Beyond is great but please let the next updates focus on combat and PvP

[Sterling MH]

Hang on. CQC is still a valid PvP point. Current play does not mean it cannot be changed. Heck, if current gameplay cannot be changed in CQC it cant be changed in the base game either, so asking for changes is impossible.

CQC is pure PvP.

If CQC can not ever be the answer, then PvP can never be an answer.

If "Oh, but it's dead NOW", the only reason it is dead is nobody bothers with PvP in CQC. A non-rebuttal. Something else is the actual answer.

If "But they need player ships", well, yes. Why must CQC never have player ships in it? They won't fight in the arena play area as it is, but they can just set up another mini universe to play in for bigger ships. Job done, now the big ships CAN fight in it.

So unless the problem isn't "they need player ships" OR you explain why CQC can't be changed, not that it hasn't been changed, can't be. If PvPers want it, they will get it. If it isn't that, then somethign else is the actual answer.

So why is CQC not allowed to be an answer to "We want PvP!"?

It can be revived. See POI hunting. It can be changed to fit what people prefer. See mining.

Why is it not allowed to be "Use CQC" to people demanding PvP? If CQC needs changing before it can BE an answer, then how would it have to change?

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

The lack of empathy is a two way street. Tossing around carebear and like comments doesn't imply a lot of empathy for the PvE-Way. If we can all get beyond name calling and stereotyping, issues like these could be handled a lot easier. As we have it now, everything stalls on ancient resentments.

Carebear is someone claims that they are PVEing while attacking someone elses system. Or powerplay.

Knowing what PVP is for. Knowing they could be stopped in the process. And knowing whats in front of them.

At the same time, its evolved into a META. Its more efficient to remove all the defenses and go naked while doing it.

Or Low distro high end shields for Maximum PVE farming and cop killing.

It all comes down to options and efficiency. Removing half the game we are supposed to be playing. On both sides.

Its not supposed to be extreme in either direction as this forum puts it. "Over engineered ships", and then the shiedless ships.

Both sides are equally and guilty.

And both sides do it intentionally.

 

[Havvk]

Carebear is someone claims that they are PVEing while attacking someone elses system. Or powerplay.

Knowing what PVP is for. Knowing they could be stopped in the process. And knowing whats in front of them.

At the same time, its evolved into a META. Its more efficient to remove all the defenses and go naked while doing it.

Or Low distro high end shields for Maximum PVE farming and cop killing.

It all comes down to options and efficiency. Removing half the game we are supposed to be playing. On both sides.

Its not supposed to be extreme in either direction as this forum puts it. "Over engineered ships", and then the shiedless ships.

Both sides are equally and guilty.

And both sides do it intentionally.

How many times are you going to repeat yourself despite having these same questions answered many ways?

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

How many times are you going to repeat yourself despite having these same questions answered many ways?

You mean the answers people give so they dont have consequences for themselves while affecting other people. Is that not the reason they removed themselves from Open Play? So they arent attacked?

And at the same time, they get to use that system to attack someone or player group else in the process?

You mean those answers?

Forever baby.

Hell if you guys are going to do it. At least be honest about it instead of giving excuses.

 

[Sterling MH]

How many times are you going to repeat yourself despite having these same questions answered many ways?

Plus also tu quoque fallacy (Or "false equivalence" depending on if you think he's talking in the third person or not) and nonsequtur. He's defending himself by attacking others for things he's not accused of to avoid the accusation he clearly did.

He threatened to go griefing if he wasn't placated.

If he'd threatened to leave if he wasn't placated, no problem. Lots of flouncing happens. But if it sticks, fair do to him. He can find a "pure" PvP game like EvE Online.

 

[Mohrgan]

CQC is pretty much out of the discussion. Unfortunately it has been dismissed by the PvP players. It is unappealing to have to go outside the game, and use the proscribed ships. Change these things and stuff might change, but until then, CQC does not scratch the itch.

 

[Mohrgan]

How many times are you going to repeat yourself despite having these same questions answered many ways?

I am not going to respond to his obvious propaganda. Propaganda that does in no way match reality.

Fortunately most players can see the issue with less of a laser focus on one, repudiated filter.

 

[Havvk]

Plus also tu quoque fallacy (Or "false equivalence" depending on if you think he's talking in the third person or not) and nonsequtur. He's defending himself by attacking others for things he's not accused of to avoid the accusation he clearly did.

He threatened to go griefing if he wasn't placated.

If he'd threatened to leave if he wasn't placated, no problem. Lots of flouncing happens. But if it sticks, fair do to him. He can find a "pure" PvP game like EvE Online.

Basically blaming other people for blaming him for something they never blamed him or accused him for. Ah.




lolwat, why would somebody do that. That sounds like a lot of work, must be tiring

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Hang on. CQC is still a valid PvP point. Current play does not mean it cannot be changed. Heck, if current gameplay cannot be changed in CQC it cant be changed in the base game either, so asking for changes is impossible.

CQC is pure PvP.

If CQC can not ever be the answer, then PvP can never be an answer.

If "Oh, but it's dead NOW", the only reason it is dead is nobody bothers with PvP in CQC. A non-rebuttal. Something else is the actual answer.

If "But they need player ships", well, yes. Why must CQC never have player ships in it? They won't fight in the arena play area as it is, but they can just set up another mini universe to play in for bigger ships. Job done, now the big ships CAN fight in it.

So unless the problem isn't "they need player ships" OR you explain why CQC can't be changed, not that it hasn't been changed, can't be. If PvPers want it, they will get it. If it isn't that, then somethign else is the actual answer.

So why is CQC not allowed to be an answer to "We want PvP!"?

It can be revived. See POI hunting. It can be changed to fit what people prefer. See mining.

Why is it not allowed to be "Use CQC" to people demanding PvP? If CQC needs changing before it can BE an answer, then how would it have to change?

No true pvp!
LOL

You don't get to make up arbitrary definitions like that.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

CQC is pretty much out of the discussion. Unfortunately it has been dismissed by the PvP players. It is unappealing to have to go outside the game, and use the proscribed ships. Change these things and stuff might change, but until then, CQC does not scratch the itch.

Yes, and some sort of in game risk needs to be there.
Shipbuilding is also a big part of the appeal of pvp to many.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I am not going to respond to his obvious propaganda. Propaganda that does in no way match reality.

Fortunately most players can see the issue with less of a laser focus on one, repudiated filter.

Why do you think ATR has station guns that penetrate shields. Show up after a set amount of time to still give time for player interaction?

Hello?

Ohhhh thats right. They were there to stop griefers. My bad

HAHAHA

 

[Havvk]

Why do you think ATR has station guns that penetrate shields. Show up after a set amount of time to still give time for player interaction?

Hello?

Ohhhh thats right. They were there to stop griefers. My bad

HAHAHA

What are you trying to get at with this comment?

 

[Sterling MH]

CQC is pretty much out of the discussion.

Nope. Non answer. When you say this:

Unfortunately it has been dismissed by the PvP players. It is unappealing to have to go outside the game, and use the proscribed ships. Change these things and stuff might change, but until then, CQC does not scratch the itch.

The answer to THAT is the answer to why CQC is not absolutely in the discussion. Not saying you should answer. If you happened to be one who did just that, you could answer for yourself, but you seem mostly to have said you're not PvP.

So I want to know WHY.

If I don't know why, then CQC is NOT out of the discussion.

If "Why" is answered with, assuming the depressing negative suspicion I have is reality rather than cynicism, "We don't want skill based equality with symmetric warfare PvP, we want to club seals!", then that is the answer.

But, despite suspicion or cynicism, I cannot absolutely assert that this is the reason. Just that the answers given will be judged against that in a "which is most likely?" test to see if it passes muster.

So until then, CQC is not out of the discussion. Can I ask that you not argue for it for them. It's like hearing a poverty level worker excusing another tax cut for the bosses with "but if we don't, they'll leave and not pay ANY taxes". Let them fight their own fight. Don't fight it for them, unless you also insist that the reason is what you say it is and gainsay any PvPer who disagrees with your "why" but not with CQC being off the table.

Its on the table. And remains there until those who want PvP explain why not. Why not informs what could be done and what it does will determine if their wants are accommodated or thrown aside like someone insisting they must have an offline ED next.

Change these things and stuff might change, but until then, CQC does not scratch the itch.

So it is NOT off the table. None of "these things" are impossible. NOBODY is asking for them. They're asking for something else. Anything else, as far as I can see. If those things are not being asked for, then your assumption is falsified by their silence.

The changes are possible. Just not asked for. CQC is on the table.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

What are you trying to get at with this comment?

You used to be able to sit in an instance and farm cops for BGS numbers. Causing lockdowns. You could easily do this for hours on end with specific builds.

So the ATR counters this. It also gives people the time to still be stopped in other peoples systems, while giving the trader a little back up over time. The higher the notoriety the quicker and more harsh the response is.

So this is a built in defense for the single trader if properly engineered. And it also covers the "PVEer" Farming someones cops in a system without having to work for it. They cant idly sit by and grind against someone else.

The ATR is perfectly balanced. As it should be. In all modes. They really nailed that one IMO.

 

[Sterling MH]

You used to be able to sit in an instance and farm cops for BGS numbers. Causing lockdowns. You could easily do this for hours on end with specific builds.

Non sequitur. The post he was talking about does not lead into this.

 

[Havvk]

You used to be able to sit in an instance and farm cops for BGS numbers. Causing lockdowns. You could easily do this for hours on end with specific builds.

So the ATR counters this. It also gives people the time to still be stopped in other peoples systems, while giving the trader a little back up over time. The higher the notoriety the quicker and more harsh the response is.

So this is a built in defense for the single trader if properly engineered. And it also covers the "PVEer" Farming someones cops in a system without having to work for it. They cant idly sit by and grind against someone else.

The ATR is perfectly balanced. As it should be. In all modes. They really nailed that one IMO.

The ATR has nothing to do with what Birdman is talking about though.

 

[Mohrgan]

Nope. Non answer. When you say this:



The answer to THAT is the answer to why CQC is not absolutely in the discussion. Not saying you should answer. If you happened to be one who did just that, you could answer for yourself, but you seem mostly to have said you're not PvP.

So I want to know WHY.

If I don't know why, then CQC is NOT out of the discussion.

If "Why" is answered with, assuming the depressing negative suspicion I have is reality rather than cynicism, "We don't want skill based equality with symmetric warfare PvP, we want to club seals!", then that is the answer.

But, despite suspicion or cynicism, I cannot absolutely assert that this is the reason. Just that the answers given will be judged against that in a "which is most likely?" test to see if it passes muster.

So until then, CQC is not out of the discussion. Can I ask that you not argue for it for them. It's like hearing a poverty level worker excusing another tax cut for the bosses with "but if we don't, they'll leave and not pay ANY taxes". Let them fight their own fight. Don't fight it for them, unless you also insist that the reason is what you say it is and gainsay any PvPer who disagrees with your "why" but not with CQC being off the table.

Its on the table. And remains there until those who want PvP explain why not. Why not informs what could be done and what it does will determine if their wants are accommodated or thrown aside like someone insisting they must have an offline ED next.



So it is NOT off the table. None of "these things" are impossible. NOBODY is asking for them. They're asking for something else. Anything else, as far as I can see. If those things are not being asked for, then your assumption is falsified by their silence.

The changes are possible. Just not asked for. CQC is on the table.

Why? Because players spend countless hours choosing, outfitting, and engineering their ships to perform the way they want them too. Not to mention the time spent gaining the resources to accomplish this. Part of the thrill is proving to yourself whether or not your choices have been right. Pitting your build and skill up against another. To suddenly be told to use a dinky little SLF with completely limited loud outs. It is completely understandable that this situation would be unappealing.

Why? Because, although they gain some material rewards, CQC has exactly no impact on the Galaxy. Most PvPers would like to play along with players that accept the notion that they are at risk, and rise to the occasion by being capable and prepared to face that risk. They consider that part of the social contract of playing in an open world PvP capable video game. They would like to see that their interests have a measurable impact on the galaxy model we play in. None of this is unreasonable in any way. Being shoved aside and told to play with toys at the kiddie table is perfectly unreasonable. Lets face it, where CQC is concerned, FD missed the mark.

You, I feel have some unreasonable ideas about PvP. Fortunately the game allows for we non-PvP-centric players to opt out completely. Even if you choose to fly in open, if you face an unwanted attack, the game affords you a Menu-Log, that is within the rules of the game, to avoid PvP, if you find it impossible to high-wake or otherwise defend yourself. With all of this at our disposal, it is not at all unreasonable that PvP should have a meaningful impact on the game as it stands.

 

[Havvk]

Why? Because players spend countless hours choosing, outfitting, and engineering their ships to perform the way they want them too. Not to mention the time spent gaining the resources to accomplish this. Part of the thrill is proving to yourself whether or not your choices have been right. Pitting your build and skill up against another. To suddenly be told to use a dinky little SLF with completely limited loud outs. It is completely understandable that this situation would be unappealing.

Why? Because, although they gain some material rewards, CQC has exactly no impact on the Galaxy. Most PvPers would like to play along with players that accept the notion that they are at risk, and rise to the occasion by being capable and prepared to face that risk. They consider that part of the social contract of playing in an open world PvP capable video game. They would like to see that their interests have a measurable impact on the galaxy model we play in. None of this is unreasonable in any way. Being shoved aside and told to play with toys at the kiddie table is perfectly unreasonable. Lets face it, where CQC is concerned, FD missed the mark.

You, I feel have some unreasonable ideas about PvP. Fortunately the game allows for we non-PvP-centric players to opt out completely. Even if you choose to fly in open, if you face an unwanted attack, the game affords you a Menu-Log, that is within the rules of the game, to avoid PvP, if you find it impossible to high-wake or otherwise defend yourself. With all of this at our disposal, it is not at all unreasonable that PvP should have a meaningful impact on the game as it stands.

But IBirdman was complaining about a complete lack of challenge in combat-oriented aspects of this game. Yet when they DO mention even playing fields where everyone can experience said challenge, that's a paddlin?


MAKE UP YOUR MINDS PLEASE

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

See this thread is not aging well.

It's aging into a fine whine.

 

[Mohrgan]

But IBirdman was complaining about a complete lack of challenge in combat-oriented aspects of this game. Yet when they DO mention even playing fields where everyone can experience said challenge, that's a paddlin?


MAKE UP YOUR MINDS PLEASE

Well. the short answer to that is: I wasn't responding to IBirdman, I was responding to Sterling, and the post that I quoted. You have to recognize that threads like these range about some. Including your post above.

In the overall we are considering what combat/PvP aspects of the game are satisfying and rewarding, along with those that are not. I described why CQC doesn't stack up. I think I made a pretty good case. Players of all stripes want to use the ships they choose and fit out. Not toys that have almost no ability to be customized. Don;t let a bias, keep you from recognizing something.