Modes These arguments are tedious.

[Robert Maynard]

Hey Robert. How many times do I have to tell you I understand how the game works. And people are looking for change in certain aspects of it. For Balancing reasons. Just because they havnt changed it yet. Doesnt mean they cant or wont.

You offer nothing here. ZERO.

Of course Frontier can and will change their game as they see fit. I doubt very much that they will fundamentally change something that they are on record as saying that they won't (a simple "no" was the answer in the case I'm thinking of).

Nothing is being offered by those seeking change.

 

[Mouse]

Hey Robert. How many times do I have to tell you I understand how the game works. And people are looking for change in certain aspects of it. For Balancing reasons. Just because they havnt changed it yet. Doesnt mean they cant or wont.

You offer nothing here. ZERO.

I would look at your words and realize that you are offering zero here.. and that since people keep having to remind you how the game works that your assumptions that you know more then all of them on how it works. We both want a change in PVP.. the difference is you want to screw others to get it and I want to find a way to fix it without screwing others.

 

[Jockey79]

We do have control over it. This is the part you refuse to understand.

Our player faction in the bubble we have expanded into about 25 systems. Thats our space. We did that. Not NPC's.

You have as much "control" as anyone else does with the other generic named NPC factions - player named ones are no more important or special.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Your vision of balance is not the only vision around. Balance is achieved by granting you, and every Commander, with the same access to the game's mechanics. Just as you may choose to adopt the Meta ship build, you may choose to adopt some meta mode. It's up to you, and on you. Your choices shouldn't involve putting consequences on me, or anyone else.

Biased opinions? That goes both way here. You are not exempt.

I call your attention to the fact that FD have never introduced open-only mechanics or features. That FD have consistently defended the Modes, and PvP being an option aspect of the game. I also point your attention to the fact that I call for FD to introduce mechanics that give PvP meaning and impact on the game. All of that can be done without removing/limiting content from Solo/PG, or forcing open-only game play.

I know what we have. Thats why PP failed, because of the modes. We have PvP without content.

PvP without content = salt

PvP with content = gameplay

ED at the moment is a haven for salt and griefing.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Your vision of balance is not the only vision around. Balance is achieved by granting you, and every Commander, with the same access to the game's mechanics. Just as you may choose to adopt the Meta ship build, you may choose to adopt some meta mode. It's up to you, and on you. Your choices shouldn't involve putting consequences on me, or anyone else.

Biased opinions? That goes both way here. You are not exempt.

I call your attention to the fact that FD have never introduced open-only mechanics or features. That FD have consistently defended the Modes, and PvP being an option aspect of the game. I also point your attention to the fact that I call for FD to introduce mechanics that give PvP meaning and impact on the game. All of that can be done without removing/limiting content from Solo/PG, or forcing open-only game play.

Sandro also acknowledged risk and reward here regarding Powerplay. BGS PMF's and Powerplay are essentially the same thing. And they are Driven BY THE PLAYERS and not "minioned" NPC's.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=237822&p=3680532&viewfull=1#post3680532

Its all right there.

Reminder, just because nothing came of it. Doesnt mean Frontier is not aware of the Different risks each mode gives. WIth the same rewards thats available.

They are well aware whats going on here.

And I want to make sure they pull the trigger on this for Squadrons sake. They know whats going on.

They need to step up and make the changes.

Its healthy for the game, its healthy for the community. Its healthy giving PVP its definition. Its Healthy for a lot of reasons.

Boo Hoo if you guys end up getting shot. ITs a part of the game that needs growth anyways. Ya'll say its a side show....

However I dont think that was intended to be the case. It just happened that way because of the modes. Too much weapons balancing going on here. Otherwise we'de have mega over powered weapons like diablo 3. And no PVP at all.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Of course Frontier can and will change their game as they see fit. I doubt very much that they will fundamentally change something that they are on record as saying that they won't (a simple "no" was the answer in the case I'm thinking of).

Nothing is being offered by those seeking change.

Sure Ive offered evidence, proof, builds and experience.

All that needs to happen is change the reward to match the risk.

Everyone wins.

 

[Maka Gucci]

You have as much "control" as anyone else does with the other generic named NPC factions - player named ones are no more important or special.

You have about as much control in the naming of your ship as anyone else, and one name is as good as another, yet I imagine you prefer ship names that are personal to you.

 

[Lestenio]

We do have control over it. This is the part you refuse to understand.

Our player faction in the bubble we have expanded into about 25 systems. Thats our space. We did that. Not NPC's.

You don't have any control over it at all. At best you support it. You don't control who else supports it or who is affiliated with it.
There are players out there that have never seen the forum, heard of you, your group or stand for what you think the your faction represents. They will role player doing their own thing and that NPC faction you named, will be the NPC faction they support.

And those 25 systems you extend into, you can thank the thousand of anonymous players across all 3 modes that have quietly gone about they business having fun.

 

[Mouse]

I know what we have. Thats why PP failed, because of the modes. We have PvP without content.

PvP without content = salt

PvP with content = gameplay

ED at the moment is a haven for salt and griefing.

I sort of agree sort of not...PVP without content doesn't have to equal salt... it could equal gameplay, but you and the others refuse to do it, refuse to organize PVP into something. Instead you whine and pour your own salt onto the forums demanding that FDev do something. Now I do agree that I hope they do, but to lump it all on them. No I am sorry.

ED is only a haven for Salt and griefing because YOU and others made it that way... that is not on Fdev.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

You don't have any control over it at all. At best you support it. You don't control who else supports it or who is affiliated with it.
There are players out there that have never seen the forum, heard of you, your group or stand for what you think the your faction represents. They will role player doing their own thing and that NPC faction you named, will be the NPC faction they support.

And those 25 systems you extend into, you can thank the thousand of anonymous players across all 3 modes that have quietly gone about they business having fun.

Yep, and we are usually fighting 3-5 BGS from other players all at once.

We even have a guy thats been UA bombing us for over a year now.

The guys rolling through our systems, the normal people that are there for personal progression. They hardly make any dent in the area. They arent trading with intent. Just personal progression. You can tell really fast through bounty boards and %'s losses whos attacking what. In the systems we are a part of.

And you may not of heard of me before. But you have now. Welcome to the show.

 

[Jockey79]

I know what we have. Thats why PP failed, because of the modes. We have PvP without content.

PvP without content = salt

PvP with content = gameplay

ED at the moment is a haven for salt and griefing.

You have no idea if PP has "failed" or not.
Just because you don't do it, that hasn't stopped others from doing it.

The biggest "flaw" with PP is the only reason to do it is for the modules, once you have them there is no reason to stick around with a power.

Sandro also acknowledged risk and reward here regarding Powerplay. BGS PMF's and Powerplay are essentially the same thing. And they are Driven BY THE PLAYERS and not "minioned" NPC's.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=237822&p=3680532&viewfull=1#post3680532

Its all right there.

Reminder, just because nothing came of it. Doesnt mean Frontier is not aware of the Different risks each mode gives. WIth the same rewards thats available.

They are well aware whats going on here.

And I want to make sure they pull the trigger on this for Squadrons sake. They know whats going on.

They need to step up and make the changes.

Its healthy for the game, its healthy for the community. Its healthy giving PVP its definition. Its Healthy for a lot of reasons.

Boo Hoo if you guys end up getting shot. ITs a part of the game that needs growth anyways. Ya'll say its a side show....

However I dont think that was intended to be the case. It just happened that way because of the modes. Too much weapons balancing going on here. Otherwise we'de have mega over powered weapons like diablo 3. And no PVP at all.

Do I need to keep posting Sandros post debunking that one?

You moan at me for digging up old posts and you're no better - despite that one Sandro himself changed his mind on

 

[Mouse]

You have about as much control in the naming of your ship as anyone else, and one name is as good as another, yet I imagine you prefer ship names that are personal to you.

You can name your ship, control your ship, and have direct action over your ship. Not the same as player named NPC factions.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I sort of agree sort of not...PVP without content doesn't have to equal salt... it could equal gameplay, but you and the others refuse to do it, refuse to organize PVP into something. Instead you whine and pour your own salt onto the forums demanding that FDev do something. Now I do agree that I hope they do, but to lump it all on them. No I am sorry.

ED is only a haven for Salt and griefing because YOU and others made it that way... that is not on Fdev.

Its 100% on Fdev. They allowed it to happen. By not restricting certain elements of the game. This is 100% a developing issue. You have to funnel the content correctly and give meaning to shooting one another.

Like overwatch, different game. But the basics apply, Attack and Defend over Objectives. And you use skills and abilities to do so against each other.

 

[Jockey79]

Sure Ive offered evidence, proof, builds and experience.

No, you offered photoshop as shown when no one else could find your "proof".
Also, your friends Reddit posts and YouTube videos don't class as "proof" of anything.

 

[Lestenio]

Yep, and we are usually fighting 3-5 BGS from other players all at once.

We even have a guy thats been UA bombing us for over a year now.

The guys rolling through our systems, the normal people that are there for personal progression. They hardly make any dent in the area. They arent trading with intent. Just personal progression. You can tell really fast through bounty boards and %'s losses whos attacking what. In the systems we are a part of.

And you may not of heard of me before. But you have now. Welcome to the show.

Point is, you don't own that faction. You named it and released it into the wild for other cmdrs to support.
Your UA bombing example isn't relevant to the naming point I was addressing.

 

[Mouse]

Its 100% on Fdev. They allowed it to happen. By not restricting certain elements of the game. This is 100% a developing issue. You have to funnel the content correctly and give meaning to shooting one another.

Like overwatch, different game. But the basics apply, Attack and Defend over Objectives. And you use skills and abilities to do so against each other.

Nope, and again you try to compare Elite Dangerous to a game it is NOTHING alike.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sure Ive offered evidence, proof, builds and experience.

All that needs to happen is change the reward to match the risk.

Everyone wins.

I was, rather obviously, referring to what those demanding change were going to give up - as part of a compromise....

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sandro also acknowledged risk and reward here regarding Powerplay. BGS PMF's and Powerplay are essentially the same thing. And they are Driven BY THE PLAYERS and not "minioned" NPC's.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=237822&p=3680532&viewfull=1#post3680532

Its all right there.

Reminder, just because nothing came of it. Doesnt mean Frontier is not aware of the Different risks each mode gives. WIth the same rewards thats available.

Indeed he did, followed, in the same thread by:

Hello Commanders!

A couple of clarifications:

* This change, which remember is nothing more than a suggestion at this point, would have no effect on personal gain. It would affect success values for expansion, fortification and undermining only, not the merits you earned.

* It does not, and is not, meant to be a panacea to make the actual activities of Powerplay better. It's best to think of it as activity agnostic. That's not to say that we don't want to improve the activities (we do!), just that this is not aimed at that.

* The reason this benefit would only apply to Open as opposed to in Private Groups is fairly clear I think: we have no way to control distribution in Private Groups. Folk could start a Private Group where everyone was pledged to a single power. This would effectively then be Solo in terms of dealing with the potential threat of other Commanders.

* I would not want to introduce this into any aspect of the game except Powerplay because Powerplay is the only aspect of the game that explicitly uses the concept of adversarial multiplayer, as opposed to the more vague ways that minor factions operate.

Hope this info helps.

.... followed by the answer to my question, in a stream about 9 months later - that it wasn't going to happen.

 

[Jockey79]

I was, rather obviously, referring to what those demanding change were going to give up - as part of a compromise....

Same thing they always offer - nothing.

Which is why this is tedious, because they never change the record.
It's all take and no give.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Same thing they always offer - nothing.

Which is why this is tedious, because they never change the record.
It's all take and no give.

Why should We give anything up? The scale is tipped to one side. Its not OPEN play that should be giving anything up to begin with.

What kinda nonsense are you trying to pull here?