Modes BGS weighting

[Robert Maynard]

And what about the players that desire the freedom of doing their own activities with their own minor faction, without spending their entire playtime defending against attacks from the BGS?

Ah, that's right, I remember now - all game modes are not equal. Solo/PG have all the advantages, but none of the offsets. And that is...not equality

If one does not want to manage a Faction, one need not - it's not going anywhere (as it cannot be forced to retreat from its home system. Managing a Faction *is* engaging in the BGS - which is for all players, not just those who want to engage in PvP (and not actually engage with the BGS).

All modes *are* equal, with respect to the BGS and pulling its levers - what is requested is to make them unequal, i.e. apply a greater multiplier to the actions of players in one of the three game modes "just 'cos".

.... and engaging with the BGS in Solo / Private Groups is no more "griefing" than doing so in Open.

 

[Zieman]

And what about the players that desire the freedom of doing their own activities with their own minor faction, without spending their entire playtime defending against attacks from the BGS, because "playing their way" doesn't involve ghost attacks?

This is not a game for them.

Timezones
PC
XBOX 1
PS 4

(Mac)

 

[Agony_Aunt]

And what about the players that desire the freedom of doing their own activities with their own minor faction, without spending their entire playtime defending against attacks from the BGS, because "playing their way" doesn't involve ghost attacks?

Ah, that's right, I remember now - all game modes are not equal. Solo/PG have all the advantages, but none of the offsets. And that is...not equality

After all if you are so bent on a game where you can play without others, why do you care if x players on one corner of the bubble get to maintain their faction more easily in a mode where they could be stopped? Want to influence someone's game even though it doesn't provide you any benefits?

Pretty sure that description is given to a certain kinda player....can't remember what it is though. Begins with a G, ends in R, has "riefe" in the middle, generates ten times as much whining as these kinds of threads even though "Frontier are indeed in control of their own game" and made it clear time and time again it's intended gameplay.

*chuckles*

Umm... if it was open only or open bonus, you'd still have to spend the same time "defending" against those attacks. You'd have to be sat in SC 24/7 to stop those working against you. Turn your back for two minutes and those pesky PvEers will be doing delivery missions behind your back, eating away at your influence!

By the way, what's your plan? To shoot unwanted players in your own system? That's not very clever. That's how you lose rep with your own faction to the point where your own faction will be hunting you constantly.

Now, being hostile with a faction can be fun, but not your own. It takes ages to recover from and while you are hostile and in their territory you will be attacked by them even if you don't have a bounty. Docking can also be interesting when you are hostile.

In short, even if it was open only, your plan to PvP against people working against you won't work very well, assuming you can make the kills. The only place where PvP can come into it is if someone is flying around with a bounty (not a great way to work the BGS) or in combat zones, but that requires war or civil war, and it might be an election instead.

If you are not wanting to PvP, you mean you really just want a bonus for being in Open, then you are just wanting a bonus for no extra risk... although there isn't any real risk in going after mission runners in a combat ship (ah, the cry of the open only player - "I should be rewarded for playing in open, its riskier!" - as they shoot an unarmed trader in their engineered FdL).

If you don't see your enemies, and your enemes don't see you, you are both on an equal playing field. Neither side should get a bonus.

 

[Jockey79]

Ah, that's right, I remember now - all game modes are not equal. Solo/PG have all the advantages, but none of the offsets. And that is...not equality

Correct, Solo players don't get Multi crew or Wings.
So Solo mode is harder than Open or PG where you can get help playing the game.

FDev should make the game fair and remove Open and PG until such time Solo has AI wings and crew.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You want to fly in Open, be prepared for PvP.
Want to play the BGS, whine about the injustice of having to prepare for PvE.

Some of you fellers should take your own medicine.

 

[Darkfyre99]

The BGS should be weighted to favour open players trying to defend their system against solo/PG griefers Just look at what happened to the fuel rats this sort of thing is a daily occorance and is happening to many player groups and they are pretty much powerless to do anything about it it takes weeks sometimes months of work to keep a faction yet solo players can sit a a PG and destroy it in a few hours

One of these days, I really need to get around to making a flow chart that demonstrates all the various and myriad ways “Open Only” advocates can use PvP to defend a faction they support against an attack.

Until then, here’s a preview:

“Anything You Do That Isn’t PvE” => “I Win”

Seriously, if you’re not doing PvE to counter my actions, then I win every time. More than likely, you’ll never be instanced with me, despite the fact that I play in Open. Unless you live near me, have a similar non-traditional work schedule, and play on the same platform, you’ll never encounter me. On the off chance we do get instanced, you still can’t win. The way the BGS works, it’s fairly trivial to set up a Xanatos Gambit, were if I get past you, I win, but if you kill me, you lose worse.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

One of these days, I really need to get around to making a flow chart that demonstrates all the various and myriad ways “Open Only” advocates can use PvP to defend a faction they support against an attack.

Until then, here’s a preview:

“Anything You Do That Isn’t PvE” => “I Win”

Seriously, if you’re not doing PvE to counter my actions, then I win every time. More than likely, you’ll never be instanced with me, despite the fact that I play in Open. Unless you live near me, have a similar non-traditional work schedule, and play on the same platform, you’ll never encounter me. On the off chance we do get instanced, you still can’t win. The way the BGS works, it’s fairly trivial to set up a Xanatos Gambit, were if I get past you, I win, but if you kill me, you lose worse.

Oooh, a tvtropes link!

And yeah, you've got it spot on.

You fly something like an Eagle, Courier, Viper, Orca, or Cobra, something fast so that even if you get interdicted on the way back in you can usually be out of firing range quickly (unless they are in a very fast ship as well, but not as likely, even in a fast ship they are going to be laden down with heavy armour and stuff).

You also take outbound missions rather than inbound, so they have to hit you as you leave the station. If you spot someone hanging around looking for the kill you can lose them by flying around the no fire zone and be ready to jump once clear.

Coming back in then there is no real loss. Credits are a joke, and if running something small rebuy is trivial anyway. If they do kill you, it hurts them more than it hurts you.

 

[Speedcuffs]

One of these days, I really need to get around to making a flow chart that demonstrates all the various and myriad ways “Open Only” advocates can use PvP to defend a faction they support against an attack.

Until then, here’s a preview:

“Anything You Do That Isn’t PvE” => “I Win”

Seriously, if you’re not doing PvE to counter my actions, then I win every time. More than likely, you’ll never be instanced with me, despite the fact that I play in Open. Unless you live near me, have a similar non-traditional work schedule, and play on the same platform, you’ll never encounter me. On the off chance we do get instanced, you still can’t win. The way the BGS works, it’s fairly trivial to set up a Xanatos Gambit, were if I get past you, I win, but if you kill me, you lose worse.

Exhausting isn't it.[knocked out]

 

[00nutzy]

One of these days, I really need to get around to making a flow chart that demonstrates all the various and myriad ways “Open Only” advocates can use PvP to defend a faction they support against an attack.

Until then, here’s a preview:

“Anything You Do That Isn’t PvE” => “I Win”

Seriously, if you’re not doing PvE to counter my actions, then I win every time. More than likely, you’ll never be instanced with me, despite the fact that I play in Open. Unless you live near me, have a similar non-traditional work schedule, and play on the same platform, you’ll never encounter me. On the off chance we do get instanced, you still can’t win. The way the BGS works, it’s fairly trivial to set up a Xanatos Gambit, were if I get past you, I win, but if you kill me, you lose worse.

And the kicker is that if you give the BGS more weight in open you do it to yourself that much faster.

 

[Mouse]

And what about the players that desire the freedom of doing their own activities with their own minor faction, without spending their entire playtime defending against attacks from the BGS, because "playing their way" doesn't involve ghost attacks?

Ah, that's right, I remember now - all game modes are not equal. Solo/PG have all the advantages, but none of the offsets. And that is...not equality

After all if you are so bent on a game where you can play without others, why do you care if x players on one corner of the bubble get to maintain their faction more easily in a mode where they could be stopped? Want to influence someone's game even though it doesn't provide you any benefits?

Pretty sure that description is given to a certain kinda player....can't remember what it is though. Begins with a G, ends in R, has "riefe" in the middle, generates ten times as much whining as these kinds of threads even though "Frontier are indeed in control of their own game" and made it clear time and time again it's intended gameplay.

*chuckles*

All modes suffer "ghost attacks"

All modes are equal... if you are whining about PVP happening in Open then choose elsewhere. As I've heard countless times before, "If someone goes into Open they better be prepared for PVP. Also... is this a Open is so full of attackers that people can't function remark? If so I find it funny because of all the "Open needs more players because I barely see anyone" remarks.

People play the game to play alone, with others, or with other with hostilities. Whatever mode people care or don't care about x players on whatever corner being able to maintain their faction. And there is no "more easily".

And you want to claim that people actually playing the game are griefers because they play the game and don't pvp.... now that is rich.

 

[Dietger]

edit.

LOL wrong topic Sorry.

 

[Havvk]

And what about the players that desire the freedom of doing their own activities with their own minor faction, without spending their entire playtime defending against attacks from the BGS, because "playing their way" doesn't involve ghost attacks?

Ah, that's right, I remember now - all game modes are not equal. Solo/PG have all the advantages, but none of the offsets. And that is...not equality

After all if you are so bent on a game where you can play without others, why do you care if x players on one corner of the bubble get to maintain their faction more easily in a mode where they could be stopped? Want to influence someone's game even though it doesn't provide you any benefits?

Pretty sure that description is given to a certain kinda player....can't remember what it is though. Begins with a G, ends in R, has "riefe" in the middle, generates ten times as much whining as these kinds of threads even though "Frontier are indeed in control of their own game" and made it clear time and time again it's intended gameplay.

*chuckles*

Sounds like this isn't the game for you.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

wrong topic

Yeah, I think so too

 

[Jockey79]

Yeah, I think so too

Wrong game I think

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Sandro doesn't live here anymore...
Sandro used to Game Design on the second floor
Sorry that he left no forwarding address that is known to me...

All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to PvE

 

[Jmanis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCy1ZYjLvdQ

7:05
ED: What is the Background Sim?
Dav: So to us, the whole point of the exercise of all the technical systems in elite dangerous that can be branded "the background sim" is to try and bring the galaxy to life. It's a really big galaxy, we've got an awfully large number of players, and we need to make sure that the galaxy responds and tracks every single player action no matter how big or how small.

7:53
"... it also lets players interact with each other, kinda indirectly... without ever actually seeing each other directly in space"

So make no mistake... you can definitely play a boardgamey, strategy game with the BGS, and FD even say something towards that effect... but it's fundamental purpose is to simulate a living, breathing galaxy which responds to *every* player's actions, regardless of mode, timezone, platform, or quality of Internet connection. Enabling direct PvP, while there's no reason PvP couldn't have some impact just like killing NPCs has, is not the purpose of the BGS.

That's the remit of Powerplay, and why there's proposals to make that weighted/open only.

 

[Jmanis]

Double post...

 

[Darkfyre99]

Oooh, a tvtropes link!

And yeah, you've got it spot on.

You fly something like an Eagle, Courier, Viper, Orca, or Cobra, something fast so that even if you get interdicted on the way back in you can usually be out of firing range quickly (unless they are in a very fast ship as well, but not as likely, even in a fast ship they are going to be laden down with heavy armour and stuff).

You also take outbound missions rather than inbound, so they have to hit you as you leave the station. If you spot someone hanging around looking for the kill you can lose them by flying around the no fire zone and be ready to jump once clear.

Coming back in then there is no real loss. Credits are a joke, and if running something small rebuy is trivial anyway. If they do kill you, it hurts them more than it hurts you.

You don't have to forgo incoming missions if you suspect there might be PvP opposition. You just have to ensure that any incoming missions are the type of missions that hurt the controlling faction, which you're opposing, in some way. There's plenty of incoming missions that you can take that will increase influence, but at the same time also move the faction towards negative states like Lockdown or Bust. In my experience, these states tend to generate missions that are unappealing to many players, so anyone in that system who doesn't care about the BGS will take an outgoing mission for any faction but the one you're attacking.

If you reach your destination, you can turn in that mission, which will negate the influence gain of one of your outgoing missions, while still harming that faction in the long term. If you get intercepted and destroyed, on the other hand, the controlling faction, which your attacker is allegedly "protecting," just lost influence, and you still gain the benefit of moving that faction towards a negative state: Lockdown.

The thing the "Open Only" advocates don't seem to understand is that as far as game mechanics are concerned, "defending" a controlling faction via PvP is identical to attacking a controlling faction via PvP. If you know what you're doing, there's no good reason to avoid being in Open if you that kind of game play. Even if the "defender" destroys your ship, you still win.

 

[Havvk]

TL;DR git gud and do some PvE

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You don't have to forgo incoming missions if you suspect there might be PvP opposition. You just have to ensure that any incoming missions are the type of missions that hurt the controlling faction, which you're opposing, in some way. There's plenty of incoming missions that you can take that will increase influence, but at the same time also move the faction towards negative states like Lockdown or Bust. In my experience, these states tend to generate missions that are unappealing to many players, so anyone in that system who doesn't care about the BGS will take an outgoing mission for any faction but the one you're attacking.

If you reach your destination, you can turn in that mission, which will negate the influence gain of one of your outgoing missions, while still harming that faction in the long term. If you get intercepted and destroyed, on the other hand, the controlling faction, which your attacker is allegedly "protecting," just lost influence, and you still gain the benefit of moving that faction towards a negative state: Lockdown.

The thing the "Open Only" advocates don't seem to understand is that as far as game mechanics are concerned, "defending" a controlling faction via PvP is identical to attacking a controlling faction via PvP. If you know what you're doing, there's no good reason to avoid being in Open if you that kind of game play. Even if the "defender" destroys your ship, you still win.

Heh, you've must made the best argument i've ever heard for working the BGS in open