Do "purple-haired heroes" scare everyone into Solo?

[B1rdy]

Tonight I turned into a ganker....
Ok ok now you can stop laughing....

My intent was only to disable shields and then let go
I first interdicted a Python... He jumped away with the three rings red, so I failed (of course).
Then I interdicted a Type-6 (poor boy). I took his shields down then I immediately stopped firing and his hull was already at 75% (oh my god what have I done! ). Then I let the poor cmdr fly away with my salutations "fly safe cmd"... he didn't reply, I probably have the profanity filter on
Then everyone disappeared from my radar.
I've waited a little bit but nothing... I scared the hell out of those poor guys...

So @Old Duck, to answer to your original question: NO, you don't need a purple hair hero to push everyone to solo, you just need an idiot like me with a basic combat ship (no engineering) with a FSD interdictor (1A) to do the job

And here you have proven part of the problem. People come in their paper planes, expecting to survive an attack from a player. The other part of the problem is the huge imbalance caused by Engineers. But unfortunately "keep using it and we might improve it" does not seem to be true for Engineers anymore.

But the seal clubbers don't get to play the game they want when people can use solo mode to avoid them.

You are missing the point, entirely. Read and understand Morbad's posts please.

So some assume. It's perfectly possible to play the game without firing a shot in combat - a couple of my altCMDRs have done exactly that and have total assets in the hundreds of millions of credits.

Right, but the circumstance, that your CMDR does not have fired a single shot, does not mean the game is devoid of combat. It also proves, that you don't need weapons to play this game, but you need to be prepared.

Sounds like PvP is the problem - although some won't want to consider that to be a problem to be solved.

Morbad already covered this.

 

[Old Duck]

Those crazy G5 DD FDLs are kinda OP IMO. Talk about insta-turn-n-burn. Lost a ramming match to two of them, mighty hard to dodge in my sluggish, heavy (for its size) hauler. Please tell me that if the fellow who made the final ram (the one that says "killed you" on contacts) got a bounty for that.

The other part of the problem is the huge imbalance caused by Engineers. But unfortunately "keep using it and we might improve it" does not seem to be true for Engineers anymore.

I've been dropping in on epic PP battles happening at the CG and just enjoying watching the show. I've also been watching videos of Infinity Battlescape* battles. Battles in ED are pretty and all, but they lack the gravitas of IB's battles, and I think this has to do with the fact that ships the size of houses and Carnival cruise ships are whipping around like they are X-Wings and T-Fighters. It would be different if these were Vipers and Sidewinders and my little Hauler (itself the size of a small house), but Chieftains and FDLs and Corvettes and Cutters flying this way breaks my immersion. I'd be a bit more forgiving if these ships used gravity drives and had inertial dampeners. ST-TNG had overly fast-paced battles for the size of the ships. That said, I prefer Wrath of Khan battles, where huge starships feel huge.

Anyway, just my own little rant about the extremes of engineering. The genie is out of the bottle now, so it's what we got, like it or not.

* I'm this || close to pulling the trigger and buying IB

 

[B1rdy]

I accept that that's how it is for you, but it definitely isn't for me.

Please also refer to my reply above. The whole game (world) and background story revolves around combat. The fact, that you can play this game without firing a single shot is not an argument.

Edit:

What would be the sense? We see the game differently. I would happily leave you to your pursuits, but I have to read about open and PvP enthusiasts complain all too often. I believe there are as many reasons to choose a mode, as there are players with an opportunity to play. You are making a silly assumption that one issue is the cause for anything. Make the best of the environment you enjoy, and leave the rest to do the same.

I don't know, why some of you ignore huge possibilities this game can improve upon, but instead break the issues down to just personal preference.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The whole game (world) and background story revolves around combat.

It really doesn't

The fact, that you can play this game without firing a single shot is not an argument.

It sure is. It torpedoes the notion the whole game (world) and background story revolves around combat.

I have played the game for 2,5 years without even fitting a gun to any of my ships, and I have been able to play the game fine.

Maybe you meant your game revolves around combat, and that's your prerogative.

 

[VR SenseiMatty]

It really doesn't

It sure is. It torpedoes the notion the whole game (world) and background story revolves around combat.

I have played the game for 2,5 years without even fitting a gun to any of my ships, and I have been able to play the game fine.

Maybe you meant your game revolves around combat, and that's your prerogative.

It is my opinion that FDEV wants the game to mainly revolve around combat. Just look at the development of the last 3.5 years:
Engineers--> Combat
Guardians--> Combat
Wings--> Combat
Multicrew--> Combat
Ship Launched Figthers --> Combat
CQC --> Combat
Thargoids--> Combat
Engineers v.2 --> Combat
C&P v.2 --> Combat

It's cool that the game gives you the option to follow a different path but the game did not grow up a lot in other directions unfortunately.
And it's clear that when a non-combat player meets a combat player in a non-combat activity, the first one succumbs to the second one anyway (Distant Worlds 2, Trading CG's).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It is my opinion that FDEV wants the game to mainly revolve around combat. Just look at the development of the last 3.5 years:
Engineers--> Combat
Guardians--> Combat
Wings--> Combat
Multicrew--> Combat
Ship Launched Figthers --> Combat
CQC --> Combat
Thargoids--> Combat
Engineers v.2 --> Combat
C&P v.2 --> Combat

Whatever FDev's focus is, there's no getting around the fact there are non-combat based careers which you can happily play without needed combat ever. If you're a long range explorer for instance, you can spend 99% of your game time without even meeting anyone. So how can that revolve around combat? Depending on the choices you make, the game will or will not revolve around combat. It's not a given.

I disagree btw about Engineers and Guardian being about combat. These are multifaceted options. Else you'd have to explain to me how an improved scanning module or FSD is primarily about combat.

And I can counter with Horizons or the FSS or Neutron Stars or the orrery.

It's cool that the game gives you the option to follow a different path but the game did not grow up a lot in other directions unfortunately.

Doesn't matter, What matters is, each player has the option to play without ever participating in combat. Which blows the claim out of the water. There are players who made a career out of finding Raxxla. How does that revolve around combat?

And it's clear that when a non-combat player meets a combat player in a non-combat activity, the first one succumbs to the second one anyway (Distant Worlds 2, Trading CG's).

And that player opted to be open to the possibility of combat.

 

[Old Duck]

I disagree btw about Engineers and Guardian being about combat. These are multifaceted options.

The first module I G5 is the FSD, and the only Guardian module I care about is the FSD Booster.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

As soft as so many ships are, even an unengineered ship with plasma and frags can do some serious hurt.

I CAN play the game too. It's just not very likely to happen.

 

[B1rdy]

It really doesn't

It sure is. It torpedoes the notion the whole game (world) and background story revolves around combat.

I have played the game for 2,5 years without even fitting a gun to any of my ships, and I have been able to play the game fine.

Maybe you meant your game revolves around combat, and that's your prerogative.

So you haven't encountered any pirates, Power Play adversaries and systems in war state? You have never been interdicted by a pirate? If so, it is questionable, if that is working as intended.
By the way, in case you haven't noticed, the future ED paints is pretty grim. So, yes, combat and conflict is part of this game world.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So you haven't encountered any pirates, Power Play adversaries and systems in war state? You have never been interdicted by a pirate? If so, it is questionable, if that is working as intended.
By the way, in case you haven't noticed, the future ED paints is pretty grim. So, yes, combat and conflict is part of this game world.

"Part of this game world" is a completely different claim.

 

[Old Duck]

So, yes, combat and conflict is part of this game world.

Combat and conflict is part of this REAL world, yet here I am arguing about a video game on an internet forum in the comfort of my peaceful home. The only combat I will likely find myself in is with a skunk that has been digging up my yard.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Right, but the circumstance, that your CMDR does not have fired a single shot, does not mean the game is devoid of combat. It also proves, that you don't need weapons to play this game, but you need to be prepared.

Of course the game is not devoid of combat, or the possibility of combat - however there's no requirement to engage in combat.

Morbad already covered this.

From one perspective.

 

[B1rdy]

"Part of this game world" is a completely different claim.

My point still stands, if you go to the wrong place unprepared be ready to face the consequences.

Of course the game is not devoid of combat, or the possibility of combat - however there's no requirement to engage in combat.

From one perspective.

ED provides you tools to avoid and evade combat. But either way Morbad's (and my) perspective is objectively right within the definition of a game.

 

[Sylow]

It is my opinion that FDEV wants the game to mainly revolve around combat. Just look at the development of the last 3.5 years:

[...]

Hmm. I dare to say:
1. There were a number of QOL changes in the last patches, which were not combat oriented.
2. We got the rework for exploration less than a year ago. It's not universally liked, it has it's issues, but it was done.
3. You mention Engineers, Guardians, MultiCrew and SLFs. Of course all of them affect combat. But actually a number of the things they provide also assist in other styles of play. (E.g. all about longer jump ranges, lightening your ship, many explorers by now bring SLFs for the fun of flying them over newly discovered worlds, etc. )

Despite this, you of course are right, a lot of the updates were around combat. But i think that it's not so much that FD only focuses on combat. It's rather that doing things for combat is comparatively easy and quickly done. A new module which gives yet another combat advantage is implemented in one or another hour. First quick testing included. New things to discover in the voide, structure, models, sound, possibly special events and perhaps even trigger conditions, along with integrating it into the seeding system is on the opposite side of the spectrum: implementing them is a lot of work.

So yea. Combat upgrades are the low hanging fruits of game development. It's not surprising that many game developers (not just FD) put a lot of focus on them.

 

[Brrokk]

It is my opinion that FDEV wants the game to mainly revolve around combat. Just look at the development of the last 3.5 years:
Engineers--> Combat
Guardians--> Combat
Wings--> Combat
Multicrew--> Combat
Ship Launched Figthers --> Combat
CQC --> Combat
Thargoids--> Combat
Engineers v.2 --> Combat
C&P v.2 --> Combat

It's cool that the game gives you the option to follow a different path but the game did not grow up a lot in other directions unfortunately.
And it's clear that when a non-combat player meets a combat player in a non-combat activity, the first one succumbs to the second one anyway (Distant Worlds 2, Trading CG's).

When I play I really don't care about what FD want the game to mainly revolve around. I don't think they do either because they told me to blaze my own trail. So I do so, enjoying being a space pilot and avoiding playing "Catch the Pigeon".

Passenger missions -> not for combat.
Surface geo & bio sites -> not for combat.
Crystal shards -> not for combat.
Energy anomalies -> not for combat.
Space life forms -> not for combat.
Trade CGs -> not for combat.
IIs -> not for combat.
Exploration tools. -> not for combat.
Mining tools -> not for combat.

What about the next feature?

Carriers -> not for combat.

You might be not noticing all the"not for combat" things because you aren't so interested in them?

 

[Old Duck]

Elephant Butt Leather --> not for combat

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My point still stands, if you go to the wrong place unprepared by ready to face the consequences.

Again, I agree with that. That's not the point you made.

I always go to the right place.

 

[Sylow]

Elephant Butt Leather --> not for combat

I am not sure about that. I think it is a tactical weapon. I heard it forces people to abandon consoles and switch to the PC.

 

[VR SenseiMatty]

Else you'd have to explain to me how an improved scanning module or FSD is primarily about combat.

FDEV dedicated the last Beyond Update to Mining and Exploration which is cool, as I said the game allows you to do other things.

What matters is, each player has the option to play without ever participating in combat. Which blows the claim out of the water. There are players who made a career out of finding Raxxla. How does that revolve around combat?

I only have 2 word for this "The Gnosis".

And that player opted to be open to the possibility of combat.

No he doesn't. Which is actually the main topic of this thread. 'Cause everyone switch to SOLO when there is a pirate/ganker in the same system.

 

[VR SenseiMatty]

When I play I really don't care about what FD want the game to mainly revolve around. I don't think they do either because they told me to blaze my own trail. So I do so, enjoying being a space pilot and avoiding playing "Catch the Pigeon".

Passenger missions -> not for combat.
Surface geo & bio sites -> not for combat.
Crystal shards -> not for combat.
Energy anomalies -> not for combat.
Space life forms -> not for combat.
Trade CGs -> not for combat.
IIs -> not for combat.
Exploration tools. -> not for combat.
Mining tools -> not for combat.

What about the next feature?

Carriers -> not for combat.

You might be not noticing all the"not for combat" things because you aren't so interested in them?

C'mon these are nuts...
Passenger missions are trade missions, they use cabins instead of cargo racks.
Surface geo & bio sites, Crystal shards, Energy anomalies, Space life forms... what's the new gameplay associated to these? You "shoot" your scanner to them to claim a bounty codex voucher.
Trade CG: what's new about these? It's trading between point A and point B. We have this since version 1.0
IIs: do you remember what we won at the end of the first II? Was it maybe a new weapon?
Exploration tools, Mining tools: thanks god this confirms this game is not only about combat (as I already stated before)
Carriers: we need to wait for the release before judging.

Why you didn't mention Ice Planets on your list? Oh right... delayed to unkonw date... --> because it's not about Combat!