Great New Article About Elite Dangerous

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
It's kinda of odd that point was missing from the article I mean I think it's an important one.

A large organised group removed a PvP player group from a system while essentially being invulnerable. With the target player group being totally unable to defend themselves using their preferred play style.

It's kinda stupid when you think about it, and to me seems like the bigger "abuse" than dropping into Mobius to shoot players, something which Mobius ultimately has the power to prevent.

Good God, this right here. This. You silly people, read this. It is good.
 
It's kinda of odd that point was missing from the article I mean I think it's an important one.

A large organised group removed a PvP player group from a system while essentially being invulnerable. With the target player group being totally unable to defend themselves using their preferred play style.

It's kinda stupid when you think about it, and to me seems like the bigger "abuse" than dropping into Mobius to shoot players, something which Mobius ultimately has the power to prevent.


EXACTLY.

SDC gets painted as the bad guy, when really it was 20,000 players that created this mess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I heard it got stuffed to the gunnels with biowaste :D

Besides a PvP group has no need for a station, or PvE players either. They only need other PvP players.

Why would any group not require a station, unless they are freelancers, mercenaries and wanderers by definition?
Where would your virtual character find a safe harbor, make deals or have his personal effects and family?

PvE can have different positive effects on a PvP run station, such as "delivering the goods" (ressources for operation), keep the other NPC factions in line and under control
and generally add to the simulation of a group.
The BGS being a problem for the PvE part, that is another story and a shortcoming.
 
Last edited:
EXACTLY.

SDC gets painted as the bad guy, when really it was 20,000 players using the system that created this mess.

I do think that the core mechanic of this gameplay is a bit broken cause there is little to no counterplay. Even someone invading a group and pulling someone there is the more likely sceenario of someone escaping, whereas nuking a BGS has heavy punishment and that takes a LONG time to repair.

But now that i have even mentioned the BGS in general someone is going to jump down my throat claiming i care about wolfsburg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EXACTLY.

SDC gets painted as the bad guy, when really it was 20,000 players using the system that created this mess.

Hey well I wouldn't go that far, I'm sure there are probably bad (and good) guys on both sides.

I just find it hard to understand why some folk seem proud of ousting SDC in the manner it was done, I see nothing positive about it, not in how it was done or what it says about ED.

The article did touch on the topic of the shared BGS briefly, but I think it would have been good if they'd gone into detail about the subsequent retaliation and talked about whether that seems fair/legitimate in respect to open/solo and what is valid in each game mode.
 
Last edited:
Why would any group not require a station, unless they are freelancers, mercenaries and wanderers by definition?

Simply put - station influence requires perfoming PvE activities. PvP players it seems, don't want to engage with NPC's and instead engage in PvP - which has approaching-zero influence on the BGS.

Where would your virtual character find a safe harbor, make deals or have his personal effects and family?
I'm sorry - I don't attach such thoughts to my in-game existence.

PvE can have different positive effects on a PvP run station, such as "delivering the goods" (ressources for operation), keep the other NPC factions in line and under control and generally add to the simulation of a group.
The BGS being a problem for the PvE part, that is another story.

True - but again that is all PvE, no PvP involved.
 
Cor blimey. That Harry Potter v Kate video was actually embarrassing. Made me cringe at how pathetic it was. Cackling like fools. Fools!

I remember Teezo and I playing a CQC match with him around Christmas and we spent the whole time screaming abuse about him (no wonder his parents abandoned him etc) as he kept jumping in to steal our kills. Haha. I don't feel as guilty about it now. We knew he was trouble!

You should remmeber Harry Potter/Besieger and Kate Click were very good friends prior to this incident heck the hammer of slough were pretty much in league with SDC etc if you go back on it.
 
It's kinda of odd that point was missing from the article I mean I think it's an important one.

A large organised group removed a PvP player group from a system while essentially being invulnerable. With the target player group being totally unable to defend themselves using their preferred play style.

It's kinda stupid when you think about it, and to me seems like the bigger "abuse" than dropping into Mobius to shoot players, something which Mobius ultimately has the power to prevent.

This is such a good point.
 
Simply put - station influence requires perfoming PvE activities. PvP players it seems, don't want to engage with NPC's and instead engage in PvP - which has approaching-zero influence on the BGS.

I'm sorry - I don't attach such thoughts to my in-game existence.

True - but again that is all PvE, no PvP involved.
You stated a group had no use for PvE players, if it is a PvP organization,
the BGS states different, i wanted to express that.

Do you have a proposition on how to include PvP activities within the limits of a system,
to actually impact BGS?

Things i could imagine would reflect other existing systems:
- Freelancer -> affiliation with a minor faction, with a more complex netting of the minor factions standing towards each other (Non affiliated pilots entering a system, would be required to be affiliated temporarily)
- Security Level -> tied to the results of fights between afilliated pilots
- trade mission goals/military strike -> form a convoy to system xyz deliverig weapons/goods for the opposition (open only to oppose them) with high impact
- eavesdropping/hacking -> get information from other pilots by hacking, so you know if a hostile station denying your docking request is launching a convoy/military strikegroup
 
Last edited:
A large organised group removed a PvP player group from a system while essentially being invulnerable. With the target player group being totally unable to defend themselves using their preferred play style.
What "large organised group"? Folks doing it in all modes, being organised through the forum thread?

It's kinda stupid when you think about it, and to me seems like the bigger "abuse" than dropping into Mobius to shoot players, something which Mobius ultimately has the power to prevent.
At that time Mobius didn't have the power to prevent, the group became so large that he couldn't remove anyone from it until FDEV intervened.
 
Last edited:
I just find it hard to understand why some folk seem proud of ousting SDC in the manner it was done, I see nothing positive about it, not in how it was done or what it says about ED.

This attack wasn't felt as being against Mobius group, but against the ED PVE community itself.

Bold move Cotton. If you behave like a jerk to people expect to receive the same treatment. This is online gaming after all.

And least to forget, initiative came from players, often not even part of Mobius group and it was emerging content something some players seems to crave! :D
 
What "large organised group"? Folks doing it in all modes, being organised through the forum thread?
Yes

At that time Mobius didn't have the power to prevent, the group became so large that hecouldn't remove anyone from it until FDEV intervened.

Tono Kopec said:
Surely exactly the same could be said about PVE players having PVP thrust upon them.

But this is easily fixed by kicking the offender. Sure at the time he had to engage Frontier due to bugs, but ultimately the power there lies with Mobius.
 
Again, I'm an Xbox player, so I can't say I feel bad about them losing income on features I also don't have access to.

I think Open events are brilliant. HOPE THEY OFFER IT ON MY PLATFORM.. Open on Xbox is more dead than you know.

To your edit: I think piracy is really broken, especially when anyone who does get interdicted can submit and then High wake it out without any worry of actually having to combat a pirate. So in that sense, you are correct, it's a different issue and off topic.

I read somewhere recently that MS is going to allow for cross platform play. Don't know if and when but be better if xbox players could play with the rest of us.

How exactly does the game's design revolve around Mobius (not even solo players, or those who play in other private groups but specifically Mobius) considering that open mode is part of the game's design?

Note - I'm not a member of Mobius, I just think that comment taken at face value is such a hysterical overreaction that I'd be interested in seeing your working.

Its not hysteria but a reflection of my experience having been here for a long time. FD appear to bend over backwards for the risk adverse. As if the solo and pg system aren't a big enough example there countless decision choices they've made to water down player jeopardy in Open. I'm really too tired to list them all right now but theres a lot.

But just to see how priviledged this group is lets recap on what happened. A few people went and killed a handful of players. Naughty boys for sure, so they get kicked and thats the end of it? Not on your nelly, instead we have epic threads of streaming oceans of tears resulting in a new harrassment policy. All because a few players got killed? Seems a little out of proportion no?

You know for private group which represents a tiny fractino of the player base they sure do get a lot of attention. I doubt anything in game will ever see the light of day if those guys don't give it the nod.
 
when really it was 20,000 exploiters that created this mess.
Totally false statement, on many levels.

1) Calling Mobius members exploiters is just slander.

2) SDC cheated themselves into a group that doesn't do direct PvP outside of combat zones, and then proceeded to force their playstyle upon their victims, while gloating about it.

3) No one knows how many players who "retaliated" through the BGS actually were/are a) members of Mobius, b) playing in Mobius when the BGS activities took place.

Don't try to blame the victims.
 
nice poke of an insult.

I tried to warn you about your utter lack of sarcasm mastery during your first streamed PR stunt. You didn't listen.
I'm terribly sorry to break the news, but if the comedian and his 5 buddies are the only ones laughing at his jokes, he's simply not funny.

Simple concept. If you want to entertain, be funny. Show mastery of wit, not the parody of it. A witless clown is a "fool" since the middle ages.
A working concept for entertainment, too ... look at the Fox video and it's bazillion of views (do you think I link that stuff by accident?). That is not SDC, though.

My statement is an observation, if you take it as an insult all you do is deprive yourself of an opportunity to learn.

Night night and good luck with the T9 run.
The bus is a splendid ship. Not nearly as coffin-ish as a T7 but I guess some of you read Adle's tests on hull hardness. :D
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom