Not IF but WHY discussion around modes in the BGS

That's actually incorrect.

Then correct me.

IS murder of faction ships not the number #1 source of BGS changes?

Because I have personally done this.

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....

Why should those in solo and private receive the same benefit? If there is no reason to log in to open for that objective?

Why should they get to remove themselves from the players they are attacking?

Listen, im not going to put myself out there for you to get a kill off me if its optional. Why would I give you the chance to earn something off me if I have the chance for you not to gain from it. Better off not going into open at all.

AND IM A PVPER for christ's sake.
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Why should those in solo and private receive the same benefit? If there is no reason to log in to open for that objective?

Why should they get to remove themselves from the players they are attacking?

Why shouldn't they - as they paid the same for a game where PvP is entirely optional - and where the Developer chose, at the outset, to offer each and every player the chance to both experience and affect the shared galaxy, regardless of the game mode they play in?
 
Why shouldn't they - as they paid the same for a game where PvP is entirely optional - and where the Developer chose, at the outset, to offer each and every player the chance to both experience and affect the shared galaxy they play in?

Because the game has changed, and i dont give 2 craps how much you paid for it. This is about balancing players actions in a game that continue to grow and evolve. Dont think the rules wont change around that. Its not going to stay the same.
 
Why shouldn't they - as they paid the same for a game where PvP is entirely optional - and where the Developer chose, at the outset, to offer each and every player the chance to both experience and affect the shared galaxy, regardless of the game mode they play in?

Exactly. And many people can't play in non-Solo due to not wanting to pay monthly subs to Microsoft or Sony.

Because the game has changed, and i dont give 2 craps how much you paid for it.

Drop the attitude, laddie. This isn't your game, so stop telling people what they're allowed to do.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Because the game has changed, and i dont give 2 craps how much you paid for it. This is about balancing players actions in a game that continue to grow and evolve. Dont think the rules wont change around that. Its not going to stay the same.

Balancing does not necessarily involve requiring players to engage in PvP, in a game where PvP remains optional....
 
Exactly. And many people can't play in non-Solo due to not wanting to pay monthly subs to Microsoft or Sony.



Drop the attitude, laddie. This isn't your game, so stop telling people what they're allowed to do.

No. There are some issues here that need balanced between player groups.

All these arguments people have heard for 5+ years, and people are intentionally playing dumb here. Its getting old.

People are using single player framework to affect the multiplayer one. Thats not fair or balanced at all.

The sad thing is people know it. And want to continue to use it for an advantage.

People in this thread are saying people shouldnt have the chance to defend themselves against an attack. And they only get to defend if the ATTACKER chooses open to be defended against?

What kind of horse and pony show are you guys running around there. This is .
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
What do you mean so what. Thats the point.

At this point you're intentionally dodging. Cute.

.

I don't usually have trouble interpreting what people mean, summarsing discussions etc but I really am struggling to make sense out of your posts.


You asked "When was the last time you randomly dropped influence instead of picking up Rep or Credits that was not your home system." which at 1st I didn't understand since I was trying to place the question in context of defending against bgs undermining, which is what I thought we were talking about. When it was helpfully explained to me that it was to do with the effect of non-BGS interested players on the BGS, the question could as easily have been "when did you last have waffles for breakfast" for the relevance it has.

I'm not dodging, I'm failing to see a coherent argument.

I've got you want to have engineered ships have more effect, I've got you want to be able to shoot more players, I think I am detecting a suggestion that you don't want any BGS influence possible outside open, but beyond that I'm stumped.
 
I don't usually have trouble interpreting what people mean, summarsing discussions etc but I really am struggling to make sense out of your posts.


You asked "When was the last time you randomly dropped influence instead of picking up Rep or Credits that was not your home system." which at 1st I didn't understand since I was trying to place the question in context of defending against bgs undermining, which is what I thought we were talking about. When it was helpfully explained to me that it was to do with the effect of non-BGS interested players on the BGS, the question could as easily have been "when did you last have waffles for breakfast" for the relevance it has.

I'm not dodging, I'm failing to see a coherent argument.

I've got you want to have engineered ships have more effect, I've got you want to be able to shoot more players, I think I am detecting a suggestion that you don't want any BGS influence possible outside open, but beyond that I'm stumped.

Then you're intentionally not getting it. Ive went through great detail to explain it. This is not rocket science.

If you attack another player faction. The player faction you are attacking should be able to stop you from attacking them.

They should not be able to opt out of being attacked themselves while attacking your minor faction your player faction is attached to.

If your goal is to affect another player base, then you should have no issues being shot at by the player base you are intentionally trying to affect.

If you dont understand that. God help us all.
 
If you dont understand that. God help us all.

Oh, quit the melodrama. If you can come up with a solution to this problem (which affects a minority of players, I'd guess) then it needs to do so in a way that includes players that are only able to play in Solo. Because there are plenty of them.
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
Then you're intentionally not getting it. Ive went through great detail to explain it. This is not rocket science.

If you attack another player faction. The player faction you are attacking should be able to stop you from attacking them.

They should not be able to opt out of being attacked themselves while attacking your minor faction your player faction is attached to.

If your goal is to affect another player base, then you should have no issues being shot at by the player base you are intentionally trying to affect.

If you dont understand that. God help us all.
So where does the randomly dropped influence come in?
 
Oh, quit the melodrama. If you can come up with a solution to this problem (which affects a minority of players, I'd guess) then it needs to do so in a way that includes players that are only able to play in Solo. Because there are plenty of them.

If you're in solo, youre playing for yourself right? Thats what solo means?
 
So where does the randomly dropped influence come in?

Ive explained it jane. Even the other guy explained it.

You're not going to randomly drop influence anywhere else that you dont intend on affecting another player somewhere else. You may expand in a random spot within your own home system. But that is where you live, youre not going to go jumping around dropping influence around the bubble just because. Thats not what its for.

And if it is attached to a reward, you're not going to stay in that random system for over 1 week and a half trying to flip it now are you? Unless its powerplay related, then I can understand. But we are talking about player groups here.

Cmon Jane. Get with the program.
 
Last edited:
If its PVE then Fdev should remove the ability to expand into another players faction.
There are no players factions. You do not own them. They are all NPC factions, even the ones that players ask to be put in and they should be treated as such.

Are they going to do that? Or are they going to balance the game around Player groups fighting each other when it happens?
Are they going to do what?
 
I'm simply amazed and entertained at how long one person who's paranoia has reached such heights can keep this dumpster fire going for so long...

Conjecture and speculation.
 
I'm simply amazed and entertained at how long one person who's paranoia has reached such heights can keep this dumpster fire going for so long...

Conjecture and speculation.

You said the same about powerplay. Comical.

This is players affecting other players. Not the game itself.

There are no consequences for the player group that attacks your systems. You have to suck it up and farm back because thats what they chose to do. And if you dont they win you lose. You get bored of trying to maintain. You lose. However give the god damn players the chance to defend themselves from an attack. Like a system flip or a UA bombing. Then the defend is no longer at a disadvantage.

The attacker gets to chose the method of attack and the defender has to counter with grind for that specific attack.

If you could kill them and drive them out. Removing the option to just switch modes after their precious spaceship blows up. They will eat rebuys, time lost, rep lost, influence gains stalled. All sorts of real gameplay.

But the defender is at a major disadvantage here.

All because the people get to use the mode called "solo" to affect the multiplayer experience and take the objectives of another player group.

No speculation at all. It happens everyday within the BGS and Powerplay.
 
Last edited:
As someone who, because of criticism of another crowd funded game (Shroud of the Avatar), has had 2 years of and death threats, my email account hacked, attempts to shut down game accounts, and when he can't get directly into them to try and destroy anything built in them... including I suspect for the past few weeks an attempt to overthrow a Player Faction a friend of mine set up and I still support in Elite Dangerous, the idea of forcing me to go into Open and risk having to fight that kind of attention in game too would destroy any interest I have in continuing to play the game.

I'm not against PvP, where it's consensual and no long term damage exists. But in Elite your ships have an in game value which can be taken from you. It would just increase the level of sociopathy of in game interactions if everyone who plays for the background sim, or their own personal progression was forced into Open and you could work out where and when they were fighting; if you want that, fine... but EvE Online is over there.

As for being able to see clearly who exactly is performing missions, I'm torn on that one. From the point of view of identification, it's a double edged sword; whilst it would be handy to know if the hints dropped about Elite Dangerous by my stalker were real or not, and could then be used in legal responses, it also opens up the ability to use that knowledge to further harass people, as mentioned. I tend to lean towards the ability to identity specifically how many generic CMDRs, in which ships, have run which missions for which factions without naming who it is, so people can be sure if they've a fight on their hands, without personalising it.
 
Back
Top Bottom