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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
You can have players with differing focus, completing the tasks they enjoy strengthening their minor faction. AA has a strong PvP component, and will support any group activity in open but, they see no reason to exclude or diminish what other play styles are all about. There are two choices; Complain about the activities outside of open, or evolve. AA is determined to evolve. I believe integrating player groups over all of the environments is the future. Rather than expecting FD to cater to a one sided view, expand your view and reap the rewards.

To contact Adle's Armada:

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

CZ are not required to complete overtaking a faction. They are the best for affecting influence when a civil war kicks off (unless mode switching to get missions can beat that), but not necessary. Also, not all civil wars are civil wars. If its an election, only non-combat activities count.
 
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 ?

Now please tell me what stupid military commander willfully gives the enemy a way to defeat his forces "to be fair"? He'd be court-martialed faster than light, provided he survived the battle. By definition you don't want the enemy to stop you, therefore fighting where the enemy can't fight back is the optimal strategy. And the optimal counter-strategy is fighting the same way, so they can't counter your counter-actions. In fact, actual fighting on the field only diverts your valuable resources from the actions that actually matter. If you want to win what you want to do is irrelevant, what matters is what you need to do.
 
Last edited:
The 300 and Herodotus are forbidden at least since the last century, let alone in 3300 :D the proper way to fight a war isn't to send your tanks to fight enemy tanks, but to bomb the factories that produces those tanks and the railway lines which supply them so there aren't any tanks to be fought in the first place. Modern wars are won with resources, not warriors, and the best way to win is not having to fight at all. Actually, Sun Tzu said that about 2,500 years ago, so the concept is hardly 'modern'.

If you want realism, then grinding resources is the correct grand strategy. Combat is just a side show.
-----------------
…or to kill the leader. Strategical aim doesn’t mean strategical efforts. Sometimes you can change the course of the war with a platoon. I can give you a lot of examples of such operations in modern history. That’s why even countries with powerful economies are preparing Special Forces.
 
-----------------
…or to kill the leader. Strategical aim doesn’t mean strategical efforts. Sometimes you can change the course of the war with a platoon. I can give you a lot of examples of such operations in modern history. That’s why even countries with powerful economies are preparing Special Forces.

Modern societies have a method of replacing leadership as needed. No one character is essential, or you have left yourself vulnerable. Growing a minor faction is as much a war against the NPC's as PC's. Any group that seeks to dominate via a single method is doomed. Integrating across all play styles is obviously the future.

To contact Adle's Armada:

Adlesarmada.com
http://inara.cz/wing/336
adlesarmada.teamspeak3.com / 3352
 
Now please tell me what stupid military commander willfully gives the enemy a way to defeat his forces "to be fair"? He'd be court-martialed faster than light, provided he survived the battle. By definition you don't want the enemy to stop you, therefore fighting where the enemy can't fight back is the optimal strategy. And the optimal counter-strategy is fighting the same way, so they can't counter your counter-actions. In fact, actual fighting on the field only diverts your valuable resources from the actions that actually matter. If you want to win what you want to do is irrelevant, what matters is what you need to do.

Why in the hell are you talking about a someone giving a change to his eneny ? I was talking about the fact they [The Allies] had a chance against the [Axis Forces] because they were all in the same instances -> Europe Theater.
I never mentionned a "chance" about a "chief commander" who would led them win "to be fair" as you said.

So if with that sentence I have to understand that for you "backstabbing" in Solo is fair, then I don't talk to you anymore.

And please, don't talk to me like I was a child. Especially about military stuf, I'm in the Belgian Air Force and proud of it.
 
Last edited:
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.


The point is PvP ALONE can't win. By all means protect the system using PvP tactics, but in order to succeed it must be backed up with PvE countermeasures.
 
The point is PvP ALONE can't win. By all means protect the system using PvP tactics, but in order to succeed it must be backed up with PvE countermeasures.

This is certainly the case. Not only do PC groups battle through the BGS, but so do endless numbers of NPC factions. A successful group will adapt to actual conditions, not just their idealized views. Open, and PvP are not the measure of the BGS. The BGS represents the economy of a system, to count on direct PvP combat to improve a groups influence is to completely miss the point. It is time for the one sided player groups to stop arguing for the dominance of PvP, and to value the input a Co-Op player brings. AA intends to expand it's efforts across all facets of E: D play, I suggest other PG's do the same. If they want to keep up.

To contact Adle's Armada:

Adlesarmada.com
http://inara.cz/wing/336
adlesarmada.teamspeak3.com / 3352
 
Why in the hell are you talking about a someong giving a change to is eneny ? I was talking about the fact they [The Allies] had a chance against the [Axis Forces] because they were all in the same instances -> Europe Theater.
I never mentionned a "chance" about a "chief commander" who would led them win "to be fair" as you said.

So if for you backstabbing in Solo is fair, then I don't talk to you anymore.

And please, don't talk to me like I was a child. You're talking about military things ? I'm in the Belgian Air Force abd proud of it.

Well I was in the Italian Air Force so we should understand each other, no? :) I rest my case: all forces in WWII made their best to circumvent the fact that they were all physically there. France fell almost without fighting because the Germans just went around their well-entrenched forces. Nobody wanted WWI v2.0 :p
 
"Affecting the BGS is a PvE only task. You cannot stop undermining with no amount of PvP, unless you are stopping every single ship that enters your system. At best, you can only slow it down. The more resources you put into stopping people, the less you have actually working on defending the influence of your faction."

You lost me here. This is just so obviously false that there's no point in really discussing it. If you can make undermining activities too costly for your opposition there is a good chance they might simply give up for the time being. I can speak to this myself as someone who has tried to undermine other groups in open.
 
Lots of hypotheticals in the OP. You are assuming that PVE will have more players than PVP,
I am going to address only this one..

No, its not hypothetical, it is how the game is created, the game is not centred around PvP, PvP is not made into the game to be the major deciding factor, the background simulation is that factor, that's all there is to it, Dev's have said so before last I checked.
Not even Powerplay is centret around powerplay, it encourages it, but it is not going to decide which power wins what.

Elite: Dangerous, is a game in space with PvP in it, it is not a PvP space game.

And I'm sure someone will have said something towards the 'dangerous' part means PvP, no, no it does not, PvP is fun and great, but it is not the end all be all.
 
As someone who runs a group that works extremely hard on their BGS and has been constantly attacked by players in various modes (including a UA bombing of one of our stations), I would personally like for players who are CHOOSING to attack ME to be playing open. Realism is often brought up on these forums and TBH, it is completely unrealistic that someone can be at war with me while being 100% able to hide in a safe space and incur NO risk for attacking me. In E:D it is 2x easier to tank a system than build it and even easier to do if you aren't worried about being put on a KOS list or be attacked for doing so. While I respect players choice to play in ANY mode that they like, I cannot respect someone who is trying to ruin me and my group's experience by doing it in the shadows. Playing in solo/private is not cowardly, but waging war against me from complete safety and anonymity, but my group of people are out there doing it where they run the risk of what a player war entails, I cannot respect that. Those are NOT equal terms.
 
"Affecting the BGS is a PvE only task. You cannot stop undermining with no amount of PvP, unless you are stopping every single ship that enters your system. At best, you can only slow it down. The more resources you put into stopping people, the less you have actually working on defending the influence of your faction."

You lost me here. This is just so obviously false that there's no point in really discussing it. If you can make undermining activities too costly for your opposition there is a good chance they might simply give up for the time being. I can speak to this myself as someone who has tried to undermine other groups in open.

He is saying that the ships that go through can do enough damage to offset those that you manage to stop. I'm not into PP mathematics so I don't know how much is true but it certainly could be.
 
As someone who runs a group that works extremely hard on their BGS and has been constantly attacked by players in various modes (including a UA bombing of one of our stations), I would personally like for players who are CHOOSING to attack ME to be playing open. Realism is often brought up on these forums and TBH, it is completely unrealistic that someone can be at war with me while being 100% able to hide in a safe space and incur NO risk for attacking me. In E:D it is 2x easier to tank a system than build it and even easier to do if you aren't worried about being put on a KOS list or be attacked for doing so. While I respect players choice to play in ANY mode that they like, I cannot respect someone who is trying to ruin me and my group's experience by doing it in the shadows. Playing in solo/private is not cowardly, but waging war against me from complete safety and anonymity, but my group of people are out there doing it where they run the risk of what a player war entails, I cannot respect that. Those are NOT equal terms.
You can fight back with the same mechanics?

And do you really think you could stop all of them, be there to find every single player that is fighting against you? how'd you know who is doing what? how'd you know some random player isn't helping?, there are way way too many people around for it to be possible to realistically do it, maybe if minor factions npc supported blockades could come in, where dock was off limit to all but members and maybe allies?, that would be another thing they could hit everyone equally, but player versus player effect on games is very overrated if a game is not built specifically towards PvP.
Because lets face it a 'blockade' for example, would mean you would have to block 'everyone' on your own, not just players, but also npc's because it is meant to be a dynamic universe so their actions would do something too....

This is usually where someone says something along the line of "They are 'just' NPC's" or "NPC's don't matter."
 
Last edited:
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 :)

This idea that you can't do anything about people playing the BGS in solo is one of the most bizarre concepts I have heard on these threads. It really is amazing that it is possible to be so tunnel visioned that it is possible to make this claim.

Players in solo do not have magic powers. People in open have EXACTLY the same tools to affect the BGS that solo/group people do. You can even argue that it is in open that you have the greatest advantage because you can ask people, in game,to come and help you which is something solo players can not.

One thing you can not do in open to particularly affect the BGS is to shoot people. You can't do that is solo or group either. If you want to argue that you want to shoot people to affect the BGS then make that argument, not the ridiculous idea that you have an invisible enemy you can't stop.

It is the same as me complaining that while I am 55000LY from my home base, I can not stop someone flipping my factions' station and that's unfair.
 
<snip> If you want to argue that you want to shoot people to affect the BGS then make that argument, not the ridiculous idea that you have an invisible enemy you can't stop.

It is the same as me complaining that while I am 55000LY from my home base, I can not stop someone flipping my factions' station and that's unfair.

Even in open you can only directly stop (up to) 31 other Cmdr's with the way instancing works. And good luck with finding that many in an instance.

So what is someone going to do about the other (How big is the number of people playing Elite these days?) Cmdr's that you can't see EVEN in Open. Heck Open could be named "Public Group" alongside Private Group. Biggest difference is in "Open" you don't necessarily get to choose who you interact with. In "Private" you can choose who to interact with.

And Solo? Oh geez the horror! That one solitary Cmdr must be carrying a pretty big can of Whoop-Butt since he can completely dismantle a faction and their influence.

I am glad he is in Solo. I for one would not want to encounter someone with that much power,,,,, :p
 
Last edited:
. I'm not into PP mathematics so I don't know how much is true but it certainly could be.

it isn't about powerplay, it is about the backgroundsimulation. and it is very true for the backgroundsimulation.

... but also npc's because it is meant to be a dynamic universe so their actions would do something too....

This is usually where someone says something along the line of "They are 'just' NPC's" or "NPC's don't matter."

as a fact, npc actions don't influence the backgroundsimultion. the only way npc can influence the bgs is by getting interdicted, robbed, shot at or killed by players. sad, but true.
 
But then your advocating forcing pve on pvp players so wouldnt that make pve supporters of a view such as you suggest as hardline pvpers

Except PvPers are no more forced to PvE than they are to buy the game in the first place! And buying the game is their choice is it not?
.
Let me see. Game developer designs a game from the outset principally based on PvE gameplay, but that allows PvP to occur, although it is intended to be 'rare and meaningful'. PvPer buys the game and later complains they can't progress through PvP alone (presumably AFTER they've played the PvE game sufficiently long to get their ideal high tier PvP ship and fitout?) or asserts that certain aspects of the game should be affected by PvP gameplay only. And those who point out the nature and history of the PvE focus of the game design on forums are accused of advocating 'forcing' PvE on PvPers? Wow.
.
You're not the first to suggest that by simply reinforcing the PvE focus of the game, many of us are supportive of forcing PvE on PvP players in the same way some of us allegedly accuse certain PvPers of wanting to force PvP on others. The difference is we bought the game knowing that PvE was the focus - we're not forcing anything in anyone, we're just playing the game and supporting the PvE-focused design. Those PvPers (and some PvEers maybe, I guess) who want to change the focus substantially, such as suggesting certain mechanics should be open-only or should be affected by PvP actions only, are the ones who 'don't get it' and insist on forcing changes on others because they advocate major changes in design direction. Instead of simply either accepting the design for what it is and adapting, or accepting that this game is simply not suited to their personal tastes.
.
Both sides are entitled to their opinion of course. But one is more aligned to Frontier's previous (and current?) design direction than the other.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom