It's been proofing for years... doubt we'll see any poofy bread soon. Maybe Next Era is the new sourdough we all been waiting for.
Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle
- Thread starter Hans_Oktane
- Start date
I never assumed that change would also necessitate it remains in tact as it currently is.
You're not allowed to make mistakes... when mistakes are made, space kittens die... shame...
Fair enough.
Here's hoping.
I aim for the stars but sometimes I hit London
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Interesting - given that a possible consequence of forcing every player to play in a single game mode might well be a PvP-flag.
I aim for the stars as well, but then I hit the bottle and walk into a wall... loo and behold, there they are!I aim for the stars but sometimes I hit London
PvP flag is just another lazy way to address a gameplay problem without implementation of meaningful gameplay loops. It's the equivalent of a kid taking dirty laundry from under the bed and stuffing it in the closet. They did something but they didn't do what's needed, they just took lazy option 2
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
For some, PvP is anything but "meaningful". Frontier chose to give us a game where PvP is optional, by design. Why would anyone expect that they would then change the game to force those disinterested in PvP to play in Open without some method of guaranteeing that those players would not be engaged in PvP?
Ah, yes. Yet another "Elite has some issues that could do with being resolved and a few other mechanics that need bit more work to fully realise their potential. Long story short: open only magically fixes all of these issues".
Actually, there's plenty of arguments for the exact opposite and how open play (and private groups, albeit to a generally lesser degree) is strangling future development. Case in point, we are limited to 1 SLF at a time because of the net code being unable to handle a large number of ships in an instance.
When in reality, what's actually needed is for the more barebone gameplay loops to actually see more improvements. Other players are not a fix for issues in the game and relying on multiplayer aspects to hide poor design is not something that should be encouraged; fix the game first before worrying about niches like PvP, and it's entirely possible that any such fixes would render PvP largely fixed as a beneficial side effect (such as appropriate NPC difficulty and behaviour, or ship/module/weapon balance which benefits both PvP and PvE).
Actually, there's plenty of arguments for the exact opposite and how open play (and private groups, albeit to a generally lesser degree) is strangling future development. Case in point, we are limited to 1 SLF at a time because of the net code being unable to handle a large number of ships in an instance.
When in reality, what's actually needed is for the more barebone gameplay loops to actually see more improvements. Other players are not a fix for issues in the game and relying on multiplayer aspects to hide poor design is not something that should be encouraged; fix the game first before worrying about niches like PvP, and it's entirely possible that any such fixes would render PvP largely fixed as a beneficial side effect (such as appropriate NPC difficulty and behaviour, or ship/module/weapon balance which benefits both PvP and PvE).
What you are describing is how EVE Online works.
If you really feel that system is better, you are welcome to go there.
What you haven't made a case for is why that is better.
Specifically we have a situation where people can go anywhere they want and engage with the game on their terms. You want to remove that option and shift everyone to playing on your terms. You need to outline a benefit for everyone that is worth that significant cost.
Why? You are claiming safty is based on player threat? What is your justification for that? We have a game that us up 24x7 where combat focused players can engage in combat anywhere, whenever they want. However we can't instance across platforms and not everyone plays in the same times.
The game has internal threats from the NPC for all activity. If they should be buffed or nerfed is a secondary conversation. You want players to be an additional threat, but you want to threaten people who don't want that interaction. You need to make a case for why the other player's desires should be secondary to yours. You haven't done that.
Why does that make perfect sense? I like playing with others, why should I have to buy a second copy of the game to play with my group friends and one for open to meet new friends?
If you want to argue for a restriction, which you are doing, it isn't enough to articulate a moral stance, that's your feeling. When you want to impact my game play you need an argument for how that restriction makes things better for everyone.
Right now this whole thread reads like, "I want to shoot people and its unfair that some of them don't want to be shot at and are able to push a button and avoid me."
That's a very selfish mindset. We have a pvp space, its everywhere. All the people who want to play there currently do. If you think there should be more, than you need to make it enticing, not force people to play there.
I play however the hell I want to.
It makes perfect sense based on the arguments presented over the years, and over two decades of online gaming in general. I am not arguing for anything, I am conceding a position presented by others makes sense. That doesn't mean that it is what I want. Something can make sense even though it may contrast with what I personally would prefer. The complete and utter inability of you and others on both 'sides' of this discussions to consider other perspectives is what makes discussions like this so tiresome. And for a community that likes to congratulate itself on being so mature that is a bit disappointing.
How enlightening.
I'm not sure I get the gist of this post. I cannot respond as it is. Can you clarify?
Will the Holo-Me characters get fedoras, man buns and knitted scarves to match?
I can't resist, but your comment is very current...
Sorry, I seem to see the source of the confusion, my bad: My comment wasn't pointed at you but to the one you quoted. A little word-billiard if you don't mind...
if still unclear, I'll try my best again
No worries. I try to respond to quotes. I think you might be saying that Cheese has a Hammer, and all he can see are nails. But, he keeps getting interrupted by a bunch of nuts and bolts. Am I getting close?
Heck ya!
And hula dancer booblehead. And why haven't we gotten the plush-dice to hang in the windshield? Maybe those things only exist in Open and that's why I've never seem them.
Call me nuts, but it looks like you're building up to an argument there.