Ahhh, we all know that's not the reason why you gank explorers, after all, a minority in a group isn't a representation of the whole group.
- Status
Ahhh, we all know that's not the reason why you gank explorers, after all, a minority in a group isn't a representation of the whole group.
It's not the asymmetry of an encounter that defines griefing.
You can't see your opponent's bulkhead choice, hull integrity, shield strength，module size or modification ranks.
Lower combat rank doesn't always mean less outfitted or less skilled.
This might sound like an excuse, but there is only one way to figure out someone's strength. Actually engaging.
Last edited:
Ah yes.
There's nothing more constructive that labelling anything you don't approve of as "toxic".
The only thing I'm left wondering is whether you actually believe the tripe you post or whether you're just indulging in a bit of forum PvP?
It's a non starter until they disconnect modules from PP pledging. Also we can't use "power" and "faction" interchangeably.
OK, so lets assume they turn the PP modules into tech broker unlocks. Then what?
Why should I have to pledge to any power? The only part of the "plot" of powerplay I found remotely interesting - abolition of Imp Slavery as noted in Aisling's game screen description - turned out to be a bait and switch. My original player faction was told by FDev basically, "quit bothering us, imperial slavery is here to stay". In practice there is no difference between it and other commodities - just profit margins and various restrictions on which ports they can be sold/bought at. So I quit the power, and the faction, because it didn't matter.
So all the powers are just arbitrary to me. Bland blank slates and an over-the-top stereotype or two. Why can't I just have disdain for them all?
As far as player factions, squadrons, etc... - in my experience they seem to be dominated by solo BGS gameplay and tinged with personality conflicts and drama outside of gameplay. So why should I have to choose one?
Your practical analysis is correct. If forced, I'd pledge to whatever gave me the fewest restrictions on what I could do in game, since it would mean nothing to me. Many would do likewise.
I realize other players feel strongly otherwise, and get a lot of enjoyment out of their factions, powerplay etc. More power to them. I mean that without any sarcasm, people should play the part that is fun for them.
I know you are confused little one. I will say it again, and I will speak slowly this time.
You are inconsequential in game.
You are not capable of causing the game to fail. This is called a strawman. The way I worded it was, and I quote myself: "I don't know whether this has a negative effect on ideas like Open Only Powerplay or the introduction of PvP focussed features, but it sure doesn't help." So I am talking about a potential feature. Not the game. And I'm not saying you will cause it to fail, I am saying your actions won't help.
Am I crystal this time? If not, just ask. There's no such thing as stupid questions. Persevere and you too will be able to comprehend what you're reading. Don't give up you hear!
edit: everybody ready for a "No U"? I know I am!
See, this IS the problem.
To use PP as an example, you have to ask yourself whether it's more likely that PvPers want PP to be Open-only so that they can participate in it and organise glorious battles or just so that PPers will be forced into Open, where they can be exploded for the lulz.
I'll be honest, I think it's the latter.
And then what happens?
PPers probably aren't going to be keen on continually being content for PvPers, PvPers aren't interested in participating in PP and so nobody ends-up using PP and it dies.
Is that a desirable result for FDev?
To disaffect a group of people who are interested in PP, simply for the mindless entertainment of another group who aren't interested in it?
Ultimately, that's what FDev need to ask themselves.
Are they happy with players being deterred from participating in things unrelated to combat due to the likelihood of combat interfering with those things?
If they're not, they need to figure out some way to redress the balance.
As Overlord of the Galaxy, I possess great influence -- far beyond what most people are even aware of. In fact, even Yamiks himself is secretly loyal to my overlordship, as can clearly be seen from this comms image captured last year, when he implicitly acknowledged my authority to rule, by performing the overlord salute:
Last edited:
Z0. The only power worth pledging.
Deleted member 115407
D
Z0, Overlord.
I'd agree... that asymmetry was part of a larger sentence. Asymmetry + No in-universe reason for the attack + No warning/communication (or insults)
Goose4291
Banned
Or of course the third option, that open only powerplay was regularly advocated for by what remains of the original guard that are heavily invested into it for the myriad of reasons Withnail, Rubbernuke, John Casey et all have explained several times, and contrary to the anti-change brigades forum rhetoric, those that played powerplay were the ones in favour of it, rather than some high grade tinfoil conspiracy gweef plan to lure innocent (if such a thing could be said about a pledged powerplayer) into open.
Goose4291
Banned
Last we heard he'd been Shadowbanned
Goose4291
Banned
I find that odd... when I used to run Narcotics into Cubeo, the stations were always packed with commanders
Well, if that is the case, fair enough.
Threads like this seem to provide a lot of evidence to suggest people are more interested in salt-mining though.
And, on a related note, I always find myself wondering why, if PvPers are genuinely in favour of "proper" wars, they don't just join/create player factions and then indulge in that kind of gameplay?
It seems like the actions of PvPers in-game doesn't reflect the rhetoric offered on the forum.
PvPers talk about improved and expanded combat scenarios but all they're interested in doing is ganking defenceless ships.
Which doesn't bode well for the future of Open-only PP.
During my unfortunate sojourn in PP, it was the most common insult feds and imps would hurl at each other - that the other side was hauling in solo (and doing 5c) and afraid to play for real, blah blah blah.
But to me it seemed a simple arms race. PP is all about hauling from X to Y or pew pew'ing enough NPCs, and obviously it's more efficient to do this in private. Thus I came to the conclusion the practice was widespread among all powers (with of course a few individual CMDR exceptions here and there). [And then there were the bot suspicions...]
Anyway once I realized it was a game rigged in a manner I didn't like, I simply decided not to play.
I do think it would be less-bad if open only, but feel it's pretty much a lost cause no matter what. To me it's a fatal combination of bad game mechanics, opaque scoring, dull plot and arbitrary sides.
Pledging Z0 has been much more fun and meaningful.
Goose4291
Banned
I think I can give you an answer to that: Put simply, they actually did.
Back in the day, I took part in many BGS Wars between what are probably now defunct player groups (looking at you, Emperor's Grace and Cosmic State) and while everyone involved would always say thats what they wanted, the following would happen
(i) Covert untraceable BGS attacks done from the safety of the various modes that werent open.
(ii) When proper battle was joined and one side started losing, they'd retreat to either solo or pgs to min/max their effectivness.
(iii) Wild petty bitter and frankly toxic arguments about how one side was cowering in solo (while the accuser was doing the same) would break out.
This, as someone who ascribes to the ideal that if Im kicking over someones sandcastle, not only should they be able to do the same to me, but also smack me square in the jaw for doing it is primarily why I usually end up on the 'OO' side of an argument here, as I felt not only was it 'right', but good for the community as a whole as it would have reduced the toxic group bickering.
As a side bar, the one I dont get is why certain pan-modal types here will espouse how great the current system is, right up until the point where a BGS state/UA attack or influence change occurs that they dont like, at which point suddenly x shouldnt be a pan-modal thing.
Goose4291
Banned
If we went back to the golden age of powerplay, before folk had worked that out, I genuinely think it would save the mechanic.
Oh for the glory days of Hudson flying 4 man wings comprised solely of T-9 battle cattle, capable of fending off attackers, or the interdict and run distraction cobras of Torval that helped her fortifiers get through.
Fair comment.
Ironically, I guess, it's a similar issue as with the idea of "escorts" for DW2.
In both cases, there's simply no guarantee that you're going to end-up in the same instance as the players you're intent on attacking or defending - either deliberately or accidentally.
FWIW, I'm all for the idea of PP being Open-only but I have grave concerns over whether it'd end-up as people (optimistically?) envision.
Similar thing as with multicrew - the idea might have been sound enough but, upon implementation, you end up with a bunch of chimps running riot in other people's ships and the majority of players just say "screw that", disable MC and the feature dies.
I guess you can't expect everybody to get on-board with a specific way of playing the game but that's when you need a smart dev' to come up with ways of maximising the reasons to do something in the intended way and deter people from acting like chimps.
Last edited:
Last edited:
But it can't get worse than the current module-shopping-I-have-no-idea-what-to-do-I-just-drop-750-merits-in-the-next-system-in-solo powerplay we currently have, can it?
- Status