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

[Tikanderoga]

"Open pve" mode would be a very good solution to the problem. But what about abusing the ability to switch to other modes to avoid danger? A player in "open pvp" mode can simply switch to "open pve/solo/PG" mode in case of danger? For example, a gunker attacked a player who was more experienced in Pvp combat. The gunker begins to lose the fight. What will prevent the gunker from escaping to another game mode and leaving the battlefield in peace? Except for 15 seconds on the timer output in the menu? An honest Pvp player is unlikely to be satisfied with this "open pvp" mode. And imagine that the gunker will switch to "open pve" and becoming not vulnerable will fly around his former rival?

Nothing. Same as today a player can hop from from open to a PG or Solo.
Except if someone just isn't into PvP, they would be playing in the open-PvE to start with. So no hopping required either. And no ganking happening either.

 

[MadSinUN]

The neighbours aren't in a position to agree changes to the contract - each resident would require to seek changes to the contract directly with the owner.

Frontier have been aware that not all players agree with their stance on a number of aspects of the game for years now - that has not caused them to change those particular aspects.

I doubt that Frontier could change the game so that all players were happy with all aspects of it. That being the case, some aspects will not satisfy some players - and those players, as a consequence, may choose to leave. That's not to say that changes should necessarily be made to the game in an attempt to dissuade any player who threatens to leave the game from leaving - as there are other players to consider when thinking about changes to the game - and caving to pressure once would lead to further attempts to achieve change by threatening to leave.

The main question is: "Why is the very possibility of an agreement immediately denied?" If those who drew up the contract say "NO" then this is another question. Similarly, Fdev if they come here and say "NO" then the discussion will move to another channel or disappear completely.

 

[Robert Maynard]

For some reason, these long-standing discussions did not find solutions to the problem and these discussions were forgotten. Instead of continuing to search, continue to offer, continue to seek a response from Fdev. I do not understand this view of the solution of the problem "discussed and forgotten".

Some of the discussions are initiated by players who seek to provide solutions for "problems" that are "features" for other players, i.e. not all players agree that there is a problem to be solved - and that's before discussion of any potential solution even starts.

Then there's the fact that players don't control the game design and Frontier have reminded us that the design of their game is not a democracy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The main question is: "Why is the very possibility of an agreement immediately denied?" If those who drew up the contract say "NO" then this is another question. Similarly, Fdev if they come here and say "NO" then the discussion will move to another channel or disappear completely.

Players don't all want the same things.Who should Frontier listen to, and why?

 

[MadSinUN]

Some of the discussions are initiated by players who seek to provide solutions for "problems" that are "features" for other players, i.e. not all players agree that there is a problem to be solved - and that's before discussion of any potential solution even starts.

Then there's the fact that players don't control the game design and Frontier have reminded us that the design of their game is not a democracy.

So what? Remember relatively recently, a group of players prepared a petition for Fdev? This also involved not 100% of the players and someone did not care about this problem, but nevertheless it worked.

 

[MadSinUN]

Players don't all want the same things.Who should Frontier listen to, and why?

I agree. They don't have to listen to anyone, they are free to do what only they like. It is not an indisputable fact and I do not dispute it. But I think nothing terrible will happen if a group of players experiencing some dissatisfaction with the game design of the purchased product put forward several proposals to improve this design. Only it will be put forward not as a "shouting, capricious crowd", but constructively and persistently. In this branch, I do not see a "screaming crowd", so I hope that even if nothing changes before the release of "Odyssey" then at least Fdev will really react.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So what? Remember relatively recently, a group of players prepared a petition for Fdev? This also involved not 100% of the players and someone did not care about this problem, but nevertheless it worked.

Ah yes - the self appointed seeking to represent the player-base without bothering to ask the player-base if they wanted to be represented....

What were the aims of that petition and how many were achieved that could only have been as a result of the petition?

 

[MadSinUN]

Ah yes - the self appointed seeking to represent the player-base without bothering to ask the player-base if they wanted to be represented....

What were the aims of that petition and how many were achieved that could only have been as a result of the petition?

What makes you think that? I just want to find a solution? Or did you see me as a competitor? Don't worry, it's not true

Petition Community Requests to FDev for Elite: Dangerous

Community Requests to FDev for Elite: Dangerous

www.ipetitions.com

 

[Robert Maynard]

I agree. They don't have to listen to anyone, they are free to do what only they like. It is not an indisputable fact and I do not dispute it.

Quite.

But I think nothing terrible will happen if a group of players experiencing some dissatisfaction with the game design of the purchased product put forward several proposals to improve this design. Only it will be put forward not as a "shouting, capricious crowd", but constructively and persistently. In this branch, I do not see a "screaming crowd", so I hope that even if nothing changes before the release of "Odyssey" then at least Fdev will really react.

A subset of the player-base has been putting forward proposals with regard to PvP in this game for years. Whether any of the proposals "improve this design" for all players is a matter of opinion. Those seeking change have certainly been persistent over the years.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What makes you think that?

Players didn't give any authority to those who created the petition - the petition creator took it upon themselves to "speak for the player-base".

I just want to find a solution? Or did you see me as a competitor? Don't worry, it's not true

It depends on the problem that the solution is trying to fix - it is likely that not all players see it as a problem to be solved.

There's no competition here - we're all just players expressing opinions.

 

[MadSinUN]

Players didn't give any authority to those who created the petition - the petition creator took it upon themselves to "speak for the player-base".

Nevertheless the response was received and the goal was achieved

It depends on the problem that the solution is trying to fix - it is likely that not all players see it as a problem to be solved.

There's no competition here - we're all just players expressing opinions.

How does this hinder the search for a constructive solution? How does this prevent us from communicating this solution to developers and getting a clear and equally constructive response?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Nevertheless the response was received and the goal was achieved

Which of the many goals, specifically?

How does this hinder the search for a constructive solution? How does this prevent us from communicating this solution to developers and getting a clear and equally constructive response?

To develop a solution a clear definition of the complete scope of the problem requires to be made - which is the first hurdle to overcome, as not all players agree that particular aspects of the game are "problems" and not "features".

There's been a suggestions sub-forum on the forums for years now. There is no guarantee that Frontier will respond to any player generated suggestion for change though.

 

[MarkAusten]

Nevertheless the response was received and the goal was achieved

But you have to ask the question. Would the goal have been reached without the petition? Was this goal something that FDev had already been working on or had in mind?

However, I can state without a shadow of a doubt that the "player-group"m purporting to represent the ED players did not ask me if I wanted to represented and therefore cannot call themselves player representatives. That's just a big sounding name for nothing at al. Sorry f that offends you but unless the groups asks EVERY player if they want to be represented, then they cannot say that they represent the players.

The best that can be said is that they represented the players in the petition. Nothing more.

 

[MadSinUN]

Which of the many goals, specifically?

At least the developers have returned to the preliminary " open beta test"

To develop a solution a clear definition of the complete scope of the problem requires to be made - which is the first hurdle to overcome, as not all players agree that particular aspects of the game are "problems" and not "features".

There's been a suggestions sub-forum on the forums for years now. There is no guarantee that Frontier will respond to any player generated suggestion for change though.

I will repeat the question: "How does this prevent the search for a constructive solution now, in this particular branch, and precisely by the group of players who are present here"?

 

[Robert Maynard]

At least the developers have returned to the preliminary " open beta test"

That's not a new thing - there have been open beta tests many times before. The demand for a permanent test server didn't meet with success.

I will repeat the question: "How does this prevent the search for a constructive solution now, in this particular branch, and precisely by the group of players who are present here"?

It doesn't - however coming up with a solution does not mean that anything will necessarily change.

 

[MarkAusten]

At least the developers have returned to the preliminary " open beta test"



I will repeat the question: "How does this prevent the search for a constructive solution now, in this particular branch, and precisely by the group of players who are present here"?

It doesn't, but even if you came up with a realistic, possible solution you have no expectation that FDev would even consider it.

 

[MadSinUN]

But you have to ask the question. Would the goal have been reached without the petition? Was this goal something that FDev had already been working on or had in mind?

However, I can state without a shadow of a doubt that the "player-group"m purporting to represent the ED players did not ask me if I wanted to represented and therefore cannot call themselves player representatives. That's just a big sounding name for nothing at al. Sorry f that offends you but unless the groups asks EVERY player if they want to be represented, then they cannot say that they represent the players.

The best that can be said is that they represented the players in the petition. Nothing more.

Nothing prevents you from putting a good, constructive decision to the vote or so on. Nothing prevents you from doing it correctly and openly.

 

[MarkAusten]

Nothing prevents you from putting a good, constructive decision to the vote or so on. Nothing prevents you from doing it correctly and openly.

To the vote?

Sorry, but your vote means nothing to FDev. No matter how good the solution if FDev don't want to do it, then it isn't going to get done, player "vote" other otherwise.

As RM reminded you, FDev have clearly stated that the games design in not a democracy.

 

[MadSinUN]

I do not understand. Do you just like to talk here? Just tell each other some opinions and go about their business? For this forum this created?

It doesn't - however coming up with a solution does not mean that anything will necessarily change.

It doesn't, but even if you came up with a realistic, possible solution you have no expectation that FDev would even consider it.

Do you think I don't understand that?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Nothing prevents you from putting a good, constructive decision to the vote or so on. Nothing prevents you from doing it correctly and openly.

The only entity that is able to guarantee that only players vote is Frontier themselves. The only vote that has been put to the player-base as a whole was the vote on instant / delayed ship transfer in September'16: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/poll-now-closed-important-official-ship-transfer-poll.286967/