Why is being a "prey" of a pirate in open a bad game design...

[Mohrgan]

Well, if they are so fond of clinging to words and not looking at the essence, I will try to clarify even more.

"If you choose to fly in Open Play you’ll encounter other commanders in a galaxy where friendly fire is always on. Rogue commanders are those pilots who have betrayed the Pilots federation by turning on their own; those pilots can carry huge bounties, making them prime targets for skilled hunters."

The underlined definitions now sufficiently correspond to current realities?
"friendly fire" is active as long as the other player allows it. And the rewards are very different from the definition of " huge."

@Mohrgan
Do you have any constructive ideas for solving this issue? I would very much like to know more.

So, once that statement is rewritten, it means exactly what you want it to mean?

The solution is clear. Seek that game play anywhere you can. There was/is no promise that all Commanders would be there for you. Apparently, most players play in open. You should be all set.

 

[MadSinUN]

The advertising, on the official page and on Steam makes it clear that playing in Open is optional.

Nowhere does the advertising state that other players can't play the way that they want to even if that way conflicts with the wishes of other players.

I'm speechless.

Just do not need to write to me again that "Fdev does not prohibit mode change and implies different game modes available to all", save your fingers.

 

[MadSinUN]

So, once that statement is rewritten, it means exactly what you want it to mean?

The solution is clear. Seek that game play anywhere you can. There was/is no promise that all Commanders would be there for you. Apparently, most players play in open. You should be all set.

You didn't answer the specific question.

"If you choose to fly in Open Play you’ll encounter other commanders in a galaxy where friendly fire is always on. Rogue commanders are those pilots who have betrayed the Pilots federation by turning on their own; those pilots can carry huge bounties, making them prime targets for skilled hunters."

The underlined definitions now sufficiently correspond to current realities?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm speechless.

Then it seems that the game simply hasn't been designed to satisfy the desires of some players.

 

[Mohrgan]

You didn't answer the specific question.

No. This edit makes no mention of the choices Commander's have in play style. I concede that if you rewrite a paragraph, you can describe one aspect of this game. But, I can't say what that indicates. I believe FD is plain and open about the Modes, and their availability.

 

[MadSinUN]

Then it seems that the game simply hasn't been designed to satisfy the desires of some players.

I'm the only one who thinks it's a bot?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm the only one who thinks it's a bot?

It is quite often a sign of a failing argument when participants start to be the discussed rather than the topic.

 

[MadSinUN]

No. This edit makes no mention of the choices Commander's have in play style. I concede that if you rewrite a paragraph, you can describe one aspect of this game. But, I can't say what that indicates. I believe FD is plain and open about the Modes, and their availability.

I don't edit anything, I just copy what is written on the official website. And I claim that the information that is presented there does not give an understanding of the important features of the open mode in this game. This applies only to the concept of "open mode" and specifically "important feature". I am not interested in the possibility of free choice of other modes and the freedom to choose an open mode. I am interested in an important feature of " open mode "that does not allow this mode to be called" fully open " in my understanding. Is everything clear? Or do I need to clarify something else?

 

[MadSinUN]

It is quite often a sign of a failing argument when participants start to be the discussed rather than the topic.

Do you continue to discuss the topic now, or do you continue to tell me the same obvious things several times? This is a specific question and I would like to get the most accurate answer from you.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Do you continue to discuss the topic now, or do you continue to tell me the same obvious things several times? This is a specific question and I would like to get the most accurate answer from you.

The obvious things relate to the topic - as they relate to why there is no "fully open" mode in the game.

 

[MickyG1982]

This is simple but in the case of open mode it is not quite so. There is a lock, there is a "magic lock" there is a "magic transition to solo" with which you can escape from any danger. This is one of the problems that is often brought up for discussion.

It comes down to something quite simple.

Some players don't want to play with you, so they choose not to.

 

[MarkAusten]

I don't edit anything, I just copy what is written on the official website. And I claim that the information that is presented there does not give an understanding of the important features of the open mode in this game. This applies only to the concept of "open mode" and specifically "important feature". I am not interested in the possibility of free choice of other modes and the freedom to choose an open mode. I am interested in an important feature of " open mode "that does not allow this mode to be called" fully open " in my understanding. Is everything clear? Or do I need to clarify something else?

I have to say that I think you are being a little unreasonable here. Look at any advertising and I think you will see that it only ever give a very cursory and limited description of the features. Unless the product is exceptionally simple there just is not enough room on such advertising to go into the specifics.

Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying that the brief advertising blurb about Elite is misleading because it did not tell you about the details of something you now consider to be important.

My comment here would be, well what do you expect? It's advertising and only hits very brief and limited headlines.

If you want details, then such advertising is not the place to find it and you have to dig deeper.

 

[Mohrgan]

I don't edit anything, I just copy what is written on the official website. And I claim that the information that is presented there does not give an understanding of the important features of the open mode in this game. This applies only to the concept of "open mode" and specifically "important feature". I am not interested in the possibility of free choice of other modes and the freedom to choose an open mode. I am interested in an important feature of " open mode "that does not allow this mode to be called" fully open " in my understanding. Is everything clear? Or do I need to clarify something else?

Well, I counted at least two versions that you supplied. So I'm going to pass on continuing this line of thought with you. Your claims seem unsupported, and emotional, rather than intelligible.

 

[Brrokk]

I don't edit anything, I just copy what is written on the official website. And I claim that the information that is presented there does not give an understanding of the important features of the open mode in this game. This applies only to the concept of "open mode" and specifically "important feature". I am not interested in the possibility of free choice of other modes and the freedom to choose an open mode. I am interested in an important feature of " open mode "that does not allow this mode to be called" fully open " in my understanding. Is everything clear? Or do I need to clarify something else?

Coming in at a late stage in what's clearly a long debate; from the start of my ED play I had no problem understanding "Open". The options on that menu are Solo, Private Group and Open. Clearly "Open" means the opposite of "Private": it's open to everyone. I don't think hair-splitting definitions giving it any technical meaning will prove useful here. And once again, all this has been argued zillions of times before. Why not stop the debate and play ED instead?

 

[MadSinUN]

The obvious things relate to the topic - as they relate to why there is no "fully open" mode in the game.

I see that this mode is not in the game. I understand the reasons for this perfectly well without you. I don't understand why you keep reminding me of this.
If one of your functions as a forum moderator is to constantly remind you that all people are free to choose and no one owes anyone anything. Then I understand you and don't dare interfere.
And I don't understand why this is constantly being said in principle, instead of making constructive suggestions. If this forum or this branch does not provide for this, then tell us about it and you can stop this " war with windmills"

 

[MarkAusten]

Why not stop the debate and play ED instead?

I'm doing that as well

 

[MarkAusten]

I see that this mode is not in the game. I understand the reasons for this perfectly well without you. I don't understand why you keep reminding me of this.
If one of your functions as a forum moderator is to constantly remind you that all people are free to choose and no one owes anyone anything. Then I understand you and don't dare interfere.
And I don't understand why this is constantly being said in principle, instead of making constructive suggestions. If this forum or this branch does not provide for this, then tell us about it and you can stop this " war with windmills"

When he in in such a debate and posting in the forum he is not acting as a moderator. FYI.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And I don't understand why this is constantly being said in principle, instead of making constructive suggestions.

If one player's "constructive suggestions" seek to reduce or remove choice from other players, who have as much right to play the game the way they want to as the players making the suggestions do, then, from the perspective of the other players, they are likely not to be considered to be "constructive".

 

[MadSinUN]

Coming in at a late stage in what's clearly a long debate; from the start of my ED play I had no problem understanding "Open". The options on that menu are Solo, Private Group and Open. Clearly "Open" means the opposite of "Private": it's open to everyone. I don't think hair-splitting definitions giving it any technical meaning will prove useful here. And once again, all this has been argued zillions of times before. Why not stop the debate and play ED instead?

I'm not keeping you here, am I?

 

[MadSinUN]

If one player's "constructive suggestions" seek to reduce or remove choice from other players, who have as much right to play the game the way they want to as the players making the suggestions do, then, from the perspective of the other players, they are likely not to be considered to be "constructive".

Let's go back again. I suggest that we jointly find a solution that will suit everyone. Those players who are satisfied with everything, the solution found should not touch and spoil their game. Discussing such issues earlier does not prevent us from discussing them again. As well as does not stop players who bring such problems to the discussion. If anyone present is annoyed by my presence here, please say so directly. If the author of the topic is against my presence in this branch, please let me know directly. If you do not have the above requirements. Then please proceed exclusively to the search for interesting constructive mechanics and discussion of constructive proposals. If such discussions are not interesting to any of those present then I personally have no right to keep them here.