AND yet your stance tries to overshadow his stance. Do you not see that? You try to say that one POV shouldn’t overshadow another and yet you are here trying to shout others down and attempt to scold them. How do you not see that? We all acknowledge how BGS works and the functions used to manipulate it. No one has any issue there. The issue lies in where people choose to manipulate it.
- Status
AND yet your stance tries to overshadow his stance. Do you not see that? You try to say that one POV shouldn’t overshadow another and yet you are here trying to shout others down and attempt to scold them. How do you not see that? We all acknowledge how BGS works and the functions used to manipulate it. No one has any issue there. The issue lies in where people choose to manipulate it.
My story was funnier.
Never thought about you during that story.
Good for you!
I never said that.
edit: whoa, there.
Do you mean this attitude?
Or another one?
Last edited:
Why? Please give me a reason. Multiple people who play Open have claimed that there is no reason for it, that you are just giving a reward to one mode that doesn't need on.
Kalie, Mohrgan, Jockey, Robert, Sylveria, Ziggy
I couldn't rep you as much as I wanted to so here is 1,000 lbs of Cubeo Razorback Bacon each.
This is why I suggested this angle 3 years ago.
But the "griefer/ganker" crowd went crazy over it, as they wouldn't be able to troll for an hour then hide in Solo/PGs to avoid the bounty hunters.
So I gave up on the idea.
But it does solve your BGS / PF issue without actually locking the content away from other players.
Which is why I like it.
I'd also like to point out, I've been saying for months there were ways to get what you want without locking the content - and all you did was ignore me, so
Power Play is another matter however.
But one issue at a time
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
This is why I suggested this angle 3 years ago.
But the "griefer/ganker" crowd went crazy over it, as they wouldn't be able to troll for an hour then hide in Solo/PGs to avoid the bounty hunters.
So I gave up on the idea.
But it does solve your BGS / PF issue without actually locking the content away from other players.
Which is why I like it.
I'd also like to point out, I've been saying for months there were ways to get what you want without locking the content - and all you did was ignore me, so
Power Play is another matter however.
But one issue at a time
The only issue I still see is traders flipping a system too. They are just as important if not more than the criminal. Trading/Data running does take part in flipping someones system. Without ever becoming a criminal.
Last edited:
Didn't Frontier add a threshold though for traders, to stop them taking the mick with the BGS?
Otherwise and idiot in a Cutter could trash any system in about an hour with one 726T haul.
So as far as I'm aware, cargo trading isn't the best way to do anything for the BGS - it's more for profit than anything.
As for Data / Passenger Missions, if they don't have a transaction threshold then perhaps they need one, same as cargo trading?
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Its all done with +++ Mission and now +++++ or even up to +++++++ in a wing.
They did nail some of this with Scanning Beacons. Like if you have a mission for Data intel against the faction you are at war with. You become wanted for being there getting that scan data.
That part is awesome, you become wanted for that.
Passenger missions when I was in colonia. You board flip until full in missions or people. All +++ in a Python. 3 size 6 slots alone gives you 96 passengers. I think it was around 156 passengers barebones with a FSD and 20 +++ missions. About 2 hauls an hour waiting on the boards.
There is a bug in trading right now. Where basically each transaction is counted instead of how much is delivered(its been around for a long time) I thought they fixed it? Depending on what you trade, it doesnt have to be UA's. It can be Drugs or Slaves or whatever. Those impact numbers as well. You can turn states this way. But it still has an impact on the BGS #'s for incoming and outgoing commodities.
I dont know every specific off the top of my head. I literally need notes to refer to for some of this stuff. I really do like it.
I wish, hard-set times were by default shorter. I think shorter elections and flip cycles will get people involved a bit more. Also a reward for winning a system. Maybe a multiplicative for the systems you control that are connected for trade. Count how many places are in Boom, reward your spiderweb for that too.
I think they did great with the trade routes addition where it took in count where the commanders are. This is all stuff I hope they make out of squadrons. Dont just give us a UI. Give us actual attachment to our systems. Give us the tools to recruit. Give us the tools to place markers on the map for our guilds to see. Reward actual trade routes. Reward Pirating within them.
There is so much they can do with our current tools and content. Instead of people being separated. I think all play-styles would fit together in one place. Everyone would have a purpose, everyone would feel important. I think it would pull communities and friends together. Even though they are fighting over territory in the game. People are still doing it together. With an understanding of what they are doing.
This is what I want to see Frontier communicate with their community.
David Braben was all about working together with your friends. That was in one of the videos too. Well I think we can still do that. While making PVP meaningful in the process. Instead of the greifing we have now. I dont want this griefing as much as you dont want it. But Im seeing a part of this game not being used. And no matter how I try to play it. Im a griefer, Im a griefer because PVP is a "sideshow" with no purpose.
Im looking at what we have now and what we could potentially have in the future. Im dying for this focused feedback on this one.
This game is awesome. And I think it could use a damn good shake up for everyone.
Last edited:
I have offered a number of suggestions to make PvP more meaningful, and have more impact. They have been rejected because they don;t include removing or restricting content to players not opting to use open mode. I am overshadowing his, and maybe your, contention that open has some special place in the function of the game's mechanics. I don't suggest nor want any content restricted from open, or those players that enjoy that environment. The issues brought up are entirely player created. Created by the notion that what happens in-game should be measured by what happens in open.
That you haven't noticed my concessions to making PvP more involved with the game's mechanics is not my problem. My take on the matter is to reward actually engaging in BGS/PP aligned PvP, rather than just rewarding people for accepting the threat of an extra risk. Which is what incentivizing open is. You are mistaken about my views. I am strident, but not unyielding. Small groups would be at the mercy of a larger group under any circumstances. The bottom line is, keeping each Player equal is better than enacting some dubious attempt at creating parity between the modes. Universal access to all of the games mechanics ensures fairness between players.
Solo/PG are available to every player. The personal choice of one player holds no sway over another. The power to correct any perceived imbalance is in the hands of the players who hold that view. Personal choices shouldn't convey consequences on other players. Those consequences are your own, not mine.
As a console and PC player, I still feel that platforms need to be considered as exactly the same as modes when proposing an Open only idea. Even in Open, what is to prevent XBL or PSN groups from forming to attack PNF’s of PC or multi platform groups? It boils down to numbers and proportionality to affect an attacker.
I have heard commanders say that their PNF’s are represented across all platforms. I presume through recruiting (which incidentally PNF’s can recruit across modes for PvE bucket fillers too). What is to stop players from “hiding” on XBL from PC centric PNF’s?
I believe that platforms and modes have to be treated as the same when looking at changes and limitations.
From memory, there is a logarithmic formula that reduces influence changes the more missions you run in a system.
It works out to roughly 15 missions in a system and your influence drops off. Hard.
You keep circling back to this pvp conversation and I’m sorry to say this is not entirely a conversation about pvp. In fact I haven’t asked for pvp specific. I’ve onky suggested that while you feel it’s fair I would counter that in its current iteration pg/solo has an unfair advantage in that it holds 0 consequences. Unfortunately life whether it be a game or RL has determined nothing is fair and there are consequences for everything so your argument about things have to fair holds little weight with me. You will never have everyone on equal terms as people have begun playing this on different platforms/different time periods. As you say that is my choice.
At the moment as you say it is in your hands to correct the imbalance in your viewpoint and those are your consequences not mine. We all have our own consequences. Whether I have noticed your contributions or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand because you have posted exactly 0 ideas here. In stead you have postulated that you are right and I along with others are wrong and therefore need to correct our viewpoint. Awesome, thanks for the contribution.
You are not wrong and I don’t disagree with you. Heck I’m a part of group that is only represented on PS4. My BGS issues lie solely from what I see take place in my larger group for PowerPlay. I’m less concerned with the issue of platforms due to instancing and the like. It also makes negotiations and politics important because of a PC group is attacking say my PS4 group well if everyone is in open then I can use those contacts to help defend our territory. It also leads to larger scale conflicts amongst groups playing the BGS. So you have negotiations outside of the game, plus you have conflicts in game, plus you still have The Who can move more numbers. It’s added depth in that regard so I’m less concerned with the platform issue because it means we as a community need to be more connected.
Besides trying to counter my argument, what have you offered?
I explain how balance between players is accomplished with universal access throughout, and is more important than a dubious parity between the modes. I point out that open has no superiority over Solo/PG in the eyes of the game's mechanics. I also point out that one player's personal choice in-game has, and should have, no impact on any other player's ability to choose.
All of that amounts to a repudiation of there being a problem between the modes. The problem is between players. Players that insist everything must be dominated by open, and by extension PvP, opposed by players that may choose to play in Solo/PG.
I will ask, once again, why your personal gamer ethics, should trump mine?
Why don't you consider negotiating with and recruiting players that prefer Solo/PG to move those numbers? If you can find your way clear to do so over multi-platforms, why not over multi-modes?
Those same connections and negotiations can happen from Open only players to solo/pg players. My feeling is that modes and platforms present the same limitations and issues and any proposed changes should take them into account as equals. The potential exists for platforms to affect each other in the same manner as solo/pg affect Open. A relatively small PC group could overwhelm an obscure XBL group and they would have no direct recourse, just as solo/pg to open.
At this point I’m inclined to believe you might be one of the larger fools I’ve talked to on these forums. Why don’t I recruit members to multiple modes? Simple, our group belief is open only. Also, this isn’t about recruiting or even size of groups. That becomes a numbers game about who can again move more numbers, tedious and grindy are both words that spring to mind.
As for your question posed in the first comment, I will retort in kind what makes your personal gamer ethics take priority over my own? The simple answer to that is they are my beliefs and I as you will always hold our beliefs more dear than those of another.
Let’s examine the names of the mode themselves. Open: open to all. Solo: you are playing a game by yourself so it’s not to unreasonable to think you would impact only your own universe. Private group: you would impact the universe of only those in your group. Not to hard to understand.
As for superiority of one mode over another, open and P/G do have superiority over solo in that they offer multi crew and wing functionality. At this point as already pointed out with multiple platforms, certain functions only available in different modes the modes being equal is a fallacy.
My suggestion is to find a way to separate the BGS of each mode. Those in solo have the opportunity to play the game they see fit in their BGS, P/G impact their shared BGS, and open BGS is impacted by anyone playing in open.
I still find myself wondering how PFs can be so well represented across platforms, yet it’s so difficult to recruit across modes.
I once was in a PF that advertised roles within the wing that included all modes and play styles. But in reality, the group pushed for exclusive PvP playstyle and accountability via attendance. For me, that was not what I wanted and have yet to join another group yet. But I was interested in furthering the BGS goals of a group as a role player, steering clear of direct PvP. I thought, at the time, that I could be an asset that would get work done while allowing others to engage in their preferred playstyle.
I can’t be the only one out there that has or ever would be interested in that. I literally joined that group to be a solo/pg PvE bucket filler.
I once was in a PF that advertised roles within the wing that included all modes and play styles. But in reality, the group pushed for exclusive PvP playstyle and accountability via attendance. For me, that was not what I wanted and have yet to join another group yet. But I was interested in furthering the BGS goals of a group as a role player, steering clear of direct PvP. I thought, at the time, that I could be an asset that would get work done while allowing others to engage in their preferred playstyle.
I can’t be the only one out there that has or ever would be interested in that. I literally joined that group to be a solo/pg PvE bucket filler.
True only to an extent. The issue is you can directly oppose them if on open on another platform. If in solo or p/g all it becomes is how many people can flood one system and push the most inf levels. While a group may be on another platform they can be openly opposed with help from a group or representatives on another platform.
You can still be a pve bucket filler in open. Why is that so hard for people to grasp? You don’t have to fill buckets in solo/pg. However, being a bucket filler in open makes it fair play for a group you are opposing to try to hinder you. Then it’s on your group to defend you.
Because if you are in OPEN regardless of the platform you can be shot dead by someone other than semi NPCs.
- Status