So you want to play in Open, eh?

[goemon]

They are challenging you to respond. They aren't pretending to be tough guys. They are playing a game. You shouldn't take it so serious. If you think it's a form of bullying you shouldn't be in open. If there are exploits being used then FD will likely fix them if it truly bothers the masses. I don't think the masses were even affected. FD's p2p doesn't allow that to ever happen. You seem to be skipping over the many responses on here of people thinking it enhanced the whole experience.

i play open, and many times challenging non-consensul pvp-interaction does enhance my experience, too.

you are maybe referring to responses. but you are not referring to the original post. which clearly states using bugged game mechanics.

i don't know - but for me is playing the game mechanics something fundamental different to playing the game.

and i would like to be this galaxy cut throat for everyone, not only for them gettig their throats cut.
___

update:

as stated elsewhere. i had many pvp encounters over the last month. 85% did not had any risk for me, cause i know the mechanics and fly well equiped ships. but 99% did not include any risk for the attacker. how is this supposed to be "cut throat"?

 

[TaoZero5]

I read the first post and the first page then skipped the next 38 pages -

So, you form an army unit then attack a bunch of civilians having a picnic, and you say - Hey, you should form an army unit and practise combat maneuvres and tactics.

It seems to me (and I may be wrong in my apprehension of that other game - Eve) -
You do what you did in another game and, if you could, you would make this game like the other game - such that nobody could play on their own but would have to belong to a gang.

This is not that game.

I will play this game.

 

[FreedomDude]

Unfortunately Elite is a terrible game to support gaming communities for the long run due to the lack of group/"clan" tools and of course the instancing system, a shame really. So I can fully understand the lack of player groups and I'm surprised CODE is still going, based on the OP considering that your community is reaching the stage of boredom I'll assume that CODE will lose interest in the game in the near future unless Frontier provide the tools necessary to keep communities In game for the long run.

 

[Promius]

Unfortunately Elite is a terrible game to support gaming communities for the long run due to the lack of group/"clan" tools and of course the instancing system, a shame really. So I can fully understand the lack of player groups and I'm surprised CODE is still going, based on the OP considering that your community is reaching the stage of boredom I'll assume that CODE will lose interest in the game in the near future unless Frontier provide the tools necessary to keep communities In game for the long run.

This. They need to fix this. Star Citizen has a clan/guild thing planned for launch.

 

[pippo]

(…)based on the OP considering that your community is reaching the stage of boredom I'll assume that CODE will lose interest in the game in the near future (…)

This game clearly isn't for everyone.
Unfortunately, and because of its great appeal (stunning audio and visual, great flight model, mind boggling size of the galaxy) ED will always attract new players who will eventually get bored. Some of them will just put Elite on a shelf and move on while others will try to squeeze just one last drop of excitement by acting like idiots.
Meanwhile, we'll just have to deal with it. This is true for any online game.

 

[lonewarrior]

I get that, it was more poking fun than complaint. As far as I am aware the code operates within the confines of the game and it is legitimate gameplay so good luck to em. makes it a little more fun and a little less grind.

Well apart from the whole using the now fixed shield instant restore glitch to make themselves invincible, admitting to using any exploit they can find to get an advantage and also the recent accidental admission by at least one member on their live stream that he has hacks on (let's say for arguments sake they were indeed joking, it's not doing any favours for a group who already admitted they have cheated in the past and are still looking for any exploit they can find)
They might not care what people think and want to cause chaos, but the more respect they lost the worse it will get for them as people will just play solo or log
off when they see one of their names they recognise (which is what I do against some known hackers who I've seen since they admitted it publically, there was no perm ban for them as I've seen one since so I didn't combat log but when he flew towards me in SC I logged off)

 

[nexxo]

So, <munches popcorn>, in the game the 'code' is really what we in real life would call a 'street gang', yes? And if we dare to enter their territory, (ED) we will be destroyed unless we have their permission? If I am understanding this correctly, should code membership not get you a shadow ban? Galactic street gangs!, sheesh! what is the universe coming to.

Yeah, it's a club, basically. You know, when we were kids and had a tree house and stuff?

Or hey, d'you think Code is like the new GamerGate?

Anyways it is a little known fact that real pirates, like the proper 1600's type, were often strictly disciplined. Their ships were as regimented as military vessels, and a pirate could face punishment by death if he was caught molesting a woman on shore leave. They were definitely not nice guys and highly dangerous but had a strict behavioural code, which was pure necessity to keep such a disparate band of criminals in line on something as complex as a sailing ship performing military style raids.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Guys, I repeat:
This is not an official Code response to the situation at Hutton, but a member of Code voicing his opinion, stop confusing the two.

We're not confusing the two dear damage control wolf

The Hutton blockade was quite literally an off-the-cuff suggestion by me (yes, blame me for all of it, I have thick skin) as we were bored to tears in-game and were pretty mad at such a ludicrous idea for a CG already.

This is not an opinion though, this is a Code member being unfortunately honest and torpedoing all the efforts you guys made to try to convince us of your ridiculous stated justifications

Not that anyone fell for it before that, so no harm no foul I guess.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I read the first post and the first page then skipped the next 38 pages -

So, you form an army unit then attack a bunch of civilians having a picnic, and you say - Hey, you should form an army unit and practise combat maneuvres and tactics.

It seems to me (and I may be wrong in my apprehension of that other game - Eve) -
You do what you did in another game and, if you could, you would make this game like the other game - such that nobody could play on their own but would have to belong to a gang.

This is not that game.

I will play this game.

That's an excellent point actually. The OP and the situation is a display of what we can expect if actual guilds are introduced.

The argument went from: if you don't like guilds ignore guilds. Which is hard when they set out to destroy your ship repeatedly in an organised manner. To which their response is, organise yourselves. Which turns the argument in: If you don't like guilds, form one.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Woah 40 pages? Is there even any kind of content? I don't know how you could 'discuss' an opinion by a code member. In fact, the op teaches unexperienced players something, they shouldnbe thankful.


I guess it is another rage thread where the PvP players and the PvE players throw some meaningless words at eachother?
(I am one of the PvP players! )

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Woah 40 pages? Is there even any kind of content? I don't know how you could 'discuss' an opinion by a code member. In fact, the op teaches unexperienced players something, they should be thankful.


I guess it is another rage thread where the PvP players and the PvE players throw some meaningless words at eachother?
(I am one of the PvP players! )

Is there any kind of content? You could try reading
I don't know how you could discuss an opinion by a code member. You don't know how you can discuss an opinion?
In fact, the op teaches unexperienced players something, they should be thankful. See, that's an opinion. So I can't discuss that?
I guess it is another rage thread where the PvP players and the PvE players throw some meaningless words at eachother? Nope, guessed wrong

 

[GluttonyFang]

We're not confusing the two dear damage control wolf

I think words are coming together for me, my eyez can't handle it anymore ;-;

Save meh Ziggy ;-;

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think words are coming together for me, my eyez can't handle it anymore ;-;

Save meh Ziggy ;-;

Embrace your inner predator!

Be proud, stand tall and state: we messed around in Hutton, because we were bored, needed a distraction and found a casus beli, however flimsy and got some gameplay out of it!

I'll tip my hat to that because the truth will set you free brother!

Now testify!

 

[lenna]

An Open PVE mode would pretty much be the death knell for PVP in the galaxy....I think people just need to play in Open with the expectation that bad things can happen at the hands of others. This is one of the parts of this game that sets it apart from other games.

If it does then it would be a natural death because the player base would make that choice, to object to the potential of the option being introduced is basically saying "play it my way or no way at all". Adding Open PvE (not replacing the current Open mode) would only be formalising a particular "optional" playbook that is essentially currently enforced in closed groups such as "Mobius".
---
As I understand it, such groups do not completely rule out PvP by the way, just restrict it to certain areas such as conflict zones where players actually have to make a choice to enter.
---
Introducing CQC is possibly a step in the right direction to potentially minimise unwanted PvP in Open but it probably will not have a sufficient impact to minimise "griefing". Those that engage in CQC are doing so because they want to engage in PvP and so there are no "victims" as such just people playing against each other in notionally a pure combat environment. Given this, griefers would probably not be getting their kicks.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Embrace your inner predator!

Be proud, stand tall and state: we messed around in Hutton, because we were bored, needed a distraction and found a casus beli, however flimsy and got some gameplay out of it!

I'll tip my hat to that because the truth will set you free brother!

Now testify!

Never >:3 ! I shall never succumb to my bestial instincts!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Never >:3 ! I shall never succumb to my bestial instincts!

Oh come on .... you know you want to

 

[GluttonyFang]

Oh come on .... you know you want to

http://www.petersmeats.com.au/images/BBQ_LambChops.jpg

Damn it Ziggy damn it ;-;!

*Forces self to fall asleep*

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Count sheep

 

[Vorxian]

If it does then it would be a natural death because the player base would make that choice, to object to the potential of the option being introduced is basically saying "play it my way or no way at all". Adding Open PvE (not replacing the current Open mode) would only be formalising a particular "optional" playbook that is essentially currently enforced in closed groups such as "Mobius".
---
As I understand it, such groups do not completely rule out PvP by the way, just restrict it to certain areas such as conflict zones where players actually have to make a choice to enter.
---
Introducing CQC is possibly a step in the right direction to potentially minimise unwanted PvP in Open but it probably will not have a sufficient impact to minimise "griefing". Those that engage in CQC are doing so because they want to engage in PvP and so there are no "victims" as such just people playing against each other in notionally a pure combat environment. Given this, griefers would probably not be getting their kicks.

I had to agree with everything here.

Calls for an OPEN PvE server on the back of events such as this in OPEN, is nothing short of calling for some kind of political reform after bad events swing opinion.

So in effect a minority like CODE can ensue political reform after they negatively affect opinion on the general conduct of OPEN behavior, calling for an open PvE server to be considered... at the ultimate cost of a larger OPEN community losing a potentially large amount of players migrating away.

The moral is, then, that perhaps more PvP oriented players should band together and destroy CODE antics in the hope that PvE victims of CODE are not swayed towards PVE oriented servers?

Right now like it or not, CODE are signing the "death warrant" as some like to stencil it to OPEN mode. Either driving people out into Mobius, or, influencing folks to stick to private personal sessions, or just SOLO... or even more detrimental, off the game completely. Actions in game will have profound influence on the experience of others of the game. IF CODE are just in the game to displeasure fellow gamers, we'll not see their 'superior tactical prowess' in CQC, but should they have some kind of lording point to prove, perhaps pitting themselves against keen, skilled equipped PvP players will leave the rest to play as they wish?

 

[Skyrun]

4. Did you know what once a wanted commander is docked and then scanned by system security forces the sec forces IMMEDIATELY open fire on them on the dock until the commander is destroyed?

5. Did you know said commander cannot be destroyed because YOU didn't want to be vulnerable on the docking pad to attack so you had FD make it so.

6. Did you also know that when said forces are firing on said commander on the docking pad that they also ignore all other wanted players - including YOU if you accidentally fire at the station - and remain fixated on the docked wanted commander?

Using this tactic to kill police forces is an exploit. Is this being used by the Code?