Newcomer / Intro Things I find odd about ED!

What would happen to the civilians? They would suffer and die. War is hell. It is meant to be hell, so governments don’t indulge in it too often. Have you thought how much more interesting a fully implemented war state would be, instead of just scattering a few random conflict zones around? There would be opportunities for traders to make money shipping in vital goods, smuggling of weapons, scouting missions, patrol sweeps or rapid response, escort missions for freighters, humanitarian missions, repair of damaged installations, rescue missions of pilots, passenger missions for people wanting to get out.
As for the duration, to what purpose given that all come back and start again a few minutes, again and again, like some ghastly forever war! The poor pilots trapped in an endless cycle of combat!
I'm just talking about lore reasons that wars/CZ could be just like they are in game. I don't know if there's actual lore detailing rules of engagement & their version of the Geneva.
 
"Green" is just a colour. There was clearly a list of colors used as part of the procedural generation for faction names - purple, crimson, jet, green, etc. They're very common.
Well that makes sense and of course FDev had no idea of the connotations that Green Party would have if included in the game! :) Not seen any white, black or brown party factions in the game. So looks like some colours were excluded!

Each government form has a "set" of adjectives the procedural-name-generator could call upon. Some of those adjectives in each group are colours. "Green" is an adjective for Democracies, and is only ever attached to the word "party"; I believe it is their only colour. "Blue", "Gold", "Silver", "Crimson" and "Jet" are options for Corporates and Anarchies; with Corporates, the colour adjective usually (but not always) replaces the system name (eg. Blue Allied Industries), but with anarchies the adjective is attached to the government name (eg Crom Silver Boys).
 
I am not sure a more immersive war implementation would be a problem for the BGS. As CZ’s stand you can either just dive in and pick a side or take a mission for one side. The results of war related missions could be tracked and fed into the BGS every 24 hours. As it stands apart from CZ’s and a few different missions systems in war are much the same as every other one.
I didn't say the war state couldn't be changed; it has been. Several times. There never used to be conflict zone objectives of any form. Indeed, the lost efficient way to win wars used to be killing a single Eagle, leaving the CZ and cashing the bond, then repeating the action.

Conflict zones are now a little more complex, with medium and high intensity zones now offering multiple objectives, such as SpecOps ships (highly engineered killing machines; not for the faint of heart or pilots in minimally-engineered ships!), reporters, enemy captains and capital ships. All objectives count towards the outcome of the conflict. Given the way the BGS actually works (now value-based rather than the previous, easily-gamed transaction-based system), and the fact that conflicts don't actually pay very well in comparison to practically every other activity in the game, I do question why players would grind conflicts over bounty-hunting, if they're interested in combat as an activity.

Incidentally, war-related missions already do contribute to the outcome - if you have to get your guns out, it counts. Missions can always be more elaborate and involved, but given the challenge involved in CZs as they already stand, I'm not totally convinced that they need to be as a priority. Fighting in and around installations would be cool though (although any pilot should rightfully be afraid of getting shot up by an outpost or starport.)

For the sake of multiplayer balance it is important, IMO, that equal number of actions be available to either side, and that anyone particular lever not be overly influential. The asynchronous part of this is important in that it would be rather unfair for players in, say, Europe, to be able to complete all the missions and do all the things while their antipodean counterparts slept. I'd love FD to elaborate the levers that work the BGS, as long as they keep it fair.
 
My main plea is to make war state something more challenging, but also more rewarding. Some unique missions to war state systems and much greater risks with bigger payouts. One of the complaints I hear about ED is the lack of danger from NPC’s and the need for gankers to make it interesting. Well a war state could provide that challenge, much like anarchy systems did in the original game. You could make a tidy profit shipping to anarchy systems, but even with a fully upgraded ship and a lot of combat experience the sheer number of hostiles made it a challenge. I remember some epic battles to get through to the station no fire zone. I have been doing CZ’s to get combat bonds to unlock Juri and you can travel round the system just like any other. I can even shoot up a factions ships, then dock at a station they control and get a welcome commander greeting and a reload of my guns so I can go and shoot some more! It is like the war doesn’t exist outside the CZ’s.
As for the time zone thing is that a problem if the results are summed over 24 hours? At some point the Europeans will be sleeping while the Antipodeans can rack up the mission counts.
 
How many times do you have to do a unique mission before it's no longer unique and people start to complain that it's boring? There's no such thing as a unique mission; there are templates. This is an issue with content in games.

As for "the whole system should be dangerous," I think that's been pretty well dealt with by others, although I'd add that space is big. There are also missions from surrounding systems to deliver weapons and the like during a war state.

Communist and anarchy factions in industrial and high-tech systems will produce them and their mission boards will have the missions.

Completing conflict zone objectives does actually cost you reputation with the faction you act against. If you do this too much, you could well end up in a situation where you can't dock at a station, although I do agree that the effect could be significantly more pronounced. My

The point I was making with time zones is that it has to be balanced, which suggests that the same or similar missions need to be available over the period between ticks, i.e. the content can't be "unique" as it will be repeated. This brings us back to the question I asked in my first sentence.

Yes, more content is good, but it's important to be realistic about it.
 
Did I say unique? No I meant just different to what you get to other systems. Unique missions would be part of a story arc not of a system in a particular state. Yes there are missions shipping weapons etc into war state system, but from what I have seen they are identical to all the other cargo runs. You may get random pirate interdictions who say “Surprised you made it this far with a big haul like that!” or you get the inbox message with the bad guys are after you, watch your back and there is extra cash if you take them out. You can get the same hauling fruit and veg to some peaceful backwater. What you don’t get is the rival factions “navy” interdicting your ship wanting to inspect you’re cargo ie manifest scan, and if weapons you have the option of surrendering and being hauled off to jail or fighting and/or running. Are there any escort missions? I haven’t seen any so far. Trying to kill the bad guys, watch your six and protect another vessel adds a certain something to the experience of combat I find.
So far they seem remarkably tolerant and still getting the welcome mat laid out. I might see how far I can push it before they get the hump.
Yes obviously the same missions would have to be available to all players throughout the BGS cycle to give everyone an equal chance of influencing it.
One final thing, if space is so big how come it so easy to find people in a system? And if gankers can make the space in Shinrarta Dezhra so harzardous in open why doesn’t the same apply to war states?
 
Last edited:
Did I say unique? No I meant just different to what you get to other systems. Unique missions would be part of a story arc not of a system in a particular state. Yes there are missions shipping weapons etc into war state system, but from what I have seen they are identical to all the other cargo runs. You may get random pirate interdictions who say “Surprised you made it this far with a big haul like that!” or you get the inbox message with the bad guys are after you, watch your back and there is extra cash if you take them out. You can get the same hauling fruit and veg to some peaceful backwater. What you don’t get is the rival factions “navy” interdicting your ship wanting to inspect you’re cargo ie manifest scan, and if weapons you have the option of surrendering and being hauled off to jail or fighting and/or running. Are there any escort missions? I haven’t seen any so far. Trying to kill the bad guys, watch your six and protect another vessel adds a certain something to the experience of combat I find.
So far they seem remarkably tolerant and still getting the welcome mat laid out. I might see how far I can push it before they get the hump.
Yes obviously the same missions would have to be available to all players throughout the BGS cycle to give everyone an equal chance of influencing it.
One final thing, if space is so big how come it so easy to find people in a system? And if gankers can make the space in Shinrarta Dezhra so harzardous in open why doesn’t the same apply to war states?
There is only one Shinrarta Dezhra so they and their targets concentrate there, outside of engineer bases and locations of events commanders don’t tend to be found in groups which leads to sparse pickings for them.
 
There is only one Shinrarta Dezhra so they and their targets concentrate there, outside of engineer bases and locations of events commanders don’t tend to be found in groups which leads to sparse pickings for them.
You misunderstand. If a limited number of gankers can make a system dangerous to venture into then FDev with unlimited NPC’s available should be able to make war states more dangerous to venture into. It is a counter to the space is big argument so you can be invisible in a war system and not be bothered on your way to drop off your cargo of weapons. You don’t have to cram every cubic km of space with hostiles to make it dangerous. There are obvious choke points which with enough hostile ships in will make it dangerous to do business with.
 
You misunderstand. If a limited number of gankers can make a system dangerous to venture into then FDev with unlimited NPC’s available should be able to make war states more dangerous to venture into. It is a counter to the space is big argument so you can be invisible in a war system and not be bothered on your way to drop off your cargo of weapons. You don’t have to cram every cubic km of space with hostiles to make it dangerous. There are obvious choke points which with enough hostile ships in will make it dangerous to do business with.

You do know that engagement of non-combatants is a war crime? You cannot excuse it by declaring blockade as there are more factions in the system than the two at war so you cannot logically blockade non-combatant factions without producing a hostile response from them (although of course that isn't modelled in the game, I am referencing your position).

Your "systems that have wars should be dangerous" is not valid for neutral ships to my mind. In contrast though, I feel that systems in thrall to anarchy factions or under pirate attack should be more hazardous than they are at the moment.

The main issue is that there needs to be some artificial structure to the combat between rival factions in order for some modelling of progress and outcomes to be manageable. So CZs might not be perfect but they serve a purpose and to my mind it behoves us as players to accept the modelling written into the game and work within those parameters rather than getting too upset that one doesn't feel they are realistic. I mean that for example we can accept that there isn't Newtonian mechanics at play for playability reasons, why not accept and adapt to other situations.
 
You do know that engagement of non-combatants is a war crime? You cannot excuse it by declaring blockade as there are more factions in the system than the two at war so you cannot logically blockade non-combatant factions without producing a hostile response from them (although of course that isn't modelled in the game, I am referencing your position).

Your "systems that have wars should be dangerous" is not valid for neutral ships to my mind. In contrast though, I feel that systems in thrall to anarchy factions or under pirate attack should be more hazardous than they are at the moment.

The main issue is that there needs to be some artificial structure to the combat between rival factions in order for some modelling of progress and outcomes to be manageable. So CZs might not be perfect but they serve a purpose and to my mind it behoves us as players to accept the modelling written into the game and work within those parameters rather than getting too upset that one doesn't feel they are realistic. I mean that for example we can accept that there isn't Newtonian mechanics at play for playability reasons, why not accept and adapt to other situations.
Sorry remain unconvinced. In war there is such a thing as collateral damage and sometimes innocents get in the way of a shoot first ask questions later scenario. And of course there is a big difference to being interdicted for a customs inspection and being attacked by pirates. One is clearly illegal, the other may cause aggro, but could be regarded as legitimate response to a faction under threat. It does happen now that the hit squad get sent after you, but it does if you are shipping something perfectly harmless into a lawful, peaceful system, rather than running guns to one faction in the middle of a war.
As for accepting things the way they are is it not allowed to suggest how things could be different and maybe better and more immersive? Yes CZ’s are an arbitrary mechanism, I get that, but with a little more effort it could be made better/different using the existing mechanisms within the game. Not asking for a complete rewrite. And if you want Newtonian mechanics you can fly FA off all the time. You can keep CZ’s too, but a bit more thought in the missions could add much more.
 
Sorry remain unconvinced. In war there is such a thing as collateral damage and sometimes innocents get in the way of a shoot first ask questions later scenario. And of course there is a big difference to being interdicted for a customs inspection and being attacked by pirates. One is clearly illegal, the other may cause aggro, but could be regarded as legitimate response to a faction under threat. It does happen now that the hit squad get sent after you, but it does if you are shipping something perfectly harmless into a lawful, peaceful system, rather than running guns to one faction in the middle of a war.
As for accepting things the way they are is it not allowed to suggest how things could be different and maybe better and more immersive? Yes CZ’s are an arbitrary mechanism, I get that, but with a little more effort it could be made better/different using the existing mechanisms within the game. Not asking for a complete rewrite. And if you want Newtonian mechanics you can fly FA off all the time. You can keep CZ’s too, but a bit more thought in the missions could add much more.

1. You should feel free to make any suggested changes you wish in the Suggestions sub-forum - probably a beter place than the newcomer's for such a discussion anyway.

2. Your conception of war states in a system seems to be that of "total war" - whereas in fact it is nothing like that, it is stylised conflict resolution - a sort of arena-based combat. So that is how I accept it, you feel free to let your disbelief spoil your appreciation of the game but that is a shame as it is just one facet. Your choice.
 
I wouldn’t say it spoils it, just seems rather pointless as apart from the CZ’s it is much the same as any other system.
 
Sorry remain unconvinced. In war there is such a thing as collateral damage and sometimes innocents get in the way of a shoot first ask questions later scenario. And of course there is a big difference to being interdicted for a customs inspection and being attacked by pirates. One is clearly illegal, the other may cause aggro, but could be regarded as legitimate response to a faction under threat. It does happen now that the hit squad get sent after you, but it does if you are shipping something perfectly harmless into a lawful, peaceful system, rather than running guns to one faction in the middle of a war.
As for accepting things the way they are is it not allowed to suggest how things could be different and maybe better and more immersive? Yes CZ’s are an arbitrary mechanism, I get that, but with a little more effort it could be made better/different using the existing mechanisms within the game. Not asking for a complete rewrite. And if you want Newtonian mechanics you can fly FA off all the time. You can keep CZ’s too, but a bit more thought in the missions could add much more.
The thing is that 1300 years in the future minor factions do not, or possibly are not allowed to, engage in total warfare. If they were there would be many more stations on fire than there are.

I wouldn’t say it spoils it, just seems rather pointless as apart from the CZ’s it is much the same as any other system.

Keep in mind in many of these wars it is two minor factions out of possibly a dozen or more in the system that are fighting so as far as the majority are concerned there is no war, to my mind it seems likely that whichever minor faction escalates the war will lose badly as all the others will unite against them.
 
The thing is that 1300 years in the future minor factions do not, or possibly are not allowed to, engage in total warfare. If they were there would be many more stations on fire than there are.



Keep in mind in many of these wars it is two minor factions out of possibly a dozen or more in the system that are fighting so as far as the majority are concerned there is no war, to my mind it seems likely that whichever minor faction escalates the war will lose badly as all the others will unite against them.
Well they do indulge in quite war like activities, espionage, massacres, political assassinations etc. Ah! No sorry, my bad, you also get those types of missions between factions not at war and to systems not in a war state. So obviously not considered warlike activities. As for only 2 factions fighting in a system, well I can’t claim extensive knowledge, but the war systems I have been in had multiple CZ’s with often completely different factions fighting in each one, all completely separate from each other, of course.
 
Back
Top Bottom