General [MEGATHREAD] Rebalances and fixes for the progression system, risk/reward ratio, ingame learning curves, pvp, and more!

[Robert Maynard]

But why does it exist in a game mode where you're literally consenting to seeing the majority of players.

That's probably a question for Frontier - although I expect that it is to do with the fact that some players revel in toxicity and the block feature exists to excise them from a player's game.

Not like you could block them all. If you want to play with groups of similar minded people, go join mobius. Or fleetcomm. both have good private groups full of friendly people and i do wholeheartedly recommend going and taking a look at those options instead of coming to sperg on the forums about the positive functions of a block feature. Furthermore, blocking a player will prevent them from entering a completely player filled instance, hindering their ability to play with others. An example is provided below:

Player 1 blocks me, and evil and filthy ganker. Okay, i can see why. This makes it so that i am unable to, or atleast very unlikely to ever instance with Player 1.
Player 1 then goes to supercruise, where they see players 2 to 11.
Due to the fact that Player 1 has blocked me, i am unable to access this ''main'' instance with a large group of people, leaving me in an empty instance, alone. This hinders my ability to play the game.

Also, certain player groups are known to perform ''tactical blocking'' to prevent us from bringing our best commanders to organic, open play fights against them. This is mega scummy, and should not be possible.

It is what it is - I expect that the primary reason for the existence of the block feature over-rides those other considerations.

 

[Mohrgan]

But why does it exist in a game mode where you're literally consenting to seeing the majority of players. Not like you could block them all. If you want to play with groups of similar minded people, go join mobius. Or fleetcomm. both have good private groups full of friendly people and i do wholeheartedly recommend going and taking a look at those options instead of coming to sperg on the forums about the positive functions of a block feature. Furthermore, blocking a player will prevent them from entering a completely player filled instance, hindering their ability to play with others. An example is provided below:

Player 1 blocks me, an evil and filthy ganker. Okay, i can see why. This makes it so that i am unable to, or atleast very unlikely to ever instance with Player 1.
Player 1 then goes to supercruise, where they see players 2 to 11.
Due to the fact that Player 1 has blocked me, i am unable to access this ''main'' instance with a large group of people, leaving me in an empty instance, alone. This hinders my ability to play the game.

Also, certain player groups are known to perform ''tactical blocking'' to prevent us from bringing our best commanders to organic, open play fights against them. This is mega scummy, and should not be possible.

Edit: fixed and to an

Because the game's developers value the individuals enjoyment of the game, over wanton pew pew. Because they believe choice is more important than PvP. Isn't that obvious? Open isn't owned by the PvPers. FD believe that everyone should be able to enjoy open, and any of the modes, any way they like, subject to the game rules. Those rules favor an individuals choice in companionship, and play style. Again, isn't that plainly obvious?

 

[KazumiH]

It is what it is - I expect that the primary reason for the existence of the block feature over-rides those other considerations.

There is currently no anti-cheat in this game.
Do you approve of FDEVs design decision of not including anti-cheat in this game and that people kill other players with cheats? ; )

Because it is how and it is and it should not be questioned.

 

[Mohrgan]

Because this community is toxic, the people on this forum are toxic, and unfortunately the people on this forum are FDEVs main source of income.
So obviously they ignore everyone else who does not pay their bills and only make those happy who do.

Uuuh, D'uh. It's perfectly reasonable for a company to cater to their customers. FD realizes that more choices makes for more players. That's why they offer so many ways for an individual to tailor their experience.

 

[Arguendo]

Arguing about this with you is pointless unless you go and educate yourself on how existing groups deal with pvp bgs. Oh, and killing NPC ships of the opposing faction benefits your faction

Please educate me then. How do existing groups deal with PvP BGS, and in particular that of people who are not part of either group. I am curious how they actually manage to single out a)who does it, and b)how they can be stopped without either wrecking their own faction or BGS-ing via PvE themselves.
Also, NPCs are plegded to a faction. At current, players cannot do that. The whole proposal circles around direct action against people working against the BGS. Without a pledge, or other label, showing them as opposing; you just won't know. You can get a good idea, but you won't know...unless they're upfront about it and tell you ofcourse

 

[Robert Maynard]

There is currently no anti-cheat in this game.
Do you approve of FDEVs design decision of not including anti-cheat in this game and that people kill other players with cheats? ; )

Because it is how and it is and it should not be questioned.

That seems based on an assumption that there is no anti-cheat in this game - an assumption that may in itself be inaccurate.

 

[Blaes]

That seems based on an assumption that there is no anti-cheat in this game - an assumption that may in itself be inaccurate.

If there is, its essentially nonexistant or not functional. It has been proven multiple times in the past that cheaters do not get dealt with properly and even if they do, not fast enough.

 

[Mohrgan]

So you want to limit other players playstyles and have them deal with cheaters and exploits in order to achieve your own personal goals?
Sounds biased to me, hypocrite.

No. I want to preserve the individual choice this game was designed with. I want you to have all the PvP bliss you can achieve. But, I remind you that you can only acquire that bliss with other players that share your desires.

I am not proposing to change anything. I am only asking you, and those that support the ideas in the OP, to suggest changes that don't put PvP concerns over any other concerns, that preserves the choices we have currently in game, and that accepts that many other players have differing views on what is fun. This isn't Rocket Science.

 

[Mohrgan]

If there is, its essentially nonexistant or not functional. It has been proven multiple times in the past that cheaters do not get dealt with properly and even if they do, not fast enough.

Opinions over fact. Yup, that's the world today....

 

[KazumiH]

No. I want to preserve the individual choice this game was designed with. I want you to have all the PvP bliss you can achieve. But, I remind you that you can only acquire that bliss with other players that share your desires.

I am not proposing to change anything. I am only asking you, and those that support the ideas in the OP, to suggest changes that don't put PvP concerns over any other concerns, that preserves the choices we have currently in game, and that accepts that many other players have differing views on what is fun. This isn't Rocket Science.

Explain how we are forcing people into sharing our desires?
Quote me from the OP.

I am asking you to not put your own concerns over the ones of the Open Play and PvP community then, which has been ignored and starving for any kind of content and acknowledge from the developer for years.
By fair morality and common sense you are not directly the priority in this.

 

[Blaes]

Opinions over fact. Yup, that's the world today....

Yes yes because its definetly right to let a cheater rampage through open play for weeks before being limited to solo play for a short amount of time, and then let back into open play

 

[Arguendo]

See Blaes reply, if you do not know how BGS works ingame and amongst the community please change that and then reply appropriately. : )

No thanks. Feel free to edu-ma-cate me though.

 

[Mohrgan]

ooga booga typical carebear does not want to aknowledge that they may require skill to not be blown to bits automatically

Another joker who thinks they have my pegged. Lol. I flew, in open, with a large well known PvP player group for about a year. I got my tags on both the PvP and BGS sides of the group. I can fly with anyone. I just prefer to be able to choose who that is, on my time.

Just trying to put labels on someone to have them dismissed is a pretty poor debate strategy. It comes off as a desperate attempt to hide from the opposition. If you can't tackle the argument, go for the author. Poor and childish tactics.

 

[KazumiH]

No thanks. Feel free to edu-ma-cate me though.

As the game lacks any kind of feature to find out which faction other players support, my squadron in example has come up with a system to communicate with our BGS supporters outside of the game and a way for them to verify themselves as allied with us in order to not cause friendly fire incidents.

Everyone else who cannot verify themselves as part of the alliance ingame upon being questioned when they are in our systems, get's told to leave the systems forever or two work out a contract with us in order to have free reign in our territory.
Not complying with that results in loss of the players vessel, obviously. In order to hinder them from negatively influencing us.

TLDR, politics roleplay.

 

[Mohrgan]

Explain how we are forcing people into sharing our desires?
Quote me from the OP.

I am asking you to not put your own concerns over the ones of the Open Play and PvP community then, which has been ignored and starving for any kind of content and acknowledge from the developer for years.
By fair morality and common sense you are not directly the priority in this.

Make those suggestions preserve the choices Commanders have, be sure they are balanced in both PvP and PvE, and accept that people have opinions unlike your own. PvP and open are just fragments of this game. They don;t deserve to be put above the other modes, and play styles. When a suggestion comes along that stays within these parameters, you're sure to see a different response from me.

 

[Blaes]

ake those suggestions preserve the choices Commanders have

Maybe there could be a possibility of changing those choices, with changes of the mechanics (i failed as a human being on that quote)

 

[Mohrgan]

Maybe there could be a possibility of changing those choices, with changes of the mechanics

Yeah? And, I would oppose those kinds of changes. I find the Modes and a Commander's ability to choose to be an essential part of E|D. And, I will say so in any thread I come across.

 

[KazumiH]

Make those suggestions preserve the choices Commanders have, be sure they are balanced in both PvP and PvE, and accept that people have opinions unlike your own. PvP and open are just fragments of this game. They don;t deserve to be put above the other modes, and play styles. When a suggestion comes along that stays within these parameters, you're sure to see a different response from me.

Your playstyles don't deserve to be put over our playstyles either, and neither do your personal desires.
We are all playing the same game here, that's why this thread exists in the first place to come to a common point with everyone.

And we are on a good way to achieving that, with or without you as the community is also discussing things outside of this thread.
See Addendums.

 

[Arguendo]

As the game lacks any kind of feature to find out which faction other players support, my squadron in example has come up with a system to communicate with our BGS supporters outside of the game and a way for them to verify themselves as allied with us in order to not cause friendly fire incidents.

Everyone else who cannot verify themselves as part of the alliance ingame upon being questioned when they are in our systems, get's told to leave the systems forever or two work out a contract with us in order to have free reign in our territory.
Not complying with that results in loss of the players vessel, obviously. In order to hinder them from negatively influencing us.

TLDR, politics roleplay.

So basically you have a Discord where you have ambitions to reach everyone. And if they're just a random, you kill them unless they "promise" to work for you...of which you have no way of knowing neither then nor afterwards.
And if they are working against you, you kill them, which again works against your own faction.

Gotcha!

Seems hella ineffective, when all you would have to add to your proposal in the OP would be "Players are tagged with the faction they are doing missions for" or "Add the ability to pledge to a minor faction".

But hey, it's your OP

 

[KazumiH]

So basically you have a Discord where you have ambitions to reach everyone. And if they're just a random, you kill them unless they "promise" to work for you...of which you have know way of knowing neither then nor afterwards.
And if they are working against you, you kill them, which again works against your own faction.

Gotcha!

Seems hella ineffective, when all you would have to add to your proposal in the OP would be "Players are tagged with the faction they are doing missions for" or "Add the ability to pledge to a minor faction".

But hey, it's your OP

If they are in our territory, they have to let themselves known in order to prevent friendly fire incidents.
As said, there is no other way to do something like this as we are all limited in our actions that we can do within the game.

The loss of one straggler who could have worked for us or not is not a big problem for us, we are a huge coalition and can compensate for the small loss of one random player and therefore rather choose this way of engagement with players in our systems in combination with roleplay than just sitting still and watch without taking action.