The weapons are not completely useless though.. yes missiles don't do well against shields, they are effective on hulls.
- Status
The weapons are not completely useless though.. yes missiles don't do well against shields, they are effective on hulls.
Yeah he was bragging about how he would sit outside a station waiting for unshielded CMDR traders to come past in his viper, target their cargo hatch and let rip with torpedoes. Let himself then get killed by the station and respawn without the bounty inside the station ready to swap to another ship to pick up any dropped cargo (Assuming cargo hatch broke before ship exploded)
Not they are not, I am....
I am, the one and only...
[video=youtube_share;0V5PLkFuxrY]https://youtu.be/0V5PLkFuxrY[/video]
Not only do I follow it, but I show others what it is, with the link in my Sig
This kind of behavior by some players is just another form of cyber bullying. FD is right in attempting to put a stop to it. But there are better ways. Enforce the rules of engagement. Increase the response of in-game security forces. Anarchy regions will be more dangerous, but that's as it should be.
This is an interesting idea, but i whole heartedly disagree. I think open, "or open play if you prefer" space should be open, with a complete understanding that anything can happen at any time, with no false illusions of being safe. My reasoning is this, when you enter the open mode, everyone should have their game face on! watching out for bad things to happen at any time, and be prepared to deal with it accordingly. Part of the fun is surviving and flourishing in this mode, against these exact dangers.
Anytime relying on rule enforcement, or a security force to fight your fight for you, it can be turned on you, and used against you at any time by many players that like to game the rules. There is a whole sub sect of the gaming community that love to play that exact game. Establishing order as it is in EvE opens this game up, and some players want this very much.
No rules in open is the best way at least for me, many probably wont agree.
In Elite we have our modes of play! Choosing the group we play with is the best insurance against players we may not appreciate! Not giving some imaginary shield of protection for open to encourage new and learning players to go there and become simply a clay pigeon for the gankers.
Please don't engage comments like that - it is just baiting.
Click the report button and move on, sooner or later they will give up with the insults or get removed from the forums - either way is a win for us.
You know.. while I think it is despicable, if people are running around unshielded then that is partially their fault.. but he is also clearly abusing the bounty system.. and pulling and eve trick of using a disposable ship to gain profit off of destroying others without any real consequences to themselves.
- - - Updated - - -
Not they are not, I am....
I am, the one and only...
https://youtu.be/0V5PLkFuxrY
Not only do I follow it, but I show others what it is, with the link in my Sig
I made sure to reference that we were not talking about you ^,^
I know, but wanted to have fun with it anyway
I'm taking a break from posting information people should know by now (and getting insulted for it), and just chilling with a smidge of being silly.
No, I see no problem at all. Players that want the PvP conflict play in open, players that don't want it play somewhere else, with the mode switching guaranteeing that people can still play together whenever they want, without any kind of hindrance or handicap, regardless of their choice.
And sincerely you won't ever change my opinion on this. I played WoW in PvP servers for the better part of a decade due to having friends that refused to play on a PvE server, hated every single time that we were attacked, and never in all that time initiated the conflict against other players. That more or less cemented my opinion that locking players into a PvP environment, by any means, is fundamentally wrong.
So, I see any case where an unwilling player is attacked as a blow to the very core of what a game should be, rendering it pointless. Transforming what should have been an enjoyable activity into just a way for those that don't care about ruining the day for others to get a quick fix. And the only reason I don't see this as happening in ED (or at least as it being widespread) is because players can switch modes without any negative consequences.
It is, after all, a game. A leisure activity. And, as a leisure activity, it only makes sense if the player is enjoying it, having fun.
The easiest thing of all would be to just not play. It's a game, you don't get anything tangible out of it, anything of use in the real world. Playing a game is done because the player enjoys the experience.
So, those that find the "do anything else" part enjoyable, do so and stay in Open; those for whom doing that means damaging their experience and making the game more frustrating than fun get the choice to avoid it. Choice helping make the game better from everyone, except for those that want unwilling victims.
- - - Updated - - -
Well, yeah, if Frontier's objective was to get most players happily playing in Open, they made quite a few glaring errors in how they set the rules and the consequences for player actions. Worse, most of those issues are fairly well understood; after all, MMOs kept running into them since at least Ultima Online back in the 90s, and MUDs had to deal with those same issues since quite earlier. Games with open PvP have always devolved into boring FFA PvP unless strong controls — like CONCORD in EVE — are implemented, and Frontier seemingly didn't bother learning this before releasing ED.
That being said, adding the game modes, which allow players to still play and enjoy the game even if the Open mode ends more frustrating than fun due to human nature, was a stroke of genius. It's what allows players that are chased out of Open to still be players, instead of ex-players.
I believe this one was a concession for having a far harsher death penalty than in any of the previous games.
In any other Elite game, what happens if you go to an Anarchy system and are killed? You just reload the game, with everything exactly like it was before you took the trip. No cargo loss, no insurance buyout, no failed missions, no consequences apart from a few minutes of gameplay lost. With so little consequences, the devs can make the game as hard as they want, and the players for the most part won't complain.
But, in ED, what happens if you die? Without being able to just reload the game, you lose a fair bit of credits paying your insurance buyout, your cargo, any unclaimed bonds, any unsold data, potentially fail any missions you were attempting, and so on. With the death penalty being this high, Frontier is more or less forced to make the chance that the player will die far smaller than in any of the previous games, hence the boringly easy gameplay.
There's a balance between death penalties and difficulty that many players don't see. Devs need to manage how much frustration the player is subject to while playing in order to avoid the player just giving up on the game. Due to that, the more frustrating the death penalty, the rarer it should be applied to the player; in other words, making death sting forces the devs to make the game easier than it otherwise could have been, forces them to allow players to escape death with ease.
Incidentally, thanks to that, I believe we will only ever have a chance of seeing Anarchy systems truly dangerous if the current death penalties are for the most part scrapped.
Likewise. Games have rules...otherwise they become unplayable. Saying open play should have no rules is a disengenious argument to promote a private group that has its own rules. I've never liked private clubs and won't join one. What was it Groucho Marx said? Something about he wouldn't belong to a club that would have him as a member? Anyway...something like that. Must have been one of his rules.
Last edited:
This is an interesting idea, but i whole heartedly disagree. I think open, "or open play if you prefer" space should be open, with a complete understanding that anything can happen at any time, with no false illusions of being safe. My reasoning is this, when you enter the open mode, everyone should have their game face on! watching out for bad things to happen at any time, and be prepared to deal with it accordingly. Part of the fun is surviving and flourishing in this mode, against these exact dangers.
Anytime relying on rule enforcement, or a security force to fight your fight for you, it can be turned on you, and used against you at any time by many players that like to game the rules. There is a whole sub sect of the gaming community that love to play that exact game. Establishing order as it is in EvE opens this game up, and some players want this very much.
No rules in open is the best way at least for me, many probably wont agree.
In Elite we have our modes of play! Choosing the group we play with is the best insurance against players we may not appreciate! Not giving some imaginary shield of protection for open to encourage new and learning players to go there and become simply a clay pigeon for the gankers.
I kind of agree. Making 'rules' for Open just means FD have to spend time and resources 'nerfing' exploits that will inevitably be discovered. It's human nature. So yeah, make Open as it is, anything goes, but they should, as was proposed in the Open PvE thread provide a clearly available PvE Open mode too. It's all linked.
- - - Updated - - -
All excellent points. Particularly the points that this is a game, and should be fun, and your absolutely spot on observations regarding the harsher penalty for death. Would rep you if I could.
I kind of agree. Making 'rules' for Open just means FD have to spend time and resources 'nerfing' exploits that will inevitably be discovered. It's human nature. So yeah, make Open as it is, anything goes, but they should, as was proposed in the Open PvE thread provide a clearly available PvE Open mode too. It's all linked.
- - - Updated - - -
All excellent points. Particularly the points that this is a game, and should be fun, and your absolutely spot on observations regarding the harsher penalty for death. Would rep you if I could.
Repped him for both of us and may have sent a few pounds of Cubeo Razorback Bacon as well as a gift
PVE Bacon, its the best, I hear this years Cubeo Razorback is exceptional, should be a rare I heard. Now try to take my Bacon, its a different story
, I will get all PVP on you .Only last month I interdicted a "Bacon robber" with the gankfest comment of "excuse me, I believe that is my sandwich". He picked up his toast and left before I could shoot him in the face with a PA, lucky guy I could have cost him millions of credits, but he knew his jam on toast never stood a chance against Bacon.
OK time for bed & to dream about a "double Bacon and egg on toasted white, well done Bacon with butter and ketchup", Ahh dreams of what sunrise may bring, my forefathers told such tales of Bacon, bread and eggs, how I revere them and their wisdom
Last edited:
PVE Bacon, its the best, I hear this years Cubeo Razorback is exceptional, should be a rare I heard. Now try to take my Bacon, its a different story
Only last month I interdicted a "Bacon robber" with the gankfest comment of "excuse me, I believe that is my sandwich". He picked up his toast and left before I could shoot him in the face with a PA, lucky guy I could have cost him millions of credits, but he knew his jam on toast never stood a chance against Bacon.
OK time for bed & to dream about a "double Bacon and egg on toasted white, well done Bacon with butter and ketchup", Ahh dreams of what sunrise may bring, my forefathers told such tales of Bacon, bread and eggs, how I revere them and their wisdom
Dream big.. a PVE mode ^,^
I have noticed that simple, point-blank questions written with the most inocuous and genuine wish to understand the nuances of these problems never get an answer.
- - - Updated - - -
Once again I will remind you that this is not true; you could see it yourself if you read the whole megathread (all three pages). Your idea of "improve the game" boils down to having more targets to supply your game, no matter if others wish to play it or not. You're trying to misrepresent many of the players' opinion here with a cookie-cutter slogan. Won't work.
Last edited:
Tired of all this semantic hijinks and loophole-squirming.
The problem being danced around is that open has problems. Problems with sociopaths; problems with tear-the-wings-off-flys types. The problem of open is what the players have made it. It doesn't look pretty. You can't escape that this has happened and that it is a community problem.
What is really puzzling is that the "reasonable" "pirates" try to push this under the rug, obfuscate and backhaul when this simple statistic is mentioned. "It's not our job to be the cops!" is the usual sideline. Then on and on how open is "boring" and "a wasteland" and that malicious PKers somehow are only a tiny handful of people. They aren't. The forums are full of nasty stories.
These "open/pvpers/i-don't-know-what-to-call-them" want changes in the game to make open "betterer" but it ain't gonna happen until the real problem is addressed. How come the "pirates" aren't full-steam on FD to deal with this problem through better NPCs, through player-sticky bounties and real penalties for being a nasty menace? After all, it is their bottom line & gameplay that's being affected by those types, not mine.
btw, I do venture out in open from time to time... as long as I am 100ly away from other players. Am I still "hiding" then? You can't see what I am doing, and I AM affecting the markets and the minor factions. You can't see the entire Xbox brigade, who are doing the same things & affecting the BGS. Should we now complain non-stop about this "ghost army" of Xboxers affecting everything? They can't join "open" even if they wanted to, but they still affect the game.
- - - Updated - - -
an elegant and incisive post. +1 thx for the read.
The problem being danced around is that open has problems. Problems with sociopaths; problems with tear-the-wings-off-flys types. The problem of open is what the players have made it. It doesn't look pretty. You can't escape that this has happened and that it is a community problem.
What is really puzzling is that the "reasonable" "pirates" try to push this under the rug, obfuscate and backhaul when this simple statistic is mentioned. "It's not our job to be the cops!" is the usual sideline. Then on and on how open is "boring" and "a wasteland" and that malicious PKers somehow are only a tiny handful of people. They aren't. The forums are full of nasty stories.
These "open/pvpers/i-don't-know-what-to-call-them" want changes in the game to make open "betterer" but it ain't gonna happen until the real problem is addressed. How come the "pirates" aren't full-steam on FD to deal with this problem through better NPCs, through player-sticky bounties and real penalties for being a nasty menace? After all, it is their bottom line & gameplay that's being affected by those types, not mine.
btw, I do venture out in open from time to time... as long as I am 100ly away from other players. Am I still "hiding" then? You can't see what I am doing, and I AM affecting the markets and the minor factions. You can't see the entire Xbox brigade, who are doing the same things & affecting the BGS. Should we now complain non-stop about this "ghost army" of Xboxers affecting everything? They can't join "open" even if they wanted to, but they still affect the game.
- - - Updated - - -
an elegant and incisive post. +1 thx for the read.
Last edited:
"bacon"
Just to let you folks know, there is some counterfeit bacon dealers floating about with inferior "bacon" - we're not even sure if it's actually bacon. You can tell the difference in that it is not the good Cubeo "back bacon" but a seriously-fatty product. It's also green...
Last edited:
The problem with Open is that security levels are not well enforced. Rather than being safe & low risk, the core high security systems are the most dangerous. The frontier space is the safest, as you are unlikely to see anyone. This is completely backwards.
I'm the one who started the original (now closed) Open PvE thread, and I would be completely satisfied by an Open Mode, where high-sec cops responded quickly and could 1-shot most players not in wings. I don't care what has to be done to lore to make this work. I don't care whose immersion it breaks. I just think this inversion of the security zones is the problem with Open.
- Status