Back when we didn't know it was bad
To all you player groups UA bombing places like Robigo and Sothis...
- Thread starter killerofstars
- Start date
Back when we didn't know it was bad
How many UA to bomb a station, is it less for a smaller port, what about planet ports?
How funny would it be, when the Thargoids show up, we find out the UA are their children in eggs. And then they go after the players abusing their children.
Kinda blows when places like Sothis and Robigo gets knocked out, but there are OTHER PLACES (HINT HINT) THAT OFFER LONG RANGE TRANSPORT MISSIONS.
All the people griping need to just LOOK AROUND A LITTLE BIT, and you'll find similar high-paying missions. Maybe not to the levels that Sothis is, but there are OTHER LOCATIONS.
Also, there's nothing wrong with what these guys are doing. Is it annoying? Yes. Does it conflict with the way many want to play the game? Yes. Is it allowed by the game? Yep. So, it's all good and legal. It's like those who gripe about how Open is full of murder-hobos... just don't go in open. If Sothis gets bombed out, just relocate... it's a massive galaxy out there, guys.
All the people griping need to just LOOK AROUND A LITTLE BIT, and you'll find similar high-paying missions. Maybe not to the levels that Sothis is, but there are OTHER LOCATIONS.
Also, there's nothing wrong with what these guys are doing. Is it annoying? Yes. Does it conflict with the way many want to play the game? Yes. Is it allowed by the game? Yep. So, it's all good and legal. It's like those who gripe about how Open is full of murder-hobos... just don't go in open. If Sothis gets bombed out, just relocate... it's a massive galaxy out there, guys.
Last edited:
Okay guys, time to put this tired argument "Well it's IN THE GAME SO IT'S FINE" to bed.
It was perfectly "legal" to pick up a bunch of slave missions from robigo, load up a cargo hold, then fail all the missions and sell the slaves back. You didn't have to hack the game, or even log out and log back in. But the Devs patched that out now didn't they?
Sometimes players take unanticipated actions.
If they can organize a group to take out stations with UA's then why can't those who use them organize a group to restore them.
I feel this is what is wrong with today's society a bunch of people complaining about issues yet no one willing to step up and do what is required to get results.
EDIT:
And as someone who is running missions out there to see what its like, hats off to the group who pulled this off Its pretty awesome knowing such a mechanic exists and stations are more than just hubs but can be taken offline.
I feel this is what is wrong with today's society a bunch of people complaining about issues yet no one willing to step up and do what is required to get results.
EDIT:
And as someone who is running missions out there to see what its like, hats off to the group who pulled this off Its pretty awesome knowing such a mechanic exists and stations are more than just hubs but can be taken offline.
Last edited:
This has been said and addressed over and over in this thread.
Hi. Yes. I am aware of the other places. First of all, given enough time, the griefers can probably UA bomb all of them into oblivion, and then we'll be past this stupid argument (To be replaced I'm sure with "Well fix it yourself then!") Second of all, there's a reason sothis/ceos are the current favorites. The other sites are, currently, not as effective.
Thirdly, when a bully knocks down your sand castle, do you get up and move to a different spot on the beach (where he can knock down and pee on your knew castle) or do you tell the bully to get lost? Or call a life guard and have HIM tell the bully to get lost?
Or that the players committed in UA bombing legitimately disagree with the long range transport missions in their effects and methods thus they reduce it with in-game mechanics.
Your definition of griefing is so loose and broad that it can be applied to anything. (Ex. omg a player is trying to work against me in my attempt to raise a faction's influence/changing system type, such griefer)
Griefing in ED by FD's term is targeted harassment of specific player, please keep your personal morality out of this.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
The problem with your analogy is that player conflict and opposition are a part of the game, to categorize it as illegitimate behavior is, if anything illegitimate.
Neither of your suggestions is how you "stand up to a bully." You stand up to a bully by, wait for it, waaiit for it...standing up. Your first suggestion is just going to get the bully to laugh in your face. The second suggestion is literally the opposite of standing up for yourself.
Not that there is any bullying going on anywhere that I can detect; just a handful of pilots hauling cargo back to the systems in question.
Last edited:
Okay, tell you what, everyone defending this mechanic, tell me. WHAT DOES IT ADD TO THE GAME?
In PVP you know who the person murdering you is. Even if you can't strike back against them immediately, it creates gameplay. Perhaps you want to hunt that person down later. Maybe you start traveling in more heavily armed ships. That's player opposition, and that's emergent gameplay from that.
From this? What happens, some people bring down a station players are using to actually make money. Those players have, I will BET you, themselves used the long range hauling missions to make money, and right now, having enough, want to deny that to everyone else to make themselves feel superior. So they UA bomb the station. Other players don't even know who's doing it. It doesn't generate conflict or rivalry. What it does is force players to engage in meaningless grind to bring the station back up, and those players were probably going to those stations to avoid meaningless grind in the FIRST PLACE. And that's if they can even afford to haul the loads of MAs needed to repair the station, MAs are expensive. So...a SORT of gameplay emerges? One that just generates misery.
Where exactly is the upside gameplay wise?
In PVP you know who the person murdering you is. Even if you can't strike back against them immediately, it creates gameplay. Perhaps you want to hunt that person down later. Maybe you start traveling in more heavily armed ships. That's player opposition, and that's emergent gameplay from that.
From this? What happens, some people bring down a station players are using to actually make money. Those players have, I will BET you, themselves used the long range hauling missions to make money, and right now, having enough, want to deny that to everyone else to make themselves feel superior. So they UA bomb the station. Other players don't even know who's doing it. It doesn't generate conflict or rivalry. What it does is force players to engage in meaningless grind to bring the station back up, and those players were probably going to those stations to avoid meaningless grind in the FIRST PLACE. And that's if they can even afford to haul the loads of MAs needed to repair the station, MAs are expensive. So...a SORT of gameplay emerges? One that just generates misery.
Where exactly is the upside gameplay wise?
Players found a goal and put their effort into it, that alone adds to the game for those participating. Just because you don't approve it doesn't mean it's illegitimate.
It's the same as any other BGS game play, fight back by contributing meta alloy to fix the stations.
It's called player conflict, conflict from what I know isn't pleasant. You don't have to like it, but you have no right to strip it away. As for your speculation about the intent of players committed to UA bombing, even if that is their purpose, and that is a big "if," it's completely legitimate player domination. If you dislike it so much you should rally first in the real world about how bourgeois make their money then seal most of the paths they used to gain their money for the workers that they exploit. Get your priority straight please.
Player conflict, emergent content.
Last edited:
lol. form a group and deliver meta-alloys and stop whining. They aren't stopping fun; they're removing a credit bonanza from a system by the only ingame mechanisim left; because all the rest are rendered irrelevant by solo.
If it's worth something, you'll protect it. If it's just a mindless cash grab whilst the going is good, then it'll be a lot of whining and complaining and no action.
So which is it?
edit: after three pages I have my answer. Endless complaint, zero action.
Last edited:
You get off your rear end and do something about it you don't expect someone else to change a fundamental aspect of an entire game just because it inconveniences you.
Other bombers claim to do it in Solo. You, a random nobody, claim you don't. As you've been exposed as a Sothis/Robigo runner despite your claims, well, most probably you are doing it in Solo too. Fits you too well.
You won't get your 15 minutes, as this situation is not your doing. This thread is simply another discussion on certain game mechanics. Whether they're liked or disliked, or if the counters to said mechanics are adequate. Nothing more.
Yet you relentlessly try to divert all conversations about UAs and MAs to you. You are a zero in this equation, not a relevant actor. No matter what happens to this mission hub, it's not because of you.
Hell, I've been arguing with you all day and I don't even remember your nick in this moment.
"The Isis of Elite" you say. ROTFLMAO! You wish XD
Last edited:
Deleted member 115407
D
Does the Gal Map not reflect accurate services? What's the state out there currently?
According to the GalMap, there is no change.
According to the GalMap, there is no change.
The difference between bombing a station and fixing it is quite astounding. FDev won't clarify it. That's the point of this thread.
This whole episode is just yet another sad example of the way that the ED playerbase has descended into new lows of toxicity.
I took quite a few weeks off from this place in the hopes that the toxicity rise was merely a fad, but it appears that it is here to stay due to no official discouragement of said types of players.
What a shame. This game had such promise, and these forums were also quite a reasonably entertaining place to be in, once upon a time. Never mind, time to leave the trolls to it again.
I took quite a few weeks off from this place in the hopes that the toxicity rise was merely a fad, but it appears that it is here to stay due to no official discouragement of said types of players.
What a shame. This game had such promise, and these forums were also quite a reasonably entertaining place to be in, once upon a time. Never mind, time to leave the trolls to it again.
I hope you take another vacation because the one being intolerant of other legitimate player activity aren't those UA bombing, it's those that demean others by injecting their own sense of morality and preference.