Yeah, Scott Manley did mention something like that so he reccomended to not bring too much cargo even in high sec unless you had a really strong hauler.
Modes Restrict or remove PvE from the game, making Open a nicer place
- Thread starter StiTch
- Start date
Yeah, Scott Manley did mention something like that so he reccomended to not bring too much cargo even in high sec unless you had a really strong hauler.
Have you looked at Star Cit.....
nope, laughing too hard, cannot finish that
Hey, don't laugh....the C&P in it is remarkably potent! I mean...you can truthfully say there hasn't been a single incident of murder since the game was conceived years ago!
Can we please save the bold part for the good of the forum?
Actually, I read the details such as "cutthroat", "blaze your own trail", and "just hunt other CMDRs", alongside various advertisements for PowerPlay.
The belief that PvP is just some side effect of the game's design is unequivocal rubbish. The early dev threads actively showed PvP elements, particularly relating to piracy and the like.
I don't think anyone is actually asking for PvP to become the focus of the game, but it'd be nice if it were actually valid. Doesn't hurt anyone else - on the contrary it might give the murderers something to do, and might give bounty hunters the scope to hunt murderers down.
Just to put it out there.
1: It is entirely possible to sit in open and not be matched together with other players, they do not need to be in solo or group.
2: It doesn't take that many people to do a 'war' with BGS especially in remote and low population location, then also remember the natural fluctuations from people that don't care about the BGS doing various missions, so again to supplement (1) you can simply be missing them.
3: what one group of people that you know says, does not with any certainty represent what others do.
Conclusion, you do not actually know what anyone is doing or their motivation by it, nor du you know the amount of people that do the things you believe people are doing. You are purely suspecting this, based on flawed evidence, only ones that have the real evidence are frontier.
Last edited:
Can we please save the bold part for the good of the forum?
Not unless you explain your reply.
Well, then I don't know why you said this:
it has. it's player driven.
eve just made the bold decision to embrace ganking, and the whole game motto is 'harden the fig up' (a romantic variation of 'git gud'). this is a conscious decision followed by brilliant game design and a good implementation which combined produce a coherent and first class multiplayer experience that has mobilized millions of players. you don't have to like it, but it's been some of the most successful mmo ever.
in that field ed can't even start to compare. they didn't have a clue about multiplayer environments even with the game already out, not to mention a clear concept in mind to begin with. the 'blaze your own trail' motto is empty marketing rabble, there is no thought behind it. the mmo aspect of ed is total improvisation and i'm afraid no amount of c&p circus is going to fix this.
it's still a damn nice solo game, though.
Last edited:
Exactly! [up]
Speaking as someone that doesn't want to get involved in this particular debate, PP is rocky ground for relationships between factions.
I have witnessed more than once an entire side outright confessing to using PG/Solo, advocating it as the best way to win, and interestingly enough being pretty vitriolic in the process.
I don't get it man. In the least derogatory way possible, is that actually exciting to people? "Hah we hauled more leaflets than you". It pretty much equates to who has more players online at the time. I just cannot be bothered with that as a competition, especially with basically zero reward. Gimme something like Ziggy's proposal, and I'd jump into PP arms wide.
I don't know what you mean. Elite promised one thing and doesn't deliver.
You're welcome to tell me that Elite isn't currently a PvP game, or even a multiplayer game, but don't jump on the bullcrap train and start suggesting ED never advertised PvP - because that is a categorical lie.
I have said repeatedly ED needs to hone its multiplayer aspect. This does not equate to Open play changes only - it needs more multiplayer content overall. Where's the wing missions? Where's the need for trade escorts?
Improving Open would absolutely be conducive to a better multiplayer game, but that aside I half get the feeling FD deliberately developed this as a solo game. The notion you have to play online so we're tied into the BGS feels like a mastermind's sick joke.
Last edited:
It advertised PvP, we have PvP.
1) Barely, especially not on the level advertised
2) What was the point of your challenge again?
I don't want to be part of the debate? all I am referring to is that you do really cannot know what other people are doing, other then if people as in your example, admit it, then obviously you know.
I do not believe I ever stated that people aren't doing it, I stated purely stated that you cannot know how big the perceived problem is, the only ones that have that data is frontier. That is what I stated.
And PP really isn't build around PvP last I checked anyway, so you know, you can fight back and 'get more' then your enemies by simply doing the same thing they are doing? and you can do it in open, or not that is something you decide? and no they do not get an unfair advantage by doing it in group / solo, it is those that are trying to PvP their way out of a PvE element that simply are wasting their time, Elite simply isn't a PvP game, there are no PvP depending mechanics, the game does not care if someone is an npc or player.
Last edited:
Well it kind of is. Aside from varying commentary about its purpose, including one of the few times I've heard Sandy outright state something is supposed to be conducive to PvP, what purpose does it have other than player competition? The activities exist everywhere else in game as a PvE activity with actual reward, and PP itself has no real reward other than module tourism.
If it had a purpose, like the activities were new or gave you material rewards or something to separate it sure we'd have a different discussion, but...what is the goddamn point of it? So much work on it and so much potential relegated to yet another haul-grinding experience. Shame. It could be so appealing.
BUT THAT'S NOT PLAYING MAH WAAAAAY!
Last edited:
they are trying, but must face fundamental problems, and are not very good at it.
i agree. but i'm actually fine with 'online solo' as a technical requirement. it's a whole galaxy after all.
what irks me is the colossal waste of time and energy in multiplayer aspects with little to no return overall. think of all the energy that went down the drain with stuff like pp, endless balancing 'passes', engineers, even more 'balance passes' ... heck, multicrew! and even wings don't work well yet! and, of course, now "hey, sandy will fix c&p!" ... amazing. it's just not going to work with this platform, if they just would admit it and be done with that, and concentrate in what they actually can do well we could probably be doing atmo landings for a while now.
1) "Blaze your own trail" Can do that, there's no objective in-game. "Hunt other CMDRs", aha we can do that. What did ED miss again?
2) Wut? I have only replied to you a challenge in my stay in the forums so far and it wasn't here.
Goose4291
Banned
Which is a technical limitation, not a player constructed obstacle.
Except I'm not talking about transient background traffic. What I'm talking about is when a group decides to.kick anothers BGS sandcastle over from safety of their.pg to solo and then crows loudly about it.
At no point did I say I did.
Conclusion: As someone who's tried to strawman my points, and signature shows your a member of AEDC, a group that was crowed loudly about undoing all of CODES work in the old worlds from the safety of your private group, and lead the charge into PG PP mechanics, you're clearly happy with the status quo, but are pretty much a prime example of the sort of toxicity to which I refer when I talk about why I turned my back on both the BGS and PP.
Last edited:
And it went from 60,000 regular logged in players (all time high 65,000ish) to 40,000 on a good day.
Also had to offer a F2P model due to the loss of subscriptions and anyone can now login and play up to a cruiser for free to encourage people to play it.
Yeah, "most successful mmo ever". ROFLMAO
Let me point you to World of Warcraft, a game that has lost more players than EVE has ever seen and still has twice that currently playing.
I'd watch what you call "best game ever", EVE is a niche game and always has been (so is Elite: Dangerous).
And since they embraced ganking they've been bleeding out players.
Hence why there are some who constantly point out this game isn't EVE in cockpits and don't want it to be.
Though the mode system and block feature will stop that anyway. The whole point of Elite is we get to choose who to play with.
( http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility if you want to check my numbers)
And it went from 60,000 regular logged in players (all time high 65,000ish) to 40,000 on a good day.
Also had to offer a F2P model due to the loss of subscriptions and anyone can now login and play up to a cruiser for free to encourage people to play it.
Yeah, "most successful mmo ever". ROFLMAO
Let me point you to World of Warcraft, a game that has lost more players than EVE has ever seen and still has twice that currently playing.
I'd watch what you call "best game ever", EVE is a niche game and always has been (so is Elite: Dangerous).
And since they embraced ganking they've been bleeding out players.
Hence why there are some who constantly point out this game isn't EVE in cockpits and don't want it to be.
Though the mode system and block feature will stop that anyway. The whole point of Elite is we get to choose who to play with.
( http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility if you want to check my numbers)
I'd also be curious to know just how many of those 40,000 (on a good day) are Alpha (non-paid) accounts versus Omega (paid) accounts, too.
Padding numbers with "free" accounts doesn't mean it's a successful game. Much easier to get big numbers when people don't have to pay to play it.
And it went from 60,000 regular logged in players (all time high 65,000ish) to 40,000 on a good day.
Also had to offer a F2P model due to the loss of subscriptions and anyone can now login and play up to a cruiser for free to encourage people to play it.
Yeah, "most successful mmo ever". ROFLMAO
I'd watch what you call "best game ever", EVE is a niche game and always has been (so is Elite: Dangerous).
exactly. not bad for a niche game, huh?
and that's with a hefty subscription. which btw pioneered the 'players financing players' (plex) business model a method now widespread in mmos. and with everything run by players. i mean, i get that you're an elite fan, but downplaying the obvious breakthroughs of eve doesn't make your cause a favor.
wow is not niche
this was per design, hasn't changed since day zero.
i don't. different things. but frontier should (or could) come clear someday about what they want the game to be. the current mish-mash isn't really working. if they want be 'massive' and 'multi' then there are industry proven practices to get there. just wanting to be everything and only getting a small fraction right isn't going to cut it.
lol. just, lol
Yup, awful.
EVE wasn't the first MMO to use real world money - it didn't "pioneer" anything it copied.
Project Entropia came out before EVE Online and had real world financing. In fact there were 3 games in 2003 that did it, EVE being the 2nd one that year and Second Life being the 3rd.
And this is just games that allow trading in real money, they stole the idea from Gold Sellers who'd been making a fortune buying/selling in game currency for years.
In 2001, EverQuest players Brock Pierce and Alan Debonneville founded Internet Gaming Entertainment Ltd (IGE), a company that offered not only the virtual commodities in exchange for real money (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_economy)
What?
I was there launch day and for 3 years, EVE Online was never designed around ganking, they boasted their 10 level security ratings would keep PvP out of "High Sec".
They even added PvE dungeons in 0.8 for PvE players and ones in 0.0 - 0.4 for the more hardcore players / PvP players. Without thinking that people could/would bookmark the locations.
EVE only got the way it is today due to CCP's utter lack of competence in being able to deal with griefing / ganking. That's why they just gave up and embraced it.
They have been, since the kickstarter - all you have to do is read the information properly.
According to someone who thinks EVE is a shining example of an MMO.
We take this as a complement, Frontier must be doing it right if EVE fans are upset over it
Yeah, "most successful mmo ever". ROFLMAO
well, they have several consecutive 'best mmo of the year' awards on record, from quite solid sources. you don't have have to trust me (since you obviously have not played it and lack first hand experience, but why should that stop you from having a strong opinion!).
https://community.eveonline.com/news/awards-and-accolades/#awards
then you must have missed this is from 3 months into release:
https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/pks-in-secure-areas/
and the concept is by design: you attack in higsec, you have guarranteed destruction. doesn't avoid suicide gank, which is a valid game mechanic, and has a proportionate cost: you need to sacrifice a ship capable of destroying another ship in seconds, and a victim with cargo valuable enough.
anyway, dude, i you want to keep on bashing eve just go ahead, but it isn't going to make ed better.