So UA bombing just got nerfed.

That and I think that CGs possibly getting interrupted had some thing to do with it too.

For me its a bit of a sticking point. One of the most interesting things to happen in the game happened due to UA bombing. It was basically player created content that gave me a month and a half of playing time to sink my teeth into and now it seems like player agency and emergent gameplay will likely be taking a backseat in the future.

Nonsense. This just puts the opposing efforts on a more equal footing. I've been on the receiving end of a UA bombing. It tooks the attackers days to close down a station, and the defenders needed months to bring it back up. If players want to have a mechanism to close down a station, certainly you can't deny the defenders a reliable method to counter.

The OP is just venting their frustration on now having to maintain an effort to close a station. FD has done the right thing on this issue. UA bombing? Ok. Defend against UA Bombing? Sounds like the perfect situation for real player made content.
 
Nonsense. This just puts the opposing efforts on a more equal footing. I've been on the receiving end of a UA bombing. It tooks the attackers days to close down a station, and the defenders needed months to bring it back up. If players want to have a mechanism to close down a station, certainly you can't deny the defenders a reliable method to counter.

The OP is just venting their frustration on now having to maintain an effort to close a station. FD has done the right thing on this issue. UA bombing? Ok. Defend against UA Bombing? Sounds like the perfect situation for real player made content.
Get a clue I have never UA bombed anything.
 
Get a clue I have never UA bombed anything.

I never said you had. The point remains, this change will just allow defenders a chance to stop, or reverse the effects of UA Bombing. Which doesn't rightly exist as of now. Fair competition should never be discouraged.
 
That and I think that CGs possibly getting interrupted had some thing to do with it too.

For me its a bit of a sticking point. One of the most interesting things to happen in the game happened due to UA bombing. It was basically player created content that gave me a month and a half of playing time to sink my teeth into and now it seems like player agency and emergent gameplay will likely be taking a backseat in the future.

They buffed repairing stations. Why is only destroying stuff considered 'player agency', whereas 'repairing stuff' is not? Makes no sense to me.
 
To be fair to Nath and the crew, they have created a stir, and got various people involved in 'doing things' as a result of other players 'doing things' in the game, which is emergent gameplay and we all love that term. Done correctly it can lead to amazing unscripted stories (not to say a scripted story is necessarily bad) - but Nath and his crew have at least caused something to happen which has caused a fair amount of engagement, albeit primarily negative (frustration, anger etc) and has led to repair mission laden with MAs to repair the damage.

The major issue as I see it was that it takes so much longer for one person to obtain the requisite number of MAs to fix one UA than it does for one person to obtain one UA and drop it somewhere for whatever reason. If the balance can be redressed so that 1 hour of UA bomber work can be fixed by 1 hour of fixer work then it should be fine. This change is in that direction which is a good step - I just hope that we dont have a situation where 1 hour UA bomber work = 10/20/30/40/50 hours fixer work as that would still suck.

But at least credit to Nath and his crew for doing something that got people involved one way or another - just wish there was a way of doing something like this that could mobilise player groups in E : D which didn't necessarily involve breaking things and others trying to fix them - making our own CGs for example to allow a player faction to expand into another system via landbase/outpost - heck even player faction outposts stations and associated calls for help to build it would be awesome.

Emergent gameplay doesn't have to be about someone annoying someone else, but sadly with the game mechanics we have, that's all there is currently. Something I hope FD looks to improve on in the future.
 

Goose4291

Banned
As the other thread got locked, thought I'd write my reply post here.

If anything, it got more dynamic.
Meta alloys were harder to get a hold of than UAs. Now it's actually possible to counter them in stations.
Also, with the first week bonus, a counter gameplay is created by constantly trying to provide stations with meta alloys.

That's a misconception. UAs have always been harder to find (and transport) than MAs. Once you find a barnacle, all you have to do is pop it, instance switch.. and voila you've got another batch to shoot and add to your 720t cargo hold Cutter. Whereas with UA's your relying on RNJesus to generate you one.

Yep, UA bombing and it's counteract or now on par. Both easy mode.

Except MA's by there current design already had their advantages in the current process. They were both (i) easier to find (as they're not RNG'd USS's) and (ii) didn't knacker your ship up while carrying them back (caveat: Apart from now, where you can carry a maximum of 22t in a Annie using anti-corrosive cargo racks). This adds an imbalance between the two mechanics.

They didnt nerf anything, they buffed MA. Which have been far harder to obtain since the whole mechanic was introduced. And it wasn't changed 'because people complained loudly', this was being worked on in galnet since the beginning. Btw, I love how every complaint of yours states that whatever problem you have is caused by other people complaining. :)

Anyway, good move by FD. I am sure the 'emergent content crowd' will be angry about it, because emergent content to them always means destroying stuff, never fixing it.

When Obsidian Orbital was hit over Christmas, Frontier tried initially to sweep it under the rug (going so far as to delete GALNET posts) because people had complained using the usual indirect special treatment channels. When they finally conceded it had happened (after bug reports and queries being raised) they introduced Meta-Alloys within a week.

When we had that last CG with the 13th taking it down, people complained bitterly and a god mod occurred.

When the Founders world went into lock down the same weekend, the lock down lasted barely a day, a period so short that has never been seen in BGS manipulating circles before or since, even when there was no opposition on the other side pulling the markers the other way. Additionally, bounties cashed in were still massively lower than crimes commited. Of course, despite all the mechanics showing that it should have stayed in place, somehow it magically lifted. Unsurprisingly people were again, caterwauling on the forums, and not trying to do anything about it in game.

That's the one thing I think that you're either (i) not understanding or (ii) deliberately misunderstanding when you refer to people as 'the emergent content crowd'. Speaking for myself, I don't mind whether I win or lose something ingame due to mechanics. Just as long as my victory/loss comes from actual gameplay, not Forum play (more pew-pew, less QQ and all that). Heck, I've even have took part in more than one MA run to bring a station back online, when it suited my viewpoint/playstyle.
 
Im neither in favour or against UA bombing.

I have an Asp at Lave station, Galnet says it's offline, not sure if I can retrieve my ship with its 10 million fuel scoop I could do with, but that's something I can deal with. I do have a negative view of mode switching but that's all. Just wanted to clarify that before I added the but.

But.

This whole thing has in my humble opinion been more accessible gameplay than the alienz stuff. Also, this whole thing has driven the game. The UA bombers have changed the game. I believe it's called player driven content.

I applaud them for that.

PS, anyone know if I can get my Asp out of Lave?
 
GREAT NEWS! UA bombers are ______. Well how does one classify people who take pleasure out of ruing other folk's entertainment. Fill in the blank on your own.
 

Goose4291

Banned
Im neither in favour or against UA bombing.

I have an Asp at Lave station, Galnet says it's offline, not sure if I can retrieve my ship with its 10 million fuel scoop I could do with, but that's something I can deal with. I do have a negative view of mode switching but that's all. Just wanted to clarify that before I added the but.

But.

This whole thing has in my humble opinion been more accessible gameplay than the alienz stuff. Also, this whole thing has driven the game. The UA bombers have changed the game. I believe it's called player driven content.

I applaud them for that.

PS, anyone know if I can get my Asp out of Lave?

Funnily the plan when I and a few others hit Lave Station to take it offline, it was part of supporting Lave Radio's attempts to manipulate the BGS to put themselves in charge of the station, because as Hutton have shown, trying to change the BGS in a rare-goods station is really hard and requires massive man-hours to achieve, even from a group with 100's of people.

The plan was (and still is)
(i) Shut down station, removing the rare goods running from the BGS equation
(ii) Run missions, etc to push Lave Radio Network up to a point where they control the station
(iii) Ferry MA's in to bring the station back online.

GREAT NEWS! UA bombers are ______. Well how does one classify people who take pleasure out of ruing other folk's entertainment. Fill in the blank on your own.

also players
 
You all do realize that UAs are either going to stop appearing, or be cured entirely when we get to the end of this plot arc, right? Once they've served their purpose they're going to be wrapped up and go away, just like the cerberus plague.

So in the grand scheme of things, UA bombs getting easier to fix isn't that big a deal. It's just an indication that we're getting close to the end of that plot arc.
 
When Obsidian Orbital was hit over Christmas, Frontier tried initially to sweep it under the rug (going so far as to delete GALNET posts) because people had complained using the usual indirect special treatment channels. When they finally conceded it had happened (after bug reports and queries being raised) they introduced Meta-Alloys within a week.

When we had that last CG with the 13th taking it down, people complained bitterly and a god mod occurred.

When the Founders world went into lock down the same weekend, the lock down lasted barely a day, a period so short that has never been seen in BGS manipulating circles before or since, even when there was no opposition on the other side pulling the markers the other way. Additionally, bounties cashed in were still massively lower than crimes commited. Of course, despite all the mechanics showing that it should have stayed in place, somehow it magically lifted. Unsurprisingly people were again, caterwauling on the forums, and not trying to do anything about it in game.

That's the one thing I think that you're either (i) not understanding or (ii) deliberately misunderstanding when you refer to people as 'the emergent content crowd'. Speaking for myself, I don't mind whether I win or lose something ingame due to mechanics. Just as long as my victory/loss comes from actual gameplay, not Forum play (more pew-pew, less QQ and all that). Heck, I've even have took part in more than one MA run to bring a station back online, when it suited my viewpoint/playstyle.

The CG and Founder's world thing have nothing to do with whether or not 'UA bombing' was nerfed reducing player agency. As for the first and last paragraph: if you don't mind winning/losing as long as it comes from gameplay, I assume you approve of the introduction of MAs as counter, as it allows this 'emergent content' to be actually dynamic. Its not about 'emergent content', its about balancing UA vs MA, which are two sides of the same coin.
 
The CG and Founder's world thing have nothing to do with whether or not 'UA bombing' was nerfed reducing player agency. As for the first and last paragraph: if you don't mind winning/losing as long as it comes from gameplay, I assume you approve of the introduction of MAs as counter, as it allows this 'emergent content' to be actually dynamic. Its not about 'emergent content', its about balancing UA vs MA, which are two sides of the same coin.

You completely missed the point. I'm starting to see a trend with your posts.
 

Goose4291

Banned
The CG and Founder's world thing have nothing to do with whether or not 'UA bombing' was nerfed reducing player agency. As for the first and last paragraph: if you don't mind winning/losing as long as it comes from gameplay, I assume you approve of the introduction of MAs as counter, as it allows this 'emergent content' to be actually dynamic. Its not about 'emergent content', its about balancing UA vs MA, which are two sides of the same coin.

Hey, I've no issues with the introduction of the MA's. Merely the timing of their arrival as a silver bullet.

Ask any commander who did Powerplay for Archon Delane. They had months of all their stations being turned off by the White Templars and a few other groups, and were having their requests for some sort of counter ignored. All of a sudden Obsidian Orbital goes a bit squiffy, a few people complained and firstly Frontier tried to sweep it under the carpet, then when they realised they couldn't they released the silver bullet.

Regarding the other things: I was merely drawing other examples of why the 'emergent content' player-base as you wish to call us, get angry. As I've said, we don't mind losing, what we do mind is the moving of goalposts due to lots of forum handwringing.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Forum warriors

If we were, this kind of change wouldn't have occurred.
 
Back
Top Bottom