Anti-CG CG's. For the PvP'ers.

Ok, so because an idea I ran away with in the '15 second rule' thread was going way off topic, I thought it might be worth a discussion separately.

Because a lot of folks are not happy abut being treated as fish in a barrel during a CG, primarily because there is no REAL reason for shooting people, I came up with the idea of if those who tried to stop a CG from being completed were rewarded IN GAME for doing so - such as a counter-CG that asked to stop anyone who was signed up for the CG in question - then this would be a GOOD reason for needing to shoot people, and it would also make sense if a CG had to reach a certain tier in a certain time limit to be judged as successful.

The other side who failed to meet their target (for example, players shooting down others would need to stop them reaching say, tier 4 within 12 hours) would not receive a bonus for completing their CG, and vice versa.

I would like to see such CG's have a prerequisite requirement - for example, a specific type of ship, a minimum ranking in a faction, a minimum combat rating. At least let the idea of a blockade make actual sense. Ships that can be destroyed must be clearly determined to have signed up for the opposing CG, and you must also have signed up for the anti-CG to be able to shoot them down.

It might also be a good idea to set a maximum quota of ships that need to be stopped. Once you have destroyed a certain amount, you're not permitted to destroy more (I'm sure a game-friendly reason can be dreamt up) - it's your responsibility to check your messages to ensure you don't break that limit. This is simply to stop constant ganking beyond the call of duty.

Of course, those who have signed up for the Anti-CG are automatically considered KOS by anyone, as they're effectively performing illegal acts in space controlled by what would be their enemy, which would mean even in Anarchy systems, there would be a need for such anti-CG's as station space is also controlled.

The whole point is to give PvP meaningful and justifiable inclusion within the Elite galaxy. It's much more satisfying to destroy enemies when they ARE enemies, and not just a made up RP in your head to give as an excuse.
 
Last edited:
Why bother? No one will sign up for it.

Frankly it's a bad idea and wouldn't entertain it.

Again. Always trying to MAKE them play how you want.

Easier solution. Fly better fitted ships for CGs
It amazing how much abuse a armoured T6 can take and still carry full cargo.... This is completely people's choice. Even if it's totally obvious.
 
Last edited:
And what would stop a group from having some of them signed up to the other side and get themselves repeatedly ganked just to farm CG progress and block the opposing goal? Too easy to exploit.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Giving players a "good reason" to shoot at other players signed up to an opposing CG would probably, in my opinion, just encourage the latter either not to participate at all or just not in Open, especially if those players were not likely to be in combat ships.
 
Why just not introduce PVP oriented CG?

I would like to see more official support and encouragement to pvp in this game.
 
Last edited:
Those aren't real spaceships, it's not real combat, people don't really die and the money wasted isn't real. Why do I need a real reason for going against a CMDR?

Edit: what I mean is, why does PvP need a "meaningful and justifiable inclusion" in ED, if it's already meaningful and pretty justifiable, for me?
 
Last edited:
Goods and bounties should only count towards the community goal if obtained in Open.
No they shouldn't. People should take responsibility for buying a product which does not fit their needs and stop trying to screw over other users.
Optional PvP goals in a CG for this who want them.. fine, what ever but you need to drop this notion that open is in any way more important than solo or PG.

Alternatively a solo/PG only separate CG which is essentially the same as the open only one. Signing up for one bars you from signing up to the other but both groups get a CG to contribute to without interference from the other
 
Last edited:
No they shouldn't. People should take responsibility for buying a product which does not fit their needs and stop trying to screw over other users.
Optional PvP goals in a CG for this who want them.. fine, what ever but you need to drop this notion that open is in any way more important than solo or PG.

But Open is more important to the game than Solo and PG, even when less people play in Open than in the other two. Reason being, if ED was single player or PG only, I bet many people wouldn't even have bothered to buy it. Specially if it had no PvP. If it were an Open-only game, on the other hand, I bet it would have even more customers.
 
But Open is more important to the game than Solo and PG, even when less people play in Open than in the other two. Reason being, if ED was single player or PG only, I bet many people wouldn't even have bothered to buy it. Specially if it had no PvP. If it were an Open-only game, on the other hand, I bet it would have even more customers.

I suspect you're even more wrong than you think you are.
 
Its astounding how sure of that you are.
The fact this has multiple game modes blows my mind. Not in a good way.

I think there should be a payment/rank bonus for playing in open
*ninjaed*
 
Back
Top Bottom