Modes Reworking the game modes
- Thread starter Haggbad Celine
- Start date
I'm afraid you got some posters mixed up.
I'm afraid you got some posters mixed up.
Ah sorry! Confused you with Jockey79 somehow
Operating in PG/Solo drops the risk of PvP to zero, granted.
Still doesn't mean PvP is the most effective way to defend a system.
Not the most effective but its very effective, otherwise people wouldn't jump to undermine in SOLO purposely to avoid it.
Because unlike NPCs player opposition is much more serious, your outfitting and the way that you play change significantly when you know you might be faced with efficient opposition.
Irrelevant, I was making a point of how PvP is very usefull for BGS/PP.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I was referring to the "Why not" that you answered.
They dont do it because "pvp is optional idealistic approach", they do it because by avoiding it they put themselves into an advantage.
they don't put themselves at any advantage, you can do exactly the same thing they are, working the BGS/PG/Solo.
Thats irrelevant again, I am just showing how the statement "PvP is useless in PP/BGS wars because its all aboit PVE tokens" is wrong by proven player behaviours of resorting to PG to avoid it.
That is also provably wrong by players resorting to PG to avoid scrubbage and get some quality, entertaining, top tier PVP that still lends momentum to BGS efforts.
Locking people in modes isn't going to accomplish that at all though. You will loose people who would sometimes play in Open to other modes because unless they work full time on their Open "Commander" they won't be able to keep up with those who always play in Open. Plus with instancing even in open PVP can be avoided, either just because you are not put in same instance or some by fiddling with their routers.
As for not understanding PGs... think of them as Playing Co-op. You and your friends make your own little group and have fun. Because the game sadly doesn't have a PVE version of Open, Mobius has changed a few PG's from Co-op into mini servers.
It's not PvE when people intentionally try to grief you via BGS from the safety of PG/solo, just to clarify.
I stated examples of you can't simply do the same and that attacking from PG/Solo via indirect measures is vastly superior to any direct confrontation.
If a player group decides to troll my squadron and delivers tons of UA's to our operating base, simply delivering UA's to some random starport doesn't stop that.
As a matter of fact, you can't even identify where the attack comes from yet deny it.
Sure you can start hauling Meta-Alloys, but still a trolling/griefing (call it how you want it) can ruin your day (or week or more) via the safety of PG/solo.
It's the reason I chose such a provocative statement, which was phrased as corporate PR, to introduce the issue.
Indirect PvP and direct PvP both can lead to very frustrating experiences, but for direct PvP you get the option to avoid it totally.
You don't get that for indirect PvP, as was mentioned it's obligatory.
I do like the idea of the shared BGS, don't get me wrong. But it's no fun when people troll you.
It's no difference compared to getting shot down by a fully G5 Corvette when you're in a sidey.
I am not sure if the impact of the BGS on certain player groups was considered equally powerful as direct combat in the first place.
FDev seems to have chosen that path with a soft lock. Get notorious and you need to play open if you want to get rid of your bounty.
So arguing with psuedo open exploits making such actions impossible are invalid as they are currently a possible option to avoid the repercussions of notoriety.
Regarding networking and technical limitations, it doesn't have to be run on a dedicated server to achieve results counteracting this.
It needs more variable instancing rules, like pulling someone out of PG/solo or invading them, call it like you want it.
Last edited:
I find it interesting that those who feel that being able to do the same thing as everyone else when it comes to playing in modes and not PVPing as "irrelevant" and that it is unfair because things are done in a way that they cannot counter in a PVP way....
Yet these are many times the same people who, when an exploit is found, rationalize it with "everyone else is doing it so do it or get left behind."
Yet these are many times the same people who, when an exploit is found, rationalize it with "everyone else is doing it so do it or get left behind."
That's absolutely not true!
Instead they actually don't rationalize it and respond with: "How does that affect you?" / "It's not an exploit, it's a feature" (when there's a FD staff post just a few blocks above claiming it's an exploit)
Just kidding anyway
But on a serious note, I think we tried to explain it several times that Player Factions, Powerplay.. and the likes are NOT exclusive PvP mechanics.
There are lots of player factions out there who have absolutely no intention of ever doing PvP, yet they can be undermined the same way by anyone..
Powerplay plays out regardless if you kill players or not, it's not a PvP mechanic.. Yes, either of these CAN have PvP elements under the right circumstances, but they were NEVER designed to be PvP-exclusive mechanics.
They're part of the game and the BGS as they are and you have the option of either retaliating through PvE means to a PvE attack, or simply leaving it alone and gank more people in Open if you're bored. If this doesn't appeal to you, then maybe this game simply isn't for you.
Like I said earlier, yes, I would like to see more dedicated PvP mechanics so PvP players can do something 'productive' instead of typing up forum comments, but endlessly trying to 'claim' mechanics that weren't designed for that under the banner of PvP and not even accepting the technical limitations mentioned above or accepting that this simply isn't the game where everyone is pushed into one bucket to be at the mercy of gankers is not the proper way of doing it.
The kickstarter website is still functioning as far as I can tell, if you have this much of an issue with this game, make your own.
Yea, this is sort of a rant, but if you can say 'That's irrelevant' to every argument that you choose not to accept, instead of at least considering them, they why should we consider yours?
Cheers!
I am stating the issue that if you want to grief people via BGS/PP you have an advantage doing so via PG/solo.
Sending a station where a whole squadron has parked their fleet certainly hurts more than visiting the rebuy screen.
Tell me the option you have when a squadron is deciding to UA bomb your home base or tries to send it to lockdown via PP/solo?
Yes, you can start shipping Meta-Alloys, but that's it and it does not stop the attack as you are forced into a tug-o-war of hauling.
We are not discussing the intention of certain game mechanics, but how they can be used for PvP.
The different approaches were labeled indirect and direct PvP.
At the moment, there is no effective defense against indirect measures.
I appreciate you advocating more dedicated PvP mechanics, certainly some folks are concerned such things could lead to a galaxy wide massacre being or being at the mercy of ganking fleets!
But the point of my argumentation was that there needs to be an answer versus BGS/PP/UA attacks coming from PG/solo.
They may have not been designed under the banner of PvP, but certainly can be utilized to paralyze a squadron via a very cheesy playstyle.
This surely is a form of PvP.
Let me ask you a question:
How do you retaliate an attack you have no idea where it's source is?
The argumentation of technical limitations is rather vague.
Instantiation rules are expandable.
It's technically possible to switch from PG/solo/open within the game without the push of a button.
This does not require a whole rework of ED's netcode.
Also this is not the only option.
Alternative measures are already live, see my point with notoriety.
The kickstarter website is still functioning as far as I can tell, if you have this much of an issue with this game, make your own.
Yea, this is sort of a rant, but if you can say 'That's irrelevant' to every argument that you choose not to accept, instead of at least considering them, they why should we consider yours?
Hmm it mentions, starport raids. I hope UA/BGS/PP cheeses weren't the intention of that.
Btw I consider it a very unfriendly attitude telling people to leave a community when they are providing feedback.
Not an "advantage" when you can also do it
You cannot stop them in open either - as they'll just block you.
So either defend with meta alloy and hope you have more people than they do.
Yes there is, see above.
Indirect attack needs the indirect defence.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That point lacking a corroborating Dev quote?
You campaign to have the gawdawful UA bombing mechanism removed from the game. Give me a picket sign and I'll join you.
Hello no! UA bombing has to go!
It's a wiki...I have to ask for proof that the devs have set this to only decrease in open. Thanks.