Not IF but WHY discussion around modes in the BGS

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I'm not playing games, I genuinely do not understand what you are asking

"When was the last time you randomly dropped influence instead of picking up Rep or Credits that was not your home system."


I understand the words, but don't have a clue what you are asking.

I do see a misconception though PvE is playing the game.

People only care about influences states for objective control.

Bottom line those systems are objectives.

Player factions push and pull those objectives. So do the powerplay dudes.

There are two reasons people mess with influences in this game. People claim a system for themselves mess with it a little bit and leave. (Plenty of systems in the galaxy thats not player controlled btw.)

And then there are ones with player factions in them. Colonia for example.

That whole place is a giant BGS war between lots of factions duking it out. And hardly anyone see's each other. But Objectives or Systems change consistently.

They are playing the game against each other.

This also happens in the bubble, but unfortunately people adopt other minor player factions because we are all spread out.

99% of the time, the only time someone cares about influence is when it has to do with someone else, or expansion for an objective.

When people start attacking those objectives. Using influence or whatever its done with a purpose. In a concentrated spot. So chances are you're going to run into those people.

IF EVERYONE PLAYED ON THE SAME PLAYING FIELD.

This is not the single player game anymore. This is no longer co-op log in with some friends like no mans sky and build a base.

People are fighting over objectives, while opting out of the parts of the game. Parts of the game they are trying to give us modules and tools for like squadrons and fleet carriers, FSD missiles hatch breakers and so much more.

There is a lot in your guys' proposal that looks great.

But if you guys are saying people shouldnt be able to defend themselves against someone attacking them, because the ATTACKER gets to OPT OUT and chose a single player mode to avoid being defended against. Then there is a major GOD DANG issue here.

Influences only matter for objective control. When someone starts attacking those objectives, even if it is PVE tokens and buckets. They are being used to affect another player base.

And if you cant defend against that besides grind back AFTER they choose to attack you.

Then the whole system is screwed up.

It would be no different than we have now. Attackers should have consequences from the players. NPC's shouldnt be the only thing standing between players in a fight over an objective.

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

In DD not the BGS forum since no one really shouts for it in the BGS forum

I see a lot of "demands" for open only, or open enhanced BGS effects. I'd like to try and unpick the reasons for the demand, past its not fair, or I don't like it, and try and pull out what it is that people/groups making this call are hoping to achieve, and use those as discussion points.


E.g. I had a long and interesting "debate" the other night on the subject and it transpired that the main reason was that the person I was chatting to was advocating open only BGS that they wanted to know who was undermining them. One solution to that might be for example top 5 boards for hostile players, or mission deliverers, which would be a lot more effective at informing who was working against a faction than putting a player in every platform, in every instance and watch who comes in and out.


So what are your reasons for making the call, specific reasons please. I'll do my best to collate them.

Knowing who is undermining my faction/who to contact for diplomatic resolution	Augmented top 5 boards, eg name and locaition of hostile commanders or combined positive and negative effects Information about state buckets
Make PvP more relvevant in player group BGS conflicts/Be able to take more direct action against players we know are working against us, rather than indirect grinding	Require murder to be redeemed to balance the effect
I I want the game to feel more alive/adds to emergent gameplay	Is there a way a PvP murder/bounty/war bond could have a bonus effect

[td]Need[/td]
[td]Suggestions[/td] [/td]
[/tr]

[tr]

At the end, you should know it best Jane
Do you remember our meeting in the CZ? If one group makes combat bonds in private to oppose another group, they are forced to do the same amount of grind to keep up. No matter how strong they are.
But if they would have been all in open only, the attacked group would have the chance to push back the attackers from all CZ's and prevent them from further attacking. In the other side, the attackers would have the same chance....

It's just a big coincidence that this comes up again after our meeting in the CZ

 

[Ian Doncaster]

No one is going to opt in and give people the chance to earn merits to turn in OFF OF THEM optionally jane? "I dont wanna be your content".

Well, even if they were in Open it would be shields-dodge-hiwake over and over again - basically opting out most of it too. Coming up with an incentive for the loser in any duel to stick around and be killed is virtually impossible ... and dropping the maximum toughness relative to weapons on ships to CQC levels so it doesn't need an incentive isn't going to happen either.

The underlying problem I think is that in the real world wars cost very large amounts of resources and lives to fight, which are not replaced quickly. So there's a maximum length to a war, beyond which at least one side just has to give up ... and then even the winner likely has to do a lot of rebuilding before they can fight again (and is in serious trouble if someone else attacks them during that time). You don't get the loser just waiting a week then trying again.

In the BGS, there's no persistent resource cost to fighting conflicts, and destroyed ships can be replaced very quickly - one 5 minute mission will get me two FDL rebuys or 10 Vulture rebuys or 40 Cobra III rebuys - so the only ways a conflict between two player groups can end is:
1) One side gets bored and unilaterally gives up
2) Both sides get bored enough to agree a diplomatic solution
3) One side is so much bigger than the other that the losing side's attempts to fight can be managed in the same way as "routine system traffic" (which probably will be a precursor to 1)

It would be more fun to shoot at them during the bit in the middle but all that really does is extend the time until 1 or 2 happens by making it more interesting.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Well, even if they were in Open it would be shields-dodge-hiwake over and over again - basically opting out most of it too. Coming up with an incentive for the loser in any duel to stick around and be killed is virtually impossible ... and dropping the maximum toughness relative to weapons on ships to CQC levels so it doesn't need an incentive isn't going to happen either.

The underlying problem I think is that in the real world wars cost very large amounts of resources and lives to fight, which are not replaced quickly. So there's a maximum length to a war, beyond which at least one side just has to give up ... and then even the winner likely has to do a lot of rebuilding before they can fight again (and is in serious trouble if someone else attacks them during that time). You don't get the loser just waiting a week then trying again.

In the BGS, there's no persistent resource cost to fighting conflicts, and destroyed ships can be replaced very quickly - one 5 minute mission will get me two FDL rebuys or 10 Vulture rebuys or 40 Cobra III rebuys - so the only ways a conflict between two player groups can end is:
1) One side gets bored and unilaterally gives up
2) Both sides get bored enough to agree a diplomatic solution
3) One side is so much bigger than the other that the losing side's attempts to fight can be managed in the same way as "routine system traffic" (which probably will be a precursor to 1)

It would be more fun to shoot at them during the bit in the middle but all that really does is extend the time until 1 or 2 happens by making it more interesting.

Right, diplomacy is what we have now. Usually someone gives up and says fine because they are tired of the fight.

No one wins or loses.(which should be moving much quicker, and why are people expanding. There could be a little more reward for the type of objective we are taking.)

This way people would win or lose. I mean thats why people are fighting anyways right?

A fight over an objective.

The rest of it Fdev is gonna have to figure out. They have to figure it out with powerplay anyways.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

At the end, you should know it best Jane
Do you remember our meeting in the CZ? If one group makes combat bonds in private to oppose another group, they are forced to do the same amount of grind to keep up. No matter how strong they are.
But if they would have been all in open only, the attacked group would have the chance to push back the attackers from all CZ's and prevent them from further attacking. In the other side, the attackers would have the same chance....

It's just a big coincidence that this comes up again after our meeting in the CZ

Nailed it. Nailed all of it. This is pretty simple stuff.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Right, diplomacy is what we have now. Usually someone gives up and says fine because they are tired of the fight.

No one wins or loses.(which should be moving much quicker, and why are people expanding. There could be a little more reward for the type of objective we are taking.)

This way people would win or lose. I mean thats why people are fighting anyways right?

A fight over an objective.

The rest of it Fdev is gonna have to figure out. They have to figure it out with powerplay anyways.

What is the expected "win" state? It's not permanent, whatever it is....

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I am with you there - but its happened. Finding our faction had been added came as a surprise - we were and still do support procedurally generated factions and are probably the loudest voice in the treat all minor factions the same camp.

Yes it has and it gives people a false sense of ownership. People do not own that Faction, that is what people need to remember. They don't own it, they just work for it, that is the whole premise of BGS and factions. We have no ownership and that is how I would like it to stay personally.

 

[Jane Turner]

At the end, you should know it best Jane
Do you remember our meeting in the CZ? If one group makes combat bonds in private to oppose another group, they are forced to do the same amount of grind to keep up. No matter how strong they are.
But if they would have been all in open only, the attacked group would have the chance to push back the attackers from all CZ's and prevent them from further attacking. In the other side, the attackers would have the same chance....

It's just a big coincidence that this comes up again after our meeting in the CZ

Yes of course I do.... it was brilliant fun and its a pity that downing a player cutter made no difference at all to the outcome. (apart from filling the aforemention "gratification bucket" )We were already over the bond threshold and about to head out to drop of when your wing appeared, so the extra 101k on the bond was meaningless. It persuaded me to finally upgrade the lightweight hull and engineer the shields on my Krait. And in a way this shows the fallacy of the open only argument - since we and I expect you were in open throughout.

Its the opportunity for non-staged interactions like make flying in open so much fun. semi-random encounters in mostly PvE ships.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

At the end, you should know it best Jane
Do you remember our meeting in the CZ? If one group makes combat bonds in private to oppose another group, they are forced to do the same amount of grind to keep up. No matter how strong they are.
But if they would have been all in open only, the attacked group would have the chance to push back the attackers from all CZ's and prevent them from further attacking. In the other side, the attackers would have the same chance....

It's just a big coincidence that this comes up again after our meeting in the CZ

So basically you want to change the fundamentals of the game so that it coincides with what you want. If Powerplay goes open only, you have what you want instead of forcing everyone else to play how you want them to.

I really want powerplay to go open only so that the PvP people have that kind gameplay, but please don't try to get the whole game turned into a PvP fest. It is not the game I bought or want to take part in.

I am all up for a better and more interesting BGS, but PvP should only be optional and have no real effect on the BGS. That is what Powerplay is for.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

What is the expected "win" state? It's not permanent, whatever it is....

Right now there is no reward. And it is pretty dumb to even fight ina BGS war besides saying we have X amount of systems in our control.

However, if those systems offered a buff for controlling them. Each system is either Industrial, or agricultural or something like that. They could EXPAND the game even more and off rewards for those types a systems.

Something meaningful to fight over.

But thats not what we have now. It could be better though.

Usually people fight over something, right now BGS players just for expansion numbers or even salt.

There is so much room for growth though.

 

[Jane Turner]

this is a funny and broken logic at the same time.

In this discussion you want to avoid the PVP people being able to force put PvP opn others.
But the PvE people are still 100% allowed to put forced PvE gameplay on the people of that faction they affect. Because the only thing they cna do is counter it with the counter action. So you allow only one of them to force THEIR playstyle onto the other but no way to be the other way around? A proper system woudl involve both. In the end someone doesn't eneds to get shot he can still choose fleeing as an option. if you were in for a proper discussion instead of catering your own needs while claimign the others just cater their needs, you would be able to see that it needs a proper mixed way.

But the truth is, when a player made faction is under threat by a group or single pilots, the PMF supporting members should have both possibilities at hand. otherwise you get exactly what makes the BGS that stupid and grindy: its just grinding those stupid PvE boring actions.

In a proper design there would be player interaction, but there isn't players aren't interacting and especially for the PMF thats kinda stupid. Thats why we already get stuipid exploits like undermining PP because commanders can free of any possoble consequences misuse the System.

FD should simply have divded this, more than too big universe in diffferent working clusters. or gave the game a proper way wher people can build stations and siuch so PMF gameplay can happen in a PvP only environment like mode outside the bubble. And don't forget. Just because its a "only PVP on" mode you aren't necessary to fight if you can avoid battles.

But atm, anyone can troll any PMF without consequences because he can safely hide in Solo mode. and that is also not fair or well designed.






An "attack" can simply be trading waste to that system just because economics flipped to the, Here are juicy waste trade missions, where the PVE crowd just hops onto for the money. There doesn't necessarily have to be any reason caused by the faction or the members of that faction.




Because there is a difference between the guys being system securioty getting shot and the guys being pirates/murderers beeing shot, thats why And shooting the evil guys prevents the good guys to be shot. if you make a palyer stop doing so, it reduces the amount of work you need to do once he stops. and PC and XBOX beig in the same univers,e thats just another design fail by FD. they made a lot deisgn fails why we have very broken, abuseable and flawed systems, which is not only the BGS.





Mobius exists because we don't wanna be paranoid about getting shot at every damn moment we meet someone else and also to enjoy meeting other people and doing thinsg you usually would get ganked and griefed while doing so. So that we even cna just go and take a dump while floating in space without having to worry a random trollo comes by shooting us. Simply because killing other players is WAY too easy and not really with any proper consequences.





what he means is the average Elite player doesn't cares about what impact his actions have to the BGS. They take the missiosn with the rep they need for a specific faction, or the materials, or the money. And they don't usually care (if they even know) what impact it has on a specific faction.

Ah I see - thanks for the clarification. So its a probably good thing that the BGS is designed to reduce the impact of BUGs (Background Sim Unaware Grinders - stolen with pride from a source I cannot credit since I forgot who it was).

What I still can't see is why that is relvant to this discussion. Oh and....CZ missions, stackable or not, don't affect influence btw. Just credits and rep.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Ah I see - thanks for the clarification. So its a probably good thing that the BGS is designed to reduce the impact of BUGs (Background Sim Unaware Grinders - stolen with pride from a source I cannot credit since I forgot who it was).

What I still can't see is why that is relvant to this discussion. CZ missions, stackable or not, don't affect influence btw. Just credits and rep.

No but the ships you're killing in the process does.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Right now there is no reward. And it is pretty dumb to even fight ina BGS war besides saying we have X amount of systems in our control.

However, if those systems offered a buff for controlling them. Each system is either Industrial, or agricultural or something like that. They could EXPAND the game even more and off rewards for those types a systems.

Something meaningful to fight over.

But thats not what we have now. It could be better though.

Usually people fight over something, right now BGS players just for expansion numbers or even salt.

There is so much room for growth though.

Surely Powerplay represents that kind of gameplay. Ask for powerplay to be open only, ask for more powers to be added add a missions system to it. Done and dusted, you have that gameplay already in the game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No but the ships you're killing in the process does.

How does destroying clean ships positively affect the Faction being defended?

 

[Jane Turner]

No but the ships you're killing in the process does.

And without being obtuse - so what?

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

How does destroying clean ships positively affect the Faction being defended?

Doesnt matter if the ship is clean or wanted. Unless its an election state. Each ship kill counts as an affect towards that particular factions BGS numbers.

Murder and 1 click transactions, or low amount of bounty turn ins is META. Murder is Numero uno for changing influences. They may not get +++++ off the board for doing it. But they can certainly make an impact killing the other sides ships while they are at war.

I thought you knew this you fight against this subject so much.

And without being obtuse - so what?

What do you mean so what. Thats the point.

At this point you're intentionally dodging. Cute.

Should be have the chance to drive them out from YOUR attackers hitting YOUR faction ships, trading outposts with UA bombs and so on?

Or do you want to leave it like it is now, where people CANNOT defend themselves against an attack.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

How does destroying clean ships positively affect the Faction being defended?

It doesn't. In fact it does the exact opposite, unless you are in a combat zone fighting other ships, but you are better off fighting NPC's as you will get more combat bonds and less damage. It is mainly counter productive. While attacking player ships which you will probably not destroy but force to retreat you are doing nothing to actively help your faction. It is basically a waste of time. The BGS is designed for PvE gameplay, not PvP. Powerplay on the other hand is totally designed around PvP, hence the reason why I would be happy to see it go open only. The reason why is that killing opposing ships actively helps your chosen power.

 

[Jane Turner]

Doesnt matter if the ship is clean or wanted. Unless its an election state. Each ship kill counts as an affect towards that particular factions BGS numbers..

That's actually incorrect.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

It doesn't. In fact it does the exact opposite, unless you are in a combat zone fighting other ships, but you are better off fighting NPC's as you will get more combat bonds and less damage. It is mainly counter productive. While attacking player ships which you will probably not destroy but force to retreat you are doing nothing to actively help your faction. It is basically a waste of time. The BGS is designed for PvE gameplay, not PvP. Powerplay on the other hand is totally designed around PvP, hence the reason why I would be happy to see it go open only. The reason why is that killing opposing ships actively helps your chosen power.

If its PVE then Fdev should remove the ability to expand into another players faction.

Are they going to do that? Or are they going to balance the game around Player groups fighting each other when it happens?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Should be have the chance to drive them out from YOUR attackers hitting YOUR faction ships, trading outposts with UA bombs and so on?

Or do you want to leave it like it is now, where people CANNOT defend themselves against an attack.

Which basically boils down to: "Should the BGS only be able to be affected by those who play in Open?", i.e. PvP-gating access to the feature that underpins the game....