If you don't like being associated with the EVE group that made an impression in that game would it not make sense to change your group name to reflect that fact?
CODE blockade and roleplay
- Thread starter geoffrey.hdt
- Start date
- Status
If you don't like being associated with the EVE group that made an impression in that game would it not make sense to change your group name to reflect that fact?
Didn't mean to get you to pop a blood vessel, just a couple months ago the "official" way for code to differentiate itself was using "Code", not "CODE".
Picking nits here.
Fair enough, I guess we'll just have to archive them along with the messages about "I didn't have insurance" and "this game is hard" and "this game has no story".
Maybe I should take a break from the forums
If we are doing a study on it, then yes I suppose that would be appropriate.
Feel free to take a break.
Edit:
I definitely need a break too considering the typo.
Last edited:
It's a bit like calling yourselves 'white power' and being constantly surprised when people assume you're a bit discriminatory.
Change your name.
Change name to Coda you must. Bring to an end this will
Perhaps you could all add a disclaimer to your sigs?
"The commanders and incidents portrayed and the names used herein this post are fictitious and any resemblance to the same names, character, or history of any persona in EvE is coincidental and unintentional. Honest!"
I don't really get why naming yourself after the guys from eve when you don't want people to think you are the guys from eve. That will never quite work out ^^
What nonsense !
If groups like Code wish to blockade a system they can do so in the knowledge that the players they meet in open want the challenge of PvP. It's a "win-win" for all concerned.
At any rate, PP 1.3 will offer some changes to the criminal system which might shake things up a little and encourage more people into open - With the bounty remaining for a week and (hopefully) the game response more aggressive it could add some spice for existing open players and give confidence to the rest that they are not just going to be murdered.
Last edited:
CODE's Achilles' heel.
It is tempting to macro up a canned response guaranteed to bring the red mist and cloud your attacker's judgement whilst you make good your escape;
"Yarrrr. Go back to EvE you slovenly dogs!"
Last edited:
escaping encounters like blockades, piracy, maniacs, in open by going to another game mode is an option that FD poorly chose to allow to exist. So long as it exists, you wont ever have a really effective player driven event in the game that consists of opposing players.
It's not that open play NEEDS players to be kept in open even if they dont want to deal with scary human players. It's that open play NEEDS the players in the other modes to not have any impact on what goes on in open play. Only then can you have an effective player driven / determined event.
It's not that open play NEEDS players to be kept in open even if they dont want to deal with scary human players. It's that open play NEEDS the players in the other modes to not have any impact on what goes on in open play. Only then can you have an effective player driven / determined event.
so u want what from fd to change everything he was promised at their game advertise?...
Also - No No No
The three modes all affecting the same Galaxy(Universe) is perhaps the only way to prevent the game being taken over by -
Heavyweight Gamers (good-on-'em), Heavyweight Psycho Cheater Exploiter Gamers (BOO-HISS!!!), Cheaters, Exploiters, Gankers and Griefers.
I heard you are. Same group.
Last edited:
In a way, absolutely. Having it as-it-is cheapens the effectiveness of everything you invest in doing role playing your game. Going forward, they're going to increase how much your in-game character is involved in the changing tides of the simulation. This only further makes jumping modes to circumvent things going on in Open more damaging to gameplay. Why would anyone even bother?
Note, I'm not talking about players moving around modes and doing their own thing. I'm talking about players who are moving around modes to accomplish activities with the purpose of affecting the background simulation either via community goals or by coordination via the faction influence method.
Promising single player was stupid, offline even more so. Creating a massive galaxy where you have no hope of ever becoming singularly significant and then playing it alone is not in any way interesting. It sounds like those players who wanted that wanted to play basically X3:Elite. Promising that the universe is shared between modes and then allowing players to freely switch between modes is more so stupid. It's obvious that FD hoped or maybe still hopes that there is no advantage in gameplay to switching between modes and so the shared universe will make sense but that's not the case. For the game to be interesting in the long run, that has to be addressed.
2 simple ways to do that would be to split characters such that your open character is separate from non-open. This has the added benefit of not needing to have separate background simulations. However, I'd still want to see different community goal rewards in place for open vs non-open mode, and the rewards would be locked to that mode.
The other way is different simulations per mode. This is the cleanest because it does away with the facade of a player having a legitimate use for jumping between modes other than to make certain activities easier.
- - - Updated - - -
The cheaters are using the shared galaxy aspect for that very purpose. Or do you not think almost all the massive amounts of cheating isn't going on in solo/group mode ? The very few that stupidly do it in open are the only ones you hear about due to no witnesses available in the other modes. If they didn't affect eachother, there would be no incentive to cheat your way in solo and then be ridiculous in open.
Note, I'm not talking about players moving around modes and doing their own thing. I'm talking about players who are moving around modes to accomplish activities with the purpose of affecting the background simulation either via community goals or by coordination via the faction influence method.
Promising single player was stupid, offline even more so. Creating a massive galaxy where you have no hope of ever becoming singularly significant and then playing it alone is not in any way interesting. It sounds like those players who wanted that wanted to play basically X3:Elite. Promising that the universe is shared between modes and then allowing players to freely switch between modes is more so stupid. It's obvious that FD hoped or maybe still hopes that there is no advantage in gameplay to switching between modes and so the shared universe will make sense but that's not the case. For the game to be interesting in the long run, that has to be addressed.
2 simple ways to do that would be to split characters such that your open character is separate from non-open. This has the added benefit of not needing to have separate background simulations. However, I'd still want to see different community goal rewards in place for open vs non-open mode, and the rewards would be locked to that mode.
The other way is different simulations per mode. This is the cleanest because it does away with the facade of a player having a legitimate use for jumping between modes other than to make certain activities easier.
- - - Updated - - -
The cheaters are using the shared galaxy aspect for that very purpose. Or do you not think almost all the massive amounts of cheating isn't going on in solo/group mode ? The very few that stupidly do it in open are the only ones you hear about due to no witnesses available in the other modes. If they didn't affect eachother, there would be no incentive to cheat your way in solo and then be ridiculous in open.
Last edited:
No, because then we end up with a completely balkanised player base. Open is for everyone. It should be the Town Square of Elite: Dangerous. Obsessive PvP-ers, roleplayers playing psychos and other play styles that are very disruptive to uninitiated players should set up their own private group. Not the other way around.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck. With that said I think in this case it was just someone stealing the idea from EVE code.
- - - Updated - - -
CODE's Achilles' heel.
Maybe next time they will try and be original rather than steal an idea from such a hated group....
They act the same as well. Abuse any exploits they can and run if they're losing the fight. Bunch of cowards.
Last edited:
- Status