As an interested bystander, that's what it looks like to me.
What do you guys think of a minimum timer locking you in for conflict zones and powerplay zones?
- Thread starter WorldsGreatestForumDad
- Start date
As an interested bystander, that's what it looks like to me.
Sums it up.
*shrug* Sucks to be you, then.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Sorry I missed this,
Maybe it doesnt have to be a timer. This was the first thing that came to mind.
Maybe there is something else that locks you in for a bit. Heavy masslock factors were brought up.
The goal is to keep people engaged for a limited amount of time before they up and leave because they might get shot at by another person.
All I am asking for is for people to stay and work together for a bit before its time to leave. Leaving or retreating these zones was never off the table if you decide to concede them and cut your personal losses for a conflict zone loss.
Just not right away. This way people will work together in tandem whether they know each other or not because both sides share a common goal. But thats never going to happen if people try to find loopholes not to work together against each other. People will do their best to do their own thing unopposed.
Its human nature. Sometimes we need rules to make gameplay work.
It breaks the game IMO.
Last edited:
Not really. You're asking for FD to force people to stay somewhere whether they want to or not. Which is why this would never work. If people want to work together, they can already do so. If people want to stay, they can already do so. You are asking for options to be taken away, rather than adding anything to the game.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
That's right. Sometimes every option should not be available. Whats wrong with that?
Besides aren't we all tired of the same one sided NPC grind? Those conflict zones are BORING! They are all the same with no dynamics at all.
Avago Earo
Banned
It would appear that a PvP enthusiast with an engineered ship wants to fly swat those less equipped. I could be wrong...
You're not wrong, no...
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Whats stopping you from getting equipped? We're both playing the same game. You have the same tools available to you.
Use them.
At this point in the game and how long its been out people are victims because they chose to be. Not because they want to be.
Last edited:
Running away.... its a valid choice, not sure I would like your conflict zones - as I play iron man mode in open. Running away, is a fact of life for me!
On a more general point, lets gets the conflict zones we have working and spawning properly. They are better since the patch that unfroze the BGS, still get occassional one (even low) without ships.
Simon
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Running away even while in the zone is a valid choice. But in doing so you would be conceding the zone. Not going to another one just because it would be empty of other commanders.
How you play iron man mode is fine. But that shouldn't be stopping the gameplay between groups because of the way you personally choose to play.
Because when you have limited options in circumstances that you didnt choose, they call that work. Elite dangerous is a game, that people play for fun and if you start taking options away from people that they have had before they wont play the game and it will make them angry.
FD probably at least glance over player suggestions, including the hare brained stuff you come up with and probably get in the habit of dismissing even the good suggestions out of hand reflexively because there is so much noise (your recent suggestions) to signal.
Why?
I can't count the number of CZs I've been into since the patch, as there are so many wars now. I can't count the number of CMDRs I've seen in them either, because the number has been exactly zero. Besides, if I really want an instance that's empty of other CMDRs, I could always go to solo. Right?
Does leaving, and thereby conceding, a CZ count as a transaction against the faction you declared for? That wouldn't be open to abuse at all.
Last edited:
what risk is removed?
You are still basing all of this on the falsehood that everything in this game should be about PvP, it is blatantly clear that this game is not all about PvP, and all your wishes or thread to the opposite will not make this true.
There is no requirement to be in open to play this game, and in most cases, anything you do in the game will influence BGS, no matter if you intend to or not.
You are throwing around accusations to others to adapt, but you are showing a total disregard yourself to adapt to the simple fact that this game is not all about PvP.
Then we have those lies about that you want to make conflict zones be more engaging and all that, by FORCING people to be there once they have entered, and yet you have failed to show how this would motivate players to to engage in these sort of activities! And even the few examples of this in other games does NOT have any of this kind of forced staying in a zone. Wonder why that is..... and yet you are advocating just that, why not show games that have this mechanics instead?
What if we enforced a few more rules along your forced timers...
No engineered ships in combat zones? All ships entering temporary looses their engineered modules as it is replaced with stock modules of the same class.*
Remove some of the PvP aspect and make it so that killing another player would hurt your winning chance by losing 50% of the progress to winning the condition? So what is most important, killing player or winning the fight? Stupid question, we all know that your top priority is to klill players, and you do not really care about winning the war...
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
To those asking why?
This guy gets it.
Whether its possible I do not know. But this is what I am striving for.
And in order for it to work at all. That means some restrictions and rules and balancing have to be set for these parts of the game. As in any PVP game where people affect one another.
Open is the playing ground for Objective PVP. End of story.
Last edited:
We already know that FDEv already have figured out that to be bad mechanics, as you used to be able to accept missions and then abandon these missions would give a negative influence to the faction, so this could now be used to reduce the influence of a faction.
That is false, Open could just as well be the playing ground for Co-Op...
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
I play co-op in league of legends against another team thats playing co-op against me.
I play co-op in counter strike against another another team thats playing co-op against me.
I play co-op in guild wars 2 against other groups that are playing co-op against me.
I play co-op in escape from tarkov against other players playing against me.
I think we both know how this would work. So lets stop with the poking and prodding okay?