Yep. It's this simple. I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding the concept.
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
Said it before and I'll say it again:
Ditch PMFs and people won't cry about their pixels being stolen.
Ditch PMFs and people won't cry about their pixels being stolen.
I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding that the BGS is for every player in every mode and splitting it up is an exponentially complicated endeavor, and ultimately a complete waste of time and money due to a fundamental component of our plane existence.
That component is TIME itself.... that and the blocking feature.
Hmm, I see a pattern actually.
Person buys game, becomes noob.
Noob gets blown up and adopted by people who blew them up.
Noob gets inducted into the ways of the game by same people
Noob gets brainwashed on Discord through echo chamber and destruction of free thought or opposition opinion
Noob gets taught to grind and hate it.
Noob gets taught about BGS and why to hate it.
Noob gets taught 'carebear' for use in future to dehumanise opposite thought (White Knight is reserved for developed noobs to use)
After a few weeks, approximately 4-6 weeks, noob gets pointed at the forums and a suggestion is made that they post about their ideas and how it affects a noobs game so much
Few pages later gankers start appearing saying things like 'great suggestion' or 'well thought out post' to other gankers or people who think like them
Noob thinks this was all their idea
There's just one thing here I'm having trouble with: "fairly new pilot". It's an amazing coincidence for a newcomer to hit on all the popular tropes so accurately. Alt account?
What term do you suggest I should use besides 'carebear'. Again is the game called "Elite Dangerous" or "Elite Hello Kitty Island Adventure"
Deleted member 110222
D
Has the added bonus of getting rid of some truly ridiculous names.
Making everyone a big hero is a mistake.
... use the term "carebear".
Dangerous means the RANK nothing to do with how "hard" the game is.
Nor is it called Elite: Play MY way and not your way.
Last edited by a moderator:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It depends on the reaction sought. Use of that term is often designed to attempt to elicit a particular response.
The official reason for the name is well known. That some assume that the danger should be offered by other players means that they have ignored how the game was designed.
Last edited:
Deleted member 110222
D
TBH mate, ignoring the name, but if PvP is so meaningless that nobody even bothers, it's completely failed.
Like it or not but within Open, PvP is a thing and I'm ignoring the other modes. You know very well I have nothing but respect for the modes these days, using them all myself... But within Open something has gone wrong. Very, very wrong. And ED has quite possibly the worst implementation of open-world PvP I've ever seen.
And to stress, I'm talking about direct ship battles, not the irrelevant nonsense that is the BGS.
![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
What is the opposite of a carebear, out of interest?
Deleted member 110222
D
Mutant ninja turtles
The word "Dangerous" refers to Frontier's inability to implement supposedly game-defining features that it made up on the spur of the moment to justify a marketing decision.
As far as practicalities go:
- if they have two separate BGSes, one for Open and one for PG/Solo, then people can trivially exploit this (especially with Carriers) by doing the actual BGS-affecting actions in Open but the travel in PG/Solo. (Simplest exploit: earn money in Solo, or for that matter in Open in a quiet system, fly to your station in Solo, log back into Open and sit there using the money to spam donation missions for your opposition ... more advanced exploits would use the fact that the system was in different states - sometimes wildly different states - on each server) Complaints will shift to only ever seeing the opposition when they're safely sitting on a landing pad and taunting them.
- if they have two separate BGSes, one for the current game and one for an entirely separate set of Open-only accounts with no shared progress or ability to switch between them - the only way to stop the exploits of the first one - then the number of players who will use the new BGS will be tiny, and then you will have the joy of expanding forever with no opposition because the next nearest player-backed faction will be 50 LY away. [1] You'll also have no support from 3rd-party tools unless you write your own, and most systems will be stuck in BGS: None due to lack of passing traffic which will make things like trade, mining, etc. less profitable and less interesting.
Broadly speaking the number of people who think this is a good idea is nowhere near high enough to justify Frontier funding an extra full set of servers for it - and no-one is suggesting it be done as an exclusive subscription service at however much Frontier think it would take to break even.
[1] Frontier could, since it's going to be a conflict-focused server, shrink the bubble to about 500 systems for that one, which would avoid that issue. Otherwise you'd be really tough, facing down your complete lack of enemies in Open-only, knocking over systems with five minutes work because you didn't even need to push against random passing traffic, etc. Hardly the competitive environment people envisage.
An apathybull, of course.
TIL it's the "Who Care Bears" and the glare instead of stare.
The Who Cares Bears are a group of villains from the Care Bears comic book series who appeared in the issue 11 story "The Who-Cares Bears". Created by No Heart from four of his Shadows.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I very much doubt that "nobody even bothers" with PvP - however it remains an optional extra for those so inclined with no requirement for other players to engage in it.
It's not limited to Open - it's possible in both of the multi-player game modes.
The gulf between ships optimised for different roles existed before Engineers were introduced - which vastly increased the disparities. We have ships that can be one shotted and ships that seem to take an age to take down - all down to the preferences of the player that configured them.
Then there's the fact that Frontier learned early on that players can't be trusted to earn contested rewards when they can collude instead - hence little in the way of reward for PvP.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Looking at the "500 systems" proposal, an alternative to a separate BGS for an Open only mode might be to permit lock three small chunks of the galaxy, currently unpopulated, one per platform, that could each only be accessed in Open on the specific platform. Factions, Powers, etc. could be seeded into the new mini-bubbles.
Ok, but in the context that you used the term, what is the opposite term? Light has dark. Wet has dry.
Permit-locking would also have the advantage of "no carriers", which would make it easier to have direct competitive play. Carriers could still of course be used to ferry people up to the edge of the area, for convenience.
Might not need a separate one for each platform - big groups are often multiplatform anyway, and they might get crossplay eventually.
They could also permit lock a moderate area - a few thousand systems off to one side - but only populate systems as player groups signed up to it:
- every time a player faction gets added, it's added to a new system and a nearby system is also populated
- existing player groups can apply to move their faction: all their bubble systems are removed, they get added to the new one instead, and home system is updated accordingly