Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Doctor Dread]

This Elite of ours is a fantastic, deep multilayered game. Can be compared to the finest, biggest, most exclusive resort in the world.

This resort is brimming with excellent features: exotic locations for excursions, great strolling areas, finest beaches, diving, windsurfing, pools with slides, spa, many themed restaurants, dancing halls, theatres, cocktail bars, tennis courts, bike rides...

...and there is a boxing ring, for those martial arts oriented.

Now the martial arts crowd demand from the management to force all the visitors to pass through the boxing ring first - and engage in combat there against them - in order to go anywhere else.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I disagree, it is perfect for purpose, those wanting to play at PP have a comfy little corner where they meet other like-minded individuals to continue their struggles to do whatever it is they feel needs doing.
Naturally, the mode would be virtually empty, what with time zones and such, but at least there won't be randoms in other modes affecting the "grand plan" or whatever it is...

Yeah... I know... If it was just PP players it would be incredibly boring...

Maybe with PP 2.0 FD will finally realise that they need to be either entirely seperate entities, or just make PP 2.0 BGS activities with a bunch of figurehead leaders calling the shots.

Funny how devoted PP players don't want to just do PP activities with other PP players, after all, if PP had its own mode, and any player wanted other fun, all they need do is switch mode, simples...

Pretty shortsighted, prejudiced and dog-whistly answer. I cite again BGS' significance. But personally when I'm flying around I just want all encounters, regardless of me being involved in PP. A PG doesn't appeal to me because it constrains my experience. It won't appeal to most who want things to happen open. What I'm saying is, the PG will be empty because a lot of people would rather be in open than do powerplay at the cost of that. There's no way FDev will risk a "new" feature like that by risking rejection by the majority of the current player protagonists.

 

[The Nephilim]

In the distant past I used to fill up on passengers from the faction we were in conflict with, then fly out of the station, in an unshielded ship, and wait for the opposition to blow me up... Hurt their faction more than ours

This needs a Leonardo DiCaprio applause meme.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Quite true...
Throw a couple of your good PvP players in open in one system, watch the opposition rush to defend that system, do all of the good work in another system unhindered.
Always fun...

Not so fun for the PvPers, true . But a lot of PPers are allrounders so can do the same, having deterred action in the place they wanted to, switching from PvP to PvE.

 

[Wily Rites]

This Elite of ours is a fantastic, deep multilayered game. Can be compared to the finest, biggest, most exclusive resort in the world.

This resort is brimming with excellent features: exotic locations for excursions, great strolling areas, finest beaches, diving, windsurfing, pools with slides, spa, many themed restaurants, dancing halls, theatres, cocktail bars, tennis courts, bike rides...

...and there is a boxing ring, for those martial arts oriented.

Now the martial arts crowd demand from the management to force all the visitors to pass through the boxing ring first - and engage in combat there against them - in order to go anywhere else.

Displaying a distinct lack of understanding of the underlying philosophy inherent within all martial arts.

Addendum: Awesome that this can even come up as an issue within a game though, I don't see why there couldn't be a great future emerge from this, if well expanded.

 

[SergMx]

What I'm saying is, the PG will be empty because a lot of people would rather be in open than do powerplay at the cost of that.

There are probably very few players in the Mobius group. And in other PGs too ...

 

[SergMx]

But a lot of PPers are allrounders so can do the same, having deterred action in the place they wanted to, switching from PvP to PvE.

Of course universals, especially when it comes to yearly research well (flying around the galaxy, away from humanity, for years) or war with the Thargoids

 

[Darkfyre99]

And yet many manipulators worth twice their salt would like to be able to do so .

And I'd question whether they're truly worth their salt, or are part of the "When all you have is a hammer" crowd. I'm not denying that PvP can't have a role in BGS manipulation, just that there's situations where PvP will do far more harm than good to your agenda.

PvP kills that might have the most significant BGS effects don't always result (a forced retreat is also a good outcome). Blockading can be effective, and being attacked by players has a very different feeling to losing via the progress bar.

If a BGS manipulator is willingly playing in Open, they're not likely to get distressed by the mere thought of being attacked by other players, especially if getting blown up by other players provides greater benefits than the alternative. Furthermore, blockading players aren't advancing their agenda, so that's another benefit to the attacker. If you're attacking a controlling faction, something will always beat nothing... especially if their nothing is actually advances your agenda.

When there are other star systems that can be worked unhindered, PvP opposition can influence where people apply themselves, with the control of that given to the defending PvPers.

But that's true whether there's PvP opposition or not. More players will always beat fewer players. If the defenders have enough to players to effectively run a PvP blockade, then they also have enough players overwhelm the attackers in PvE. It's just that a savvy attacker can manipulate those PvP defenders into doing far more harm than good.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

This Elite of ours is a fantastic, deep multilayered game. Can be compared to the finest, biggest, most exclusive resort in the world.

This resort is brimming with excellent features: exotic locations for excursions, great strolling areas, finest beaches, diving, windsurfing, pools with slides, spa, many themed restaurants, dancing halls, theatres, cocktail bars, tennis courts, bike rides...

...and there is a boxing ring, for those martial arts oriented.

Now the martial arts crowd demand from the management to force all the visitors to pass through the boxing ring first - and engage in combat there against them - in order to go anywhere else.

Is that a cut-throat resort, Cmdr? Where the resort is named after a high level combat rank that's a prerequisite for your professional body to recognise that you "cut it"?

 

[Darrack]

there is always Star Citizen for the dedicated PvP player

You have more chance of getting killed climbing out of bed

O7

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

And I'd question whether they're truly worth their salt, or are part of the "When all you have is a hammer" crowd. I'm not denying that PvP can't have a role in BGS manipulation, just that there's situations where PvP will do far more harm than good to your agenda.



If a BGS manipulator is willingly playing in Open, they're not likely to get distressed by the mere thought of being attacked by other players, especially if getting blown up by other players provides greater benefits than the alternative. Furthermore, blockading players aren't advancing their agenda, so that's another benefit to the attacker. If you're attacking a controlling faction, something will always beat nothing... especially if their nothing is actually advances your agenda.



But that's true whether there's PvP opposition or not. More players will always beat fewer players. If the defenders have enough to players to effectively run a PvP blockade, then they also have enough players overwhelm the attackers in PvE. It's just that a savvy attacker can manipulate those PvP defenders into doing far more harm than good.

I think you're overestimating the effect of killing a couple of Cmdrs vs. e.g. mass murder of civillians.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Pretty shortsighted, prejudiced and dog-whistly answer. I cite again BGS' significance. But personally when I'm flying around I just want all encounters, regardless of me being involved in PP. A PG doesn't appeal to me because it constrains my experience. It won't appeal to most who want things to happen open. What I'm saying is, the PG will be empty because a lot of people would rather be in open than do powerplay at the cost of that. There's no way FDev will risk a "new" feature like that by risking rejection by the majority of the current player protagonists.

Same on our side... it's ok that PvP is not a resolutor for most of (let's use a nice name to define these ) "hybrid" situations, it works as an accelerator for the balanced ones (wher all sides are in open / PvP ready). Also, these PvP situations are the most relevant sources for media content (streaming, YT edits etc) because no one is going to watch a 9 mins clip where a beam LR vette kabooms 40 NPCs in a CZ ...so bottom line, to tell a story, we need players.

Honestly, it doesn't even matter who's winning when we have a story and tons of fun... in our track record, we're full of wars and systems we've let go because the opposition entrenched in solo/PG modes to avoid any encounter after the first direct attrition. From our perspective (but guess the same for anyone sharing same approach), that's a victory for us because the other side left the field... are they victorious on the BGS side? Yes, but so who cares lol? That even brings more laughs (as frankly is just embarassing).

 

[Darkfyre99]

Oh! So the activity augments benefits either way? I'm still scratching my head a lot trying to figure it all out.

It's more like when it comes to BGS manipulation, it's ultimately a game of filling or draining the PvE buckets you have for each faction in a faction: influence, security, and economic. Influence decides things like wars and asset control. Security and wealth decides what types of missions are available on the mission boards. Some actions fill buckets, others drain them. If you commit murder, whether it's done against NPCs or players, it drains the infuence and security buckets of whichever faction is in control.

At the end of each BGS tick, the buckets of every player who performed any action in the system, attacker, defender, or neutral, are weighed, some math is done on them, and the results applied.

If you're attacking a faction, and have no interest in promoting other factions to replace them, the easiest way to do this is to go on a killing spree. NPCs or Player, it doesn't matter, just kill everything that moves, and watch that influence tank.

However, if you want to promote another faction in its place, that's not the best strategy. Being wanted, and especially having high notoriety, makes your agenda much more difficult to advance. You want to be able to operate legally in that system, so it's in your best interest not to go on the murder-hobo route. A few extra-judicial killings when there's a mission for it, sure. But murder sprees, no.

The idea that PvP murder can be used to defend a faction stems from the idea that what the "defender" loses in influence will be offset by what the "attacker" potentially loses by being unable to complete the missions (or other actions) they're running.

That's only true if the "attacker" isn't expecting opposition. If the "attacker" is expecting opposition, they can switch gears and accept incoming missions for the faction they're attacking. Being able build reputation with the controlling faction provides an "attacker" more opportunities to mess with that faction in the long term, even if it comes at the expense of slower influence gain. If you get murdered via PvP instead? Even better, because that murder comes out of the "defender's" bucket, rather than your own. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose worse" scenario.

This scenario was even worse in BGS 1.0, because an "attacker" used to be able to negatively affect any faction, even the one they're working against, by choosing the right missions. It's a pity that Frontier removed that level of nuance when they fixed how faction states worked.

 

[Ozric]

Can you please stop belittling each other, and try and have a conversation like adults. It's a lot to ask I know, but I'm sure you can do it if you try.

 

[Darrack]

Like AXI quitting at the start of the Thargoid war you mean?

To be fair many of us didn't even know they existed

O7

 

[Wily Rites]

It's more like when it comes to BGS manipulation, it's ultimately a game of filling or draining the PvE buckets you have for each faction in a faction: influence, security, and economic. Influence decides things like wars and asset control. Security and wealth decides what types of missions are available on the mission boards. Some actions fill buckets, others drain them. If you commit murder, whether it's done against NPCs or players, it drains the infuence and security buckets of whichever faction is in control.

At the end of each BGS tick, the buckets of every player who performed any action in the system, attacker, defender, or neutral, are weighed, some math is done on them, and the results applied.

If you're attacking a faction, and have no interest in promoting other factions to replace them, the easiest way to do this is to go on a killing spree. NPCs or Player, it doesn't matter, just kill everything that moves, and watch that influence tank.

However, if you want to promote another faction in its place, that's not the best strategy. Being wanted, and especially having high notoriety, makes your agenda much more difficult to advance. You want to be able to operate legally in that system, so it's in your best interest not to go on the murder-hobo route. A few extra-judicial killings when there's a mission for it, sure. But murder sprees, no.

The idea that PvP murder can be used to defend a faction stems from the idea that what the "defender" loses in influence will be offset by what the "attacker" potentially loses by being unable to complete the missions (or other actions) they're running.

That's only true if the "attacker" isn't expecting opposition. If the "attacker" is expecting opposition, they can switch gears and accept incoming missions for the faction they're attacking. Being able build reputation with the controlling faction provides an "attacker" more opportunities to mess with that faction in the long term, even if it comes at the expense of slower influence gain. If you get murdered via PvP instead? Even better, because that murder comes out of the "defender's" bucket, rather than your own. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose worse" scenario.

This scenario was even worse in BGS 1.0, because an "attacker" used to be able to negatively affect any faction, even the one they're working against, by choosing the right missions. It's a pity that Frontier removed that level of nuance when they fixed how faction states worked.

Thank you for the detailed explanation, I'm starting to get the picture now, least I think I am; A glimpse of it. Still got some digesting to do, but beginning to make some sense now. Again, many thanks!

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

It's more like when it comes to BGS manipulation, it's ultimately a game of filling or draining the PvE buckets you have for each faction in a faction: influence, security, and economic. Influence decides things like wars and asset control. Security and wealth decides what types of missions are available on the mission boards. Some actions fill buckets, others drain them. If you commit murder, whether it's done against NPCs or players, it drains the infuence and security buckets of whichever faction is in control.

At the end of each BGS tick, the buckets of every player who performed any action in the system, attacker, defender, or neutral, are weighed, some math is done on them, and the results applied.

If you're attacking a faction, and have no interest in promoting other factions to replace them, the easiest way to do this is to go on a killing spree. NPCs or Player, it doesn't matter, just kill everything that moves, and watch that influence tank.

However, if you want to promote another faction in its place, that's not the best strategy. Being wanted, and especially having high notoriety, makes your agenda much more difficult to advance. You want to be able to operate legally in that system, so it's in your best interest not to go on the murder-hobo route. A few extra-judicial killings when there's a mission for it, sure. But murder sprees, no.

The idea that PvP murder can be used to defend a faction stems from the idea that what the "defender" loses in influence will be offset by what the "attacker" potentially loses by being unable to complete the missions (or other actions) they're running.

That's only true if the "attacker" isn't expecting opposition. If the "attacker" is expecting opposition, they can switch gears and accept incoming missions for the faction they're attacking. Being able build reputation with the controlling faction provides an "attacker" more opportunities to mess with that faction in the long term, even if it comes at the expense of slower influence gain. If you get murdered via PvP instead? Even better, because that murder comes out of the "defender's" bucket, rather than your own. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose worse" scenario.

This scenario was even worse in BGS 1.0, because an "attacker" used to be able to negatively affect any faction, even the one they're working against, by choosing the right missions. It's a pity that Frontier removed that level of nuance when they fixed how faction states worked.

I'd never take missions for the faction I'm attacking without the express intention of failing them . There are much more efficient ways of improving rep. And I can fail missions at the same time as performing positive actions for the faction I'm backing, no need to "switch tack". If you're talking about passenger missions then they can also be failed much more efficiently than angling in supercruise for someone to kill you PvP.

Bounty vouchers, arguably the strongest BGS "lever", are lost on death. If a player can't operate safely then you're denying them that. Carto data is also a useful lever that you can deny in the same way.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

To be fair many of us didn't even know they existed

O7

It's possible to dismiss anything if you're not interested in player-driven narratives or the bigger picture in general. There's certainly merit in playing an immersed game following your nose and not worrying about the sweep of <insert less grandiose term than "history">. For the rest, there have been driving forces in the Thargoid war that channelled and guided humanity's response. AXI have been a principal one of those. They're a central group and concentration of expertise that can't be ignored, for those who want to engage in the pushback of the Thargoids as a strategic aim, or achieve a high standard in AX combat, or find out stuff about the conflict. Other groups emerged as well but only AXI and one or two other entities have really "made the weather" in the Thargoid war. It's inevitable that the existing powerplay groups will form obvious hubs that will persist into powerplay's future. There may be other new hubs, and that's great too.

 

[angusmadmac1]

INf trade profits then bounty and exploration, in that order are the BGS triggers so blowing up explorers or a few player ships who may have bounties( along with the ease of getting them back ) are just as futile .
My fav is no shields passenger with FA and auto rotation off . I don't even need to leave the station. and if the passengers don't like hull damage they leave and I don't blow up which is nice.

 

[Doctor Dread]

the opposition entrenched in solo/PG modes to avoid any encounter after the first direct attrition. From our perspective (but guess the same for anyone sharing same approach), that's a victory for us because the other side left the field...

Be careful what you wish for, you might end up with the absolute victory.