![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
That's how I win at Solitaire too.
If Combat Logging is a bad thing. Then why is it okay to attack a player faction without being seen?
- Thread starter WorldsGreatestForumDad
- Start date
-
- Tags
- forumpvpchampion
- Status
That's how I win at Solitaire too.
I loves me some false equivalence.
If fruit is so full of healthy goodness, why is bacon so damned tasty!!
If fruit is so full of healthy goodness, why is bacon so damned tasty!!
Powderpanic
Banned
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It is perfectly fair - all players can affect the BGS, using the same tools, regardless of play-style preference, game mode or platform.
It keeps coming up simply because Frontier have not changed the BGS to suit the optional play-style preference that is PvP.
Last edited:
The Replicated Man
T
No you don't want to do that, thats for sure lol.
But you also don't want to blindfold your opponent and expect him to counter your moves properly
However, it is a simplistic concept to imagine that there is only a hammer in the toolbox.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I very much doubt that they will be able to - there is no player ownership of territory in this game - as players are neither in control of Faction nor PowerPlay "membership" and are therefore in control of neither.
I expect that Squadrons will sit outside the BGS (but their members will, as always, be able to affect the BGS).
We'll see, in time, what Frontier deliver in that regard.
Sounds like we are going to be heading for another unused dissapointing feature if it goes this way. I dont even give myself false hope for good things anymore, I just expect more beige/grey gameplay skirting around the edge of what could be great gameplay.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I chuckled when I re-read the portion that states that the defending Faction could use Solo / Private Groups to defend while the attacking Faction could not - that does not seem to be consistent with the "Open Only" philosophy.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not everyone's definition of "great" is the same.
Yes other peoples definitions of great are bleeding active players.
Bravo, I actually laughed out loud.
It's just the people that fail to understand that the game is not going to change to create 'PVP heaven'...so who cares?
Savage!
I agree that would be the ideal scenario, but to have that balanced across the board seems really hard, if not impossible to pull off.
So why not just split it? Leave BGS as it is, but make PP open only: as FDev have already stated that it was designed to spark player confrontations in the first place.
I'm involved in both activities for the record. And I know PvP at the moment is dominated by PvE activities: when I engage in PP I'm mostly hauling goods to fortify, so PP would get harder for me. But I'd welcome it anyway. Because it would make PvP more meaningful.
Just spitballing here, but:
Make PP semi-OO, with a 50% penalty for playing outside Open.
Add a mechanism where a kill in PvP gives the attacker whatever number merits the destroyed ship was carrying, so destroying a trader carrying 500 merits actually MEANS something.
That would seem to give players the option to avoid PvP, but still be effective (albeit much less so) while giving PvP a potential positive impact rather than just being a blocking tactic.
As long as "claim territory" doesn't mean I'm kept from the area by mechanical means (e.g. a permit lock) and the squadrons will have to work for it (e.g. pay the upkeep for their NPC patrols), fine by me. I have a choice between a fast ship and a stealth ship.
But that's disgressing from a thread that just turned interesting.
I like that idea. But I'm not too great at spotting possible problems in these kind of proposals, so winning me over isn't that hard. Hope others can chime in better on the nitty-gritty details.
- Status