Code action against CoR

Darkphoenix

Darkphoenix
So you are saying the Mobius is a target for mode invasion because it is the only option available to use as a PVE environment and you don't consider it a private group but rather as an abomination that shouldn't be allowed.....

GF made the right choice imo, because whereas before you tried to adhere to an ethos, it now seems to be that the "code" is there but actually adhering to it not only won't be enforced but actually should actually read that rule #1 of the code is that "There are no rules"....

Thanks for the clarification, it is nice to know that Code version 2.0 is actually just SDC 2.0 which is of itself made up from ex-members of the Code and was actually Code 2.0 so I guess that actually makes this new itineration Code 3.0?

Nice to know that to the rest of the players you will just be viewed as a bunch of <use imagination>........

A vast majority of players don't come to the forums so hence will never even know about your "blockade"....Just that they got killed (from their POV) by a group of <imagination(s)> for absolutely no reason whatsoever.......this should do wonders for your reputation as a group methinks.
 
Last edited:

flyauburn41

flyauburn41
Darkphoenix said:
So you are saying the Mobius is a target for mode invasion because it is the only option available to use as a PVE environment and you don't consider it a private group but rather as an abomination that shouldn't be allowed.....

GF made the right choice imo, because whereas before you tried to adhere to an ethos, it now seems to be that the "code" is there but actually adhering to it not only won't be enforced but actually should actually read that rule #1 of the code is that "There are no rules"....

Thanks for the clarification, it is nice to know that Code version 2.0 is actually just SDC 2.0 which is of itself made up from ex-members of the Code and was actually Code 2.0 so I guess that actually makes this new itineration Code 3.0?

Nice to know that to the rest of the players you will just be viewed as a bunch of <use imagination>........

A vast majority of players don't come to the forums so hence will never even know about your "blockade"
Click to expand...

You are obviously quite triggered. I find this amusing.

I said what I said. How you choose to interpret it to serve your own internal narrative is up to you.
 

Ziggy Stardust

Ziggy Stardust
What makes Mobius different from any other private group apart from it's size?

And is considering Mobius as an extension to Open just a transparent way to justify breaking the rules you just outlined? Like: we only do Open except for Mobius because that's different.
 

Ashnak

Ashnak
I don't really want to know about your internal reasons and what went on with GF - he left and that's it, as far as I am concerned.

However, your declaration of denying Mobius the status of "PG" stinks - and it's really hard to avoid going Godwin on that.
But who the **** do you think you are to decide what FD should allow or not? Did someone die and make you king? Or are you so conceited as to claim right of conquest?
And where will you put the boundary? Either all PGs are off limits, or none. Otherwise, who will you declare as an abomination in god'syour eyes next? Will you go after FleetComm - like Mobius, just stricter and with less members? Or, assuming that you actually manage to significantly bleed members from Mobius and a different group will come up to take its place, will you go after them?

Your rules look good and honourable. But if you break them by declaring that the people you don't like actually aren't people at all and therefore not protected by these rules, I'll nail my colours to my mast.
 

Darkphoenix

Darkphoenix
flyauburn41 said:
You are obviously quite triggered. I find this amusing.

I said what I said. How you choose to interpret it to serve your own internal narrative is up to you.
Click to expand...

No not at all......I play open though I am currently taking a break from the game.....I just find mindsets like the one embraced from you and your comrades puzzling and very counter-productive.
 
Last edited:

Harley Quinn

Harley Quinn
Waldi said:
Just trying to figure this out, so far all i got is:

Some PvP crowd is giving out that people are attacking them through BGSing in solo and PG to avoid PvP consequences of their actions.
Then there are some people saying its unfair to use BGS in the complete safety of PG/Solo to attack a PVP group and not allow them to defend in their chosen playing style.
The BGSers are saying well we are allowed to hide in PG/Solo while attacking you through BGSing why would we want to PVP its useless for BGS purposes, you should PvE like us and play our way.
Then there are some saying that previously PVPer factions only want to be able to defend there Faction through PVP action and dont want to have to BGS to control there Faction, but those that do now including PvE think it's unfair for another group to hide in PG/Solo while attacking them to remain out of harms way, and that is just as bad as every PvE complaint against PvPers forcing people to play their way which demonstrates such a level of hypocrisy that even some PvEers agree with them on this.

Did i miss anything?
Click to expand...

Yes, pretty much everything. Fixed it for you though
 

Harley Quinn

Harley Quinn
Mad Mike said:
dare i say it...... As a PvEer with no interest in PvP at all in ED and who rarely plays in open.... I CAN see their point.

its just on balance, weighing up the pros and cons, plus looking at the history of how ED came into being, as well as interviews with DB explaining the kind of game he was looking ED to be, I think on the whole they are just going to have to suck it up for *this game*

but i dont think it is fair to totally belittle their view as i can see their point even if i disagree. (I am not accusing you of this btw)

Had ED of been build around PvP i think the modes and features would be very different. I suspect the network architecture would have been different as well as quite possibly the pricing model.

I also suspect i would not have backed it.

infact just looking at how the networking is done, i think that shows how high up competitive active PvP is on FDs list of priorities... ... however i do not claim to be an authority on such matters.

now lets all get along and listen to a little black sabbath :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKY--qaHWSw&list=RD5s7_WbiR79E&index=15

(totally irrelevant - like most of this thread - it just happens to be on my machine at the moment!)
Click to expand...

I'd rep you for the Sabbath alone, but need to spread it around apparently
 

pippo

pippo
Liqua said:
The OP made 1 post .. that's it .. no debate / no conversation / nothing .. simply "we're blocking this system" ..
Click to expand...

*George Clooney' silly grin*

"What Else?"

I wouldn't dare myself posting any sort of answer to this thread given the way it has turned out.
If anything, at least Code right now knows how some folks are feeling about it.
82a3b49ab5b203f79181a5b8d96dd143.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
flyauburn41 said:
2. The purpose of The Code is to provide ourselves and the Open community with what we think is sorely needed; emergent gameplay based around the credible threat of "outlaws/bad guys" in the Elite universe, specifically Pirates!, that can legitimately "boil you up!" if you won't be letting them have your cargo! We are the bad guys, and we want to be, and we even hope some of you appreciate that, knowing that some never will (get rekt).
Click to expand...

Its a nice idea. The problem is, how many players who actually carry goods (traders, miners) actually want player based pirates, even those who prefer Open play? How many actually think "It would be good fun if i was interdicted by a pirate on my way to the station! It will give me a nice bit of emergent content it will by jove!"

Don't get me wrong, i'm sure there are some people like that. I even had some good experiences with the code back in the day... but even so, i'd actually have enjoyed it a lot more if i hadn't been pirated.

One thing i have frequently noted on the forums, those who are in favour of things like PvP piracy do tend to be the... well, PvPers. Its very rare to see a trader in a thread such as this saying "Its great, and i enjoy getting pirated".
 

Sentenza

Sentenza
Darkphoenix said:
Thanks for the clarification, it is nice to know that Code version 2.0 is actually just SDC 2.0 which is of itself made up from ex-members of the Code and was actually Code 2.0 so I guess that actually makes this new itineration Code 3.0?
Click to expand...

Hell no. SDC at least are not hypocrites - they want to create problems to people and just say so.
 

Darkphoenix

Darkphoenix
Agony_Aunt said:
Its a nice idea. The problem is, how many players who actually carry goods (traders, miners) actually want player based pirates, even those who prefer Open play? How many actually think "It would be good fun if i was interdicted by a pirate on my way to the station! It will give me a nice bit of emergent content it will by jove!"

Don't get me wrong, i'm sure there are some people like that. I even had some good experiences with the code back in the day... but even so, i'd actually have enjoyed it a lot more if i hadn't been pirated.

One thing i have frequently noted on the forums, those who are in favour of things like PvP piracy do tend to be the... well, PvPers. Its very rare to see a trader in a thread such as this saying "Its great, and i enjoy getting pirated".
Click to expand...

I actually would not care if I got pirated from one that asked for a reasonable amount (and no....dropping 75t of cargo when you carry 100t isn't reasonable), but the amount of interactions I've had that I wouldn't have minded is exactly zero. Far too often the ones you get are either griefing idiots looking for cheap lulz or completely unreasonable gits.....
 

Darkphoenix

Darkphoenix
Sentenza said:
Hell no. SDC at least are not hypocrites - they want to create problems to people and just say so.
Click to expand...

true enough I suppose....at least as you say they are upfront about being complete <male genitalia(s)>.......

I only meant that by being made up at creation by ex-code members that they were in fact a 2.0 version of the group that left so they could toss the "code book" out and not offer any justifications for being what they are in game. This new version seems very much like that itineration which in fact makes Code 3.0 actually SDC 2.0 except that they "on paper" still claim to have an ethos that they apparently as a whole feel no compunctions of completely ignoring when they feel like it. So it begs the question why even have rules if they mean diddly squat?
 
Last edited:

Capn Murica

Capn Murica
Agony_Aunt said:
Its a nice idea. The problem is, how many players who actually carry goods (traders, miners) actually want player based pirates, even those who prefer Open play? How many actually think "It would be good fun if i was interdicted by a pirate on my way to the station! It will give me a nice bit of emergent content it will by jove!"

Don't get me wrong, i'm sure there are some people like that. I even had some good experiences with the code back in the day... but even so, i'd actually have enjoyed it a lot more if i hadn't been pirated.

One thing i have frequently noted on the forums, those who are in favour of things like PvP piracy do tend to be the... well, PvPers. Its very rare to see a trader in a thread such as this saying "Its great, and i enjoy getting pirated".
Click to expand...

Every piracy encounter is different in how players interact; that's what makes it more attractive to us than villainous PVE activities in the first place. Several people have joined the Code as a direct result of being pirated while trading and enjoying the experience, myself included (almost 2.5 years ago now).

What's a game without challenge? If your only goal is to grind up credits as quickly as possible without risk, the Open universe might be a little too Dangerous for that. We'll be in Open for the challenge of hunting traders, who trade in Open for the challenge of evading us.
 

Capn Murica

Capn Murica
Darkphoenix said:
So it begs the question why even have rules if they mean diddly squat?
Click to expand...

I have personally destroyed an ex-crewmate of the Code when he tried attacking a Type 9 that had just complied to my demands. We may only have one rule, but we take it seriously. When traders see "This is the Code" in their comms box, they can trust that compliance means living to tell the tale...
 

flyauburn41

flyauburn41
Darkphoenix said:
true enough I suppose....at least as you say they are upfront about being complete <male genitalia(s)>.......

I only meant that by being made up at creation by ex-code members that they were in fact a 2.0 version of the group that left so they could toss the "code book" out and not offer any justifications for being what they are in game. This new version seems very much like that itineration which in fact makes Code 3.0 actually SDC 2.0 except that they "on paper" still claim to have an ethos that they apparently as a whole feel no compunctions of completely ignoring when they feel like it. So it begs the question why even have rules if they mean diddly squat?
Click to expand...

You're still not getting it. Our 'ethos' literally hasn't changed. There is no "2.0 or 3.0" or whatever you've cooked up in your mind.

We are doing nothing that we haven't always done. The Code is intact and being followed, and members that don't will be summarily ganked and kicked from the group.

Case in point:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...ersonal_cargorunners/?st=J3ETN8X2&sh=78ace4e7

There is no hypocrisy here and no "new version", and you are simply uninformed.

Our viewpoints and our Code have been well known, by those that are paying attention, since the beginning.
 
Last edited:

Darkphoenix

Darkphoenix
Capn Murica said:
I have personally destroyed an ex-crewmate of the Code when he tried attacking a Type 9 that had just complied to my demands. We may only have one rule, but we take it seriously. When traders see "This is the Code" in their comms box, they can trust that compliance means living to tell the tale...
Click to expand...

That's cool, but the OP states that in this "blockade" all ships are KOS and that being the case there would be no comms given, so which is it? Most people don't come on the forums so will there be comms informing those who stumble into the system of a "blockade" and giving a chance to leave or not......if so that is not KOS and if not then your "code" isn't worth the space that it takes up when you type it on the screen.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom