Oh I would be thrilled with designated pvp / wvw instances akin to what is done in other mmos... but this old girl with it's p2p and legacy mods, well - she's not up to it.
What do you guys think of a minimum timer locking you in for conflict zones and powerplay zones?
- Thread starter WorldsGreatestForumDad
- Start date
Oh I would be thrilled with designated pvp / wvw instances akin to what is done in other mmos... but this old girl with it's p2p and legacy mods, well - she's not up to it.
They have spoke several times about the Karma system, Combat logging, Timer changes and so on many times. I assume those would still be in the pipeline at some point and would come with whatever PVP content they decide to give us.
They even spoke about FSD cooldown changes at one point too. Long ago.
There are many ways to skin a cat. There are many ways to solve problems. Not everything has to stay the same as it is now
This game is going to change and change and change over the course of its lifetime. This game evolves as we play it.
Its pretty neat.
But the 15 seconds timer they have said will stay, perhaps tweaked a little , so once again what fix?
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
The way I see it. If they were interested. They will figure out something to make it work right? Makes sense to me.
so based on this then, i take it you are not trustworthy either to listen to, as you clearly have shown a total lack of understanding on other parts of the game and assuming the game is somethign it clearly isn't, despite you deceptive ways to try and make it so.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Well a 60 second timer means you cant view the screen, you cant use shield cell banks and you cant maneuver at all. Which means you die.
Whats 60 seconds vs the hours and hours on end people play?
Explorers and others can always reach a safe point at least for 60 seconds before they log out. It just shouldn't be that fast in a conflict vs others.
This is really simple my friend and nothing to really worry about.
what about 1 second if we are gong to put imaginary numbers here?
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
What if you cant logout until landed or docked? If you want to be smart about it. We can suggest to make it really difficult.
Last edited:
What if you cannot land or dock if you have killed a player?
I think in light of the existence of solo mode, private groups, combat logging, and the "block player" feature, it has to be understood that any changes along these lines are not going to control player behavior but would rather act as a kind of weak force for guiding how default interactions between good-faith actors in Open Play are going to pan out. The mere fact that things *can* be circumvented shouldn't be the sole deciding factor because the goal here should be to shift the overall pattern of behavior and to ensure that circumvention is at least a conscious choice which feels lame and gamey.
Things like Combat Logging and usage of the "block" feature both fall very much into the category of "I am deliberately using the features of my computer to manipulate the outcome of this video game I am playing" whereas something like jumping out and retreating into a different instance are over on the side of "I am a spaceman flying a space ship! Uh-Oh! Here comes trouble! What should I do?"
Wherever possible, the design of the game should seek to accommodate the second mentality as much as possible while discouraging the first as much as is reasonable. Doesn't mean that it's all a lost cause if you fail to fully enforce one and outlaw the other, though; it just means you shouldn't set things up in such a way that the "smart" thing is to play primarily in mentality #1 and the "stupid" thing to do is play primarily in mentality #2. A good illustration of this balance falling on the wrong side of the scales is the original Guardian Tech Broker grind, where the only sane reasonable thing to do was to log in and out of the game and shoot/scan the same objects over and over again.
We can forget all this nonsense now, there's bigger griefers to fry, as 't were.
The entire DW2 expedition has griefed the whole game, deliberately sabotaging many deep space miners who will likely lose hours of their spoils when they log back into face NPC pirate wings. They have caused mission runners to miss their deadlines, and ruined the fun of countless players! Who will compensate them all?
The organisers at least need to be held to account for this travesty!
The entire DW2 expedition has griefed the whole game, deliberately sabotaging many deep space miners who will likely lose hours of their spoils when they log back into face NPC pirate wings. They have caused mission runners to miss their deadlines, and ruined the fun of countless players! Who will compensate them all?
The organisers at least need to be held to account for this travesty!
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Thats okay. Those explorers will eventually pay the price. Word has it. Its already started.
Who will compensate those who lost out because of this griefing? I don't care about gank squads.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Guess they should have outfitted for survival. Instead of min maxing for cargo.
HASHTAG NOT OUR PROBLEM.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Back on track though. Yes 100% this.
There is just too many nonsensical ways to opt out of losing in this game. Its quite frustrating.
Which is why I'd like to see some depth with these zones.
Last edited:
Avago Earo
Banned
Endless monotony doing non skilled tasks taking ages just to get stuff to engineer a ship, that's what. Engineers was a stupid idea that just made people take longer to get back on the same level. Bigger Rock, Bigger Paper, Bigger Scissors.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Lets look at another game to compare this to.
World of Warcraft. Each expansion has new raids, gear and content. Are you saying their driving force in rewards/farming was dumb there too?
There was a reason this stuff was added. And while I agree that it was REALLY REALLY unnecessarily grindy when it came out.
A lot of PVPers and PVEers recognized this and fought to get the grind reduced so entry level commanders can learn the game and work on their engineering.
Engineering and farming is really really easy now. You can build a fully engineered medium sized ship from scratch in 1 or 2 play sessions.
And that's totally acceptable.
And wouldn't you know it? Unlocking them teaches you how to the play the game!
Last edited:
See this is why I think people are generally suspicious of you and your proposals. You seem less interested in finding ways to make your own victory meaningful for you, and more interested in ensuring that someone else's loss is meaningful for them.
Hit point inflation is a whole other discussion and for the record yeah the shield booster nerf absolutely should have happened (also feedback and reverb cascade should have stayed "OP" as originally implemented and we should have had the gimbal tracking arc tied to sensor grade as well).
BUT, I feel like your main interest in all of this is because you want more people to have their ships blown up, and what is more you want them to be sad about it.
It's really common for people to try and absolve combat loggers by saying things like "if they retreated, you should consider that a win," and I don't really agree with that as a general principle, but in an objectives-oriented contest (like say a CZ tug-o-war), this is absolutely how you should look at it. We don't need more penalties for losing, we need more meaningful rewards for winning.
The primary cost of losing should be that you didn't get to win. The primary reason for sticking it out in a fight all the way to the bitter end is because the benefit of winning is SO TEMPTING that you'll keep at it for as long as you still think you *might* be able to turn things around. The problem, right now, is that almost nothing in the game rewards winning in a way that overshadows the penalty for losing, so people have an incentive to always flee (by any means necessary) when things don't go their way.
I don't need new players in harmless sidewinders to be trapped in a CZ for 15 minutes. They WONT be trapped for 15 minutes anyway - they'll be blown up in 15 seconds and then they'll be gone, exactly as if they had been allowed to leave on their own. The only people you WANT to stay in a CZ are the ones who at least THINK they can hang for a while in the first place.
Give players a sense of investment in the outcome of an instance, and they'll be reluctant to leave at the first sign of trouble. Right now, you could have a wing of 2 players working a CZ, and if a single opposing brave CMDR in a vulture showed up, there is a decent chance the wing of 2 would just flee rather than deal with the potential threat. If on the other hand they had already achieved Objective #1 (thus enabling them to earn Combat Bonds), and were 75% of the way to achieving Objective #2 (which would double the Combat Bond payout and move the needle on the BGS), they would almost certainly stick it out. And whatever happens after that, whether the vulture flees immediately, or they fight it out and win, or lose, or eventually are driven out by that lone Vulture, OR EVEN IF THEY COMBAT LOG; the experience and its outcome would have meaningful repercussions for everyone.
FORCING players to stay in a CZ on the other had, doesn't do anything. It just ensures that ill equipped ships die 100% of the time when they drop into a situation they can't handle. Which is boring for the superior ships and either annoying or devastating for the inexperienced pilot.
Last edited:
Avago Earo
Banned
This isn't World Of Warcraft. Looking for materials/POI's and listening to the different sounds coming from your SRV scanner,, to scoop things up to hand over to an engineer to make your ship uber; does not a skilled combat pilot make.
Avago Earo
Banned
If you think you're a great combat pilot, why don't you put your engineered weapons in storage and fight toe to toe with someone with the same load out? I'd be up for that. I'd probably lose for lack of experience, but I'd learn from it. I'd learn more than small rock loses to big scissors.