And a plank.
Code action against CoR
- Thread starter riceak
- Start date
Oh, running away, i can do that. I don't usually die when i run away. I usually die when i choose to stay and fight. Of course, as i noted, i'm not flying a 8000Mj cutter. I like to fly crazy ships, so often my combat builds are less than optimal. Its a good way of getting a challenge. Any idiot can fly a FdL or Corvette and complain that the NPCs are too easy. I choose a different style of game.
But really, you must have missed the memo. Apparently is quite possible to escape any encounter even against hardened PvPers. Did you not watch Rinzler's video on how to escape a gank in a trade ship? Wasn't that conclusive proof that is possible to escape anything? Or would you dare go against the holy word of CMDR Rinzler? Because if Rinzler is correct, then you can run from anything if you know how! So that makes Open as easy as solo!
how do you intend to attack someone in Solo ????
[video=youtube_share;42IhDIRQ8M4]https://youtu.be/42IhDIRQ8M4[/video]The Code - 'Real Pirates' Of Genius!
Nothing more fun than robbing your mark and getting to explode him too! And oh look, illegal cargo, does the crymunity consider us 'real' pirates now?!
Just look at the added challenge and audacity we endure and display at carrying illegal cargo!!
Nothing more fun than robbing your mark and getting to explode him too! And oh look, illegal cargo, does the crymunity consider us 'real' pirates now?!
Just look at the added challenge and audacity we endure and display at carrying illegal cargo!!
Not at all.
The two concepts you mention are obviously different. (Not being able to find someone due to space being big != impossible to find someone due to game design aka social filters)
The game is designed around (sadly) the concept of "appease & cater for as many as people as possible" which means if you want to play solo and engage in the BGS you're as entitled as the person who opts for the full social experience of going in open. That was FDs decision from day 1.
What I am saying is that, as a result of this decision from FD, you have to accept that as a PvP-combat player (which I assume you are) you will only ever meet a subset of players and this is by design and more importantly your own choice .. You chose to play this way (and that's OK - you will meet other players who also want the full social experience, warts and all)
Whether that meets your sense of fairness or what have you is irrelevant ... what is important is that FD designed the game this way and you have to embrace it or be forever disappointed.
EDIT:
I overlooked the obvious insult ( "I'm safe" button ) - not everyone is a combat ace like you and might in fact find NPCs tricky .. Regardless as to why players like myself may wish to opt out of the full social experience (open) is moot - we are simply exercising our choice as laid out by FD. If you do not think this is fair, or right, petition FD with reasons why and you might find some of us non-open players supporting you .. flat out insulting us like you obviously meant and we remain in the them-vs-us scenario we are today ! Think on mate.
Last edited:
So there's "official" confirmation that Code now destroys ships which have dropped cargo for them.
Better enjoy ganking Asps in a wing with a Cutter, Conda and Python while you can. It fits Sandro's definition of griefing perfectly.
Last edited:
Once again, one of the crymunity is mistaken about whether or not anything has changed. We are not NPCs and will not simply back off while our target drops a few tons of cargo.
We have always, and will always, make a CLEAR demand to stop for a SCAN.
The trader only determines one outcome; live or die.
Otherwise it is not a negotiation. It is a demand, and one we can only make knowingly and with all the facts by scanning a target.
This allows us to see what's in the target's hold, and make a demand based on several factors; number of ships in the wing, type and max cargo, whether or not the target ran first before complying or just stopped and complied immediately, etc.
You make the mistaken assumption that our demand to stop for a scan will be assuaged by dropping a few tons while running.
That has never been the case and you are wrong.
So once again, nothing has changed here, but keep trying to find something.
And 'fits Sandro's version of griefing?' Bwahahahhahahaha!!!! GOOD!!!!
Eh, I'm just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that it at least used to be about obtaining cargo. But I can't exactly argue with you about your own motivations, if you say it was always about the whole "comply" power fantasy thing, then I guess it was.
I take it you haven't read any of Sandro's posts about the (potentially) upcoming karma system then? You probably won't think your activities being identified as undesirable behaviour is a good thing.
Looked like legitimate piracy gameplay to me, the marque didn't obey commands and was treated accordingly. If Sandro sees that as griefing then PvP piracy will die quickly and I don't think FD really want that to happen
Frontier want PvP piracy (as do I), but this idea that it's legitimate to destroy any ship for not "obeying commands" is an entirely player constructed notion. If you interdict a player, broadcast an intention for piracy, watch them drop cargo, then ignore it and destroy them, what you're doing is not piracy.
If anything, the existence of hatch breakers (which need to be significantly improved) suggests that Frontier intends piracy to involve forcibly taking cargo from ships while they run. I do suspect that in the future it will not be acceptable for pirates to go around destroying cargo ships, but that piracy as a career will become more viable. Will this drive some players away from piracy? Sure, but only the ones who are merely using piracy as a paper-thin excuse for ganking. The real pirates will remain, and more will join their ranks as the mechanics for it improve.
Last edited:
I've found it depends on the skill of the attacker and my lack of it, and as a minimum my lack could be a deciding factor.
But yes, I've seen the video as have many who work out ways to attack successfully.
It was never just about the cargo. Don't be dense.
It has always been about multiple things. The interaction with other CMDRs (both good and bad, they both have their appeal), the emergent gameplay, the difficulty, the thrill of the chase, RPing an infamous pirate/pirate group, and yes the cargo/profit and exerting control over another (RPing a bad guy).
It's funny that those that have zero interest in or experience in PvP piracy, like you, like to tell those of us that are experienced PvP pirates what it's "about".
Part of what's it about is getting you guys to come on here and whine about it so thanks for feeding right into that.
And I know about the proposed Karma and C&P system and even welcome it, with a few caveats.
Mainly that they need to have a new type of "seedy underworld" layer in he game, with stations that the good guys can't see on their Nav Panels (asteroid bases in out of the way ring planets would work well for his, and we would lose access to certain stations in high sec systems as well unless we cleared our name), have no no fire zone, sell piratey/outlaw type modules, are in anarchy systems, etc. SC already has a Karma system like this and it looks promising.
People like you interpreted Sandro's ideas and remarks as "we want to nerf all criminal activity into oblivion and make this game a safe space for the crymunity."
I think you'll find you were sorely mistaken.
You just don't get it. We can get more out of a target if we make them stop. And it IS about exerting control to a certain extent. Also, if we don't make our demands clear, and follow through on threats, then we are doing something wrong.
What Frontier may have intended and what works are also two different things. Ask any experienced PvP pirate in the game about the "streaming cargo problem" and they'll tell you it's not worth their time.
Now if there was a way to FORCIBLY bring a ship to a stop and siphon cargo and then send them on their way, that might change things, but so far Fdev have refused to address the problem.
Maybe 3.0 will change this as they look to improve core gameplay features.
See, I can bet behind all of this. +1 concepts. o7
One problem about the bases being in Anarchy systems, though... any place with factions can stop being an anarchy, so what would happen to these asteroid bases if it suddenly got its act together and became, say, a democracy? Would they revert to legal status? Shut down and be undockable? (oooh, derilict, but you could enter inside it... going inside a 'dead' station... that could be cool).
But seriously, stop saying 'crymunity' - you're not 12... er... right? I'm assuming here
You're trying to make a point, and sometimes making very good ones (like above). But you're doing yourself and your cause no favors by talking down the other side (just like they do themselves no favors when they call anyone doing PvP in open a griefer).
Last edited:
No combat ace here. Far from it. PvE explorer with a fair amount of trading.
I often play in mobius, fleetcomm and Solo as the mood takes me accordingly.
But if I'm in conflict with someone as the aggressor whether economically or otherwise I will play their chosen style. So I've run BGS in mobius against a group there and in open against a PvP group.
Why? Well I think that if I'm going to try and have a negative impact on someone they have the right to combat it in their style of play and I shouldn't choose the "I'm safe" button to avoid the consequences of my actions.
Admittedly if someone wants to attack me I feel no obligation to switch modes to suite them.
But if I am the aggressor against them even though it's just BGS, if I'm not willing to take the risk on their playing field I shouldn't be using game modes to avoid it.
So I am one of those often non open non PvP players who understands their position on fairness particularly when PvE players will attack them on BGS while deliberately hiding in PG/Solo to avoid them fighting back.
On the them vs us issue, one of the biggest problems is PvE players refusing to accept the obvious unfairness of being able to negatively effect the goals of open PvP groups while remaining safe behind game modes.
The list of justifications is endless for it, and all fail to see that hitting the "I'm safe from you retaliating against me forcing you to play my way" button is simply the mirror of "you must all play in open and be my prey" argument which I don't agree with.
I'm not saying that's you, I have no idea what you have done in game, but in my opinion any PvE player who decides that staying to a safe mode from retaliation and defence while being the aggressor against an open PvP group is not only being unfair but is partially responsible for the wedge of us vs them.
Not a problem. Would be as it should be. Civilisation has a long history of bringing law to lawless places and pushing the lawless further out.
We also have people fighting against that expansion and creating chaos where once law existed.
It would be up to the pirates to defend the anarchy systems or watch them fall one by one as they get forced to the edge of the bubble or otherwise dead systems within the bubble to fly from until found.
They shouldn't get some special protection, but neither should anybody else so they could also work to create new anarchy systems by turning over the current government.
It would just be faction system as is with some consequences.
No of course they shouldn't get special protection - I was simply wondering what the ramification of losing an Anarchy system would be in-game and how the mechancis would handle it (hence my speculation of 'dead' asteroid bases)
See, I can bet behind all of this. +1 concepts. o7
One problem about the bases being in Anarchy systems, though... any place with factions can stop being an anarchy, so what would happen to these asteroid bases if it suddenly got its act together and became, say, a democracy? Would they revert to legal status? Shut down and be undockable? (oooh, derilict, but you could enter inside it... going inside a 'dead' station... that could be cool).
But seriously, stop saying 'crymunity' - you're not 12... er... right? I'm assuming here
Care-bear-munity? There I fixed it!
Actually a good point. Maybe that would just not work as criterion for where they would be. Maybe they'd be everywhere but on the fringes of the systems?