But that's not why I am in this argument at all. If you read the post above yours, you can read why I enjoy the mode design.
If Combat Logging is a bad thing. Then why is it okay to attack a player faction without being seen?
- Thread starter WorldsGreatestForumDad
- Start date
-
- Tags
- forumpvpchampion
- Status
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I don't want to change anyone's play style. Those who manipulate the BGS from solo change other players playstyle, byt forcing them to do certain gameplay to undo whatever has been done.
Anyway, enough, really, I don't even care about it that much, it's ok as it is, but if someone posts a thread and they have a point, I can't stand by and watch the usual back-patters act like it's the craziest most destructive thing ever said (see, I can project, too).
Everyone engages in PvE. Not everyone engages in PvP. Players who prefer PvP engaging with the BGS have chosen to participate in a PvE based feature.
Some players like PvP and want the game to be changed to support their preference. Some don't. It's been like that since the game design was published at the beginning of the Kickstarter pitch, over five and a half years ago. Frontier's stance does not seem to have shifted* with regard to the single shared galaxy state, experienced and affected by all players, regardless of game mode, in that time. Hence both support for and opposition towards proposals to change the status quo.
*: except in the case of PowerPlay - no announcement has yet been made regarding the outcome of the Flash Topic investigation.
:-D
I thought it was an excellent analogy, and dismiss your opinion out of hand.
Yeh, as someone who is exaclty in the middle (I play pve 90%, but it is critical to me that PvP exists (if it didn't, I'd still be waiting for X4 or SC)), I feel able to sit on the fence and be objective about both. But I don't have a strong enough solution to present in order to further the debate, nordo I think that if I came up with one, that it would be given a fair shake by the majority of contributors to this thread, so that's the end of that (not being a victim, genuinely held belief).
It's not perfect, but it's ok. Worth a try, but meh.
There is no solution to problems that don't exist. You're good.
Oh, it all goes round and round. OK, how about if we agree for a moment to play BGS Open-only, what then? I'm flying about in Open, happily doing "inf" missions for my chosen faction, when I get the idea that someone must be working against me. "Fine, I'll blow them up", I decide, and launch from the station with awesome weapons fitted. Suppose for a moment that I'm really lucky: they're on my platform, in my timezone and in my instance. I check the Contacts tab and see the targets available. But wait, which ones are working against me and which are helping? How shall I find out, ask in "Local"? How will I know who is telling the truth?
Asking for "BGS Open only" is actually asking for something which can't possibly work. There is one, and only one, reason for wanting BGS to be Open-only: that's if you want the whole game to be Open-only. It would make things clearer to at least admit this.
Asking for "BGS Open only" is actually asking for something which can't possibly work. There is one, and only one, reason for wanting BGS to be Open-only: that's if you want the whole game to be Open-only. It would make things clearer to at least admit this.
Powderpanic
Banned
Let us not forget that BGS PVE is indirect PVP.
If you try to argue it is not, that's fine. You are just wrong.
If it wasn't PVP, then this whole solo, open issue would NEVER have come up or keep coming up.
90's is only the most recent to pick up the torch.
I am sure he will burn out soon enough as he realises this game is always going to be fundamentally broken and pointless, run by a team that does not understand multiplayer games.
He might just get banned first, as he gets goaded into posting something and then totally impartially modded with a list of PVP biased infractions.
Let's hope Tencent uses its voice and starts to make Space great again.
Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing
If you try to argue it is not, that's fine. You are just wrong.
If it wasn't PVP, then this whole solo, open issue would NEVER have come up or keep coming up.
90's is only the most recent to pick up the torch.
I am sure he will burn out soon enough as he realises this game is always going to be fundamentally broken and pointless, run by a team that does not understand multiplayer games.
He might just get banned first, as he gets goaded into posting something and then totally impartially modded with a list of PVP biased infractions.
Let's hope Tencent uses its voice and starts to make Space great again.
Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Indeed, there were legends before me.
I actually support this for a number of reasons. I'd make solo a 'personal universe' totally separated from the server (no internet required to play), a truly single player game, only you and the NPCs in your game can affect your bgs. The shared bgs is in open. It's an elegant solution because it gives people the single player game they wanted, MMO people the MMO they wanted, and solved the issue in the thread.
However, once again this isn't going to happen as it would require a core rewrite, assuming it's even realistic to have the procedural generation code run locally.
Since you gave up on this game, I hear No Man's Sky is pretty good.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Offline mode was added to the KS pitch about halfway through, i.e. well after the three online modes with single shared galaxy state were published at the outset, and, sadly, cancelled prior to launch - with not being able to offer the desired game experience with an offline galaxy as the reason.
Everyone who has bought the game has done so on the basis that they both experience and affect the shared galaxy state, regardless of game mode - a feature that has existed from the very beginning as part of the design and is in current advertising for the game.
So, while removing access to an existing game feature may be desirable to some, it will be unpopular with others - as it is equivalent to forcing players into Open to affect the BGS.
.... although, if Frontier were to go down the MMO route, I'd expect that, having learned the lesson from UO, there would be two galaxies - one PvP and one PvE.
Last edited:
words of wisdom
+ entire pvp forum part should be removed also Open play mode should be renamed to "Multiplayer with optional PvP" because it is misleading for players.
They cant deliver normal content, and some guys think they can make good PvP? Pch...
And something on topic. Play as you like, its broken? Use it like other do. Attack player faction without being seen or log off when you want. Its broken for all of us, its not like individual hacker.
...not the game he wants it to be. Yes.
I understand these two concepts:
1. "Combat Logging is a bad thing"
2. "It's okay to attack a player faction without being seen"
But the connecting "then why is..." doesn't apply. It's like saying "If jaywalking is a bad thing, then why is it okay to drive through a green light?"
1. "Combat Logging is a bad thing"
2. "It's okay to attack a player faction without being seen"
But the connecting "then why is..." doesn't apply. It's like saying "If jaywalking is a bad thing, then why is it okay to drive through a green light?"
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It's a common conflation, one thing we know that Frontier consider to be cheating whereas the other thing we know Frontier deliberately designed the game around (but a subset of players don't like it).
its very similar. Both can do without potentially losing something, minimalize/ remove losing effect. With is in multiplayer game, ech, unforgettable. Even in single-player game, "dangerous" effect is lost.
1. When combat logging you lose the encounter, you're not one of the cool kids, probably be insulted somewhere on reddit and will probably be reported to FDev.
2. Playing the BGS in solo or PG does not make you automatically win the BGS war, so you may lose the BGS war.
Last edited:
The game explicitly has three modes that are intended to affect the same BGS. Abstraction of conflict between players who are not in the same mode/instance is intended; it's part of the game. You may not like it. It may not be fair. However, it's implicitly and explicitly allowed and using intrinsic features of the game, as intended, is never going to be a cheat.
Deliberately disconnecting to preserve one's assets or annoy one's foes is entirely different. It's the abuse of an unavoidable reality of the current network model that allows one's out of game actions to have unintended in-game consequences.
The issue is not and has never been one of fairness. The game is not always fair and was never intended to be. However, one situation occurs entirely within the confines of what the game is, while the other requires one operate outside it.
Irrelevant.
If my CMDR is attacked and drives off his attackers, or successfully flees from them by any means that are supposed to be at his disposal, the end result is the same as if I, the player, sever my connection to the game. It's how the result is achieved that matters, not the result itself.
If the results are achived within the bounds of the rules, then the result, no matter what that is, remain legitimate. If the means to that result is in violation of the rules, then those results, no matter how mundane, no matter how much of a given they should have been, are not.
I collect and deliver all of my data in Open!
I also do much of my exploration in a PvP fit corvette, but trade offs are part of the fun...not that it's much of a trade off.
In my personal opinion, it's a glaring issue with the game mechanisms around BGS influence, the log off timer, and the lack of a mode switching cool down...as well as a generally crappy thing to do.
However, it's not against the rules, not cheating, and until the rules change, not something I'll fuss over beyond advocating for the rules to be changed.
- Status