Not IF but WHY discussion around modes in the BGS

[Mohrgan]

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 affects between players,missions and objectives are damn near the same.

Lets stop saying it cant be done or its impossible.

The BGS defines the rules of engagement. Foes can only attack through the BGS, defenders can only defend through the BGS. That's what I call perfect balance.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

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.

And I can ask for it to be balanced so there is proper attack and defend scenarios when people use those modes intentionally.

We all know people can be stopped from completing their tasks here.

And I am asking for that to happen when it comes to defending.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

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 affects between players,missions and objectives are damn near the same.

Lets stop saying it cant be done or its impossible.

The GAME defines the rules of engagement, not the players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And I can ask for it to be balanced so there is proper attack and defend scenarios when people use those modes intentionally.

We all know people can be stopped from completing their tasks here.

And I am asking for that to happen when it comes to defending.

You're asking for it to be PvP-gated. In a game where in-the-same-instance PvP is entirely optional.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

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.

If you're serious thats really sad you would encourage unfair gameplay. Because you dont want to get shot at in a video game while attacking another player group.

Thats not fair and balanced at all. And you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

And I can ask for it to be balanced so there is proper attack and defend scenarios when people use those modes intentionally.

We all know people can be stopped from completing their tasks here.

And I am asking for that to happen when it comes to defending.

And we can ask for it to be left alone.

 

[Mohrgan]

And I can ask for it to be balanced so there is proper attack and defend scenarios when people use those modes intentionally.

We all know people can be stopped from completing their tasks here.

And I am asking for that to happen when it comes to defending.

Translation: It must boil down to my interest alone, or I will call it 'unfair'.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

If you're serious thats really sad you would encourage unfair gameplay. Because you dont want to get shot at in a video game while attacking another player group.

Thats not fair and balanced at all. And you should be ashamed of yourself.

Have you considered making friends with people instead of shooting them?

Maybe then you wouldn't get attacked so much.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If you're serious thats really sad you would encourage unfair gameplay. Because you dont want to get shot at in a video game while attacking another player group.

Thats not fair and balanced at all. And you should be ashamed of yourself.

I play a game where the BGS is designed to be affected by player actions in any game mode, on any platform. I also play a game where PvP is an entirely optional play-style.

There's nothing inherently unfair about that - everyone can compete in the same way.

If the complaint is that PvP is not mandatory - then I'd suggest that this is not the game to fulfil that desire.

I am not ashamed of knowing and agreeing with the basis of design of the game that I backed.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

If you're serious thats really sad you would encourage unfair gameplay. Because you dont want to get shot at in a video game while attacking another player group.

Thats not fair and balanced at all. And you should be ashamed of yourself.

You really don't get that PvP in Elite is entirely optional and designed that way deliberately, do you?

You're wanting fundamental changes to the game made that would take features away from other players, just so you can have a tiny little bit more pew-pew.

No.

 

[Brrokk]

... 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.

That does seem to be a constant feature of this debate. :-(

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Classy.

It is. Its pretty funny tbh.

Ask to defend your systems via PVP. And the same people show up every time. Giving every excuse in the book when the concept is the same with powerplay and groups engaging each other.

And these guys are literally saying we shouldnt be able to defend ourselves via PVP.

Yeah its the funniest damn thing Ive ever seen. And they are doing everything they can to try and stop it.

 

[Mohrgan]

It is. Its pretty funny tbh.

Ask to defend your systems via PVP. And the same people show up every time. Giving every excuse in the book when the concept is the same with powerplay and groups engaging each other.

And these guys are literally saying we shouldnt be able to defend ourselves via PVP.

Yeah its the funniest damn thing Ive ever seen. And they are doing everything they can to try and stop it.

You are perfectly able to defend your stuffs via PvP. But, you can only expect to engage those that are interested in PvP. The game makes PvP optional by design, and choice. In reality the most effective defense, in all cases, is acting through the BGS.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

It is. Its pretty funny tbh.

Ask to defend your systems via PVP. And the same people show up every time. Giving every excuse in the book when the concept is the same with powerplay and groups engaging each other.

And these guys are literally saying we shouldnt be able to defend ourselves via PVP.

Yeah its the funniest damn thing Ive ever seen. And they are doing everything they can to try and stop it.

No, we're saying people shouldn't be forced to PvP just so you acn 'defend' your faction.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

You are perfectly able to defend your stuffs via PvP. But, you can only expect to engage those that are interested in PvP. The game makes PvP optional by design, and choice. In reality the most effective defense, in all cases, is acting through the BGS.

Im aware of how the game is. I am asking to make changes to the game so the attacker has to face consequences for their actions based on skill. They very well may beat me. And thats fine.

But at least I can have a chance at facing my attackers affecting our systems.

And that is perfectly acceptable to ask for balancing changes in a game like this.

No, we're saying people shouldn't be forced to PvP just so you acn 'defend' your faction.

You guys sure make a poor case.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You guys sure make a poor case.

It's the only case required - in a game that does not require any player to engage in PvP.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

It's the only case required - in a game that does not require any player to engage in PvP.

For now.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

You guys sure make a poor case.

You never struck me as someone open to listening to other people's opinions.

*shrug*

 

[Robert Maynard]

For now.

We'll see, as ever, in time (or not, as the case may be).

 

[Mohrgan]

Im aware of how the game is. I am asking to make changes to the game so the attacker has to face consequences for their actions based on skill. They very well may beat me. And thats fine.

But at least I can have a chance at facing my attackers affecting our systems.

And that is perfectly acceptable to ask for balancing changes in a game like this.



You guys sure make a poor case.

I am advocating for a different form of skill. I am advocating for the game not to be reduced to an FPS. You have access to all of the tools necessary to grow and defend a PAF, yet you only seem to appreciate one method of play. Simply asserting a preference, because it isn't a 'fairness' issue, is not enough to strip player agency from those who prefer not to PvP.