Modes These arguments are tedious.

[Agony_Aunt]

And if I stop stop your 20 missions from being turned in. While I get to turn in mine.

If you can be in two places at once, then please teach me this trick senpai!

And no, i don't do the cop killing thing. Not my thing. I do pirate from time to time, but only in Anarchies. Under the old system i do go on an NPC killing rampage and while it was fun having the bounty, it also restricted me too much. So i'd just stick to the legal activities, or slightly naughty stuff like smuggling, which id do in a small fast ship to avoid scans.

So, i'd still not be likely to have a bounty, so you'd still have no way of killing me without copping a bounty yourself.

I think your problem is assuming i will have a bounty so you get to shoot me without problem. I won't

As for the escaping part, i'd be willing to practice with you at some point. I'll be back in the bubble soon-ish, but need to get my new fleet engineered up. Once ready, we can give it a go. As long as i can evade you once, then i can assume a win for PvE over PvP. If i can't escape at all, well, that would be a shame, but in that case, there is always the block feature for future runs

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

If you can be in two places at once, then please teach me this trick senpai!

And no, i don't do the cop killing thing. Not my thing. I do pirate from time to time, but only in Anarchies. Under the old system i do go on an NPC killing rampage and while it was fun having the bounty, it also restricted me too much. So i'd just stick to the legal activities, or slightly naughty stuff like smuggling, which id do in a small fast ship to avoid scans.

So, i'd still not be likely to have a bounty, so you'd still have no way of killing me without copping a bounty yourself.

I think your problem is assuming i will have a bounty so you get to shoot me without problem. I won't

As for the escaping part, i'd be willing to practice with you at some point. I'll be back in the bubble soon-ish, but need to get my new fleet engineered up. Once ready, we can give it a go. As long as i can evade you once, then i can assume a win for PvE over PvP. If i can't escape at all, well, that would be a shame, but in that case, there is always the block feature for future runs

I kill you on the way,. Not hard. THE BGS PVP Video I posted makes a clear example of all of that. But, none of that matters right? Any evidence people bring to the table just gets swept under the rug because they dont want change to begin with. Hey thats fine.

I dont mind getting a bounty if it means stopping your progress aunt. Maybe ill have a bounty in your area of space. And not mine. Ever think of that.

ISINT THIS HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED.

And you have the audacity to tell me I dont know anything about the BGS. Jesus christ.

If they were to balance the game around risk and reward. Pretty sure they would remove the feature of blocking as it does the same thing as the modes do.

Pretty sure this has been changed already too. at one time it did infact block people. But the tests ive done. ive been able to instance with the people I have blocked. So there's that.

Also, im not saying people cant escape. What I am saying is depending on where you are, whos around and whats available module wise. Between Groms, Cascade, Scramble and premium ammo. Im sure our BGS team can kill your trade conda in a matter of seconds. Or even your Conda thats in a rez site, as seen here, [video]https://www.twitch.tv/videos/232364143[/video]

Youre thinking supercruise. Im thinking catching you while youre doing your dirty work against another faction. Not everything happens in supercruise boy.

This is about stopping your progress. Not about having a high KDA in Call of Duty.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I kill you on the way,. Not hard. THE BGS PVP Video I posted makes a clear example of all of that. But, none of that matters right? Any evidence people bring to the table just gets swept under the rug because they dont want change to begin with. Hey thats fine.

I dont mind getting a bounty if it means stopping your progress aunt. Maybe ill have a bounty in your area of space. And not mine. Ever think of that.

ISINT THIS HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED.

And you have the audacity to tell me I dont know anything about the BGS. Jesus christ.

If they were to balance the game around risk and reward. Pretty sure they would remove the feature of blocking as it does the same thing as the modes do.

Pretty sure this has been changed already too. at one time it did infact block people. But the tests ive done. ive been able to instance with the people I have blocked. So there's that.

Also, im not saying people cant escape. What I am saying is depending on where you are, whos around and whats available module wise. Between Groms, Cascade, Scramble and premium ammo. Im sure our BGS team can kill your trade conda in a matter of seconds. Or even your Conda thats in a rez site, as seen here,

Youre thinking supercruise. Im thinking catching you while youre doing your dirty work against another faction. Not everything happens in supercruise boy.

Regarding the video, that's you against some other guy right? I'm not that other guy. We would have to see. You might be worse than me, but maybe in your world a PvEer can't be better than a PvPer?

Sure, go ahead, have a bounty on your head. That would be perfect. I'd probably let you have a free kill just so that you have that bounty. I'd definitely be happy for you to get a boutny in your own system. If you didn't want that, then fine with me, you wouldn't be attacking me then in your system.

It is how the game is played, it works well.

I do think you don't understand the BGS very well, despite your statements to the contrary. I think you don't want to see how doing pure PvE is far more effective than a mix of PvP and PvE, even if playing purely in Open. But hard to test. Impossible for us to set up a controlled environment where we could test this out unfortunately.

As for balancing risk vs reward, sure, i'm not against that at all. As long as the reward comes at the point of risk. Getting reward for no added risk is asinine, which is what you have been asking for. FD, please give bonus just because i'm in open. Sorry mate, that is just pants. You can fly around for hours and not encounter any extra risk. Some people can suffer bad pings meaning they are rarely instanced with anyone. People can block everyone they see and face no extra risk.

As for blocking, last statements by the devs were nothing has changed and should still work. We can test that as well.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If the risk is optional. So should be the reward.

Not all risk is optional - the game provides a level of risk defined by Frontier - other players potentially offer a variable level of risk that is not under Frontier's control.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Legal bait and switch issues? Really?

If that's the case, everyone who isn't happy with the new C&P should sue.

I bought the game to play my own way and hunt other commanders.

Now FDEV has pulled a classic bait and switch with C&P since 3.0.

Class action anyone?

Robert says it's the way to go.

No-one said that playing ones own way would not have consequences.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Legal bait and switch issues? Really?

If that's the case, everyone who isn't happy with the new C&P should sue.

I bought the game to play my own way and hunt other commanders.

Now FDEV has pulled a classic bait and switch with C&P since 3.0.

Class action anyone?

Robert says it's the way to go.

No no, he doesnt have a scripted answer for this. As long as they can solo undermine and sue Fdev if they finnaly balance it its all good. C & P is against griefers, you see, its all fine that it wasnt part of the original design.

Not all risk is optional - the game provides a level of risk defined by Frontier - other players potentially offer a variable level of risk that is not under Frontier's control.

Meeting a player vs meeting an npc are 2 different games, risk is different, reward is not.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Meeting a player vs meeting an npc are 2 different games, risk is different, reward is not.

If that player is in opposition - players can also Wing up for reduced risk in numbers.

 

[Jockey79]

Legal bait and switch issues? Really?

If that's the case, everyone who isn't happy with the new C&P should sue.

I bought the game to play my own way and hunt other commanders.

Now FDEV has pulled a classic bait and switch with C&P since 3.0.

Class action anyone?

Robert says it's the way to go.

You still can hunt other commanders, nothing is stopping you. And NPC law enforcement was also part of it.
Forcing a single mode is "bait and switch" because right from the start, optional modes (and optional direct PvP) were always part of the plan.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You still can hunt other commanders, nothing is stopping you. And NPC law enforcement was also part of it.
Forcing a single mode is "bait and switch" because right from the start, optional modes (and optional direct PvP) were always part of the plan.

Was a major selling point for me. I've never been a big fan of MMOs due to the fact that there are always rear-end-holes in online games and frankly speaking i simply don't want to play with them.

When i was playing and devving for a NWN2 server, there was a marked difference in the communities between servers. We were mainly PvE with PvP possible through some fairly strict rules, basically only by constent. We had our PvE jerks for sure, but every now and again we'd get a PvPer come in and try and cause trouble, and we would point them to the rules, but most just refused to obey them. Overall, toxicity levels were low.

Compare that with another server where PvP was all part of the game. Oh my. The arguments over meta! Nerf this! Buff that! Player was killed by this build, make this build illegal because its OP! The arguments and forum fights. Everything i read there just reinforced my opinion that free and open PvP is the curse of MMOs when they mix with PvEers.

I'm not saying that PvEers are angels. I'm not saying that those people complaining were right. What I am saying is any game where people can PvE and PvP and mix in the same environment is a recipe for disaster. I think FD understood this and that is the reason for modes. Give those who don't want PvP a way to play without it. Anyone flying in Open and complaining about gankers and greifers has no real right to complain when PG and solo are there as options.

Do as some people want, make Open a preferred mode, and that will really open the floodgates to complaints. And at which point i'd be campaigning for FD to add Crime and Punishment: Baldur's Gate style. (for those who are not aware, in Baldur's gate, if you committed a crime in the city, you'd get guards after you. If you killed them, tougher guards would appear, and then even tougher. It was a no win situation. If you stayed in the city, you were dead).

 

[Mouse]

Per usual, the only bad changes are the ones you don't want.

The whole idea of FDEV crossing some imaginary line that violates applicable bait and switch law is patently ridiculous.

It's an online video game.

And you don't own it.

You have been licensed a copy for limited use just like everyone else.

As such, changes to the way it functions can and will happen, and are to be expected. Even very drastic changes are possible.

If they decided to do a universal account wipe followed by increasing rewards for BGS and Power Play work performed in open to balance the game, do you really think you'd have a legal leg to stand on a claim of bait and switch?

I think not.

Interesting comments... reminds me back when Sony pulled a bait and switch with SWG and no legal action was... oh wait.. there was. In fact SOE ended up backpedaling real fast and refunded a CRAPLOAD of us that played and reported them for bait and switch practices. It is also why the game withered and they finally pulled the plug.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Frontier probably won't want to risk a recurrence of the threats of legal action (and subsequent refunds) that happened when Offline mode was cancelled pre-launch.

 

[Robert Maynard]

A bit late to claim that kickstarter refund there, Robert.

Have you actually read FDEV's return policy?

I have.

Good luck with your refund.

https://www.frontierstore.net/cancellations-returns/

Not the refund - the bad press.

 

[CMDR Ofan]

A bit late to claim that kickstarter refund there, Robert.

Have you actually read FDEV's return policy?

I have.

Good luck with your refund.

https://www.frontierstore.net/cancellations-returns/

That's a fairly standard adherence to the regs in the EU/UK when it comes to digital goods. I like to throw darts at Fdev when they deserve it but that's literally them following the law.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I like to throw darts at Fdev when they deserve it

This makes me happy that i'm not a FD employee. Years ago a friend threw a dart in my foot, and my gods, that hurt!

 

[Jockey79]

It's an online video game.

And you don't own it.

Neither do you.

What's your point?

You have been licensed a copy for limited use just like everyone else.

Which I paid for due to the advertised license including a game, where I had equal access to all the games content through any mode I choose.

As such, changes to the way it functions can and will happen, and are to be expected. Even very drastic changes are possible.

If they decided to do a universal account wipe followed by increasing rewards for BGS and Power Play work performed in open to balance the game, do you really think you'd have a legal leg to stand on a claim of bait and switch?

I think not.

Yes actually.

But Frontier wouldn't do it anyway, because SOE tried that one (SWG: NGE) and they lost the trust of the gamers (due to breaking core game tenants/ promises).
Because of that they had to close down SOE and re-brand as Daybreak games, because of how many people would no longer trust them or their products.

Just like EA has lost money due to breaking the trust of their fan base.

Frontier is no where near stupid enough to pull the same stunts.

 

[Jockey79]

A bit late to claim that kickstarter refund there, Robert.

Have you actually read FDEV's return policy?

I have.

Good luck with your refund.

https://www.frontierstore.net/cancellations-returns/

They can put what they like in those, but if it breaks consumer laws in the country it was sold in, they have to refund.

Or did you keep your head in the sand when Valve went through this and was almost banned from the EU for trying to pull the same stunts?

Did you think their new "2 hours" policy was them being nice? It was how they kept the ability to sell games in the EU.

 

[Jockey79]

Blah. Blah. Blah.

These comparisons to SWG don't hold water.

Yes they do, as it is an issue of trust - and if a games company loses the trust of the gamers, they won't be able to sell those gamers more games / DLC etc..

For example, I'm waiting on Jurassic PArk to come out. But if Frontier go back on their word for Elite, there is no way I'd buy Jurassic Park.
Same went for SOE and SWG. They went back on their word that Jedi would not be a playable character (and a few other things).
They did the NGE and did things they said they'd never do and the gamers that supported them walk away.
SOE is no more and Daybreak games have struggled to get support (they do have a following now, but not what SOE used to have).

So the issue of trust is an import one for Devs, whether you like it or not, Froniter are not stupid enough to tear up the KS / DDA promises.

You do not pay a subscription fee to access the game.

Again, neither do you.
What's your point?

Frontier still want people to buy Ship Kits, paint jobs and bobble heads - so they still want our money.

There is no reasonable expectation of continued service from Frontier with regard to the availability of the online service which is Elite Dangerous.

Actually there is as long as they are still selling the game and items for it.

If anything, FDEV learned from the failings of their competitor/distributor and have set things up so as to not find themselves in a similar situation.

As above, Frontier will have also paid attention to when Devs upset their core players.

 

[Mouse]

Yes they do, as it is an issue of trust - and if a games company loses the trust of the gamers, they won't be able to sell those gamers more games / DLC etc..

For example, I'm waiting on Jurassic PArk to come out. But if Frontier go back on their word for Elite, there is no way I'd buy Jurassic Park.
Same went for SOE and SWG. They went back on their word that Jedi would not be a playable character (and a few other things).
They did the NGE and did things they said they'd never do and the gamers that supported them walk away.
SOE is no more and Daybreak games have struggled to get support (they do have a following now, but not what SOE used to have).

So the issue of trust is an import one for Devs, whether you like it or not, Froniter are not stupid enough to tear up the KS / DDA promises.



Again, neither do you.
What's your point?

Frontier still want people to buy Ship Kits, paint jobs and bobble heads - so they still want our money.



Actually there is as long as they are still selling the game and items for it.




As above, Frontier will have also paid attention to when Devs upset their core players.

Why do people refuse to look at the evidence before them, especially from those who went through the crap?

 

[Warm Considering]

Big difference in stopping someones progress against you. And griefing new players in sidewinders.

What part of "You don't have enough bullets to make PvP effective against the BGS" do you not understand? You are OUTNUMBERED in EVERY respect. You have neither the ability nor the capacity to affect the BGS by attacking other players. These are forces which DO NOT respond to aggression. When will you figure this out?

The ONLY way to counter player actions in the BGS is to act UPON the BGS. You CANNOT stop the meters moving by attacking. Ever. You will NEVER accomplish this. Stop trying. GO AWAY.

 

[Warm Considering]

You know, people make these threads and they all end up rehashing the same crap.

Here's the bottom line: If something must be incentivized, it's probably not very fun to begin with. People don't choose to fight. If given a choice, people choose conflict avoidance, and this game gives people that choice and the answer is clear. As much as it pains me to say this being the socialist that I am, this game makes a strong case for radical individual freedom and anarchy being forces for peace, because conflict is not rational. The argument then is players must be given something to fight for. Huh? All things being equal it's obvious most players would rather just carry on about their business.

I would really like people to dig in and analyze that argument being made here, that there must be incentive for people to play in Open and engage in PvP. Why must it be necessary to incentivize something? Is that something not good enough to stand on its own merits? No? Then it's a bad idea. Why must boxers be paid so much money? Because, being hit in the face sucks. It's a bad idea. I suppose some people love it, but I wouldn't call that normal. And yet, some people really do love it. More power to them! Go on and enjoy your receiving and inflicting of pain, but for crying out loud don't stand there and insist there should be incentives for it.

Elite is a triumph of rationalism in an industry full of stories and practices that don't make a lick of sense. Can we keep it that way?

And why am I suddenly reading this to myself with an Irish accent?