Can we drop the "ED is not EVE" moaning?
- Thread starter Toumal
- Start date
- Status
Have to disagree with you here. I play BGS in whatever mode my enemy uses or open as I'm playing against somebody.
There is a problem that you can choose to play against someone from solo to avoid the consequences of playing against them.
That isn't choosing not to play with other people, it's choosing to play against them from a safe zone.
It's a fact of life with the game so I don't cry about it, but I would like to see it changed so a PvP PMF can only have their BGS attacked in open when they have system control.
And I say this as a PvE player whose only PvP fight against a ganker involved me reaching the rebuy screen. I'm much better at rabbiting.
Well if you were really speaking for everyone you'd probably meet with more agreement than argument.
I also like the engineers.
But rugby balls should be, but I'm biased.
That's fair enough, but aren't you basing your opinion on a mistaken premise? The background simulation is played by shifting token values that can be shifted in any of the client connectivity modes. Shooting at other players doesn't even affect it by as much as a fraction of a percent, taking into account by the time you've shot one player down in open connectivity mode, 30 other players have slipped past you in solo, group, and the parallel modes on the Xbox ans PS4 platforms
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Whether or not you disagree with me or not. Doesn't change the fact it still effects everyone. Imbalances in a game effect everyone.
okay when I was a tester for WoW. We were working on AOE spells for PVE and PVP, They had to coincide with each other. And we needed to make it work in both mode, where it wasnt over powered.
All this BGS stuff and Powerplay, and player interaction effects everyone. And its seriously imbalanced.
You guys can argue semantics till you're blue in the face. And it wont change the fact. Turn a blind eye if you wish. I dont care. The problems still remain. And have been for quite sometime.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I doubt that it breaks the game for the players that choose not to get involved in direct PvP (and, given what one Dev has indicated, Frontier are well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP) - in a game where there is no requirement whatsoever to engage in direct PvP.
Last edited:
I'm feeling a disturbance in the Farce. As if a billion hyperboles all died at once.
In one system I have just won a war in, they could have had refuel rearm and repair close by in system with large pads.
I would need to jump to the next system fly to the station with a large pad, jump back then fly to the CZ again.
As with any combat, even both doing PvE, more time on target means more kills. Rather than managing to beat them over 4 days just, I doubt I would have if they had the quick convenience of refuel/repair/rearm while I didn't.
You may not think it's much of an advantage but it would likely have been enough as there are only so many days in a row I can spend every available moment fighting in a CZ. It's why I'm here on the forums now, I need the break.
Games can and do borrow real world concepts. There isn't a problem here: the designers have established a world where you can affect other people without facing violence. I like it that way.
See you in solo - or maybe not.
Cheers, Phos.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Yeah, whats the famous word around here? Indirect PVP? They do. And its not balanced what so ever.
Do you really think when they designed and created powerplay from the beginning. Do you really think they foreseen mobius and other Large player groups existing? And now we have Player factions with ships incoming too.
you know that saying "mobius ruined the game". It was intentional. But it stopped gameplay in its tracks. Which is why everything has been at a standstill until the thargoids were finally introduced. And it created Burst content.
We were supposed to be fighting over territories and have you noticed the weapons are balanced around PVP activities? Hmmmm.
They dont take part in it because 1, missions suck, they dont scale properly rebuy hurts(and it should somewhat). 2. Engineers cause a major issue in progression and balancing.
Its human nature. people are going to take the easy way out. But what that did, was cause certain features not to work.
So yeah, it does effect everyone. 100%. And like it or not as more people play this game and get involved with those aspects of the game. More and more people speak up about it. Like I said elsewhere.
I can never say another word, and someone else is going to come along and say the same thing. And they have been long before I got here.
I want to be clear, I dont want solo and private to go away. Its needed and I can respect that. But there are people that couldnt care less about effecting others from within them. They just want to go exploring or do some trading whatever. But they arent doing it to effect someone else intentionally. They could reduce the amount of influence those modes give allowing people to fight for territory in open, allowing risk vs reward IN A GAME CALLED ELITE DANGEROUS.
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
When will you learn that some people play this game for other reasons than PvP?
The different modes allow that.
The different modes allow that.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
There has to be consequences for your actions. And in solo or private there is not. You seem to have no problem attacking someone within them. So reduce your influence to 0 and you can continue on your way.
However, there is pirating, massacre missions and so on. This game is built on violence. And I like it that way.
If I could see you in solo Id be there.
Cheers, 90s.
Your entire argument seems based around you saying you object to players of the same game deciding not to connect their game client with your game client.
Do I have that right?
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
What do you think we are arguing about here? im well aware of it. And im not about to repeat myself once again because you guys think there doesnt need to be change. Sooner or later it will change. Its inevitable. Why? Because the balancing sucks something awful. For Everyone.
LoL
First the Dangerous part has nothing what so ever to do with the game having pvp or not. This whole "dangerous" snark is something some salty pvpers came up with to try and insult non pvpers.
As to what stopped game play in it's tracks well that's ALL on FD. IF you think like you say you can ONLY blame FD as most playing in solo or even group wanted and backed this game for the offline mode. Offlinegate was the biggest stink we ever had in these forums and that should be telling in of itself.
FD took that away and "open" has fallen short cause lets face it pvpers are in the minority back then and still are now.
Really it's a damn good thing all the pvers are here otherwise we wouldn't have this game period.
Last edited:
One can even play in Open and not engage in PvP! It is even possible to do stuff with other players without fighting them. I have done that since Alpha.
SMy action was to give Frontier money. In consequence I received a game I could play in the way I wanted. My in game actions don't need consequences.
I can take action in solo which affects the BGS in a tiny way, and you can't use violence against me. You can buy and sell in an attempt to undermine my work, but my influence will be greater than zero, and you can't use violence against me - which proves the game is not necessarily based on violence. I like it that way.
Cheers, Phos.
The NPCs provide enough danger for my taste.
I do hope these squadrons and carriers turn out good though. I have something like ten friends who own the game but have put only single-digit hours into it because they don't really play it on their own. Multicrew would have been good for them if it hadn't turned out to be both one-dimensional and pointless. Will squadrons get them invested? I don't know.
I do hope these squadrons and carriers turn out good though. I have something like ten friends who own the game but have put only single-digit hours into it because they don't really play it on their own. Multicrew would have been good for them if it hadn't turned out to be both one-dimensional and pointless. Will squadrons get them invested? I don't know.
That's fair enough, but aren't you basing your opinion on a mistaken premise? The background simulation is played by shifting token values that can be shifted in any of the client connectivity modes. Shooting at other players doesn't even affect it by as much as a fraction of a percent, taking into account by the time you've shot one player down in open connectivity mode, 30 other players have slipped past you in solo, group, and the parallel modes on the Xbox ans PS4 platforms
XBone and PS4 are an issue, but a structural one that can't be addressed until we have a cross platform universe. It's a pain but can't be avoided.
For modes, I've heard every justification around for people playing against a PMF from solo or PG. arguments ranging from the right to play their way while forgetting they are stopping others play their way. People claiming it's covert tactics which I can never accept pressing a button to be. Claims that instancing would make them safe anyway in which case why use it. Or even the, oh but all BGS is PvE anyway so it doesn't matter.
But the simple truth is, you can only influence a systems BGS by flying in it. If a PvP group can exclude you from being able to do that, you can't influence its BGS. So PvP is a valid tactic to defend BGS. Being able to avoid that risk by choosing to press a button is just plain wrong. This is why if helping my PvP friends with their BGS I fly in open out of principle, as I will also do when playing my own BGS against against an open player group.
- Status