Nope you cannot fry and eat them!awww. look at all those sweet cats
Griefers make open impossible, and how easy the solution is.
- Thread starter NisseNeutron
- Start date
NEVER!
Grilling is healthier.
Could try overcharged G5 Airfryer with low carcinogen experimental. I read Dr. Etienne Dorne uses that combo with his kittens.
Well, not everyone is fine with everyone else's choices. This is not an issue in other games. Allow me to explain.
In EVE, if my friends and I wanted access to a null security system that was occupied by another group, we had a choice. We would talk to them on comms and work something out. We could try to besiege them and cut them off. We could surprise them and take down their infrastructure when intel told us not many were around. Or we could straight up fight them. No matter what though, their gate camps weren't going anywhere unless we did something about them.
The "baggage" that comes with Elite's layered system is that none of this exists. You can choose to win by not fighting.
If you're an AX person like I'm aspiring to be, it's not an issue. If you're not concerned too much with PvP and power struggles, it's irrelevant. If you like drifting through the stars all by your lonesome, taking in the sights, there isn't a problem. However, if what you crave is the wonderful and harsh realities of lawless open play or realistic conflict, then I can see how Elite could become a remarkably frustrating game.
And yet the same term could be used to describe forcing others into conflict. "Baggage", that is. Having more choices is better than none at all, IMO.
This game was never designed to be about universal domination. It was designed as a space flight simulator with universal interaction both by environment and optionally, other players.
Im pretty sure the bush fires were worse. Also the responses were mostly positive (about 2-3rds) as were the independent polls etc in similar ratios. There was a vocal minority tho. Theres a recent proposal that splits things across modes. Id be perfectly happy with something along those lines.
Making the block function comms-only for CMDRs pledged to a Power, and moving modules to Tech brokers, are sensible solutions to a couple of very relevant issues for any OOPP variant. Its fair to say that only the most embryonic suggestions for open-only anything, regard flicking that switch as the only adjustment needed. Most suggestions these days are aiming to fall within the scope of Sandro's proposal (which was conceptually miles ahead of any other proposals Fdev ever floated with the PP community; it has a lot of very cunning elements that mesh beautifully) simply because it gave an indication of the scale of work they might commit to PP.
Last edited:
Thankfully, ED isn't EVE... And there is no real 'Win' whether PvP is involved or not, just a brief lull before change happens again...
...but if one desired exactly this, one would not choose ED as it has modes that allow others to shun your wonderful company...
The lamentation is far too common... even though the game is sold with a shared galaxy among 3 modes... Who is to blame for the frustration Frontier or the player?
Honestly ?, knickers to the lot of them.
They failed at basic pre-purchase research, now after whinging on about the impact of their own inadequate reading skills since 2015 with nobody from FDEV ever wasting any time on it at all they should maybe try to come to terms with what the game they chose to buy actually offered to them in the first place. Seriously they need to get a grip and take responsibility for their own actions, or get someone else to OK all their purchases in future.
Either way its an entirely self inflicted issue that was boring by March 2015, aside from the forum comedy value obviously.
Power struggles are only influenced via playing the BGS, mode is irrelevant to that other than the fun of playing with friends and the excitement of playing with enemies.
Well, that's the thing, right? In one game, you don't have a choice except to deal with others. You know this. So there's no issues. Here, you don't have to, so those who want you to have to make noise. So this game is lugging "baggage" that other games don't have to, because there are no layers and therefore no problems other than the ones that rise up organically as a result of the game's mechanics.
I really do find it weird that a PG can win a war by simply ghosting their way to victory. I'm not mad about it. I'm just surprised at how comfortable most people are with it.
You misunderstand. This isn't how I feel personally. I'm just pointing out that it's the root of a certain amount of discontent.
Okay...you might be right about the fires. Bad taste on my side. And I was one of the more silent forumites that suoported OOPP and to switch modules to a broker.
Now I'm forced to mess with pp just to get the gimmicks and hope for the pp'ers that I don't mess up things too bad for them the next couple of weeks/months.
I understood perfectly - which is why I made the lamentation comment neutral rather than personal... The lamentation is altogether too common, always by those who found the game they bought isn't the game they thought it was...
Heh, same here, I don't have a slightest interest into PP (which quite honestly seems like a mother of all bucket filling fake politics), but there I was. Still have a number of PP modules that I'd like to unlock, but it's so tedious when you aren't really playing it.
I suppose so. In a way. More like people bought a game with mechanics that appeal to them, but which others can simply avoid, thus rendering those mechanics somewhat meaningless, despite them being present. Do you see what I mean?
It's both fascinating and rather axiomatic as to the consistent comparisons between EVE and ED, isn't it?
Over the years, I've seen people consistently deny that "EVE 2.0" or "EVE-in-cockpits" is what people expected, yet with almost every single comparison I've seen, it's similar language and examples being used. Yes, that's exactly what they expected- plus or minus a few features. PowerPlay was never intended nor designed to completely transform the landscape of the ED universe into a universal "domination" game- but rather to give those who wanted to participate in such an optional avenue to channel their own energy. Yet it wasn't good enough, because it didn't have a direct impact on every single player regardless of which mode they chose to play.
As to the blame... well, I think it's rather obvious if some are still expecting EVE 2.0 this many years after release, it's not Frontier's "fault".
Oh...just search the forums how often people demanded OOBGS if OOPP will drop. It wss really terrible and amusing the same time.
This game was sold with the 3 modes. What most of the OO claimers don't want to accept. They thought Elite beiing some kind of FPS-EvEOnline, wich is not. It even wasn't planned for squad-managment. One Commander in One galaxy that gives a damn about him.
I wasn't comparing titles. I was comparing mechanics and gameworlds for the sake of illustrating something that is present in Elite that isn't present elsewhere, which is the option to win a conflict by not fighting. I could have used another example, but I played EVE for 11 years, so I default to that.
Titles, mechanics, gameworlds. Tomato, Tomahto.
My point is it always seems to come right back around to player expectations. Hair-splitting isn't going to change that, either.
BGS manipulation is much more effective if conflict is avoided (apart from CZ's! Even then - not having other players on the side of the opposition ensures that the zone can be won in the most efficient manner) - and efficiency is the key word... PvP conflict reduces efficiency (ignore if it is more fun for now) as the time spent doing pew-pew is not normally productive
You should have been in Carcosa last year, 3 wars, all with no visible opposition as those who 'forced' the wars never - ever - appeared in open... They lost all 3 conclusively, but that is irrelevent...
Last edited: