Page 32 of 40 FirstFirst ... 22282930313233343536 ... LastLast
Results 466 to 480 of 589

Thread: The Juicy Feedback Fdev was wanting. The reason Open sucks for everybody.

  1. #466
    Originally Posted by CMDR Crank Larson View Post (Source)
    You can easily hide, just as you can block people. Your valuable content is only valuable to you - not to me.



    Ah, it all makes sense.

    If you want to play Eve, go and play it. There is room in the world for lots of different games - the point being, that they're different.
    Clearly you didn't read my post, look at the first 6 words.

    I quote : "To talk about Elite Dangerous issues"

    Check these stats it's crazy : http://www.statisticbrain.com/number...who-cant-read/
    twitter@solehunt3r
    CEO - Crazy Space People
    Director - Pandemic Horde

  2. #467
    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    To talk about Elite Dangerous issues and not compare them to an infinite time better game named "EVE online". When someone try to make a distinction between the two games while trying to compare it's multiplayer aspects there's not much to talk about since one is a sandbox and the other a playground for children with an identity crisis. I'm sure we could add many great elements from EVE to Elite Dangerous but that's not the point of the conversation. Now that we have established the problematic, I suggest you go read my original post as you've demonstrated that you still cannot gasp or understand the meaning of it.
    All I see from you and your ilk is "ED should be Open-only [so I can blow more folks up]".

    Also, EVE is an executive control game, whereas Elite is not. That's the main difference right there.

    You're (still) here trying to argue for some case which was annihilated years ago. Destroyed. You've already lost.

    I say to you that if this game doesn't fulfil your needs and wants, then find some other game which does. I don't play EVE for that exact reason - I don't wish to play an executive control game, it doesn't fulfil my needs and wants. Elite fulfils my need and want to pilot virtual spaceships through the Milky Way, and do silly things. Bonus: from time to time I get to annoy SDC members :D

  3. #468
    Originally Posted by Genar-Hofoen View Post (Source)
    All I see from you and your ilk is "ED should be Open-only [so I can blow more folks up]".

    Also, EVE is an executive control game, whereas Elite is not. That's the main difference right there.

    You're (still) here trying to argue for some case which was annihilated years ago. Destroyed. You've already lost.

    I say to you that if this game doesn't fulfil your needs and wants, then find some other game which does. I don't play EVE for that exact reason - I don't wish to play an executive control game, it doesn't fulfil my needs and wants. Elite fulfils my need and want to pilot virtual spaceships through the Milky Way, and do silly things. Bonus: from time to time I get to annoy SDC members
    Well you clearly haven't read any of my posts because I never implied Elite Dangerous should be "open" only. I've suggested many time in my previous posts that I simply want to separate the background simulation.

    I'm a nice person so I'll help you out understand what I've been saying by quoting my third post by highlighting it in giant red. I hope the size of the sentence is large enough for you to read it. Send me a message if you still don't understand what these words imply.

    Also I don't fly for SDC anymore so I don't see how this apply to me or how that's relevant to the conversation we are having about the glaring issues in Elite Dangerous.

    I'm glad you believe I've lost this debate but so far your posts indicate quite the contrary as I've demonstrated many time your inability to read or understand these issues.

    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    It doesn't matter how significant it is. The simple fact that another player CAN affect the background simulation may it be as small as grain of salt without being able to be touched is enough to justify having a separate background simulation because of how indirect and direct actions affect the shared background simulation.



    We are not saying OPEN should have above values, we just want to have a separate background simulation because of these indirect and direct actions are the consequences of all players sharing the same universe. How is that above the values of solo and private groups if you guys already have a significant advantage over open players?

    The whole point of separating the 3 game modes is to make it fair for everybody. You still get the same updates and get to play the same game as we do but without affecting indirectly or directly the shared background simulation with open players.
    twitter@solehunt3r
    CEO - Crazy Space People
    Director - Pandemic Horde

  4. #469
    Originally Posted by DukeIronHand View Post (Source)
    The PvP'ers all of a sudden apparently. The fidelity of the BGS is their new mantra as nothing else has worked to give them more targets to shoot hence this latest angle.

    Except Open is a choice not a disease right?
    They don't want to work the BGS, they don't care, they just want to shoot you while you work the BGS. Then they can make "look at me" Youtube videos showing how cool they are blowing up a T7.
    Targets! That's the name of their game.
    It is not "all of a sudden" and there are plenty of target in Open.
    PvPers don't want to work BGS because it is not working with competitive gameplay. This is also why Powerplay/CG are a failure.

    Equal access and effect on BGS through 3 separate game mode not facing same risks can't work for competitive gameplay with risk/reward concept :

    - Why should i go in Open to work on BGS and risk being directly opposed (destroyed) when i can do it from the safe (regarding PvP activities) solo/PG for the exact same effect/reward ?
    - Why should i get involved in BGS when people can hide from me and avoid being directly opposed for the same effect/reward ?

    Equal BGS access/effect is a 5 years old design based on basic game activities only and has not evolved since. It limits gameplay interactions possibilities and makes new content and features like Powerplay and CG pointless.
    Honestly, who cares if a CG is under players blocade ?

  5. #470
    Never mind
    Sits like a man, smiles like a reptile
    CMDR Alad Insane - Exploratory Plonker - Boldy faffing where no man has faffed before

  6. #471
    Originally Posted by PeLucheuh View Post (Source)
    It is not "all of a sudden" and there are plenty of target in Open.
    PvPers don't want to work BGS because it is not working with competitive gameplay. This is also why Powerplay/CG are a failure.

    Equal access and effect on BGS through 3 separate game mode not facing same risks can't work for competitive gameplay with risk/reward concept :

    - Why should i go in Open to work on BGS and risk being directly opposed (destroyed) when i can do it from the safe (regarding PvP activities) solo/PG for the exact same effect/reward ?
    - Why should i get involved in BGS when people can hide from me and avoid being directly opposed for the same effect/reward ?

    Equal BGS access/effect is a 5 years old design based on basic game activities only and has not evolved since. It limits gameplay interactions possibilities and makes new content and features like Powerplay and CG pointless.
    Honestly, who cares if a CG is under players blocade ?
    This.

    Please dont sell me a space ship shooting multiplayer game and tell me I have to work numbers in separate game modes and after 24hrs comparing the results like we are playing tetris.
    I dont believe for a sec that this the intended game play fdev is selling to its customers.

    All I saw advertised is Hunt Other Cmdrs and Cut Throat Galaxy, not "compare the numbers space game".

  7. #472
    Could you "BGS only for PvP" types be any more phoney?
    Who are you trying to convince with these complaints?
    It's not working. You boys go play in Open and blow yourselves up. Oops...sorry. You don't want to go up against another PvP'er who put the time into Engineering his ship - that's was the original argument here right? More fun to chase down a trader. But that didn't convince anyone.

    So we'll change gears right. Now it's unfair of those bullies in their miners and trade ships to be effecting the BGS like cowards in Solo where we can't blow them up. But now as we can't convince anyone with our weak "We care about the BGS" nonsense, on page whatever of this thread, that lame debate is going nowhere so, per the SDC faction of this thread, the complaint is now "story content" from someone who states he doesn't even play the game any more.

    Stop. You all really couldn't sound any more ridiculous and are hurting your cause and convincing no one except how desperate you are and how irrelevant your ilk have made Open.

  8. #473
    If FDev were going to give Open its own BGS they would have done so by now.

    They haven't.

    They're not going to.

    They've never made any indications that they were even considering it.

    It's not happening.

    Move on.

    Orbiting inside the Roche Limit of sanity

  9. #474
    Originally Posted by PeLucheuh View Post (Source)

    PvPers don't want to work BGS because it is not working with competitive gameplay. …
    You are looking at the BGS from a direct "competitive" gameplay - aka "pew-pew"*. Nothing wrong with that. It's just not everybody's interest and ED isn't the game for this type of gameplay.

    The BGS is a competitive gameplay system, it's just not directly combat oriented and it is basically designed in a way that makes PvP the worst possible method to influence the BGS.
    It is interesting and entertaining, but probably not for everybody.
    I actually like the way the BGS works at it's core and I think the way all three modes being able to affect the BGS in a way that makes it unimportant what mode was used is brilliant.

    You might not like it, and I understand why, but that's the way it is and how it has been from the beginning.
    As players we always have options - stop playing, adapt, ignore… We can get obsessed with something we don't like in a game or get over it and concentrate on the things we like.

    Fundamentally changing the way the modes work is the same as fundamentally change the way the game works and turning it into a new game. I don't think that fundamentally changing the game is a good idea.


    Addition:
    I think a better method would be to add a new, pure PvP oriented gameplay mechanic that allows players to be directly competitive (aka pew-pew). Since it would centered around PvP it should be Open Mode only (maybe with a separated, different, but lore related gameplay for PvEers in all modes).

    Something like convoys and privateers (lettres de marque) and convoy support. Maybe some trading houses or secret organizations or criminal organizations - whatever. Basically both sides signing up for PvP. Working for a new currency - fame, pepper, influence in a secret war/criminal war…

    In my opinion a lot of good gameplay mechanics could be added to the game without having to change the way the modes work. Something for everybody (or almost everybody), without taking away something form others and without forcing others to play in a way they don't like.

    *) used in a lighthearted and friendly way and not meant as a derogatory term.
    --
    Frontier Development: "… malicious griefing (which we loosely define as actions whose only purpose, outcome and gain is to punish and frustrate other players)."

    The DBX needs an increase of agility!
    FDev: Give us a jump capable Condor with class 1 FSD, and 3 class 1 slots for ADS, DSS and fuel scoop

  10. #475
    Originally Posted by jasonbarron View Post (Source)
    Ziggy, on the flip side of that coin is me wondering how many people have walked away in disgust or haven't bothered to buy the game in the first place due to the fact that opponents can essentially hide in group or solo and directly effect players in Open? I mean, I'm not even talking PvPers, but rather just average Joe gamer who knows bull excrement when he sees it?
    I have not been playing all that long as was dumb founded when I realized how all of this works. It is so dumb, in my opinion. It is hard for me to fathom the game works the way it does.

  11. #476
    Originally Posted by CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost View Post (Source)
    The BGS is a competitive gameplay system, it's just not directly combat oriented and it is basically designed in a way that makes PvP the worst possible method to influence the BGS..
    This "PvP the worst possible method to influence the BGS" gets said a lot and it is absolutely not true.

    I will grant you in most cases, PVP is not the best way to go about influencing the BGS. However, it could be a valuable tool.

    Given this scenario: CMDR X decides to to attack Player Group Z.

    CMDR X goes into Player Group Z systems and kills all the Player Group Z NPC's he can, for months.

    Killing all the NPC's increases crime, reduces influence, can cause lockdowns etc.

    It would be extremely useful to PVP against CMDR X, if for no other reason than to collect his bounty. The ability to PVP would also have the effect of at least distracting CMDR X and possibly running him off.

    It doesn't even have to be people patrolling to try and do PVP. If flying back and forth from the station to a Haz Rez to bounty hunt (to counter act all the crime) a Player Group Z player saw CMDR X, they could engage in PVP at that point.

  12. #477
    misread your comment … sorry. Not enough coffee. Will come back later.
    --
    Frontier Development: "… malicious griefing (which we loosely define as actions whose only purpose, outcome and gain is to punish and frustrate other players)."

    The DBX needs an increase of agility!
    FDev: Give us a jump capable Condor with class 1 FSD, and 3 class 1 slots for ADS, DSS and fuel scoop

  13. #478
    Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post (Source)
    Never mind
    Do kids still say ninja'd? Ninja'd. But I'll continue.

    Originally Posted by GreyAreaUK View Post (Source)
    If FDev were going to give Open its own BGS they would have done so by now.

    They haven't.

    They're not going to.

    They've never made any indications that they were even considering it.

    It's not happening.

    Move on.
    Your power of the one-liner is brilliant and charmingly brash.

    And you don't speak for everyone, OP. Must chastise the OP.

    My roommate has essentially quit ED (I still catch him now and again) because I feel like he compares it to WoW and gear and their mechanics (which for the record seems more straightforward and less frustrating than ED) and he takes a similar stance as the OP. And therein lies the failure. Apples and oranges. Oranges are starting to fiss me op too, though.

    Regarding the oranges, GreyAreaUK said it best on several levels. It is what it is.

    /insert two pence

    Becoming a high level criminal should warrant some serious law enforcement actions or military interdiction. I think that would perhaps be a good start to curb those rabid masses wanting to sit at the top of the Pew-Pew-Pew-Crush-the-Hollow-Squares Mountain. Killing the suicidewinder is a good start but, eh. BRING OUT THE AI. And use its code judiciously lol Have you seen the ObsidianAnt video of the iClipper sitting outside a starport, CMDR off milling grain or something, taking full bombardment? Plus it was still there when he left, with no apparent damage. Talk about a, "Hey, do you SEE the unbalance!?!?"

    /insert off

    My apologies. On hindsight I believe Ziggy Stardust did indeed say it best.

    Anaconda: Augis​, Asp Explorer: Consilia, Cobra Mk III: Agitando, Keelback: Turbinis, Vulture: Fulgur, Sidewinder: Patrator (old Latin FTW)

  14. #479
    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    One of the essential aspects of Elite Dangerous hinges on the reputation that a character builds for themselves. As the in game activities of players are associated with the name and the aforementioned reputation they have gained, but also all the players you may have interacted with, even if indirectly. Open is just that, it's not just an environment like solo.

    Whether you disagree or not. This distinction is very important and it wouldn't be that important if Elite Dangerous was simply a singleplayer game. The reality is that while open may be a different option to choose from in the game menu, it is incredibly different in the way it was designed due to the indirect and direct actions with players surrounding your so called environment.

    This is why open players are advocating to separate the background simulation.
    It may be essential to you, but it's not important to the majority of players. Open is really no different from PG and Solo; all three modes have the exact same design. The only difference is who you see in your instance. Open can be riskier, but only in well-traveled systems. That is, to an explorer far from the bubble, there's no significant difference between the modes.

    That's not enough distinction for FD to bother with, to separate the background simulation. Besides, FD has said they will never do it. If they did, it would screw up Galnet, CGs, and faction reports - which simulation does FD report on? All three? Switching modes could put you in a drastically different situation: War instead of Boom, for example.

  15. #480
    Originally Posted by sovapid View Post (Source)

    Given this scenario: CMDR X decides to to attack Player Group Z.

    CMDR X goes into Player Group Z systems and kills all the Player Group Z NPC's he can, for months.

    It doesn't even have to be people patrolling to try and do PVP. If flying back and forth from the station to a Haz Rez to bounty hunt (to counter act all the crime) a Player Group Z player saw CMDR X, they could engage in PVP at that point.
    In your scenario:
    It's about man-hours (person-hours?) in RES.

    Engaging CMDR Z in PvP has the risk of getting beaten by CMDR Z and in that case all collected bounties in the RES would be lost - a bad outcome for CMDR Xs intentions to counter CMDR Zs activities.
    If CMDR X destroys CMDR Z it would result in only one criminal kill and a very low influence/lockdown state change. Killing more wanted NPCs is better for CMDR X.

    CMDR X needs to hand in as many bounties as possible. CMDR Z needs to kill as many clean NPCs as possible. PvP is for both just an distraction and for CMDR X it has potentially a higher risk with little reward.

    CMDR Z could change the time when he/she engages NPCs in the system of X becoming invisible for X or spend more time killing NPCs than X. Not to mention that the matchmaking might never put them into the same instance because the P2P connection between those two players is bad.

    While PvP can be used it is still simply the worst of the possible methods (or the least effective if that sounds better to you).
    Bad analogy: You can use a hammer to put a screw into a wall, but it's not the intended method. You can PvP to influence the BGS, but it's not the intended method.
    --
    Frontier Development: "… malicious griefing (which we loosely define as actions whose only purpose, outcome and gain is to punish and frustrate other players)."

    The DBX needs an increase of agility!
    FDev: Give us a jump capable Condor with class 1 FSD, and 3 class 1 slots for ADS, DSS and fuel scoop

Page 32 of 40 FirstFirst ... 22282930313233343536 ... LastLast