That happened back on page 14. I'm surprised the topic's still open...
Not IF but WHY discussion around modes in the BGS
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
That happened back on page 14. I'm surprised the topic's still open...
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
Yes indeed.
I was thinking, and its not thought through yet and is no doubt full of holes (and its borrowed from other conversations over the last year or so) But what if there was either via squadron membership or mf (note the absence of p) pledging.
You could imagine circumstances where (if it were via mf pledging) that if player A chose to be pledged with mf X and player B chose to be pledged with minor faction Y, then if either player was hostile with the other faction or if factions x or y were at war, then the players would appear as red to each other, legitimate targets wherever they met. If it were via the squadron mechanic, it would require a system like the Inara wing "in coalition with" options. Assumed neutrality but with the options for both alliances and "at war" with.
This would not affect anyone who was not wedded to the squadron or mf but would give interesting options for game play. Taking the example with Lucius Darcia above - there was a frankly riciudlous situation where one of his wing interdicted one of our players outside the CZ, but since the interdictor always has crimes turned on, there was nothing sensible she could do about it.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
We discussed this in the large group proposal thread - it'd likely be a disincentive for PvE oriented players to play in Open if pledging to a (P)MF caused a hostile indicator in certain circumstances.
If, however, it was limited to Squadrons, and Squadrons had to declare / accept declarations of war with another Squadron then have at it....
If, however, it was limited to Squadrons, and Squadrons had to declare / accept declarations of war with another Squadron then have at it....
We discussed this in the large group proposal thread - it'd likely be a disincentive for PvE oriented players to play in Open if pledging to a (P)MF caused a hostile indicator in certain circumstances.
If, however, it was limited to Squadrons, and Squadrons had to declare / accept declarations of war with another Squadron then have at it....
In a game where simply logging into a "public" mode such as Open clearly paints a target on your back already... it's quite a moot point, to be perfectly honest. Until Frontier actually introduces a flagging system for PvP in multiplayer modes, any "election" system is quite ridiculous in theory. (same with Power Play and the justifications used for it)
The discontent (and deterioration...) comes into play when discussing how the modes interact with this game... and T90's really should know better than to politicize his personal agenda on the forums, knowing fully well that he's been corrected on numerous points he's tried to make time and time again. (Furthermore, the assertions of his arrogance in being "right" all the time...)
Well, I suspect FD would leak many/some/a few/at least one of those on this thread if BGS went open only. To be honest I am not sure they would gain that many or lose that many either way. BGS is niche. I personally would leave, as open only BGS would drive the BGS to larger groups of players, which is fundamentally not a game I particularly want to play.
But interesting debate none the less.
Simon
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
I just want the chance to defend myself besides reacting to their action for a grind. It doesnt really come down to skill once you understand the game. It comes down to time and who has more of it. At that point the numbers of participants fluctuate and really dont mean anything.
Its who has the best build for the timed grind. Most Effective Tactical Advantage. Even the modes are used for this(people will deny this like the people that believe in the flat earth movement).
He who has the most time wins the cause and effect race.
Thats not skillful at all.
Last edited:
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
We discussed this in the large group proposal thread - it'd likely be a disincentive for PvE oriented players to play in Open if pledging to a (P)MF caused a hostile indicator in certain circumstances.
If, however, it was limited to Squadrons, and Squadrons had to declare / accept declarations of war with another Squadron then have at it....
So work with me... Im not advocating, just talking round it. How would you play be restricted via the pledged minor faction route? If you don't choose to pledge then there is no change to the current situation so I can't see an issue. If you do choose to plegde to a faction in war with another faction, you are opting into some additional gamplay elements. You are left with a group of people who want to wear the flag with pride but don't want to fight for that flag. Maybe there could be a conscientious objector option.
Last edited:
I don't see how you want to separate solo from open. Going with complete separate BGS for each would cost FD 2x, 3x, 4x the money in server insfrastructure for handling of the systems, stations, factions, markets, .... And i didn't just stop at 2x, as the request will also include separate BGS for consoles... Will never happen...
So it is back to one BGS for all, because that's the only finacially viable choice. In that case the proposal is that actions in open shall have more BGS weight. But what is that action? I guess more precise it's the transaction. One transaction is murder, and it is an immediate one, when the kill occurs. So murders only count (or count more) when done in open - solved, hurray!
But what about bounties or combat bonds? A bounty/bond transaction is counted when it is turned in at a station. So I turn in my bounties/bonds in open - "farm in solo, sell in open". Same for trade, exploration data, mission runs...
And don't tell us random solo jockeys that we have no interest in the BGS. There are actually many things relevant to us as much as as anybody else, as states, government type, etc. influence markets, availability of commodities, legal/illigal items, drugs, weapons, black market, ...
So yeah, if your BGS waves the wrong flag, I might feel the urge to taint it a little - but certainly not by open combat - I have no reason to play by your rules
So it is back to one BGS for all, because that's the only finacially viable choice. In that case the proposal is that actions in open shall have more BGS weight. But what is that action? I guess more precise it's the transaction. One transaction is murder, and it is an immediate one, when the kill occurs. So murders only count (or count more) when done in open - solved, hurray!
But what about bounties or combat bonds? A bounty/bond transaction is counted when it is turned in at a station. So I turn in my bounties/bonds in open - "farm in solo, sell in open". Same for trade, exploration data, mission runs...
And don't tell us random solo jockeys that we have no interest in the BGS. There are actually many things relevant to us as much as as anybody else, as states, government type, etc. influence markets, availability of commodities, legal/illigal items, drugs, weapons, black market, ...
So yeah, if your BGS waves the wrong flag, I might feel the urge to taint it a little - but certainly not by open combat - I have no reason to play by your rules
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
To use an RL example (I know, I know), attacking citizens of an opposing force "off the battlefield", i.e. in third countries, isn't accepted.
What I'm really referring to is military (the combat focused player) and civilians (the trader, explorer, bus-driver).
If the aim is to create PowerPlay-lite out of MFs then I'm not supportive of that - PowerPlay exists already (and look how popular that is....).
Do not kid yourself, it comes down to wing + who ever else you can get into the instance and choosing your fights to maximise loss of positive actions for the other side, wielding wings as sticks until the other side sends their PvP defence wings to defend the positive action generators. Discord with auto-lookup of commander in Inra is used to pick the targets, and it becomes 4:1 quests. It comes down as always to the ability to take out the opposition before they can high wake. This is all in the name of maximising your own positive actions, with the very slight advantage that if you are attacking a system your own death counds as murder, and negative influence for the defenders. I think someone proposed the cheap Cobra Mk III fleet of death for BGS to try and maximise this difference! Certainly the interdicting Cobra comes from this.
I have played BGS PvP style, once in a while, fun distraction, but seriously not how I would want to play the game all the time. My poor little heart would not be able to take it! Not the game for me.
On a more "on-topic" note, I do think the balance of th BGS would need to change for open-only, the current action/influence effects do not really encourage PvP. As I pointed out above, a defending faction actually gets punished for killing the aggressor on their own patch - so just making the BGS open only is not going to allow you to defend, as defending is an action with a penalty. Not sure how they can tweak to allow murder in defence, without exploits.
Simon
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
[Citation Required]
I don't see how you want to separate solo from open. Going with complete separate BGS for each would cost FD 2x, 3x, 4x the money in server insfrastructure for handling of the systems, stations, factions, markets, .... And i didn't just stop at 2x, as the request will also include separate BGS for consoles... Will never happen...
So it is back to one BGS for all, because that's the only finacially viable choice. In that case the proposal is that actions in open shall have more BGS weight. But what is that action? I guess more precise it's the transaction. One transaction is murder, and it is an immediate one, when the kill occurs. So murders only count (or count more) when done in open - solved, hurray!
But what about bounties or combat bonds? A bounty/bond transaction is counted when it is turned in at a station. So I turn in my bounties/bonds in open - "farm in solo, sell in open". Same for trade, exploration data, mission runs...
And don't tell us random solo jockeys that we have no interest in the BGS. There are actually many things relevant to us as much as as anybody else, as states, government type, etc. influence markets, availability of commodities, legal/illigal items, drugs, weapons, black market, ...
So yeah, if your BGS waves the wrong flag, I might feel the urge to taint it a little - but certainly not by open combat - I have no reason to play by your rules
Indeed. And I'm all for the "everything out in the Open!!!" just as soon as Frontier implements PvP flagging for Open, too.
What I'm not for is lumping the entire playerbase into Open without an option for PvP- and I will fight those types of initiatives until my dying breath. All of these discussions, as I've highlighted above with Robert, are quite ridiculous when you come back to the simple fact that PvP ISN'T optional in multiplayer modes currently- so discussion of "electing to PvP" by joining factions, squadrons, powers, or what-have-you are simply quite laughable to begin with.
If people want to change these systems so that there's "balance" then let's first of all "balance" the nature of the multiplayer modes, THEN layer all the lofty discussions of electing into wars, battles and so forth. Without such in place, it's putting the cart in front of the horse.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
This is within the country at war though! Your bus driver takes the conscientious objector option. In a way it would like being required to pick your side before dropping into the CZ. So those military interdictions which currently serve no purpose unless you are a murder monkey, would have some implications.
This does seem to be the aim of a group of large pmfs in all but name.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The post that I replied to said "wherever they met" - and the galaxy is a big place. So, not only "within the country at war" - unless you meant restricted to systems controlled by one of the hostile Factions where the other Faction also has a presence?
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
That's what I meant by talk around it.... I'm a big fan of putting half-baked ideas out and having people who object to them improve them.
So if it were pledged to mf in war within the jurisdiction of either mf and not signed up as a pacifist, would go be ok with it as a concept?
The commonly perceived principle of BGS is "there are ample opportunities to react to player interventions (and mitigate or counter their effect) for any factions so there is no need for open only. While I agree that BGS mechanisms provide measures to counter and in some specific cases (large systems, large influence "buffers" due to daily maintenance) it is true, the reality of small systems (especially, but not limited to small systems shared by more than one PMFs or subject to diplomatic agreements) is that when a faction realizes that there is an intervention (even with careful daily monitoring of all systems and all MF states), the state sequence dozens it's commanders worked hard to establish is messed up for a month. It could be even harder to defend against a carefully planned multi-system campaign.
BGS in open would at least provide a chance to intercept such events, while still providing options for stealthy tactics for anyone. It would be the most general resolution to this challenge requiring the most in-game resources and activities to make effective use of.
Naturally developing the information infrastructure available to PMFs could also address some of these issues. Station boards could provide additional, more precise information from ongoing activities affecting BGS and maybe separating transit from traffic with a destination station or objective in the system. Maybe activities of squadron pledged players could be detected by squadrons pledged to the native MFs.
BGS in open would at least provide a chance to intercept such events, while still providing options for stealthy tactics for anyone. It would be the most general resolution to this challenge requiring the most in-game resources and activities to make effective use of.
Naturally developing the information infrastructure available to PMFs could also address some of these issues. Station boards could provide additional, more precise information from ongoing activities affecting BGS and maybe separating transit from traffic with a destination station or objective in the system. Maybe activities of squadron pledged players could be detected by squadrons pledged to the native MFs.
We know from Dangeroud Games, that even some quite large factions have timezone challenges, as it took people pulling all nighters to to win. 3 different communities, relasitically 3 "shifts" to cover timezones (seems to be the way big business does it - and that is a day job). Thats 9 segments that need to covered. At that point BGS becomes big group only.
Its a personal thing, but I have no interest in playing guild game.
Simon
You are right that it's the most labour intensive method for PMFs, I mentioned that too. Open by itself would not be a guarantee for any PMFs to detect all interventions, small or large. It would provide a chance for all though.
Events of the size of Dangerous Games does not occur frequently. No group could mobilize such amount of manpower for prolonged periods. For most interventions a moderate response is enough.
That said, an important take away might be that open only is not only not mutually exclusive with improved information on interventions, but -especially with consideration to smaller groups- more information available about activities affecting BGS would be useful. That way the opportunity to effectively respond would be better for all groups, e.g. by checking the boards/logs twice before tick and mobilizing emergency response units if needed.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In the system where the war / conflict is occurring, yes.
Elsewhere, even if either Faction was present, would not be in conflict (as while the conflict state affects the Faction everywhere, it only exists in one system at a time) and illegal acts would still be illegal acts not covered by any rules of engagement for conflict.