I encourage you to post that in the suggestions section, see if you can gain any traction. Your idea seems to be only a slight modification of Cmdr_CosmicSpaceHead's one, but that small change could be the difference between apathy and acceptance from the community.
- Status
I encourage you to post that in the suggestions section, see if you can gain any traction. Your idea seems to be only a slight modification of Cmdr_CosmicSpaceHead's one, but that small change could be the difference between apathy and acceptance from the community.
Yeah, I will do that. But what is your opinion on my previous post?
No. I never said that people say you can't shoot other people, I said people say "a lot of extra PvP mechanics are needed to give it meaning." Eg. group membership, group control of areas etc - there's little point getting stroppy at me about it - argue it with your PvP brethren who keep asking for this stuff - I'm just repeating what they say so you should have no grump with me.
Because it's a GAME meant for everyone to play how they want - this lets them all do that and doesn't punish people who choose to play it differently.
GAME not reality sim. GAME.
This game punishes people who chose to spent obscene in comparison amount of time and space peso to inrease their skill, survivability of their ship and their combat potential. And abilities to do that are in the game, yet they are simply uneccesary at some point.
So this game already punishes people. For playing the intended way, I might add. Or why it does have weapons at all? And why fixed deals more damage, for instance?
Playing as a potato in a spaceship full of turrets, C-rated stuff, and docking computers is not the intended way.
And I might add, even with 30% reward for open you will return alternative cost of your investments for a proper ship only in a month or so.
Last edited:
I haven't given it much thought but it should probably pass & fail the same tests as CosmicSpaceHead's idea, so it's a workable solution. Have you read the CLogging thread? There are links to particularly useful posts in the OP. Just post there & someone will test it if you don't yourself. As a heads up the main test it fails is the blocklist, but I gave a counter-argument to that too, again it's in that thread.
OK, consider this. Periodically an OPEN only CG is offered (along with regular ones), in which participation only works in OPEN. If there's a cargo delivery aspect to it, then the moment the cargo you have in your hold ever exists in any mode other than OPEN a flag on it is cleared and therefore it does not count towards the CG.
Broaden this mechanic to Powerplay OPEN only tasks too?
So SOLO and GROUP would not be broken, and OPEN PvP would get a tad more meaning as the game is finally taking a step toward orchestrating/offering specific PvP gameplay.
Problem?
There's precious little (no) orchestration of PvP in the game even after all these years. It's about time some steps were take to do this IMHO. Especially as regards giving (PvE and PvP) piracy some depth and meaning too, but that's another whole issue - [Maybe see my sig on Improving PvP & C&P?]
Last edited:
There is no problem.
The only problem is that they want to continue to hide in solo while still messing around with player property like PFs and ruining PP balance and basically destroying this feature completely.
Baiting players into open does not make PvP more meaningful, or have more impact on the game. It would only serve to offer more frequent PvP, if anyone not interested in PvP took the bait. There needs to be a fundamental connection to the game's mechanics for PvP to have meaning. Quality over quantity. Creating what you suggest would just serve to pander to those that feel open needs to be coddled and preserved.
PFs aren’t player property. We aren’t even members. We are just the supporter club.
PP is different. There you have a membership, that is displayed in the game.
PP has potential.
PvP layer added to PP and the BGS.
ED is many different games all played in the same environment. You are not going to be able to influence all of them, but if there were a mini-game where you potentially could influence all of that (subject to instancing) would you be interested? That was the basis for my Meaningful PvP Proposal thread in the suggestion section. You could then focus your attention only on that aspect of competitive play.
NeilF's suggestion is compatible with the framework I laid out.
Last edited:
We all have opinions on how the game should be, we are all entitled to express them. You make a good argument but I don't think the logic is fundamentally flawed, only the minor details. If the performance gap between C- and fully optimised modules were closer, there would be less of an issue.
Then it just comes down to whether you want to buff all the lesser stuff or nerf the OP stuff. Personally I generally favour nerfs, but experience shows I'm in the minority most of the time.
Turrets and DC will get you killed in PvP, thats where the skill level is different from solo where you only fight NPCs.
There is no skill requirement to play the game, or if there is a cap it's much lower than you suggest. Your rules apply to you, they may have different personal rules & play a different way.
The issue is not about being competitive, it's about being bothered or not whether some hapless buffoon pops your ship. If you deliberately go out of your way to be as irritating as possible, don't be surprised if some of those people lose their patience. No one is perfect.
Last edited:
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Fixed deals more damage as a bonus to balance with it not being gimballed - it all makes sense if you think about it.
You realise if you're arguing for realism then it's absolutely critical that truckers etc can exist? That it would be laughable if only heavily armed top rated top pilots could survive out there?
These are not acronyms and do not need to be in all caps.
The game is not intended to be a PvP battleground, clearly. People could easily take those Open only missions and throttle their routers so they do it in virtual-solo - exploit heaven. It's just not that game.
Wasn't there a video of some guy flying an FdL, and specifically pointing out having it equipped, with a DC? I believe the maker of that video was particularly pleased to have won.
Hence the suggestion for a very limited number of dedicated OPEN PvP only CGs.
And likewise have a very limited number of Powerplay tasks that are likewise OPEN PvP only, OR, for example splitting the results of them so 50% of the results are accrued from OPEN results and 50% from no-OPEN results.
In these ways, then OPEN gets some dedicated PvP gameplay or at least a fair shout at (Powerplay) outcomes. And players simply play the game they prefer - PvP orientated or PvE orientated.
Last edited:
The game is an open environment, a PvP battleground is one of the things the game allows to happen. There is no issue with having a PvP battleground, only with where it is chosen to take place. The PvP hub was a good idea in this respect, and with a larger population of willing participants could become a very successful system.
I like a bit of player conflict, it spices things up but when playing a game I like to play with others like myself. a matchmaking system (like CQC I suppose) would help, if the population were large enough.
But I don't want to play with jerks, no matter what their skill level, so I don't go to where the jerks go. Of course we each have different views on what constitutes a Jerk.
I'd argue it allows PvP battles to happen, the lack of being able to operate a battleground properly is the issue many have with it. Different modes and instancing provides too many ways to avoid any battleground and player interaction.
Hence much of this drama and demands for credit/influence punishments for those who don't want to play the game the way these few try and dictate it should be played.
- Status