I think it all needs a lot of tweaking. It's still not very clear how most game elements translate into 'real life' stuff.
Hostile from fighting in CZ - no missions taken
- Thread starter Mangal Oemie
- Start date
I think it all needs a lot of tweaking. It's still not very clear how most game elements translate into 'real life' stuff.
Maybe we'll get the chance. Until then, my example is still better than just making stuff up.
Ignore my earlier point, didn't know you'd done something from no assets. Apologies.
To be fair this CZ rep change hasn't been in effect since the beginning of my example but I think it's still pretty strong. In fact, it's even more solid because we were very careful to retain access to stations we needed to be effective.
I mean, if you're going to take actions that leave you at the bleeding edge of hostile reputation and then get upset when a small change punishes you for that I'd say it's time for a more well rounded BGS strategy.
Like leading a Thargoid Interceptor up to Colonia?
Firstly, I haven't ever met you, and I'm almost certain you don't know me - your assumption that my issue here is 'about me' or about my current gameplay as opposed to my feelings towards how this game progresses are misguided - I have supported the Alliance for a few weeks, actively for one week - I have played the game for years.
I can't quite understand your comment about hypothetical or non-hypothetical - what is it about my hypothetical scenario that doesn't highlight imbalance?
I don't see anyone making anything up, the change to the game is confirmed? If you can't see imbalance from the evidence in this thread and your own knowledge of the BGS, then I don't know what to suggest to you. And if you understand the concept of imbalance but are suggesting one side having an advantage the other doesn't isn't imbalance, then there is no point in continuing the conversation.
And if you were facing the same number of player opponents as their were Reapers, the difference in time spent in CZs would ultimately stack against you to the point at which you wouldn't have been able to "get the job done" - even with the same amount of effort.
You don't have to be so hostile towards people you don't know - if you don't agree, great, but you're showing no sensible arguments to back up that view and just jumping to personal comments.
Oh my.
I have! Seems OK.
The game has had defender-advantage for elections for a very long time (defender can get trade + exploration points, attacker can't)
And in a true draw scenario in a war, no assets change hands, so the advantage is still with the defender who gets to keep their stuff.
This is certainly a more severe case and might well have stronger consequences than Frontier intended it to ... but some level of defender-advantage is hardly new.
What's the point of having a castle if the Hand of God forces you to fight on perfectly level ground beyond the ramparts?
Yep whatever side anyone takes on this argument it's gonna have to be about degrees and not either/or types.
Eh? This change only happened the day before yesterday? Where were you handing in your bonds? Was the station shooting at you?
As for the teamwork, dedication and focus, did you forget what gard does? Why are you being so clicky about this? For me it's purely mechanical.
WHOOPS! I need to eat some crow. The patch dropped May 2nd (right?) and the conflict I referenced ended on May 1st. I think what confused me was us taking massacre missions and having our reputation drop because of that.
Massive pie in my face aside since we were working the conflict with our reputation in the toilet anyway conflict zones affecting reputation was moot. Based on that I'm not convinced this is a bad change but I'll be happy to adjust my tune if future experience demands it.
Regarding your final comment I wasn't speaking about GARD specifically, it's more the general tendency I see of folks like AEDC to work the meta and not the game. Makes it had for me to take them seriously about these matters.
Fact is I'm OK with imbalance and don't mind losing because of it. I'm cool with being wrong too (as you can see above). Just another problem to work, nothing more.
Regarding any hostility you're misreading passion. But hey, you just "met" me too!
Basically my only thing, and this is technically an objection that could have been made before the change, is that it makes no sense for hostility with a controlling faction to result in being barred from accessing a station when the faction they are at war with also resides inside that station. If it's still possible for them to live there in the first place while being at war with a faction that also lives there, it should still be possible for you to dock there.
Now that I've had a chance to think about the situation, and admittedly it'll be academic until I get back from Distant Worlds II, but I'm still liking this change, even if it can potentially make removing a controlling faction from power harder. In the past, when I've helped brave freedom fighters against the cruel Galactic Federation, as a consequence of my preferred BGS strategy, I'd end up either Allied or Friendly with the local Feds.
Now, if I want maintain access to the Feds' station while I'm busy killing their ships, I feel like I'm going to need "blackmail material" more than ever.
"SWA028 - You have some nerve showing up here, after blowing out ships out of the sky. Now get out of here before I blow you out of the sky!"
"Are you sure you want to do that Control? Remember that thing I helped you with two weeks ago? It would be a pity if someone told the local police about it..."
"..."
"..."
"SWA028 - you are cleared to land on docking bay 04."
Now, if I want maintain access to the Feds' station while I'm busy killing their ships, I feel like I'm going to need "blackmail material" more than ever.
"SWA028 - You have some nerve showing up here, after blowing out ships out of the sky. Now get out of here before I blow you out of the sky!"
"Are you sure you want to do that Control? Remember that thing I helped you with two weeks ago? It would be a pity if someone told the local police about it..."
"..."
"..."
"SWA028 - you are cleared to land on docking bay 04."
This is the most sensible argument I've seen opposed to the change in the thread. I stated earlier that I think it just makes sense for them to stop letting you dock if you keep shooting at them as soon as you restock/repair....but you raise an excellent counter point.
Yeah I mean I dont want to get into deep arguments about "realism" but I think it would be a good idea if Frontier at least made some decisions behind the scenes about how their world "works," and then take some steps to make sure all of their play mechanics reflect the underlying fiction or at least don't contradict it.
My picture of inter-faction warfare in the Elite universe is that it's somewhere between a soccer match and ancient African inter-tribal warfare where it's more of a formalized ritual conflict with a human life toll attached, but not the same thing as contemporary war where we try to claim territory and kill people off at all costs. A lot of ritualized tribal warfare involved opposing tribes showing up to an agreed upon location and squaring off against one another in a formalized way which was brutal and dangerous but still constrained by a set of agreed upon rules. I feel like this is the only analogy for Conflict Zones that makes any sense.
Denizens of the said station have residency permits. Mercenaries don't, and if the do not behave, they get shot at