Not IF but WHY discussion around modes in the BGS

[rekurzion]

i've tried, but it's hard to see the debate for open only as anything more than wanting to have your prey lined up in front of you bound and gagged.

every bgs action has an equal counter. and that i see as being the biggest issue for those wanting to restrict gameplay to give them an advantage. equality is a hindrance to dominance.

no player minor faction has a right to any system even if they are the main faction. they do not deserve to have their conquered land protected by anything other than their bgs actions and strategic capacity to hold what was taken.

the one complaint i will lobby on the bgs is information. more quality information is sorely needed. not just on what is happening within a system but also the bgs itself.


i think you have your answer Jane, and you got it on the second post and further enforced by the suggestions so far..

the bgs is not fun unless i have a named list of human commanders i can target

- know who is undermining my faction
- make pvp more 'relevant' by taking direct actions against players
- wanting to feel more alive

 

[Chrystoph]

There is none. You should have the chance to see and face your attackers.

If you are trying to keep the player factions unable to defend themselves from an attack.

There is something seriously wrong with the people playing this game.

All because they dont want to be shot at or defended against while they attack another player group.

I have been told by many people that they want to be able to attack the people that are disrupting their objectives, both in PP and in the BGS. They don't have good rebuttals to:

• The BGS plays across all platforms but gameplay does not, therefore you cannot directly resolve those actions by killing the other player
• If you are in a completely different timezone than the opposition and their play time, then you cannot fight because they are not there
• For PowerPlay, and to a lesser extent, the BGS, you as an individual, can only safeguard one place at a time and cannot see where they are if they are not in your sensor window; if they go elsewhere, your activity does nothing to stop them
• Peer to Peer Instancing doesn't guarantee an encounter even if they are present in the same system, and lack of normalization in internet connectivity doesn't guarantee the instance stays if you get one

 

[Mercy Killing]

Seriously, how are those "open-only" initiatives going for you there, Sho 'Nuff?

https://media.giphy.com/media/MJXQsnU0kcMg0/giphy.gif


Repped just because of Last Dragon reference.

 

[Roybe]

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.

All I could do is read this in this man's voice:

Getting past that, it still seems that PVP would be meaningless...you kill each other.. but the real problem is that the time wasted fighting PVP players means that X or Y is getting shortchanged on these players failure to move PVE trophies.

 

[Bashy81]

I have been told by many people that they want to be able to attack the people that are disrupting their objectives, both in PP and in the BGS. They don't have good rebuttals to:

• The BGS plays across all platforms but gameplay does not, therefore you cannot directly resolve those actions by killing the other player
• If you are in a completely different timezone than the opposition and their play time, then you cannot fight because they are not there
• For PowerPlay, and to a lesser extent, the BGS, you as an individual, can only safeguard one place at a time and cannot see where they are if they are not in your sensor window; if they go elsewhere, your activity does nothing to stop them
• Peer to Peer Instancing doesn't guarantee an encounter even if they are present in the same system, and lack of normalization in internet connectivity doesn't guarantee the instance stays if you get one

Ive seen you post this around a couple of times so maybe its worth explaining. You're describing things from the point of view of the isolated individual, in which case it's pretty much right. From my point of view however, it's pretty much dead wrong.
I support one of the smaller powers, and we communicate and coordinate extensively, joining up especially if someone finds any issues.

We have CMDRs ingame daily from all over the world. Theres a lot of crossover with people from different regions being online at the same time due to differing lifestyles and RL obligations.
If any of them can instance with someone, anyone else can by winging with them.
Ever winged up with someone from the Aussie outback connected on a mobile tether? I do, frequently and it aint so bad. Well.. Its pretty bad. But ED handles it a hellovalot better than any other first-person game ive played.

I dont expect to find and stop everyone working against us, we wouldnt need to anyway even for a perfect result (which we dont need). The undermining/fortification triggers are much higher than that. But together we could disrupt enough to make a difference and force them to adapt, reducing their efficiency, and ability and willingness to persist.

At present, anyone can circumvent this by selecting a different gamemode & it renders the whole excercise pointless.
It's the best part of Powerplay, and it's only possible right now by good sportsmanship. When the chips are down, you have to choose whether you support your team to the best of your ability, or are a martyr to the greater good. Thats a cruddy choice to have to make.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Ive seen you post this around a couple of times so maybe its worth explaining. You're describing things from the point of view of the isolated individual, in which case it's pretty much right. From my point of view however, it's pretty much dead wrong.
I support one of the smaller powers, and we communicate and coordinate extensively, joining up especially if someone finds any issues.

We have CMDRs ingame daily from all over the world. Theres a lot of crossover with people from different regions being online at the same time due to differing lifestyles and RL obligations.
If any of them can instance with someone, anyone else can by winging with them.
Ever winged up with someone from the Aussie outback connected on a mobile tether? I do, frequently and it aint so bad. Well.. Its pretty bad. But ED handles it a hellovalot better than any other first-person game ive played.

I dont expect to find and stop everyone working against us, we wouldnt need to anyway even for a perfect result (which we dont need). The undermining/fortification triggers are much higher than that. But together we could disrupt enough to make a difference and force them to adapt, reducing their efficiency, and ability and willingness to persist.

At present, anyone can circumvent this by selecting a different gamemode & it renders the whole excercise pointless.
It's the best part of Powerplay, and it's only possible right now by good sportsmanship. When the chips are down, you have to choose whether you support your team to the best of your ability, or are a martyr to the greater good. Thats a cruddy choice to have to make.

This is all well and good, but you're asking to turn the majority of the game into a Ship-v-Ship activity, because that's how you personally have fun.

ED was never marketed as Ship-v-Ship and the architecture and gameplay was not designed around that concept. The majority of players have no interest in SvS and would justifiably be upset if the game were fundamentally changed to suit the minority.

Campaigning for more meaningful SvS activities, rather than removal of all other gameplay options is likely to garner much more support. I certainly would support it, despite having no interest in it myself, and I suspect that the majority of players feel the same.

 

[Chrystoph]

Ive seen you post this around a couple of times so maybe its worth explaining. You're describing things from the point of view of the isolated individual, in which case it's pretty much right. From my point of view however, it's pretty much dead wrong.
I support one of the smaller powers, and we communicate and coordinate extensively, joining up especially if someone finds any issues.

We have CMDRs ingame daily from all over the world. Theres a lot of crossover with people from different regions being online at the same time due to differing lifestyles and RL obligations.
If any of them can instance with someone, anyone else can by winging with them.
Ever winged up with someone from the Aussie outback connected on a mobile tether? I do, frequently and it aint so bad. Well.. Its pretty bad. But ED handles it a hellovalot better than any other first-person game ive played.

I dont expect to find and stop everyone working against us, we wouldnt need to anyway even for a perfect result (which we dont need). The undermining/fortification triggers are much higher than that. But together we could disrupt enough to make a difference and force them to adapt, reducing their efficiency, and ability and willingness to persist.

At present, anyone can circumvent this by selecting a different gamemode & it renders the whole excercise pointless.
It's the best part of Powerplay, and it's only possible right now by good sportsmanship. When the chips are down, you have to choose whether you support your team to the best of your ability, or are a martyr to the greater good. Thats a cruddy choice to have to make.

A fairly in depth post, but you ignored 2 out of 4 points outright, those being different platforms and lack of ability to track other players.

On the other hand, you ignored the Instancing problems while implying that you'd be able to respond in force. I concede that your comments about winging down are well founded, but you still have to get the initial Instance.

 

[smiths121]

Ive seen you post this around a couple of times so maybe its worth explaining. You're describing things from the point of view of the isolated individual, in which case it's pretty much right. From my point of view however, it's pretty much dead wrong.
I support one of the smaller powers, and we communicate and coordinate extensively, joining up especially if someone finds any issues.

We have CMDRs ingame daily from all over the world. Theres a lot of crossover with people from different regions being online at the same time due to differing lifestyles and RL obligations.
If any of them can instance with someone, anyone else can by winging with them.
Ever winged up with someone from the Aussie outback connected on a mobile tether? I do, frequently and it aint so bad. Well.. Its pretty bad. But ED handles it a hellovalot better than any other first-person game ive played.

I dont expect to find and stop everyone working against us, we wouldnt need to anyway even for a perfect result (which we dont need). The undermining/fortification triggers are much higher than that. But together we could disrupt enough to make a difference and force them to adapt, reducing their efficiency, and ability and willingness to persist.

At present, anyone can circumvent this by selecting a different gamemode & it renders the whole excercise pointless.
It's the best part of Powerplay, and it's only possible right now by good sportsmanship. When the chips are down, you have to choose whether you support your team to the best of your ability, or are a martyr to the greater good. Thats a cruddy choice to have to make.

Now Powerplay going open only, I am behind.

A far more structured environment, non-combat actions need stopping, attackers and defenders - there are roles alrteady. Also, and perhaps more crucially it is opt in, optional content (ok parking the PP equipment for a sec). BGS is every player, every action - no Mr Explorer you will not be seeling your exploration data there , verses I have signed up to Mahone, there will be people trying to stop me.

Even PP needs some tweaks, but PP as a PvP vehcile I tought and still think has some legs.

Simon

 

[Pro Cambarus]

There is a recurring notion that open only is about PVP only. Although it is true, that encounters in open open the possibility of pvp, our experience shows that open encounters revolving around BGS extremely rarely end up in PVP. Detection and communication aspects are far more important. In general, as exposed as PMFs are to external actions, hostility is rarely a resolution to any matter. (In some cases it might be, but I wonder whether it is a true resolution or a deadlock.)

 

[Jane Turner]

There is a recurring notion that open only is about PVP only. Although it is true, that encounters in open open the possibility of pvp, our experience shows that open encounters revolving around BGS extremely rarely end up in PVP. Detection and communication aspects are far more important. In general, as exposed as PMFs are to external actions, hostility is rarely a resolution to any matter. (In some cases it might be, but I wonder whether it is a true resolution or a deadlock.)

So true!

 

[sewerratuk]

A fairly in depth post, but you ignored 2 out of 4 points outright, those being different platforms and lack of ability to track other players.

On the other hand, you ignored the Instancing problems while implying that you'd be able to respond in force. I concede that your comments about winging down are well founded, but you still have to get the initial Instance.

And yet in spite of all of your points people still use solo and pg at cg’s, guardian sites, etc to avoid aggression from other commanders. Why is that do you suppose

 

[Robert Maynard]

And yet in spite of all of your points people still use solo and pg at cg’s, guardian sites, etc to avoid aggression from other commanders. Why is that do you suppose

.... because they don't want to be bothered by players intent on destroying them?

 

[sewerratuk]

Probably, which would mean there is still a perceived risk, even though:

• The BGS plays across all platforms but gameplay does not, therefore you cannot directly resolve those actions by killing the other player
• If you are in a completely different timezone than the opposition and their play time, then you cannot fight because they are not there
• For PowerPlay, and to a lesser extent, the BGS, you as an individual, can only safeguard one place at a time and cannot see where they are if they are not in your sensor window; if they go elsewhere, your activity does nothing to stop them
• Peer to Peer Instancing doesn't guarantee an encounter even if they are present in the same system, and lack of normalization in internet connectivity doesn't guarantee the instance stays if you get one

Which potentially means PvP could be an effective tool for keeping commanders away from a system

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which potentially means PvP could be an effective tool for keeping commanders away from a system

It could be - if Frontier changed any aspect of the game to require players to engage in PvP. They haven't up to now. PvP remains entirely optional in this game and is not a required part of any activity.

PowerPlay seems to be the potential candidate for such a change - as I expect that Frontier know that making that change will directly affect very few players (i.e. the subset (those who play in Solo / PG) of the small subset of the playerbase who engage in PowerPlay).

The BGS, on the other hand, would seem to be off the table, in terms of being considered for such a change.

 

[sewerratuk]

It could be - if Frontier changed any aspect of the game to require players to engage in PvP. They haven't up to now.

PowerPlay seems to be the potential candidate for such a change - as I expect that Frontier know that making that change will directly affect very few players (i.e. the subset (those who play in Solo / PG) of the small subset of the playerbase who engage in PowerPlay).

The BGS, on the other hand, would seem to be off the table, in terms of being considered for such a change.

I will concede to you that the BGS will never be open only, nor will it be altered to encourage open play by giving incentives.
The whole discussion is a moot point.
PP on the other hand..

 

[Jane Turner]

And yet in spite of all of your points people still use solo and pg at cg’s, guardian sites, etc to avoid aggression from other commanders. Why is that do you suppose

Actually its the only time I intentionally use non-open and its largely because there is little point doing the puzzle if someone has a few of the pieces.

 

[Chrystoph]

And yet in spite of all of your points people still use solo and pg at cg’s, guardian sites, etc to avoid aggression from other commanders. Why is that do you suppose

If you go back one post to what I was responding to, the person I was responding to admits that, on the individual level, my points are true.

To answer the question asked but didn't really expect to have, or want, answered, the reason that people avoid "aggression" from other commanders is because the risk/reward matrix is broken. Combat-centric players can only be countered by other combat-centric players. If you don't have a clan, either formal or a group of friends, to provide escorts and you are not that combat-centric player, then your loss is disproportionate to the encounter because not only are you penalized the cost of the rebuy, but you are also losing the other costs associated with being blown up, be that time, cost of cargo, travel distance, etc.

Since we are specifically discussing the BGS and "undermining", that means that we are most likely discussing cargo. If it is a medium or smaller ship, most like, a cargo worth a million to two million credits and half an hour of travel time. It is probably more than the cost of the rebuy, yet the loss is likely to take considerably more than that in terms of time/progress.

So, really, why do they not want to be blown up? They have a lot more to lose from the conflict than the combat-centric player.

As to the sarcasm, you really need to get some better lines and the grammar failure at the end of your post really undermines your effort.

 

[sewerratuk]

If you go back one post to what I was responding to, the person I was responding to admits that, on the individual level, my points are true.

To answer the question asked but didn't really expect to have, or want, answered, the reason that people avoid "aggression" from other commanders is because the risk/reward matrix is broken. Combat-centric players can only be countered by other combat-centric players. If you don't have a clan, either formal or a group of friends, to provide escorts and you are not that combat-centric player, then your loss is disproportionate to the encounter because not only are you penalized the cost of the rebuy, but you are also losing the other costs associated with being blown up, be that time, cost of cargo, travel distance, etc.

Since we are specifically discussing the BGS and "undermining", that means that we are most likely discussing cargo. If it is a medium or smaller ship, most like, a cargo worth a million to two million credits and half an hour of travel time. It is probably more than the cost of the rebuy, yet the loss is likely to take considerably more than that in terms of time/progress.

So, really, why do they not want to be blown up? They have a lot more to lose from the conflict than the combat-centric player.

As to the sarcasm, you really need to get some better lines and the grammar failure at the end of your post really undermines your effort.

I really do not care much about grammar on a forum when using a phone.
Its a shame you need to resort to personal insults at the end of an articulate post, it really undermines your effort

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

A fairly in depth post, but you ignored 2 out of 4 points outright, those being different platforms and lack of ability to track other players.

On the other hand, you ignored the Instancing problems while implying that you'd be able to respond in force. I concede that your comments about winging down are well founded, but you still have to get the initial Instance.

If you really think, that it is SO hard to instance with someone else, why are you than so much afraid from the pure thought about an "only open actions count" bgs

A lot of people keep saying "why should my gameplay be lesser worth than your..."
The truth is, that this argument counts for BOTH sides. If some people decide to support a PMF and keep it running preferably in open and kill those people who disturb their gameplay, which right does someone in solo (other instance, console etc bla bla....) have to declare this as the wrong way and not valid?

.....aaand let us don't forget, that this is a discussion around opinions and the arguments for them. Not a personally one

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

which right does someone in solo (other instance, console etc bla bla....) have to declare this as the wrong way and not valid?

That would be the marketing literature from when the game was sold.