Just because its not your 'type' of PVP doesn't mean its not PVP. I actually see it as a strategic PVP type of PVP where you have to look at the moves of the opponents and make counter moves. Sure you can stop them by doing your type of PVP, but it will be limited what effect it will have.
The fallacy of how PvP can protect your system from being undermined.
- Thread starter Agony_Aunt
- Start date
- Status
Just because its not your 'type' of PVP doesn't mean its not PVP. I actually see it as a strategic PVP type of PVP where you have to look at the moves of the opponents and make counter moves. Sure you can stop them by doing your type of PVP, but it will be limited what effect it will have.
Ok yeah you got me there! I thought you meant for some co-op rather than adversarial combat
*grin* I know it's not all adversarial, but for those who prefer co-op to competitive, you must admit open is not exactly a first choice, even if it is possible.
Undermining in the context of undermining a faction, not the powerplay activity of the same name.
Lots of hypotheticals in the OP. You are assuming that PVE will have more players than PVP, but at the same time admitting that PVE would likely escalate into PVP should any PVP resistance occur. So if everyone is ultimately doing both PVE and PVP, then the odds are that PVE pressure and PVP resistance would be roughly the same everywhere on average. So everyone is winning and everyone is losing.
Agony, you are stating a problem that is not a problem. Not even hypothetically. In fact, you make an Open-only ED sound quite fun!!!
That being said, the major flaw in your logic is that you assume that 1 hour of PVE is somehow not equivalent to -1 hour of PVE. But even if I never actually kill you, if I merely stop you from doing PVE for 1 hour, and I had to stop doing PVE for 1 hour to do it, then it's a wash. So regardless of PVE/PVP activity, it always boils down to the side with the smartest/most number of players.
In fact it's better than that for PVP though, because if you spend 1 hour collecting PVE Merits, and I log in for 5 minutes and manage to kill you before you turn them in, that's a 12:1 time advantage for PVP anti-undermining.
Actually, and i thought i made this quite clear as i think i stated it multiple times, its largely predicated on numbers, as long as both sides focus on the BGS. So sure, if the defenders have the bigger numbers, things favour them.
Things can escalate to PvP, but as noted, many PvEers would simply choose the fast ships in order to run instead, so no (or few) combat wings to be had there. {SAS}Stalker said on IRC the other day something like: Death in this game is optional. For the experienced player, its pretty much true, especially if they are flying something like a Clipper.
Not sure what you mean by stating a problem that isn't a problem. Its mainly a response to some recent topics about PvP groups complaining their BGS can be affected by people in Group/Solo. My point being, that they are largely mistaken in thinking all would be rosy if working the BGS was an open only activity.
Your second to last point is agreeing with what i'm saying, at best the PvPer does is delay someone.
And your final point is talking about merits... which is PP, not undermining factions. I perhaps could have made that clearer, i guess because i used the word undermining. Having said that, quite a few of the points i raise are relevant to PP, although perhaps less so.
Currently there are no loyalty flags for minor factions, so determining who is undermining a system is limited to a wanted status. And that is optional. So your whole argument is about an imaginary mechanic of BGS "undermining"?
All you had to say was that BGS activity is invisible to other players because we can't see your missions, or your alliances. Oh, and use another word that isn't already taken by PP.
Have you ever entered the territory of a hostile PVP clan on your own? It's hard work and means being constantly interdicted by multiple players. Sure you can do it at funny times of the day when you think they're not going to be there but generally speaking it's quite a solid deterrent.. especially if the clan is fairly international and has players in lots of time zones. I don't agree with the OP at all. Just to take an example, undermining takes time, and I've done it in open while there are hostile players out to get me.. If there's a few of them it becomes untenable really quickly (and I was in fact forced to leave). It's really obvious if you're interdicting NPCs and players sitting in supercruise will soon spot you. I wouldn't personally do it in a heavily guarded system. We regularly spot people trying to undermine in our system and force them to leave (or more likely into solo :-() so it is possible to prevent and the other modes do genuinely break the system.
Other non-powerplay BGS activities are harder to spot of course but we have, for example, destroyed ships attempting to bring UAs into our system and scanned ships entering some of our ports looking for known groups attempting to do this kind of thing with some success. I personally think that having solo/private attached to the same economy as open completely ruins the BGS... Undermining is clearly an act of war and if you can't actually have a war to prevent it then you're completely hamstrung as a power.
Other non-powerplay BGS activities are harder to spot of course but we have, for example, destroyed ships attempting to bring UAs into our system and scanned ships entering some of our ports looking for known groups attempting to do this kind of thing with some success. I personally think that having solo/private attached to the same economy as open completely ruins the BGS... Undermining is clearly an act of war and if you can't actually have a war to prevent it then you're completely hamstrung as a power.
If you were deliberately undermining another faction in Open though and they knew what you were up to, you might get a different experience
I also remember important advises, some groups ignored, that FDev gave when letting players have groups:
- Try to avoid systems in the center of the bubble or a major faction, if you don't want unwelcomed visitors
- Pick carefully the major faction alignment of your faction (Federation faction in the middle of Imperial space is calling for trouble)
- Try to pick Low population system as they are easier to influence/expand
From what I have seen, some groups who complained didn't follow one or several of those recommendations.
- Try to avoid systems in the center of the bubble or a major faction, if you don't want unwelcomed visitors
- Pick carefully the major faction alignment of your faction (Federation faction in the middle of Imperial space is calling for trouble)
- Try to pick Low population system as they are easier to influence/expand
From what I have seen, some groups who complained didn't follow one or several of those recommendations.
Last edited:
Sure, I think i noted that if there are enough defenders, they can delay things, slow it down. Stop it though? No way, especially if the sides are at least balanced. If those trying to undermine are in the majority, you'll never stop half the people.
As for undermining being an act of war. Not always and not really. Conflict states are triggered by influence levels. You don't have to work against a faction to reduce their influence, you just have to work for a different faction, in fact, that is what you are doing a lot of the time when trying to start a conflict. Of course, sometimes those missions can take you into direct conflict with the faction you are wanting to bring down, but that gets you a wanted status a lot of the time, so its best to avoid those missions if you are trying to take down a faction. It doesn't help you.
And then, the conflict state starts, and that isn't always war either, if they are of the same government type, its an election.
However, one thing that could help would be for us to be able to pledge to a particular faction, like with powerplay but at the faction level (and faction decals please!). Being pledged gets you missions offered, but also flags you as an opponent to any faction you are in conflict with. That might be cool for both PvPer and PvEers.
However, this is getting into the realms of what FD could do to improve things, and that wasn't the point of this thread, the point of the thread was to highlight why PvP doesn't help when it comes to working the BGS and that blaming modes for losing a control of a system is misplaced.
The current issue is structure players supporting a group in power that is lawful cant use pvp the debs said play your own way so if you want to argue pve this pvp that then pvp should have a major bgs effect and allow you to choose who you support
If you were deliberately undermining another faction in Open though and they knew what you were up to, you might get a different experience
So are you suggesting that PVP flags include minor factions? If so, I am all for it
there is very little testing on cz-mechanics (because it is hard to test), but if we assume the same applies as to bounties, you'd end with -1 combat bond transaction via +1 combat bond transaction - something which can be even out in approx. 3-4 minutes pve.
Goose4291
Banned
You're right, but I was trying to draw a nice clear cut example without adding in other factors (such as time spent in the CZ, actual amount amassed, ship cost etc.) that would further muddy the water. which highlights that through doing a little PvP in support of your PvE efforts you've just turned a 0 change transaction (as in purely PvE, both submit their bonds) into a +2 for your side (because of the difference between -1 and +1).
on a more basic level, the BGS does weigh 1 action more than 0 action, this why doing something (pve) is always more effective than denying, as long as you don't hit your single commander influence cap (if there is one... not really tested), or the maximum change per day (there is probably one).
basically getting through once is more effective then being access denied 100 times.
basically getting through once is more effective then being access denied 100 times.
very right, and i also think that there are other "costs" of pvp as part of a pve action. if i am blockade running in my cobra in open, i have an outfit which is optimised for that. also, the adrenalin is very high - i won't do more then 3-4 runs (from my own experience).
I don't agree, good PVPers can make a system a bit of a "no go" zone for hostile ships and another group would have to dominate both in PVP and PvE to be able to undermine. Right now powerplay appears to be designed with some PVP components in mind and yet in reality it can be completely bypassed... nullifying it utterly. Very frustrating.
Goose4291
Banned
You're missing my point somewhat I think.
I accept, like everyone else who takes part in BGS and PP that it's primarily a PvE process, and in the scenario of someone trying to kick over my factions sandcastle would be pushing a primarily PvE game, however I'm highlighting that this idea that PvP does not impact on BGS/PP at all is in fact the fallacy, because as I've highlighted with one clear example it can make a difference.
This imbalanced dynamic makes the basic PP mechanic of flags and merits seem quite elegant by comparison.
they can't. simply for game mechanics. no pvp'ler can stop a cobra mkIII or a blockade running clipper or cutter, simply for game mechanics.
tested a lot personally.
it gets even more ugly... assuming you are not wanted, the pvp-"defenders" will gain fines/bounties interdicting you, therefor hurting their controlling minor factions influence... so basically, you can take your sidey, and wait in sc to get shot, making them hurting their influence.
- Status