Not IF but WHY discussion around modes in the BGS

[Jmanis]

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.

You want to force interaction when FD have already stated the BGS is a way for players to indirectly interact.

Open does not guarantee seeing your enemy in space due to:
- instancing
- PS4/XBOX/PC absence of communication

All you'll end up with is PvP-fit ships sitting in a system posting on forums to complain about how they never see targets.

As I mentioned many posts back... if you want some sort of PvP related effect that isn't exploitable, fine, but good luck, it won't be easy. But it must not affect the ability for all players regardless of mode to interact with the BGS, because the BGS is about creating a living, breathing universe, not facilitating PvP.

 

[rekurzion]

PvP does not always mean shooting at each other, but it is one aspect of it and should in my opinion not be separated from PvP activities.

a better term would be 'proxy PvP'. Eve has described their economy as such: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/21/eve-economist-interview/

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)

more than terrorism. you would be hard pressed to find any modern military whose primary form of warfare is to march head first into battle. intelligence, deception, undermining are tactics used in life today.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

You want to force interaction when FD have already stated the BGS is a way for players to indirectly interact.

Open does not guarantee seeing your enemy in space due to:
- instancing
- PS4/XBOX/PC absence of communication

All you'll end up with is PvP-fit ships sitting in a system posting on forums to complain about how they never see targets.

As I mentioned many posts back... if you want some sort of PvP related effect that isn't exploitable, fine, but good luck, it won't be easy. But it must not affect the ability for all players regardless of mode to interact with the BGS, because the BGS is about creating a living, breathing universe, not facilitating PvP.

Quite frankly, the idea of something designed to make players interact indirectly is outdated not to mention, irrelevant in todays world, things and situations change.

It would be nice to have a BGS mechanic that revolves around actual player contact, but realistically, outside of open only BGS, there is'nt ever going to be one, so once again, we get back to the point of shutting a subset out of the activity. Which is the issue of the discussion. In such that you either, learn the tedium of the current BGS, or if you're not into that, you don't BGS. There is no allowance for folks who don't want to spend hours doing vapid missions or hnting absurdly thick NPC's. Hence why the issue is dicussed and brought up so often.

Instancing, I have it on good authority, is getting better, and likely, with the introduction of squadrons, will be a very different beast to what we see today.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

Having to do the cargo trip in solo mode then logging in open to get the mission board is gonna be so much fun.

 

[Jmanis]

Quite frankly, the idea of something designed to make players interact indirectly is outdated not to mention, irrelevant in todays world, things and situations change.

Outdated by what?

Show me a post or statement from FD explicitly stating this is no longer the case for the BGS.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Outdated by what?

Show me a post or statement from FD explicitly stating this is no longer the case for the BGS.

Outdated in the sense that no other game uses such a mechanic.

If you effect someone else's game in literally anything else, you have to do it directly.

 

[Jmanis]

Outdated in the sense that no other game uses such a mechanic.

If you effect someone else's game in literally anything else, you have to do it directly.

So, you don't. So it's not the case.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

So, you don't. So it's not the case.

Really?

You're going to go down that route.

All logic and reason aside huh?

Fair enough. Personally, I can't see any other examples of games that employ such ridiculous setups for a peice of content. Can you? No.

Moreover.. Is'nt that the point of this debate? If it were so clear cut, there would be no debate.

 

[Jmanis]

Really?

You're going to go down that route.

All logic and reason aside huh?

Fair enough. Personally, I can't see any other examples of games that employ such ridiculous setups for a peice of content. Can you? No.

I'm not the one claiming the BGS is something it isn't. You want what those other games do, go play those games, not my fault you bought this game expecting something it isn't.

The BGS creates a malleable universe, and is absolutely not the underpinning framework for PvP in Elite.

As i said in my first post... those wanting the BGS to be open-only fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of the BGS.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

I'm not the one claiming the BGS is something it isn't. You want what those other games do, go play those games, not my fault you bought this game expecting something it isn't.

The BGS creates a malleable universe, and is absolutely not the underpinning framework for PvP in Elite.

Ugh.

Where exactly did I claim it was the "underpinning framework for PvP"?

I'm advocating fairness. IE: EVERYONE gets to use thier preffered playstyle, as opposed to a subset being pushed out of the content, if for no other reason, than people are utterly phobic of interation, be it good or bad.

Quite frankly your argument is ridiculous.

 

[Screemonster]

Really?

You're going to go down that route.

All logic and reason aside huh?

Fair enough. Personally, I can't see any other examples of games that employ such ridiculous setups for a peice of content. Can you? No.

Moreover.. Is'nt that the point of this debate? If it were so clear cut, there would be no debate.

aren't you the guy who was complaining and accusing trade ships of "trolling" him by carrying SLFs because they stopped you from being able to pick them off with impunity in your viper?

Other players aren't your content.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

aren't you the guy who was complaining and accusing trade ships of "trolling" him by carrying SLFs because they stopped you from being able to pick them off with impunity in your viper?

Other players aren't your content.

Oh contrere, actually, if you're going to come into MY home system, and screw with MY element of the BGS, does that not mean you are making me your content? Or at least my PLAYER made faction.

I think you'll find it does.

Try again please. Keep it on topic aswell.

(EDIT Also, no, I don't attack trade vessels as a general rule, I actually retain a fairly decent sense of honour and only attack combat vessels. :3

 

[Jmanis]

Ugh.

Where exactly did I claim it was the "underpinning framework for PvP"?

I'm advocating fairness. IE: EVERYONE gets to use thier preffered playstyle, as opposed to a subset being pushed out of the content, if for no other reason, than people are utterly phobic of interation, be it good or bad.

Quite frankly your argument is ridiculous.

You're the one who disagreed with the assertion that the BGS was for indirect interactions between players. Your entire argument about making everything open-only is so that that interaction can become direct.

Call my argument ridiculous all you like... I'm presenting no argument, just repeating what FD said. You disagreed with that by claiming it's irrelevant, and can't back it up with anything solid. That's for you to sort out.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

You're the one who disagreed with the assertion that the BGS was for indirect interactions between players. Your entire argument about making everything open-only is so that that interaction can become direct.

Call my argument ridiculous all you like... I'm presenting no argument, just repeating what FD said. You disagreed with that by claiming it's irrelevant, and can't back it up with anything solid. That's for you to sort out.

That might be thier justification of it in the current state, but it seems many disagree, like, alot disagree, that should tell you everything you need to know.

(Yes, I am aware that some folks just want more people to shoot at, but it is often the minority, most just want to be able to interact with the BGS in a way that does'nt mean putting themselves through excess tedium)

As for not backing it up with anything solid, I would think that the very case that no other game employs such a mechanic, is evidence enough.

 

[Screemonster]

Just because no other hobby employs the mechanic of casting a line into water doesn't mean fishing should be made more like other hobbies.

In fact, "every other game does it THIS way" is more of an argument that you should go and play those games, and leave those of us who like to play THIS game to play it.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

That might be thier justification of it in the current state, but it seems many disagree, like, alot disagree, that should tell you everything you need to know.

(Yes, I am aware that some folks just want more people to shoot at, but it is often the minority, most just want to be able to interact with the BGS in a way that does'nt mean putting themselves through excess tedium)

As for not backing it up with anything solid, I would think that the very case that no other game employs such a mechanic, is evidence enough.

So if your motivation ISN'T shooting other people, what difference does it make whether they're in Open or not?

If you want PvP to be meaningful in the BGS, you can have that without changing the mode mechanics.

 

[Roybe]

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.

Clearly, they (the PVP player) can be ignored and people can still play from other matchmaking choices (modes)...so, if you (and some other people I know) would admit it, the game, in its current manifestation, is completely egalitarian towards the fight against interlopers....everyone just has to move PVE trophies...those that move more, 'win'.

 

[Roybe]

So if your motivation ISN'T shooting other people, what difference does it make whether they're in Open or not?

If you want PvP to be meaningful in the BGS, you can have that without changing the mode mechanics.

They just need a BGS bucket!

 

[Mangal Oemie]

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

efficiency

 

[Mangal Oemie]

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

Traffic.

Why do people on the Open Only BGS side always ignore traffic? Always this binary assumption of me and the other side. The BGS don't work that way, unless you're in a very very low traffic area.

The vast majority of opposition BGS players face is random traffic. CMDRs just doing their thing, here one day, gone the next. That major jump in that quiet system with some ring planets? Most likely some random passing by and doing some BH... Or drop in any random CZ, or the mission board for that one faction in Famine/Outbreak/Boom etc. was very lucrative...

Open only BGS removes about half of all player activity from the background simulation. Would you like the galaxy to be more static?

Nobody blames the Open player for patrolling their area (fruitlessly). Knock yourself out. Why do you need to blame others that are playing the same BGS game?

-- by the way, the "afraid" line is so old and tired. It's mostly "can't be bothered", "not efficient for my game play/session goals", etc. CZs in Open with more than 4 is pointless, as you just end up waiting for targets to spawn, followed by 30 secs of mayhem. And without massive increase in landing pads, especially on outposts, the BGS will likely grind to a halt as people wait endlessly for a docking spot.

Open Only BGS = static, non-moving BGS, not more exciting, more interactive BGS.