Modes These arguments are tedious.

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

I think the phrase I used could have been 'little Napoleonic pillocks', otherwise I apologize for being boring.

And BGS/PP manipulation is what you've signed up for when you participate in BGS/PP. That is playing the BGS/PP game. And that's different from 'little Napoleonic pillocks' claiming a station or system and not allowing me, who is not interested in that crap and didn't sign up for it, entry in their station or system.

I always have hated UA bombing and have said so many time precisely because it impacts also those who didn't sign up for that stuff.


You do. It's your choice to be subjected to unwanted PvP.

You may not like it, but you did consent.

I might get banned for spamming that wall of text.

This choise is flawed by itself. There is no balance to it. You are pretty much forced to play in Solo if you want to get bigger ship faster.

 

[Jockey79]

I might get banned for spamming that wall of text.

Spam this one then, so you're not doing the same one over and over;



The Wall of Information;


A quick look at the history of; and tech used to bring you this game (explains why some things are not possible).


[video=youtube_share;EvJPyjmfdz0]https://youtu.be/EvJPyjmfdz0[/video]


Thanks to Roybe for for the link to the video.

From the Kickstarter;
*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*


Some Dev comments from the Kickstarter;

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1681441
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1705397
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...omment-1705551

The part about it being as much a MMO as CoD is already in your Wall of Text, the second KS post. His exact words were "I don't see this as an MMO in the traditional sense, unless you think of Call of Duty as an MMO."


About he not wanting to call it a MMO early on, well, besides that very post hinting at it, and the Kickstart page not using that term even once, I remember hearing it in old video interviews from the KS era. The "I don't see it as an MMO in the traditional sense" line came out quite a few times before fans managed to finally convince DB that Elite Dangerous, as pitched, would qualify as an actual MMO.


There are other interesting things to find in those old interviews. For example, just from the Gary Whitta interview with David Braben and Chris Roberts, you have:
(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)


As reference for the following quote, here is Chris Roberts speaking about the Star Citizen equivalent of this thread (part 3, 5:30):
"And the key is kind of what David alluded to, which I think it's a debate that David has with his community and it's a debate I have with my community because there is definitely this whole sort of PvP and PvE sort of factions that go on and they're all pretty rabid. And so I think, and I think David also believes that you can sort of create a game that can cater to both sets of players and it will be okay. But it certainly is, that is, I would say if I were going to give you a touchpaper to set up a fight with your community that's the one to do it."


The immediate follow up by DB about PvE groups (part 3, 6:01):
"Well, the discussions have come up already. We have this concept of groups where you can join a group which doesn't allow or does allow it on the user choice."


Or this about the kind of game DB would want to play (part 3, 7:09):
"You know, so what I would I want from a game? I want to be able to play a great game without being griefed by teenagers, but having said that I do want there to be a feeling of risk out there."


Also this about what player interaction in ED was supposed to be about (part 3, 2:06):
"And so, I don’t mean necessarily every ship should be a player because then you get into a frame of mind that you can’t kill anything without really upsetting someone. I mean with Elite: Dangerous it’s still…a lot of the ships you encounter won’t be real players but we will call out, of the ships that you meet, who is a real player. We have a way of distinguishing them within the game. They’re actually part of this group of pilots that you’re part of and it will call out, above them say. Essentially what it means is “this is a real player,” but in the game fabric: “so this is a group who a member of the same organization as you.” We…you know, in other words we, we don’t want this game to be all about player vs. player kills, but the point is it encourages a lot of cooperation. And, it will be possible to do player vs. player kills if that’s what people want to do. "

From the forum archives;
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300


All Players Group– Players in this group will be matched with each other as much as possible to ensure as many human players can meet and play together
Private Group – Players in this group will only be matched with other players in the same private group
Solo Group – Players in this group won’t be matched with anyone else ever (effectively a private group with no one else invited)
(All by a Lead Designer)


Also DB on Multiplayer and Grouping and Single (01:00 - 02:01) Plus how the Galaxy will evolve over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5JY...kuz6s&index=18
"DB explicitly said that solo players would be able to do community goals, though back then they weren't called that. Dev Diary Video #2, at the 4:10 mark."


DB on "Griefing" and "Griefers"
(Listen out for the part where FD can move them in to a private group of just each other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M


Rededit Topic on "unusual event for players to come against players" (Twitch Video now removed, YT link for it below)
http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangero...ayers_to_come/


( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJzizYUEF9c EGX2014 Video, 30 minutes long)


Also, MMO does not mean "social" (It means lots of people connected)


Wikipedia;
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.


Oxford English Dictionary (Online);
An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .


The Steam Store page;

Please note, "Single Player" and "Multiplayer" with "Co-op".
So not just an "MMO"


Frontier website; www.elitedangerous.com/en/gameplay/wings

Dev comments;

Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.


Michael

Thanks for that clarity Michael.


Are you in a position to confirm that group switching between the three game modes will remain as a feature of the game?

We're not planning on changing that.


Michael

FuzzySpider
The mechanics of powerplay, particularly the interface between player and power being an almost direct copy of the community goal model, gives the entire experience an MMO-guild type feel to the gameplay.


Is this MMO-style a new direction for Elite: Dangerous? Or will you be still focussing on the single player immersive experience, even if that single player is playing in a universe filled with other players?


Thank's very much to you and the FDev team for all of your efforts. One or two subjective les of mine aside the game is the one I've been waiting for for years and I'm totally enamoured with it.

We are supporting multiplayer and the solo experience. Community Goals are carrying on too.

E3 2015 Interview (17th June 2015);


http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/0...-david-braben/


View attachment 98946


PowerPlay AMA related links regarding Modes and Powerplay;

Hi Micheal


I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?

None are planned at the moment.


Michael

In the newsletter, it was mentioned that an intersection between a trading power and a military power will result in piracy missions.


Will this make NPC piracy more profitable or will we continue to need to focus on players?

It can be more profitable, and it will apply to both players and NPCs

For fun


That said, it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation.

Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.

The overall thread topic (+ How XB1 fits);

On that last point, Producer Ben Dowie reiterated that Xbox One and PC players won’t be playing head-to-head—although they’ll be playing in the same simulated universe, they’ll never encounter each other in space, likely because Microsoft’s Xbox patch cycle adds complexity to Frontier’s game update procedure. This means that PC players and Xbox players will often wind up on different clients, which means no head-to-head play. To that end, anticipated PC-centric features will likely land on PC first.

And regarding the game design;

I pointed out that there’s frequent contention online about the “right” way to play, be it casual or hard-core, and Braben agreed. “But there shouldn’t be a ‘right’ way,” he said. “You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play. And people have come up with lots of suggestions, some of them very constructive and sensible, and we do listen, and people hopefully have seen that we’ve changed things and adjusted things, but not in a way—we hope!—to upset people. We’re doing it to make the game better!”

To highlight something from that above quote;


“You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play."


Here is a quote from Zac Antonaci for the "game is dying" pro-claimers.
Dated 10th July 2015;

They need to be.




Look at the current posts on the subreddit and the forum. Your core player base is simply stopping playing. You might be selling copies but if your core community is splitting or stopping playing then you have a problem.

Hey Fred,




I wanted to reply to this honestly if I may.




I'm not going to be talking about active player numbers explicitally but I can tell you without question that the game has a very healthy and thriving community who enjoys hours upon hours of Elite. You really don't need to worry on that point.




<snip>




Zac

And a nice, clear, concise comment from Michael Brookes regarding the modes;

Is there planned to be any defense against the possibility that player created minor factions could be destroyed with no possible recourse through Private Groups or Solo play?

From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.


Michael

Dev Update 6th August 2015 (https://community.elitedangerous.com/node/248);

What we are doing is new in many ways, both technically and in terms of how we are realizing our long term ambitions for Elite Dangerous. As we evolve the game we are trying to give the best value we can to both existing and new players, for the long term benefit of everyone. That’s why we’ve worked hard to keep backwards compatibility for the Elite Dangerous: Horizons season, and are continuing to release updates for ‘season one’ players. Everyone will continue to fly in the same galaxy, and be impacted by, participate in and help to drive the same events.

(I added the bold / underline in the quote to highlight the last line)




Reddit AMA from X-Box One launch, in relation to the Back Ground Simulation and Modes;
https://np.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/3nlmdg/its_frontier_developments_developers_of_elite/

^^ So PC/Mac and X-Box One impact the same live simulation, but cannot actually play together or see each other.

^^ X-Box One also has "Solo Mode" and is recommended by FD Devs for when you do not want to play with other people.


Horizons Live Stream;
(RE: Question about ED being an MMO)

DB was asked a question "Is Elite and MMORPG?" in the LiveStream tonight.

Spoiler

[video=youtube_share;RdP1DmRYco8]https://youtu.be/RdP1DmRYco8[/video]

He answered it like this:


19:42
"Well I think the problem is this: Different people mean different things by saying MMOs, you know. I think we're massive (19:53) by most measures, in terms of we have a lot of people playing, all at the same time. We have instancing, but then you know so does every other or every MMO out there. (20:10) The case, you know, you look at the way Warcraft does it. Now the case is (20:15) where do you set the number. So currently it's you know around 32 players in a session plus NPCs and all that sort of thing. (20:23) You know we could go higher if it weren't for the NPCs, we could go higher if people had perfect network connections. You know if we had a LAN we could go way higher. You know this is the point. (20:31) And it's a case of balancing the experience and also how much data you have to exchange. You know it's a quality of the experience that I expect over time we will increase it.


"But are we an MMO? I think we are by all measures."


Ed speaks and then David adds:


"It's not an RPG in a sense that (21:09) you increase your personal stats but a lot of people play it as a role playing game. I think if that's what you want it to be then so it is I suppose. I don't think it really matters. Someone said 'That's a silly question. Such a waste of time.' Well there you go."

Engineers Live Stream;

2 Points raised and asnwered;

Open PvE Mode;
Is ED a PvP game;

[video=youtube;gEtHu3AXw2Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHu3AXw2Q&t=42m30s[/video]


Here is a post from Sandro Sammarco "musing" over a bonus to Open mode for Power Play;

.....


And since I'm in the mood for pulling hand grenades , here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.


My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo. So the playing field is basically uneven as it stands and in this case, maybe change could make things better.


Now, one final Caveat. *As it stands currently*, we have time allotted in season two to work on Powerplay. These suggestions are just a part of that work - there is other stuff as well. However, I can't commit to the Unbreakable Vow, because it's very possible that in the fluid world of development, things might change!


I just wanted to set these ideas free and see how well they settle, so, comments welcome!

Hello Commanders!


A couple of clarifications:


* This change, which remember is nothing more than a suggestion at this point, would have no effect on personal gain. It would affect success values for expansion, fortification and undermining only, not the merits you earned.


* It does not, and is not, meant to be a panacea to make the actual activities of Powerplay better. It's best to think of it as activity agnostic. That's not to say that we don't want to improve the activities (we do!), just that this is not aimed at that.


* The reason this benefit would only apply to Open as opposed to in Private Groups is fairly clear I think: we have no way to control distribution in Private Groups. Folk could start a Private Group where everyone was pledged to a single power. This would effectively then be Solo in terms of dealing with the potential threat of other Commanders.


* I would not want to introduce this into any aspect of the game except Powerplay because Powerplay is the only aspect of the game that explicitly uses the concept of adversarial multiplayer, as opposed to the more vague ways that minor factions operate.


Hope this info helps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uetVzNINdKU;t=26m40s
[video=youtube;uetVzNINdKU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uetVzNINdKU;t=26m40s[/video]

The first one's from Robert Maynard and he's saying "Has the pin been pulled on the hand grenade I posted in a Collusion Piracy thread?". Just for context this was, I was musing out loud about potentially Open Play Powerplay having some benefit to success over and above Private Groups and Solo - I just want to reiterate that was just me musing, we're not going to do that at the moment, there are no plans to do it, but it is still an interesting thought, nothing's ever completely off the table but nothing to announce at the moment.

On PvP vs PvE
We listen to both sides. While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP. A few changes here are more focused on one or the other (torpedoes have no real place in PvE at the moment for starters), but overall I think they promote variety of loadouts in both styles of play, and will make both more fun. On a personal note: I play more or less entirely in PvE, so if anything my bias in favour of that .

Extra note on "Griefing" and posts by Sandro on the topic;

Hello Commanders!


In this instance, blocking the Commander might prove quite useful.


When you block somebody, a couple of things should happen.


Firstly, you will receive no communications from them.


Secondly, during any transition where matchmaking is at work (so basically, hyperspace jumps, entering and exiting super cruise) you are much less likely to be matched with the blocked Commander.


Blocking becomes weaker when it comes up against friends (and next year, player wings), because if a blocked Commander is in the same session as a friend (say, because they haven't blocked the Commander, the blocking effect is overruled by the friendship matchmaking.


Outside of this case though, blocking should work fine.

Hello Commanders!


A couple of points worth noting:


The block effect is asymmetrical, in that it is much stronger when the blocking player is arriving at a location where the blocked player already is - effectively more of the onus is on the blocker to change their game than the blocked player.


Instancing is a pretty complicated calculation, affected by a significant number of checks, such as instance populations, quality of player connections, friends, wing members, blocked players, blocking players, recent connections (and possibly more - far cleverer folk than me work this out). The weightings for these elements varies as well - wing membership, for example, is an extremely strong weighting towards allowing a match up.


Whilst I'm sure that to some degree matchmaking can be influenced, the complexity and number of elements completely out of the player's control (or even knowledge) are a strong limiting factor.


At the end of the day, ignoring players is a completely personal choice, that *influences* the chance of meeting ignored players, reducing the *potential* for match making with them.

Updated comment regarding Power Play and PvP;


[video=youtube_share;nvMYy0ry9mA]https://youtu.be/nvMYy0ry9mA[/video]


Some well made points made by forum user Sylveria;

The reality here is there are a HUGE number of players that play the game for their own reasons and they may or may not align with yours. For others reading this post, I apologize for the sheer length of it, but I'm really tired of having these same old debates with people and I'm covering a wide range of questions/answers that normally get covered in multi-page thread-noughts in advance. I've wrapped my own thoughts in a spoiler tag to minimize the "wall".


The Technical
Here's a bit of reality. FD created ED with P2P core networking, the BGS is tied into that, and ALL THREE MODES are tied into this as well. "Removing Solo/PG" to throw everyone into Open isn't going to happen because there's no central server system, and as of now, you can "block" using P2P. So to accomplish what you're asking, they would need to completely redo the entire base networking system to prevent people from blocking others on that level. Do you really think they're going to do that for just a (arguably "small") portion of their player base?


The Financial
Let's just posit a small theory, shall we? All of these tired arguments usually allege that there's a "huge" portion of players that wish for this change, and that if it doesn't happen there's going to be some sort of (DOOOOM!!!) "mass exodus" of players who will leave the game, and "FD will be losing potential income", yada yada. Now, bearing in mind all the people who have already bought this game, the amount of money that's been spent so far, and a change to base gameplay functionality (if it were to happen) what do you think the financial repercussions would be? Just affection ONE of any of the three modes would result in a MASS request of refunds... so let's talk actual numbers, shall we?


Mobius PvE was created to help facilitate players who did not want PvP but still wanted to play together online (Co-Op gameplay)
This Private Group has far exceeded the 40,000 player limit and additional "Private Groups" had to be created to facilitate the additional numbers...
Think about that for a minute, then multiply just that number by the base cost of this game, not including any LEP's, Backers, Horizons purchases or additional Store (paintjobs, etc.) content purchased.


Are you getting the picture yet?


Now keeping numbers in mind- let's stick to the financial aspects here. The PvE content included in this game is available to ALL three modes, regardless of PvE or PvP playstyle. If you removed any one of the three modes, that would still be the case, correct? Let's now think about doing the same with PvP content, which is ONLY available to Open mode. How much more money do you think FD spends in addition to what's already existing in the game to ADD more PvP content and accessibility to it? Think of people coding, maintaining the equipment that helps to facilitate networking, logistics, etc.


So, keeping in mind all the aforementioned numbers here's a question:
Do you think it would be more financially viable for them to strip all the PvE content and make it completely PvP, or do the reverse and make it only PvE?


Here's a couple more questions:
How many times have you seen the PvE Community opening threads and spewing posts about removing content from Open and making it exclusively accessible to Solo?
How many times have you seen the PvE Community throwing tantrums and stomping their feet in the Forums or on Reddit about "Leaving the game" if more PvE exclusive content doesn't get added to the game?


Are you getting the "bigger picture" yet?


(Granted, you'll see the occasional post from a PvE player who is "bored" or whatever, but that's to be expected in any game. You'll see those on any forum, because a developer can't make everyone happy, all the time.)


PvP Players
If you want Open to be "better" and want to draw more players into Open, I'd suggest you start banding together, organize some groups and "take out the trash", so it becomes a much cleaner place to enjoy the game. I'd love to see it become what it should have been originally- a huge expansive universe full of life, full of a wide range of players and game play, all doing different things and co-existing together. Pirates, Traders, Explorers, RP-er's, Miners, etc. People enjoying the game they love amongst others, with some being able to cooperatively play in PvP and some being able to cooperatively play in PvE, and some just doing their own thing on their own, without being bothered.


It's not going to be like that when you've got GSP's running around acting like psychopaths and there's (relatively) no consequence for them doing so. You want it to change? Then CHANGE it. You shouldn't need incentive, if your true motivation is "PvP combat", you've got all the incentive (and targets) you need. They're out there waiting for you. And if you keep laying into them, they'll eventually get tired of acting like they have been and quit or change their attitudes and start learning to co-exist.


"Wolf against wolf", not "wolf against sheep".


P.S. for those who care to read it (included in Spoiler tag to reduce the wall of text)

Spoiler

I only speak for myself- and have only done so. No one made me the "voice of Solo/PG's or PvE" here.


I really didn't want to start a "crusade" of PvE vs PvP or any of that. At first, I tried to reason with them... and that didn't work. They won't listen to reason. So now we have to defend our game-play styles because all they're doing with the negativity is driving away new customers because a few people didn't get what they wanted. And because they've got just as much of a right as "customers" to come into the forums and voice their opinions, there's no recourse but to continue to keep laying down reality. I/we don't get "paid" or "compensated" in ANY way, form or fashion for doing this, either. (neither does Jockey79, or any of the other more vocal players of the PvE community) I/we do it because I love the game and don't want to see it destroyed because of a minority few.


I see some in the PvP community spreading falsities, throwing tantrums, and trying their absolute damndest to get FD to change core functionality that affects ALL modes that would affect all players (PvE included) in order to facilitate their "Free For All Killfest" COD-in-space style gameplay. When throwing tantrums didn't work they started to spread toxicity into Reddit, the Official forums, Discord, and anywhere else they feel they'd garner support and be "heard".


Essentially the whole argument is "Remove Solo/PG's and give us our fish for our barrel or we'll burn down the game!!"


(That's it folks, that's the WHOLE strategy)


If you really want to see this game succeed, you should be very concerned. Make your own opinions known, because THEY certainly are.

 

[Mouse]

I might get banned for spamming that wall of text.

This choise is flawed by itself. There is no balance to it. You are pretty much forced to play in Solo if you want to get bigger ship faster.

Funny thing.... you are not FORCED to play anywhere... you CHOOSE to play where you play

 

[Arry]

Funny thing.... you are not FORCED to play anywhere... you CHOOSE to play where you play

.....and it was nice of F.D. to give us the choice.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

A choice where you can sacrifice your gameplay expirience for efficiency can be only called as a bad gameplay design element.

While there are many new PvE experiences waiting in Battle for Azeroth, there are also some new PvP updates for players to look forward to.

In a new Battleground, Seething Shore, players of the Horde and Alliance will descend upon Silithus to battle over the Azerite bubbling to the surface. This Battleground will offer dynamic control point gameplay similar to Arathi Basin, but with new control points appearing periodically as resources are depleted. This new Battleground will require coordination as you and your team work to overcome the opposing faction. Since this Battleground actually serves to tell part of the story that leads to the events of Battle for Azeroth, we also plan to offer a preview of the Seething Shore during patch 7.3.5 as we continue to build upon the conflict between the Horde and the Alliance for the coming expansion.

Beyond instanced PvP, we’re also reexamining how PvP plays out in the outdoor world. The PvP system hasn’t fundamentally changed since the launch of World of Warcraft; however, so many other systems that shape the world, ranging from flying mounts to cross-realm zones, have changed the way players interact. We’ve heard feedback lamenting the decline of world PvP over the years. Meanwhile, there are players on PvP servers who don’t necessarily enjoy that gameplay, but also don’t want to switch servers and leave their friends behind. Looking ahead to Battle for Azeroth, this feels like a great opportunity to update the PvP system to better reflect the state of the game world today.

The core of our plan lies in bringing all servers together under a single PvP ruleset. Players will ultimately be able to choose on an individual basis whether they want to opt in to PvP gameplay or not. While in a capital city, you’ll be able to opt into world PvP, and you will venture out into a PvP-enabled version of the world, populated by other players who have also opted in to PvP gameplay. This also provides a universal foundation upon which we can build new world PvP systems that previously would have inherently excluded everyone playing on a PvE realm.

For those who do opt in to the PvP experience, there will be some slight bonuses such as extra experience gain or reputation gain to offset the additional risk. The nature and magnitude of these bonuses will undergo extensive tuning, with the goal of not making anyone feel obligated to participate in PvP if they dislike that gameplay, while counterbalancing the loss in efficiency for those who do.

And these guys know how MMOs should be balanced.

 

[Jockey79]

A choice where you can sacrifice your gameplay expirience for efficiency can be only called as a bad gameplay design element.

I didn't give up my game play experience to get the credits for my Corvette and Anaconda.
I was still highly efficient earning those credits.

Perhaps you're just playing the game wrong?

And these guys know how MMOs should be balanced.

That's funny, because their customers are always complaining over something not being balanced.

 

[Mouse]

A choice where you can sacrifice your gameplay expirience for efficiency can be only called as a bad gameplay design element.



And these guys know how MMOs should be balanced.

I am not sacrificing my gameplay experience at all... and the thing is.. if you want PVP.. YET you complain that PVP causes inefficiency... and forces you to solo to be efficient. Hypocrisy anyone?

And FDev has a great balanced game... Wow is getting there too they removed PVP servers

 

[Manticore]

I think the phrase I used could have been 'little Napoleonic pillocks', otherwise I apologize for being boring.

And BGS/PP manipulation is what you've signed up for when you participate in BGS/PP. That is playing the BGS/PP game. And that's different from 'little Napoleonic pillocks' claiming a station or system and not allowing me, who is not interested in that crap and didn't sign up for it, entry in their station or system.

I always have hated UA bombing and have said so many times precisely because it impacts also those who didn't sign up for that stuff.


You do. It's your choice to be subjected to unwanted PvP.

You may not like it, but you did consent.

Well said; as usual.

Funny thing.... you are not FORCED to play anywhere... you CHOOSE to play where you play

Absolutely; well said.

And to some other post I read I also agree: This is not World of Borecraft.

 

[Mouse]

I've never said ED will become "EO in cockpits".

You have reading comprehension issues?

ED will never be single shard due to its original construction. Nobody who knows anything about anything has claimed it would.

ED will never have a player driven economy, largely due to developers inability to pull it off. Sad.

I've said ED will inevitably become more like EO as time progresses.

Much as it already has.

The funniest part is that people like you praise these changes, but still cling to the idea that EO is evil, and couldn't possibly influence your game.

Mr. Lets sneak a rude word past the profanity filters states plainly that it is what he wants, you voice support. So my mistake, no reading comprehension issues. And multiple people HAVE claimed that ED will be single shard... have you not been reading things? And ED will not become more like EO as time progresses even though to keep wanting it too. They may share similarities *gasp* games can have similarities? Wow who would have known. Time progressing hasn't proven you right, it has gone separate ways.


And the saddest part is people like you bought a game and can't deal that it wasn't what you wanted to you look to do all you can to change it.

When I can drive up to someone's empty Asp and drive my SRV up under it and claim the ship and fly off with it... Then lets talk

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

I am not sacrificing my gameplay experience at all... and the thing is.. if you want PVP.. YET you complain that PVP causes inefficiency... and forces you to solo to be efficient. Hypocrisy anyone?

And FDev has a great balanced game... Wow is getting there too they removed PVP servers

No hypocricity there. Not on my side, at least.
I was voicing same things over and over, and somehow they reflect in the statement of Blizzard, no less.

Maybe, just maybe... I am right?

 

[Goose4291]

Who said it was a friendly PvP environment?

He set that group up because he was the only one in our social circle who didn't like trading and wanted to shoot people not NPCs.
So he made a PG and tried to get us to play in it under "free for all PvP" rules. He knew where we were and how we were fitted, so he made his combat ship to gank us.

I left for Sag A, told him if he wanted to shoot me - he'd have to catch me.
No way his combat ship would keep up with my Asp

Now I call the PvP Hub a friendly PvP environment. But I also call CQC that as well.

You're being deliberately obtuse now, you know exactly what I mean.

 

[Mouse]

No hypocricity there. Not on my side, at least.
I was voicing same things over and over, and somehow they reflect in the statement of Blizzard, no less.

Maybe, just maybe... I am right?

You think you are right... you claim things are forced on you that are not. You whine that you have to be in Solo to be efficient... yet you are the one wanting things hard core.. wanting PVP... yet when you are faced with the heat... you run to solo to be "efficient"... so Hypocrisy is rather clear.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

You think you are right... you claim things are forced on you that are not. You whine that you have to be in Solo to be efficient... yet you are the one wanting things hard core.. wanting PVP... yet when you are faced with the heat... you run to solo to be "efficient"... so Hypocrisy is rather clear.

Hardcore IS efficiency though. There are no contradictions.

 

[Jockey79]

You're being deliberately obtuse now, you know exactly what I mean.

Obtuse, because I didn't walk in to your trap due to knowing exactly what you mean?

You know full well PvP PGs are as "dangerous" as Open if not more so, as there is a higher chance of having PG members on your friends list which gives your location away.

So I can play Open and you'll never find me unless I tell you where I am.
Yet in my mates PvP PG - he knows where I am at all times and can try to gank me when he wants.

Same goes for the Mobius Group - if I'd kept every invite, I could tell you where a massive chunk of the players were and go shoot them at my own pace.
And because they are in their "safe space" they wouldn't be expecting an attack, which makes the Mobius Group more dangerous than Open for some, because they are now complacent.

So no, not all PvP PGs are "friendly" in the sense you were talking.
And those that give the impression they are liek that, are just fooling themselves - as PvP is enabled in all PGs.

 

[khaos526]

I'll switch to OPEN if I don't have to actually see other players, they can't hog landing pads or interact with me or attack or even see me either. That would be the only way considering this is one of the few games now that lets you get away from the latest trend of Multi-player. Many of us want to get away from people when playing games and have no desire to even see another real person in it. One of the reasons ED is a great concept, it doesn't force people to have to play with others...

 

[Goose4291]

Obtuse, because I didn't walk in to your trap due to knowing exactly what you mean?

You know full well PvP PGs are as "dangerous" as Open if not more so, as there is a higher chance of having PG members on your friends list which gives your location away.

So I can play Open and you'll never find me unless I tell you where I am.
Yet in my mates PvP PG - he knows where I am at all times and can try to gank me when he wants.

Same goes for the Mobius Group - if I'd kept every invite, I could tell you where a massive chunk of the players were and go shoot them at my own pace.
And because they are in their "safe space" they wouldn't be expecting an attack, which makes the Mobius Group more dangerous than Open for some, because they are now complacent.

So no, not all PvP PGs are "friendly" in the sense you were talking.
And those that give the impression they are liek that, are just fooling themselves - as PvP is enabled in all PGs.

As someone who was primarily an open mode PvEr and indirect PvPer who's dabbled in Private Group Communities, I think your woefully wrong on this.

Interestingly so does Sandro, as per one of his quotes on your spam wall.

"My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo."

One of the reasons ED is a great concept, it doesn't force people to have to play with others...

... but still indirectly affect them without risk?

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

I'll switch to OPEN if I don't have to actually see other players, they can't hog landing pads or interact with me or attack or even see me either. That would be the only way considering this is one of the few games now that lets you get away from the latest trend of Multi-player. Many of us want to get away from people when playing games and have no desire to even see another real person in it. One of the reasons ED is a great concept, it doesn't force people to have to play with others...

Rather, it have inherent disincentives to do so, in form of occasional rebuys. There is no balance in choices here.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

I'll switch to OPEN if I don't have to actually see other players, they can't hog landing pads or interact with me or attack or even see me either. That would be the only way considering this is one of the few games now that lets you get away from the latest trend of Multi-player. Many of us want to get away from people when playing games and have no desire to even see another real person in it. One of the reasons ED is a great concept, it doesn't force people to have to play with others...

I also dont want to see you, unless you will be seing the rebuy screen and yet you are a solo underminer like many "indirect gankers" in this thread.

 

[Jockey79]

As someone who was primarily an open mode PvEr and indirect PvPer who's dabbled in Private Group Communities, I think your woefully wrong on this.

Interestingly so does Sandro, as per one of his quotes on your spam wall.

"My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo."

Sandro can think what he likes - but he isn't the only member of Frontier Developments to have an opinion.

You all seem to treat him as if he is some kind of God figure, yet ignore what the executive producer (and higher up at the time) Michael Brookes said.
You also ignore what the founder, CEO and major shareholder David Braben says.

But feel free to bang on the Sandro drum. It really shows how weak the Open only / Open bonus argument is.

I'll just keep responding using the same tactics as you lot and spam something I like as you lot are doing;

From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.

Michael

 

[Mouse]

This choise is flawed by itself. There is no balance to it. You are pretty much forced to play in Solo if you want to get bigger ship faster.

A choice where you can sacrifice your gameplay expirience for efficiency can be only called as a bad gameplay design element.

Hardcore IS efficiency though. There are no contradictions.

Your own words contradict your claim that "hardcore is efficiency" and prove your hypocrisy...

YOU were never forced anywhere... you made the CHOICE to go to Solo, to evade the PVP you so desperately want just to get a ship...


so much for "hardcore" and its "efficiency".


You keep trying to claim it is "bad game design" but it is nothing more than you dumping your stance...