My concept of fairness is actually based on...wait for it....wait for it....FAIRNESS. Fairness in the context of a competitive multiplayer game where we all share the same simulation is a mode we all participate together in regardless of playstyle. The reality of the situation is that we have a competitive multiplayer game that allows players to carry out competitive agenda's effecting all parts of the sim and all players while never being seen by these other players. You can rightly claim "that's the way it is" because that is the way it is, but that doesn't make it fair. Claiming that's fair, objectively speaking, is a pathetic joke.
In what way is that concept of fairness compatible with a game where PvP remains, as it has always been, entirely optional?My concept of fairness is actually based on...wait for it....wait for it....FAIRNESS.
"Fair" would be filling buckets all in the same mode, where I could have the option of looking up from my milking station and seeing you at your milking station with your sleeves rolled up and sweat running down your face just working the heck out of those teats and say to myself "Godamm, is that CMDR Mohgran over there milking that cow??? He works for another faction and I don't want them having any of that milk!" dropping what I'm doing, grabbing my bazooka and blowing you, your bucket and your cow up. Or not.So, this vision of fairness has to come with a proviso that modifies the game's design to fit your views. There are players that see it the same way as you. Play along side them. No one is stopping you. The mechanism we are competing through is... wait for it....wait for it....FILLING BUCKETS. It simply doesn't matter what matchmaking choice you make, you complete through PvE bucket filling.
If you argued for the same, harmless safe zones and Anarchy hell holes, Id agree, but it does seem as though you always argue for more hell for noobs and other players and never for more safe zones, especially at CG time? Shouldn't there be hellish CGs and fairly safe CGs, you seem to miss the point of the Wild West analogy that most people tried to make it less wild by setting up towns and areas of 'law'. Isn't that more like real life which is what you claim you want?
oh and when I read that most BGS players / factions have 2nd account ship full of Cartographics data ready to be used at any point in solo I stopped giving so much credence to the 'attack the solo player who wants to play for fun' argument.
I don't actually expect this to happen, and I'm sure some in this thread would hate that, but I personally think it would help balance the game while also giving players what they want - a challenge.![]()
Security level in ED is clearly not working and should have way more impacts - actually I don't bother at all with security level because it doesn't affect me.
Agreed. I actually think of ShinDez as a proper anarchy (in Open), because for all intents and purposes it is! Meanwhile a "real" Anarchy system in some random location in the bubble feels perfectly safe.You make a point here. Security level in ED is clearly not working and should have way more impacts - actually I don't bother at all with security level because it doesn't affect me.
I played a few months to Eve Online and the security level of each system was really affecting your travel choices.
When you enter a system in anarchy no matter if you are in solo or open you should be scared and in danger. It should also affect incomes when trading - higher the risks : higher the payout.
On the other hand a high security system should be scary for pirates and a safe-zone for traders.
There is so much things that are unbalanced in this game ... I still don't understand why 2 of the less dangerous activites (mining and exploration) are the ones offering the highest payouts...trading and bounty hunting being far behind.
Well, the only "I" that matters is the singular "I" of David Braben (who probably doesn't care anymore) and the collective "I"s of the community, of which you and I are but single drops in the rivers of opinion. I'm not even sure the rivers of opinion can change the shape of the terrain that is ED.Balance or challenge at the expense of verisimilitude is not what I want.
I purposefully went with smaller thrusters on my Anaconda on PS4 because I'd rather have the immersive feel of a massive ship with momentum than an oversized Eagle thanks to max A-rated G5 DD drives. This obviously handicapped me to some extent, but it also offered a nice challenge that made my engagements with NPCs all the more fun.You make your own ship and outfitting choices. If you find that results in an unbalanced/unfun game rethink your loadout, that's what I do in PVE when it gets too easy.
I'm not even sure the rivers of opinion can change the shape of the terrain that is ED.
"Fair" would be filling buckets all in the same mode, where I could have the option of looking up from my milking station and seeing you at your milking station with your sleeves rolled up and sweat running down your face just working the heck out of those teats and say to myself "Godamm, is that CMDR Mohgran over there milking that cow??? He works for another faction and I don't want them having any of that milk!" dropping what I'm doing, grabbing my bazooka and blowing you, your bucket and your cow up. Or not.
I'll just take that as you conceding my point on objective fairness and leave you alone, CMDRWell, everyone has their thing, I guess. That just doesn't happen to be the game you bought. You have the ability to play the way you describe. And I welcome you to it. But, you can only expect to play along side Commanders that feel the same way about it as you.
I'll just take that as you conceding my point on objective fairness and leave you alone, CMDR![]()
But you still play, so you must have made peace with this on some level. Otherwise, why bother? You'll recall my "I think I'm done" thread (forget the exact title), which I posted back when I was bored and not feeling particularly challenged in a meaningful way. After that I discovered true BGS manipulation, which renewed my sense of challenge and purpose, at least for a time. And these days I'm a poor bloke just trying to pay off this Type-9 I bought on sale, so I still feel plenty of challenge. I'll grant that none of these challenges require me to melt prismatic shields with my own meta godship, but as I said in my other thread, I have come to find PvP in ED boring, so why bother grinding for gameplay I'm not looking for in the first place?I'm quite certain that it won't and that the problems I perceive with the direction the game has been going for the last four and a half years are all but set in stone, but that doesn't change my opinion.
How is security level supposed to work on a per-system basis when travel is so quick and easy?
Can barely patrol anything, can't really pursue anything...even the token difference in security we have already stretch the bounds of belief because we can all teleport 30ly in the blink of an eye. There is no strategic depth, so most assumptions regarding security based on any real-world analog aren't going to apply. Combine this with an utter lack of meaningful consequence, and it's no wonder that security level doesn't mean much.
Purple armpit hair is the new fashion trend.Does a purple beard also count?
Thats must be fun to code into a game.Purple armpit hair is the new fashion trend.
Good point. In some modes ShinDez, the Home of the Pilot's Federation, is a proper system, in the other one it's a Richard-fest.Agreed. I actually think of ShinDez as a proper anarchy (in Open), because for all intents and purposes it is! Meanwhile a "real" Anarchy system in some random location in the bubble feels perfectly safe.
It's like a sausage fest.Whats that?
And I did google it...