Code action against CoR

[Harley Quinn]

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)

The vision of ships fleeing the asteroid as the system falls to democracy, or the government fleeing the capital as the pirates arrive.

Both would be fun to see.

I would expect that if Warinus size, they would either be left empty or more likely just change to a known asteroid station. And if retaken it would disappear from general nav panel and be moved to a different part of the ring.

If smaller, dismantled and set up elsewhere would make more sense, such as in an asteroid belt in a nearby unclaimed system.

But in both cases they could remain until actually found. Different factions already hold other bases, these are just ones without beacons and hidden.

Of course I would then want a hidden military base for the faction I support if these existed.

 

[mossfoot]

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?

You'd have people complain about the time it takes to get to it (hell, they complain if they have to go more than 5000ls )

And the problem is, being everywhere of course means being located in places that could eventually be high-security as they grow. And the idea that you could NEVER get rid of them doesn't work well either.

I kind of like the idea of them growing and dying depending on the Anarchy state. Like if a system is in an Anarchy state for X weeks it gains a pirate base in a local asteroid system - like building a regular base it would start off with the target 'roid simply being hollowed out, then filled in with tech, then goes live.

Likewise, the longer a system loses its Anarchy status, the more it would be dismantled, until it was just a hollowed out rock (which would remain a permanent feature in that asteroid field)

 

[Arvel Yael]

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.

That sounds okay I guess, but what do you do where you have a player in solo/pve who doesn't give a stuff about the BGS, or powerplay, or how well whatever faction they're doing missions for is doing?
If a dude's paying me to take missions, I don't care if he's a billionaire on the up or a poor dude about to go out of business. All I care about are having something to do with my ship and the credits at the end. The BGS stuff is absolutely non-relevant to me.

There's no way for me to just "turn bgs" off for my particular character. Otherwise, I would. I sure as hell don't think I'm "being clever" by getting something out of it, becuse as far as I'm concerned, I get nothing out of it, other than a load of ire from folks who want to criticise me for doing something - affecting the BGS - that I wouldn't do at all, given a choice.
So where does that leave me?

 

[Gunnet]

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.

I mean it has to be about the cargo as far as ingame actions go. If I go bounty hunting there are various things I enjoy about it, but if my ingame goal isn't claiming bounties then it's not bounty hunting. It's a bit rich to talk about difficulty when you're destroying Asps with a Cutter, Conda and Python.

A part of it being trolling (or 'salt farming' in the parlance of most people doing it) doesn't exactly lend legitimacy to your actions. I'm happy to hear that you're enjoying my attention though

I'd also like to see a fully fleshed out C&P system which would provide content for criminals and the people who hunt them. But the karma system is only tangentially related to that, instead being intended to limit behaviour which is potentially harmful to the game's future success.

From what I've seen, almost all the misinterpretation of Sandro's posts as Frontier wanting to remove criminal activity from the game comes from those who fear that a karma system will limit their behaviour. My interpretation of it is that they want to stop people destroying weaker ships with much stronger ships, which hardly qualifies as an interpretation considering how clearly he said it.

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.

I'm afraid the game doesn't exist to allow to somebody to indulge a need to force others to submit to their will. Piracy in ED is about stealing cargo. At the moment you can do other things and call it piracy, but you can't make anybody else call it that.

The 'streaming cargo' problem is of course the main thing I was referring to when I said hatch breakers need to be improved.

You can already forcibly bring a ship to a stop with ion disruptor mines and siphon cargo with hatch breakers, which then won't even have any problems with streaming cargo. Perhaps you mean an easy way to do it. But whoever said robbery is supposed to be easy?

 

[mossfoot]

That sounds okay I guess, but what do you do where you have a player in solo/pve who doesn't give a stuff about the BGS, or powerplay, or how well whatever faction they're doing missions for is doing?
If a dude's paying me to take missions, I don't care if he's a billionaire on the up or a poor dude about to go out of business. All I care about are having something to do with my ship and the credits at the end. The BGS stuff is absolutely non-relevant to me.

There's no way for me to just "turn bgs" off for my particular character. Otherwise, I would. I sure as hell don't think I'm "being clever" by getting something out of it, becuse as far as I'm concerned, I get nothing out of it, other than a load of ire from folks who want to criticise me for doing something - affecting the BGS - that I wouldn't do at all, given a choice.
So where does that leave me?

I hate to say this, but shouldn't there be a degree of awareness on the pilot's end as to who they are working for? I mean, imagine you're a trucker and you take a job to carry a bunch of NFL merchandise to a stadium. Only it turns out it's Cleveland Redskins merchandise and there are major protests blockading any such merch from being brought in. You find your truck stuck in traffic and picketed and it takes you twice as long to deliver your cargo, and by the end of it all it just didn't feel worth it. Of course, if you had been watching the news and heard about the protests you might have skipped that job and taken a different one.

Basically we SHOULD be aware of who we are working for and what the ramifications of working for them might be.

Now, I say this, but the fact of the matter is that the way the GAME doesn't really support this in a feasible manner (other than be wary of CG systems) - for the average player there is NO real difference between any of the minor factions, they're just missions and paydays. And there's no real way to know if you're entering a CMDR heavy zone where BGS activities are going on.

In short, it's really difficult to know if you might get into trouble before you're already interdicted.

But still, ideally that's the way it should be, I think. Where we have to not just look at a mission and decide which pays most, but think about "is it worth it" in other ways as well. Otherwise why bother with the factions at all, just set a filter for "most cash please" and be done with it.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

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.

Then I think the game design is at odds with your definition of fairness and rights - ED runs on different platforms but all use the same back end servers, with zero ability to meet them.

Now what ?

Fortunately the game isn't designed with that kind of mentality.

I understand where you're coming from, would completely agree with you if the game was built around PvP-Combat, but it's not.

As I stated earlier - remove your preconceptions from other games - ED isn't like them .. it's unique.

The thing that ties everyone together is the BGS - that is a pure PvE function ... You can affect it indirectly by PvP-Combat (like killing a commander who is about to deliver something / turn in data scans / etc) but otherwise manipulating it is PvE only. Killing other commanders does nothing directly - there is no reward for doing so that directly affects the BGS. It's there to cater for those who want peace and quiet with the NPCs (solo); it's there for those who want to play ED with their friends and like minded individuals (PG); it's there for anyone who wants to play in the drama pool with everyone (open)

As mentioned, if a group wants to exclusively hunt other commanders in order to dominate the PvE machine (BGS) they do so at a disadvantage as the game isn't designed for that exclusive activity.

The groups who understand this and have adapted, like (I believe) AA who have a PvE arm and a PvP-Combat arm, are the ones who will survive this game & get the most out of it .. those who exclusively hunt other players to engage in PvP-Combat will be left behind and that my good man is 100% fair to me as the game was designed & built that way.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

https://youtu.be/42IhDIRQ8M4The 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!!

My word, the evil bad guys are really upset some don't consider what they're doing piracy.

Look evil bad guys, if it matters that much to you: you evil bad guys are pirates. Yes you are. Who is an evil bad pirate? You are an evil bad pirate.

And we hates you. Oh yes we do. We hates the evil bad guys.

Happy now? Now stop crying. Evil bad boys don't cry.

 

[Harley Quinn]

That sounds okay I guess, but what do you do where you have a player in solo/pve who doesn't give a stuff about the BGS, or powerplay, or how well whatever faction they're doing missions for is doing?
If a dude's paying me to take missions, I don't care if he's a billionaire on the up or a poor dude about to go out of business. All I care about are having something to do with my ship and the credits at the end. The BGS stuff is absolutely non-relevant to me.

There's no way for me to just "turn bgs" off for my particular character. Otherwise, I would. I sure as hell don't think I'm "being clever" by getting something out of it, becuse as far as I'm concerned, I get nothing out of it, other than a load of ire from folks who want to criticise me for doing something - affecting the BGS - that I wouldn't do at all, given a choice.
So where does that leave me?

When I'm in mobius and see someone I tell them what I am doing, why and ask them if they could take that into account. If doing something in open I won't see them and who knows what is happening in Solo. I would hope that if just grinding for creds or rank and they find out someone has a purpose they would take this into account and either balance their impact, help or take steps to not hinder, but that is their choice.

But my issue isn't with people just playing their game and doing their own thing for personal reasons. It's a pain when you are trying to run BGS but that's just life and people grinding creds.

The issue I have is somebody deliberately trying to play the BGS for an effect against an open player PvP group. If the intent is to say remove that Player Minor Faction from system control by running missions for other factions there, you or I would be playing against them. By choosing to play against them I think choosing Solo or PG so they don't know you are doing it and can't do anything to stop you because you pressed the right mode version is unfair. Just that 1 issue bothers me.

Obviously a PvP group will have issues with random people's effect too, but while I can understand their issue with that it is just part of the game and is the result of a playing style choice rather than hitting a mode to nerf the person you are attacking so I won't moan about that.

I think as players we could leave open PMF held systems alone and FD could look at limiting BGS effect in PMF held systems to that groups chosen modes, but it is what it is and not worth crying about for those just playing their own game and don't know they are effecting others.

Intentionally attacking someone else's BGS (rather than defending your own) is different for me though.

 

[Harley Quinn]

Then I think the game design is at odds with your definition of fairness and rights - ED runs on different platforms but all use the same back end servers, with zero ability to meet them.

Now what ?

Fortunately the game isn't designed with that kind of mentality.

I understand where you're coming from, would completely agree with you if the game was built around PvP-Combat, but it's not.

As I stated earlier - remove your preconceptions from other games - ED isn't like them .. it's unique.

The thing that ties everyone together is the BGS - that is a pure PvE function ... You can affect it indirectly by PvP-Combat (like killing a commander who is about to deliver something / turn in data scans / etc) but otherwise manipulating it is PvE only. Killing other commanders does nothing directly - there is no reward for doing so that directly affects the BGS. It's there to cater for those who want peace and quiet with the NPCs (solo); it's there for those who want to play ED with their friends and like minded individuals (PG); it's there for anyone who wants to play in the drama pool with everyone (open)

As mentioned, if a group wants to exclusively hunt other commanders in order to dominate the PvE machine (BGS) they do so at a disadvantage as the game isn't designed for that exclusive activity.

The groups who understand this and have adapted, like (I believe) AA who have a PvE arm and a PvP-Combat arm, are the ones who will survive this game & get the most out of it .. those who exclusively hunt other players to engage in PvP-Combat will be left behind and that my good man is 100% fair to me as the game was designed & built that way.

I'm afraid I just can't agree with you.

If a person is too scared to enter a system in open, how could they effect that system in open? The answer obviously is not at all. That is effectively defending your BGS if your threat is giving area denial to your enemy.

If a person is too scared to enter a system in open but wants to attack it and chooses a mode that removes the risk to them is that fair or right?

Under the rules it certainly is, but in my opinion, no I have no respect for somebody who wishes to negatively effect another's game as the aggressor and chooses "nah nah, you can't hurt me" mode.

All the platform issues and instancing problems are things we can't control or avoid. Pressing that button is a choice.

 

[LoroLoko]

The Code has blockaded HR 6421 due to the hostile actions of Children of Raxxla. They have attacked allies of The Code in open and it is believed that they have been affecting Background sims while in private/solo play. This system will remain under lock down until the Code demands are met. Any CMDR who is found in this system and not an ally of The Code will be KOS

Who allies of The Code where attacked, The Smiling Dog Crew?.
How are you going to blockade players in solo or private group mode, commander?.

People, looks like The Code needs more fun, it's the same action in a system and of course the call to the Community to go there to kill CodeBoys, so they can have fun.
So, you Code can go and block every system you want. Just do it. Have fun.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

If a person is too scared to enter a system in open

Playing in open / PG / solo is a player choice - the game was designed, coded and presented with these choices and where someone plays generally has nothing to do with being "scared" - that's simply you belittling people for their choices. Very poor show mate ... you just lost all credibility in my eyes. Have a good day.

 

[Harley Quinn]

Playing in open / PG / solo is a player choice - the game was designed, coded and presented with these choices and where someone plays generally has nothing to do with being "scared" - that's simply you belittling people for their choices. Very poor show mate ... you just lost all credibility in my eyes. Have a good day.

I'm sorry. Perhaps you should read all my comments as I have made it 100% clear that people have a choice on how they play.

I'm having to make it this simple as you are unwilling or unable to see or accept that choosing to attack an open PvP faction in a safe mode where they cannot block you is exactly what I have been saying, using a safe mode as they are too scared to accept the consequences in open.

It is that choice to want to harm another even if BGS while remaining safe.

As to credibility, I have no problems standing by everything I have said. But your cheap shot in this trying to take the morale high ground on the standard defence without considering that a person has chosen conflict with another? I suggest you look to your own.

 

[Theodrid]

https://youtu.be/42IhDIRQ8M4The 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!!

Hmmmm..

As a side note, pirates don't generally operate in uber engineered wings looking to explode the weak, they tend to be loners wanting some cargo. Unfortunately that's where this forum shows huge prejudice and ignorance, or maybe they're just playing dumb

See nobody needs to 'play dumb' when you are so obviously talking out of your backside.

 

[Han_Zen]

My word, the evil bad guys are really upset some don't consider what they're doing piracy.

Look evil bad guys, if it matters that much to you: you evil bad guys are pirates. Yes you are. Who is an evil bad pirate? You are an evil bad pirate.

And we hates you. Oh yes we do. We hates the evil bad guys.

Happy now? Now stop crying. Evil bad boys don't cry.

Of course evil bad boys cry. They cry inside because they are scared and alone. That's why they are evil bad boys.

You can of course roll play all that, like Heath Ledger did so well with the Joker.

 

[JosiahD]

...... no I have no respect for somebody who wishes to negatively effect another's game as the aggressor and chooses "nah nah, you can't hurt me" mode.

I might try to remember this statement and use it myself the next time some wing of combat-focused, fully engineered high end ships go around ganking noobs in starter systems or ganking traders at CGs....

 

[Vorxian]

I have no respect for somebody who wishes to negatively effect another's game....

haha I picked up on this statement as well..

Glad we got to the root of the issue! Mobius, and solo are usually the only counter for avoiding undesirable players, not the problem! [heart]

 

[sewerratuk]

See nobody needs to 'play dumb' when you are so obviously talking out of your backside.

Nice retort, pitched at about the right level for this forum

 

[Kaa Mchorror]

haha I picked up on this statement as well..

Glad we got to the root of the issue! Mobius, and solo are usually the only counter for avoiding undesirable players, not the problem! [heart]

Yup stay in that cult group or solo because I don't want to play with undesirable players.

 

[Theodrid]

Nice retort, pitched at about the right level for this forum

hence a little edit to make it clear to the dumb

Nowt to do with forum level pal just stooping to yours.

 

[Ian Phillips]

That will do, thank you.