My home station Somerset Station in I Carinae is having UA issues. I get how it happens. Help me understand the why. What benefit is there to a player group to UA bomb a station? When I fly in open I rarely see players. I suppose they could be in solo, private group or another platform. Would say xbox players affect PC players at the same station?
No matter the platform being played on or the mode being played in it all effects the BGS. So it could be anyone anywhere. On a PC in Solo, PG, or even in Open but different instance. Could be on a console and be the same randomness of which mode they are in.
As for the Why? Well... I have my own thoughts on it and they are not polite to say on the forums.
Could be PG on Xbox, could be Solo on PS4, could be in Open on PC but another instance or play another time to you.
Only Frontier will know where and who it is. The only thing you can do is reinforce the station to make it harder for them / or thwart them.
As for why, well only they know why.
Could be a jerk wanting to mess with people, could be a war between two factions and you've been caught in the middle of it or it could be someone practicing UA bombing and don't know they are having a knock on effect with you.
Without knowing who is doing it, it's rather hard to speculate at the why they are doing it.
The "why" is irrelevant and completely out of your control.
However, taking a trip to the Pleiades to get some meta-alloys to fix the situation is something that's entirely within your control.
I would recommend action instead of speculation if you want to keep your station open
There are two Player-created Factions in there, so I'm guessing they're having a bit of disagreement.
https://eddb.io/system/factions/9661
https://eddb.io/system/factions/9661
when frontier tackled the problem of servicing wildly different playstyles on wildly different platforms, they had the brilliant(tm) idea to just cram them all into the same virtual world database and ruleset and be done with it. pure genius(tm). why aren't you excited(tm)?
Last edited:
when frontier tackled the problem of servicing wildly different playstyles on wildly different platforms, they had the brilliant(tm) idea to just cram them all into the same virtual world database and ruleset and be done with it. pure genius(tm). why aren't you excited(tm)?
It is indeed a great system, allowing player groups to compete with one another regardless of time-zone, platform or mode preference [up]
Its early and the coffee has just gone in so not sure if this was sarcasum or you really believe it. Be a bit like turning up to a football match but the other team is playing on the field two towns away and doing it five hours after you finish.
I understand it but to me if its still a bit backward.
well said
No I rarely use sarcasm on forums as it doesn't come across well.
I don't think it's anything like a football match, tbh. It's more like a video-game designed to be as inclusive as possible, in my opinion.
glad you like it. i'm not very fond of the lowest common denominator approach though and, professionally, it is a poor approach. not even in accessibility matters, where such is appropriate, is it brought to such extremes. it's just gross.
i reckon this allows a portion of the players their fun, and good for them, but it comes at the cost of the deeper and richer game that many others including me expected becoming an impossibility. but, oh well, let's enjoy what we have.
Frontier is a company. They make a game to make money. They make as it accessible to people with different play styles as possible. The more people that buy and play, the more money they make and the more development and longevity we get. They knew exactly what they were doing when they set up modes. True there are some mechanics, such as in PP, that haven't worked out as well as they would like and I am sure they will attempt to address that in time. The answer is not to force an entire swathe of people to play in a different mode and therefore style. They will just leave.
Personally i see nothing 'deeper and richer' in a game that is based on PvP where players with NOTHING to lose indulge in combat - just because they like shooting things. I think thats pretty shallow game play and simply enforces a 'grind' of escalating power acquisition - "Ii must have the best ship to survive". It reduces variety and rewards only one style of player. Period.
Without risk and consequences that matter there will always be those whose idea of 'fun' is just to randomly make life tougher for others even if there is no benefit. The counter to your argument would be to make a game where the consequences of losing your ship is that you LOSE your ship. You commit murder, you get thrown in jail for murder - you dont get out, ever. You get killed ... you stay dead. Now that would be a game where the behaviour of griefers and seal clubbers and gankers is managed by what is acceptable in the community. The consequences of this would be you would lose a lot of players that play in elite because they just like shooting other players but wont accept the morality of our real life world in a game world.
How is driving out that group of players any less fair than driving out the group of players that are perfectly happy not having to deal with that behaviour?
mcdonalds is a company. they make burgers to make money. they make them as accessible and cheap as possible. the more people stuffs that poison into their bodies, the more money they make and the more mcdonalds shops they can open around the planet. they knew exactly what they were doing when they turned a modest hot dog stand at a racetrack in monrovia into a factory chain to dispatch junk food as fast as possible to as much people as possible.
our world seems to love and want junk food. which, dunno, is fine i guess. i'm not even talking about educating people on enjoying proper and healthy food here. it's just, elite didn't need to be it, imo.
Frontier choose to do what they do to include as many play styles as they can.
Macdonalds choose to do what they do to sell as much as they can.
No one forces you to buy either.
I honestly don't understand the point you are making. You don't like mcdonalds? Then do as I do and don't eat there. You don't like the game frontier has set up then don't play it. It's very simple.
You can campaign for those companies to change their 'recipes' as is your right in a relatively free society. But you should expect resistance from those that disagree with you. Most especially you should recognise that when the choices you want to make advantage you and disadvantage others they will resist you strongly. Also of course this isn't a democratic process, frontier own the game and they will choose the way they wish to run it and will make that decision based on what is best for them as a commercial entity. To date they have hung their hat and a major selling point of the game that they support all play styles in a single galaxy.
You want those who play in solo to play in open the way you do.
I don't hear people playing in solo demanding that open is shut down and forcing you to change your play style?
i'll abstain from commenting on this post like i did with the last half of your previous one. not for lack of respect, but because you're making a lot of assumptions and seem to be pursuing a confrontational argument i'm not interested in. i just exposed my opinion and you seem to be very defensive and antagonizing about it, but note you don't have to play it if you don't want to either. actually, you're on the lucky side because frontier happened to please your expectations much more than mine. good for you. but i can still voice my concern, right?
Last edited:
When I fly in open in a remote system, I never see players. That's the way it goes. However, some forumites continue to sing the "blame it on the modes" song.
"Blame it on the modes, baby, blame it on them modes... der der dum doody day..dem modes dem modes, them dry modes....now shake dem skeleton modes!"
the analogy makes no sense at all... Elite is not McDonalds, doesn't operate like McDonalds, nor does it "sell poison" as you seem to think McDonalds does. What Elite does do is offer a way for people to play a game they enjoy their way and to be flexible about it. That you consider that the "lowest common denominator" is puzzling.
it was more an ironic paraphrasing than an educational analogy, but still ...
both are 'companies'
both strive to maximize audience and profits
mcdonalds could sell high quality or original burgers or whatnot. they opt for standarized cheap products that appeal to masses, supported by a heavy marketing campaign, specially aimed at young and infant audience with little gastronomic or nutritional judgement. why else would they give away toys with burgers?
anyway, i guess the point is the desire of maximizing the audience over any other parameter.btw, everything is poison depending on the dose
i'd wholeheartedly recommend you don't abuse industrial fast food, but be my guest ...
while the mode oddity is indeed flexible and makes many 'ways' possible, it is anything but optimal for any of them in particular. the virtual world could be an example of cognitive dissonance precisely because of modes, multiplayer is so-so, pvp is directly disfunctional and solo works fine but could be so much better in many aspects if frontier could have invested in it the time, resources an energy that went instead into the complexity of a multiplayer system that in the end is way below average. same can be said of the effort of compatibility for consoles (and the drop in quality, i know this is a controversial topic but that's just my take on it, no need to go into that right now, you just asked) and although that is a different topic than modes it boils down to the same: more audience instead of a better game.