The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[angusmadmac1]

I've done BGS for years so I know what I'm talking about ?? Sigh .... So have many people some even wrote the guide and did the testing
So what is BGS ? Filling buckets in trade inf bounty and exploration .
In any of these scenarios does PvP play a part ? Do you get extra for killing a player ? No .
So you chase people who you can't see and imagine that they are playing in solo or PG . Nothing to do with P2P or your connection or your timezone ? But because they are filling buckets better than you are, because you are chasing players it's all our fault ?
As I said before and will reiterate slowly for the last time
Open is a series of PG which depending on your connection allows or disallows instancing with your fellow pilots . So in all aspects you are the architect of your inability to instance with other players . Do you play 24 -7 ?
Good BGS works on we lost yesterday we have to do more tomorrow , if we lose again we do more again until we start winning, them keep that level.
Blowing up a single commander may give you the " that will teach him "feeling but you've spent all night chasing that 1 commander but his other 10 mates who get on after you switch off then does twice as much " that will teach you "hahaha.
You don't need to see who you are against you don't even need to know who they are .
You have just got to work smarter and better a bit more busy and fill up those buckets.
You could sit back wait til the other side get bored and then take back the lost systems with minimal effort.
It works

 

[Rebel Yell]

I've done BGS for years so I know what I'm talking about ?? Sigh .... So have many people some even wrote the guide and did the testing
So what is BGS ? Filling buckets in trade inf bounty and exploration .
In any of these scenarios does PvP play a part ? Do you get extra for killing a player ? No .
So you chase people who you can't see and imagine that they are playing in solo or PG . Nothing to do with P2P or your connection or your timezone ? But because they are filling buckets better than you are, because you are chasing players it's all our fault ?
As I said before and will reiterate slowly for the last time
Open is a series of PG which depending on your connection allows or disallows instancing with your fellow pilots . So in all aspects you are the architect of your inability to instance with other players . Do you play 24 -7 ?
Good BGS works on we lost yesterday we have to do more tomorrow , if we lose again we do more again until we start winning, them keep that level.
Blowing up a single commander may give you the " that will teach him "feeling but you've spent all night chasing that 1 commander but his other 10 mates who get on after you switch off then does twice as much " that will teach you "hahaha.
You don't need to see who you are against you don't even need to know who they are .
You have just got to work smarter and better a bit more busy and fill up those buckets.
You could sit back wait til the other side get bored and then take back the lost systems with minimal effort.
It works

What you're totally missing is that games are somewhat played for the fun and players have different (subjective) stances toward it.

All the above is based on the very short-sighted idea that "winning" is what pushes players in open...

And until there's a 0.1% possibility to engage an "enemy", hardcore open players will pursue that 0.1% as for them that 0.1% is worth (if fun can be measured) much more than a 99.9% spent grinding, filling buckets made of pixels, putting a pixel name over other pixels and fight hundreds of BGS wars... all this is simply not worth a single PvP encounter.

(and may be that for that unique encounter he/she can tell a story, what stories can be told about "filling buckets"?)

 

[Agony_Aunt]

To put it another way, if you provoke a war in my system but don’t come to fight it in Open because you don’t want to, don’t like it, or whatever, aren’t you forcing me to play your game?

Nope, because the BGS game is mainly a PvE activity. Its the game's mechanics that determine whether you win or lose the war. If you try and PvP your way out of a BGS conflict you're going to lose.

Even if everyone is in open, you're still going to have to play the PvE game to win.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Nope, because the BGS game is mainly a PvE activity. Its the game's mechanics that determine whether you win or lose the war. If you try and PvP your way out of a BGS conflict you're going to lose.

Even if everyone is in open, you're still going to have to play the PvE game to win.

That's corect, but even losing it's just funnier!

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

All the above is based on the very short-sighted idea that "winning" is what pushes players in open...

That's corect, but even losing it's just funnier!

That might be correct, but all the complaints and demands for limiting achievements to open all center around "wah I can't win my BGS against those hiding in solo". So it is, in the end, all about winning.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

That's corect, but even losing it's just funnier!

And this distills it down to whether the person's concern really is about the BGS or the desire to PvP.

At the end of the day, plenty of people do fly in open, and if someone wants PvP, real challenging PvP, there are plenty of other PvPers out there who would only be too happy to oblige. Go into Archon's space in Open while pledged to another power and i'm sure one of his adherents would only be too happy to oblige. Or if someone supports Archon, go into another Power's systems and look for people in combat ships who might be up for some jollies.

I'm sure people like you and Rubbernuke would only be too happy to oblige.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

what stories can be told about "filling buckets"

I've worked on a construction site and in kitchens. Got a few stories involving buckets.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

what stories can be told about "filling buckets"?

I would guess most stories about filling buckets have to do with alcohol and the aftereffects the following morning.

 

[angusmadmac1]

What you're totally missing is that games are somewhat played for the fun and players have different (subjective) stances toward it.

All the above is based on the very short-sighted idea that "winning" is what pushes players in open...

And until there's a 0.1% possibility to engage an "enemy", hardcore open players will pursue that 0.1% as for them that 0.1% is worth (if fun can be measured) much more than a 99.9% spent grinding, filling buckets made of pixels, putting a pixel name over other pixels and fight hundreds of BGS wars... all this is simply not worth a single PvP encounter.

(and may be that for that unique encounter he/she can tell a story, what stories can be told about "filling buckets"?)

I agree that for some that 0.1% chance of engagement is what they want.
As to others their fun is taking over a system or colonising a system or finding unexplored systems or NSP's .
But the whole problem is posts about how unfair it is having those modes affecting the galaxy .
And hold Open up on a pedestal, the one true way to play and if I lose BGS the other side must be cowards and hiding in those other modes .
And most of the time it isn't, it's their instancing and timezones and IP's.
They actually have no proof of how the other side is playing. I didn't see them is the cry. So they much be "cheating" rather than we must do more .
So if you want to win at BGS you have to haul your bahoochie off , it's really that simple.
In open Commanders may come across other commanders or you may not .
I play in open but I also believe people have the right to play the game their way and not be disadvantaged.
I'm not into PvP ( I have the reactions of a striking slug which makes me a hazard to myself and friendlies)( but have done cqc and messed around with folk ) but my ships are built so that I have a chance to run away if I wanted to or sit there waiting to be blown up. And then get on with what I was doing.

 

[Darkfyre99]

what stories can be told about "filling buckets"?

{delurk}
I suppose it depends upon how good a story teller a person is. I haven't had much time for writing lately, but in the leadup to one Buckyball Race, involving high speed landings on high-gravity worlds, I wrote a lovely little story depicting I how I view BGS work, involving my support of a brave union organizer fighting against the cruelty of a Federal Corporate State.

It's always been easy for me to translate abstract numbers into the life and times of fictional people in the Elite Universe. It's why I've always come back to this game, after taking a break to play another game I'm interested in. There's a wealth of background information in this game that easily becomes the seeds of little stories in my mind.

YMMV, naturally.
{lurk}

 

[Darrack]

I've worked on a construction site and in kitchens. Got a few stories involving buckets.

Worked most of my life on festival sites before the portaloos were delivered, i also have many stories about buckets

O7

 

[Rebel Yell]

{delurk}
I suppose it depends upon how good a story teller a person is. I haven't had much time for writing lately, but in the leadup to one Buckyball Race, involving high speed landings on high-gravity worlds, I wrote a lovely little story depicting I how I view BGS work, involving my support of a brave union organizer fighting against the cruelty of a Federal Corporate State.

It's always been easy for me to translate abstract numbers into the life and times of fictional people in the Elite Universe. It's why I've always come back to this game, after taking a break to play another game I'm interested in. There's a wealth of background information in this game that easily becomes the seeds of little stories in my mind.

YMMV, naturally.
{lurk}

Yeah, I do the same for most of our powerplay reports... but it's way much better when there's someone else (human) on the "other side", mentioning players instead of fictional names of "local governors" or "head of planet militia" etc etc

 

[Rebel Yell]

I agree that for some that 0.1% chance of engagement is what they want.
As to others their fun is taking over a system or colonising a system or finding unexplored systems or NSP's .
But the whole problem is posts about how unfair it is having those modes affecting the galaxy .
And hold Open up on a pedestal, the one true way to play and if I lose BGS the other side must be cowards and hiding in those other modes .
And most of the time it isn't, it's their instancing and timezones and IP's.
They actually have no proof of how the other side is playing. I didn't see them is the cry. So they much be "cheating" rather than we must do more .
So if you want to win at BGS you have to haul your bahoochie off , it's really that simple.
In open Commanders may come across other commanders or you may not .
I play in open but I also believe people have the right to play the game their way and not be disadvantaged.
I'm not into PvP ( I have the reactions of a striking slug which makes me a hazard to myself and friendlies)( but have done cqc and messed around with folk ) but my ships are built so that I have a chance to run away if I wanted to or sit there waiting to be blown up. And then get on with what I was doing.

Not that I do care that much of BGS anymore... but instancing (+game versions, and even platforms in past days) or TZs have never been an issue, given that large groups can easily cover all, and the goal of "engaging peeps in open" was mostly to put some pressure and bring them to the "diplomatic table" instead of letting the other party making "mess" where it was not wanted. Here we are moving to a "politics and warfare" grounds but, after having attended several BGS campaigns there are some "patterns" in BGS/PMF/Squadron/Players behaviour which are connected to game modes.

If there's one thing shared across most of all behaviours is that forstering the baseline BGS "filling the buckets" strategy leads to further (= never ending) attrition which also tends to frustrate/burn out players/groups when difference in numbers and BGS capability are meaningful. After further waste of time on both (or +) sides, there's either a diplomatic solution, or one of the parties succumbs/abandons the battlefield.

That's exactly the same outcome which happens when two (or +) parties engage directly in open play wars.

The difference is that in the second case it lasts like a few days... (we had cases of 2 days), whilst "filling buckets" last for weeks/months if not years.

In other words: to our experience, open play direct confrontation always resulted to in a quick disposal/resolution of such attrition.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Not that I do care that much of BGS anymore... but instancing (+game versions, and even platforms in past days) or TZs have never been an issue, given that large groups can easily cover all, and the goal of "engaging peeps in open" was mostly to put some pressure and bring them to the "diplomatic table" instead of letting the other party making "mess" where it was not wanted. Here we are moving to a "politics and warfare" grounds but, after having attended several BGS campaigns there are some "patterns" in BGS/PMF/Squadron/Players behaviour which are connected to game modes.

If there's one thing shared across most of all behaviours is that forstering the baseline BGS "filling the buckets" strategy leads to further (= never ending) attrition which also tends to frustrate/burn out players/groups when difference in numbers and BGS capability are meaningful. After further waste of time on both (or +) sides, there's either a diplomatic solution, or one of the parties succumbs/abandons the battlefield.

That's exactly the same outcome which happens when two (or +) parties engage directly in open play wars.

The difference is that in the second case it lasts like a few days... (we had cases of 2 days), whilst "filling buckets" last for weeks/months if not years.

In other words: to our experience, open play direct confrontation always resulted to in a quick disposal/resolution of such attrition.

Assuming both sides want to do a PvP war, i'm sure that works fine. I guess it doesn't work very well when one side actually enjoys running PvE missions and the other side just wants to PvP. When both sides want to just PvE it out, then yeah, it can last a long time - basically as you say, a war of attrition, until one side gives up.

Another thing now to consider is with colonization, anyone who wants to expand can do so without BGS wars and anyone getting pounded by a bigger PvE group can simply relocate. Building out a new system probably takes less effort than fighting a sustained PvE war over months

 

[SteveWW57]

Worked most of my life on festival sites before the portaloos were delivered, i also have many stories about buckets

O7

Buckets? You were lucky.

We had black plastic bags that you had to pick up and carry with you until proper disposal could be arranged.

P.S. Never ask a man wandering off with a shovel what's he up to.

 

[angusmadmac1]

Buckets? You were lucky.

We had black plastic bags that you had to pick up and carry with you until proper disposal could be arranged.

P.S. Never ask a man wandering off with a shovel what's he up to.

Ahhh the ole shovel recce . For those who know

 

[Darrack]

Ahhh the ole shovel recce . For those who know

We once used a prosthetic leg we found in the pit barrier as we had no shovel.

O7

 

[Jockey79]

Every time I see movement in this thread;

I take it all these buckets you're all talking about were full of Open Only arguments - got to keep the forums clean

 

[CMDR Omega Mecanicus]

I guess they were right, it seems you can never leave.

The topic of open vs solo vs groups continues to be a popular discussion. Rather than see new threads being created and closed when duplicate topics alreadys exist, we have chosen to combine these into one easily affordable single paym...thread!

Please remember this is a discussion forum and people are allowed to state their opinions or ideas, just because you do not share that point of view does not make it wrong.

Any threads made on this subject elsewhere on the forums will be closed and redirected here.

Important rules for this thread​

To quote the all knowing Yaffle the forum rules apply as usual in this thread, but we'd like to highlight some specific points:

• Stay polite and on topic. Baiting, insulting or swearing will not be tolerated. Repeated infractions will result in losing the ability to post in this thread. Baiting includes dead horse references, use of the words "easy mode" or "carebear", accusations of griefing, and picture spam.
• Please do not indulge in pejorative comments about players from any of the platforms on which the game has been, or will be (or even might be), released.
• Remember how hard it is to read emotion on the Internet.
• If you feel a post violates the forum rules, click "report" and do not reply.

Private Group Sesion mode is redundant with solo mode

 

[Robert Maynard]

Private Group Sesion mode is redundant with solo mode

In what way?