It's Happened Again

[kaokao]

It's amazing how many PMFs can be brought down by one player.

That would be amazing, if it were true.

So many incorrect assumptions are being made by respondents in this thread to protect the status quo. That is amazing too.

And yes, we are delivering tons of basic meds to offset the outbreak. What else can we do with this lame design FDev? We have to wait and see who gets tired of the grind first... the biowaste deliverers or the basic meds deliverers.

 

[kaokao]

Also, the fact that people try to do things like this (undermine PMFs) on ED (as awkward and as lamely developed as it is) goes to show that there is interest in competition and conflict among players and PMFs. Go onto Inara and look at the complicated alliance structures among many PMFs (things that we cannot even join in game... all we have that's built in to the game to show our allegiance to a PMF is a squadron tag. Lame). Why are there even alliances at all since it is so difficult to fight for each other? Because people WANT to be able to even if it is not supported in game. It just has to be built into the game proper; the BGS proper would not have to change much if at all.

 

[ebbrell]

I have seen this in places, people making the Bgs move in solo or pg. Shame there isn't much you can do stop them.

 

[SpaceInvader]

What kaokao said.

Also, many people want to be able to bounty hunt other players (mainly hunting so-called "gankers"). Right now the means to do this are nearly nonexistant. That and the fact that the bounty can hide in Solo\PG indefinitely. So there is that too, not just what kaokao mentioned... adding to interest in game-supported player conflict.

 

[Bloodsign]

Not everyone can play in Open when you play on a console. See funds for some families like mine the $120 a year could be use for better things. Sorry to float your boat. Pay to play is not an option I can afford.

Yes, this is a very valid concern. Sadly all the consoles rip off players for online content access; it's a complete scam and should be illegal. You're already paying for internet; why should you have to pay more for a device that you already own to access the internet you are already paying for? It's criminal.

FDev still definitely needs to work out the instancing and cross-platform issues though. That integration is essential for the health of the franchise, IMO.

 

[Misty_Dark]

That would be amazing, if it were true.

So many incorrect assumptions are being made by respondents in this thread to protect the status quo. That is amazing too.

And yes, we are delivering tons of basic meds to offset the outbreak. What else can we do with this lame design FDev? We have to wait and see who gets tired of the grind first... the biowaste deliverers or the basic meds deliverers.

So what would you do if you saw them in open? kill them? Please enliughten the rest of us what you would do, and why and how that would benefit your situation.

 

[Misty_Dark]

What kaokao said.

Also, many people want to be able to bounty hunt other players (mainly hunting so-called "gankers"). Right now the means to do this are nearly nonexistant. That and the fact that the bounty can hide in Solo\PG indefinitely. So there is that too, not just what kaokao mentioned... adding to interest in game-supported player conflict.

Sop bounty hunt a ganker is impossible? To become a ganker, you have to play in open... (unless you infiltrate some private groups), so gankers already play part of their time in open...What does that have todo with the "suggestion"?


I am still waiting for you top explain what you expect todo to the other side... say nasty words? kill them? or what? and if you are after killing them, how would that HELP your faction?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The missions which cause Outbreak reliably (assuming you have an Agricultural system here) tend to also boost the faction's influence. The ability to run Basic Medicine trades at about 4.5k/tonne profit is a very easy way to boost influence - and may attract other independent players to do this to help you out. Outbreak has a very long pending and recovery period, so no matter how much they do, 80%+ of the time you'll be free from it anyway, and it doesn't cause any long-term damage to the faction.

Inducing Outbreaks is an incredibly ineffective way to "undermine" a faction - just thank them for their assistance and get on with whatever you'd do if they weren't helping out.

And other than the mind-numbing grinding of the BGS, which we (PMF members, although maybe most people too) all hate doing

But ... I think this is maybe your actual problem. If you find the actions needed to influence the BGS grindy and boring, maybe having a PMF isn't really for you?

 

[Northpin]

If you find the actions needed to influence the BGS grindy and boring, maybe having a PMF isn't really for you?

*For these types of Players, FDev should develop an Elite Coaster or Planet Elite type of game, where the player does not grind directly. Just builds and manages the galaxy


*Joking - only partially tho

 

[MickyG1982]

Surely you'd just drop to solo / pg & inflict the same damage to the opposition using the same tactics?

some of you drop off your medicine, others go on the offensive...

 

[Rat Catcher]

So if you let the system go into outbreak the chances are that the HGE's will contain PI's - almost worth it for the 'hard to get' stuff - think of the G5DD's

Seriously though, as already said, you can only oppose by playing the BGS game yourself - sorry

 

[tolm]

Again... someone is trying to undermine our PMF system by delivering biowaste to it, trying to cause the system to go into "outbreak". And other than the mind-numbing grinding of the BGS, which we (PMF members, although maybe most people too) all hate doing, we can't do anything about it. It is SO frustrating FDev!

We would like to be able to reliably confront our aggressors head-on, in person, in Open. But they are untouchable, hiding in Solo\PG.

The division of players into Open-Solo-PG is my single biggest gripe about this game and why I don't recommend it. I want to be able to directly confront (i.e., PvP) people who try to undermine our player made faction systems. I know there are other obstacles (poopooty p-2-p instancing, no cross-platform play), but those could be fixed along with the Open-vs-Solo thing.

FDev, I know you can come up with a good solution... something better than what the players can think up. Please do so.

Even in Open - if the majority of what I hear is to be believed - your chances of encountering those specific folks is very, very small.

 

[tolm]

That would be amazing, if it were true.

So many incorrect assumptions are being made by respondents in this thread to protect the status quo. That is amazing too.

And yes, we are delivering tons of basic meds to offset the outbreak. What else can we do with this lame design FDev? We have to wait and see who gets tired of the grind first... the biowaste deliverers or the basic meds deliverers.

Isn’t that just how the BGS “game” works?

 

[tolm]

Why is it that there are certain people on this forum who seem to think that their financial situation should be taken into account when considering issues like the OP is presenting? Ultimately, the vast majority of players have a means of playing in OPEN.

I think it's valid to ask why the majority of players (on Steam, and other platforms) should have their OPEN playing experience affected negatively to account for players who choose to play in SOLO - either deliberately (and use SOLO for the type of problematic undermining activities this thread seeks to discuss) , or as a result of their personal financial choices and issues. Ultimately, financial considerations of players - being able to access OPEN - is not, in my opinion, a valid argument against Frontier doing something to prevent SOLO players engaging in the activities described. The simple solution is to abolish SOLO.

And, I'm quite positive Frontier make clear that an internet connection is needed to play this game at the point of purchase. If some console company, XBOX, PlayStation - whatever - decide to charge extra for greater internet access using the console, that should not be used by such console owners as a mechanism to try and claim that certain features should not be implemented or changed in the online game: Elite Dangerous. The issue, in reality, is not with Frontier - it's with Microsoft or Sony. Such players affected should lodge complaints with the relevant company and seek to have the pricing/policy changed. Otherwise, vote with their feet and choose another option that isn't as expensive.

I may get bother for stating what I just did - by the 'hidden hand'. However, I believe that if someone is making such claims, I should have the right to respond to such claims.

FDev have marketed the game as being playable in Open, PG or Solo. At no point did they say “you must play in Open to do X, Y or Z”. If you want to oppose someone’s influence, you do the reverse of whatever they are doing, ED is predominantly a simulation/strategy/grind game, not one on-one PvP.

If you’re not happy with that, you could equally “vote with your feet”

All IMO, obviously.

 

[tolm]

That's correct. However, the thrust of my comments were directed at the argument regarding individuals who need to obtain further access to the internet to play in OPEN. The point being, that's not a serious argument (in my view) to counter the issues that OPEN players, factions, squadrons, etc., face when met with opposition from SOLO players, groups, etc.

Both Sony and Microsoft charge around $60 a year for “online multiplayer” access. ED is sold as “requires an internet connection” but not as “requires online multiplayer access” since the Solo mode does not require that additional subscription. Changing that would be hugely unfair on anyone who has already bought the game and does not wish to have to pay extra every year to continue to play it.

 

[tolm]

Again, the issue is not with Frontier - it's due to the policies of Microsoft and Sony. Still, I doubt Frontier will take such a step (revenue is their primary concern - sell as many units as possible and to as wide a player group as possible, also) as they want to encourage the console 'kiddies' to buy the game.

I’m 42 and play on PS4.

 

[tolm]

'Console Kiddie' - it's not a reference to a person's age...

Really? Okay, my bad, seemed you were implying all console players were teens.

It definitely came off a bit “I’m better than you because I’m on PC”, though.

 

[Jmanis]

I think it's valid to ask why the majority of players (on Steam, and other platforms) should have their OPEN playing experience affected negatively to account for players who choose to play in SOLO - either deliberately (and use SOLO for the type of problematic undermining activities this thread seeks to discuss)

Here's the thing though; Outbreak is not a negative state in that it does not cause problems for a faction. If anything, it's a good state to have happen, and the OP (and their aggressor) don't get this..

It's a "negative" state in terms of it's connotations of human suffering and plague, but in BGS terms it's a good state.

• Food becomes illegal, so more money can be made by smuggling it
• Medicine prices go through the roof (=~ 4k profit per tonne)
• Mission boards become more homogenous; instead of "supply random widget X which the station doesn't stock", the faction's board gets filled with "Supply medicines", so you can pre-empt the board with a load full of medicines. You also get return delivery missions from stations with medicines which always target the positive effects at your faction.

All these mean you can get some seriously good influences for your faction when it's in an Outbreak state. Like Ian alluded to, if I were the Op, I'd be thanking them if they were genuinely causing outbreak, because it's a very useful state to be in.

As a contrast, I hate the positive economic states (Boom, Investment). They tend to fill the boards with mining missions, and primarily produce mining missions, which are slow and ineffectual to achieve. I much rather a None state (for both economy and security) because it generates more Installation Scan/Power Plant Destruction missions, which are generally worth more influence, drop the influence of neighbouring factions, and still pay quite well.

The fact the OP has their nose out of joint, and their so-called aggressor is bragging about causing the Outbreak shows neither party actually understand what the BGS is or how it functions.... sadly this is a problem for any Open-only BGS proponent. In every single livestream FD have re-iterated that the BGS is about creating a living, breathing universe which all player actions impact, not for creating balanced, group vs group PvP content (because the BGS is most definitely not balanced).

 

[tolm]

Your perception is accurate. PC users are, in some quarters, referred to in the pejorative as the 'Master Race'. I'm a PC user.

Generally, 'Console Kiddie' is also used in the negative to refer to someone who thinks consoles and console games are the 'bee's knees' - superior to the PC/games - refusing to accept that, generally speaking, PC games are superior, and generally more difficult (Elite: Dangerous, due to the influence such 'kiddies', as well as a certain type of PC player - the Flight Simulator enthusiasts who probably enjoy a bit of train spotting too - is, sadly, an exception to the general rule...).

Well, I’d be on the Mac if they’d supported Horizons so that outranks the lot of ya.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Why is it that there are certain people on this forum who seem to think that their financial situation should be taken into account when considering issues like the OP is presenting? Ultimately, the vast majority of players have a means of playing in OPEN.

I think it's valid to ask why the majority of players (on Steam, and other platforms) should have their OPEN playing experience affected negatively to account for players who choose to play in SOLO - either deliberately (and use SOLO for the type of problematic undermining activities this thread seeks to discuss) , or as a result of their personal financial choices and issues. Ultimately, financial considerations of players - being able to access OPEN - is not, in my opinion, a valid argument against Frontier doing something to prevent SOLO players engaging in the activities described. The simple solution is to abolish SOLO.

And, I'm quite positive Frontier make clear that an internet connection is needed to play this game at the point of purchase. If some console company, XBOX, PlayStation - whatever - decide to charge extra for greater internet access using the console, that should not be used by such console owners as a mechanism to try and claim that certain features should not be implemented or changed in the online game: Elite Dangerous. The issue, in reality, is not with Frontier - it's with Microsoft or Sony. Such players affected should lodge complaints with the relevant company and seek to have the pricing/policy changed. Otherwise, vote with their feet and choose another option that isn't as expensive.

I may get bother for stating what I just did - by the 'hidden hand'. However, I believe that if someone is making such claims, I should have the right to respond to such claims.

I mean if you now go down the rabbit hole of why should players in solo affect players in open... when we can twist the same arguyment around and why should players in open affect players in solo? that argument goes in both directions...


Perhaps you will enlighten the rest of us why BGS action should only be "allowed" in open then? and how would that improve anything?
I mean, what would be the proper action if you found a "potential" enemy delivering biowaste to your system? Would shooting that player into pieces really be any beneficial to your faction? as that is just about the only real action you can do against another player...