WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
This is a game. Sometimes you're just going to die. Thats what rebuys and credits are for. Setbacks are important.
What do you guys think of a minimum timer locking you in for conflict zones and powerplay zones?
- Thread starter WorldsGreatestForumDad
- Start date
This is a game. Sometimes you're just going to die. Thats what rebuys and credits are for. Setbacks are important.
So you are saying you don't want to prevent people leaving a CZ with a locking timer? Funny, I really thought that was the thread title...
But then someone who never played those other games of yours can't be expected to understand such high use of linguistic acrobatics as yours.
Don't you worry about what I do or do not understand, dear... I'll worry about that.
Just try to keep your argument straight or you'll never get your point across
A player can leave a fight at any time they want. They don't have to plan or think ahead any further than 2 seconds. Groms are the only thing in the game forcing a player to think twice but this is usually easily nullified by not flying a fat pig of a ship.
In case anyone hasn't noticed, mass lock factor doesn't even work anymore, but when it did, it didn't force anyone slightly larger to think twice about when to leave. They can instantly low wake out of any fight.
I think the mechanic is rubbish. The only times I've ever died in PvP were when I specifically decided I would not leave for the sake of "honor". Maybe it would be better if the combat danger that causes the quit-to-desktop timer to activate also trippled low-wake times, and if trade ships didn't have such pathetic defense.
In case anyone hasn't noticed, mass lock factor doesn't even work anymore, but when it did, it didn't force anyone slightly larger to think twice about when to leave. They can instantly low wake out of any fight.
I think the mechanic is rubbish. The only times I've ever died in PvP were when I specifically decided I would not leave for the sake of "honor". Maybe it would be better if the combat danger that causes the quit-to-desktop timer to activate also trippled low-wake times, and if trade ships didn't have such pathetic defense.
Don't we already have this where your locked into a zone for combat on a set timer? It's called CQC I hear it's real popular and 'open only' too ;enjoy.[up]
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
My argument is straight. Not my fault you cant understand it.
Also you're putting words in my mouth and trying to derail the thread earlier.
Im going to stop replying to you now.
That already happens. A lot. I earn all of my PP merits through combat. In Open. I am there, farming, fighting, chasing PP enemies when I encounter them, hoping they don't drop in with a full wing - in which case I would very likely concede the field at that point, and do my best to escape. Which leads to..
Well, if I have been smacking your sides NPCs, gathering merits as I go, and your wing drops in, then the micro contest immediately becomes, can I escape with those merits before your wing dusts me. That sounds like a fantastic, and much more realistic contest than... Presto! We're here, now you can't leave because the magic invisible thunderdome has been empowered! You immediately have a small victory - stopping me collecting more merits, we both have a chance at a second victory - the merits I'm carrying, and the macro contest of overall PP merits carries on in the background. Sounds like the present system is pretty damn good. Now before you cry off about how easy it is to hi-wake away, well then start exercising those existing options! Equip your ships with G5 fast scan wake scanners and win that micro-contest by actually chasing me from system to system. Unless, of course, true PvPers only fit combat gear then campaign for the game to be changed to suit their builds?
Oh. So what you're saying is... Open Only isn't good enough, so even if OO were to ever become a reality, that wouldn't be good enough - every means of avoiding PvP combat must be eradicated and all interaction shall be forced cage matches. Boring.
This reminds me of when the drop zones of stations were made much closer. Instead of dropping further from a station (so you make a mad dash to the safety of the no fire zone) you appear safe straight away. Could your idea be morphed into having to travel a bit to a station? In this area you would not have sec backup, and it would be up to you and your ship. You could boost for it, or fight- but most importantly this task gives you a reason to be there.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Well the differences here will be the way ships are kitted and engineered. Also, FSD cooldown timers are pretty garbage.
The point is working the conflict zone while you are there with a team. Instead of running away anytime there is danger that is close.
We really aren't using any skill running away all the time. It accomplishes nothing.
As a matter of fact these conflict zones can have a lot of depth themselves. But we aren't going to get that depth if everyone is constantly running away.
To the Original poster,
Bad Idea. Punishes those without friends, those playing in solo, those in anything but max engineered sustained combat outfitted high end ships, new players learning the game, players with lower skill level, and anyone encountering a bug that puts them at a sever disadvantage. Stop proposing ideas the require multiplayer co-operation to work. Elite Dangerous was originally supposed to have an offline mode according to the design document archives meaning that solo mode is in the game for a reason. Changing the game in a way that penalizes solo players will decrease the games audience, thus decreasing sales, thus reducing the income used to add new features and fix bugs.
Bad Idea. Punishes those without friends, those playing in solo, those in anything but max engineered sustained combat outfitted high end ships, new players learning the game, players with lower skill level, and anyone encountering a bug that puts them at a sever disadvantage. Stop proposing ideas the require multiplayer co-operation to work. Elite Dangerous was originally supposed to have an offline mode according to the design document archives meaning that solo mode is in the game for a reason. Changing the game in a way that penalizes solo players will decrease the games audience, thus decreasing sales, thus reducing the income used to add new features and fix bugs.
Just going to completely ignore the option You have to fit a wake scanner and make sure I can't get far enough to hand in merits?
Here's something for you to consider. I don't 'work' powerplay zones in a wing. I mostly fight solo (in Open), so an essential element of my ship build(s), is being able to survive for long periods in PvE, survive long enough against one PvP enemy to evaluate my chances and then fight or protect the merits I have already earned (by retreating), or survive long enough if a PvP wing drops in to protect my merits (by retreating).
So here you are, declaring that I should have to abandon all my tactical choices and preparation, and adopt an entirely new approach designed for arena deathmatches. Good luck with that.
Last edited:
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Yes however youd be working with a team thats what powerplay is. Thats what player groups are.
Hell Brabens vision really is teamwork. Hes pretty Keen on it.
And while you have the option to go out on your own. Eventually you WILL be working with other people in the same instance. At the same time. On a level playing field.
There might be people there with wake scanners, there might be people hanging out in different system routes.
Im talking about the zone gameplay with 2 sides working against one another.
Nothing else. Whats happening at that time.
This is definintly not a 1v1 scenario.
Last edited:
Level playing field, lol. There is no such thing.
![[VR] Goooost](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/111/111637.jpg?1589354934){kind=avatar}
I went into a conflict zone without any allies in it last night so no. That wasnt fun at all.
Well, then congratulations. Judging by the extent of the opposition to this, you are experiencing one of those character-building setbacks you value so highly. Well done.
Sounds like great fun, with absolutely no need whatsoever for a ridiculous lockin timer. There is no justification (tactical retreat is a valid and long-standing strategy), there is no reasonable explanation, and no mechanic to achieve this that would pass the simplest 'what a load of tripe' test.
Come on, time to admit it, you can't stand the fact that Cmdrs can hi-wake away from combat, you can't be bothered to fit a wake scanner and earn that victory, you just want all means of people avoiding you killing them eradicated from the game.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Its has nothing to do with that. They could also go into silent running within the same instance and fly 20KM away.
Its about team fighting within a conflict zone and giving depth to them.
Last edited:
Nope. Night vision has destroyed that.
Actually, your suggestion would remove any depth - every ship would need to be equipped and engineered for team arena deathmatches.
Making PP Open Only could potentially provide a platform for interesting, diverse and entirely organic PvP. Adding a lockin timer to force team arena deathmatches would completely undermine that. It's a terrible idea by any measure.
Last edited:
Then come up with an idea that incentivizes that concept instead of just locking the door and not letting anyone out till it's over. I like the new CZ win-loss mechanic precisely because it already incentivizes me to stay in the fight without forcing me. I'm not just scooping out of a bucket of bonds and leaving when my BGS count is good. I want to stay unless I get too wrecked to be useful. I left the last victorious CZ with a ship shot to pieces but viable enough to stay in the fight and help carry the final fighting, and it felt far more satisfying than most previous combat in this game.
A timed gate though? That's completely uninteresting and pushy.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
You have to keep people there first. Or its never going to work. They have to want to be there. And they have to have something to lose. Sometimes having another option is not viable.
If you have to trap people in order for your idea to work, that's not a selling point of your idea.