*The following refers to the entire above post, not just the part I left between snips. Also, bold added by me.
Well said. Very well said indeed. It would be very nice to see the base game finished (or at least significantly fleshed out) before getting new game modes (CQC) and - I can't believe I'm going to say this as it's one of my most anticipated features - planetary landings.
So you want to play in Open, eh?
- Thread starter Nonya
- Start date
Wing anchoring is a misuse of the wing mechanic & it really has broken group PvP to the extent that pilot skills do not matter as much exploiting wing mechanics to play the numbers game. Pretty surprised to see any player group openly admiting they use this type of exploit to "win" any battles.
FD really need to fix this as if they do not group PvP encounters -that require skill- will slip even further than they currently have.
Our group will always disengage from a war or conflict with a player group that abuses in-game mechanics to gain an advantage like this.
Of course new mechanic exploits will be always be found by some groups and misused to "win" a battle but its all about finding decent PvP groups that do not descend to playing the game mechanics and instead play the game as intended.
FD really need to fix this as if they do not group PvP encounters -that require skill- will slip even further than they currently have.
Our group will always disengage from a war or conflict with a player group that abuses in-game mechanics to gain an advantage like this.
Of course new mechanic exploits will be always be found by some groups and misused to "win" a battle but its all about finding decent PvP groups that do not descend to playing the game mechanics and instead play the game as intended.
Not really. Since you can jump to solo/group i cant understand people who are complaining about open mechanics.
If a group of players/grievers/etc disturb my game experience i dont bother. They can do that once, but wont be a second. I jump to solo/group and play the way i want, as fdev want us to do. Its because that possibility open is ok right now, and it isnt necessary any correction/change in open.
I mean, if you cant organize with other players because they dont want (its my case) then jump to oher game modes and problem solved.
Fly safe commanders.
Citation needed.
TLDR
I have nothing against CODE tbh every game needs a group of bad guys or someone to 'avoid' etc, in games like Freelancer there are pirate groups everywhere that will attack and demand cargo (these are NPC's) Code fill this niche they are a organised pirate group that play the game like ED's mafia. What we havent got though is someone like Freelancers Bounty Hunters Guild or other such vigilante group that would be the opposite of CODE which is a pity as the warzones would be incredible places to visit with all the conflict etc. Would certainly make PP seem like a nice walk in the park
I have nothing against CODE tbh every game needs a group of bad guys or someone to 'avoid' etc, in games like Freelancer there are pirate groups everywhere that will attack and demand cargo (these are NPC's) Code fill this niche they are a organised pirate group that play the game like ED's mafia. What we havent got though is someone like Freelancers Bounty Hunters Guild or other such vigilante group that would be the opposite of CODE which is a pity as the warzones would be incredible places to visit with all the conflict etc. Would certainly make PP seem like a nice walk in the park
The thing there is that the way you play is dictated by others.
For instance: you have a couple of friends in the game, hanging around the same areas you hang out, and like to encounter them, and the occasional random CMDR since most CMDRs in this game are usually pretty decent. Then going into solo/group will rob you of those contacts.
There is more to player interaction in this game than merely PvP. There are other ways to co-operate than winged PvP. Open is not the game mode that has to cater to survival of the fittest.
I don't remember the exact post location as it was was more than a few months ago will see if I can find it.
Legacy_LuckyLuke
Banned
I might be alone here but I don't think CODE should be apologising at all for their behaviour. In fact, in some ways they lose respect in my eyes (after reading gluttony fangs post for instance) when they try and justify their actions.
Maybe some lessons are learning from Hutton Orbital, and that's cool. But to be honest, what they are doing is way more interesting than any of the NPC pirates, and I for one will be on the lookout and hunting them down from now on
Time to decode the code.
Maybe some lessons are learning from Hutton Orbital, and that's cool. But to be honest, what they are doing is way more interesting than any of the NPC pirates, and I for one will be on the lookout and hunting them down from now on
Time to decode the code.
Hey... at least the CG was successful and the blockade didn't stop us hitting our tiers!
Cheers for the info. The Hutton Truckers are in training for our next group convoy.... anyone who wants to join in, find us on FB under Hutton Orbital Radio truckers or at www.huttonorbital.com
Oh and make sure no one leaks our route to the pirates. Loose lips destroy ships!
We have a team researching a route and destination at the moment as well as a group honing their skills for cqc.
All whilst listening live on the radio!
We won't let their limpets steal our cargo this time!
Cheers for the info. The Hutton Truckers are in training for our next group convoy.... anyone who wants to join in, find us on FB under Hutton Orbital Radio truckers or at www.huttonorbital.com
Oh and make sure no one leaks our route to the pirates. Loose lips destroy ships!
We have a team researching a route and destination at the moment as well as a group honing their skills for cqc.
All whilst listening live on the radio!
We won't let their limpets steal our cargo this time!
Just quoting to increase its visibility and because I can't rep you anymore right now
Last edited:
Found it.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17703&p=425332&viewfull=1#post425332
Ignore
This has come up quite a few times in the thread - I just want to clarify some definitions. The ignore function will do two things: it will prevent you from receiving messages of any kind from the ignored commander, and it will decrease the likelihood of being matched up with them.
It offers no guarantee of never seeing them again, it's just a weighting. The reason it will work like this is because we cannot allow one player to determine the actions of another - if ignore prevented you from being matched up it would create situations where one of you might not be able to be legitimately matched with third parties.
The only way to guarantee never seeing someone again would be to create or join a private group. To be clear, a private group is created by a commander and includes only those players that accepted invites to it from its creator.
More or less as I remembered.
It can't be fully functional because it could impact uninvolved 3rd parties by the look of it.
Also this was pre-launch. No idea if it's still the case.
But in theory it could have some effect which combined with an instance full of friends in could keep the undesirables away!
That's, sadly, because it was impossible for them to ever achieve it. In truth they could do next to nothing to truly blockade Hutton.
The mechanics are either not solid enough, too simplistic or just not there to support such an attempt.
To quote myself:-
What I find increasingly concerning is clearly we have number of threads now about the "issues" we saw last week - the flaws, weaknesses and omissions they demonstrated in the game - and I've not see an single flicker of FD interesting/response... Indeed, when I spotted a reply yesterday from a FD member of staff endorsing an idea to commit development time to possibly adjusting a Powerplay mechanic (already questionable beyond belief) to make it potentially even more "grind" orientated in some questionable attempt to improve Powerplay, I had to wonder, "what's going on with this game?"
Last edited:
Because blockade attempts are unwanted. I think it's intentional design these things cannot be achieved, and I support that decision.
IMO the combat will allways be a part of the whole scene but the potential is much more than that. For example this new Horizons extension will bring us a land and city infrastructure which will add a lot of new content and potential to the game. How about PvP building infrastructure than just killing each others on the space? How about the space stations? There is lot of to do also. And this is just the beginning.
Also the community gaming (which can be group or open) has taken only it's first baby steps and there is lot of more to come.
So "To playing Open" will change it's meaning and so will the PvP too.
We all have to remember that this sandbox has seen the official daylight less than year ago. How do you see where we go after next 3 or 5 years ?
Last edited:
I don't even know what I'm doing tomorrow.
Possibly... But:-
1) There's no reason why a mechanic could not introduce to offer them in a structured format. eg: For a community goal, or as a Powerplay task.
2) If (1) proves viable why not employ this mechanic when a systems situation reaches the appropriate position?
But in truth it doesn't matter if it was a blockade being attempted or not, it's the fact that in truth "nothing" can be attempted... The mechanics are too shallow and simplistic.
As it stands the ED Universe is shallow, filled with a bunch of simplistic mini-games, supported by some very simple mechanics. Surely we need more sand in this sandbox, and more ways to play with it? And if this means we can get to some interesting emergent gameplay? Great! At the moment, we really don't stand a hope though. All that can be achieved is to bang your head on the bottom of the sandbox through just 2mm of sand. ie: What we saw at Hutton.
Do you not think last weak highlighted some weaknesses and areas that need attention/improving? Are you not a little worried there's no suggestion FD see this as the case?
Last edited:
That is my understanding of how it works. Adding more people they group with lowers your chances of being selected if you have their team members on ignore.
I haven't had to deal with any idiots in a long time. If it does become an issue I will just join Mobius.
*idiots = people who just kill without any exchange, or ram, or generally exploit to ruin fun. A pirate demanding I stop and scans/demands cargo would not be in that list.
Last edited:
At the same time it allows wings to get into instances that are mostly friendly and only a few "target". The matchmaking needs some adjustments I think.
I believe that in RL the OP is Dr Sheldon Cooper
I don't get 1 :/
If 1 means that it should be possible to successfully have an airtight blockade on a system, I disagree wholeheartedly. Lets say PP goal says blockade system X. I don't do PP, I just want to shift some goods in X. All of a sudden that's impossible for me. So now PP is interfering with my game, while the statement of Frontier was: if you don't engage in it, it won't bother you. If the blockade is subject to instancing and increases the chance of an encounter, while still providing the opportunity to get through unscathed, than the harm is reduced to the possibility it interferes with my game.
It's already bad enough that I can encounter wings, I'd rather not add blockades to that.
What I have read is that a lot of people had a lot of fun at Hutton. I have read about people doing ad-hoc co-operation with complete strangers.
I'd say Hutton is an example where there was emergent gameplay, instigated by the players themselves.