What changes?
Modes [Suggestion] How to incentivise open play and make it relevant
- Thread starter Lateralus
- Start date
- Status
What changes?
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Good point. Later dudes.
But they did counter the BGS attack for the launch as the starter systems didn't have a blackmarket UA bombing wasn't a option, so certain groups were going for a lockdown this was countered with the bountyhunting CG in the starter systems.
First rule of a lockdown bounty hunt to reverse it
Last edited:
Nope. Disingenuous again.
The modes are not imbalanced.
But what you are saying is that they are... And that you want the BGS influence to be altered in such a way that will create imbalance.
Does that sound sensible to you?
It doesn't sound at all reasonable to me...
The game is changing - but Frontier is not going to kowtow to a handful of PvP'ers constantly ignoring their design and vision of the game, demanding it be changed to suit pew pew needs.
As you keep clinging to that, I should point out the line that says;
"I personally think that....."
2nd paragraph, 2nd line. That ONE person agrees with you - not "support", just that one.
It also does you no favours, pointing to a picture that shows you maliciously filing a report on someone who was just playing the game how Frontier advertised and sold it.
You can respond to a BGS attack by doing BGS work, I'm sure your 273 friends would have helped you counter that one person.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Im going to clear this up right now, before im just going to ignore your antics from here on out.
it was more than one person.
Furthermore, ive provided evidence for change. While all you've done is complain and shoot down anything and everyone has said that doesn't agree with you. Ive brought more to the table than you have here. All you got is a wall of text that show how the game is now.
And the beyond C H A N G E S are going to fix a lot of this.
Also, I love how you take one small piece to argue instead of everything I said.
Get your last word in. Try to bury comments or do what ever it is you do. Just like you've done to people since 2014.
Well, ive said enough. And I know Fdev has seen what I have came for. And what others have came for in the past. There have been more people asking for change while a very small portion of the community does not want it to stay the way it is.
And you can see that by the same people showing up in every thread when it happens. While there are tons of people coming through at different phases of the game asking for the change, or quitting. While you and the small Kliq stay and push people away with walls of text.
You keep throwing the number 273 but you're only shooting yourself in the foot saying it. Quite comical really.
Anyways have a good one. Enjoy the changes.
Last edited:
exploit
verb
verb: exploit; 3rd person present: exploits; past tense: exploited; past participle: exploited; gerund or present participle: exploiting
ɪkˈsplɔɪt,ɛkˈsplɔɪt/
- 1.
make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
"500 companies sprang up to exploit this new technology"
synonyms: utilize, make use of, put to use, use, use to good advantage, turn/put to good use, make the most of, capitalize on, benefit from, turn to account, draw on; Moreprofit from/by, make capital out of;
informalcash in on, milk
"platinum was originally exploited by the Indians of Colombia and Ecuador"
- 2.
make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand.
"the company was exploiting a legal loophole"
I expect that you are using the first definition when talking about "exploits" but I am using the second, just so we understand the difference. In previous post on this thread I have tried to use the word in the 2nd context of gaining an unfair advantage. If you prefer, just to make it clear in the instance you mentioned, I will change the word to cheat. The block tool is not for blocking everybody and anybody you meet in OPEN, it is meant for players getting trolled. Before that tool was in the menu making it pretty much unusable. Now using block to effectively make a PG for you and your friends is pointless, as this option already exists for you. Boasting about using block about it in forum thread for anything other than an anti-trolling method is beyond pathetic.
One last thing the level 5 engineering exploit (1st def), was a bug, not intended by FDev. Players made hay with it until it got shut down. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.
No, force is a complete willful misrepresentation of what this thread was suppose to be about. The OP and a few other notably contributors have aptly put forward a critique of the current situation in ED. "How to incentivize open and make it relevant". People have different views on this and where the balance lies but the fact remains nobody is going to or can force people to play in a mode they don't want to. I would suggest to you that this kind of argument is a red herring, trying to divert attention away from the original point of the post. Did you seriously write "by whatever means necessary" do you think Laterus is going to to kidnap your pet hamster, unless you play in open? You clearly have difficulty with the risk/reward concept and above all ED as a game!
I understand that people prefer playing in SOLO/PG for a variety of reasons, however, one of which may be purely tactical, basically to exploit the fact they can filter out other players. Where this has created an imbalance (i.e. trading, missions BGS etc.) or just a plain exploit (power play) to just a pure cheat (using block for tactical purpose) in OPEN and it is entirely legitimate to point this out.
If more people prefer SOLO and PG why? For those with bad connections or just don't want to play with others or just their friends, then nothing is going to incentivize people into open and that is fine. If griefing and bad C&P is making the OPEN experience not enjoyable, then fine, stay in SOLO/PG, that is absolutely fine. This debate does not really effect you, I respect your stance, I hope you have a good playing experience.
If let say 20% of people playing in SOLO/PG are doing that because of significantly less risk with a greater reward and they want to make a wodge of credits quickly by trading. What would encourage them back to open greater rewards would be surely part of it, better C&P, also don't you think?
I don't have an agenda other than an OPEN player who wants to see the game as a whole but particularly OPEN made better. I am not a griefer or really condone that style of play but would rather see C&P made better and have a more engaging, dynamic game, for PvP but also more generally. Griefing is more symptomatic of bad C&P and therefore lack of meaning PvP in my opinion. However, what is the real moral difference between an NPC bandit and a human greifer, not a lot. The only difference is level of skill and superior machinery but that is a different matter. ED is a space ship computer game in a free roaming galaxy, where you can fit big laser, guns etc. What do you think is gonna happen? I would rather play in a galaxy with griefers in it than not.
I can't tell you what Laterus' "true" agenda with this post is you would have to ask him. The OP was reasonable and it engaging I thought, don't agree with it all but with the gist. My question to you is so what if Laterus has an agenda to get people in to OPEN to shoot at them? What is the big deal? Nobody has to play in OPEN and above all its a game with no death in it!
What would entice you back into open?
Well if nobody has acknowledge that particular point it is probably, because, it was never suggested from what I've read. Only in relation to player factions. This has been further modified by suggestions along the lines of reducing influence in SOLO/PG when attacking PBF, via the BGS. Further suggestions of setting up a system where PBF can choose if they PVP&E or just PvE and setting rules of engagement along those lines. Have we heard any constructive criticism of these ideas. No, just more of the same, nonsense about griefer agendas! Play the ball not the man!
Last edited:
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
You keep saying this, which is really confusing. What changes in Beyond will affect the three modes? FDev haven't released a single comment that could be understood as "we are changing the way modes will work for the BGS."
The only thing released is the note about introducing Squadrons (NOT Guilds for crying out loud!), which is to be an in-game feature to help organise player groups in the game. These will also be able to buy a Fleet Carrier (ETA: Q4 2018). That's it!
There was absolutely nothing in the FX reveals that even hinted at them considering changing the modes and how they worked. And I haven't seen them saying anything even remotely close to that in any of their Livestreams, Newsletters, Dev posts here, etc etc. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
So, where do you get this idea from? Did you hear Squadrons, coordinate Player groups, Fleet Carrier, and immediately thought "Open only! No more BGS in Solo/PG"? Because if you did, that's all in your head at this point in time.
The letter you are presenting from Support is also a member of the Support team going way outside his mandate. They have no say in how the game is developed, they only forward issues to the Dev Team. He may personally believe it would be a good idea, but he doesn't control it, nor does he get to tell the Dev Team what to do. What he did however do, was put ideas into your head that they were gonna change how the BGS works, by being supportive of your claim. Again, that's really outside his mandate as they should be impartial to issues not classified as bugs/exploits imho. And as much as you would like it to, working the BGS from PG/Solo is not an exploit; it's a Design Feature.
So, if you have all this evidence, please present it in an orderly manner so I can understand where you got the idea from. I haven't seen any evidence to any of your claims. And avoid your own personal ideas about what they have said may mean, because those are just that, your personal ideas and interpretations. Nothing else at this time.
Thank you.
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
Eh, what?
One of them is programmed to attack you because you're running a missions, or to scan you and leave you alone if you're not wanted, carrying cargo or Hostile to the system Power.
The other attacks and kills you because you're a player, and takes satisfaction in knowing that there is a human player on the other side of the controls that is affected by their actions.
One is deliberately coded to create some "action" in the game. The other is just there to make your day miserable.
To cause Grief, hence Griefer.
Now remember, I am not saying that all PvPers are Griefers. But when the word Griefer is appropriately used, then there is a wall of difference between them and the NPC criminals.
Yeah possibly I was pushing that line a bit but at the end of the day they both attack you for no good reason. There does seem to be a double standard. If NPC's were as engineered and had similar skill to human players, with the AI programmed to attack on sight would that be OK?
Yeah on second thoughts I take back the moral bit. I don't believe frontier have created AI that has passed the Turing test. One is an amoral act the other is an immoral one! In the context of the game of course, it is just a game!
Last edited:
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
NPCs always have a reason to attack you. They even tell you so in comms. If you are in a non-hostile system, not wanted, nor carrying any cargo or have taken any missions, NPCs leave you completely alone. A system in war may have the system authority pull you, but they never fire on you if all of the above apply.
So your statement is not true; only players fire on you for no good reason (except their own enjoyment, which is kind of a reason I guess).
I dispute the fact they leave you alone. Got attacked the other day, not doing a mission, no cargo, I suppose I was in an anarchy but that is irrelevant. The stated reason was cargo. If a griefer attacks you in an anarchy is that OK then?
Anyhow, NPC are generally a bit stupid but I just put griefing down to being a space mad loon! 
ta
taArguendo
Volunteer Moderator
Yeah, that's a bug with the loadout for NPC Pirates. They don't always carry cargo scanners, so they just request cargo out of the blue
I just said that there is a huge difference between NPCs doing it and players doing it. I however readily admit that I don't understand the thrill some people get out of shooting unarmed traders and explorers for fun, or playing "Traffic Police" at stations. I wish the game deterred that more than it does in non-anarchy space, but in anarchy everything goes. That portion of space should be dangerous...but it should also pay more to venture out there imho.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
I understand what the letter meant. My point is I have PROVEN with video evidence along with many other points whats going on here.
The support letter was to show they acknowledged the complaint. And it has been received with evidence to the developers of the game. Thats it! Robert wanted to see it since I mentioned it before.
And they even acknowledged in their personal opinion that they agreed there was no counter.
There are more ways to influence the BGS besides cop killing and bounty hunting for influence. Anyone that really understood the BGS would know that.
At any rate, The Crime and punishment changed stemmed from the whining about getting killed in open. The outcry certainly didnt come from the solo or private group player.
And none of it will be balanced unless, the influences are fixed. Their own crime and punishment system or SDC's crime and punishment system is all negated by combat logging or mode switching.
Especially when it comes to GUILDS later of for objectives. You think this is all bad now? Wait till thats implemented. This topic IS GOING TO GET WORSE! You think they dont know that already?
They release that and it falls flat on its face just like powerplay is now.
Yes, they can introduce some of the things for the crime and punishment for each mode. But what we are talking about is objective control. And if it doesn't change, then we are still in the same boat going nowhere in a mile wide inch deep river. Literally nothing changes and SOLO/PRIVATE modes still hold the advantage against other player factions.
Thats something else, most player factions have people on Xbox, PS4 and PC. So we can defend anywhere. Oh people around the world and different time zones? Groups are big enough for that as well for defense.
Again, they can add all the changes in the world. But unless they fix the influences of the BGS then we are going nowhere fast. And PVP will still have no meaning in Elite Dangerous. While people will still whine and cry about getting ganked. And powerplay will be right where it is now along with the guilds.
So, I took the evidence I had for the long fight thats been going on long before I got here. Nor did I know anything about it till I discovered it ON MY OWN and gave suggestions. Then I was pointed to the Hotel California thread. Its funny because no one had influence over what I said here. I thought I came up with something that could on my own. Only to discover its been a problem.
Anyways, you guys argue it all you want. Time will be on my side. The beyond Series is all about C H A N G E S. Lets see what happens.
Can't help yourself can you? This is why Hotel California has been around for more than 40k posts! Admit it...you like riding the fancy dragon best!
- Status