Elite not very dangerous ?

[Robert Maynard]

Every CG in Open is up for opposition, thats the emergent part.

Optional opposition - for those interested in engaging in it. Not all emergent content revolves around PvP.

This is where without base gameplay definitions you have some players logging the minute they get pulled because its 'griefing'.

That's up to the player - although I'd expect that repeated ungraceful game exit may end up with the player being sanctioned in some way. The optional nature of PvP, the existence of the block feature and 15-second delayed menu exit, would suggest that players who insist that PvP must be engaged in are not on the same page as Frontier.

Another example of taking away tools to affect the game.

Another example of revisiting a feature when it was determined that some players were using it to harass - as some UA bombing incidences would seem to have been speficically designed to adversely affect other players' enjoyment of the game.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That was always an issue apart from the Lugh war that had opposing CG's.

In my view most CG's should have an opposing one, but they would need to be well balanced which isn't Fdevs forte.


Thats a matter of opinion. As I am not at all interested in PvP I find the game perfectly fine. Most of the game isn't designed around PvP anyway.

It does not matter if the game isnt designed for PvP- the problem lies in that blocking and logging destroy any sense of "well, thats it, better give up my cargo". This just negates player piracy because people can pick and choose what a loss means in the game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It does not matter if the game isnt designed for PvP- the problem lies in that blocking and logging destroy any sense of "well, thats it, better give up my cargo". This just negates player piracy because people can pick and choose what a loss means in the game.

While the game permits PvP it was, rather obviously, not designed around PvP. PvP is possible simply because players can choose to interact with anything they instance with. That players can choose to leave the game at any time, even if engaged by another player, or block any player, is consistent with this observation.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Optional opposition - for those interested in engaging in it. Not all emergent content revolves around PvP.

The emergent part is that the CG fails, not the means of forcing that failure. Otherwise its a Tesco run, with FD telling you how many beans to buy.

That's up to the player - although I'd expect that repeated ungraceful game exit may end up with the player being sanctioned in some way. The optional nature of PvP, the existence of the block feature and 15-second delayed menu exit, would suggest that players who insist that PvP must be engaged in are not on the same page as Frontier.

But if someone is being pirated "properly" and they log out? How is that fair on the person who 'won' the encounter?

Another example of revisiting a feature when it was determined that some players were using it to harass - as some UA bombing incidences would seem to have been speficically designed to adversely affect other players' enjoyment of the game.

FD could have actually used some brains and disabled black markets on sensitive CGs and events. Instead they stop everything, and BGS players lose a valuable and interesting weapon in the process.

 

[Rubbernuke]

While the game permits PvP it was, rather obviously, not designed around PvP. PvP is possible simply because players can choose to interact with anything they instance with.

So you are saying then that you condone logging and that it overrides any legitimate gameplay that comes from player interaction?

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

It does not matter if the game isnt designed for PvP- the problem lies in that blocking and logging destroy any sense of "well, thats it, better give up my cargo". This just negates player piracy because people can pick and choose what a loss means in the game.

Doesn't matter when the game is predominantly PvE centric. I understand that it effects player piracy in a bad way and I don't like the blobk funtion either, if they don't want any PvP play in a private group or solo, its exactly what those modes are for. But even in open where PvP is a possibility, its still predominantly a PvE centred game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So you are saying then that you condone logging and that it overrides any legitimate gameplay that comes from player interaction?

My opinion is not relevant - Frontier's is though - and Sandro has indicated that using menu exit, at any time, is permitted (even if he acknowledges that not everyone will agree with that stance).

 

[Robert Maynard]

The emergent part is that the CG fails, not the means of forcing that failure. Otherwise its a Tesco run, with FD telling you how many beans to buy.

A CG with no opposing CG is pretty much a test of how much players' want it to succeed - and success is achieving Tier 1.

But if someone is being pirated "properly" and they log out? How is that fair on the person who 'won' the encounter?

Collateral damage. Unfortunate but the reality of the situation.

FD could have actually used some brains and disabled black markets on sensitive CGs and events. Instead they stop everything, and BGS players lose a valuable and interesting weapon in the process.

Frontier chose to do what they did - for their own reasons. It may well be that those most enthusiastic UA-bombers spoiled it for everyone else.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Doesn't matter when the game is predominantly PvE centric. I understand that it effects player piracy in a bad way and I don't like the blobk funtion either, if they don't want any PvP play in a private group or solo, its exactly what those modes are for. But even in open where PvP is a possibility, its still predominantly a PvE centred game.

Which is not addressing the point: regardless of PvP, PvE or any situation, its players and not the game that decides what is failure. People log from NPCs just as they do with other players- so where is the difficulty in that? Ultimately there is no danger because you judge whats unwinnable.

 

[Rubbernuke]

My opinion is not relevant - Frontier's is though - and Sandro has indicated that using menu exit, at any time, is permitted (even if he acknowledges that not everyone will agree with that stance).

Which is a yes then. FDs stance is just as silly, because then you can stretch that across any situation you can't win. Messed up? No problem!

 

[Rubbernuke]

A CG with no opposing CG is pretty much a test of how much players' want it to succeed - and success is achieving Tier 1.

With a bar so low and a guaranteed outcome then? What if people don't agree with its aims? Tough luck?

Collateral damage. Unfortunate but the reality of the situation.

Which is why, there is no danger. The minute you feel threatened you can escape.

Frontier chose to do what they did - for their own reasons. It may well be that those most enthusiastic UA-bombers spoiled it for everyone else.

Indeed. Sadly FD often get stuff very wrong....

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Which is not addressing the point: regardless of PvP, PvE or any situation, its players and not the game that decides what is failure. People log from NPCs just as they do with other players- so where is the difficulty in that? Ultimately there is no danger because you judge whats unwinnable.

I don't think there is a good solution for that. But to be honest, people like that are not really worth losing sleep over and I doubt they are a majority. All they do is ruin the game for themselves.

Personally, I really do not see the point in pulling out the plug. Surely the risks and overcoming them or not is what makes games interesting. Seems like a rather silly thing to do. It will be people like that that will ulimtately feel the game is boring and leave anyway, because they themselves have made it risk free.

 

[Stigbob]

Which is a yes then. FDs stance is just as silly, because then you can stretch that across any situation you can't win. Messed up? No problem!

I'm playing a video game and the doorbell goes what do you expect me to do ?.

 

[Stigbob]

Which is not addressing the point: regardless of PvP, PvE or any situation, its players and not the game that decides what is failure. People log from NPCs just as they do with other players- so where is the difficulty in that? Ultimately there is no danger because you judge whats unwinnable.

Are you really bothered by how people exit the game when you're not there ?.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which is a yes then. FDs stance is just as silly, because then you can stretch that across any situation you can't win. Messed up? No problem!

It's a "Frontier make the rules". Menu exit is permitted; killing the process / connection / resetting the PC is not.

Disagreeing with the rules is, of course, the choice of the player. Frontier's stance is what it is - many disagree with Frontier's stance on the single shared galaxy state that every player experiences and affects, regardless of game platform or game mode - however Frontier's stance hasn't changed in the nearly seven years since they published the design information.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'm playing a video game and the doorbell goes what do you expect me to do ?.

As you always point out, did you research the game and understand it had no pause button?

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

A CG with no opposing CG is pretty much a test of how much players' want it to succeed - and success is achieving Tier 1.

To be fair, Tier 1 is so easy to get it is virtually a given that it will succeed. Tier 1 should me much higher up the scale and then have the other tiers much closer together.
Like when we build a station, the first tier should be really touch as I would hazard a guess that building the main structure would be far more time consuming and difficult then adding a shipyard or a black market for instance.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Are you really bothered by how people exit the game when you're not there ?.

This has repercussions all across the game, since its a blanket rule. It makes any situation escapable and thus takes away any danger, hence my agreement that ED has no danger in it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's a "Frontier make the rules". Menu exit is permitted; killing the process / connection / resetting the PC is not.

Disagreeing with the rules is, of course, the choice of the player. Frontier's stance is what it is - many disagree with Frontier's stance on the single shared galaxy state that every player experiences and affects, regardless of game platform or game mode - however Frontier's stance hasn't changed in the nearly seven years since they published the design information.

And I'm saying that the OP statement about "ED= dangerous?" is thats its not as a consequence of that rule. Its rampantly misused.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

This has repercussions all across the game, since its a blanket rule. It makes any situation escapable and thus takes away any danger, hence my agreement that ED has no danger in it.

As I said, they ruin the game for themselves by doing that. It is a really silly thing to do. The only thing I can think of is to extend the timer a bit when logging out in combat., apart from that I can't think of anything else you can do.