Nope. A small majority. A dictionary definition is not what was said, and as RM has pointed out, that is open to interpretation.Most players are in open.
Which, for a total game population of 100% could mean that 34% play in Open, 33% in Solo and 33% in Private Groups.Most players are in open.
Piracy is and always has been part of the Elite universe, did you think ED was going to be different?
And don't equate piracy with anything else, it does your argument no good. Don't like piracy by other players? Fine, play in Solo. But don't come andfemale dogmoan about it being in Open when you don't play there. The majority of players play in open, as per FDev's own statement, and it seems we Open players are mostly happy enough with the way things are - maybe piracy could do with better payouts..The C&P system certainly needs some work, but I suspect a proper fix would cause mountains of salt.
And, frankly, if you get 'sploded by a Pirate, I've got to question your choices.. A max range jump in my exploration or mission/cargo Python tends to get me beyond being followed. A balanced loadout is important. I plan for contingencies, whether they are convenient or not. For example, my Explorer loadout doesn't include an ADC, but includes a shield, SRV hanger and a cargo rack. The first 2 are essential, the 3rd not so much, but all reduce my jump range and exploration potential..
Criminals exist in the real world, some of them probably even play ED, why would or should the ingame world be any different?
We're getting desperate here, eh?Nope. A small majority. A dictionary definition is not what was said, and as RM has pointed out, that is open to interpretation.
While it hasn't happened, the Kickstarter pitch includes the possibility of more than one Open mode and that the rules can be different in each.The numbers probably speak for themselves and since Fdev never intended to make an Open-PvE, they would probably loose too much players that way. Otherwise, why hasn't it happened yet?
Possibly.So what? The theoretical possibility doesn't make it sensible from an economic standpoint and that's what counts here.
.... and, like many FPS, I expect that any loss incurred for "dying" on foot will be low. Whether FPS PvP will be meaningful, or not, remains to be seen. It'll still be an optional extra though.Since Fdev now wants to jump on the shooter bandwagon, we'll probably see more PvP.
Not at all, just not putting word into other people's mouths in order to make my point.We're getting desperate here, eh?
The numbers probably speak for themselves and since Fdev never intended to make an Open-PvE, they would probably loose too much players that way. Otherwise, why hasn't it happened yet?
Is there a suggestion that a majority of players engage in PvP?You can hide all you want to avoid confrontation, not my problem. But you're not representative of a majority with this approach.
Thus i do assume, that those folks were mostly pirates, who wanted a challenge.
Even for players who find Pvp combat (namely combat) fun, there are no tools for the normal implementation of their style of play. The only Pvp combat mechanic is the one that deals damage from weapons. It seems to me that a significant part of the gunkers are just people who have no choice but to randomly shoot everything that moves. They can't honestly play PP, can't honestly hunt for the same Pvp players, etc. More precisely, they can, but due to the lack of normal mechanics and tools for this, normal Pvp does not make sense. Fdev did not give the reason why the majority does not participate in the Pvp? Fdev didn't say how many players left ED because of the available Pvp interaction mechanics and the quality of the "open mode"implementation?Is there a suggestion that a majority of players engage in PvP?
.... when one Dev has indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP?