Not IF but WHY discussion around modes in the BGS

[-VR- Max Factor]

Nah I was talking about the powerplay stuff.

I don't think powerplay will go open only any time soon, but if it does I will not shed any tears.

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.

I don't see it as attacking another faction I see it as supporting a different faction apart from when a war/civil war breaks out. Then the odds are even anyway with regards to open, solo and PG's.

As to whether it's engaging gameplay, well that is purely subjective and not up to you to decide whether people like it or not. Personally I would love to see more love given to the BGS to make it a much better PvE environment and I would like to see Powerplay expanded upon and make it the go to PvP part of the game, so there is something for everyone.

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.

You still do not get it. It has nothing to do with advantage. It is not about winning and losing. That is not what the BGS is about even with PMF's. It's about a continuing circle of changing gameplay (I admit that it needs improvements) no matter what mode you are in.

 

[_Flin_]

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

Urban myth time much? Most of us fly open and we tend to win our BGS conflicts.
Open isnt even reliable as a intelligence tool,,let alone a tool for fighting in the BGS.

But we'd see "great" new tactics with OOBGS, like "how to block Outpost pads for a long long time".

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Look at em go.

 

[Screemonster]

Or maybe just limiting to 1-3 murder transaction per player per system per daily bgs tick
Bounty would still raise but no further transactions into the bgs if someone keeps killing

That's why I suggested having the murder transactions cancel out non-bountyhunting transactions in favour of the faction being attacked, rather than outright subtracting influence. It'd still be effective, but the effect would be capped at however many influence gains the defending faction would have made, and the negative effects would be resisted by performing an equivalent action. (ie. blowing up a bunch of ships - wanted instead of clean ones)

 

[the100thmonkey]

Look at em go.

You could deal with the counterarguments, but you don't.

*edit*
"Address" is actually better here in place of "deal with", which suggests that there's actually a "win" outcome.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

You could deal with the counterarguments, but you don't.

*edit*
"Address" is actually better here in place of "deal with", which suggests that there's actually a "win" outcome.

Please, ive counter argued their arguments into the ground.

They either arent involved in this type of play or dont want to be stopped while attacking another group of playings claiming its PVE.

These are the same people that listen to what they want to hear instead of what sandro says for years about giving incentives to open. These same people show up to every thread about this. Ive watched them do it. And they dont care about fair gameplay, using the rest of the game like engineers or specific modules or anything.

The ones that are involved dont want consequences for their actions.

Im probably the last guy you should be saying I havnt counter argued anything.

Not only have I counter argued but shown video, screenshots and much more about this topic. And im not the only one.

This comes down to if people should be able to defend themselves against the attackers. And if that answer is no then shame on the people for supporting unbalanced and fair gameplay.

 

[SubitusNex]

That's why I suggested having the murder transactions cancel out non-bountyhunting transactions in favour of the faction being attacked, rather than outright subtracting influence. It'd still be effective, but the effect would be capped at however many influence gains the defending faction would have made, and the negative effects would be resisted by performing an equivalent action. (ie. blowing up a bunch of ships - wanted instead of clean ones)

But then you create states where only the defender can raise influence and the attacker, at most, can only neutralize gains by the defender. Not really a balanced approach. Not saying that murder doesn't need definite adjustment, but that's not really it. And 1-3 murders per tick also seems a bit harsh, it needs adjusting so that it relates to player dedication not a really short cap.

 

[the100thmonkey]

Please, ive counter argued their arguments into the ground.

They either arent involved in this type of play or dont want to be stopped while attacking another group of playings claiming its PVE.

These are the same people that listen to what they want to hear instead of what sandro says for years about giving incentives to open. These same people show up to every thread about this. Ive watched them do it. And they dont care about fair gameplay, using the rest of the game like engineers or specific modules or anything.

The ones that are involved dont want consequences for their actions.

Im probably the last guy you should be saying I havnt counter argued anything.

Not only have I counter argued but shown video, screenshots and much more about this topic. And im not the only one.

This comes down to if people should be able to defend themselves against the attackers. And if that answer is no then shame on the people for supporting unbalanced and fair gameplay.

Simply reassserting a position is not addressing an argument.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Simply reassserting a position is not addressing an argument.

Ive addressed it. Its pretty simple.

 

[Screemonster]

But then you create states where only the defender can raise influence and the attacker, at most, can only neutralize gains by the defender. Not really a balanced approach. Not saying that murder doesn't need definite adjustment, but that's not really it. And 1-3 murders per tick also seems a bit harsh, it needs adjusting so that it relates to player dedication not a really short cap.

The attacker can lower the defending faction's influence by doing positive actions for other factions in the system. Either by switching to a clean ship, or by having an ally do it. Having every other faction in the system gain a boatload of inf+++++ missions while being only able to gain by having bountyhunting transactions (which can't be stacked the way missions can) is a pretty disadvantageous situation for the defender.

Only being able to gain influence from cashing in kills is the same BGS effect as being in an actual war state. The thing about it being completely unlimited (as well as the sheer number of stackable transactions) is that a single player in an engineered turretboat can rack up kills far faster than multiple players on the defending side, working their asses off, can possibly hope to counter.

This is one of the questions I had about the mobius PMF attack - did the attackers use authority-murder as one of their tools, or was it purely through the transactions that require you to actually dock? If the former then it's a well-known cheap trick and tanking a faction's influence that way really isn't an achievement. If the latter, then... working as intended? They showed up with overwhelming force, greater than the defenders could muster to counter it, and won the day fair and square.

 

[Sylveria]

Simply reassserting a position is not addressing an argument.

Well, he did provide some rather poorly done YouTube videos showing CMDRs simply playing the game, too. Oh look- someone on a landing pad, someone in a cockpit, a summary display showing that someone is playing the game. Oh, and a picture of Nicholas Cage and horribly dubbed audio mimicking SAW. And then an animation video about "forumdads" and all that.

Not that it really shows anything significantly interesting, mind you... just remarking on the "effort".

But yeah, it's a little difficult to take anyone seriously when all they do is posture and propagandize rather than providing actual detailed analysis with proof that backs up their claims.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Ive addressed it.

And you may even believe that.

 

[SubitusNex]

The attacker can lower the defending faction's influence by doing positive actions for other factions in the system. Either by switching to a clean ship, or by having an ally do it. Having every other faction in the system gain a boatload of inf+++++ missions while being only able to gain by having bountyhunting transactions (which can't be stacked the way missions can) is a pretty disadvantageous situation for the defender.

Only being able to gain influence from cashing in kills is the same BGS effect as being in an actual war state. The thing about it being completely unlimited (as well as the sheer number of stackable transactions) is that a single player in an engineered turretboat can rack up kills far faster than multiple players on the defending side, working their asses off, can possibly hope to counter.

All of those are valid concerns. But sometimes not always possible (such as in a lockdown state). I agree that murder needs addressing as it is overly easy and valuable for attackers. That said that does not address the problem of only being able to contribute to defense via bounty hunting. Perhaps this needs to be balanced on several sides instead of just one.

Also, if the influence numbers get corrected to player "time spent" it shouldn't really matter whether someone needs to dock or not. That's the thing, these things can be balanced without having the recurrence to hard line caps, one sided actions or elimination all together.

Sure, this is a discussion we can have, but in the end devs really have the right tools to do this job even if they have done them incorrectly in the past.

Another thing that can be looked at is at how things are or not stackable, and how easy or not targets are to find. Like the massacre pirate missions are currently bugged unless you bring an interdiction device. Or the impact of how massacre missions stack or not. Those are all valid points for balancing measures.

It's also highly dependent on if the system has a resource harvesting sites or how active a Nav beacon is. You can rack bounties pretty fast on those, but it's a matter of having the influence numbers balanced to be meaningful.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

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.

This is a game. It should cater to as many playstyles as are optional in said game. It's that simple.

And yes, it would be good to have such a system for PvP, but alas, if that player can do his murdering in PG/Solo then, yup, you guessed it.. It once again invalidates the playstyle.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is a game. It should cater to as many playstyles as are optional in said game. It's that simple.

With especial emphasis on the word "optional" - i.e. no player can dictate that the other player engages in it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I've said it often, this galaxy needs a civil war with PvP style combat to decide it. So those who desire challenging PvP can fill their boots.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I've said it often, this galaxy needs a civil war with PvP style combat to decide it. So those who desire challenging PvP can fill their boots.

This would be cool.
The states and governments should play a much larger role in what goes on in various systems.
That's a missed opportunity for combat and trade careers.

Rares and illegal goods come to mind.
Faster, more lucrative but dangerous routes vs safer, longer less profitable ones should be part of basic gameplay.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This would be cool.
The states and governments should play a much larger role in what goes on in various systems.
That's a missed opportunity for combat and trade careers.

Rares and illegal goods come to mind.
Faster, more lucrative but dangerous routes vs safer, longer less profitable ones should be part of basic gameplay.

Imps vs Feds is a dead give away. Already there's animosity in game and on forums between those. Plus, they got their own ship designs. They could fill the role of military governing power. It could link in with Powerplay, and even BGS, where PvE could decide the allegiance of a system, so you could get systems which doesn't want to be under Federal Rule, but the Military might is big enough to keep the discontent at bay. Or perhaps the system will rebel.

That would tie in and connect PvP and PvE and even the modes.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I've said it often, this galaxy needs a civil war with PvP style combat to decide it. So those who desire challenging PvP can fill their boots.

... and those that don't enjoy PvP can sit on the sidelines waiting for others to determine the political landscape of the galaxy?

Nah - that sounds like an Open Only PowerPlay wannabe....

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

... and those that don't enjoy PvP can sit on the sidelines waiting for others to determine the political landscape of the galaxy?

Not really, they can cause unrest, uprisings, diplomatic withdrawals, make systems too expensive to maintain by military force.

You just have to look at the current political landscape in the Middle East to see that military alone is not enough to control a society.