The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[SteveWW57]

Peaceful experience in BGS - sounds like positive discrimination or other Orwelli'sh talk. Okay - someone is ruining in shadow, someone else bgs experience, by shooting starships, killing NPCs and thats someone could call 'peaceful' Its the edges of hypocricy. However, i think the answer for this post will bring it to another level

If a faction that does not control a systems has
missions to deliver commodities/data, this will affect the BGS.
missions to salvage items, this will affect the BGS.
missions to deliver/fetch items, this will affect the BGS.
missions to restore power/reactivate settlements, this will affect the BGS.

The faction owning the system will be affected.

These are peaceful actions. However, peaceful actions could be considered as hostile actions by another means.

Player actions affecting the BGS was the way a dynamic background was implemented. As I said earlier, seeing everything through the lens of how activity affects the BGS is taking things too seriously and could be considered unhealthy.

It has been pointed out several times that minor factions and player minor factions are not the same thing. A player minor faction might be linked to an in game minor faction and support them, but the minor faction is not "owned" by the player minor faction. Except in our minds. Anyone can support a minor faction, or not as the case may be. Any suggestion that the non open CMDRs should not affect the BGS would only lead to a more static galaxy.

Related to the open/non open modes affecting the BGS, what about the differing time zones? If you are a US group and the Euros are affecting your BGS, should they be denied the ability to influence the BGS or be split into their own Galaxy? And not forgeting the console players who also shared the galaxy. They also could affect the BGS untouched previously. And vice-versa.

Steve

 

[terragrimtitan]

Thargoids are a huge impact on bgs! Bgs is not meant to be a simple winnable controllable game, random stuff goes on , people in different modes makes the simulation reflect things beyond your control. The challenge is to deal with it

 

[SteveWW57]

The challenge is to deal with it

What some want is everyone to play in open so that all the miscreants affecting their BGS negatively can be identified and sent to the rebuy screen. That is how they would deal with it. A bit easier to run a few missions to gain INF.

Steve.

 

[Kyokushin]

This again?

yes this.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

 

[Bigmaec]

View attachment 339460

Like repeatedly getting ganked in open in 3D shielded Asps?

 

[Brrokk]

Like repeatedly getting ganked in open in 3D shielded Asps?

Yes!

But really, I don't think that's what's happening; modes and block prevent it. These immense threads grow because there are people who want that to be happening. ;-)

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Like repeatedly getting ganked in open in 3D shielded Asps?

Someone you had in mind?

 

[SteveWW57]

Like repeatedly getting ganked in open in 3D shielded Asps?

So why do the gankers attack and destroy 3D shielded ASPs? Simply because they can and care nothing about other players. They just like to spoil things for others.

Where is the challenge in such play to the ganker? I would say that there is none.

Steve

 

[Agony_Aunt]

What is the appeal of a galaxy .... without danger?

Interesting question, one that might be posited to those gankers and griefers who like imposing danger on others with zero risk to themselves.

 

[Riverside]

Yes!

But really, I don't think that's what's happening; modes and block to prevent it. These immense threads grow because there are people who want that to be happening. ;-)

I think it happens a lot, but probably not to the same player over & over again. Just as blocking will never 100% guarantee safety because there's always new gankers, there's a constant stream of new players full of confidence & ready to take on the galaxy that are ripe to experience the learning opportunity that is their first PvP experience

I think threads like this are largely perpetuated by people trying to protect others from themselves; a hypothetical ideal to aim for rather than an achievable goal.

I got back to the bubble yesterday & have quickly slipped back into my old routines of managing wars, elections, expansions & retreats. I've had a dozen or so random encounters (o7'd every one, only one replied). Two reacted to my presence (one looked like they were trying to get behind to interdict but I was only passing through the system & I jumped out before they got close, one changed path & dropped out of supercruise, I presume to evade me).

It is noticeable that there is a lot of traffic in systems with a rescue megaship but no ganker types that I have seen so far (in Odyssey). Legacy feels like solo it's so quiet, not tried 4.0.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think threads like this are largely perpetuated by people trying to protect others from themselves; a hypothetical ideal to aim for rather than an achievable goal.

.... and by those who think that players should be forced to play in Open to affect mode shared game features;
.... and by those who espouse the notion that players in Solo and Private Groups should be penalised in some way because they don't play among those who may wish to engage them in PvP;
.... and by those who want Frontier to remove Solo and Private Groups completely;
to name a few.

 

[Riverside]

.... and by those who think that players should be forced to play in Open to affect mode shared game features;
.... and by those who espouse the notion that players in Solo and Private Groups should be penalised in some way because they don't play among those who may wish to engage them in PvP;
.... and by those who want Frontier to remove Solo and Private Groups completely;
to name a few.

If you review my post more carefully you might be able to see how all your examples are subsets of what I wrote

 

[Robert Maynard]

If you review my post more carefully you might be able to see how all your examples are subsets of what I wrote

Not seeing that from the post.

 

[Riverside]

Not seeing that from the post.

Ok here's one example involving only you & I:

My stance is essentially git gud, but without being so crass as to phrase it that way. I want to save you from yourself by encouraging you to cross the rickety bridge rather than to stay on one side looking at all my greener grass.

Your stance is essentially 100% PvE exclusive club & you want to save me from having to compromise my cargo space for the sake of defence.

Now of course these are just simplified examples, they are in no way intended to fully represent either of our stances, I am only using these simplified examples to help you understand how your bias blinds you.

 

[Morbad]

If someone is doing something to the BGS you don't like, trying to explode them PvP is utterly pointless.

In the current system, this is generally true, but the current system obviously isn't the scenario being proposed.

PvP victories don't have a beneficial effect for "your" faction. Tbe only way to beat them is to do more "inf" than them and it doesn't matter what mode you or they do missions in.

In a hypothetical Open-only mode where it was difficult to arbitrarily exclude others, direct hostilities would be viable, especially if there were more robust consequence mechanisms.

The challenge is to deal with it

The frustration for some is not being able to deal with it via means that would rationally apply, but which incomplete or arbitrarily mechanisms render meaningless. The scope and interconnectedness of most of these BGS levers are very limited...no supply chains, no demographics, no meaningful way to inflict attrition on ones foes, other than to simply exhaust their desire to go through that formulaic lever pushing. It's all very much a game within a game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Ok here's one example involving only you & I:

My stance is essentially git gud, but without being so crass as to phrase it that way. I want to save you from yourself by encouraging you to cross the rickety bridge rather than to stay on one side looking at all my greener grass.

Your stance is essentially 100% PvE exclusive club & you want to save me from having to compromise my cargo space for the sake of defence.

Which is a false equivalence - the first assumes (with all the pitfalls that that includes) that anyone actually aspires to play on the astroturf on the other side; the second assumes that there's a desire to force any player to play in an Open-PvE game mode.

.... and calling something by a different name does not change the underlying sentiment behind it.

 

[Riverside]

Which is a false equivalence - the first assumes (with all the pitfalls that that includes) that anyone actually aspires to play on the astroturf on the other side; the second assumes that there's a desire to force any player to play in an Open-PvE game mode.

.... and calling something by a different name does not change the underlying sentiment behind it.

I get the feeling you are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that you understand & are deflecting. It's okay to just disagree

 

[Robert Maynard]

I get the feeling you are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that you understand & are deflecting. It's okay to just disagree

When it is suggested that someone else "knows better" how any player would actually enjoy playing than the player themself it's not deflection - it's simple disagreement.

 

[Riverside]

When it is suggested that someone else "knows better" how any player would actually enjoy playing than the player themself it's not deflection - it's simple disagreement.

That's quite a stretch from what I wrote. But yes, I can empathise with your position having been there myself & found a solution that I think would solve the 'open pve' dilemma. It did for me, therefore I think it would for others too.

But I don't play only for the Grindy faction stuff, I want that 'rare but meaningful' stuff too. I don't think I'd get that from an 'open pve / open pvp' split, there would be no reason to be cautious if that split existed.