Yea like... You cannot deploy hardpoints, you are inside other ship
Or if you do deploy hardpoints you are teleported 300m away?
It's silly, no matter how you look at it
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Yea like... You cannot deploy hardpoints, you are inside other ship
Or if you do deploy hardpoints you are teleported 300m away?
It's silly, no matter how you look at it
I've played Dark Ages of Camelot for like 8 years.
That was a true PVP game.
However, it didnt provide any player collision detection which lead to some interesting stuff, including some interesting "exploits" *
Like a Hibernian Animist - a caster type that could summon static Mushrooms to deal damage or crowd-control effects to enemies. Having 20 shrooms stacked in the same spot was always deadly for the noob that decided to attack an Animist that managed to build up his shroom stack. Also hilarious
*<<for example it was rather hard to figure if a lump of players tightly packed had 50 players or 200. It also made possible to kill 50 (or 200) players in 6 seconds tops>>
Last edited:
Usually the scenario presented is that faction X is being weakened or otherwise harmed by players who may represent another faction Y.
Said individual then launches to intercept anyone approaching "their" station.
Obviously there's noone there and they complain about players "hiding" in solo.
It doesn't occur to them that actions could take place at any point in the previous tick, in any mode and on any platform. It may also be a player looking to build rep with a faction.
It also doesn't occur to them that attacking is a -ve BGS action and if sustained will drive their own faction into lockdown.
This all assumes that the player is presenting their position honestly, though as Brokk indicates we've seen numerous examples of suspected gankers trying to use the BGS as a fig leaf in the same way they used piracy.
For ship collisions I'd like extra realism. IMO this would mean that, if two ships even touch, both are destroyed! I can see the downside though: ramming griefers in cheap Sidewinders. (And if I decide that the cheapest ship will pay both rebuys, griefers will just fly Cutters instead). This makes me suspect that the whole TTK with shields thing we already have is necessary to prevent ramming being too deadly. Ships passing through each other would be immersion-breaking, but not necessarily more than the bouncy rubber ships we already have.
Here's an off-the-wall idea. If one ship is under DC control and another which isn't touches it, the second ship instantly explodes.
Here's an off-the-wall idea. If one ship is under DC control and another which isn't touches it, the second ship instantly explodes.
The other often cited scenario goes like this:
Me, a clean player, part of a group of clean players - decide to attack a rulling faction.
We pack up Sidewinders and start doing Courier missions in Open.
IF the defenders goes OMG OMG, Easy targets, lets blow them up, they will badly lose.
They will hurt their faction by committing crimes and they will speed up our mission delivery to the station. (no courier missions are lost when getting blown up)
So yey! for Open BGS
You'd get me blocked as a griefer every time my T9 decided to indulge in slot sumo!
Still waiting for the full description on how this is supposed to work, more than a generic description without details.
Ok, thanks for the explanation.
It's never black and white when it come to the BGS and I can see and appreciate various points of view.
I personally try to avoid BGS battles as I simply don't have the time, and I find it 'not quite right' in some way that those that win the conflicts do so merely because they have more spare time. Knowing about the BGS does help, sometimes significantly, but it's mainly brute force.
But regarding open/solo BGS: some of my more enjoyable time in the game has been a BGS conflict with another open-only group, where we had generally good natured 'organic' pvp. If the other group had resorted to solo to get an advantage, yeah we would certainly have had something to say about it.
On the other hand we were well aware that some of their players only played in other time zones so we would never see them, and this kind of debunks the open-only BGS argument I think.
That's for the devs to figure out. In the meantime you can check out games where it is employed to combat griefing.
How can I shoot from the ship's turrets (turret view) how ?
People have discovered that THIS can be influenced and have begun to do so and have called it a game of BGS.I thought the BGS was designed to make the Galaxy 'dynamic', as opposed to the completely static one of E: D's predecessors, and the competitive aspect is solely a player agenda, made possible because the BGS is all too fickle, PP probably being designed more with the asynchronous competitive play in mind.
But what do I know.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - however it's available to all players, regardless of game mode, as all players share the same galaxy.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The gameplay preference of some players relies on forcing interactions with players who don't want to interact in that particular manner....
If anyone is interested, I saw a very good (sane) discussion stream about how to fit various PvP oriented and PVE play styles together (applied to SC but highly portable to ED, where the stuff they are hoping for in SC never really got done in ED either):
Source: https://youtu.be/UDNMuDCrNWc
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Seems like they're a bit worried that the lack of appreciation for PvP in that game may lead to it being watered down. Both guests are pro-PvP, one of them is an EVE-vet, so the tone of the rest of it is to be expected - quite a bit of "use a loss as a learning experience" guidance.
Interesting that that game also permits players to simply log out when attacked - and it seems that the participants in the stream didn't like it much (although acknowledged, like pad ramming, that it is a part of that game).
It also mentions that "the PvE players need the PvP players" trope.
The removal of the promised PvP-slider means that that game, unlike this game, is PvP only.
Last edited:
or in more rude words: "git gud". Which is why such games where PvP is not optional are niche if they aren't also casual friendly. Considering the grind involved, ED is not casual friendly.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - many of the observations involved comments around "as they get better at the game" when referring to those who get destroyed, i.e. change their approach to the game to accommodate the PvPers.
There was very little 'git-gud' in there at all, and they agreed that PvP interactions were rare in SC even within a single system. They also (PvP-er of the two included) agreed that there was a need to clearly identify the safe areas for those that don't want PvP.
I thought it was a mature discussion - bear in mind it's not necessarily a black and white PvP/no PvP balance, there is also room for a gradual grey scale of risk in PvP within a game.
No, not in my opinion.
If my time is limited, "risk", no matter how minimal, is enough to spoil the game for me for the moment and for the future.
At least ED has tools to restrict the playerbase you encounter to your own needs, albeit not perfectly, as it is still dependent on the catch-22 factor that to meet randoms without external tools, you need to be in the default pool that permits meeting randoms. And that default pool has forced pvp.
Which brings us back to the question on page 1, post 1.