Not IF but WHY discussion around modes in the BGS

[Whitehair]

Remember when I said you guys only listen to what you want to hear. And not what they are telling you. I got a pretty good feeling this forum is about to learn a valuable lesson in the weeks to come.

How many? I'm sure I've seen you write this claim before......

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Remember when I said you guys only listen to what you want to hear. And not what they are telling you. I got a pretty good feeling this forum is about to learn a valuable lesson in the weeks to come.

Pretty much.

"You must dish out some rep before giving it to That90skid again"

Boo.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If you do one, the other will be questioned. Hence all the discourse.

I am aware that social interaction utterly terrifies people, but fortunatly, not the majority.

How many times have these Devs (No disrespect) said something and then gone back on it? Quite a few.

Regarding the modes and players effects on the BGS - none as yet - other than the PowerPlay investigation (and previous hand-grenade on the same topic over two years ago) - however nothing has changed since those.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Regarding the modes and players effects on the BGS - none as yet - other than the PowerPlay investigation (and previous hand-grenade on the same topic over two years ago) - however nothing has changed since those.

And there is a tiny minority who complain about a PvP based aspect going open only, so we are all in the same boat really are'nt we.

Oh and mysteriously you are now aware of the proposed changes to powerplay? I thought you said you did'nt hear about it?

 

[Robert Maynard]

And there is a tiny minority who complain about a PvP based aspect going open only, so we are all in the same boat really are'nt we.

We are all in the same boat - Frontier asks for opinions then does what it thinks is best for the game.

.... and forum users (of all play-style preferences) constitute a tiny minority of copies sold.

Oh and mysteriously you are now aware of the proposed changes to powerplay? I thought you said you did'nt hear about it?

You mean the Sandro's investigation?

Hello Commanders!

Firstly, thank you for your continued feedback. The passion here is both amazing, terrifying and humbling.

To reiterate a few points:

1. The reason we have opened this feedback channel is specifically to hear your opinions before we decide on how to proceed. Although any final decision will always settle on our shoulders, feedback you provide plays a massively significant role and nothing yet is set in stone.

2. We see a number of interesting issues that we're chewing over: accessibility of Powerplay modules, PMF and Powers, pad blocking to name a few. We'll keep you update with our thoughts.

3. We are looking at the *possibility* of Open only for Powerplay only. Not the BGS or anything else.

Of course I'm aware of the investigation - I have responded to both Flash Topic threads. I'm not aware of any decision having been announced on the topic, however.

All that has been said officially on the matter recently is this:

Hey Rubbernuke,

Sorry for the delay in replying, I know you're keen to hear about the Powerplay details.

The focused feedback thread was always meant to be exploring content and measure on certain hot topic questions. It was never confirmed as a Q4 update, although I can understand why you're asking if it will make it in. Sadly for all the reasons being discussed in the thread above, this also isn't an area that will make it into the Chapter Four update.

I know your history as a mega Powerplay dude of awesomeness, but I think it best to be as open as possible. I hope you understand.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

We are all in the same boat - Frontier asks for opinions then does what it thinks is best for the game.

I think the problem here is that some people see 'ask for opinions' and interpret it as 'voting for features'. I'm pretty sure that they've indicated on at least one livestream that although they listen to feedback and opinions, they're under no obligation to follow them.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

I think the problem here is that some people see 'ask for opinions' and interpret it as 'voting for features'. I'm pretty sure that they've indicated on at least one livestream that although they listen to feedback and opinions, they're under no obligation to follow them.

Indeed.

It's about making a case, not about "I think this so this it shall be".

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I hope you understand.

BWHAHAHAHA

 

[SubitusNex]

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.

Hmm... Welcome to Elite Dangerous. A bit of an exagerated analogy to what you are suggesting is imagine you are playing football (soccer for you sweet muricans), running is part of football but football has very specific rules in the way it evaluates your team's performance. What you are saying is that your group really likes running but doesn't seem to like it very much when other people decide to put the ball inside your goal. All of this because you're sprinting jockiez.

The BGS is inherent to Elite Dangerous as goals are to football, it's part of the rule system written in the code. The original game is built around it.

EDIT: That said, I'm not saying there can't be bonuses to PvP activity tied into the BGS, that could definitely be a thing, in fact I might even like some of that. For instance, killing the highest murdering player in a system should improve the defending party's influence. Sure, that can be a good thing.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

I...

But mark my words. No game continues like this when its one sided and the player groups dont have the chance to defend themselves against their attackers.

If they are going to continue to push this type of play. It will be balanced around. Thats just how that stuff works.
...

You know about the "explo nerf" discussions? They were exactly about defending against murder. Some half-knowledge BGS players (I should really say PMF players) complained that exploration data sold system by system (a mechanic that always existed, per page selling was a later addition) was too powerful. BGS groups that knew what they were talking about warned FDev directly and on the forums that nerfing explo would remove the last BGS-beneficial mechanic tied to station ownership, and would remove the last real effective defense against murder.

So what does FDev do? Nerf exploration while leaving murder alone, the one big massive OP mechanic around, in all modes. FDev further unbalanced it, instead. (Hence the returning talk of "murder redeeming/recognition" at an IF contact or some such.

Moreover, there is no resistance from BGS players as far as I know, to give some benefit to PvP events within the context of a conflict. But that will be hard to figure out mechanics-wise (easiest would be tied to faction pledging, but that doesnt exist yet) and in no way implies Open-only BGS.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

Indeed, and the mobius group stopped because they couldnt figure out who it was. If they went into open they could have.

But because they were happy sticking to their mode. They called off all engagements what so ever.

The reason they stopped was because they got pounded and they didnt know who it was. When they actually had the chance no one else has. A mode everyone has access to for defending themselves. Open. And they never thought about using it.

They were outplayed.

Why would you possibly expect the Mobius PMF, run by co-op PvE players, would suddenly come out in Open to PvP their opponents? They just couldn't handle the volume of contributions by their attackers. It happens. BGS wars are won when one side can no longer make the effort.

What possible difference would Mobius PMF go into Open have made?

 

[SubitusNex]

Remember when I said you guys only listen to what you want to hear. And not what they are telling you.

That's the very nature of human discourse...
I've had some high level discussions where I'm telling something to a person and they will tell me they are really sad about me wanting something completely different from what I was arguing. Human perception and communication is highly emotionally charged and also inherently flawed. All we can do is to try to understand each other a little better and try to avoid conflict caused by that very easy to create confusion.

Sorry for the off topic.

 

[SubitusNex]

BGS wars are won when one side can no longer make the effort.

I would argue that all wars are kind of won that same way.

However, perhaps there is some possible compromise in this, since Open-only bgs seems kind of a non implementable thing and honestly kind of mechanically ridiculous given the current instancing implementation. Perhaps there is some interest in reviewing the current BGS rule system in a way to foster direct confrontation.

There are several areas already addressed in this very thread, like using some PvP effort to counter murder. Perhaps instead of full on removing modes for the BGS (which I would argue is a bit absurd, as you could argue the same thing for other activities, such as just simple trading - "omg the pirates can't find traders to rob!") we can find ways to make the ruleset work where it promotes open play behavior?

Perhaps with squadrons we could do something like this, but given that we can't "join" a faction it becomes a bit hard for the ruleset to promote this to much. For instance, if we could join support for a faction, a mission could be spawned for an opposing faction (like a defending faction) of "destroy x players doing missions for", and perhaps gameplay like that would appease some minds?

Discuss...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Perhaps with squadrons we could do something like this, but given that we can't "join" a faction it becomes a bit hard for the ruleset to promote this to much. For instance, if we could join support for a faction, a mission could be spawned for an opposing faction (like a defending faction) of "destroy x players doing missions for", and perhaps gameplay like that would appease some minds?

Discuss...

How would it avoid collusion between "opposing" players?

What I'm getting at is that every player (if they've thought ahead) has access to a ship with a zero credit rebuy - so contrived losses can continue indefinitely.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

They were outplayed.

Why would you possibly expect the Mobius PMF, run by co-op PvE players, would suddenly come out in Open to PvP their opponents? They just couldn't handle the volume of contributions by their attackers. It happens. BGS wars are won when one side can no longer make the effort.

What possible difference would Mobius PMF go into Open have made?

You don't know what you are talking about which is obvious. The PMF that was over run was a very small PMF which doesn't actually have much to do with the Mobius private group apart from the fact that the players live in the Mobius private group. People in the Mobius Private group support lots of different factions.

I remember it well and it was very funny at the time. It was a complete own goal from the "attacking" group. And now that group has stopped attacking, that small PMF has now got a load of gameplay to do to build it back up.

Seems to be working exactly as intended.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

You don't know what you are talking about which is obvious. The PMF that was over run was a very small PMF which doesn't actually have much to do with the Mobius private group apart from the fact that the players live in the Mobius private group. People in the Mobius Private group support lots of different factions.

I remember it well and it was very funny at the time. It was a complete own goal from the "attacking" group. And now that group has stopped attacking, that small PMF has now got a load of gameplay to do to build it back up.

Seems to be working exactly as intended.

Eh... Max?

I am fully aware it was the Mobius PMF, which is why I said "Mobius PMF", a faction supported by a small number of people, who - I think is reasonable to say - were unlikely to go out into Open to PvP their opponents. As a small group, they couldn't withstand the attack, and therefore temporarily gave up.

Accurate so far?

My point was, that any assumption that things would have gone differently if there was only a single mode, or if they'd gone into Open, is ridiculous.

 

[SubitusNex]

How would it avoid collusion between "opposing" players?

What I'm getting at is that every player (if they've thought ahead) has access to a ship with a zero credit rebuy - so contrived losses can continue indefinitely.

No it wouldn't. And I would even argue that the way the insurance system works is inherently flawed because it is aimed at minimizing your losses all the time. And without a proper cost to a war, a war can't really be fought as the only thing you have to loose is time. If a "war effort" cost resources, killing a player would have a much bigger impact. That far I can agree with your point.

Doesn't mean that cannot change too. Any change to these systems obviously has to be thorough and comprehensive. The same way you wouldn't "make bgs open-only" without considering all of the consequences.

PS: The word collusion really went mainstream huh?

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Eh... Max?

I am fully aware it was the Mobius PMF, which is why I said "Mobius PMF", a faction supported by a small number of people, who - I think is reasonable to say - were unlikely to go out into Open to PvP their opponents. As a small group, they couldn't withstand the attack, and therefore temporarily gave up.

Accurate so far?

My point was, that any assumption that things would have gone differently if there was only a single mode, or if they'd gone into Open, is ridiculous.

Seemed like you were saying the opposite. I appologise , I mis-read. It would never have gone different if it was open only or if they went into open. They still would have lost due to overwhelming numbers against them. I don't know if they gave up or not as I am not a member of Mobius or support that faction. But it did supply them with gameplay which is what the BGS is meant to do which is a good thing and working as intended.

Hence the reason why I do not or will ever understand the calls for open only BGS. It makes llttle sense and removes much of the meaning behind a lot of the gameplay for PvE and PvE roleplayers and also PvP is not and never will be a good way to defend or attack a faction. PvE is always the best way.

I have no idea why 90skid thinks the BGS will go open only in a few weeks or ever. That is pretty funny and somewhat delusional.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Nah I was talking about the powerplay stuff.

I am saying it shouldn't be the attackers option to opt out of being defended against if they are attacking a player group. The only consequences for their actions is to undo what they did. Thats hardly engaging, balanced or fair gameplay at all.

But whatever, you guys do you.

I get why people dont want it to change. I wouldnt want the advantage taken away from me either.

 

[Sylveria]

Nah I was talking about the powerplay stuff.

I am saying it shouldn't be the attackers option to opt out of being defended against if they are attacking a player group. The only consequences for their actions is to undo what they did. Thats hardly engaging, balanced or fair gameplay at all.

But whatever, you guys do you.

I get why people dont want it to change. I wouldnt want the advantage taken away from me either.

1) And yet this isn't a PowerPlay thread. It's about the BGS.
2) Funny how this works, especially in Open play where it's de facto PvP, hmm?
3) Advantage like the attacker having the advantage in PvP, you mean? Kind of like how people claw, scratch and fight to avoid a PROPER PvP flagging system in Open play?

Perception is a wonderful thing, isn't it?