Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].

[why fi at all]

Do you ever tire of characterizing people who enjoy PvP style of play as bad people? I think all of us could benefit from a more moderated and balanced discussion.

But characterizing people who don't enjoy PvP as cowards, carebears, and not man enough is ok?

People who like PvP are literally forced by the design of the game to shoot players who may not care for it. This is what happens when you allow PvP and force everyone on to the same server.

And this is why you have the separate modes, so people are not forced to be shot at if they don't want to be.

The people who bought the game for the PvP aspects aren't going to fly around asking for permission before shooting. Players can only "force their will on others players" because the game allows it.

And Open is what that is for. The game absolutely allows it, but also gives a way to avoid it. Some people seem to want the way to avoid it to be removed.

If you have a problem with it, you should take it up with the developers rather than trying to make PvP'ers feel bad for playing the game their way.

There is no problem with it from a non-consensual PvP perspective. We don't have to participate. You can play the game the way the devs chose to implement it, and so can we, but we don't have to be your targets, your content. PvP'er seem to be the ones who have a problem with the way the game is. You can and have taken it up with the devs, they don't seem inclined to change it.

PvP'er seem to be the ones who have a problem with the way the game is.
this is probably the most descriptive comment for this thread and it's many incarnations.
the idea being that if this minority can make enough noise it will look like a significant number of people have the same opinion, and that anyone else just doesn't care.

the "just don't care" group would look that way because;

1) they don't read the forums in the first place

2) they are tired of the "round and round" "over and over" "again and again" nature of the arguments put forth in such a combative nature and just stop posting.

3) they might read the comments here, but don't want to get into the circular jerking motion of the arguments because they know that if they post anything opposing the belligerent minority that has the overwhelming number of posts here, then they will become another target for the venom that these PVP folks seem so good at dishing out in the game AND in the forums.

and so we see the tactics in this one exchange and is why i quoted it in full.
the multiple derogatory characterizations of players of the carebear nature, the overwhelming verbage of arguments why they NEED to be able to attack people not interested in PVP, and the dismissal and invalidation of any argument against them by telling them to take it to the devs.

it's verbal PVP in the forums.

and it seems to be working because some people see that the only worthwhile comments are from the PVP combatants in the forum.

nope, never will. Another eve online shooter is all that is wanted in this thread.

I can't come up with a scenario where this debate would end. A twitch combat version of another very popular game may well be the goal for some of the participants in this and other threads on the topic - certainly not by all participants though....

I can't come up with a scenario where this debate would end.

the debate/tantrum will end when the tantrum throwers get their way.

tan·trum
ˈtantrəm/
noun
noun: tantrum; plural noun: tantrums

• an uncontrolled outburst of anger and frustration, typically in a young child.
  "he has temper tantrums if he can't get his own way"
  

  synonyms:

  fit of temper, fit of rage, fit, outburst, pet, paroxysm, frenzy, bad mood, mood, huff, scene; informalhissy fit "how can you tolerate his tantrums?"

Origin
early 18th century: of unknown origin.

link to above definition

 

[DarkWalker]

You think it will get longer than the threadnaughts about FD reneging on the single player offline game?

It already is, through a combination of the subject of offline being removed being banned from the forums at least temporarily (not sure if that ban is still in effect) and many of the players that wanted offline taking their refunds and leaving.

I doubt anything will ever match it in sheer intensity, though. The first offline threadnought got 10K posts in six days; Solo vs Open doesn't come even close.

 

[Cody]

The first offline threadnought got 10K posts in six days.

Sad days! <sighs>

 

[n13L5]

@ Why fi at all: I like "Hissy fit" the best... I can hardly think of a more descriptive term than that in any area of language.

@ Robert Maynard: It is true about harking back to the 'offline debacle' - for me, its partly because every day, the annoyances of an online server, internet vagaries and having no choice about installing patches, let alone being unable to control and re-use your own save games force themselves upon me. More so, because in Solo mode, you have no benefit from that constant need to be logged in, only drawbacks. It is a daily, ongoing aggravation. Even with the lengthening of mission timers, ticking down while you're logged out is still annoying. Unexpected things that take longer do come up. Only game ever that punishes players for not being online 24/7.

And as someone else here pointed out, you end up harking back, because you need to tell the hyper-competitive folks to cut out their attempts at getting FD to remove solo mode, even though you don't like it. All to keep letting FD know that its not ok to follow these people's suggestions to remove modes.

Having a PvE only open mode would at least give those who wanted to play offline some kind of benefit for having to be online. Maybe I would finally be able to forget about the injury, which went beyond the above mentioned online drawbacks for me, as I was unable to play for almost 6 months, because that's how long it took customer service to fix my CMDR from the effects of being stuck in a "bugged" system on December 27th. If I had my own game saves, I could have just gone back to a previous save.

 

[Mouse]

PvP'er seem to be the ones who have a problem with the way the game is.
this is probably the most descriptive comment for this thread and it's many incarnations.
the idea being that if this minority can make enough noise it will look like a significant number of people have the same opinion, and that anyone else just doesn't care.

the "just don't care" group would look that way because;

1) they don't read the forums in the first place

2) they are tired of the "round and round" "over and over" "again and again" nature of the arguments put forth in such a combative nature and just stop posting.

3) they might read the comments here, but don't want to get into the circular jerking motion of the arguments because they know that if they post anything opposing the belligerent minority that has the overwhelming number of posts here, then they will become another target for the venom that these PVP folks seem so good at dishing out in the game AND in the forums.

and so we see the tactics in this one exchange and is why i quoted it in full.
the multiple derogatory characterizations of players of the carebear nature, the overwhelming verbage of arguments why they NEED to be able to attack people not interested in PVP, and the dismissal and invalidation of any argument against them by telling them to take it to the devs.

it's verbal PVP in the forums.

and it seems to be working because some people see that the only worthwhile comments are from the PVP combatants in the forum.




I can't come up with a scenario where this debate would end.

the debate/tantrum will end when the tantrum throwers get their way.

tan·trum
ˈtantrəm/
noun
noun: tantrum; plural noun: tantrums

• an uncontrolled outburst of anger and frustration, typically in a young child.
  "he has temper tantrums if he can't get his own way"
  

  synonyms:

  fit of temper, fit of rage, fit, outburst, pet, paroxysm, frenzy, bad mood, mood, huff, scene; informalhissy fit "how can you tolerate his tantrums?"

Origin
early 18th century: of unknown origin.

link to above definition

This is very well said , but I have to say that we need to remember that not all PVPers are like that. It is just a small group of hardcore PVPers that think their PVP experience trumps everyone else's gaming experiences.

 

[Daffan]

2nd galaxy with open only

or

make open more attractive because solo is already way more efficient, faster and unfair

or

a numerous other fair suggestions in this thread

 

[Mouse]

2nd galaxy with open only

or

make open more attractive because solo is already way more efficient, faster and unfair

or

a numerous other fair suggestions in this thread

FD said no


or

Solo is as fair as Open

or

none of the "suggestions" made have been "fair" at all.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

2nd galaxy with open only

or

make open more attractive because solo is already way more efficient, faster and unfair

or

a numerous other fair suggestions in this thread

1 won't happen, mostly just because of the cost alone.

2 is probably the best bet. Currently there is no reason to play in open unless you really like pvp, it's just straight up worse for everything else.

 

[Jockey79]

FD said no


or

Solo is as fair as Open

or

none of the "suggestions" made have been "fair" at all.

I was looking for the fair suggestions, wondering why I could not find them.

I found;

Close solo,
Lock solo,
Nerf solo,
Remove solo,
Buff open,
Lock open,
Force open,
Move open to another server,
And a bunch of rants and insults.

 

[Faded Glory]

2nd galaxy with open only

Presumably FD don't think there's enough demand for such a move. And if they are correct that the demand isn't there, but did it anyway, you'd just be back here complaining that 'open only' was a deserted wasteland, and they should somehow force everyone else to go play there for your benefit.

make open more attractive because solo is already way more efficient, faster and unfair

Unfair? A few people want PP and CG's to be about PvP. To them, having players in Group or Solo will always seem unfair, no 'incentives' will change that. Or is there some other competitive aspect to the game that you are referring to?

a numerous other fair suggestions in this thread

None spring readily to mind to be honest.

 

[Captain Willard]

"none of the "suggestions" made have been "fair" at all."
There is no need for suggestions, the game was made fair from day one. Open, group, and solo.

 

[whipdiddywhip]

i've only been playing 2 days but can already see that ED is designed with pvp being the very bottom of it's priority list, instead of trying to change that, we pvp'ers need to just accept content for pvp is always going to be severely limited or just move to another game

with this game being designed as a pve game its highly unfair to ask that ppl be forced into open play, if this game had more of a pvp aspect to it then maybe you'd have a case,

 

[Jockey79]

i've only been playing 2 days but can already see that ED is designed with pvp being the very bottom of it's priority list, instead of trying to change that, we pvp'ers need to just accept content for pvp is always going to be severely limited or just move to another game

with this game being designed as a pve game its highly unfair to ask that ppl be forced into open play, if this game had more of a pvp aspect to it then maybe you'd have a case,

Well said

Though a few PvE folks on here have said they are looking forward to CQC when we get it (I being among those mentioned).
So it's not even dislike of PvP for some, it's about immersion and "being" the commander of the ship, nothing breaks immersion faster than a rebuy screen.

 

[relayer]

Having a PvE only open mode would at least give those who wanted to play offline some kind of benefit for having to be online.

Agree with most of your post but plucked this sentence to comment on.

Maybe I don't understand the mechanics, but isn't Groups the answer to that?

 

[Belzmort]

Agree with most of your post but plucked this sentence to comment on.

Maybe I don't understand the mechanics, but isn't Groups the answer to that?

Yes it does, but there is still a very small risk of meeting a at that joins mobius just to grief people, just to get chucked out again. So a pure PvE server would be ideal, but I make no demands on the devs for this to happen, as I can still enjoy the game with the current set up.

 

[Seonid]

Currently there is no reason to play in open unless you really like pvp

Utter nonsense, not everyone plays with the same mindset as you.

 

[DarkWalker]

Yes it does, but there is still a very small risk of meeting a at that joins mobius just to grief people, just to get chucked out again. So a pure PvE server would be ideal, but I make no demands on the devs for this to happen, as I can still enjoy the game with the current set up.

Also:

- An official PvE option, in the menu, would likely attract far more players than Mobius could ever achieve. Which means that the PvE players would have a far easier time meeting each other.
- No need for a single player to single-handedly accept others into the group or kick out miscreants. Which both means less work for Mobius, and no risk of him leaving the game for any reason* and making the maintenance of the group unfeasible.

* not saying he would do it, but life is often unpredictable.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Utter nonsense, not everyone plays with the same mindset as you.

I know, that's the problem, some people actually care about open being worse.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I know that's the problem, some people actually care about open being worse.

It rather depends on what "worse" means in this context....

 

[Seonid]

I guess my experience in Open since Gamma is different to others, but that's also the thing.