Forum rules prevent the response I'd prefer to give, but I applaud you for such twisted logic...Well no. If you know the defender will choose to defend in open then you have the choice not to attack them.

Forum rules prevent the response I'd prefer to give, but I applaud you for such twisted logic...Well no. If you know the defender will choose to defend in open then you have the choice not to attack them.
What's twisted? You argued "forced," I presented a paradigm where there are many choices as well as the fact that it makes what's unique to open strategically and tactically relevant.Forum rules prevent the response I'd prefer to give, but I applaud you for such twisted logic...![]()
While those who want to defend a Faction using PvP might like to be able to dictate terms of engagement, they can't:Well no. If you know the defender will choose to defend in open then you have the choice not to attack them.
.... and, from the Inara stats, there does not seem to be a compelling case to change the way the BGS works, potentially alienating a subset of the majority of the player-base, i.e. those who don't engage in PvP, to satisfy the desires of a rather small minority, i.e. those who do engage in PvP - in my opinion at least.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
Indeed, a paradigm that does not, and likely will not exist in this game. But I did give you a like for it, and have promised myself to ignore further posts here for a while... Well, until I need a good chuckle again, which should be a few more days yet.What's twisted? You argued "forced," I presented a paradigm where there are many choices as well as the fact that it makes what's unique to open strategically and tactically relevant.
Exactly. Can you give some serious source to back to your claim? Some source that I can check and evaluate? I am not stubborn and could be convinced if you can present me valide numbers.Your argument in essence is, "in light of the fact that I have no numbers to substantiate my point your numbers are no good."
As I remember, FD once stated that "a majority of players play in Open". This was immediately followed by a vigorous debate here about whether majority meant "more than 50%", which FD refused to clarify.Exactly. Can you give some serious source to back to your claim? Some source that I can check and evaluate? I am not stubborn and could be convinced if you can present me valide numbers.
This is exactly itIMO it's also not very important as long as everyone has a good time in the mode(s) they choose to play in.
Before we have a misunderstanding here... I was talking about the number of players that left or avoid open mode because of gankers. That could be compared to the % of players divided by the mods of course.As I remember, FD once stated that "a majority of players play in Open". This was immediately followed by a vigorous debate here about whether majority meant "more than 50%", which FD refused to clarify.
However, that was all before:
It's not clear what FD meant by "majority" originally, and it's anyone's guess what the later game developments have done to the figures.
- The end of board-flipping to refresh missions, which tended to randomise people's mode choices.
- The introduction of squadrons, many of which made their own PGs.
- Porting to consoles, which discourages Open by charging a fee for it.
- (and general splitting among console platforms and Horizons/Odyssey on PC).
- The introduction of carriers, which make mode choice less important.
IMO it's also not very important as long as everyone has a good time in the mode(s) they choose to play in.
Before we have a misunderstanding here... I was talking about the number of players that left or avoid open mode because of gankers.
.... or the simple avoidance of PvP in a game where direct PvP is optional....then there's a thin salty line between avoiding gankers and avoiding enemies.
Could be. But I had in mind mostly new players that don't yet have in-game "enemys". Players that don't go open from start because they heard something about how unfriendly it is, or new players that get ganked early in their game progress and leave open because of this. I think that players who change to solo / PG for BGS, PP or other reasons to influence something are in general not noobs....then there's a thin salty line between avoiding gankers and avoiding enemies.
You said, I agree.I think that players who change to solo / PG for BGS, PP or other reasons to influence something are in general not noobs.
You're right, but there's also not a lot of reason to prefer Open. So it's basically a choice that doesn't matter much. As I keep saying, the best approach is to just play in the mode that gives the game experience you want at each game session. A corollary to this is to stop worrying (if you ever did) about other people's choices. If everyone would take this on board we could stop making these immense threads.Honestly there's not alot of reason to not be in open. I play in open and have yet to be ganked by a player. Hell could be interesting if it happened. Probably will at some point. Would it suck if it's when I have a cargo full of minerals? Yeah but hey one time out of how many times?
I think fdev should only have open mode this is a big game and you don't meet players that often. Though I guess there are some high risk areas. For me that adds to the game though.
I would have mile long blocklist if game was open only.Honestly there's not alot of reason to not be in open. I play in open and have yet to be ganked by a player. Hell could be interesting if it happened. Probably will at some point. Would it suck if it's when I have a cargo full of minerals? Yeah but hey one time out of how many times?
I think fdev should only have open mode this is a big game and you don't meet players that often. Though I guess there are some high risk areas. For me that adds to the game though.
YouTube has a lot of self-admissions btwI would have mile long blocklist if game was open only.
There is currently no reason whatsoever to be in Open, i can do everything you can do in Solo with Zero muppets, hence a relaxing experience where i don't have to sacrifice the way i build ships to keep an eye on unwanted PvP.Honestly there's not alot of reason to not be in open. I play in open and have yet to be ganked by a player. Hell could be interesting if it happened. Probably will at some point. Would it suck if it's when I have a cargo full of minerals? Yeah but hey one time out of how many times?
I think fdev should only have open mode this is a big game and you don't meet players that often. Though I guess there are some high risk areas. For me that adds to the game though.
Except that would not be open anymoreYES if I could turn off PVP I would always play in open.
Is there something particular about Inara registered Cmdr's that make them an exception to ganks?just remember those stats on Inara are only from a fraction of the player base.