Interestingly, in that reddit thread you have linked they explicitly say to NOT use exploits this time. Perhaps that is an avenue that Fdev could be asked to monitor.
Privateer’s Alliance Charity Event Targeted for Griefing
- Thread starter Delilah
- Start date
Interestingly, in that reddit thread you have linked they explicitly say to NOT use exploits this time. Perhaps that is an avenue that Fdev could be asked to monitor.
I realise there's an argument that everything provides an opportunity to "interfere with other people's game" and, as such, should be restricted to Open but, IMO at least, some thing are more obviously intended for this purpose.
It'd be interesting if, for example, CGs were restricted to Open but a CG doesn't really have a primary purpose of messing with other people's game.
It isn't going to directly affect anybody else if a station gets an upgrade, a new station gets built, a bunch of escape-pods get rescued or whatever.
That being the case, I wouldn't argue for making CGs Open-only.
Conversely, PP-related stuff pretty-much always affects an opponent's game directly.
That being the case I would be in favour of PP-related activities being restricted to Open-only.
UA-bombing is an even more extreme example of the latter.
About the only people it is "good" for are the bombers.
Pretty-much everybody else suffers as a result of it happening.
That being the case, I think it's reasonable to suggest that everybody else should have an opportunity to prevent it happening.
Sure, UA-bombing is "valid gameplay" but it's also kind of halfassed gameplay.
Bombers deliver UAs in PG/Solo.
Station gets damaged.
Other people deliver MAs in PG/Solo.
Station gets repaired.
The sound of snoring can be heard at Hutton Orbital.
It'd create far more fun "valid gameplay" if that stuff was restricted to Open.
Player factions with an interest in the outcome of a UA bombing could organise all sorts of defence/offence strategies beyond "bring stuff to assist with our objective".
Last edited:
During the relief convoy to Dove Enigma, FDev did an investigation and said an exploit was used that they believe they have fixed already with 3.0.
There is a counter; it's just not instant.
UAs have the same impact across all modes. This is why they are, universally, hated. Because they are the only thing, that is actually the same across all 3 modes. People love to argue the modes are the same. They are not; they've never been the same. It's a convenient lie, but a lie none-the-less.
The cost of a mode where only indirect action can occur, is that only indirect action can occur. We don't get to decide what bits aren't allowed. There's a cost to choice. Always.
Frontier's great weakness is communicating really sodding anything at all in game. If it was known that UAs were being delivered, people could mobilise whilst it's happening, not after the fact. I think this would be a phenomenal improvement. Because this means, it's now essentially down to how quickly the response manifest; fast enough? The bombing simply may not succeed.
It would mean everybody involved has far more agency in what's happening.
I think this just highlights the consequences of having modes where commander actions are not directly impacted. It means nefarious actions cannot be directly countered. That's the cost, stealthie. And there's always a cost.
--
Lastly, I may be wrong, but can't MA's be delivered anyway, ahead of time, to effectively stop this even being a problem? Is there not a trigger point that, when enough MAs are delivered, it essentially 'inoculates' the facility from being impacted?
Last edited:
If a charity event is just relying on participation and word of mouth, having more people involved is only going to make the turn-out better, right? What better way than "We need help!" The community has proven many times to jump at the chance to help a cause they deem worthy.
If you are tying the results of a charity to a game mechanic, that under fair gameplay by the rules of the game means it's possible to fail ("if we complete x, then Mr.____ will donate y"), then you can't cry foul that the event was impeded. It'd be like shaming a game show for not giving the celebrity contestant a million dollars for their charity, even though they lost pathetically in the first round..
Whether the mechanics used to interfere are balanced or reasonable is another matter entirely, but we are still all subject to them as rules of the game, until they are otherwise altered.
If you don't want the charity event to have a chance to fail, simply don't base it on a legitimate win/loss condition in a video game.
I RP the hell out of this game. When I'm playing it, I am living it. But what happens in RP stays in RP, unless the established meta-rules are broken. Everything that happens on the screen is a fictitious fantasy--It's role playing, not role living.
If you are tying the results of a charity to a game mechanic, that under fair gameplay by the rules of the game means it's possible to fail ("if we complete x, then Mr.____ will donate y"), then you can't cry foul that the event was impeded. It'd be like shaming a game show for not giving the celebrity contestant a million dollars for their charity, even though they lost pathetically in the first round..
Whether the mechanics used to interfere are balanced or reasonable is another matter entirely, but we are still all subject to them as rules of the game, until they are otherwise altered.
If you don't want the charity event to have a chance to fail, simply don't base it on a legitimate win/loss condition in a video game.
I RP the hell out of this game. When I'm playing it, I am living it. But what happens in RP stays in RP, unless the established meta-rules are broken. Everything that happens on the screen is a fictitious fantasy--It's role playing, not role living.
Last edited:
[haha]
yeah, well, same can be 'snored' about many other activities, hauling cg stand out as an exact equivalent. and all of them affect the bgs in some way. i guess what engages people is not just the mechanic, but the greater purpose they are being used for, and the possibility of 'emergent' interaction. which actually does happen, it's just not enforced through mode restriction. so any initiative has to start with the premise that this engagement is optional, and actions in parallel and unreachable dimensions are in play too.
i agree enforcing these kind of activities to open would foster gameplay, i would actually welcome such a change, but i really don't see how it could be justified to restrict it to ua bombing alone. ua bombing is nothing special and is counterable as anything else, why shouldn't the same rules apply?
Last edited:
Oh, I agree.
It's kind of sad that UA-bombing is a special case because it, along with (to a lesser extent) PP activities, highlights how little there is that players can do to impact the environment.
I see that as an opportunity for improvement though.
Create a category of gameplay that is restricted to Open and then, once that framework is in place, there's an incentive to flesh it out with more stuff.
I mean, on a purely personal level, I'm based in Ohm City, I'm allied to all the factions there and LHS 20 is a decent little system.
It's almost always been in Boom, it's got lots of cool toys available and it's got a bunch of nearby systems which are regular destinations for long-haul passenger, data-delivery and cargo missions which pay very well.
If the game notified me when somebody was trying to screw up my little slice of heaven, I'd be quite happy to try and stop them but at the moment there's very little we can do.
Sure, there's a list of stations "targeted for UA attacks" buried in Galnet but, honestly, it's more likely that the first you'll know of this is when you dock and find that a system isn't in Boom any more, or that station services are limited.
It'd be nice if, perhaps, the Tip-Off system, or the in-flight mission offers, could be used to make CMDRs aware that stuff is happening, in places where they're allied, which they might consider helping with.
"Commander, outlaws have recently been attacking Security ships in our system. Please assist in destroying these ships"
"Commander, our system has become the target of a hostile takeover by [PP faction] and we need your assistance to prevent this"
"Commander, [station] has recently seen an increase in harmful black-market trade and we need your help to put a stop to this"
Etc.
Course, it won't actually be possible to have much of an effect on this stuff unless the bad things are being done in Open, where they can be countered.
The problem with this, is you create an environment where every negative thing is pushed out of solo, into open. Because it’s not convenient.
Because realistically? UA bombing in this scenario is simply inconvenient. There is no permanent damage. People are not forced to live with this for the rest of their in-game lives. It’s just a nuisance.
We are stuck with 3 modes, for good or ill. Even when things are a nuisance. Either mechanics work across all three, or Frontier has to make some hard decisions about how those modes work. Or if they are still relevant.
One thing they can do is be a hell of a lot more proactive about in game actions being communicated. If a station is being UA bombed? Communicate it so folks actually can have some agency in the outcome.
The solutions aren’t just ripping stuff out of modes. It’s empowering commanders to damn well be able to do something about it.
Because realistically? UA bombing in this scenario is simply inconvenient. There is no permanent damage. People are not forced to live with this for the rest of their in-game lives. It’s just a nuisance.
We are stuck with 3 modes, for good or ill. Even when things are a nuisance. Either mechanics work across all three, or Frontier has to make some hard decisions about how those modes work. Or if they are still relevant.
One thing they can do is be a hell of a lot more proactive about in game actions being communicated. If a station is being UA bombed? Communicate it so folks actually can have some agency in the outcome.
The solutions aren’t just ripping stuff out of modes. It’s empowering commanders to damn well be able to do something about it.
Last edited:
Don't really see the issue TBH.
Seems like the only people who might object would be people who enjoy tampering with things unopposed.
that's actually a nice idea, more qol, perhaps?
pretty much sums it up!
Your last comment explains why the entire suggestion, is problematic. You can’t force some actions into open, unless you force people into open.
Frontier are just, frankly, crap at giving people agency by rapidly disseminating in game actions as they are happening. The time to tell people UA bombing is happening, is when it’s happening. Not have people discover it’s alteady happened.
You don’t need to force anyone, anywhere. Just engage commanders. Keep them informed. Give them agency. The rest takes care of itself.
You cannot dictate what solo is used for. Any more than I can. That’s not our decision to make. It’s already been made. Horse is already long gone.
But frontier can certainly improve the ability to engage with things as they happen; not after the fact, when it’s become a foregone conclusion. As you said, if you knew something was happening, when it happened, you’d mobilise.
I think that’s a very constructive concept.
Last edited:
Again, I don't see the problem, as long as you can consistently define the required criteria.
Fundamentally, all you need to do is ask yourself if the primary consequences of any given gameplay is an impact on other players.
If the answer is "yes" then that gameplay really needs restricting to Open mode.
The argument that "everything we do has consequences for all players" doesn't stand up because what we're asking is whether the primary consequences of some action impacts others.
Sure, at the moment that might mean that UA-bombing and (possibly) PP-related stuff are the only things restricted to Open but, as I said, once the framework is in place to do this it could be fleshed-out more.
It seems like it would be straightforward enough to restrict individual missions to Open-only in a similar way that various missions are currently restricted to Horizons-only, for example.
Morality-aside, it's hard to argue with that logic.
I just wish people could sometimes aspire to something greater, overcoming petty differences and egotistic needs when something really worth doing happens. Like charities.
Surely real-life support for people with actual life-threatening issues takes precedence over making a point in a fracking game.
Or is it just me that thinks so?
Last edited:
Personally, I think rather than create another toxic salt mining megathread the OP should do something about it, ask for help from the community.
After all, given that the PA are well up for the challenge (as was quite rightly pointed out to me) there was absolutely no reason for this thread.
A "help keep this expedition on track!" call to the community would have been a much better way to start off...
After all, given that the PA are well up for the challenge (as was quite rightly pointed out to me) there was absolutely no reason for this thread.
A "help keep this expedition on track!" call to the community would have been a much better way to start off...
Last edited:
It does, though - station being UA bombed, Frontier communicate using their top secret Galnet channels to the three people who read it a week before any actual shutdown or other ill effects occur, one of them delivers a ship full of meta-alloys, job done.
I believe the ratio is something like 5 MAs to counter 1 UA ... MAs are much more than 5 times easier to transport and obtain than UAs, so a single person trying to counter the bombing can counter several people trying to bomb it. (And you can get the counter in advance too, if you're running anything where it might matter - let them dump 1000 UAs there and then wonder why it didn't work...)
If you can't get enough defence with a week's warning ... well, that doesn't actually happen very often. There's plenty of player agency in the game already when it comes to countering them.
The balance used to be in favour of UAs, but there was a CG some time ago which made MAs much more effective, plus the post-2.1 change to sell MAs at Darnielle's, plus the "at risk" week actually being announced ... and since then it's been rare for a station to actually shut down and relatively few have even made it onto the "at risk" list.
(It's probably just my memory playing tricks on me, but it feels like there were actually fewer forum complaints back when there were routinely several stations shut down with UAs - Obsidian was out of action for weeks at a time, several starter-system stations had partial service loss - than there are now when it's rarely actually an issue)
Have you read any of the statements in this thread from the player group actually being targeted by the UAs in question? Because they all make pretty clear that they're already prepared in advance to cancel the effects in-game, have planned their events in a way that it wouldn't matter if they hadn't, don't care in the slightest that they're not exempt, and don't want other people picking up high horses on their behalf.
So put yours down, okay?
Selling any good to a Black Market reduces the influence of the controlling faction [1]. They're not nice people, and they don't have the best interests of the station in mind.
Damaging the station infrastructure so that their opponents are less able to use that asset to interfere with their political plans sounds like exactly what they want.
[1] There will be an exception to this in 3.0 for stations controlled by Anarchy factions, but the general rule still applies.