Are we allowed to vote again ....WHOOP..WHOOP WUE!
Trust in the electorate to get it wrong
Trust in the electorate to get it wrong
Modes Can we secede Open Play data from other modes.
- Thread starter Alim Zaruda
- Start date
While I suppose it might be possible to separate open bgs from the others, it brings up questions as to what would be the "real" bgs.
Since there is (per Braben) no right way to play the game how could there then be a right (or correct) bgs?
If players are going to be locked into open (otherwise exploits) to have access to that bgs how populated would that system become? Since many of the PvPers say if there was a PvE server they would only run missions etc on the PvE server.
We have many who shout about a pve server dividing the players so how would this be any different?
Since there is (per Braben) no right way to play the game how could there then be a right (or correct) bgs?
If players are going to be locked into open (otherwise exploits) to have access to that bgs how populated would that system become? Since many of the PvPers say if there was a PvE server they would only run missions etc on the PvE server.
We have many who shout about a pve server dividing the players so how would this be any different?
AP Birdman
Banned
So this last week an enemy player faction decided to attack the DRTY Co home system bgs. We got a message saying "Drty Company needs to recognize its actions, your squadron has been trashing innocent players, this needs to stop, you will be stopped."
Cool, awesome, finally some sweet PvP battles to defend the homeland.
But after confronting them in open and them getting their poop pushed in, they all retreated to PG where we could do nothing to stop them.
Tell me how this is fair or fun content and not borderline cheating? A squad that wants revenge on us but when they realize they can't defeat us, they hide in private group and screw up our bgs.
This needs to change and since bgs in open only would be unfair for the solo players, I think the OPs idea is more than reasonable.
Cool, awesome, finally some sweet PvP battles to defend the homeland.
But after confronting them in open and them getting their poop pushed in, they all retreated to PG where we could do nothing to stop them.
Tell me how this is fair or fun content and not borderline cheating? A squad that wants revenge on us but when they realize they can't defeat us, they hide in private group and screw up our bgs.
This needs to change and since bgs in open only would be unfair for the solo players, I think the OPs idea is more than reasonable.
Cool story bro. Maybe you could like play the BGS yourself or come moan on the forums, whatever floats your boat.
This is a lie, you can defend via the BGS as well as attack through it.
So if you cannot defend yourselves from a BGS attack...
What was that popular PvP expression again we PvE'ers keep getting told when we say we don't like gank squads??
Oh yes;
learn to play.
It's fair because we can all do it and we are all worth the same to the BGS.
If you are not willing to put the time into the BGS and someone else is, that's your problem.
It's not a balancing issue.
This request is almost exactly the same as asking for a PvE / PvP server setup.
In order for it to have any meaning a players commander would have to be locked to that mode/server otherwise exploits would make the separation meaningless and easy to bypass.
In APIs example lets say he was in the locked open mode while the others were in the standard multi mode system. In theirs his faction would still loose but in his his would win. Now you have two outcomes existing at the same time, which one would be the "real" state?
Both would be correct depending on point of view but this type of diametrically opposed situations could spiral way out of control and would create extra work for FDev. Same as having Pve/PvP servers.
So if you are against PvP/PvE servers how can this option be any better?
The BGS is what simulates the background of the game if it is locked behind modes you then end up with multiple game states how is this good for the game, and how much extra work would be required by the developers that could be spent on other aspects of the game?
I simply do not see the mode dependent BGS as a viable solution.
In order for it to have any meaning a players commander would have to be locked to that mode/server otherwise exploits would make the separation meaningless and easy to bypass.
In APIs example lets say he was in the locked open mode while the others were in the standard multi mode system. In theirs his faction would still loose but in his his would win. Now you have two outcomes existing at the same time, which one would be the "real" state?
Both would be correct depending on point of view but this type of diametrically opposed situations could spiral way out of control and would create extra work for FDev. Same as having Pve/PvP servers.
So if you are against PvP/PvE servers how can this option be any better?
The BGS is what simulates the background of the game if it is locked behind modes you then end up with multiple game states how is this good for the game, and how much extra work would be required by the developers that could be spent on other aspects of the game?
I simply do not see the mode dependent BGS as a viable solution.
Last edited:
While modes have their benefits - undoubtedly. When Open players decide to hide, to manipulate their preferred playground out of reach, competition becomes a travesty.
The sentiment that PvPers cant defend against BGS attacks from other modes is patently false. What may be correct is they cant defend against other mode attacks in their preferred method of play.
From what I have seen the BGS is pretty complicated and takes a lot of effort. It is however intended for every player/commander to have an effect on the BGS even if they are not intentionally engaging in BGS manipulation.
Should that be changed? I dont think so but I am just one voice among the many.
AP Birdman
Banned
Yep. Go for it. We don't even use that system to run missions anyways. We just wanted some good PvP.DRTY Company of Sanda system? Hmmmm..... Might stop by for a "visit"
ROFL oh the hypocrisy. I'm not complaining I'm giving a real example to go along with the OPs idea.
I'm curious what you have added to the conversation?
Lol, this is a lie? I have videos and game messages to prove it.
Yeah let's run a bunch of cargo missions to battle these players in PvP. lolololololol what a joke
Last edited:
Nor can they from other platforms using the same mode.
Which is why most of the game is about PvE token pushing, because all platforms and all modes can take part in that activity.
Apparently it's no "joking matter" if it's such a serious topic, is it?
The FedEx person just wiped the floor with the fully combat geared soldier, after all. Oops.
Last edited:
You can prove you cannot defend a BGS attack via the BGS?
That is a lie. Go read up on the BGS.
The truth is you're not willing to do it.
Quick side question while you're here.
As you were against a PvE mode because you claimed it would leave fewer people playing Open PvP.
How would Open being separated from the other modes be any better?
Surely by your logic, if people were given the choice of being locked to Open or have Solo/PG - they'd all pick Solo/PG
Edit;
Before you claim you never said any such thing;
Last edited:
AP Birdman
Banned
Yeah, youre absolutely right I'm not willing to run a bunch of cargo missions to "battle" someone in PvP. It's a stupid game mechanic that needs to be changed to the way the OP suggested.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Just as soon as non-combat oriented pilots can get combat-focused missions changed to suit their personal wishes, sure.
We can go round n round here. We've been doing it for years.
Last edited by a moderator:
I second that.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm shocked! Really.
AP Birdman
Banned
I added an edit that deals with this bit - you typed faster than I edited
I'm not entirely sure how you think that relates to this.
All we're talking about here is how open should have it's own bgs and powerplay. My statement that creating more modes to further separate the player base would ruin the game still stands.