What do we learn from Lugh?

So, if I fight for the Crimson I get...
+Money from combat bonds
+/-'Free' the system, and install new government
-Rep lost with the Feds
-Probably blown up by a capital ships.

If I fight for the Feds I get..
+Rep with the Feds (and their entire network of Fed controlled systems)
+Money from combat bonds
+Capital Ship support (which means more money)
+A community goal that I can actually do efficiently, and enjoy doing.
-Lose CSG rep.

So the choice is pretty easy for me.
I understand your point and it's a very valid concern. Someone will please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe you get negative rep with the faction you are fighting against in the combat zone. I'm currently Allied with the Feds from trading, missions, etc., but fighting for the CSG in the combat zones and the Spear of Lugh mission. I haven't seen any negative effect to my standing with the Federation, and there are no red arrows when I turn in combat bonds. If more commanders knew this, they might be more likely to side with CSG for this conflict.

Honestly, I think one of the problems here is that unless you are an avid reader of the forums, you really wouldn't know the effort that player commanders have put in to get the situation to this point. The casual player would just pick the side that's going to earn them the most money and combat rank. Right now that's siding with the Feds with a cap ship. I consider that very unfortunate for the players who have put in so much time, testing, and effort. If this was mentioned in the newsletter for instance, I think CSG would get much more support.
 
Speaking as the person who started the Lugh thread and writer of our storyline I say let the chips fall where they may. I want to win but that does not mean that I have the right to win. Lugh has taken on the Federation or should I more accurately say the Federation has taken on Lugh! The fact is it was never going to be a fair fight.

The most eye opening truth I have noticed about all of this are the number of players that instead of fighting on the side of 'players' and what players can actually achieve in this game they seem to prefer to stamp on our sand castle. To working your fingers to the bone on something get rewarded by players seeking a cheap thrill to dismantle it. They are freely within their right to do so but it has thought me a lesson about the nature of human beings as a whole. What is actually more interesting are the statistics that go with that. Very interesting indeed.

It is illogical to me that players offered a chance to make a real mark on the game, a real difference, something players have craved since Gamma would prefer to see to it that we fail. I personally see no reward in that but it is only my opinion.

The community will get what the community wants.

I can't speak for the Crimson State, but even if they are defeated this time round, I don't think this will be the end of the fight.

There's always the option of gorilla warfare.

Viva La Resistance!

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

It'd be a bad world if devs designed games around people trying to play games on Aunt Brenda's old office Dell.
No allowances should be made for people who don't invest in a good gaming PC.

And this is why Crytec are basically bankrupt.
 
learned with the warzone adjustments its actually worth the time to go in one. yes the cap ship is one sided its meant to be. and 12 mil how are you doing this you still have to at least shoot at the baddy the cap is targeting to make money. i did walk away with a cuple mil but i didn't camp all day so. but that's no different then then resource sites when dropships and condas start spawning in.

cry they dont make enough money and now cry they make money.
 
Last edited:
Wrong......this game would have died two weeks ago if they had forced people to play Trade Grind..........did'nt you see the forums? then the Dev response, and the 9 out of 10 in favour of the new buffs?....
.
And how is any of this stoping you delivering space tomoatos? Yuo seem to think that unless people are FORCED to deliver space tomaotos..........the game will die? For real?
Whilst you have a point suggesting 9/10 in favour when most likely that 9/10 players do not even post on the forums is a bit ambitious I would think.

I must admit that although I was a confirmed trader explorer I have now added murderer to my C.V. well mercenary more than murderer but they still end up dead I do however fail to understand how people (not you in particular) expect to be encouraged to be able to play the game their way but continually suggest that others are boring for doing that same thing "playing the game their way".
 
Start TLDR;

Firstly I must say the Lugh conflict is the fun I’ve had so far. It’s also the most engaged in the ED universe I’ve been, I really care about the outcome of the conflict, I’m emotional invested and that say a lot about the community and the game as a whole.
But conflicts need be more persistent and real. Less abstracted, as they currently are.

There needs to be front lines, strategic targets and supply lines to plunder. Battles should ebb and flow, one and lost. Cap ships should jump in, be forced to retreated or dominate the field and move forward.

It's not trivial but it's doable.

End TLDR.

Once a player chooses a side it persist for the duration of the conflict, and it's visible to all players at all times. You can turncoat but it'll tank your rep with that faction.

Each side has limited war resources, a set number of virtual assets. These can be replenished through community goals, supply convoys etc. Community goals can be opposed and supplies can be interdicted and destroyed.

Battles can be one and lost, CZ only have set numbers of reinforcements once these are exhausted the battle is lost. A new CZ is spawned, but this time closer to the faction centre of power.

Capitol ships if present are the centre of these advances and become prime targets. Capitol ships once sufficiently damaged should be forced into dock to repair and are unavailable for the duration. Destroying them should be possible but extremely unlikely – you’d need to disable there jump drives somehow. Only other capital ships are really capable of destroying another Capital ship, I hope we see these behemoths slugging it out one day.

We should see supply convoys making their way to operational based and station, opposing forces can interdict the Convoy wings in SC, or jump in at set instanced staging points (Often in neighbouring systems) and attempt to destroy.

Convoys are tough targets with big escort ships, Anaconda (And eventual Corvettes) protecting them. Lone commanders may attempt to attack and destroy cargo vessels Lone-Wolf style to escape – submarine warfare style.

The advances finally result it assault in assaults on the factions’ strongholds, the stations.

Tie this all in to missions, convoy escorts, espionage, sabotage and covert ops etc. And you have a full scale war on your hands.

It doesn’t even need persistent NPC’s to work, just abstract the conflict on the amount of warships, convoys destroyed, supplies and new ships delivered, conflict zones won etc. It would still give the imperssion of total war.

They should probably even factor in manpower and industry as resources, this will stop conflict stalemating – if the smaller faction can’t achieve a decisive military victory, the larger faction will just win a war of attrition. This numbers should be waited to allow a conflict to last a week or two.

Honestly I’m sure Frontier are aware as anyone of how artificial conflicts currently feel, they are playing the same game we are. And I truly hope they have the future resourcing to introduce some of these things in the future.
 
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: jgm
Speaking as the person who started the Lugh thread and writer of our storyline I say let the chips fall where they may. I want to win but that does not mean that I have the right to win. Lugh has taken on the Federation or should I more accurately say the Federation has taken on Lugh! The fact is it was never going to be a fair fight.

The most eye opening truth I have noticed about all of this are the number of players that instead of fighting on the side of 'players' and what players can actually achieve in this game they seem to prefer to stamp on our sand castle. To working your fingers to the bone on something get rewarded by players seeking a cheap thrill to dismantle it. They are freely within their right to do so but it has thought me a lesson about the nature of human beings as a whole. What is actually more interesting are the statistics that go with that. Very interesting indeed.

It is illogical to me that players offered a chance to make a real mark on the game, a real difference, something players have craved since Gamma would prefer to see to it that we fail. I personally see no reward in that but it is only my opinion.

The community will get what the community wants.

I can't speak for the community but as far as I am concerned its a simple mercenary choice.

Who looks like they will give the biggest payout. That's where I put my money (ship) and thats where it will stay. This time its the Feds, next time it may not be I can't say till I get there.
 
Why not given decent bonds rewards for killing enemy commanders?

There are no incentives for PvP to actually occur in conflict zones at the moment.

Lots of enemy in the zone stopping you farming? Warp out and back in on their team! Someone attacking you? Just run!

Seriously, today I attacked two vipers, a cobra and a vulture in my vulture. They all ran (although one did die), and in site after site it's just PvE farming. Even the limited PvP that does occur is usually just people warping in and ganking what they can before anyone jumps out.

Add decent payouts for killing fellow players, and suddenly people have a reason to kill each other. Sure, it adds another money source to the game but the added ship destruction would probably cancel that out as a money sink.

That would be cool. I got owned yesterday, I was in my shiny new Vulture, and another CMDR pounced when I was pew pewing python. I got well and truly beaten to a pulp, and whilst my loss was about 600k, I doubt his gain was more than 10k-15k.

It'll take me a while to get a hang of PvP tactics and flying, so until then, I have a nice healthy bank balance to cover my losses to come, but it would be nice to know the other guy is getting a good payout for my loss - he did earn it.

Z...

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I can't speak for the Crimson State, but even if they are defeated this time round, I don't think this will be the end of the fight.

There's always the option of gorilla warfare.

Viva La Resistance!

Crimson State are going to raid the zoos and use the few remaining great apes to fight the war?

Or do you mean guerilla warfare?

Z...
 
Last edited:
In one zone we immediately got tied up with two wings of CSG and we got *hammered* - we lost one ship straight away and the other 3 of us ejected back out of the zone with me with no shields, no shield cells and 70% hull (in a vulture). In another Lugh conflict zone we were the 'dominant force' and cleared the area of CSG, so any CSG arriving then were in a high risk situation. Until... a CSG Wing SC'd in from nowhere and I absolutely got my ass handed to me. Overall yesterday evening my Vulture was destroyed twice and I escaped maybe 3 times with the ship in shreds. So I'll have to trade for a bit to recover the cash, but it was worth it.

That's kind of the point though: in it's current state conflict zones are mostly just PvE grinds with the odd sprinkling of PvP.

Kill another commanders ship? Congrats, have 10k credits! In order to cover the rebuy costs on my Vulture I'd need to kill, what, 100 fellow commanders without dying?

It's just instanced PvP zones, that a large number of people simply run in solo rendering the "top x%" mechanic a joke. There's no actual incentive for PvP to occur, you're not fighting for anything like credits or resources. It's about as arcade-style combat as it can get, does this really belong in a "sandbox" game?

In it's current state most sites will just be a wall of feds grinding in PvE ships, half of them run when anyone goes red (I seriously had five ships run from me solo yesterday!) and the other half don't even notice because they're barely paying attention. They should incentivize actual PvP in these zones, give us the enemy's insurance in a combat bond or something, otherwise all it is is another PvE grind best done in solo mode.
 
Start TLDR;

Firstly I must say the Lugh conflict is the fun I’ve had so far. It’s also the most engaged in the ED universe I’ve been, I really care about the outcome of the conflict, I’m emotional invested and that say a lot about the community and the game as a whole.
But conflicts need be more persistent and real. Less abstracted, as they currently are.

There needs to be front lines, strategic targets and supply lines to plunder. Battles should ebb and flow, one and lost. Cap ships should jump in, be forced to retreated or dominate the field and move forward.

It's not trivial but it's doable.

End TLDR.

.

You can Interdict and rob the players who are runnings runs to Khaka and Lugh as part of those community goals.
 
Yeah there needs to be a middle ground for sure.
The Unreal guys found it and still pumped out some impressive stuff, but it is a balancing act perhaps.

For sure, all though the reason I think they went with Cobra orginally is they wanted the galaxy and planet on a 1 to 1 scale - no engine would support it at the time, I'm pretty sure this included Cobra, but that engine was easier for them to customise for the job.

It's not like ED is hard on the eyes or anything. It's not Star Citizen, but they've been pretty resticited in many other ways by the CryEngine.

Disclosure : Running a i5-4690K with SLI GTX 970 - the GPU fans don't even spin up when running on ED on Ultra on my current crappy 1080p monitor. I'll be getting a 4k or Hi Res ultrawide soon though, but the real reason for SLI is to be ready for the Rift when it finally hits retail sometime next year.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

You can Interdict and rob the players who are runnings runs to Khaka and Lugh as part of those community goals.

You can, but it doesn't currently have any direct affect on the conflict zones, or how many ships/troops can be fielded.
 
I understand your point and it's a very valid concern. Someone will please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe you get negative rep with the faction you are fighting against in the combat zone. I'm currently Allied with the Feds from trading, missions, etc., but fighting for the CSG in the combat zones and the Spear of Lugh mission. I haven't seen any negative effect to my standing with the Federation, and there are no red arrows when I turn in combat bonds. If more commanders knew this, they might be more likely to side with CSG for this conflict.

Honestly, I think one of the problems here is that unless you are an avid reader of the forums, you really wouldn't know the effort that player commanders have put in to get the situation to this point. The casual player would just pick the side that's going to earn them the most money and combat rank. Right now that's siding with the Feds with a cap ship. I consider that very unfortunate for the players who have put in so much time, testing, and effort. If this was mentioned in the newsletter for instance, I think CSG would get much more support.

This is actually where I am disappointed. The huge effort that as gone into it, only to be crushed by a cap-ship and the almighty credit. Don't get me wrong, this is pretty much how it would play out in the real world - kind of like Hungary and the USSR in the 1950's (look it up). However, it would have been nice to let the experiment progress to taking over the system before bringing in the heavy fed artillery to take it back.

Z...
 
Crimson State are going to raid the zoos and use the few remaining greta apes to fight the war?

Or do you mean guerilla warfare?

Z...

I did indeed mean the Spanish word for small war, and not the 200 kilo mountain ape.

I'm an incredibly lazy typist and proof reader.

Not editing the orginal post, because it's kind of funny.
 

Ideas Man

Banned
For sure, all though the reason I think they went with Cobra orginally is they wanted the galaxy and planet on a 1 to 1 scale - no engine would support it at the time, I'm pretty sure this included Cobra, but that engine was easier for them to customise for the job.

It's not like ED is hard on the eyes or anything. It's not Star Citizen, but they've been pretty resticited in many other ways by the CryEngine.

Disclosure : Running a i5-4690K with SLI GTX 970 - the GPU fans don't even spin up when running on ED on Ultra on my current crappy 1080p monitor. I'll be getting a 4k or Hi Res ultrawide soon though, but the real reason for SLI is to be ready for the Rift when it finally hits retail sometime next year.
Agreed on all points!
I have two 980s, the Oculus guys still recommend not using SLI though (I know the lead SDK dev from my regular forum, he's a nice guy).
Also, off topic, but the CV1 is confirmed to have 2 screens now for IPD purposes, which is interesting!
 
I did indeed mean the Spanish word for small war, and not the 200 kilo mountain ape.

I'm an incredibly lazy typist and proof reader.

Not editing the orginal post, because it's kind of funny.
It is more than funny, it is pure genius. I'd pay good money for an expansion that introduced gorilla warfare. Seriously, it has near unlimited potential. We'll need planetary landing first, but after that it should be gorillas all the way. :)
 
This is actually where I am disappointed. The huge effort that as gone into it, only to be crushed by a cap-ship and the almighty credit. Don't get me wrong, this is pretty much how it would play out in the real world - kind of like Hungary and the USSR in the 1950's (look it up). However, it would have been nice to let the experiment progress to taking over the system before bringing in the heavy fed artillery to take it back.

Z...

True victory agaisnt major power are very rare in History, only times in small nation can generally beat a major power, is when they've had the backing of another major power.

Finland comes to mind. The Crimson state needs a couple of Simo Hayha's.
 
Last edited:
This is actually where I am disappointed. The huge effort that as gone into it, only to be crushed by a cap-ship and the almighty credit. Don't get me wrong, this is pretty much how it would play out in the real world - kind of like Hungary and the USSR in the 1950's (look it up). However, it would have been nice to let the experiment progress to taking over the system before bringing in the heavy fed artillery to take it back.

Z...

Well; just maybe FD/DB don't want players taking over systems. DB did say he doesn't want player created Empires...
 
Back
Top Bottom