The fallacy of how PvP can protect your system from being undermined.

[Crusina Luachra]

But the entire point of the OP is to demonstrate that even wholly within an open only environment, PVP alone will NEVER stop a system being flipped, so giving more weight to open is entirely irrelavent to this thread.

But the point other people are making is that at least you can DO something about it.

How is being unable to do absolutely NOTHING about something, better then at least being able to do SOMETHING?

These people put a lot of time into their faction and they lose it with absolutely no danger to the people flipping it. Even if the system still flipped, at least they could say "well, we tried!"

It's still not a good feeling but at least you had a chance.

This is really not a difficult concept to understand.

 

[GilliganTX]

Incorrect strategy for countering someone undermining your system/minor faction:

Correct strategy for countering someone undermining your system/minor faction:

This is not a commentary on how the mechanics SHOULD work, just an observation of how they DO.

 

[goemon]

Do you happen to have evidence to hand to support that?

It was my understanding the combat missions and combat actions contribute while these states are active. How do you determine which has the most effect?

Im interested to hear back as we recently flipped He Bo back to the Alliance factions and while some chose to farm their hearts out in the CZ others were heading back to collect CZ based and other combat missions to affect influence.

no, just following dev breadcrumps here, "heaviest hitter" was more referring to the fact, that combat bonds are always to have in a civil war, while combat missions aren't. which also makes it complicated to test, which is more effective and which value does count (combat bonds transactions, ship kills or combat bonds value).

if somebody would come up with a test, i guess the whole BGS thread would be thankfull.

I used PP as I think PvP goes beyond just the BGS. Sure, it may be a number game in a BGS situation but not in a wing interdiction, PowerPlay (especially when it comes to merits), general PvP for various reasons, etc.
While I am aware that this is somewhat BGS specific, we can not really devide it up for just a single area as it affects more than just the BGS. It affects modes, BGS affects PP and so on.


Also if a PvPer causes more damage than the PvEer ears, it is a win for the PvPer. Example would be if one player gets a bounty of like 1 million, a kill would result in a total loss of these.
That's insurance + 1 million credits lost. Same for merits. Imagine a loss of 1k merits in powerplay. that is by FAR a more efficient way to prevent undermining than hauling cargo every three hours.
A NPC gives 30 effective merits. A player kill gives between 0 and approximately 1000 on average. Or if someone hunts me, up to 5350.

at least in terms of BGS influencing/bounties your math is wrong. if you shoot a player with 1 mio in bounties of one faction, he has lost 1 bounty claim transaction. the bgs doesn't really care whether that bounty transaction is 1000 cr or 100 k cr.

for the rest of your math: BGS influencing is as much a rich mans hobby as pvp or piracy. so, i'd say the value is "bgs relevant actions/transactions per time".

i don't know enough about powerplay, but it reads to me like " merits" work differently.

I think this post misses the point. Most people that complain about the subject at hand don't care about the BGS at all. They care about having fleets of commanders having wars with other fleets of commanders. The BGS just looks a bit like it could be an integral enabler for that so they claim it is broken because it actually isn't and was never meant to be.

to add: i guess, a lot of military people would be very happy if "nationbuilding"/" peace keeping"/ "sphere of influence" would be down to combat or battlefields. we wouldn't have a lot of problems we have.

doesn't look as if combat is the only way to go some thousand years in the future, too.

 

[Vorxian]

Incorrect strategy for countering someone undermining your system/minor faction:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BcMAQEI9C8A/maxresdefault.jpg


Correct strategy for countering someone undermining your system/minor faction:
http://www.videoamusement.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Super-Shot-Trade-Show.jpg





This is not a commentary on how the mechanics SHOULD work, just an observation of how they DO.

I laughed so hard.

have some rep

 

[goemon]

But the point other people are making is that at least you can DO something about it.

How is being unable to do absolutely NOTHING about something, better then at least being able to do SOMETHING?

These people put a lot of time into their faction and they lose it with absolutely no danger to the people flipping it. Even if the system still flipped, at least they could say "well, we tried!"

It's still not a good feeling but at least you had a chance.

This is really not a difficult concept to understand.

compare with:

"i want to use that windmachine to blow out that fire."

"using that windmachine will most likely raise the fire."

"better then doing nothing..."

...

"hey, you could use that sand over there to kill the fire."

"i don't use sand. i don't like it, and it's dirty. bring me the windmachine."

----

nearby all pvp-combat actions will influence a controlling factions influence in a negative way, if the "enemy" isn't wanted or in a combat zone, having decided for the other side. if you choose the wrong tool to achieve something, you are better off doing nothing.

 

[xXCheeChowXx]

What kind of weapon is "The Pacifier" and where can I get one?






All in all PvP is about "who is the best?" while PvE is about "who has the most?". And considering I can easily do an unexperienced player Anaconda in my Viper, going into another mode where only assests and credits matter (or time) is just a cheap way of dealing with someone's own weakness rather than improving yourself. :/[/QUOTE]

 

[Ziljan]

As you know AA (/me waves), I just want to know "roughly" what I am up against and have the ability to speak to people who may well be unknowingly undermining my faction. I totally understand that instancing would still prevent every player being interacted with but currently the chance is zero rather than possible. Secondly whilst direct affirmative action might only slow the undermining down the very fact that is slows it down means you have less to do to counter it from a PvE perspective.

I just don't like dealing with an invisible enemy with completely no chance to do anything at all about it other than to start an un-quantifiable 1:1 grind against X number of players. I imagine someone will mention time zones but again some chance still exists vs the zero chance of solo / group.

To reiterate I don't necessarily want to blow these people up, just the chance to let them know its a player faction they are undermining would be helpful

This bears repeating.

 

[Rinzler o7o7o7]

Incorrect strategy for countering someone undermining your system/minor faction:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BcMAQEI9C8A/maxresdefault.jpg


Correct strategy for countering someone undermining your system/minor faction:
http://www.videoamusement.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Super-Shot-Trade-Show.jpg

This is not a commentary on how the mechanics SHOULD work, just an observation of how they DO.

This might be my favourite post of all time on the entire Frontier Forums. 100% accurate, great analogy.

 

[DaveB]

tl;dr version of the thread...

In any situation where factions or powers are opposed to each other, whether for BGS purposes, around a CG or in PP, the side that can muster the greatest amount of completed PvE tasks will likely succeed.

These PvE tasks can be slightly offset by combat-oriented PvP play but the impact is minimal and would remain insignificant compared to the impact of completing the PvE goals even if everybody played in open.

CZs and open PP provide the opportunity, for players that wish to participate, for PvP combat to be a factor in these conflicts, but to be successful in the overall goal must still be backed by PvE activity.

 

[Snax]

I read your post and that's exactly the point - you chose the wrong strategy. Never mind that quite likely nobody there even knew they were damaging you, even if everyone did it on purpose and they all showed up in CZs in Open, you would not have made any difference. The correct strategy would have been working the BGS and preventing the conditions for the switch. Also treating everyone passing as an hostile was clearly an error, as has been noted likely nobody was actually fighting you, calling for help would have been better. In short, you beat yourself.

The correct stragegy would be to do the PVE (so the CZ in that case) only in Open so the ones who are doing the CZ in the other team can be disrupted, and not hide in Solo/Private because they know players are out there, no matters who they are actually. That's what I pointed.

A lot of people I have in my friendlist are in solo because they fear interaction with other players, they think we (OpenPlayers) are bloodthirsty killers...

Imagine for one second, a large group of players, all in a private group, start to eradicate all stations, systems, regions, and nobody can stop them because they're in a private group (I'm talking of a group of 40.000 players, like a one of those mega corporation In Eve Online). What can we do ? Nothing coz like said OP here, it's a game of numbers.

When France, Belgium and other countries in WWII wre during under the Zinai occupation, they had the chance to fight against them, even it is a game of numbers and they actually lost.
That's what we wanted, fight against who screwed our minor-faction. Even they were in a ration of 40 to 1.

Last month we had a fight like this, we tried to attack the ALRAI system, homeland of the BBFA, they called for help so the ROA and the CTRL came to help them. We called the ToC, Triadius, IB, finnish people, ukrainians etc.
It was totally a game of numbers but they were not in Solo, they were in Open. We are around 40 vs 40 in several instances.
(video of it)

I hope you get my point of view. We are not talking about the BGS really here, but the fact that some play the BGS in Solo and others in Open without being able to interfere with the ones in Solo.

Edit: why "nazeeh" word is censored ?

 

[Goose4291]

tl;dr version of the thread...

In any situation where factions or powers are opposed to each other, whether for BGS purposes, around a CG or in PP, the side that can muster the greatest amount of completed PvE tasks will likely succeed.

These PvE tasks can be slightly offset by combat-oriented PvP play but the impact is minimal and would remain insignificant compared to the impact of completing the PvE goals even if everybody played in open.

CZs and open PP provide the opportunity, for players that wish to participate, for PvP combat to be a factor in these conflicts, but to be successful in the overall goal must still be backed by PvE activity.

Spot on the money.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

51TH Massilia Corporation recently lost their home station. It was located in BV Phoenicis system the way I hear it, and their faction was aligned as Independent. Essentially disregarding at least one recommendation from Frontier regarding player controlled minor factions.
I'm not particularly in the know and should clarify I'm only calling it a fiasco due to the very minor fallout it created. Which mainly played out over on the Elite subreddit, link to thread. It's the most recent event that comes to mind.

Quick edit:
I would actually like to see a rep. from Adle's Armada or Mercs of Mikunn comment on this. It would be valuable to hear their input considering their experience.

Lol, I don't even... That's like giving somebody a toolbox. He wants to remove a screw, picks a hammer and totally goofs it up and then throws a tantrum about the whole thing being broken from the start. Taking this seriously would be going way too far for my taste.

 

[Mohrgan]

There is at least one major PvP group that has woken up to this fact. Adle's Armada is in the process of addressing the very points the OP makes. It has become apparent to the members of AA that to have dominance of the skies in any system is not enough to ensure a thriving faction. To that idea AA is actively seeking players of every play style, and in any environment to join up with them and form a fully integrated player group across the entire spectrum of players.

Each facet of the game can, and should be brought to bear in order to promote a groups faction. It is wasteful and dismissive to attempt to limit the effect on the BGS of players with any play style, or in any environment. The BGS represent the economy of a system, not it's military power per se. To try and limit the BGS to simply direct PvP combat misses the point entirely. This idea brings out the old maxim: 'To a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail'.

I expect that as the game matures, successful PG's will figure this out, and spread out across the modes to ensure large enough membership to control their systems. AA sees an opportunity to be at the forefront of this progression, and welcomes and who are interested in being part of this.

To contact Adle's Armada:

Adlesarmada.com
http://inara.cz/wing/336
adlesarmada.teamspeak3.com / 3352

 

[GilliganTX]

There is at least one major PvP group that has woken up to this fact. Adle's Armada is in the process of addressing the very points the OP makes. It has become apparent to the members of AA that to have dominance of the skies in any system is not enough to ensure a thriving faction. To that idea AA is actively seeking players of every play style, and in any environment to join up with them and form a fully integrated player group across the entire spectrum of players.

Each facet of the game can, and should be brought to bear in order to promote a groups faction. It is wasteful and dismissive to attempt to limit the effect on the BGS of players with any play style, or in any environment. The BGS represent the economy of a system, not it's military power per se. To try and limit the BGS to simply direct PvP combat misses the point entirely. This idea brings out the old maxim: 'To a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail'.

I expect that as the game matures, successful PG's will figure this out, and spread out across the modes to ensure large enough membership to control their systems. AA sees an opportunity to be at the forefront of this progression, and welcomes and who are interested in being part of this.

To contact Adle's Armada:

Adlesarmada.com
http://inara.cz/wing/336
adlesarmada.teamspeak3.com / 3352

Well said. Player groups need to be mindful of the real scope and mechanics of the game and the best way to use them to their advantage. AA has done a great job of this, and It's something a lot of dedicated PvP groups miss out on.

You need to play the whole game if you want to have an impact.

+REP

 

[Snax]

Well said. Player groups need to be mindful of the real scope and mechanics of the game and the best way to use them to their advantage. AA has done a great job of this, and It's something a lot of dedicated PvP groups miss out on.

You need to play the whole game if you want to have an impact.

+REP

Yep you're right, we only focus on Open because we believe in interactions on the true multiplayer. Our name and our motto names it "TH for Tous Humains". Because to be able to do PvP we need to do PvE (rising money from RES, CZ etc). We do it in Open.
We knew one day we'll maybe lost the station and we knew it will not happen in Open. So what we learn from this is that nobody can change anything. We somebody do can be undo in the back in solo.

Alright this was my last post on the forum for today.
I had what I wanted to hear.
Cya people.

Et à la chasse bordel

 

[Chongo]

Perhaps those calling for more weighting to actions in Open (for Powerplay, CGs, BGS), are not just wholly obsessed with "winning" via "pvp", but rather would simply enjoy interacting with more players, which in turn promotes new and unexpected gameplay - which is arguably inherently more interesting and personally rewarding than a dull race for numerical dominance, which is what the current implementation offers.

I hope to see Sandro follow through on the suggestion that PP actions get more weight in Open, and would love to see the same principle expanded to all other communally-impacted elements of ED.

Sums up pretty much the attitude of most of the people I fly with.

That and the concept that if you want to kick over someone's sandcastle, you should have to accept the risk of reciprocity.

+1 +1

The psychology of open vs pve group is fascinating. And it's also an abomination of poorly conceived mechanical structure. That said, I have faith in FD to evolve appropriately. This game is great and will continue to improve.

I'm wary of my wing trying to get involved in this stuff because of the current way things are set up. Past performance shows that a bitter enemy CMDR could just rally a PVE group into giving each other high fives while embracing passive aggressive conflict resolution. The current structure encourages polarization far too readily. You show up in an opposing powerplay system and are stung with the injustice of being attacked? How has this become a normal reaction? I'm aware that not all the individuals in open are civil. But it's now become the easiest assumption, and even defense, that open = ganker. And once 'ganked', you should get them back where they can't touch you.

You can make as many excuses regarding instancing as you want - if I don't have even a 1% chance of smacking a CMDR that is actively trying to topple something I'm working on, it's a lame game. Too much opportunity for hurt egos to go unchecked. 'You killed me as an enemy powerplay CMDR in your system? I'll show you and log into mobius or solo and get friends to help me ruin your station'. When you are knowingly kicking over someone's sandcastle, you should acknowledge that you are in physical conflict. Used to be if you got knocked out in a fight you'd suck it up and acknowledge the victor. These days it seems the m.o. is to run off, buy a rifle and shoot from safe distance.

The reality is that we're seeing extreme and undesirable behaviors on both ends. This easy transition to pve group is too easy on the ego and has allowed this polarization to go unchecked. It's made the fringe element the norm/ expectation on both sides. Just separate them already so that these egos aren't inappropriately reinforced. Allowing solo and PVE groups to impact open allows a one sided enforcement of their playstyle/ preferred game. This is a valid argument. The entire OP presentation fails to recognize that it's not the fairness of mechanical grind that is the issue - it's that many think it's unjust to not be able physically hit them back. It's a one sided enforcement of playstyle. And the way it's set up, getting involved in it is just spreading a poison toward both poles.

As it is, it's not the game I want to play. I'll be leaving anything that can be impacted by untouchable groups alone until the structure changes. It's not that players advocating this in open just want to kill everyone they see. It's that they want the option to attack a human enemy that is mechanically impacting them.

 

[GilliganTX]

Yep you're right, we only focus on Open because we believe in interactions on the true multiplayer. Our name and our motto names it "TH for Tous Humains". Because to be able to do PvP we need to do PvE (rising money from RES, CZ etc). We do it in Open.
We knew one day we'll maybe lost the station and we knew it will not happen in Open. So what we learn from this is that nobody can change anything. We somebody do can be undo in the back in solo.

Alright this was my last post on the forum for today.
I had what I wanted to hear.
Cya people.

Et à la chasse bordel

My player group just got done inciting a civil war, winning a civil war, ending a lock down, and a civil unrest in the last 4 weeks in our minor factions system, all in Open, via PvE activities, with PvP taking place at odd intervals if/when we found any wanted/hostile CMDRs in our system.

What's your point?


EDIT: And we accomplished this with a group of maybe 2-3 dozen players, all the time maintaining an away-wing in CG and starter systems for recruitment and group-visibility. The system we were working on is a high population system (4Billion +) in a high player traffic area with lots of power play eb and flow.

I'm not trying to pound my chest or slap myself on the back, just saying that is the way to play. Combined PvP and PvE effort. Not limiting ourselves to a single mechanic, and complaining about it when it doesn't illicit a result it was never meant to.


For information on joining the Earth Defense Fleet:

earthdefensefleet.com
http://inara.cz/wing/486
ts3server://ts3.earthdefensefleet.com/

 

[Sandmann]

Just an observation... FDev giving minor factions to PvP player groups was possibly one of the smartest & sneakiest things they've done. Even if the player groups didn't realise it at the time, by accepting a faction & station they were automatically involving themselves in the PvE game.

Genius.

 

[Fracktal]

The correct stragegy would be to do the PVE (so the CZ in that case) only in Open so the ones who are doing the CZ in the other team can be disrupted, and not hide in Solo/Private because they know players are out there, no matters who they are actually. That's what I pointed.

You did mistakes while establishing your minor faction (system choice, alignment of your faction) and after.
Having all the players in OPEN, would probably not have mattered as the initial conditions and strategy for increasing your influence was sub optimal in regard to the size of your group.

The only advice I can give is that realize the mistake you made. And ask Fdev support if it would be possible to have your faction Empire aligned instead of Independent.
That would reduce significantly the influence loss due to players activities whatever timezone, play mode, support (XBone) they are.

Edit: why "nazeeh" word is censored ?

Because of Godwin's Law which leads any discussion to dead-ends.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

As you know AA (/me waves), I just want to know "roughly" what I am up against and have the ability to speak to people who may well be unknowingly undermining my faction. I totally understand that instancing would still prevent every player being interacted with but currently the chance is zero rather than possible. Secondly whilst direct affirmative action might only slow the undermining down the very fact that is slows it down means you have less to do to counter it from a PvE perspective.

I just don't like dealing with an invisible enemy with completely no chance to do anything at all about it other than to start an un-quantifiable 1:1 grind against X number of players. I imagine someone will mention time zones but again some chance still exists vs the zero chance of solo / group.

To reiterate I don't necessarily want to blow these people up, just the chance to let them know its a player faction they are undermining would be helpful

Thanks Stalker, it was a good chat with you on IRC earlier today. Well put.