News Content Recap: Beyond - Chapter Four Livestream - Background Simulation and Scenarios

[fico74]

It's said you will be in war in a system.
Reading all I understood that:
- you can expand just once a time;
- you could be involved in a war where another faction expands against you, but this involves that your happiness into that system is decreased.

I really am not able to figure scenarios where you could be involved in multiple wars

 

[CMDR Terrorfirma]

You're kidding me !! You're completely destroying the current BSG

No no no.. Battle Star Galactica is fine.. they will escape the Cylons. Just watch it to the end it will be ok.

...How are groups supposed to deal with multiple wars at once...having to fight in multiple battles a day...

Recruit more players... Squadrons will be part of that.

 

[Winterwalker]

I dont understand how they would create gameplay like that. But not allow people to face each other.

I don't understand how you reach that conclusion; If your two factions are at war, two players join, one each side and Bob's yer Uncle .. PvP.

I would like to see Espionage make an appearance as a war mechanic (it might do, but obviously haven't heard anything about it) but have to say the BGS changes and feedbacks shown tonight look superb. The megaship takedown especially cool and news about new installations etc., 2/4, this is already one ace looking update.

So ps. Bob's yer Uncle

Spoiler

[video=youtube;3fIb0phWaPM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fIb0phWaPM[/video]

 

[CMDR Terrorfirma]

...you failed to add (or show?) the most needed faction/system state change. A Thargoid attack/Xeno attack state needs to be added and it should override all other states. When your system is under attack by aliens, that is going to take precedence over everything else. Wedding barges and thargoids don't mix. Also having the NPCs in a system under attack by thargoids, completely oblivious to that fact is immersion breaking. How can you expect players to embrace the Thargoid content is the NPCs don't even acknowledge it. Please make this change. You obviously spent a lot of time on the continuity and integration of the new content but somehow missed this huge piece. Fortunately, its not too late and it should be difficult to implement.

I totally agree... I hope the "Hidden" states you did not discuss or say were for "future additions" will be something like this about the Thargoid Invasion!

 

[CMDR Terrorfirma]

... that comment about "large factions have just not managed there states" is a insult to some of us.

IF you think your faction is LARGE because you have a LOT of systems but not enough people to maintain it.. then your faction is not large.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I don't understand how you reach that conclusion; If your two factions are at war, two players join, one each side and Bob's yer Uncle .. PvP.

I would like to see Espionage make an appearance as a war mechanic (it might do, but obviously haven't heard anything about it) but have to say the BGS changes and feedbacks shown tonight look superb. The megaship takedown especially cool and news about new installations etc., 2/4, this is already one ace looking update.

So ps. Bob's yer Uncle

Lets be honest. We all understand at this point. If someone has the option not to be stopped. They will mode swap so they cant be stopped while they still complete an objective against you.

Someones playstyle ect has nothing to do with this part of the game.

We really need the people that are interacting with each other to be interacting with each other.

That way the people not involved in this sort of thing. Will generally be left alone. And greifing will die instantly due to meaningful PVP.

But as long as that option stays available. We're not far off from where we are today.

Even with these amazing changes.

Again, I dont want to take anything away from those changes. I do think they are very awesome.

But they dont mean anything until we can see the people on the other side. They did add objective based gameplay after all.

 

[znôrt]

this is the first time i read a recap from frontier, don't understand squat, and don't even care.

congratulations for whatever, y'all!

 

[ShimEnki]

I don't understand how you reach that conclusion; If your two factions are at war, two players join, one each side and Bob's yer Uncle .. PvP.

I would like to see Espionage make an appearance as a war mechanic (it might do, but obviously haven't heard anything about it) but have to say the BGS changes and feedbacks shown tonight look superb. The megaship takedown especially cool and news about new installations etc., 2/4, this is already one ace looking update.

So ps. Bob's yer Uncle

I agree.

Also, unless we are forced to become flagged with a faction to engage the bgs, and I arrive at a port to engage business, how are they going to "face" me and stop me from doing something that may or may not negatively impact their influence or happiness?

They are just going to have to continue to stay busy and do business rather than bully cmdrs around under some PVP open only foggy minded scenario where no one can engage business without facing unwanted pvp combat at every transaction

 

[Darkfyre99]

I haven't had a chance to watch and I won't for a few hours yet (I'm at work...) These sound pretty good for player groups, but what about lone players? Other than scenarios, which do sound pretty good too.

Should work for solo BGS players too. With some states becoming a spectrum rather than individual states, you'll have better control over what you want to do.

 

[SaliVader]

- With the removal of the investment state as a way to enhance the range of expansions, will you increase the expansion's range? I know this isn't a problem for most factions, but us groups in less dense areas really need that extra range.

- I'm not sure about tying expansion to overall influence across systems to be honest, depending on how you'll make it work. Many groups, especially the bigger ones, purposely keep a low influence in some systems, either because there's nothing worth fighting for in it, or because they expanded there by accident and haven't been able to retreat yet.

- Will there be different degrees of outbreaks? I imagine an outbreak of space flu wouldn't be as bad as an outbreak of Achenar brain eating amoebas...

- Will elections have special scenarios like wars, or will it just be a counter of missions done for each faction?

- Happiness looks like a rather discrete value. Does it only take into account the states, like boom or lockdown? Or does it take into account the precise location of the faction in the bars (hence having a more granular value)? If two systems have the same happiness value when an expansion is prepared, how does the game choose the system the faction will expand from?

- The way it is now, it will make many big factions much harder to manage. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it will encourage factions to aim for a few quality assets rather than just expanding over and over again. However, as a consequence, many of the bigger groups will probably want to downsize their faction to make it more manageable. I suggest you give squadrons a way to "help" their faction retreat from a system. For instance, you could give the squadron leader a tool to mark a system for retreat, which would raise the retreat threshold in that system from 2.5% (or whatever value you change it to in 3.3) to 10%. Still requires some work, but makes it much easier to retreat from unwanted systems. Please give it a thought.

 

[Winterwalker]

They will mode swap so they cant be stopped while they still complete an objective against you.

The same modeswap goes for xBox versus PC though, so it's not really relevant whether you actively face a PvP in the war scenario, or if it's PvE. Faction expansion is (fine) the objective and if PvE is easier than PvP, you'll win. That easier expansion will stop though when you reach a border with another PvP heavy faction (on the same platform) opposing.

I think this is what makes the A Class side objective interesting. That could be a squad of PvP you meet or - if you don't meet them because they're all on xBox or in Solo - the same is emulated, by a squad of Elite NPC ships. As long as the battle is challenging does it really matter who's on the stick (PvP or AI)? I don't think it does.

 

[CMDR Terrorfirma]

I would like to see Espionage make an appearance as a war mechanic ...

Yea that would be fun. Also would be fun to have missions that would do things like incite underground uprisings or browncoat resistance in a war... maybe missions to exploit a treasonous turncoat or a double agent": take a mission that is hinted at by a traitor to the other faction... a comm message... to go steal some materials or destroy a stash of weapons or supplies.. to intercept a transport and destroy it or loot it.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

The same modeswap goes for xBox versus PC though, so it's not really relevant whether you actively face a PvP in the war scenario, or if it's PvE. Faction expansion is (fine) the objective and if PvE is easier than PvP, you'll win but that easier expansion will stop when you reach a system with another PvP heavy faction (on the same platform) opposing you.

I think this is what makes the A Class side objective interesting. That could be a squad of PvP you meet or - if you don't meet them because they're all on xBox or in solo, the same is emulated by a squad of Elite NPC ships. As long as the battle is challenging does it really matter who's on the stick (PvP or AI)? I don't think it does.

Non issue. Lots of player groups have players across all platforms.

Plus the doors are starting to open for cross platform gameplay.

Only a matter of time.

Besides, you could make this same argument with the open only powerplay proposal. And Frontier still wanted to do it.

They could do the same here.

 

[CMDR Terrorfirma]

...Will elections have special scenarios like wars, or will it just be a counter of missions done for each faction?

That would be interesting.. how about missions and scenarios where you bring passengers into the system to "Stuff the Ballot box" ? or ... Kill people at polling places... intercept data packets of votes and change them or trash them or something.. hack their polling place.

or maybe just fly around the system with bullhorns shouting "Vote for the XXXX Whatever Party!"

 

[Robert Maynard]

Non issue. Lots of player groups have players across all platforms.

Plus the doors are starting to open for cross platform gameplay.

Only a matter of time.

Besides, you could make this same argument with the open only powerplay proposal. And Frontier still wanted to do it.

They could do the same here.

We'll see, given the following restatement, from the OP, of what the BGS is about:

BGS (Background Simulation) Changes

The Background Simulation (BGS) is a representation of how the actions of all players, no matter on which platform or mode, impact the galaxy. The factions that inhabit these system battle for influence over the population and control of the starports, installations and outposts. Player actions can push these factions into various states; such as economy, security, health and influence. With concerted effort players can help grow a faction's economy, destroy its security status, or help win a war.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

We'll see, given the following restatement, from the OP, of what the BGS is about:

Thats neat.

Its a dumb move. Its creates a very unbalanced game. And the game is toxic because the people arent engaging each other. Leaving the people that arent involved to be griefed.

If they want griefing in their game to continue.

Then leave it like it is. And the game will still continue to be toxic because of it.

We gonna go another 5 years with " I got blown up for no reason posts "?

Its 2018. Lets start moving forward a bit here.

People need an understanding of what they are getting into. And leaving it like it is. Is not helping the community at all.

 

[Winterwalker]

Besides, you could make this same argument with the open only powerplay proposal. And Frontier still wanted to do it.

They could do the same here.

It also makes sense - and much more sense than it would for Powerplay, where I do agree with Open only - to populate the galaxy with background PvE.

If you happen to play quiet time, you still want content to play and quite a few people just prefer Solo, maybe versus lag if they have a bad connection or for any other reason. It's a BIG galaxy and there are a lot of factions, player supported ones are maybe 1-5% of all factions in game? If you rely on PvP entirely to run them you end up with a dispersed populus, so the idea (and it's really not a bad one) is for PvP to influence what goes on, rather than control every aspect. Then if you happen to play alone at night or you like a system in the middle of nowhere there's still a game to play.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

..... and megaships..... so you want my faction to look after it while in my space for zero benefit.... wow

Very interesting Point you bring up there.

I was quite confused by that "Megaship in your System - take care of it!" Side-Quest.

I mean... how is a PC/Open Player supposed to take care of it? Against other Players operating in other Modes or on other Platforms happily hitting/pirating/damaging/whatever it?
I wouldn't know how this would work in terms of that "Distress Call" they mentioned.

Mandatory (Faction suffers is you don't) Repairs like a Mini-Station-Repair System CG?

I could imagine Factions/Groups quickly learning to hate these parked and normally useless Assets in their Systems.
Easily could cause attrition by forcing non-Faction activities (fix the MegaShip) due to damage caused by invisible Players. If anything, it would seem it'll detract attention from the native BGS work.
BGS guys usually aren't used having to work to support Assets that their Faction doesn't control.

I guess we'll need more Details on the Benefit/Workload balancing of these.
But if I've learned one thing in the many years of BGS work - more workload clearly isn't something most BGS Groups would look for, especially when controlling multiple Systems against Opposition.
(and if a MegaShip is present and parked in one System - but not in the System of the "other guys" - I could envision the call "foul!" would quickly emerge for understandable reasons)

PS.
I guess they might have meant an RNG Scenario though - without any other Player involvement.
Like a USS you would have to venture into in order to keep your Faction happy.
IMHO still a mandatory side-quest producing additional and undesired workload if that assumption is correct.

 

[Patrick_68000]

Thanks for the summary.

Very informative.

 

[BDelacroix]

RE: Conflict Zones

In the sample you weren't swarmed when you picked a side. Is this a normal condition or just a dev perk? IE: will it still be SOP to boost away from everyone then pick a side unless you just want to be instantly swarmed by every red contact in the area?