Not IF but WHY discussion around modes in the BGS

[WhoCares]

It would also be an effective pan-modal solution....

...until the murderer switches to solo mode to hand his "bonds" in

I think I already asked that question, but I wonder how open proponents want to handle random individual players. Like someone mentioned that the whole Colonia is currently one big PMF battleground. Shall whole Colonia BGS then become off-limits for the random players? I am not convinced....
... and the same is true for the reset of the bubble, as there is always somewhere a PMF or two nearby.

 

[El-bizor]

I like it as a practical solution, but I'm having trouble putting it into a lore-sense perspective!

As dystopic and cut-throat as Elite's universe is, I can't imagine every station having a facility to declare illegal kills. Some kind of black market transaction, maybe?

Food for thought, happy to discuss further elsewhere if it's off topic

I like it too
maybe a token payment from "a source" to confirm the killing for insurance purposes would make it a transaction to be handed in

 

[Jane Turner]

I like it as a practical solution, but I'm having trouble putting it into a lore-sense perspective!

As dystopic and cut-throat as Elite's universe is, I can't imagine every station having a facility to declare illegal kills. Some kind of black market transaction, maybe?

Food for thought, happy to discuss further elsewhere if it's off topic

Like getting paid for scalps. It would also give some relevance to taking a murderer down before they can hand in, beyond the retributive aspect.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Like getting paid for scalps. It would also give some relevance to taking a murderer down before they can hand in, beyond the retributive aspect.

But who are you handing these scalps in to?

I get the premise and I think it's good, I just need a plausible lore-thing to help it sit in my mind.

It's not something I want to handwave, or "because videogame" - there's already too much of that!

 

[Robert Maynard]

But who are you handing these scalps in to?

I get the premise and I think it's good, I just need a plausible lore-thing to help it sit in my mind.

It's not something I want to handwave, or "because videogame" - there's already too much of that!

Could be an official of another Faction that controls a dock in the system (or, possibly, an official of that second Faction in a dock controlled by it in another system if, and only if, the Faction has a presence but no controlled docks in the system in question).

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I like it as a practical solution, but I'm having trouble putting it into a lore-sense perspective!

As dystopic and cut-throat as Elite's universe is, I can't imagine every station having a facility to declare illegal kills. Some kind of black market transaction, maybe?

Food for thought, happy to discuss further elsewhere if it's off topic

If murder kills were only 'credited' when you pay off the bounty at an ISF then you have a lore-friendly mechanism which fits in with the existing in-game mechanisms and which perfectly balances the bounty-hunting method.

It has the additional benefit of working in anarchy systems where bounties can't be claimed for the 'defending' faction.

 

[Darth Tashnut]

In DD not the BGS forum since no one really shouts for it in the BGS forum

I see a lot of "demands" for open only, or open enhanced BGS effects. I'd like to try and unpick the reasons for the demand, past its not fair, or I don't like it, and try and pull out what it is that people/groups making this call are hoping to achieve, and use those as discussion points.


E.g. I had a long and interesting "debate" the other night on the subject and it transpired that the main reason was that the person I was chatting to was advocating open only BGS that they wanted to know who was undermining them. One solution to that might be for example top 5 boards for hostile players, or mission deliverers, which would be a lot more effective at informing who was working against a faction than putting a player in every platform, in every instance and watch who comes in and out.


So what are your reasons for making the call, specific reasons please. I'll do my best to collate them.

Knowing who is undermining my faction/who to contact for diplomatic resolution	Augmented top 5 boards, eg name and locaition of hostile commanders or combined positive and negative effects Information about state buckets
Make PvP more relvevant in player group BGS conflicts/Be able to take more direct action against players we know are working against us, rather than indirect grinding	Require murder to be redeemed to balance the effect Is there a way a PvP murder/bounty/war bond could have a bonus effect
I I want the game to feel more alive/adds to emergent gameplay	Find ways to allow consentual and BGS affecting PvP outside CZs in a way that doesn't affect people who have no interest. E.g. squadrons having hostile, neutal and ally status or allowing combat-keen players pledged to warring factions interact outsude CZs

[td]Need[/td]
[td]Suggestions[/td] [/td]
[/tr]

[tr]

The BGS should be open only, as it is impossible to defend a system against a bunch of cowardly players who undermine your systems from Solo or PG.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The BGS should be open only, as it is impossible to defend a system against a bunch of cowardly players who undermine your systems from Solo or PG.

It would be - in a game sold as requiring PvP for any of its features.

However, as this game requires PvP for none of its features, it isn't - and that's been clear from Frontier's published design information for over five and a half years.

.... and the ad hominem toward players who don't share a preference for PvP is, as ever, noted - and is unlikely to warm PvE players towards the desires of some PvP players.

 

[Jane Turner]

Or a "scalp" broker like the Combat bond broker in each system, someone a little seedy/shady

 

[Whitehair]

Or a "scalp" broker like the Combat bond broker in each system, someone a little seedy/shady

Suggest T.j. Fits the desciption perfectly. Also rumour has it that he is bald and looking for replacement hair.

 

[Jane Turner]

The BGS should be open only, as it is impossible to defend a system against a bunch of cowardly players who undermine your systems from Solo or PG.

Do you have any specific things you want to achieve from this that re not already highlighted in the 1st post?

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Do you have any specific things you want to achieve from this that re not already highlighted in the 1st post?

This is all or nothing jane. Not when the attacker decides they want to participate in open or not.

We went through this a few days ago with your wording. It doesnt mean what you guys said it meant in the player group docs.

Are we going to be able to defend ourselves when someone attacks another player group through the BGS or not?

And not a reactive grind like you guys suggest.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Are we going to be able to defend ourselves when someone attacks another player group through the BGS or not?

Defend through the BGS, like everyone can, certainly.

Defend using the optional play-style that is PvP - only if the attacker(s) share that preference - as there is no requirement on either party to engage in it (nor, given the clearly limited nature of Sandro's Open Only PowerPlay investigation, is there likely to be).

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

This is all or nothing jane. Not when the attacker decides they want to participate in open or not.

We went through this a few days ago with your wording. It doesnt mean what you guys said it meant in the player group docs.

Are we going to be able to defend ourselves when someone attacks another player group through the BGS or not?

By playing the BGS - Yes
By shooting other players - Not so much

There, that was simple and it only took 48 pages to get there.

Also, did you forget to log back into your astroturf account before you posted this?

 

[Marra Morgan]

The BGS should be open only, as it is impossible to defend a system against a bunch of cowardly players who undermine your systems from Solo or PG.

Impossible for the clueless, yes.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

By playing the BGS - Yes
By shooting other players - Not so much

There, that was simple and it only took 48 pages to get there.

You can stop players with PVP from doing the BGS against you though? How hard is that to understand? I know you people arent stupid. This is not a hard concept.

If you guys are suggesting the attacker gets to define the rules of engagement and the playergroup has to suck it up because they cant defned themselves to drive them out.

Ya'l' need to do some serious thinking here.

Literally the same conecpt of powerplay going open only. Its just a different framework. The cause and effects between players,missions and objectives are damn near the same.

Lets stop saying it cant be done or its impossible.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You can stop players with PVP from doing the BGS against you though? How hard is that to understand? I know you people arent stupid. This is not a hard concept.

If you guys are suggesting the attacker gets to define the rules of engagement and the playergroup has to suck it up because they cant defned themselves to drive them out.

Ya'l' need to do some serious thinking here.

Why should the defender get to define the rules of engagement?

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Why should the defender get to define the rules of engagement?

You cant be serious right now?

 

[GreyAreaUK]

If you guys are suggesting the attacker gets to define the rules of engagement and the playergroup has to suck it up because they cant defned themselves to drive them out.

The *game* defines the ROE, and the game says you can do it from any mode.

You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but that's your problem.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You cant be serious right now?

I am perfectly serious - the contention is that those who prefer PvP should be able to dictate how any Faction conflict is conducted.

No-one gets to dictate how another player should play the game.

As pointed out above, the game itself defines the rules of engagement.