Not IF but WHY discussion around modes in the BGS

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

All that does is reaffirm the opinion that murder is too effective a tool in the BGS, in any mode.

Which even the most rabid anti-OOBGS fanatics would have no problem with FDev addressing.

If we were to imagine for a moment that FDev completely removes murder from BGS calculations, then all the pro-OOBGS arguments collapse into "I want to shoot you".

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

As I have said before, the BGS is PvE, until it directly starts to effect another playersubset of players gameplay, then it becomes inherently PvP based gameplay.

The problem with that logic is that the PvE player has absolutely no control over whether or not their actions are PvE or PvP. PMFs are placed with no consideration of non-PMF players and expand likewise.

Finally, there is a huge difference between PvP and Ship-v-Ship, and just because something can be considered PvP does not mean that it must automatically have an SvS component.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Things like murder being "too effective" can easily be resolved by cutting the influence gained within PG/Solo by either one half, or preferable, two thirds. IE: Stopping said cmdrs by direct action.

Stopping CMDRs by direct action remains optional in this game, as does playing in a multi-player mode where one may be stopped by another player.

The best resolution to the issue is to stop treating murder as one kill = one transaction - as that works in all modes.

I realise that this does not suit the Open Only Agenda, however I don't subscribe to that - and I certainly didn't buy a game that supports it.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Which even the most rabid anti-OOBGS fanatics would have no problem with FDev addressing.

If we were to imagine for a moment that FDev completely removes murder from BGS calculations, then all the pro-OOBGS arguments collapse into "I want to shoot you".

Not at all, I would shoot on sight anyone who is in my PmF system who looked ike they were interfering, yes, because odds are, I feel confident enough that I could dea with most of a faction if they are not hugely combat orientated, but would I then use PvP to take over a system? No, likely not, as we know, it is hugely ineffective, so what is the point? Herein lies the problem.


The point is that, if something has the propensity to affect everyone, it should only be interacted with in the mode that contains everyone.

Doing it from behind closed doors is a very effective way to not have to interact with the faction members whose faction you are pooping all over. Let's face it, the largest subset of players is the PvE crowd, so are they realy going to go around shooting the competition? No. They are not.

However, when a PvP group has a PmF, who most likely are not going to be clued up on the ins and outs of the BGS, (Becuz we r stupid gun jockiez) then get thier faction smashed by a bunch of PvE players who can completely deny them a means of defence in thier chosen playstyle, this is a one way street, and thats where the issue lies.

I would BGS, but I simply do not see the point in engaging in something where you don't get a taste of your opposition. No idea of numbers, no idea of methods they use, ETC.

It's very one sided. My argument here is about fixing that one sidedness.

Stopping CMDRs by direct action remains optional in this game, as does playing in a multi-player mode where one may be stopped by another player.

The best resolution to the issue is to stop treating murder as one kill = one transaction - as that works in all modes.

I realise that this does not suit the Open Only Agenda, however I don't subscribe to that - and I certainly didn't buy a game that supports it.

I draw your attention to my current comment.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which even the most rabid anti-OOBGS fanatics would have no problem with FDev addressing.

If we were to imagine for a moment that FDev completely removes murder from BGS calculations, then all the pro-OOBGS arguments collapse into "I want to shoot you".

Indeed.

.... especially as there's an assumption that "murdering" clean players simply because they "might be carrying missions that might affect the defender's Factions" would be an effective BGS tactic.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I draw your attention to my current comment.

The one where there's an assumption of the availability of PvP players? In a game where PvP is entirely optional and rather ineffective with regard to the BGS?

Simply put, solutions that work in all modes render any contention that content requires to be limited to a single mode moot.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Indeed.

.... especially as there's an assumption that "murdering" clean players simply because they "might be carrying missions that might affect the defender's Factions" would be an effective BGS tactic.

Generally if you were to see a large number of cmdrs with the same faction tags, or even an unusually large number of cmdrs in what are generally, backwater systems, it's a pretty good indicator.

If you needed verfication, you could easily look at the influence statistics to confirm it could you not?

I don't get where the idea of "They just want to shoot us innocents" comes from, this is about fairness.

If you seriously think there is enough PvPers to disrupt your BGS, then you are very mislead. There are not.

Moreover, don't you think it would be good to give that subset a job within the BGS? Maybe being hired as a millitia would pull them away from ganking newbies in Eravate, or mass murdering traders at the CGs? Clearly that has been ignored also.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Not at all, I would shoot on sight anyone who is in my PmF system who looked ike they were interfering, yes, because odds are, I feel confident enough that I could dea with most of a faction if they are not hugely combat orientated, but would I then use PvP to take over a system? No, likely not, as we know, it is hugely ineffective, so what is the point? Herein lies the problem.


The point is that, if something has the propensity to affect everyone, it should only be interacted with in the mode that contains everyone.

Doing it from behind closed doors is a very effective way to not have to interact with the faction members whose faction you are pooping all over. Let's face it, the largest subset of players is the PvE crowd, so are they realy going to go around shooting the competition? No. They are not.

However, when a PvP group has a PmF, who most likely are not going to be clued up on the ins and outs of the BGS, (Becuz we r stupid gun jockiez) then get thier faction smashed by a bunch of PvE players who can completely deny them a means of defence in thier chosen playstyle, this is a one way street, and thats where the issue lies.

I would BGS, but I simply do not see the point in engaging in something where you don't get a taste of your opposition. No idea of numbers, no idea of methods they use, ETC.

It's very one sided. My argument here is about fixing that one sidedness.



I draw your attention to my current comment.

So you want special treatment for your PMF because you don't want to learn how the mechanics of it work.

You do realize that you're demanding that other people's preferred playstyle be neutralized, so that you can use YOUR playstyle to win.
Talk about 'one-sided'.

Generally if you were to see a large number of cmdrs with the same faction tags, or even an unusually large number of cmdrs in what are generally, backwater systems, it's a pretty good indicator.

If you needed verfication, you could easily look at the influence statistics to confirm it could you not?

'Faction tags'?
Where can I get those?

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

So you want special treatment for your PMF because you don't want to learn how the mechanics of it work.

You do realize that you're demanding that other people's preferred playstyle be neutralized, so that you can use YOUR playstyle to win.
Talk about 'one-sided'.





'Faction tags'?
Where can I get those?

I'm not demanding that at all, I'm in fact advocating everyone gets a level playing field so that folks can interact with the system at the same level. Do not try to re-purpose my comments. The PvEers can still interact with it in a PvE capacity, the difference being, that the PvPers are not then automatically shut out from the concept.

What you've just said there, is literally what you are claiming I'm saying.
"you don't want to learn how the mechanics of it work"

No, not everyone enjoys tedium admin or doing dull and vapid missions to retain thier influence. It's that simple.

And the faction tags that most people tend to put in thier ship ID or before thier ships name. Regardless, a high amount of player traffic (outside the norm), in your system is either one of three things.

A CG, a profitable trading/passenger run, or indeed, a BGS move.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I'm not demanding that at all, I'm in fact advocating everyone gets a level playing field so that folks can interact with the system at the same level. Do not try to re-purpose my comments. The PvEers can still interact with it in a PvE capacity, the difference being, that the PvPers are not then automatically shut out from the concept.

What you've just said there, is literally what you are claiming I'm saying.
"you don't want to learn how the mechanics of it work"

No, not everyone enjoys tedium admin or doing dull and vapid missions to retain thier influence. It's that simple.

And the faction tags that most people tend to put in thier ship ID or before thier ships name. Regardless, a high amount of player traffic (outside the norm), in your system is either one of three things.

A CG, a profitable trading/passenger run, or indeed, a BGS move.

You 'suggesting' that other players are forced to use a mode which suits your playstyle simply because you're part of a PMF, and because you find the part of the game that was specifically designed to influence the BGS to be tedious.

Forgive me for not finding that to be a compelling argument.

 

[Chrystoph]

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

It is not that I Need to resort to insults, it is merely that I feel people that utilize your methods should be rebutted.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

The one where there's an assumption of the availability of PvP players? In a game where PvP is entirely optional and rather ineffective with regard to the BGS?

Simply put, solutions that work in all modes render any contention that content requires to be limited to a single mode moot.

Well thats just wrong.

PvP is effective to defend a system, it is not to take one.

There is a big difference in its application.

Once again, this is about not forcing anyone to use one or another method, and giving people the option to choose which one they want to apply.

You 'suggesting' that other players are forced to use a mode which suits your playstyle simply because you're part of a PMF, and because you find the part of the game that was specifically designed to influence the BGS to be tedious.

Forgive me for not finding that to be a compelling argument.

As I would be expected too, I will repeat myself.

If it effects the whole, it should only be accesible in a mode where the whole resides.

If you don't find it compelling, I have no problem, but it is the truth.

Moreover, you are specifically advocating that people undergo said tedium, because it should be the only way to BGS. Can you not see the hypocrisy in what you are saying?

 

[sewerratuk]

It is not that I Need to resort to insults, it is merely that I feel people that utilize your methods should be rebutted.

What? Pointing out a flaw in your argument?

 

[Chrystoph]

Hiding and attacking infrastructure from someone else from inside without a real battlefield or soldiers vs soldiers has a name today....it's called terrorism
(Please be aware that this is no offense against ANY player, i make just a pure statement)

Depending on which side of the conflict you are on, it is also referred to as asymmetric warfare and is a recognized technique in law; as an example, a Special Operations force blowing up a fuel depot.

 

[smiths121]

Well thats just wrong.

PvP is effective to defend a system, it is not to take one.

There is a big difference in its application.

Once again, this is about not forcing anyone to use one or another method, and giving people the option to choose which one they want to apply.



As I would be expected too, I will repeat myself.

If it effects the whole, it should only be accesible in a mode where the whole resides.

If you don't find it compelling, I have no problem, but it is the truth.

Moreover, you are specifically advocating that people undergo said tedium, because it should be the only way to BGS. Can you not see the hypocrisy in what you are saying?

The whole does not reside in PC open. I might have to go into Morbius or get my console out to find some of the whole.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

As I would be expected too, I will repeat myself.

If it effects the whole, it should only be accesible in a mode where the whole resides.

If you don't find it compelling, I have no problem, but it is the truth.

Moreover, you are specifically advocating that people undergo said tedium, because it should be the only way to BGS. Can you not see the hypocrisy in what you are saying?

There is no mode in which the 'whole resides'. That's the purpose of the modes.

My arguments have been threefold:
BGS manipulation should be available in whatever mode people wish to play in - as per the design and marketing information from day 1
BGS imbalances (like security-murder) should be addressed by removing the imbalance, not by removing modes
PvP activities which materially impact the BGS should be introduced

There is no hypocrisy in there.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

The whole does not reside in PC open. I might have to go into Morbius or get my console out to find some of the whole.

In open, there is forced interaction, good or bad. IE: The whole. If people want to PG/Solo, I have no problem with that, up until the point it starts to effect others gameplay, then that mechanic should only be avalible in the mode where everyone can interact with said system and each other.

No need to be obtuse about it. That does'nt help anything.

 

[Chrystoph]

It is not that I Need to resort to insults, it is merely that I feel people that utilize your methods should be rebutted.

What? Pointing out a flaw in your argument?

Mmm, nice try, but you didn't rebut anything.

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

What I am referring to is the fact that rather than argue the issue, you attempted to shut down the opposition with mockery and derision.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

There is no mode in which the 'whole resides'. That's the purpose of the modes.

My arguments have been threefold:
BGS manipulation should be available in whatever mode people wish to play in - as per the design and marketing information from day 1
BGS imbalances (like security-murder) should be addressed by removing the imbalance, not by removing modes
PvP activities which materially impact the BGS should be introduced

There is no hypocrisy in there.

First off, you said not five comments ago, that people should have to learn the tedium to interact with the BGS. That is directly hypocritical.

What exactly do you suggest in terms of PvP related content that effect the BGS when the majority of players taking part are in solo or PG's?

Thirdly, cutting murder out of the equation would make it even less appealing to the people who like combat, the only option then is to do assasination missions, or in a war state, masscre missions, again handing the torch to the groups would would rather space truck in safety and have no interaction. If for no other reason than the time constraints involved.

People should have the option to attack and defend in ANY playstyle. There is no fairness in one group hiding in solo and attacking a group who's primary skills lay in combat, which they then cannot excersize effectively, because thier would be targets are there, but not there.

 

[Chrystoph]

If there were an effective smuggling mechanic, I could see part of the combat-centric crowds' point, since then it would be a matter of smuggling against combat. As it stands now, that doesn't exist. As a result, all you have to do is blockade that one location.

When you add to that the previously mentioned broken risk/reward matrix, the combat argument as it is suggested is irrevocably flawed.

The obvious way to resolve it would be to do away with rebuy, since it then merely is lost progress, but as it stands now, the haulage player loses twice for one kill.


Finally, and, as a separate issue, how do you differentiate between BGS activity, and someone that merely wanders into your virtual kingdom and acts against you because you are at war with someone and they want to make some money?