by Mouse
Funny I have that same feeling about mindlessness of PVP, PVE is actually vibrant to me.

And said this

Originally Posted by Daffan
I'm sure you do, considering AI haven't become sentinent yet or unscripted. Unless i missed something about Elite's emergent AI.


and has yet to respond to this.

Originally Posted by Mouse
I would love for you to explain this comment.. maybe you misread, or are trying to do a veiled insult or something.. how does my feeling that PVP is mindless and PVE is vibrant to me (not to everyone).. equate to your comment? I'm assuming that you misread and thought I said the mindlessness of PVE (which is not true) or are you trying to insinuate something about me since I find PVE vibrant and the AI isn't sentient or unscripted.. please clarify..

 

[Sylveria]

Oh don't. I'd have to buy a new PC chair, as I'd wet myself laughing in this one

I may even feel bad for the Open advocates screaming trying to get rid of Solo.

Really, there might even be tears.

 

[relayer]

Just thought to put this here, seeing as it applies to many of the arguments in this thread (along with "strawman," "Overton Windows" and etc)

Wikipedia - Nirvana Fallacy

The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.


By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better".


The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. It is common for arguments which commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about exactly how, or how badly, a proposed solution is claimed to fall short of acceptability, expressing the rejection only in vague terms. [/Wikipedia]



Sound familiar?

 

[Mouse]

Just thought to put this here, seeing as it applies to many of the arguments in this thread (along with "strawman," "Overton Windows" and etc)

Wikipedia - Nirvana Fallacy

The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.


By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better".


The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. It is common for arguments which commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about exactly how, or how badly, a proposed solution is claimed to fall short of acceptability, expressing the rejection only in vague terms. [/Wikipedia]



Sound familiar?

Outta rep.. here is 10 lbs of Cubeo Razorback Bacon.