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

[Harley Quinn]

In answer to the original question 1 is cheating and the other accepted game play by FDev which I happen to disagree with.

Until/unless FDev change their position breaking the rules of the game and cheating will always be worse than doing something officially allowable within game.

 

[WR3ND]

Why is it OK to catch a rash running naked through the jungle?

Some may never know. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[Chrystoph]

Actually, I think we won it in the other thread.

If I remember correctly, most people were simply stating "This is what I think, so this it shall be, End of."

Whereas, we actually made a case.

Except that the case you made ignored any inconvenient facts, thereby making it not a case, but a case of fingers in your ears while you loudly recited, "There is no spoon".

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Except that the case you made ignored any inconvenient facts, thereby making it not a case, but a case of fingers in your ears while you loudly recited, "There is no spoon".

Ssshhh!
We just got him off to sleep.
I don't need another temper tantrum tonight.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Except that the case you made ignored any inconvenient facts, thereby making it not a case, but a case of fingers in your ears while you loudly recited, "There is no spoon".

Pretty safe to say you're reaching quite a bit.

Speaking of inconvenient facts. Let me lay a couple on you.

Here someone combat logs goes into solo and private. Uses the modes, then goes back into open and offers to allow me to blow him up now that hes turned in his merits:
[video=youtube;0oT-wUJ-oa8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oT-wUJ-oa8[/video]

Here someone is deliberately using the modes to attack a player faction when they know we can stop them, just like everyone else:

[video=youtube;cnYXTh4TCVo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYXTh4TCVo[/video]


These are facts. The fact is people are gaming the system and opting out of being defended against.

If you deny or stick up for this type of unbalanced gameplay or behavior in ANY GAME.

Then you are the griefer.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Pretty safe yo say you're reaching quite a bit.

Speaking of inconvenient facts. Let me lay a couple on you.

Here someone combat logs goes into solo and private. Uses the modes, then goes back into open and offers to allow me to blow him up now that hes turned in his merits:


Here someone is deliberately using the modes to attack a player faction when they know we can stop them, just like everyone else:




These are facts. The fact is people are gaming the system and opting out of being defended against.

If you deny or stick up for this type of unbalanced gameplay or behavior in ANY GAME.

Then you are the griefer.

Calling people 'griefers' for choosing to play in a different game mode to you really does your argument no favors, nor does you increasingly shrill insistence that you're right and everybody else is wrong.

But you do you.

 

[Mohrgan]

Pretty safe yo say you're reaching quite a bit.

Speaking of inconvenient facts. Let me lay a couple on you.

Here someone combat logs goes into solo and private. Uses the modes, then goes back into open and offers to allow me to blow him up now that hes turned in his merits:


Here someone is deliberately using the modes to attack a player faction when they know we can stop them, just like everyone else:




These are facts. The fact is people are gaming the system and opting out of being defended against.

If you deny or stick up for this type of unbalanced gameplay or behavior in ANY GAME.

Then you are the griefer.

Hello, my name is Mohrgan, and I am a griefer. Well by the ridiculous definition offered above.

The fact remains: if you act via the BGS, you can be countered via the BGS. You can't hide from the BGS, even when you are shooting me in the face.

 

[Backelaer]

Look man, the whole bgs game just wasn't designed for pvp, as much as you might want it to be. Just accept that.

You just can't always get what you want.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

You just can't always get what you want.

Oh don't!
He'll just come back with:

"If you try sometimes you get what you need"

and then feel like he's won the argument.

Hello, my name is Mohrgan, and I am a griefer. Well by the ridiculous definition offered above.

The fact remains: if you act via the BGS, you can be countered via the BGS. You can't hide from the BGS, even when you are shooting me in the face.

Me too.
Except I'm currently griefing a PMF in Open, because they play in a PG and I'm not able to offer myself up as a sacrifice to them.

 

[Roybe]

Pretty safe to say you're reaching quite a bit.

Speaking of inconvenient facts. Let me lay a couple on you.

Here someone combat logs goes into solo and private. Uses the modes, then goes back into open and offers to allow me to blow him up now that hes turned in his merits:


Here someone is deliberately using the modes to attack a player faction when they know we can stop them, just like everyone else:




These are facts. The fact is people are gaming the system and opting out of being defended against.

If you deny or stick up for this type of unbalanced gameplay or behavior in ANY GAME.

Then you are the griefer.

Wah wah wah! Play a different game that is designed the way you want to play!

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Look man, the whole bgs game just wasn't designed for pvp, as much as you might want it to be. Just accept that.

You just can't always get what you want.

Sure you can. The Keelback can now equip a fighter bay

Hashtag FreeKeely

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Sure you can. The Keelback can now equip a fighter bay

Hashtag FreeKeely

The important word there was 'always', but 10/10 for irrelevance.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

So do people use the modes to their advantage as a attacker against the people they are facing? Or not?

Because those videos show they do like it or not. Its not fair or balanced.

Nothing wrong in asking for changes right?

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

So do people use the modes to their advantage as a attacker against the people they are facing? Or not?

Because those videos show they do like it or not. Its not fair or balanced.

Nothing wrong in asking for changes right?

Nothing wrong in asking for changes.
Asking for changes which take away gameplay options from other people is less likely to be supported - that's the difference between giving the Keelback an SLF and making the BGS Open Only.

 

[Roybe]

So do people use the modes to their advantage as a attacker against the people they are facing? Or not?

Because those videos show they do like it or not. Its not fair or balanced.

Nothing wrong in asking for changes right?

Asking for changes that will never occur is a special kind of beating your head against the wall.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Nothing wrong in asking for changes.
Asking for changes which take away gameplay options from other people is less likely to be supported - that's the difference between giving the Keelback an SLF and making the BGS Open Only.

Fair and balanced comes before anything else in a game though.

The rules should change for the content they are adding to the game. Not allowing someone to defend against an attacker is pretty one sided.

Allowing the attacker to choose the rules of engagement or choose to be stopped over an objective is not healthy.

Like I am a PVPER and I am hurting myself going into open when I play the objective game. Why would I put myself at a disadvantage? Other people damn sure arent either. And thats not fair to the defenders.

The defender is at a disadvantage in every shape and form. They cant be proactive at all. They can only be reactive. They dont get to make a play to stop their opponent. Just undo what they did.

That is not proper gameplay.

Asking for changes that will never occur is a special kind of beating your head against the wall.

Wrong.

 

[Backelaer]

So do people use the modes to their advantage as a attacker against the people they are facing? Or not?

Because those videos show they do like it or not. Its not fair or balanced.

Nothing wrong in asking for changes right?

Ok, I'm gonna try this once more: you CAN fight whoever is interfering with your particular bgs interests. Just do missions, or kill other factions, or run pasangers.

You don't like that? Well tough break. For god's sake, the galaxy isn't there to cater to your every whim.

 

[Backelaer]

By the way, you can 't be pro-active? Hell yeah you can. It even involves killing. A lot. I'm not even gonna get into that any further.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

By the way, you can 't be pro-active? Hell yeah you can. It even involves killing. A lot. I'm not even gonna get into that any further.

Its not a secret murder gets the job done. You're about 12 months behind.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Fair and balanced comes before anything else in a game though.

The rules should change for the content they are adding to the game. Not allowing someone to defend against an attacker is pretty one sided.

Allowing the attacker to choose the rules of engagement or choose to be stopped over an objective is not healthy.

Like I am a PVPER and I am hurting myself going into open when I play the objective game. Why would I put myself at a disadvantage? Other people damn sure arent either. And thats not fair to the defenders.

The defender is at a disadvantage in every shape and form. They cant be proactive at all. They can only be reactive. They dont get to make a play to stop their opponent. Just undo what they did.

That is not proper gameplay.



Wrong.

Making the BGS Open Only doesn't make it fair and balanced.

Murder will still be over-powered.
PvP will still have no positive effect on the BGS - it will continue to be nothing more than a deterrent and will remain avoidable by anyone who understands the game.

Campaigning to address either (or both) of those will get you a LOT of support, even from the anti-OOBGS crowd.
Everybody's game improves and everyone gets access to new gameplay. It's the Keelback thing again.