Ah, might have been good to specify that. How you wrote it would be like writing "all PvPers are griefers"
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
Ah, might have been good to specify that. How you wrote it would be like writing "all PvPers are griefers"
Most squadrons that care about such things. I doubt most squadrons give two figs about a menu log.
Agreed. And current BGS condititon, when we even in newspaper can't see anything like "worker of the month" or smth like that.
Yes, it is legitimate... but it is something that most squadrons do not condone (house rules).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
When Sandro last commented on combat logging, reiterating that "the official stance on exiting the game via the menu, at any point, is that it is legitimate. I suspect at some point we may increase the "in danger" countdown, but for now you just have to wait fifteen seconds", he also noted that "However, we can't speak for how other Commanders view such actions.".
Yes, but look at the forum. Those carebears you describe don't actually exist. Threads or posts from people who accidentally went to Deciat in Open and now want PvP disabled aren't really here. These immense threads actually get started by PvP enthusiasts: this one is a prime example.
The title of this thread is leading. "Would you play in Open if you could disable PvP?" A few have honestly answered "yes", but the thread didn't start with them demanding it.
i dont want to get in to philosophy , but I see nothing bad as "griefing", as it make players git good. As Nietzsche said :
“That which is ready to fall, shall ye also push! and those whom you cannot help to fly — let them fall down faster!"”
No, most squadrons prohibit combat logging. Seeing as combat logging is explicitly and by Fdev's own words NOT the same as Menu logging, they are definitively NOT the same thing.
I wish gankers would stop pretending they have some moral authority over everyone else. If you can't kill someone before they menu log, maybe you should consider getting better at the game, rather than whining when someone uses a perfectly legitimate mechanic exactly the way it's designed to work.
Just have a look at INARA squadron pages... "no combat log/no menu log" is the most common house rule adopted.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Players are free to adopt out-of-game rules as they please - that does not change how the game works..
Yes, and I can go at work dressed like a muppet but I am sure my boss wouldn't like it...
As a part of Russian community, I may say that they are exist. They dont use forum(as English usage level is VERY low) but discord servers. And community pretty much devedid into 2 RADICAL groups described as : " PVPers are not numans" and "Carebears are not humans" (very roughly) . One of streamers even task killed on the stream(and got his deserved ban). And it happens more over 3 years. Constantly. I got tired of it.
The problem lies in scalability, and is apparent in Powerplay and the BGS.
Whatever actions can be taken at a high level have to scale from one player to potentially hundreds. A game like Civ would be horrible if 1000 players decided on what do do each turn for one country alone.
Powerplay was intended for the 'majority rule' like this and was unsatisfying because of that agency given to anonymous others (not to mention 5C), and that because the population is small (so majority rule becomes a liability).
The BGS works because each expansion / move can be done alone but does not affect other moves elsewhere- so all strategy is hyper local. Although it needs balancing there is huge amounts of strategy going on in the BGS, more than enough (which also dovetails well with ship activity) which then satisfies the 'higher' goal (of taking something).The other benefit to the BGS is that strategies are done via playstyles, so you really can play out things. All it really lacks is reward and a more visually apparent outcome on the ground / how you are treated.
I fully get what you want, but I don't think its possible in ED.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The workplace may well have rules against such wardrobe extravagances - the game does not care about player's out-of-game rules that they agree to.
Most jobs where i've worked my boss was a muppet.
When I played EVE security forces had an almost instant reaction to player attacks in high sec and the result was usually an instant death of the attacker, except he had a high end ship. Also losing the ship had a far more severe impact on the ganker than in ED.
That encouraged pvp players to stay in null-sec sectors and pve players could play in high sec.
Honestly, I don't actually think it would be all that difficult at its most basic level. You need two things:
1: A meaningful set of rules that modify relative strength and weakness of defenses. Right now, it's basically 'friendly faction+distance', which is purely binary and doesn't leave any room for strategic thinking.
2: Meaningful rewards players will care about. People in EVE don't fight over meaningless systems, they fight over systems with real, meaningful value.
Take Civilization, for example; there are multipliers for defense based on terrain, you can build roads and fortresses and such to modify movement speed and defense, and the placement of your cities is also very important, to ensure you both exploit necessary resources while being suitably defended from attackers.
On a fundamental level, none of those things is particularly complicated. It all just breaks down to dice rolls in the end. But taken together, as a whole, it becomes far more than the sum of its parts! And any player could do any one of them, but it would only be taken together that they would become truly meaningful.
Even better, this would have real, meaningful impacts on the way the bubble develops. Right now, powerplay is just this big fuzzy blob that makes no sense. If powers needed to develop in strategic and tactical ways, such that they maximize their ability to defend and attack, then suddenly the map becomes meaningful for once! Wars will actually develop along faction lines!
And the thing is, the game is already well-suited to this type of content, because it's basically a turn-based game already. It already operates on week-long 'turns', so you can basically slot in lots of the existing aspects of similar games wholesale.
And all of that could be done physically in SC via BGS states and more involved SC too- so its really augmenting what exists. In essence beef up the PvE and PvP because the 'moves' are already there. On a higher level you could do things like this (OT mind)- https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ignment-numbers-have-bgs-consequences.543240/
So there your local effort has a knock on effect at a higher collective level. You don't need to understand very much other than support your team.
'Value' in ED is also hard to quantify for an effective reward as well. Stations and assets are valuable, but for many the disappointment lies in the unchanging headspace above 'allied' because...well, nothing changes other than a label in the context of the lore and wider game. You can't place stations or megaships, and FCs although placeable are invincible so can't be leveraged as pieces.
I mean, you can build synergy between superpower / power, system faction and pilot for rewards (I mean FD are there 80% now with Powerplay), its just attaching a reward to the outcome correctly.
Only by some, obviously
Pretty much by those who believe everything in the game should be 'open only'?
Personally I'd prefer ships left where players log out, that way at least it makes you park sensibly.Only by some, obviously
Pretty much by those who believe everything in the game should be 'open only'?