If Combat Logging is a bad thing. Then why is it okay to attack a player faction without being seen?

[AbsinthSvK]

So an uber engineered FDL only interdicting non-combat vessels is also similar according to you?

It meets the requirements you stated.

uber Engineering is part of the : "this game is always going to be fundamentally broken and pointless, run by a team that does not understand multiplayer games."

Elite multiplayer is some kind of bad taste multiplayer soap with all kinds of ingredience but missing fundamental ingrediencie.
Im not defending PvP part of the game, i lost hope some time ago. Just enjoing game as it is, and just saying pvp part is broken.

 

[Chrystoph]

Just when you think you have all the answers.

I change all the questions.

Sorry, no, it is still the same. I want to kill people as my preferred response, never mind that it is the least efficient method of achieving my "stated" objective.

I say stated because we both know that you cannot succeed with this tactic in defending territory. After all, no matter how hard you deny it, this won't solve timing, platform separation, etc so it really amounts to a desire for human targets.

 

[Theodrid]

Essentially what the current system advocates, is forcing players to play in a certain manner. This is where the argument lies.

Forcing someone to play without excersizing thier chosen playstyle, in fact, circumventing it entirely (IE: Not giving them the option), is bad form.

PvP in any sort of effectivity in the BGS is only usable in a defensive manner, you cannot win at the BGS attacking in such a manner, that is only effective in PvE. (Even then, you still need folks to be commiting transations to the cause to have a decent chance of defending the system)

That should not mean that PvP is permitted to be entirely avoided via sitting in PG/Solo mode whatsoever.

This is an equality issue, if someone chooses to use PvP to defend against someone attacking thier system, then they should be able to do so. Logging into solo/PG to prevent this is along the same lines as combat logging.

"I don't agree you should be able to shoot me, so I'm going to attack your faction from Solo/PG and force you to defend in a manner to which you find vapid and boring, don't want to play ball? Then best hope other members of your faction will, or we win" That is a very bias setup if I ever did see one.

"I don't agree you should be able to shoot me, so I'm going to attack your faction from Solo/PG and force you to defend in a manner to which you find vapid and boring, don't want to play ball? Then best hope other members of your faction will, or we win" That is a very bias setup if I ever did see one.

"I don't agree we should have to move PVE tokens so I'm going to advocate rewriting the game/modes entirely, I'm going to try and impose my 'everything is a nail' approach on everyone, even those that find such play vapid and boring. Don't want to play ball? Then best hope I don't instance with you or don't play. A much more biased setup than what we currently have.

See how that works?

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

It's relatively simple to narrow down the type of attack, from what I have read (written by those more conversant with the BGS than I), based on the BGS results - at which point the attack can, as I suggested, be defended against through the BGS.

Based on the results? if you see results then it is to late you are then already in reactionary state.

But one of the biggets mysteries stays:

Why is it judged not ok to force other people into PvP?
Why is it judged ok, to force other people in PvE.

because when a solo or PG gamer starts affecting a faction the onyl way to counter is PvE. So PvE gamers force PVE onto those anting to aprticipate in the BGS, but they have to PvE it.
Why is it considered wrong to do the same just with PvP?

That makes no sense form a pure point of fairness and equality.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

"I don't agree we should have to move PVE tokens so I'm going to advocate rewriting the game/modes entirely, I'm going to try and impose my 'everything is a nail' approach on everyone, even those that find such play vapid and boring. Don't want to play ball? Then best hope I don't instance with you or don't play. A much more biased setup than what we currently have.

See how that works?

I don't see how giving people full agency over thier gameplay, and the choice of many potentially effective methods is more bias than what we currently have, no.

I have already stated that 90% of the community, would not shoot you if you were visibly BGSing in thier system, these threads make that very clear.

But why should the ones that might do (And I stress MIGHT do, as it is not always the most useful thing), be shut out from using thier chosen playstyle to effect?

That is about as bias as the system could get

 

[Theodrid]

I don't see how giving people full agency over thier gameplay, and the choice of many potentially effective methods is more bias than what we currently have, no.

It's not everybody you are giving that full agency to though is it, it is the selective few.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Based on the results? if you see results then it is to late you are then already in reactionary state.

But one of the biggets mysteries stays:

Why is it judged not ok to force other people into PvP?
Why is it judged ok, to force other people in PvE.

because when a solo or PG gamer starts affecting a faction the onyl way to counter is PvE. So PvE gamers force PVE onto those anting to aprticipate in the BGS, but they have to PvE it.
Why is it considered wrong to do the same just with PvP?

That makes no sense form a pure point of fairness and equality.

It's "OK" simply because the game offers mandatory PvE and entirely optional PvP.

Players who engage in BGS activities are engaging in a PvE based, indirectly competitive, asynchronous game feature - their personal play-style preference does not change that.

 

[CMDR Carbo]

Based on the results? if you see results then it is to late you are then already in reactionary state.

But one of the biggets mysteries stays:

Why is it judged not ok to force other people into PvP?
Why is it judged ok, to force other people in PvE.

because when a solo or PG gamer starts affecting a faction the onyl way to counter is PvE. So PvE gamers force PVE onto those anting to aprticipate in the BGS, but they have to PvE it.
Why is it considered wrong to do the same just with PvP?

That makes no sense form a pure point of fairness and equality.

Because it is how the game was designed. PvP is optional. PvE is mandatory (except you fly around in a Sidewinder forever).

 

[AbsinthSvK]

Why is it judged not ok to force other people into PvP?
Why is it judged ok, to force other people in PvE.

watch out, these are dangerous questions here. Prepare to be stoned.

 

[Lateralus]

Sorry, no, it is still the same. I want to kill people as my preferred response, never mind that it is the least efficient method of achieving my "stated" objective.

I say stated because we both know that you cannot succeed with this tactic in defending territory. After all, no matter how hard you deny it, this won't solve timing, platform separation, etc so it really amounts to a desire for human targets.

If open was the only means of BGS attacking a system, then killing the attackers over and over until they stopped or got sidewindered would be pretty effective...

 

[Robert Maynard]

If open was the only means of BGS attacking a system, then killing the attackers over and over until they stopped or got sidewindered would be pretty effective...

It would be, if they were playing at the same time on the same platform - and the matchmaking system (affected by Wings, friends lists, block lists, ping times, connection quality) chose to put them in the same instance - and were easily identifiable as attackers.

However it's not - and, from the limits Sandro rather clearly placed on the scope of the current Open only investigation (i.e. PowerPlay only), unlikely to become so.

Then there's the inconvenient truth that even the lowly starter Sidewinder can be effective running Inf+++++ missions (that don't require a lot of cargo space) - with, potentially, a zero credit rebuy.

 

[KillaALF]

If open was the only means of BGS attacking a system, then killing the attackers over and over until they stopped or got sidewindered would be pretty effective...

No it wouldn't - how would you even know who is attacking you? Maybe the CMDR you just killed was in fact working for your faction and not against it, you'd never know. What if s/he was already flying a 0 rebuy Sidewinder? How effective are you then?

 

[Lateralus]

Why is it judged not ok to force other people into PvP?
Why is it judged ok, to force other people in PvE.

Because if you support PvP you're automatically wrong and are probably a psychopath irl of course...

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

If open was the only means of BGS attacking a system, then killing the attackers over and over until they stopped or got sidewindered would be pretty effective...

Then why bother with the BGS at all?
If PvP is the way to win BGS wars then just skip all this unnecessary trading and mission-running malarkey and jump straight to the combat.

FDev should just add PMFs and 'territory' to CQC and all the OOBGS proponents can go there and leave the rest of us to our 'tedious grind'.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

It's not everybody you are giving that full agency to though is it, it is the selective few.

But it's not is it?

It's giving EVERYONE the ability to BGS.

You can still PvE and mission run, the only difference is that the PvP factions can actually stop you should you encroach on thier territory. Generally they are in the smaller number, so odds are, you are still going to be able to progress as a faction, it just is'nt going to be a cakewalk any longer. (They will still need someone running the PvE side of things. The diffence being is that EVERYONE is included in the same mechanics with whichever playstyle they choose to use.

Then there is absolutley 0 inequality.

That is giving everyone the same level and exactly the same amount of agency. IE: Not forcing players to play in any certain way other than what they see fit.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's giving EVERYONE the ability to BGS.

We all already have the ability to affect BGS - it's just that it's not restricted to those who prefer an optional play-style - and, being optional, other players don't need to engage in that play-style to affect the BGS.

What is being asked for is the ability to directly oppose anyone affecting the BGS - which is a proposal to remove player choice regarding an optional play-style.

 

[Theodrid]

But it's not is it?

It's giving EVERYONE the ability to BGS.

You can still PvE and mission run, the only difference is that the PvP factions can actually stop you should you encroach on thier territory. Generally they are in the smaller number, so odds are, you are still going to be able to progress as a faction, it just is'nt going to be a cakewalk any longer. (They will still need someone running the PvE side of things. The diffence being is that EVERYONE is included in the same mechanics with whichever playstyle they choose to use.

Then there is absolutley 0 inequality.

That is giving everyone the same level and exactly the same amount of agency. IE: Not forcing players to play in any certain way other than what they see fit.

How is that giving full agency to PVE players that want to play the BGS but don't want to shot at?

Everybody can BGS right now, in any mode they want, it's about PVE tokens, do it or don't.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Then why bother with the BGS at all?
If PvP is the way to win BGS wars then just skip all this unnecessary trading and mission-running malarkey and jump straight to the combat.

FDev should just add PMFs and 'territory' to CQC and all the OOBGS proponents can go there and leave the rest of us to our 'tedious grind'.

Yes. Further increase the bias in the galaxy.

Smh.

 

[AbsinthSvK]

Then why bother with the BGS at all?
If PvP is the way to win BGS wars then just skip all this unnecessary trading and mission-running malarkey and jump straight to the combat.

when you make blockade, you make blockade, no trader ships or other activities. Who have better army won. That is how it works.
First secure base, then trade.. simple as that. Devs logic and some players here is different, sadly. They took wrong end of the rope and then call it right one.

 

[Lateralus]

No it wouldn't - how would you even know who is attacking you? Maybe the CMDR you just killed was in fact working for your faction and not against it, you'd never know. What if s/he was already flying a 0 rebuy Sidewinder? How effective are you then?

Inara is a good place to start.. usually BGS attacks are carried out by organised groups with rosters on Inara. If a group is attacking your BGS its usually quite obvious who it is once they are spotted in system. We knew who was attacking ours when players started mode-swapping in our main starport.. it was then easy to identify the group in question.

Dishing out rebuys until they loose their taste for the actions would be highly effective.. Also, what you can accomplish in a stock sidewinder is limited.