Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Also, combat that includes PvP does note preclude PvE - and could take place in any mode.
Not IF but WHY discussion around modes in the BGS
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
Also, combat that includes PvP does note preclude PvE - and could take place in any mode.
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
If they're able to do that whilst playing in Solo/PG then the Open-Only crowd will just complain that they're being attacked and demand that everything is done in Open.
You're not solving anything, just changing the topic of the argument.
Due to the availability of players, it probably can't preclude PvE. But I would still restrict it to Open, simply because I think it would be cool to have PF CMDRs duking it out, so they need to be as visible as can be.
The aim is to create actual meaningful PvP. Meaningful as in the action of combat is the deciding factor, rather than reactionary as OOPP or OOBGS would be. I agree with many Open Only proponents that PvP needs to have an outlet. I disagree that this outlet is best achieved by restricting inherently PvE features in a mode where PvP could take place.
The Open Only crowd can kiss my hiney. I'm supporting the Desire for Challenging and Meaningful PvP crowd
TheMegaTurnip
Banned
I have an easily implementable thing to solve at least some of the issue.
If a player has gained noteriety. They are mode locked into open play. Erefore. Those who are killing system sec', are then targetable by members of the PmF.
It does'nt nearly solve the whole issue, but it is for sure a constructive start.
If a player has gained noteriety. They are mode locked into open play. Erefore. Those who are killing system sec', are then targetable by members of the PmF.
It does'nt nearly solve the whole issue, but it is for sure a constructive start.
In order for the faction system to actually have some sort of meaning they would actually need to incorporate some sort of choice and consequence system instead of the "open loyalty" system we currently have. being able to have friendships with every faction based on reputation and gain ranks through either Federal Imperial or Alliance currently doesn't give the faction system any meaning.
There really can't be a consequence system for players if there is a state of war between factions and it's ignored because of the reputation system. There is absolutely no significant impact on players as it currently stands. A state of lockdown is a minor inconvenience at best currently as the player can just continue onto another system. If I can be allied with all three- Alliance Federation and Imperial then what real impact does that have on me as a player unless I am in a CZ?
In my opinion giving the faction system itself significant meaning is the first step in any real solution to providing and experience that has impact on any player regardless of style or mode. then and only then does it make sense to have a discussion as to what system (PP, etc.) belongs where. When the player chooses a side- make it mean something. They shouldn't be able to fly willy-nilly into an opposed system and run missions for an opposing side. They should be hunted down in those systems by NPC's and players alike. Then the "control" systems between factions would actually make some sort of sense- and affect player outcome in any mode, whether PvE or PvP. No one should be able to gain ranks (whether "honorary" or not) through all 3 major factions at once. Federation and want an Imperial Clipper? Tough crap, switch sides or deal with it. Want an FGS but you're Imperial? Same. Flew into a system that's currently controlled by the Empire and you're a Fed? Oh boy you're in for it. Oops.
Make a player's choices MEAN something.
Just my two cents for what it's worth.
There really can't be a consequence system for players if there is a state of war between factions and it's ignored because of the reputation system. There is absolutely no significant impact on players as it currently stands. A state of lockdown is a minor inconvenience at best currently as the player can just continue onto another system. If I can be allied with all three- Alliance Federation and Imperial then what real impact does that have on me as a player unless I am in a CZ?
In my opinion giving the faction system itself significant meaning is the first step in any real solution to providing and experience that has impact on any player regardless of style or mode. then and only then does it make sense to have a discussion as to what system (PP, etc.) belongs where. When the player chooses a side- make it mean something. They shouldn't be able to fly willy-nilly into an opposed system and run missions for an opposing side. They should be hunted down in those systems by NPC's and players alike. Then the "control" systems between factions would actually make some sort of sense- and affect player outcome in any mode, whether PvE or PvP. No one should be able to gain ranks (whether "honorary" or not) through all 3 major factions at once. Federation and want an Imperial Clipper? Tough crap, switch sides or deal with it. Want an FGS but you're Imperial? Same. Flew into a system that's currently controlled by the Empire and you're a Fed? Oh boy you're in for it. Oops.
Make a player's choices MEAN something.
Just my two cents for what it's worth.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Can notoriety be gained by destroying NPCs?
If so then no.
My point being, no one should be forced to play in a game mode not of their choosing simply for playing the PvE game - and it would not work anyway for console players without premium platform access as they *can* only play in Solo.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I disagree with the contention that an Open only feature should dominate an aspect of the game shared by all players.
Sure. So, your solution is that if you gain notoriety you don't have access to playing the game outside of open. So let's say, you gain notoriety for some reason (I've had it happen in missions even though they said otherwise because of some extra NPCs spawning), and then you decide that since you gain notoriety you are going to go explore a CG or do new guardian content. And suddenly you have to compete with everyone on that system. How is that supposed to be a fair approach? That at the very least only opens another big can of worms.
Honestly, if you're locking anyone into open play, you might as well lock everything and everyone to it. It's either a full choice or no choice at all, being descriminatory about who can do what on arbitrary metrics such as notoriety, bounties, fines, when you last took a leak sounds quite honestly pretty absurd.
And it still fails to address any the actual issues being discussed here.
What it comes down to is the simple fact that we actually don't have PvE - there would be no discussion if it was just PvE. What we have is PvEvP, with E being the BGS. The whole discussion boils down to a bypass to the BGS.
I also deem it funny that some people always insist on being able to defend themself in open. I wonder what will happen if they attack the system of a PvEvP PMF - shall those suddenly be forced into open combat as well, with their completely inadequate PvEvP ships - maybe they are part of the no-engineering club as well - tough luck, I guess...
I also deem it funny that some people always insist on being able to defend themself in open. I wonder what will happen if they attack the system of a PvEvP PMF - shall those suddenly be forced into open combat as well, with their completely inadequate PvEvP ships - maybe they are part of the no-engineering club as well - tough luck, I guess...
The problem is if there are no open only features, open (and by extension PvP) is reduced to an irrelevancy. As pvp is then pointless, ganking for lols becomes the go-to playstyle.
It's one of the reasons why I would like PP to be open only or open encouraged. But to be honest I don't think it will stop the ganking. People gank because the enjoy it.
The issue with OOPP for me is that the mechanics of ganking are still there. You will mainly get combat ships vs mission runners. Plus you are still dependent on PvEers initiating procedures. No PvEers, no play for PvPers.
Which is why I'd have opted for a mechanic that PvPers themselves can initiate, and tack that onto Powerplay and/or even the BGS. PvP needs to have it's own outlet, not have to piggyback on PvE.
But if a player group decides they're going to mess up another groups BGS, then ganking is a legit way of defending against it. It should all factor into the decision to start open hostility with another group, why should mission runners be protected if they know what they're doing?
You can't have a one-sided PvP mechanic though... I'm not sure how you would make a dedicated PvP side of PP or BGS when only one side turns up?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While ganking may be one possible response, it remains one that relies on the opposition being in the same instance / mode / instance / platform, at the same time, to be effective - which, bearing in mind that PvP is entirely optional, might be a rather ineffective use of the defender's time.
.... and if PvP group's BGS belongs to them so does the BGS of the PvE group belong to them.
Yes there is an element of that.. but a lot of the CG ganking for example would be reduced because currently its the only reliable place you can really go for organic PvP really. If Powerplay worked as it originally intended then any place where undermining is happening would be a potential hotspot. Combat and ganking in these areas would also serve a purpose.
Instancing is not a reason not to try and make open only features. If there is a chance of player opposition then that is better than nothing. Platform is also not an issue because there is no reason a player group can't have players on PC, Xbox and PS4.
Well every group (PvE & PvP) who has a faction in the game acts like they do so I guess... If the factions don't really have anything to do with the player group then is there really any point to adding them to the game? Would it not be a total waste of time?
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Instancing is not the only reason. The fact that one Dev has indicated that Frontier are well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP is though.
.... which is probably why an existing feature with low participation (among the player-base as a whole) would seem to be the single candidate for an investigation into Open only / Open bonus.
My point was, you need those mission runners. Without them, you got nothing to gank, there is no game for PvPers.
I have wondered about this as well in the past. And there's no easy solution. Possibilities could be (still spit-balling)
- Presence of a military force slowly creates influence. Akin to parking an aircraft carrier on the shore of a country when you want to apply pressure. But just being in a system twiddling your thumbs isn't good gameplay.
- A mechanic where you show the local forces there's a new sheriff in town. Which means PvE against the local forces, but as a PvPer you can instigate that action. It's up to the defending faction to respond to this, but then you would have PvPers responding to potential PvPers.
All of this is weakened by the usual suspects, timezones, instancing, platform and size of the bubble. But that's why I opted large factions (Fed vs Imp) to increase the number of participants being online. And a way to alert a faction one of it's systems is under attack. Which is also problematic.
I don't have all the answers you see
Yes and no. Open isn't irrelevant, it's just one of the modes. I appreciate being able to switch between Solo when I want a quiet game, PG to meet up with a few friends or Open when I want to meet up with a bunch of people e.g. from Facebook. It's not irrelevant to me, it just doesn't have the macho nature that some seem to see in it ("I only play Open, aren't I tough etc.") I don't really identify Open with PvP.
As for PvP, it's not my interest but for those who like it, surely it's not irrelevant. I still wonder why those who like PvP don't organise it, rather than going around randomly interdicting people or trying to maintain that game features like BGS need to have it bolted on. I like to think well of people so I hope it's not universally true that they want easy targets rather than PvP opponents.
Last edited:
Ganking for the lulz will always be the go-to playstyle for some. That's why games like Fortnite have become so popular, after all.
There's insufficient evidence for granting "exclusive" features actually changing this.