It would be nice though if the game with such emphasis on group PvE (ie - wing missions and multicrew) actually had in-game mechanisms to organically support this group PvE.
Given that both multi-player game modes are PvP enabled, I'd question whether there's actually any emphasis on group PvE - as those seeking to engage in co-operative PvE in a multi-player game mode can be attacked by players at any time.
Every PvE player bought a game that does not make it possible to disable PvP in Open mode but they can't seem to accept that and they keep creating threads like this one.
Not that many PvE players are seeking to change the existing Open game mode in that way - and they have two other modes to play in which either remove or significantly reduce the likelihood of being attacked by another player.Every PvE player bought a game that does not make it possible to disable PvP in Open mode but they can't seem to accept that and they keep creating threads like this one.
I don't follow you. Elite and Dangerous are PF ranks (the second definitively a combat rank). Why were those words chosen to represent those ranks? What do the ranks mean? Why were those ranks chosen as (a) the title of the original game and (b) as a significant rank in the current game? Why not "Harmless: Harmless"?
So you have nothing to worry about
.
Players are in no way obliged to present themselves as content for other players - those other players don't have any say in the matter of which game mode they choose to play in and what content they engage in.
There's a difference between accepting it and thinking it's a good idea
.
Indeed - however it's neither Frontier's fault, nor the fault of players who accept the game for what it is, that they bought a game that they don't like particular aspects of.There's a difference between accepting it and thinking it's a good idea
See my reply to Varonica.
I've actually suggested mode-locked gameplay for all modes, given they all have a distinctly different character (because players are so potent in the game). The usual suspects are happy to shoot that down too. It's pan-modal or nothing, ideologically it seems.
As long as ganking players in open is legitimated gameplay, ganking someones BGS in solo is legitimiated gameplay. And its rather fun. Lolz! BGS gooo booom
and we can make the same arguments about all the PvP players creating threads about forcingv everyone into the Open Only fantasy.. so your point being?Every PvE player bought a game that does not make it possible to disable PvP in Open mode but they can't seem to accept that and they keep creating threads like this one.
Oh I'm aware and have seen some ancient threads, although you're right I only have 2.5 years on the clock and register in the scale as a casual in hours played (1400, in any other game a lot, here not so much). But FDev have done plenty to water (no pun) down the game and perhaps they'd do more if only the people that want things easier and less challenging spoke up on the forums. There's always a reason to make your point if you want to. And I've already acknowledged up thread that this thread is pointless!
ganking someones BGS in solo is legitimiated gameplay. And its rather fun. Lolz! BGS gooo booom
So you're saying BGS/PP in solo is as bad/good as ganking? Is ganking good/bad then?As long as ganking players in open is legitimated gameplay, ganking someones BGS in solo is legitimiated gameplay. And its rather fun. Lolz! BGS gooo booom
I did not say its good or bad. I wrote its both legitimated gameplay.
Maybe. Iam just playing devils advocate. I was only once involved in some BGS work as our squadron was contracted for this. And i did it in open.
The Mobius PG was created before the game launched.So far it's working the other way around... PvPers forcing PvErs in theiry solo/PG-verse.
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
