PvP Why PvP is not popular in Elite Dangerous?

[Ziggy Stardust]

He is entirely unwilling to concede the point. So instead he's moved his goalpost to an irrelevant semantic position and attempted to make a false equivalence between attack and defense in the BGS, hence ignoring all the history of effort that goes into those percentages for the defenders. The strength of anti-PVP bias is really so overwhelming in some people that it can overturn their objective reasoning entirely.

The lengths that people will go to in order to protect the Solo/PG BGS/PP advantage are really quite extraordinary, even throwing Open PVE factions under the bus in the process.

I conceded that point posts ago, but as I said it was irrelevant to the point I was making. Which was:

I was taking about the Special Victims Unit subset of PvPers who display just as much victim mentality as they are railing against. Projection is a thing.

Quite unrelated to the point you are making wouldn't you say?

And I'm not obliged to defend points I did not make. I don't do BGS or PP, so have no advantage to protect. Plus I am far from anti-PvP. So that's 0 for 3.

Instead of the feeble character assassination hissy fit you might try reading next time.

 

[frostypaw]

He's done a significant edit to that post Zig, might need to adjust. Sneaky once people have replied.

 

[Truesilver]

As a spectator I don't think you've engaged with Ziljan's point that within the current system he can't actually find out who's attacking his BGS.

Why should we be able to?

To me it would seem good game design that there should be some clues, yes. If the BGS were four players around a table, not knowing might be a fun part of bluff and counter-bluff, but in a 2.75 million player MMO I think there should be some kind of trail of breadcrumbs to follow.

if someone is killing security ships then it would be under top 5 bounties

Yes, unless the defender is in an anarchy system that is right. That's the only breadcrumb.

I have an idea that could deal with this in a positive way. There could be a new 'Top 5' amongst the various bulletins at each station: Top 5 BGS influencers. That could give Cmdr name and show how their actions had affected the system's different factions' influence % recently. This would probably be very encouraging for those interested in affecting the BGS and provide everyone with useful data as to the effect of their actions, whilst also giving a 'heads up' to potential adversaries.

But now this really is completely off-topic for whatever this thread is about, so I'll stop.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

He's done a significant edit to that post Zig, might need to adjust. Sneaky once people have replied.

The post I just replied to?

 

[lenna]

To me it would seem good game design that there should be some clues, yes. If the BGS were four players around a table, not knowing might be a fun part of bluff and counter-bluff, but in a 2.75 million player MMO I think there should be some kind of trail of breadcrumbs to follow.

Except you seem to be assuming that knowing who is directly affecting a particular area makes any difference, it does not. Unless you plan to use it as an excuse to "try to" grief/gank the relevant individuals (assuming you can instance with them - not possible in all cases for various reasons) - which may actually run counter to your own BGS goals due to side effects.

 

[Riverside]

Except you seem to be assuming that knowing who is directly affecting a particular area makes any difference, it does not. Unless you plan to use it as an excuse to "try to" grief/gank the relevant individuals (assuming you can instance with them - not possible in all cases for various reasons) - which may actually run counter to your own BGS goals due to side effects.

I agree the information, if made available would be of little more than passing interest. You could attack their minor faction in retaliation I guess.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

When you're losing influence in a system, another faction or factions in the system is/are gaining.

Isn't that the more important aspect than knowing who caused this?

 

[lenna]

When you're losing influence in a system, another faction or factions in the system is/are gaining.

Isn't that the more important aspect than knowing who caused this?

Exactly, and that particular information is visible in ED - it could perhaps be represented with more clarity but that is another matter entirely.

In the context of this thread, the BGS is little more than a side-issue - the simple fact of the matter is that ED is not really designed for (and probably will never be suitable for) the kind of PvP that at least some of the "hard core" PvPers want.

It is less the case that PvP is not popular and more the case that ED will never be a suitable environment for anything more than opportunistic or specifically organised (and optional) PvP. Maybe Squadrons and Wing Carriers will help with that (specifically organised PvP) but it is likely to be little more than organised skirmishes of little overall significance. If people want more wide spread PvP then they really need to look elsewhere other than ED.

 

[Truesilver]

Except you seem to be assuming that knowing who is directly affecting a particular area makes any difference, it does not. Unless you plan to use it as an excuse to "try to" grief/gank the relevant individuals (assuming you can instance with them - not possible in all cases for various reasons) - which may actually run counter to your own BGS goals due to side effects.

If a concerned and sustained attack upon a faction's BGS is occurring, of course knowing who is responsible makes a difference. It means the defending players are able to identify a target for counter-attack, whether via PvP (if the opposing group have members that play in Open) or PvE (if the opposing group maintains its own faction's BGS).

Furthermore it permits player group leaders to identify mutual enemies of the attacking group and to ask them for assistance via group leader to group leader diplomacy.

In my experience of BGS attacks the best defence is combined maintenance of one's own faction's influence together with undermining of the attacker's influence and UA bombing of any suitable stations, most especially in concert with allies, because that forces the enemy to divert resources to defence.

I agree the information, if made available would be of little more than passing interest. You could attack their minor faction in retaliation I guess.

Again the above is with respect understatement that seems to bear little relationship to an actual BGS war.

The only situation in which the identity of the attacker is irrelevant is if they are an individual or group that maintains no BGS of their own. But in my experience such individuals or groups are by definition uninterested in the BGS hence unlikely to undermine others.

(I repeat that I accept that counter-BGS PvE is irrelevant to the topic of this rather wayward thread. But counter-PvP is not and I have personally, when I was in a player group, twice taken part in carefully planned sorties inflicting heavy rebuy losses on members of enemy groups for BGS reasons. In both cases the enemy groups soon after made peace approaches. So I certainly do not accept the idea that knowing who is attacking you is irrelevant.)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If a concerned and sustained attack upon a faction's BGS is occurring, of course knowing who is responsible makes a difference. It means the defending players are able to identify a target for counter-attack, whether via PvP (if the opposing group have members that play in Open) or PvE (if the opposing group maintains its own faction's BGS).

Furthermore it permits player group leaders to identify mutual enemies of the attacking group and to ask them for assistance via group leader to group leader diplomacy.

In my experience of BGS attacks the best defence is combined maintenance of one's own faction's influence together with undermining of the attacker's influence and UA bombing of any suitable stations, most especially in concert with allies, because that forces the enemy to divert resources to defence.

But that's rather what I meant with regard to seeing which faction is gaining influence.

That doesn't show the case where a member which is not part of that gaining faction is doing the BGS influencing, but when there's a push and shove for dominance in a system, would the faction that is gaining not be the prime suspect?

 

[frostypaw]

For PvP this seems to require attackers to be publicly declaring their faction membership on some external list. Then with all the talk of "diplomacy" etc we're well into out-of-game empire building fantasy stuff

Still bewildered by people's determination to play a different game to this one within this game. If FDev are reading any of this still please take this as a vote against extending or forcing us into this sort of gameplay. The lack of this is what's appealing here. The empire builders already have a game for that

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

For PvP this seems to require attackers to be publicly declaring their faction membership on some external list. Then with all the talk of "diplomacy" etc we're well into out-of-game empire building fantasy stuff

Still bewildered by people's determination to play a different game to this one within this game. If FDev are reading any of this still please take this as a vote against extending or forcing us into this sort of gameplay. The lack of this is what's appealing here. The empire builders already have a game for that

Diplomacy you say ....

Actions have more meaning upon influence when it is publically known who is acting against who and for what reasons. Would there be merit in having a system where BGS manipulation could be increased by an official declaration of intent? Subterfuge would still be valid, but less efficient.

It could intruduce propaganda as a mechanic as well besides diplomacy.

 

[Truesilver]

when there's a push and shove for dominance in a system, would the faction that is gaining not be the prime suspect?

Oh indeed, but normally the attackers are from somewhere 100 Ly away and just attempt to help whichever is the 2nd place NPC faction and to harm the 1st place player faction. Hence, knowing who the attackers are and where they hail from is pretty much priority No.1. This is presumably one of the reasons why some (not all) player group leaders spend so much time attempting to gather intel from other groups' Discords via spies, bots and so on.

Then with all the talk of "diplomacy" etc we're well into out-of-game empire building fantasy stuff

I know, and from a personal perspective tend to agree. BGS-orientated player group meta stuff (and all the Discord etc OOC nonsense that can go with it, see above) really wasn't for me. But it works for some... I did love the associated PvP paramilitary sorties, though.

 

[frostypaw]

Diplomacy you say ....

Actions have more meaning upon influence when it is publically known who is acting against who and for what reasons. Would there be merit in having a system where BGS manipulation could be increased by an official declaration of intent? Subterfuge would still be valid, but less efficient.

It could intruduce propaganda as a mechanic as well besides diplomacy.

Now you've reinvented an entirely player run powerplay. Which is why this isn't a thing.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Now you've reinvented an entirely player run powerplay. Which is why this isn't a thing.

Al mechanisms should go through the MPF so not entirely player ran.

Was just brainfart trying to get some politics involved.

 

[lenna]

Again the above is with respect understatement that seems to bear little relationship to an actual BGS war.

BGS War??? I am sorry but you are talking rubbish! You are making ED sound like EvE which is far from the truth, and if you are hoping for EvE type skirmishes then you are living in cloud cukoo land.

Knowing which individual CMDRs are influencing given faction(s) in a given area is moot, what is not moot is which factions are being influenced and by how much. While some CMDRs may band together and perform concentrated efforts to influence the BGS in one region or another there are plenty of other CMDRs that do not. The only factor that really matters is which factions are gaining or loosing influence and by how much - that is determinable from the current system faction data, though it's representation in UI could be improved.

When squadrons are introduced, this might change to some degree, but then the important point will not be which individual CMDRs are operating in a particular area but which Squadrons are. There is however the legitimate argument that such information is just as moot, but it will largely depend on how squadrons are implemented - we will have to wait and see on that score.

 

[frostypaw]

It only makes sense that they come to similar conclusions and implement similar solutions to these common issues.

They're very different games. FD are making a lot of trouble for themselves if they head down Eve's path - the Goon Empire wouldn't care for powerplay nonsense or storylines. They'd wreck the lot and make their own just because they can.

FD should resist becoming like Eve at every opportunity. The difference between the two is why many players are here rather than there.

 

[frostypaw]

There are FAR more similarities between the two games than there are differences.

Hammers see nails.

One of the biggest problems ED faces is that it has to appear to be different to appease the anti Eve fanatics like yourself who's herds have sought refuge here.

The people who don't want it to be like Eve are legion as amply demonstrated by the endless modes/pvp debates. The forumPvP of trying to denigrate and silence them failed a long time ago and it won't work here.

 

[frostypaw]

Sometimes a nail is just a nail.

Yes but a screw is not.

Yet you keep asking the devs for features that make this game more like the one you hate.

It's fun to watch.

Where have you seen me do that at any point?

 

[frostypaw]

IKR? Now you need a screwdriver. I have a few if you want to borrow one.

Was referring to the group, not you specifically.

I'm good! Cheers though

And yeah some of them do - that's why it's fair to point out the issues with what they ask for and check they know what they're getting into. A little less "you" would avoid this confusion....