Not IF but WHY discussion around modes in the BGS

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Right. You're scared of a boogey-man, and I need to learn the game. Gotya.

You and I just see a very different game within the same programming. I for one don;t want it reduced to the FPS like the one you offered up as some kind of evidence. Those that want that kind of play can snipe each other all they want in open. It's all there for you, what I don;t see is a reason everyone has to be trapped in that mess.

I'm going to leave you with that thought for now, before you start hunting me down in Hello Kitty Dance Party.

Peace out.

<-- Drops the Mic -->

Dont get involved in other player group wars. And you'll have nothing to worry about.

I prefer to play the BGS with my brain. Playing with my balls is in no way connected to Elite.



We all do this. Yet our results are different from yours.

Well the player groups you are behind want to be able to defend themselves in the same way finn.

Why is it different coming from me. Over them? We want the same thing.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...g-BGS-groups?p=6930775&viewfull=1#post6930775

Ironically, you posted the whole thread to begin with.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ons-A-gameplay-proposal-by-leading-BGS-groups


I swear, these forums are nuts.

Its just like when someone gets UA bombed and everyone wants to PVP to mean something that day. Then the next day they totally forget why PVP would be important here.

You literally just did this Flin. A lot of the community does this.

The groups you are behind, want PVP to be a part of the BGS. Always has. And you posted the proposal to start.

These forums are like a twilight zone episode.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

Because it isn't the same.

There is general support for PvP events to have some impact in the BGS, rather than none at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with Open-only at all, and would be only between those who both selected Open. That is, a small addition.

It's nothing like what you're asking for.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Because it isn't the same.

There is general support for PvP events to have some impact in the BGS, rather than none at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with Open-only at all, and would be only between those who both selected Open. That is, a small addition.

It's nothing like what you're asking for.

If you can defend against the people trading against you, killing your cops or driving influences up or down. Then its pretty much the same thing.

No reason to leave it complicated where people can still make an influence and you are unable to blockade a system or stop someones progression against you.

Maybe the weighted success would work here instead of powerplay. This way there is proper risk and reward happening between player groups. And some people can still have an influence if they really dont want to be shot at. Open would still be good for defending your faction against someone attacking it. And if they want to continue to be oppressive against you.

They can go into open and have the chance of being stopped while having maximum influence gain. This would give the defenders a chance to defend with proper risk and reward to the attacker to boot.

Bottom line, the modes arent equal, and its heavily favored to people in solo and private. It needs to be changed for the sheer act of defense.

If someone is just travelling through, they dont care about influence. They care about credits or rep.

There are no consequences for the attacker. And that's very bad for a territorial game.

Jane if there is anything id like to add to your table.

Please add Consequences for the attacker.

 

[_Flin_]

If you can defend against the people trading against you, killing your cops or driving influences up or down. Then its pretty much the same thing.

No reason to leave it complicated where people can still make an influence and you are unable to blockade a system or stop someones progression against you

I think we are pretty much on the same page. Except we do not propose Open Only and see it as nothing to make the game or the BGS better.

We want
- more information (e.g. state buckets, but also Top 5 Mission Runners, Top 5 Bounty Hunters, top 5 Explorers for factions / stations /systems )
- balanced gameplay
- all BGS activities should yield similar results in regards to time spent
- all activities should have diminishing returns or caps

Since most of us fly Open (I don't, but I am a noob in the cockpit), we just KNOW from FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE that Open Only changes nothing!

EDIT: We as a group are very much AGAINST MURDER IN ITS CURRENT FORM. We use it because it is the current meta. But we do not really like i, because we were on the receiving end as well and think it is overpowered.

P.S. The thing with the balls was a joke i couldnt resist. Sorry.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Frontier or even some logs on Alberta can back that up.

Here you go - https://cdb.sotl.org.uk/systems/69/history

Honestly a lot of these arguments are down to how one-sided certain methods of influencing the BGS are regardless of which mode they occur in. If someone's slaughtering authority ships in open they can do so with impunity regardless of the mode. If you wanted to blockade the star, they could just fly in solo to basically anywhere in the system and relog. You want to kill system authority ships? Log into open literally anywhere in the system that has even the possiblity of spawning an clean NPC ship, and you've got a means of summoning fresh targets.

Yep. "Only Open affects the BGS" == "Only Open exists" - there's no other way to do it. And that won't happen, so...

 

[smiths121]

My commiserations

It's often forgotten in discussions of the BGS that it isn't the sole preserve of PMFs. There are many solo players and small groups (below the threshold for PMF creation) that play the BGS too - and their needs are just as valid and important as those of groups with 1,000s of members. As you've seen, we are essentially invisible to FDev and since it appears that any new group-play functionality will be unavailable to us - I'm looking at you, Squadron Carriers - it's likely that we'll become progressively more marginalized, given that FDev listen to the loudest voices.

Not that I'm blaming FDev too much - I understand why they want to have limits on PMFs and Squadron Carriers, rather than let every Cmdr have them. It's just a shame that smaller groups and lone wolves are going to find themselves squeezed out of activities by larger groups.

I still think PMFs were a mistake though.

To be fair I am not sure how FD would even know we exist. We did try to keep somewhat under teh raidar - to offset our small size, having suffered a bit to PP sniping when PP moved into the area back in 1.3 (-68% overnight infulence swing was our best!).

I must totally agree with you about small groups. If you include 3 mates deciding on a home system, not an untypical scenario, there are a lot of small groups. I actually prefer small groups. I was briefly a member of SEPP, but found that had grown to big even then for my tasts, and ended up with the bonkers guys at the smaller group Galactic Patrol - that was fun while it lasted.

To be fair, some of the bigger PMF do care about the small guy. I thought the recent proposal for PMF/MF, whilst put together by larger groups was quite balanced and some thought for smaller groups has been put in, for example.

Hope all goes well for you in the BGS - and a compromise can be reachd.

Simon

Edit: On another note I like the idea of kill tokens from a few pages ago to transactionalise murder sprees. Or perhaps 1 or more murder in the same instance only counts as 1 murder - not fool proof, probably much harder to spec and implement, than my one liner, but at least moving murder in the right direction.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I think we are pretty much on the same page. Except we do not propose Open Only and see it as nothing to make the game or the BGS better.

We want
- more information (e.g. state buckets, but also Top 5 Mission Runners, Top 5 Bounty Hunters, top 5 Explorers for factions / stations /systems )
- balanced gameplay
- all BGS activities should yield similar results in regards to time spent
- all activities should have diminishing returns or caps

Since most of us fly Open (I don't, but I am a noob in the cockpit), we just KNOW from FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE that Open Only changes nothing!

EDIT: We as a group are very much AGAINST MURDER IN ITS CURRENT FORM. We use it because it is the current meta. But we do not really like i, because we were on the receiving end as well and think it is overpowered.

P.S. The thing with the balls was a joke i couldnt resist. Sorry.

Agreed.

I too am aware of instancing issues and console issues. But it gives us more of a chance than we have now with some changes. It wont fix everything.

The more information we get the better.

Exploration transactions are pretty out of whack too.

 

[WhoCares]

...
We want
- more information (e.g. state buckets, but also Top 5 Mission Runners, Top 5 Bounty Hunters, top 5 Explorers for factions / stations /systems )
....

This doesn't work due to the daily BGS tick. A player/group sitting in an early timezone (w.r.t. BGS tick) would be at a major disadvantage compared to a "late" or distributed group that would get notification of the early groups activity and could perfectly scale its response.

 

[Jane Turner]

Yes by shooting them. They cant continue to work against me. If they are dead. If you can stop peoples progress, claim things off the bounty board and so on using modules like a FSD disruptor and other "greifer" tools they added to the game. We would be playing the game and PVPing with a purpose between two player factions. Instead of everything in Elite Dangerous being a grief with no context behind PVP.

Make Attacking and Defending part of the game. Its not that hard to figure out why changes need to be made.

Nothing wrong with shooting people in a video game over objectives.

This community needs to stop with whole playing a victim thing because they dont want to get shot at for attacking someone elses objectives.

Losing a ship to another player has minimal effect. I can even be advantageous (just) for the faction that the downed pilot is supprting - it does fill the "personal satisfaction" bucket nicely though

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Losing a ship to another player has minimal effect. I can even be advantageous (just) for the faction that the downed pilot is supprting - it does fill the "personal satisfaction" bucket nicely though

I mean, if you lose a 20 stack of missions, dont you lose rep? And rebuy?

You do that a lot its going to hurt eventually. Even PVPers with billions that kill each other every day for fun need to farm quite a bit.

Just think about the impact it would have here in the means of defense for a player faction. It would have great effects.

On multiple levels.

Hell, someone could even say they won something.

 

[Jane Turner]

So while i now understand your issue better, "Open Only" is still not the solution to it. Maybe better information about states and state buckets, maybe better ways to prevent lockdown before it goes pending. But forcing Open will nit help you against an resourceful and dedicated opponent.

Plus: It will force You into Open, too....

I'll add that to the better information suggestion.

 

[Red Fox Four]

Since most of us fly Open (I don't, but I am a noob in the cockpit), we just KNOW from FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE that Open Only changes nothing!

I play Elite to have fun and to play together with friends.

Open Only would make one change.

I would stop playing the game and focus more on other games instead.

Allowing players to choose whether they want Open (FFA), Private Group (Coop/Collaboration) or Solo mode is one of the things FDEV did completely right.

Let the players choose how to play without being penalized or rewarded based solemnly on their choice of game mode.

Want to shoot stuff for the BGS ? Then push your minor faction into a War/Civil War and go to the Conflict zones, optionally start attacking their security/police ships or pirate their trading ships.

 

[Jane Turner]

This doesn't work due to the daily BGS tick. A player/group sitting in an early timezone (w.r.t. BGS tick) would be at a major disadvantage compared to a "late" or distributed group that would get notification of the early groups activity and could perfectly scale its response.

Influence and states are updated daily, but there are other metrics are updated every 10 minutes. Currently the only time you know you have an pending "bucket" state is at the point at which it is already too late to avert it.

 

[Jane Turner]

I mean, if you lose a 20 stack of missions, dont you lose rep? And rebuy?

You do that a lot its going to hurt eventually. Even PVPers with billions that kill each other every day for fun need to farm quite a bit.

Just think about the impact it would have here in the means of defense for a player faction. It would have great effects.

On multiple levels.

Hell, someone could even say they won something.

It would only slow me down if I was carrying data, and if I was carrying data I wouldn't hand around long enough to let someone help me lose it. In fact the same argument applies to missions. The only ships you are going to get hanging around to indulge in PvP are ones that are ready for it.

Carrying 20 missions at once would have to be data ones and they will be there in the rebuy ship - so at worst you cost me 5 minutes

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

It would only slow me down if I was carrying data, and if I was carrying data I wouldn't hand around long enough to let someone help me lose it. In fact the same argument applies to missions. The only ships you are going to get hanging around to indulge in PvP are ones that are ready for it.

I am saying, if they are attacking another player faction. Missions, Data, whatever. They should be ready for it.

You're playing against them. And not the game.

So is PVP in your guys' proposal or not? And if its optional, then one side will simply not go out and give anyone the chance to be stopped just like it is now. Or allow them to score merits for missions or whatever.

Lets be cut and dry here. The only way PVP is going to work in any game. Is if its on the same playing field.

Is this what you guys are wanting to do or not?

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...g-BGS-groups?p=6930775&viewfull=1#post6930775

This statement says yes. Other statements say no.

What is it.

Lets stop being vague and putting drama behind something that doesnt need drama behind balancing of gameplay to begin with.

Should people be able to defend themselves or not?

Should there be consequences for the attackers actions from the other player group? And if the other player is not in a player group, then what?

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

For some, it seems to be a desire to be able* to engage any BGS opponent in PvP combat - to stop them doing what they are doing.

*: Instancing and lack of cross-platform play notwithstanding.

This is the very most reason for me.
Also blockades of stations/outposts would work effectively. We have one system that generates during boom stupid amounts of data delivery missions targeting one single other station. So random people push us into expansion through massive farming of those easy-to-do missions and we'd like to stop 'em through pad blocking or high losses through rebuys to make that place for them unprofitable.

 

[Jane Turner]

This statement says yes. Other statements say no.

What is it.

When we talked about it we were interested in finding a way that gave voluntary PvP a role in the BGS, above the current level of entirely irrelevant, but in a way that didn't impose it on anyone unwilling.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

When we talked about it we were interested in finding a way that gave voluntary PvP a role in the BGS, above the current level of entirely irrelevant, but in a way that didn't impose it on anyone unwilling.

If its optional between 2 player groups. Then no one is going to put themselves out there. That solves nothing.

Its the same crap we have now.

Why would anyone choose to be stopped. When you have the choice not to.

Thats the whole issue here.

Very much a problem.

People are making that choice when they start attacking another player faction. Plain and simple.

You should not be able to opt out of being stopped while you attack another player faction. Thats dumb as hell.

I gotta ask you jane, how do you go from what we were saying earlier in this thread about the modes. To all of a sudden it being optional and voluntary. And what Roost said in the link I gave.

Are you guys wanting to give people the chance to directly be defended against or not?

Pretty tired of the handholding and wordplay around here. Thats for sure.

Jane there was a reason I said these things here:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...s-in-the-BGS?p=6959503&viewfull=1#post6959503

 

[WhoCares]

Influence and states are updated daily, but there are other metrics are updated every 10 minutes. Currently the only time you know you have an pending "bucket" state is at the point at which it is already too late to avert it.

But that's exactly the point - if the bucket information is broadcasted and continuously updated (as by his request) , but the tick is still only once a day, then any group/activity early after the last tick can be perfectly matched by late groups. The late group can react on all available information before the tick, the early group can't. E.g. if an early group needs to defend its assets, it relies on preemptively filling the bucket without knowing how much the late group is willing to invest later. However, if the information of the early group activity is available before the tick, the late group can act accordingly and scale its response perfectly, a luxery the early group doesn't have.

 

[Jane Turner]

But that's exactly the point - if the bucket information is broadcasted and continuously updated (as by his request) , but the tick is still only once a day, then any group/activity early after the last tick can be perfectly matched by late groups. The late group can react on all available information before the tick, the early group can't. E.g. if an early group needs to defend its assets, it relies on preemptively filling the bucket without knowing how much the late group is willing to invest later. However, if the information of the early group activity is available before the tick, the late group can act accordingly and scale its response perfectly, a luxery the early group doesn't have.

I'm not sure I agree - but since the tick moves through the clock (its on its 3rd cycle) its evened out.


Also state buckets and influence are very different things.