Thank you for maintaining the awesome Wall O' Info! *hands you... a shrubbery!*
- Status
Thank you for maintaining the awesome Wall O' Info! *hands you... a shrubbery!*
When you consider the game is (supposed to be) balanced around PvE, all play styles are valid (confirmed by FD saying all styles are valid).
What is needed is fixes to some of the balance that FD got wrong with NPCs, JC did put up a list of tweaks that would balance out the game better.
You, like some others made the assumption this is a PvP game, when it is not.
It is a PvE game that allows PvP encounters.
The game you think this is, was never advertised, was never sold and does not exist.
Your options are, accept the game for what it is or go and make the game you want - like FD are doing.
Actually, we had a good discussion and created a new Group - The Bacon Cats.
As for "snide" I direct you to your own posts, dripping with innuendo, snideness, entitlement and barely-concealed hostility.
Awesome summation of point!
Agreement has been reached on this generally. I would like to see some work on dealing with psychokillers/spoiled brats, storyline, buffs to NPC cargo and a few other issues:
- "NameUnknown" servers?
- medium landing pads
- doubling fines at stations rather than "we are going to blow up a hydrogen reactor in an enclosed space because you didn't pay a $200cr fine or took a bit too long getting out of the mailslot when your landing gear caught in the toaster rack)
- (CHAT dammit. CHAT needs help!)
- more & better info, like what the shield multipliers are
- why does armor not shield the powerplant, which is, after all, a contained hydrogen bomb?
... and so on. You have contributed to some of these ideas. Thanks
Unfortunately, that whole discussion should happen in another thread, not this one.
Last edited:
I wouldn't go as far as to add "barely-concealed" - I welcomed him back to the topic and he came out swinging.
Couldn't be polite for one post, even boxers give a friendly gesture before beating the snot out of each other.
If nothing else, he will spice up the thread for a while
You get what you give.
Last edited:
No man is a joystick interface.
Unless his name is Kempston.
Unless his name is Kempston.
We argue that those playstyles, and their value to the game are not universally desired. There is nothing stopping players from pursuing those activities with players who agree with you. The rub comes from an insistence that everyone need play that way. The game is designed with the BGS and/or PP being contended through PvE actions to allow all players to have equal impact. You really don't want to play with pilots that aren't prepared, or interested in thatbstyle, do you?
The invalidation of playstyles, that are not inherent to the design, is a dubious reason to complain. To this side of the debate that position smacks of trumped up reasons to elevate your choices over ours, and possibly a ploy to garner more victims.
So far I believe the status quo is more viable, for a diverse player base like ours, than forcing players into conforming to one set of gamer ethics, represented by a demonstrated minority of players. The open-only argument gives no room for other opinions, and has been ruled out, almost from the beginning by the Developers, and the Backers. There will have to be some new and irrefutable argument arise to budge FD, and many of the pilots from the current design. I haven't heard that kind of position from the open-only side yet.
Sadly that is what he is good at. Maybe he's angry because people see through his and what he's trying to turn Open into.
This is not a competition or a slanging match.
Also Steve got fed up repeating basic information to people who refuse to learn.
Thankyou for constantly quoting my Wall O' Info. however, it really helps to hammer the point that at the end of the day, the whole thing rests on FD and their opinion not ours. Feel free to keep quoting it, it saves me doing it.
You need do nothing. Open is the PvP mode. I am not aware of your activities in trying to create anything new. Can you link something so I can check it out?
From thread 2 in the series;
A separate mode infringes on the ability to mode hop, when you have one that is exclusive to one subset of players.
And the ability to mode hop was an advertised feature from the start - as you well know, you keep quoting it.
Even with one, it goes against what FD are doing - unless a massive chunk of the player base were to stop playing, they will just ignore calls for locked/ separate modes. As shown in my recently quoted Wall O' Info (Dev quotes near the bottom).
FD want one background sim with us all on it. Separate/ locked modes would require another BGS to maintain, while it can be done - they don't want to do it, is the short answer. And I don't blame them, they are doing what they said they'd do and sticking to it.
And with so few actually complaining about the current set up, there really is nothing for them to worry about.
Rather easy , the lengths would be none. You advocate Open Only, that would mean NO modes.. everyone stuck in Open... that is the you want to turn ED into.. a forced PVP area where you and some others can get your jollies off by blowing everyone who never wanted to play with you up.
FD has proven itself both flexible, and responsive to the players needs. There has always been a interest from FD for an Ironman mode. I don't feel comfortable being an absolutist. I welcome any good reason for improvements to the game. It's just that there hasn't been a strong enough argument that trumps the current point of view, and design.
This just in from Update #85:
"Civil wars take place between minor factions in the same system over ownership of major assets like starports. During civil wars, only combat missions and activities help bring the conflict to a resolution. Security, development level and standard of living indicators all drop for the duration of the civil war."
So there ya go, combatters. You CAN make a direct change in PowerPlay by pewpew!
Also:
"We’ve also heard some players wanting a bit more challenge in their scenarios so an even more hazardous extraction site has been added to provide a more dangerous environment. In dangerous systems the scenarios around the nav beacons can also be a high threat version if it has been compromised."
So there's some more combat pewpew in RES!
So that should fix at least 2 arguments here...
- - - Updated - - -
I agree and plead mea culpa, although I did go back and edit out the snarky namecalling. Unfortunately, I was too late.
Ah, well.
"Civil wars take place between minor factions in the same system over ownership of major assets like starports. During civil wars, only combat missions and activities help bring the conflict to a resolution. Security, development level and standard of living indicators all drop for the duration of the civil war."
So there ya go, combatters. You CAN make a direct change in PowerPlay by pewpew!
Also:
"We’ve also heard some players wanting a bit more challenge in their scenarios so an even more hazardous extraction site has been added to provide a more dangerous environment. In dangerous systems the scenarios around the nav beacons can also be a high threat version if it has been compromised."
So there's some more combat pewpew in RES!
So that should fix at least 2 arguments here...
- - - Updated - - -
I agree and plead mea culpa, although I did go back and edit out the snarky namecalling. Unfortunately, I was too late.
Ah, well.
But I wantz and entitledism to shoots CMDRS 4 pew-pew! Dey haz 2 f34r my roff! raff! Whatever it is dey has to f34r it an be pew-pew!
- Status