Modes These arguments are tedious.

[Dietger]

Sylveria. I play this game, this game, as much as you do.

 

[Dietger]

Make no mistake, Sylveria I am happy your playing it!
Meeting players, out there on their own make it worth wile, us and them.

Challenging, free for all.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Can't rep you for this... but I would easily give it 1000+ if I could.

This really is the core of the "Open bonus!" discussions, because almost every proposal made has been detrimental to those who do not choose to participate in direct PvP.
(for whatever reason)

As to the lots of things "can easily be changed"- here's a specific example...

I've suggested the implementation of Open PvE utilizing the existing friendly fire mechanic used in Wings, and changing the threshold to -100%.

That's not something FD would need to spend massive amounts of development time, finances, or anything else. Go into the existing framework, modify a number, kick out the build- and voila!

That's simple, cost-effective, and alleviates future need to cater to specific (mainly PvP) play styles.

For a lot of the suggestions some are proposing... it's very different in terms of development time, resources, etc. Dedicated servers, reworking the "3 mode system" so that only one of them gains a specific bonus, splitting the BGS (which is inherently tied to all "modes" because it's all really one mode with filters), doing away with the P2P network code, etc... I really believe some people really aren't using the right "head" when thinking of these proposals here.

FD isn't going to all of a sudden uproot core mechanics and do so at the whim of a few extreme players who think everyone else should be playing like they do.

That's reality.

Dollar for dollar though, I know where my money would be if I were betting on which way they'd go- given the costs associated with such radical changes... and it wouldn't be to a complete revamp of the existing systems to cater to extreme play styles.

You told me already that you are PvE player. I am PvP one. This is not coming down to arenas, this is a risk management question. I played LA2 before wow where you can loose gear which is rare as it can get. And I was fine with that.

I am ok with Open PvE as long as there will be Open PvP which will not consist of rigged roulette where you cannot win anything.

 

[Mouse]

You know only a minotity plays this game your way?

And my analogy stands. People which are in andvatageous position oppose people who want to change the status quo.
Opportunity cost is still a cost, I know that well, but can your understand that IT IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND for pvp people at the moment? We are getting less stuff that you, and try to argue with that.

Ugh...

Funny thing is you don't know HOW she plays... people who PVP have told you that you are full of it too. And your analogy is a lord of horse crap... you are equating SLAVERY... to a video game... Slavery wasn't people in a disadvantageous position who wanted to change the status quo, that is revisionist history. It was extremely inhuman, torturous existence, what are you Kanye West now? . But you are blind and are grabbing at any straw you can in an attempt to make a point which has already been disproven. And You are also full of it in saying PVP people are getting less stuff then anyone else... why... because EVERYONE GETS THE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD NO MATTER WHAT.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Funny thing is you don't know HOW she plays... people who PVP have told you that you are full of it too. And your analogy is a lord of horse crap... you are equating SLAVERY... to a video game... Slavery wasn't people in a disadvantageous position who wanted to change the status quo, that is revisionist history. It was extremely inhuman, torturous existence, what are you Kanye West now? . But you are blind and are grabbing at any straw you can in an attempt to make a point which has already been disproven. And You are also full of it in saying PVP people are getting less stuff then anyone else... why... because EVERYONE GETS THE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD NO MATTER WHAT.

You blatantly refute my arguments. By describing current state of things and denying obvious fact that there is additional enemy type in the open. Eiter because you have maternal instincts for poor people which would get "griefed" at the evil evil open, or the fact that you do not want to be bothered with opportunity costs.

Imagine that we went to the casino together. I had played roulette there and you just drank.
And even if we spend the same amount of drinks, 100% of the time I will have the same or less money than you.

What does that mean? That this casino is rigged, and should be fixed.

The fact that not everyone play casino doesn't mean that it is not a scam and should not be fixed.
And we can add to that that I have to spend more money on drinks (better modules).
Statement that ED is not a casino is just invalid.
The fact that roulette is optional is invalid as well.
And while you can play casino knowing that it is rigged, it kills most of the fun about it.

And exactly that makes open a place which is full of people who either do not know about that it is rigged or people which have nothing to lose. Exact situation we are having now.

And winrates shoud be added, and balanced in a way which will not bring people who hate gambling to it, but will satisfy people which do like gambling.

I can add that maternal instincts some people apply on players are misguided as well. PvP games/servers were always more popular.

What. Can. You. Deny. Here?

 

[Jockey79]

I am ok with Open PvE as long as there will be Open PvP which will not consist of rigged roulette where you cannot win anything.

Frontier is not okay having Open PvE and Open PvP.

They want their mixed Open mode, where PvP is a choice.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Frontier is not okay having Open PvE and Open PvP.

They want their mixed Open mode, where PvP is a choice.

This mode should not be wanted. What is the reasoning behind leaving players up to chosing to either do empty and stupid risks or do not do them?
What is the expected outcome?

 

[Robert Maynard]

This mode should not be wanted. What is the reasoning behind leaving players up to chosing to either do empty and stupid risks or do not do them?
What is the expected outcome?

Why, given that there are proposals to give a bonus simply for choosing one of the three game modes, should a proposal for an Open-PvE mode "not be wanted"?

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Why, given that there are proposals to give a bonus simply for choosing one of the three game modes, should a proposal for an Open-PvE mode "not be wanted"?

Now I am sure that you are trolling me. Despite being a mod. Or you cannot even scroll 2 posts above?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Now I am sure that you are trolling me. Despite being a mod. Or you cannot even scroll 2 posts above?

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Mods are just as entitled to make posts and express opinions as any other forum user - but don't Moderate threads they participate in.

The gambling analogy is an odd one - as there is no requirement to gamble when visiting a casino - it remains optional.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

People have different definitions of "fun".

No one likes to lose Maynard. You seem like the type of guy that would rather give out participation trophies over acknowledging winning and losing. Or Risk and Reward against the player faction in this case.

The little League team lost. But if you reward them the same as if they won. They become spoiled little brats expecting everything to be handed to them.

You have to distinguish this in video games too.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

there is no requirement to gamble when visiting a casino - it remains optional.

I can stop right there. If gambling should hold nothing to be won...
Go out and say it in public somewhere. You will be applauded and called an ambulance for.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No one likes to lose Maynard. You seem like the type of guy that would rather give out participation trophies over acknowledging winning and losing. Or Risk and Reward against the player faction in this case.

The little League team lost. But if you reward them the same as if they won. They become spoiled little brats expecting everything to be handed to them.

You have to distinguish this in video games too.

Appearances can be deceiving.

I'm actually for risk based reward - however all risks need to be considered - not just those attributable to other players.

How Frontier choose to reward players using features that have been implemented according to their own game design is up to them - it's not up to the players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I can stop right there. If gambling should hold nothing to be won...
Go out and say it in public somewhere. You will be applauded and called an ambulance for.

If the odds in gambling games in casinos were not in favour of the house they would go out of business - some may win but others lose more.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Appearances can be deceiving.

I'm actually for risk based reward - however all risks need to be considered - not just those attributable to other players.

How Frontier choose to reward players using features that have been implemented according to their own game design is up to them - it's not up to the players.

This is an outright lie. 2016 Sandro was thinking about making some changes for risk and reward. Then ya'll through crybaby fest of biblical proportions and even gloat about him apologizing.

They build this game around the player base. Its only recently have they started listening to a wider range of the player-base instead of just here on these forums.

You like to throw that second quote around quite a bit dont ya? Pretty awesome when it comes back to bite ya'll in the butt.

Edit: Oh and Focused FeedBack, x3 Elite, Streams and the suggestion forum.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

If the odds in gambling games in casinos were not in favour of the house they would go out of business - some may win but others lose more.

Not the case. And you know it. No one can win. It is like playing without interest, but with making bets and getting the same you waged money back at very best or losing them.

This is called a scam.

Appearances can be deceiving.

I'm actually for risk based reward - however all risks need to be considered - not just those attributable to other players.

How Frontier choose to reward players using features that have been implemented according to their own game design is up to them - it's not up to the players.

Share some other proposition then?

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is an outright lie. 2016 Sandro was thinking about making some changes for risk and reward. Then ya'll through crybaby fest of biblical proportions and even gloat about him apologizing.

They build this game around the player base. Its only recently have they started listening to a wider range of the player-base instead of just here on these forums.

You like to throw that second quote around quite a bit dont ya? Pretty awesome when it comes back to bite ya'll in the butt.

He did indeed muse about it - and, having opened the can of worms, tried to put the lid back on with his clear statement that it would not be applicable to the BGS. What he talked about was an untargeted bonus for simply playing in a game mode - whether or not a player hazard was encountered. That is what I found to be particularly unpalatable about the potential change.

They do build the game around the player-base - most of whom apparently don't get involved in PvP - so it would seem a bit odd to gate content behind a PvP barrier.

Which second quote?

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

He did indeed muse about it - and, having opened the can of worms, tried to put the lid back on with his clear statement that it would not be applicable to the BGS. What he talked about was an untargeted bonus for simply playing in a game mode - whether or not a player hazard was encountered. That is what I found to be particularly unpalatable about the potential change.

They do build the game around the player-base - most of whom apparently don't get involved in PvP - so it would seem a bit odd to gate content behind a PvP barrier.

Which second quote?

You know the quote. Dont act foolish.

Secondly I'll tell you this one more time. You throw around people dont get "involved" in PVP like it suits your argument. If anything it proves everything about risk and reward. Especially if they are aware of it.

You're cornered Maynard. The jig is up. its over.

Embrace it. Git Gud. Go learn the rest of the game. Time to test your skills.

The days are numbered. Im already in Phekda. Where are you?

 

[Robert Maynard]

You know the quote. Dont act foolish.

Secondly I'll tell you this one more time. You throw around people dont get "involved" in PVP like it suits your argument. If anything it proves everything about risk and reward. Especially if they are aware of it.

You're cornered Maynard. The jig is up. its over.

Embrace it. Git Gud. Go learn the rest of the game. Time to test your skills.

The days are numbered. Im already in Phekda. Where are you?

There are many quotes, can you please be more specific?

We'll see what, if anything, Frontier do in that regard.

Cornered? I think not.

There's nothing that needs to be embraced - I'm already playing in Open - and have been on this account for a while.

Everyone's days are numbered. I'm not in Phekda.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

There are many quotes, can you please be more specific?

We'll see what, if anything, Frontier do in that regard.

Cornered? I think not.

There's nothing that needs to be embraced - I'm already playing in Open - and have been on this account for a while.

Everyone's days are numbered. I'm not in Phekda.

Where are you though? I have a Conda with 1200 MJs of resistant shielding, interdictor and 280 dps@60 ly jump range. So...

Appearances can be deceiving.

I'm actually for risk based reward - however all risks need to be considered - not just those attributable to other players.

How Frontier choose to reward players using features that have been implemented according to their own game design is up to them - it's not up to the players.

Share some other proposition then?