PvP The PvE <-> PvP Rift

[Globusdiablo]

Welcome to the rabbit hole. THIS is the Background Simulation.

https://youtu.be/EvJPyjmfdz0

Thanks for sharing. But @46:00 had me choking on my coffee: CQC to be instant action, like Call of Duty...



CQC doesn't even have a lobby.

 

[Theodrid]

Would YOU like playing soccer that way?

Doesn't really apply here, what's going on here is some folks think you can score goals or win a football match by simply shooting the ball......you can't.

 

[Globusdiablo]

Doesn't really apply here, what's going on here is some folks think you can score goals or win a football match by simply shooting the ball......you can't.

I prefer Dodgeball against toddlers.

 

[Roybe]

You got a time stamp to the relevant section of the video?

Nope...the whole video is about the BGS....and how the server architecture runs the BGS...there is no shortcut.

 

[Roybe]

Thanks for sharing. But @46:00 had me choking on my coffee: CQC to be instant action, like Call of Duty...



CQC doesn't even have a lobby.

Planned vs. executed....still explains what they were going for and how the game works.

 

[Roybe]

I think it's important to see the in game difference between BGS faction conflicts and Power Play.

Players are not part of the minor factions, unless pledged in a CZ. There is no in game way to determine the faction support of of a player. Any 'Open only' restrictions outside of CZ, is completely meaningless from a non meta perspective. The regular faction state BGS, is a bucket filling measurement tool. It can't be anything else, as long as no players are part of any of the 'teams'.

PP is a different beast. Players that participate, have chosen a team. The allegiance is there to see for everyone in game, not just on some list on INARA. This opens the door for actual PvP mechanics. PP is PvP, even when done from Solo.
Locking PP influence to Open only is difficult. It would probably just lead to abuse of mode switching.
The only functional design that wouldn't be abused, is to completely lock PP players out of PG and Solo(no option at log in). This is very unlikely to happen.

The way forward must be raise the influence of gameplay that involves interaction with other players.

Locking functionality to a mode in ED will not work. Mode switching and instancing manipulation will render such limitations meaningless. Rewarding players for for interacting with other players(hostile or cooperative), is the only way to enhance the multiplayer aspect of the game.

The problem, in relation to bonuses, is that very few people would be motivated to move because of the bonus..AND any bonus given to an interaction choice, in this game, is easily obtained by router setups, used to avoid interaction. The game itself, used to have a switch within the config.ini file that you could add to avoid people in Open.

 

[Han_Zen]

The problem, in relation to bonuses, is that very few people would be motivated to move because of the bonus..AND any bonus given to an interaction choice, in this game, is easily obtained by router setups, used to avoid interaction. The game itself, used to have a switch within the config.ini file that you could add to avoid people in Open.

It's very easy to play alone in open. Just play on a slow phone connection and you want see a soul. Those that want to avoid others, will always have that option.
Switching wings to get more of your 'team' into an instance, shows how fragile the system is. As long as meta-maneuvers like that can decide an engagement, there is no point in requesting mode locked content.

I FD want PvP to be a functional tool for anything, they need to build a foundation that 'balances' formal teams. Squadrons may be that foundation. I hope they have some plans with that one.

If instancing is left to chance or each router owner's settings PvP will remain a silly meta show, unworthy of influencing anything.

 

[Roybe]

It's very easy to play alone in open. Just play on a slow phone connection and you want see a soul. Those that want to avoid others, will always have that option.
Switching wings to get more of your 'team' into an instance, shows how fragile the system is. As long as meta-maneuvers like that can decide an engagement, there is no point in requesting mode locked content.

I FD want PvP to be a functional tool for anything, they need to build a foundation that 'balances' formal teams. Squadrons may be that foundation. I hope they have some plans with that one.

If instancing is left to chance or each router owner's settings PvP will remain a silly meta show, unworthy of influencing anything.

It can't be controlled by Fdev or anything they can do...so how do you think Squadrons would change this?

 

[Han_Zen]

It can't be controlled by Fdev or anything they can do...so how do you think Squadrons would change this?

I don't think, I hope.

I hope they put in strict mechanics for squadron conflicts. A separate set of instancing rules that ensures that two conflicting squadrons are properly matched. A system where funny connections are kicked from the instance and the clean ones are lett in.
I will require a few changes from the standard model.

 

[Roybe]

I don't think, I hope.

I hope they put in strict mechanics for squadron conflicts. A separate set of instancing rules that ensures that two conflicting squadrons are properly matched. A system where funny connections are kicked from the instance and the clean ones are lett in.
I will require a few changes from the standard model.

We shall see. Plenty of room in my bucket!

Spoiler

 

[Han_Zen]

We shall see. Plenty of room in my bucket!

Spoiler

https://www.simplesystemhorsefeeds.co.uk/images/saltbucket.jpg

Dam it. Now I got the urge for potato chips. [blah]

 

[Riverside]

To add my 2ct.

Please apologize any mistakes in vocabulary and grammar as I’m not a native speaker. And don’t read this wall of text shouldn’t you be interested.

Being/playing a powerplayer I try to paraphrase the current powerplay situation with regards to platforms and game modes. In principle the same logic applies to BGS work as well.

I’m the CEO of a big company located in – guess - Germany. My business model is supplying high tech goods to majority of European countries, the US and Asia Pacific plus a few African countries, basically to every country I have a contract with.
The business model entails that each week I let my people
• carry a given threshold of our high tech goods to each country’s capitol that way ensuring the contracts are met
• we carry by truck (PC), by ship (XBox) and by airfreight (PS4)
• in exchange we get money for the delivery and are guaranteed a sole supplier contract.
If we don’t meet our delivery promise we are put on risk losing a contract. Many of the countries we are delivering our goods are profitable clients so we make a profit and wanna keep the contract but some are unprofitable and we rather would like to get rid of these clients/contracts/countries.

We have external competition. We respect them. The competing companies can attack us by destroying our trucks, ships and airplanes. If they do that often enough reaching a given threshold we are on risk losing the contract/country.
We can oppose their hostile activities by
• either fulfilling our delivery threshold or
• preventing destruction of our carriers by attacking/destroying the hostile companies’ trucks/ships/airplanes.

We also do have internal subversive disloyal employees. We call them 5C. These disloyal employees by purpose carry our high tech goods to unprofitable countries that way instituting a demand which results in negatively impacting our credit balance. The more unprofitable contracts are added that way the more profitable contracts we need to deliver our weekly quota otherwise we might run out of cash and go bankrupt. If we go bankrupt we lose our most profitable countries/contracts first.
We again can oppose the disloyal employees’ hostile activities by
• either fulfilling our delivery threshold to as many countries required to sustain a positive credit balance or
• preventing detrimental delivery of our high tech goods to unprofitable countries (both existing and newly instituted ones) attacking/destroying the hostile employees’ trucks/ships/airplanes.

We have a quite efficient security business unit with war cars, war vessels and war planes. Their job is to protect our carriers and – if possible – preventing the hostile companies’/employees’ activities by attacking/destroying those.
Therefore we tell our security to oversee our delivery routes and attack our enemies. We tell them to do so cause week by week we see that in some countries our carriers are destroyed and week by week our goods are wrongly delivered to some unprofitable countries. We send our security over in these countries but they never can locate and isolate an enemy. They (the enemies) seem to be like an elusive myth but still we see and feel the results of their activities.

Then we learn by our scientists that we are not living in a single universe (us being universe A) but a multiverse with all basic setup being exactly the same. A multiverse where activities carried out in country A in universe B have a very substantial effect on country A in my universe A. And I have no way to bridge the gap between my universe A to B (or C/D/E/…). I have no way to even identify who my enemies are let alone having a fair chance to counteract their actions directly.
I learn that the idea of preventing hostile activities in a direct way (combat) is theoretically possible cause enemies from universes B/C/D/… could join my universe A via an Einstein-Rosen-bridge however that normally never ever is happening.
The only viable way to counteract the other universes’ hostile activities is indirect by delivering delivering delivering…


Yes, I see the point that currently the game mechanic is constructed in a way of indirect PvE vs. PvE activity.
But I would like to ask for some understanding that an incentivized powerplay in open mode would help to mitigate an impression that a fair game competition is ruled out by game setup via game modes. That might entail PvP combat but imho wouldn’t be restricted to combat. Also blocking stations, attacking and scaring/driving away enemies would be viable actions. Currently all these possibilities are ruled out or at least are very unlikely cause every player can escape into solo or private groups.

Let me find another (last) example.
Let’s assume you play soccer. You have a team of eleven but the other team is not on the playing field. You kick the ball but the ball suddenly changes the direction cause an invisible but very real player of the other team is kicking it into the other direction. You are running after the ball but the second you try to kick it it’s kicked into your goal. You don’t see the other team’s players. You have no way to properly foresee or counteract their play.

Would YOU like playing soccer that way?
o7

Your team can use Solo too you know

This is closer to a game where one side tries to influence the outcome with threatening behaviour. In this discussion some are arguing for these threats to become part of the rules.

'Let your sister win or go to your room'

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Nope...the whole video is about the BGS....and how the server architecture runs the BGS...there is no shortcut.

So why do they start by talking about the history of Elite? Have you watched it?

Look. If I want to convince someone of something I don’t just drop an hour long video in their lap and then brush off their legitimate inquiries.

Especially you, Riverside. ‘I might learn something.’ No, really? Wow! Never woulda thinks I’d a learn something mister!

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Your team can use Solo too you know

This is closer to a game where one side tries to influence the outcome with threatening behaviour. In this discussion some are arguing for these threats to become part of the rules.

'Let your sister win or go to your room'

No. We’re sick of folks buying off the referees.

I have the biggest issue with someone trying to take game play away from someone else (even if I am not that someone else).

I feel like you express this in every post you’ve made on this thread. Why not stick it in your signature at this stage?

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Haven’t said I wouldn’t watch it. It’s bookmarked to remind me. Probably won’t get to it till this weekend, to be honest.

To clarify for you, my irritation was not at watching the video (I’m looking forward to it) but the method by which it’s being used. If you want to teach someone something the burden is on you to meet them where they are.

Finally, you’ll notice this post has nothing in it about BGS/PP being open only. I’ve had several posts in this thread like that. You’re welcome to review them at your leisure.

 

[Auronio]

Your team can use Solo too you know

This is closer to a game where one side tries to influence the outcome with threatening behaviour. In this discussion some are arguing for these threats to become part of the rules.

'Let your sister win or go to your room'

I know mate, I know, though I don't want that and prefer open play all the time.

The point is as powerplayer I would like to have a realistic chance to oppose the detrimental activities of my enemies directly by trying prevent them undermining my systems or by trying prevent 5C to deliver preparation merits into crap systems. Which I can't as they do that in solo or private. So I only can indirectly fight them by hauling more merits than them.

On top of that - talking about crap expansions - the current mechanic is highly buffed in favour of detrimental actions. I CAN prevent expansions by winning the consolidation vote. However that requires a 75% vote meaning it takes 3 player votes for consolidation versus only one vote for expansion.
Combine this with the mechanic that a 5C player can haul all day long merits in solo - meaning me the opposer can't prevent it directly - I consider this a skewed and unfair game mechanic in favour of the detrimental activity. And the behaviour of hiding your (not yours of course) perfidious activity in solo imho is an act of cowardice.

That's why I support the proposal of incentivizing the powerplay activities in open compared to solo/private. That wouldn't necessarily result in PvP combat between hostile PvP players but at least would make it more likely. In essence I would rather expect that 5C would give up or at least reduce their activity cause they would avoid open play like the vampire daylight.

I'm not in favour of enforcing PvP combat for the sake of it cause this game entails so many different activity types hence combat is only one of many possible play styles. Though I respect the dedicated PvP combat players.
But I also believe that many detrimental and dastard activities such as griefing other players in open - rookies or 4 vs. 1 etc. - or damaging powers by ruining their cc expanding crap systems in solo are far too easy and hence having mechanics making PvP combat more viable might be helpful.

I acknowledge that this whole discussion has been moved quite away from the OP's original intention.

o7

 

[Riverside]

I know mate, I know, though I don't want that and prefer open play all the time.

The point is as powerplayer I would like to have a realistic chance to oppose the detrimental activities of my enemies directly by trying prevent them undermining my systems or by trying prevent 5C to deliver preparation merits into crap systems. Which I can't as they do that in solo or private. So I only can indirectly fight them by hauling more merits than them.

On top of that - talking about crap expansions - the current mechanic is highly buffed in favour of detrimental actions. I CAN prevent expansions by winning the consolidation vote. However that requires a 75% vote meaning it takes 3 player votes for consolidation versus only one vote for expansion.
Combine this with the mechanic that a 5C player can haul all day long merits in solo - meaning me the opposer can't prevent it directly - I consider this a skewed and unfair game mechanic in favour of the detrimental activity. And the behaviour of hiding your (not yours of course) perfidious activity in solo imho is an act of cowardice.

That's why I support the proposal of incentivizing the powerplay activities in open compared to solo/private. That wouldn't necessarily result in PvP combat between hostile PvP players but at least would make it more likely. In essence I would rather expect that 5C would give up or at least reduce their activity cause they would avoid open play like the vampire daylight.

I'm not in favour of enforcing PvP combat for the sake of it cause this game entails so many different activity types hence combat is only one of many possible play styles. Though I respect the dedicated PvP combat players.
But I also believe that many detrimental and dastard activities such as griefing other players in open - rookies or 4 vs. 1 etc. - or damaging powers by ruining their cc expanding crap systems in solo are far too easy and hence having mechanics making PvP combat more viable might be helpful.

I acknowledge that this whole discussion has been moved quite away from the OP's original intention.

o7

I'm in favour of giving you something worth fighting over, I'm not in favour of taking anything away from existing players. Stick your oar in on the meaningful PvP thread, you seem to have a decent grasp of what you want

 

[Avvie Rayne]

This thread is just repeating itself so I will do the same.

I don't believe players should influence aspects of the game that can only really be stopped with direct player intervention. A prime example of this is parts of Powerplay, where one side has to deliver cargo but the opposition have to counter with undermining. The only real way to ensure a victory is to stop the cargo from ever reaching its destination, by interdicting and engaging delivery ships.

But we can't do that because they're all in Solo / Private Group. Now I'm not one to take gamemodes from anyone but this is the only exception. It is a crime against the game itself if players are allowed to continue affecting a solely player-driven machine in anything BUT Open. Want to help your power? Gotta risk it all.

This is HOW IT SHOULD BE.

 

[Auronio]

I'm in favour of giving you something worth fighting over, I'm not in favour of taking anything away from existing players. Stick your oar in on the meaningful PvP thread, you seem to have a decent grasp of what you want

I didn't say take anything away from existing players, basically I said give me (and others) a more fair chance either by making open more attractive or by balancing the mechanic in a fairer way so the unfair powerplayers hiding in solo are not favoured as much as they are currently.

And yes, I like many of the ideas proposed in your PvP thread.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Fair points.

However, generally the seekers of knowledge must meet the teacher, for far too many people have no interest in the knowledge they have to offer.

It requires effort on both the teacher and the seeker and as such both parties must make the effort.

I now know you do wish to know and you have stated you are looking forward to the video.

You have the information you sought, now you simply must parse it. Also the forum about the BSG would probably be valuable to you if you are so inclined.

Looking forward to what I find. I’m spending this week pondering what bias I may have going in. Also trying to consider how Roybe comes to his conclusions. Goal is to very actively watch while I keep these thoughts in close at hand.

We’ll see how it goes! Hoping to have a nice write up for here.