I'm sorry, then.
Elite Dangerous is the Largest Empty Sandbox Ever Made
- Thread starter Cosmo
- Start date
- Status
I'm sorry, then.
I'm simply implying that the "knee-jerk" can be interpreted in many (many) ways with many perspectives, dear.
(as I implied with the nerfing X mission types and so forth)
No "harm" meant.
Engineered
I will make a video just for you of me flying in my type7 in open CG outfitted for trade, I will make sure to get intredicted.
I went at the very beginning, solo, didn't kill them… then I went in an alt account and killed them with help. Disclaimer: I'm not a good PvPer…
Edit: as for PvE in general, I too spent countless hours in CZs and HASRes. Got bored
Edit2: GluttonyFang is just awesome. His thread is exquisite.
Last edited:
PVE for me, they are repetitive, they have a behaviour pattern, they are challenging indeed.
You also need to change outfitting just for them, besides there is no point in killing them just gives you 2mil, meh.
I've always been a proponent of this with conditions, however. This has always seemed "unacceptable" to the multipew (PSG's mainly) who wish to keep the "fish in the barrel" context in place.
I'm all for discussing "options", what I'm not for is discussing removals of gameplay in order to favor one over another. I do agree that the BGS and the way it was introduced isn't perfect... but it's also not Solo/PG's fault that it was introduced thus.
I'd be perfectly willing to split off the "affect" BGS has on Open, personally- but to say Open needs all sorts of extra bonuses on top of it is sort of ridiculous, IMO.
Now, (and you can quote me on this) I DON'T profess to speak for all Solo/PG players, either. I ONLY speak for myself- I don't even IMPLY that I speak for anyone else. (which is more than I can say for some on the opposing side...)
This was asked for. Repeatedly. Use mission type, system security, criminal status (even power alignment) as primary factors, with trade/ combat/ exploration rank as secondary. It was roundly refused, as much by vociferous commander response, as it was by Frontier. But it's just easier to nerf AI. And that's what the vocals wanted.
You are going to discover, at some point, Commanders are almost as resistant to change, as Frontier is.
And that rigid mentality is harming all areas of the game. Not only pewpew
I'm simply implying that the "knee-jerk" can be interpreted in many (many) ways with many perspectives, dear.
I see.
Aye, it was definitely repeatedly asked for. As are a lot of the same threads we see popping up to "nerf such and such".
There's actually a good point to be made for Zen principle and "doing nothing", when it comes to knee-jerk reactions, too.
Sometimes, "doing nothing" can be more productive than destructive... just a thought...
As much as I'd love to see some things "changed straight away" in the development course... I do have to step back at times and really think about what such changes mean overall.
It's pervasive; Frontier keeps putting the brakes on the people developing the game, lest it offends someone at some point, and commanders have discovered they can, literally, halt anything and everything if they just scream enough. The momentum behind "maintain the status quo - at any cost", from both Frontier and the player base, is unstoppable.
Obsidian Ant recently expressed the most distilled, salient and clear statement I have seen in a long time - "It's exhausting". It really, really is.
Last edited:
Which makes it all the more imperative that those of us with sense enough to challenge the "screaming voices" do so, instead of giving silent consent.
What was that Edmund Burke quote again? Oh yes, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Hehe. This means absolutely nothing coming from you.
So what sort of compromises are willing to be made from all "sides" of this? We all have to give something in order to receive, this doesn't work only one way.
I do think FD is truly listening- but I also have to wonder if they're just as frustrated with the seemingly rigid stances as we all seem to be.
That's why I suggested they poll all verified game accounts so they can really get some good demographic info and make choices accordingly... because we always end up with threadnoughts that really end up in circles time and time again. We need clear and unambiguous communication from FD in return as to their plan for the game so that we all know where we stand, in return.
It's not going to stop until some compromises are made.
I do think FD is truly listening- but I also have to wonder if they're just as frustrated with the seemingly rigid stances as we all seem to be.
That's why I suggested they poll all verified game accounts so they can really get some good demographic info and make choices accordingly... because we always end up with threadnoughts that really end up in circles time and time again. We need clear and unambiguous communication from FD in return as to their plan for the game so that we all know where we stand, in return.
It's not going to stop until some compromises are made.
Well, if you really want to talk compromise I guess I could give up Private and Solo modes, if that's what it's going to take. Who else wants to go next? Anybody?
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
So heres the deal. I strongly believe this was supposed to happen and here is why.
Pirates, bad guys, or stopping someone from completing an objective like hauling pamphlets for Powerplay, or BGS wars.
Hypothetically speaking. If we only had the Multiplayer part of the game restricted to Open play. People trading to make an impact vs others would most definitely be on the list. The problem is; right now there are two reasons only to go after traders. #1 if you're in competition at a CG taking part in a Fed or Imp side. Stopping their progress. Or BGS/Powerplay wars.
But as you can see all that gets negated by the game modes. So any forms of stopping someones progression is just labelled as "griefing" which is the most thing I have ever came across playing a game.
Looking at it this way. Traders are high value targets, and should be rolling with wings for support.
But instead of giving any meaning to this. We have Space Trucker simulator and any form of PVP thats not consensual is griefing. Even when it comes to powerplay.
So people just use the other game modes to effect the multiplayer experience without being stopped. Min/maxing for hauling only. Removing any need for player vs player activities.
Its not about grinding SALT out of anyone. Its about making player interaction meaningful. And what FDEV have done with the modes all being equal has ruined any means for "Direct PVP" When all the goals for objective can be completed outside of OPEN.
Fix all this and the word Griefer will only be restricted to NOOB Killers, which most of us PVPers go after, [video=youtube;phdhrCG96Tw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phdhrCG96Tw[/video]
The thing is, Ive never hunted anyone outside of a community goal. As a matter of fact thats the only place I have been. I have 2 BILLION in rebuys and only fight other PVPers. I did for a while take the Feds side and killed imperial ships at a CG.
The whole point of PVP in any game is objective control. In this game we have Objective Control and nuking a trader of any kind is just griefing. AND THIS IS STUPID.
It really needs to be fixed. Because the game would be balanced after that. For objective control, for griefing, for PVP, for DEPTH.
But instead we have people dropping walls of text. And begging for their single player game to stay the same. While the multiplayer part of this game suffers.
And because it suffers, we have people crying everytime they get killed. We have people ganking SAG A. We have people killing noobs. We even have people creating their own PVP HUB https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/7eztt3/introducing_the_pvp_hub/
Instead of using powerplay, a game feature made specifically for this.
Fleets are coming soon too. And they can add Fleets and all the cool multiplayer stuff all they want. But until they make the changes above. We will still have griefing. We will still have powerplay being used by a very small portion of this community. And its only use is module hopping from month to month. The BGS Forum fights will still continue, instead of fighting in the game.
So yeah, its really easy to see why it needs to change. Because it would benefit everyone thats engaging in PVP, Direct and Indirect. There would be less grieifing by default.
Ya'll want to effect the BGS vs NPC factions? Go for it. But anywhere there is a Player Faction within that system. Your influence should not mean anything in solo and private. As well as Powerplay.
After that PVP is meaningful. We have something to do. Hotel California BURNS TO THE GROUND. Single and private group players still get everything they want as long as its not related to other players.
Why people argue this is beyond me. The only reason I see why someone would argue it. Is they argue for the sake of it, Or they want to take advantage of the game modes because they know they can be stopped, [video=youtube;cnYXTh4TCVo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYXTh4TCVo[/video]
That video above, not the person but the tactic is EVERYTHING wrong with PVP activities in this game. And the reason the PVP HUB and GCI exists in the first place. Because all other features made for PVP in this game is garbage when you can complete objectives in a mode called SOLO and PRIVATE where you remove yourself from the rest of the playerbase, to effect the player base. Like UA bombing, pamphlet transfers, or system control in Colonia.
And please dont try to pass this off as "well you dont respect my playstyle". The door swings both ways here.
Last edited:
- Status