If Combat Logging is a bad thing. Then why is it okay to attack a player faction without being seen?

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

The Replicated Man

T
Just spitballing here, but:

Make PP semi-OO, with a 50% penalty for playing outside Open.
Add a mechanism where a kill in PvP gives the attacker whatever number merits the destroyed ship was carrying, so destroying a trader carrying 500 merits actually MEANS something.

That would seem to give players the option to avoid PvP, but still be effective (albeit much less so) while giving PvP a potential positive impact rather than just being a blocking tactic.

The idea has potential, but I believe it's still avoiding the main issue.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
So why not just split it? Leave BGS as it is, but make PP open only: as FDev have already stated that it was designed to spark player confrontations in the first place.

Given Sandro's investigative Flash Topic, and the fact that PowerPlay is the only feature being considered for such a change, that may be what Frontier might do. I expect they know exactly how many Solo / PG players would be affected by such a change but consider that it would be "worth it" from the perspective of the game as a whole as it would offer a mode differentiated feature aimed at providing "meaningful" PvP.

Whether they will do it and, even if they do, whether it will be successful remain unknowns at this time.
 

Deleted member 115407

D
Obviously some of the engagements in Elite are meant for fights over territory. However the attacker can simply opt out of being attacked back or defended against. With no need to combat log at all.

Why is combat logging such a big deal, when people have the option to remove themselves from the people they are attacking to begin with?

Which one is the bigger problem here?

It's not OK. People should man up and operate in open when operating against other players.
 
It's not OK. People should man up and operate in open when operating against other players.
People should not confuse a game as a medium where people can "man up".

This might sound completely bonkers, but some people do not measure their manliness by the way they play a game. A game. Pixel spaceships, remember? Some people actually play them to enjoy themselves. :)
 
If I were to play POOP, the increase in chest hair volume would rip open my shirt!
Unacceptable.
 
Not to mention that some of them are not men, so Cowgirl up? um Woman up?

Nah it could be that some folks should just let everyone else play the game the way they want.

Combat logging (ungraceful exit) is determined by FDev to be an exploit and not a good thing.
Playing the game in a mode other than Open is how the game was designed so what is the issue?
If I recall correctly SDC won a BGS war against the Mobius PNF (not to be confused with the PG) from open so it seems to be pretty working pretty well. Sun Tzu would be proud!
 
I think the sense of ownership is stretched with the current state of the game.

The factions can be player named, but they aren’t really owned. Factions operate the same in the simulation regardless of where the name came from. The naming by players seemed more like a nice treat by FD. Some players put tons of time into the sense of “ownership” which is fine, but here aren’t really mechanics specific to that style of play.

So currently mode choice works the same for all factions linked to the BGS, player and dev names are just labels. Nobody’s saying it’s OK to attack a player faction. They just work like every faction, because that’s how the game was designed before players tried to make it into something more.

Once true ownership with assets and mechanics are introduced, I think the OPEN/SOLO will really need a serious evolution. Perhaps with Squadrons?
 
OOPP isn't going to address any of the issues with PMFs and the BGS.
This isn't about PvP wanting something meaningful to do, it's about people wanting to use PvP to win BGS conflicts. Saying "You can do PP instead" isn't going to satisfy anyone.

If this is what these people want...then why aren't they screaming for a PVP bucket in the BGS? THAT'S the only way to make this work for the PVP people. This way, they can at least have their cake (i.e. having shooting someone in the face ACTUALLY mean something).
 
If this is what these people want...then why aren't they screaming for a PVP bucket in the BGS? THAT'S the only way to make this work for the PVP people. This way, they can at least have their cake (i.e. having shooting someone in the face ACTUALLY mean something).

I've been saying this for a looooong time now.
There's even a suggestion for how it could work (in PP) on the previous page - but somebody derailed the discussion by using the words 'man up'.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I think the sense of ownership is stretched with the current state of the game.

While player groups can have Factions inserted into the game, they are as mentioned, treated by the game just the same as NPC Factions - with no control whatsoever over who can become allied with them, etc..

The factions can be player named, but they aren’t really owned. Factions operate the same in the simulation regardless of where the name came from. The naming by players seemed more like a nice treat by FD. Some players put tons of time into the sense of “ownership” which is fine, but here aren’t really mechanics specific to that style of play.

Indeed.

So currently mode choice works the same for all factions linked to the BGS, player and dev names are just labels. Nobody’s saying it’s OK to attack a player faction. They just work like every faction, because that’s how the game was designed before players tried to make it into something more.

Some players want to change the game to suit their preferences - however not all players want the same thing.

Once true ownership with assets and mechanics are introduced, I think the OPEN/SOLO will really need a serious evolution. Perhaps with Squadrons?

Given that Frontier are introducing Squadrons, not simply allowing players to exert control over Factions, that suggests that they will be separate features - with the consequence that it is unlikely, in my opinion, that Squadrons will control anything other than their list of members / ranks (and, in time, their Fleet Carrier, if and when that has been introduced).
 
I chuckled when I re-read the portion that states that the defending Faction could use Solo / Private Groups to defend while the attacking Faction could not - that does not seem to be consistent with the "Open Only" philosophy.

Yeah, that's what is known as compromise.. not something that is big around here I admit. Very well.. No defending in private groups/solo. Better?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
It's not OK. People should man up and operate in open when operating against other players.

Really?

That's at least as absurd as suggesting that playing a video game, in the comfort and safety of their preferred gaming environment, requires "bravery".

It's a video game - played for "fun", not a rite of passage.
 
Given that Frontier are introducing Squadrons, not simply allowing players to exert control over Factions, that suggests that they will be separate features - with the consequence that it is unlikely, in my opinion, that Squadrons will control anything other than their list of members / ranks (and, in time, their Fleet Carrier, if and when that has been introduced).
Basically useless stuff which everyone is waiting for. I dont be even surprised.
 
When I play chess, i win by punching my opponent in the face and then taking a dump on the board. I mean, its not how chess was designed to be played, but i win!

But at least in chess you can see your opponent and what they're doing right?

Currently this is the chess board in Elite dangerous:


ztfi
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom