Modes Restrict or remove PvE from the game, making Open a nicer place

Goose4291

Banned
Goose4291
Ziggy Stardust said:
The mistake you made was telling me I was talking about group functionality. I wasn't.
The other mistake is that sad violin music goes with a woe is us post. The piece you quoted was a celebration of a feature which make little napoleonic tyrants redundant.

Really mate, take my advice and go with beige planets posts. Those are suitable for sad violin music.
Click to expand...

So we're going to ignore every post you've made where you've declared group mechanics would be 'the death of elite', and the ilk, which anyone can find by searching your username and the keyword 'napoleon', most of which go?

Whatever mate, keep the denial going strong.
 

Ziggy Stardust

Ziggy Stardust
Goose4291 said:
So we're going to ignore every post you've made where you've declared group mechanics would be 'the death of elite', and the ilk, which anyone can find by searching your username and the keyword 'napoleon', most of which go?

Whatever mate, keep the denial going strong.
Click to expand...
This is precious. You quote a post of mine and blame me it's not the right post :)

But yeah. I'd like to see that post. Because it's about player owned stuff.

"Guilds and player owned ballcocks would be the death of Elite. Frontier knows this. They'll placate the would be Napoleonic pillocks with squadrons and a mega ship they can have executive *straight face* control over. They can go: As CEO of this megaship I order it to move to that system. And they can delegate *straight face* this to lesser peons. And within 1 day we'll have threads: My executive control needs more executive and more control, because they won't be satisfied until they can own a planet. If Frontier make the incredible mistake of going down the guild/owned asset slippery slope, I'll be happy to drop it and will enjoy the resulting trainwreck with glee.

But I judge Frontier to be more intelligent than that"

And again, not a woe is us post :)

Here, greener pastures: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/search.php?searchid=20306475

You're welcome.
 
Last edited:

Han Zulu

Han Zulu
Here's my argument to why we can't remove PG or Solo:

We wouldn't have a Hotel California section to discuss in!!! It would be too great a loss.
 

[VR] Frank_G

[VR] Frank_G
I just try to recall, where in the original Dev Diaries was mentioned, that PvP is an option if players want to do it, but by no means the heart of the game. And i really like, how the current system is handling that. If i find the video, i´ll post it here.
 

Manticore

Manticore
Zieman said:
Most toxic are those players who cannot stand the fact that PvP doesn't dominate the whole game.
Belittling, insults, all kinds of negative behaviour comes from them. The perceived "toxicity" of those who (foolishly) respond that behaviour is just the trolls projecting their world view to their victims.
Click to expand...

That pretty much says it all about this game, and many other games, where griefing is allowed.

It's a sad fact of life in online multiplayer gaming (and probably in their Real LivesTM) that there are a small cadre of pathetic, infantile and sociopathic players who's only intention is to ruin the game experience for everyone. When anyone proposes something where that type of anti-social behaviour is prohibited and and attempt regulate and eradicate that behaviour comes into being, then they act out about it; because the potentiality that the baby won't get its bottle arises. This is all very much ingroup/outgroup behaviours in social/group psychology where there is sociopatholgoical behaviour.

I would try and stop my dog from chasing and killing birds because it's not good for the birds, but unfortunately, us humans seem intent on killing each other (or, in the present situation, playing out that pathology in a game environment).

Additionally the OP's thread title is in the form of a demand rather than a suggestion.

I'm sorry, but any misplaced sense of entitlement returns the "no" reply.

And they forgot the magic word:

tumblr_inline_oz2plceRL51v3zv03_500.gif


466A1.gif
 
Last edited:

StiTch

StiTch
Frank_G said:
I just try to recall, where in the original Dev Diaries was mentioned, that PvP is an option if players want to do it, but by no means the heart of the game. And i really like, how the current system is handling that. If i find the video, i´ll post it here.
Click to expand...

To be fair, putting the srs bsns mode cap on, what many players are after is the continuity - i.e. a true multiplayer game - as opposed to "all must PvP 24/7". If a man wants to PvP 24/7, the only thing really stopping them is engineering, and sometimes the inability to find anything but chicken wings.

It's strange we've called for more depth in a multiplayer game for so long and yet kneejerk-kicked any proposals to improve the multiplayer aspect of it. At present, we got wings to gang up on soloable targets, multicrew...okay, that's about it. What depth is there in a universe where "influence the galaxy" boils down to "who can grind solo activities hardest to change BGS influence figures"? Give us a game where a man can attempt to UA bomb a station, and that station's faction has full ability to defend the station to stop the criminal getting in, and we're talking. It's not even "new content" but the depth goes from zero to "whoa, hold on there Jim". This is where the idea of emergent content starts to creep in.

I don't believe we'll actually see a galaxy we can truly influence like that - that ship's sailed - but even if something such as PP was rebuilt to be conducive to such play, especially where said activity consists of rehashed PvE/soloable content with minimal monetary rewards for the sake of allowing a paramilitary war, there would be a far deeper sense of engagement and...yeah, I'll say it, immersion.


Ziggy Stardust said:
Goosie, you have inspired me to make a clip. Second clip I ever made, so you're responsible for 50% of my output. I hope you're proud of yourself, because I am.

Behold the magnificence:
https://youtu.be/nbhppAuslvU
Click to expand...

A Ziggy original? On my thread? Praise jebus!


Manticore said:
It's a sad fact of life in online multiplayer gaming (and probably in their Real LivesTM) that there are a small cadre of pathetic, infantile and sociopathic players who's only intention is to ruin the game experience for everyone.
Click to expand...

It's a sad fact of life that when faced with a playstyle one doesn't like, so many are incapable of addressing it without becoming an armchair psychologist.

I jest that censorship has no place in a game clearly not intended for the seven year olds this game is apparently recommended for, but I've seen a fair few threads by now about one man or another's 10 year old kid having a go on the sticks, and not just handling a death to another player maturely, but in some cases even asking what they can do to avoid it in future. Congratulations, pre-teens are more mature than you. Now, can I recommend a good shrink?

Manticore said:
Additionally the OP's thread title is in the form of a demand rather than a suggestion.

I'm sorry, but any misplaced sense of entitlement returns the "no" reply.
Click to expand...

I know...it's just terrible. The sheer travesty of signalling a witch hunt to "discuss" whether the game would be better without a playerbase I don't like, in an entirely rhetoric fashion, should really see me banned :(
 
Last edited:

Ziggy Stardust

Ziggy Stardust
StiTch said:
The sheer travesty of signalling a witch hunt to "discuss" whether the game would be better without a playerbase I don't like, in an entirely rhetoric fashion, should really see me banned :(
Click to expand...
You don't like me in a rhetorical fashion.

But we are the goon squad and we're coming to to town. Beep beep. [sad]
 

jasonbarron

jasonbarron
Sylveria said:
People are going to think what they want regardless of what the mods do or don't do. They're human beings, volunteers and players. They have opinions just like anyone else, and to expect otherwise would be ridiculous indeed.

They could have just created "forum alts" instead, but then people would still imply that they're being biased. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Personally, I have more respect for them being up front and honest than hiding behind alt accounts. Too bad some don't give them the respect they deserve in return. :)
Click to expand...

If they were perceived as impartial they would get more respect than they do at present.
 

jasonbarron

jasonbarron
Sylveria said:
So, your prerequisite for respect is defined by "partiality" or stance on issues?
Click to expand...

I think this community would be well served to have a few people with a broader range of game play tastes/interest/experience curating the conversation as it were;)

Incidentally, I do have plenty of respect for our mod team in a number of areas. I simply pointed out that if they would like more from the community in general, they'd have to broaden their outlooks a little more.

@Stich, your proposal actually makes a decent amount of sense. You have my support.
 

Ziggy Stardust

Ziggy Stardust
jasonbarron said:
If they were perceived as impartial they would get more respect than they do at present.
Click to expand...
That's a good point, since it lays the problem at perception. Oh, they're PvEers, of course they'll not be impartial towards PvPers.

While there is little evidence to support that point. Lots of confirmation bias though.

edit: and perhaps a little projection as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom