I don't kill players or even engage in PvP so this is completely false in my case. To me the spirit of the BGS wasn't meant to be a grind fest. You disagree. You would do well to quit it with the armchair psychology and the blanket statements. It's really offensive and you weren't even arguing with me. You assume too much and I've been on these forums for years too. YOU seem to be the one who needs to put words in others' mouths to make the argument you want to argue against.
Nerf BGS effects for Solo & Private
- Thread starter Random Chaos
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hotelcalifornia
This would fix the issue. Sometimes divorce is the only option, we don't want to play the same game anymore.
In any online game, goals and designs of the developer team change. Whatever was "bought into" before, remember that you don't own it. And you certainly don't control the future.
If you don't engage in PvP or kill other players, how can it even matter what game mode/platform/instance someone else plays in when if come to goods delivery CG/II? You just admitted that you would not be trying to stop them, so what is the difference? You not seeing them make the actual deliveries if they are on a different platform game, mode, or instance changes what exactly?
Put your vitriol that I dared call it like I saw it aside, and make a clear case for why it changes anything. As far as I can see, all playing in a mode other than open does is take away some fun for the PvP players lying in wait every time there is a goods delivery CG/II. It keeps nothing but a tiny fraction of goods from reaching the target stations.
I don't care how long you have been here, make your arguments stronger.
Last edited:
So? Fly in Solo too and undermine back.
They are using the tools given, how can you complain about it when you refuse to do the same?
There is nothing constructive in this thread, nor other threads like it.
It is just more of the same Open (fallaciously called PvP mode by some - it is not that at all) Only/Biased flavoured PvP centric kitsch that serves no-one except the PvPers. FD designed their product so PvP is entirely optional with the fundamental principle of all modes being considered equal. FD have repeated their commitment to this basic ethos time and time again yet there are at least some PvPers that continue to try to mutate ED into EvE in essence - no thank you.
We probably never did.
But people who use modes play the game as it was designed and advertised, while you want to play something else. Yet, Instead of actually playing something else, you're trying to convince everybody that they should support changing this game into some other game.
As you said -sometimes divorce is the only option.
It's not wife's fault when her husband discovers he doesn't like bre@sts. He shouldn't try to force her to get rid of them and grow a mustache.
So are you going to pay for Console users if it setup this way? If no. Then the Idea a fail. If it not fair for everyone then the idea is a FAIL.
I can't turn every sentence into a paragraph to explain what i mean so I rely on your perspicacity somewhat. I like Open. I dont go looking for PvP or fight back much if it happens. I enjoy the noticeable added risk at a CG. I'm not bloodthirsty but it annoys me to no end that the nature of the BGS is to invisibly out-deliver the other guy. So if that's your thing, having a seperate PvE galaxy where "you guys" can deliver the BGS around to your heart's content with all the NPC safety you desire.
Meanwhile, while I dont engage in it I would most definitely be on the PvP server, RPing to my heart's content. Itd be nice if the nature of manipulating the BGS wasnt so hard on my suspension of disbelief to the point where I feel its a half-baked feature, or maybe I'd bother with a significant part of the game. So I hope that clarifies where my horse is in this race despite my cowardly ways. I'm not some antisocial sociopathic monster. Fair?
Combat could be made relevant to the BGS by timed mission windows, intercept beacons and POIs. Instead we have cloaked ships doing the majority of the work. Free cloaks. It only makes sense to use your free cloak. Which makes (let's be generous and split it down the middle) half of those who participate, or would, not get their way because its fundamentally incompatible with what seems to me to be a half baked design excluding much of its potential that would allow them to have relevance. I'm making an educated guess based on the rest of the features/placeholders and the pattern they suggest, not a statement of fact so I'm sorry I have no citations but that doesn't prevent it from being an opinion, perhaps an informed one in regards to this subject.
And I mentioned how long I've been on this forum as a way of saying we've been over this a million times, not that I deserve some sort of consideration of seniority. I hate that stuff.
To be fair, I think the general durability of ships makes PvP rather dull and meta but that's another subject, though possibly a symptom of the same problem. The game is trying to be two games in this regard and its asymmetrically in favor of solo.
You see why I have to be brief with what I say or every sentence becomes a paragraph, the first two or more just to justify things I say. Man, forums are tiresome. Thanks for going easy on me.
Meanwhile, while I dont engage in it I would most definitely be on the PvP server, RPing to my heart's content. Itd be nice if the nature of manipulating the BGS wasnt so hard on my suspension of disbelief to the point where I feel its a half-baked feature, or maybe I'd bother with a significant part of the game. So I hope that clarifies where my horse is in this race despite my cowardly ways. I'm not some antisocial sociopathic monster. Fair?
Combat could be made relevant to the BGS by timed mission windows, intercept beacons and POIs. Instead we have cloaked ships doing the majority of the work. Free cloaks. It only makes sense to use your free cloak. Which makes (let's be generous and split it down the middle) half of those who participate, or would, not get their way because its fundamentally incompatible with what seems to me to be a half baked design excluding much of its potential that would allow them to have relevance. I'm making an educated guess based on the rest of the features/placeholders and the pattern they suggest, not a statement of fact so I'm sorry I have no citations but that doesn't prevent it from being an opinion, perhaps an informed one in regards to this subject.
And I mentioned how long I've been on this forum as a way of saying we've been over this a million times, not that I deserve some sort of consideration of seniority. I hate that stuff.
To be fair, I think the general durability of ships makes PvP rather dull and meta but that's another subject, though possibly a symptom of the same problem. The game is trying to be two games in this regard and its asymmetrically in favor of solo.
You see why I have to be brief with what I say or every sentence becomes a paragraph, the first two or more just to justify things I say. Man, forums are tiresome. Thanks for going easy on me.
It still does not mean that it cant or should not change.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I was pointing out that Frontier have stuck to their published design, with regard to the BGS, for over seven years and reiterated their stance quite clearly about a year ago.
Some things may change, yes. Some things are less likely to.
I think in the context of this discussion - nothing should change.
As @Robert Maynard and myself have pointed out, FD have made their position clear regarding all modes being considered equal in regards to the BGS - It is not a requirement to have to tolerate direct PvP nor should it be made one. Personally, I think PvPers in general should stop pushing their PvP centric agenda with the blatant goal of penalising anyone who shuns Open (or perhaps PvP in general) for whatever reason.
Just because you engage in a specific mode does not mean you are more deserving of better rewards, all modes are equal in ED as far as FD is concerned and they should stick to their guns on that one (at least some of us bought ED because of this) and deep six threads like these.
This agreement right here should be a very clear indication that it is a bad idea.
Perhaps the Devs should create a 'nice' system, with a closed boundary, specifically aimed at PvP players enjoyment - you know, same principle as the beginners area - where they can show off their huge epeens to eachother and have a 'jolly good time'...
It would be a great idea if it didn't kill piracy too... /s
It would be a great idea if it didn't kill piracy too... /s
It's just wind...
The only practical benefit of PvP in a BGS war is psychological. Time spent patrolling your system looking for those nasty enemies is time better spent supporting your own faction.
That's not to say that you shouldn't sieze the opportunity if it happens to present itself, but that's happened precisely once to me in all my time playing this game, and I know damn well that it wouldn't have stopped a determined opponent who could have switched to solo - at most, someone who's doing casual BGS might decide the system is more trouble than it's worth and move on when they find that there's opposition. I wouldn't expect it to work against an active group with their own PMF.
In any case, if there was to be a solo/private penalty on BGS actions, I wouldn't want a flat weighting on them. Why should it be harder to reach the inf cap in a system that no other players are active in any mode? At least weight it with something like "if inf cap reached, solo/private buckets are weighted by some formula according to the ratio of private and open actions" or something so private groups can do their thing unhampered unless they're actually opposed in open.
That's not to say that you shouldn't sieze the opportunity if it happens to present itself, but that's happened precisely once to me in all my time playing this game, and I know damn well that it wouldn't have stopped a determined opponent who could have switched to solo - at most, someone who's doing casual BGS might decide the system is more trouble than it's worth and move on when they find that there's opposition. I wouldn't expect it to work against an active group with their own PMF.
In any case, if there was to be a solo/private penalty on BGS actions, I wouldn't want a flat weighting on them. Why should it be harder to reach the inf cap in a system that no other players are active in any mode? At least weight it with something like "if inf cap reached, solo/private buckets are weighted by some formula according to the ratio of private and open actions" or something so private groups can do their thing unhampered unless they're actually opposed in open.
I second this.
Open, solo, PG... its all the same in the eyes of the BGS. There is no real up side to changing this, and I am sure altering the foundation of the game in such a way has a high chance of failure.
Hard "no thanks" to the OP
