Let's just say I want to avoid meeting you in game. But of course, if you don't want to, there is nothing I will do.
Solution for Ganking
- Thread starter Sirlance
- Start date
We do, but we then get complaints about it and requests to change the game in favour of those flying in open.
We are always in the wrong.
Well, yes, but its nothing special. I'm sure others could find ways to improve it.
CMDR Agony Aunt - ship details | Elite:Dangerous | INARA
The companion site for Elite:Dangerous with the game database, market data, trade routes, outfitting, engineers, blueprints, crafting, Thargoid war, squadrons, logbooks, galleries, galaxy information and much more...
inara.cz
Its good enough though. Deletes stuff easily. Its main weakness is longevity. Tends to run out of ammo quickly.
LOL, this is so true.
"Don't like it? Go play in Solo!"
"Waaa! People play in solo! Its not fair!"
There are always a few thousand other freaks out there.
Since I'm not a video game character, you'd likely only be able to meet my CMDR in game.
Regardless, my CMDR's handle is not at all hard to find, but I'm disinclined to make it easier for someone who is suggesting they'll use it damage instancing in response to a perceived slight on a forum.
You guys say this as if there is a contradiction somewhere, rather than just a variety of opinions. Rarely does any given individual hold both of these views.
Both you and me have been on this forum long enough to see the same individuals say exactly those things.
Playing in Solo is totally fine.
There are certain game loops like powerplay combat where Open only would absolutely make sense and you might get complaints specifically because of those game loops, but playing in Solo never gets any complaints generally.
No one wants to force anyone to have to wait 30 minutes for a landing pad in a player hotspot in Open.
No one wants to force you to unlock Guardian modules in Open where it will not even really work if there are other people around.
And contrary to the popular belief in this thread, zero gankers are complaining because they cannot reach you in Solo. Why would they complain? There literally never has been a shortage of targets in Open.
I can't think of anyone specifically holding both of these positions.
Regardless, if I did see someone making statements that seemed to represent concurrent views of seemingly contradictory things, I'd assume it was a situation where it was not a binary choice between these two things, but a ranked choice between less good and worse.
For example, I don't want to lose any fingers at all (they are very useful, even the pinkies), but if it's the choice between the amputation of frostbitten digits or dying of sepsis, missing fingers is the better option. Likewise, someone whose ideal version of Elite: Dangerous is an Open-only game, might consider it underhanded to be able to contribute to the game's setting without the risks implicit in open, but may still consider switching modes far less damaging than leveraging block.
In either case, it's not a contradiction, it's just more nuanced than painting broad strokes, while ignoring context, would imply.
This is what I like to call the two universe solution. Have a solo/PG 'verse and an open 'verse, which are not linked. BGS/PP etc changes in one do not affect the other. As to CMDRs being able to switch between the two, I suppose that could be allowed. Would only split the player base though.
The overriding reason for the lack of an offline game (other than DRM) and the mode system is that Frontier didn't (and still doesn't) have a system to create BGS activity without enough player input. The setting would seem very stagnant if the population was broken up too much without some BGS automation.
As I keep saying, I’m already not going to encounter 99% of the playerbase simply due to lack of overlap geographically and temporally. The difference between that and 99.2% is so minuscule that it scarcely matters to me. Except that difference seems to do a pretty good job at minimizing the number of players in Open who are simply not fun to play with.
And that is a huge benefit in my eyes.
And that is a huge benefit in my eyes.
I think we will have to disagree on this.
I've seen this sort of behaviour across many games and there is always a certain type of individual that will do this.
But even if we say, ok, it is different people, then what is the person to do? Go solo? Well, if they do, others will complain. There is a cadre of players, who will berate people no matter what they do, unless they do what they want them to do.
Forum goers?
Whatever they want, which is what they're ultimately going to do anyway. Fussing about it neither helps them nor will appease anyone who may have a problem with the choice.
Considering that we now have Legacy League, Console players, and Live...
It seems to be a bit moot
Most of the complaints I see are that the BGS can be distorted by not playing in Open with no way to counter it. I play in Open 99% of the time and accept the point of those who are interested in the BGS that object to it being affected by players in Solo/Group.
I don't care much about BGS other than gaining my reputation in a system with the local factions. Is this really an unrealistic ask of FD to address the problem and create a better BGS system with mode separation?
Great decision; good game design, given that P2P was going to be used.
The Legacy BGS is shared with all remaining console players and moves rather glacially. The only other BGS is 4.0/Live. Since console and Legacy are just there for the sake of whatever revenue can still be extracted with the game on life support, I think the point still applies.
Evidently it is. The game has always been a mess of bugs and placeholders. Now they're busy focusing on their Thargoid narrative and selling ships for Arx. 'Fixing' the modes probably doesn't even register.
Welcome to the semantics game. There's a certain kind of player and/or forum PvPer that will invalidate any negative feelings of players who are being destroyed in-game who make the mistake of using the term "kill" with something along the lines of "aaaaakshuallly you can't be killed, so go home with your feelings". As if we're all stupid it's going to be argued that a player can't be killed, and because we respawn the CMDRs can't be killed, trying to make those who use the phrase killed as a catch all for whatever happens to our CMDRs look like illiterate idiots.
I take issue with that "players are different" argument, because when push comes to shove, an unexperienced trader CMDR isn't going to be much different than an NPC - if they meet a wing of Frag Python 2s, they are as quickly history in that instance as an NPCs. They might get more salty than NPCs afterwards, though.
I'm not argue against the validity of your experience, and who knows what kind of gankers you have met. I also agree that for a large portion of the gankers (those who I call amateur gankers who usually also run away quickly at the first sign of actual resistance and danger) very little compromise might have to be made. But, with the gankers I know and who usually create the largest amount of salt on reddit and other platforms, @Agony_Aunt makes a very good point. The above mentioned wing of Frag boats deletes the average non-combat trained player faster than they can call for their Mother unless you're in an equally competend shield tank, and even then it will be a close call. Frag Mambas and their derivates are devastating. Pair that with one of them bringing a grom bomb, and the average player will switch to solo faster than an amateur ganker can combat log.
Often, when someone uses the word semantics in a seemingly accusatory sense, I get major Princess Bride vibes:
Why do people so often dismiss the meaning of words when trying to communicate with them? Not a rhetorical question, if that's unclear.
Death and related terminology normally has connotations of finality; it's one of the things that makes it so serious. When someone emphasizes a CMDR being 'killed' in the context of what bothers people or inspires negative feelings, it often comes off as completely disproportionate to the actual consequence of a 'kill" in this game. The term 'kill', in the original context it was used in here, feels like a dysphemism to me.
We're all entitled to our feelings, but if one is going to push the idea of some kind of consensus or broad truth on a matter, it's hard to dismiss the semantics of the terminology used.
The nature of a challenge matters as much as the magnitude. NPCs in this game, of any difficulty, are very formulaic and very predictable.
Even inexperienced player characters won't go down exactly the same way, and more importantly, they're persistent. They might remember. And they can learn. It's also often difficult tell how experienced someone is without seeing them in action first, so even if one is trying for inexperienced types, they might be surprised from time to time.
If NPCs had the same personal escape system as CMDRs, and enough persistence for it to be relevant, I'm sure they be scripted to follow their 'killers' around and annoy the snot out of them.
I am not going to play the "I know words better than you" game with you. Fact is the term "kill" has been used in games for decades for the demise, destruction or otherwise removing a character from a game session, even if only temporarily. Doing the "akshually you don't get killed" isn't helpful at best, and purposefully distracting from the issue at hand (namely the reaction of the "killed" player) at worst.