![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
I have often wondered this myself which then made me ask, why aren't those activities only available in OPEN. If no one in SOLO cares, make it OPEN only,.
Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking
- Thread starter Hole in Head
- Start date
I have often wondered this myself which then made me ask, why aren't those activities only available in OPEN. If no one in SOLO cares, make it OPEN only,.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Apparently because it's "not fair" that all players can affect the game equally using PvE actions from any game mode - when some players want to shoot at players who are affecting "their BGS".
Not that I play with the BGS myself. I have read that others who play in groups do enjoy it.
Without stats we are all talking out of a hole in our heads.
I have to say, when it comes to forcing OPEN mode threads, I always agree with you, but this BGS stuff (I don't really understand it if I'm honest), well, Open players have my sympathies, they make a strong case.
In the context of FD saying be ready, I mean. Its warning you other players can shoot you.
Not at all. 'Git Gud' means building a ship that can stay alive for a few minutes, not fly in a straight line and know what a hollow triangle is. Couple that with being alert in social spaces and it barely registers until you need it.
But its the equality of the outcome- you can pirate an NPC and get goods, but also choose to pirate players- both situations should play out the same (and be subject to the same conditions). NPCs don't log out on you, nor should players. Its why I would not mind a clause that says if you are clean and empty (thus have no reason to be attacked / pirated) you are free to log out, while if you are choc full of LTDs or merits you can't in Open.
They do. It must be like playing with an invisible and untouchable enemy, out to disrupt their plans. But that's life or should I say Elite Dangerous.
I would say that is fair.
Yeah, there must be something in it otherwise people wouldn't be passionate about it.
To me though, the names, faces, factions that operate stations or even control the system? Completely irrelevant. I don't care who the station commander is, who the president of Squirtle World C3AB2 is, I'm likely only in that system because inara sent me there for a mat trader, a good sell/buy price, or for a particular commodity, and I'm not likely to ever return.
I admit, I just don't get BGS.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Everyone affecting the BGS is just as much a core feature of the game as being able to shoot at anything one instances with and being able to choose whether to play among players, or not, as the case may be.
Players who prefer to play in Open "own" the BGS no more, or less, than those who play in Solo and Private Groups.
I'm the same as this, though obviously I know enough to rank up with a mob to get more lucrative contracts. Maybe one day I'll actually investigate it all. Then I'll be furious.
It is too complex for me. I can understand why people like it for its complexity. But like you I am not interested and let it wash over me.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Ah. Well, they might, or might not - it depends on the player. It doesn't say one requires to stick around to the end of any encounter though.
Otherwise known as needing to build their ship in a way other than they'd want to. The only players who get to build the ship they want in that scenario are the attackers - other roles have to compromise to accommodate the attackers.
One may choose to pirate players - one cannot force the player target of piracy to play along. NPCs are provided by the game for our enjoyment, players are not and can remove themselves at any time. Just because one person chooses to engage in an activity does not mean their target is forced to engage in that activity - in this game. We're back to Frontier's application of player choice - the player's choice who to play with, or not, and when to leave, takes precedence over the desire of any player who may wish to play with them - they don't implement inescapable player interactions.
Last edited:
I understand that, but repeatedly we see cries for more meaningful PvP. It only needs a device, an excuse if you like to create that. This would appear to be the perfect device and it is hamstrung by people being able to essentially take part in a war whilst activating 'God Mode'.
The are plenty of solo players that are heavily into maniplulating the BGS and to them it is very important who controls a station.
The open-ony players that engage in a conflict with the solo players are to some extent at a disadvantage in these situations as they could be hindered by other players, whereas the solo players can't.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It needs a device that does not already part belong to players with no interest in PvP.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Players who may be hindered by other players made the choice to play in Open.
Ageed, but does not make what I said any less true.
But you can't then say all modes are equal, because the outcomes are different.
You need a shield that has enough Mj in essence. Thats not really imposing, thats being sensible in a potentially dangerous space- you are not forced to fly about in an HRP packed Cutter with the biggest shield possible.
Its irrelevant about choosing, there is no equality in the outcome if you can interdict and rob an NPC, but interdict a player and they log on you. The trader is playing along by carrying valuables in Open.
Hmm! How about divergent Universes. If we wait long enough until FD no longer supports ED. It was promised that the code would be released so it could be run on a private server. IIRC.
Then everyone could be happy. Sláinte
