Modes BGS weighting

[Lateralus]

Whether, or not, it constitutes "poor game design" depends on the intent behind allowing players to affect the BGS - and, as all players affect the BGS, regardless of game mode, the intent cannot be that it must be carried out including PvP. What the BGS does offer is asynchronous indirect competition between all players, not just those who prefer to shoot at other players.

It comes up again and again simply because some players cannot accept Frontier's clearly stated game design - Frontier have not changed their apparent stance on the BGS in over six years (since they published their game design information, in relation to the three game modes, single shared glaaxy state and mode mobility, at the start of the Kickstarter) and would seem to be well aware that some players disagree with their stance.

Unlike the BGS, Frontier have sought feedback from players regarding Powerplay, with Open only being one of the possible changes. Whether, or not, Powerplay ever becomes Open only, remains to be seen.

If Powerplay did go open only, it would offset this complaint about the BGS somewhat.. but as they've gone quiet on the issue (again) and reinforced BGS faction gameplay by linking squadrons to factions, this will likely become more of an issue going forward.

Elite is currently a game that includes PvP but doesn't give it any useful function or purpose.. When players or devs just keep saying 'PvP is optional, PvP is optional', it's unhelpful to the discussion because it doesn't attempt to solve or discuss any of the problems with its place or usefulness in the game and just attempts to shut down the argument.

You'd expect in a game where players can hold and fight over territory that it would play quite a key role in that area, but it doesn't because of this strange 'PvP needs to be contained' mind-set that Fdev have.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If Powerplay did go open only, it would offset this complaint about the BGS somewhat.. but as they've gone quiet on the issue (again) and reinforced BGS faction gameplay by linking squadrons to factions, this will likely become more of an issue going forward.

The "link" between Squadrons and Factions is pretty tenuous at best - as it affords the Squadron no control whatsoever over the Faction and is non-exclusive, i.e. multiple Squadrons can affiliate to a single Faction.

Elite is currently a game that includes PvP but doesn't give it any useful function or purpose.. When players or devs just keep saying 'PvP is optional, PvP is optional', it's unhelpful to the discussion because doesn't solve any of the problems with its place or usefulness in the game and just attempts to shut down the argument. You'd expect in a game where players can hold and fight over territory that it would play quite a key role in that area, but it doesn't because of this strange 'PvP needs to be contained' mind-set that Fdev have.

The fact that PvP is optional may be unhelpful to a discussion seeking to make PvP non-optional with respect to particular game features - however it remains a simple fact regarding this game.

If some players expected PvP to play a key role in this game then I'd suggest that particular elements of the game's design, available from advertising, etc., have been ignored.

 

[Havvk]

The "link" between Squadrons and Factions is pretty tenuous at best - as it affords the Squadron no control whatsoever over the Faction and is non-exclusive, i.e. multiple Squadrons can affiliate to a single Faction.



The fact that PvP is optional may be unhelpful to a discussion seeking to make PvP non-optional with respect to particular game features - however it remains a simple fact regarding this game.

If some players expected PvP to play a key role in this game then I'd suggest that particular elements of the game's design, available from advertising, etc., have been ignored.

They'll keep ignoring that fact until they get what they want, just to realize that it was one of the possibly biggest mistakes for a game like this to make.

 

[Lateralus]

The "link" between Squadrons and Factions is pretty tenuous at best - as it affords the Squadron no control whatsoever over the Faction and is non-exclusive, i.e. multiple Squadrons can affiliate to a single Faction.



The fact that PvP is optional may be unhelpful to a discussion seeking to make PvP non-optional with respect to particular game features - however it remains a simple fact regarding this game.

If some players expected PvP to play a key role in this game then I'd suggest that particular elements of the game's design, available from advertising, etc., have been ignored.

It was never explicitly advertised that you could trash a player faction's BGS or 5C a Powerplay group from private modes as far as I remember. Any specific advertising relating to partaking in PvP or avoiding PvP was pretty vague too.

All Fdev have ever said is that all modes are valid ways to play the game and people should play how they want. That doesn't mean that modes can never be given different weightings or effects on the BGS, Powerplay or anything else that might be necessary to stop players using private modes as a path of least resistance.

 

[Lateralus]

They'll keep ignoring that fact until they get what they want, just to realize that it was one of the possibly biggest mistakes for a game like this to make.

Nah, anything that makes open play more interesting and reduces the effectiveness of private group warriors or botters would be good for the game in general.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well I guess then we're into 'what qualifies as PvP' territory, and I think that is a dead horse as far as this forum goes. Large scale BGS attacks are seldom made by single PvE players, I agree.. but I'm not suggesting that they be forced into PvP. Only those who are trying to take system control away from a player group should be forced to do it from open, otherwise the defender;

• does not know who the enemy group is
• cannot directly resist the enemy group in combat
• cannot retaliate against the enemy group

I agree that there should be information about who has been influencing the system, but since you are not aligned to a faction as a CMDR, first it would require pledging to a faction.

"Cannot resist the enemy group in combat". So what?

it basically says a PvP group cannot hold territory without being forced into gameplay loops the don't enjoy.

How is this different from being forced into PvP when I go in Open?

If you don't enjoy a PvE gameloop, don't get involved in the BGS. If I can't handle/am not in the mood for PvP, I stay out of Open.

yes but PvP groups dislike having to engage in grind vs grind wars with invisible enemies.

I dislike PvP combat in Open, sucks to be me as well

It plays to the attackers strengths

As does PvP, since the attacker initiates combat on his/her terms.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It was never explicitly advertised that you could trash a player faction's BGS or 5C a Powerplay group from private modes as far as I remember. Any specific advertising relating to partaking in PvP or avoiding PvP was pretty vague too.

All Fdev have ever said is that all modes are valid ways to play the game and people should play how they want. That doesn't mean that modes can never be given different weightings or effects on the BGS, Powerplay or anything else that might be necessary to stop players using private modes as a path of least resistance.

The game design has, since the very beginning, offered, as the intended game experience, the possibility for players in Solo (and, by inference, Private Groups too) to affect the shared galaxy state:

How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?

The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.​

From the current advertising for the game:

WINGS
FLY ALONE, OR WITH FRIENDS AS PART OF A WING
Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous' vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy.

Whether you experience the open multi-player galaxy on your own or in a Wing where you can stay connected to a group of your buddies as you share in jointly-earned spoils, the connected galaxy delivers a constant source of new opportunities and people to play with and against.

In Solo play you can choose never meet another human player, yet the results of your actions still contribute to economy, politics and conflicts of the connected galaxy, and you experience the echoes of their activity.

.... and in the recent livestream on BGS and Scenarios recap thread:

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.

Regarding modes being valid ways to play, and in answer to a direct question regarding players in Solo / Private Groups affecting Factions, Michael Brookes had the following to say:

Is there planned to be any defense against the possibility that player created minor factions could be destroyed with no possible recourse through Private Groups or Solo play?

From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.
Michael

Regarding weightings / bonuses for playing in a particular game mode:

Hi Micheal

I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?

None are planned at the moment.

Michael

.... and when Sandro was considering a mode bonus for Powerplay in March'16, he was clear to indicate that it was only being considered for Powerplay:

Hello Commanders!

A couple of clarifications:

* This change, which remember is nothing more than a suggestion at this point, would have no effect on personal gain. It would affect success values for expansion, fortification and undermining only, not the merits you earned.

* It does not, and is not, meant to be a panacea to make the actual activities of Powerplay better. It's best to think of it as activity agnostic. That's not to say that we don't want to improve the activities (we do!), just that this is not aimed at that.

* The reason this benefit would only apply to Open as opposed to in Private Groups is fairly clear I think: we have no way to control distribution in Private Groups. Folk could start a Private Group where everyone was pledged to a single power. This would effectively then be Solo in terms of dealing with the potential threat of other Commanders.

* I would not want to introduce this into any aspect of the game except Powerplay because Powerplay is the only aspect of the game that explicitly uses the concept of adversarial multiplayer, as opposed to the more vague ways that minor factions operate.

Hope this info helps.

On the question relating to whether the single shared galaxy state will ever be split, the answer was even more succinct:

Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.

Michael

Nah, anything that makes open play more interesting and reduces the effectiveness of private group warriors or botters would be good for the game in general.

More interesting for whom?

 

[Jockey79]

It was never explicitly advertised that you could trash a player faction's BGS or 5C a Powerplay group from private modes as far as I remember.

"Player" factions are just an extension of the BGS and are in fact just NPCs with your chosen name on them.
So if you didn't figure out they'd work the same way as the rest of the BGS, in all modes, I'm not sure what to say.
It was quite clear for the rest of us.

As for PP, Frontier had lots to say about the modes and PP so you must have a really short memory;

Power Play Information.

Spoiler

PowerPlay AMA related links regarding Modes and Powerplay;

Hi Micheal




I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?

None are planned at the moment.




Michael

In the newsletter, it was mentioned that an intersection between a trading power and a military power will result in piracy missions.




Will this make NPC piracy more profitable or will we continue to need to focus on players?

It can be more profitable, and it will apply to both players and NPCs

For fun




That said, it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation.

Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.

Here is a post from Sandro Sammarco "musing" over a bonus to Open mode for Power Play;

.....
And since I'm in the mood for pulling hand grenades , here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.


My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo. So the playing field is basically uneven as it stands and in this case, maybe change could make things better.


Now, one final Caveat. *As it stands currently*, we have time allotted in season two to work on Powerplay. These suggestions are just a part of that work - there is other stuff as well. However, I can't commit to the Unbreakable Vow, because it's very possible that in the fluid world of development, things might change!


I just wanted to set these ideas free and see how well they settle, so, comments welcome!

Hello Commanders!


A couple of clarifications:


* This change, which remember is nothing more than a suggestion at this point, would have no effect on personal gain. It would affect success values for expansion, fortification and undermining only, not the merits you earned.
* It does not, and is not, meant to be a panacea to make the actual activities of Powerplay better. It's best to think of it as activity agnostic. That's not to say that we don't want to improve the activities (we do!), just that this is not aimed at that.
* The reason this benefit would only apply to Open as opposed to in Private Groups is fairly clear I think: we have no way to control distribution in Private Groups. Folk could start a Private Group where everyone was pledged to a single power. This would effectively then be Solo in terms of dealing with the potential threat of other Commanders.
* I would not want to introduce this into any aspect of the game except Powerplay because Powerplay is the only aspect of the game that explicitly uses the concept of adversarial multiplayer, as opposed to the more vague ways that minor factions operate.


Hope this info helps.

Sandro highlighting the competitive nature of Power Play / consensual PvP.

Make no mistake, one element of Powerplay is about competition within a power - that's intentional, but it's also about grand scale territory control between powers, offering context and reward for consensual PvP competition and letting Commanders feel part of a team, which this mechanic would support.


I hope this gives folk an idea about the direction we're heading in.

[video=youtube;uetVzNINdKU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uetVzNINdKU;t=26m40s[/video]

The first one's from Robert Maynard and he's saying "Has the pin been pulled on the hand grenade I posted in a Collusion Piracy thread?". Just for context this was, I was musing out loud about potentially Open Play Powerplay having some benefit to success over and above Private Groups and Solo - I just want to reiterate that was just me musing, we're not going to do that at the moment, there are no plans to do it, but it is still an interesting thought, nothing's ever completely off the table but nothing to announce at the moment.

Updated comment regarding Power Play and PvP;


[video=youtube_share;nvMYy0ry9mA]https://youtu.be/nvMYy0ry9mA[/video]

And even more Power Play talk (in relation to the Focus Feedback suggestion of Open Only Power Play).

[video=youtube;52kOyADxK5E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52kOyADxK5E&feature=youtu.be&t=2945[/video]

 

[Mouse]

OK...I am going to put this simply... You talk about systems and the BGS and then complain that you are "forced" to play it and ask how is this any different than PVErs arguing against being forced to PVP if the game was Open Only...

The answer is simple, you chose to play the BGS. You made that choice to put your stakes in and then complained because you have to play PVE not PVP. That is a HUGE difference than PVErs being forced into Open and PVP.


And BTW my player faction was trashed by those we could not see through the BGS and PP. Yet we are not demanding the game change, we may stay in that system and see if we can get allies to help, or may look to see if there are other options as we are casual players and not grinding all the time.

 

[Lateralus]

So with all this information here, what have we established? That Fdev are clinging to dodgy game design in fear of a solo warrior backlash... yes we already know that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So with all this information here, what have we established? That Fdev are clinging to dodgy game design in fear of a solo warrior backlash... yes we already know that.

... or that they are content to stick with their design for the game that permits all players to affect a shared galaxy, not just those who prefer the optional extra that is PvP....

 

[Lateralus]

... or that they are content to stick with their design for the game that permits all players to affect a shared galaxy, not just those who prefer the optional extra that is PvP....

So how do we make PvP matter in this shared utopia then?

 

[Robert Maynard]

So how do we make PvP matter in this shared utopia then?

That would be for Frontier to decide, not us, and it would appear that they made their decision long ago - although there may be the possibility of Powerplay going Open only - no definitive statement has been made on the outcome of the two Flash Topics.

 

[Lateralus]

That would be for Frontier to decide, not us, and it would appear that they made their decision long ago - although there may be the possibility of Powerplay going Open only - no definitive statement has been made on the outcome of the two Flash Topics.

If that was the case they would not start flash-topics in the first place. A lot of people want open only features and benefits to PvP... Fdev shouldn't just ignore that segment of the community for the sake of keeping other areas of the community quiet.

PvP needs to have a purpose/benefit for success in. It's the hardest thing in the game to be good at yet rewards players with virtually nothing...

 

[Screemonster]

So how do we make PvP matter in this shared utopia then?

Honestly? Make the CQC league a bigger part of the universe. There's a thing already there in the lore that's a perfect excuse for people to be getting together and blowing each other out of the sky, but it's locked away in its own sandboxed little mode that's completely separate from the actual in-game galaxy.

Tod Mcquinn's profile page thing even says he rose to fame in the CQC league by blowing things apart with overcharged multicannons. I'd love to see a roaming CQC league kinda event in a different system each week.
(Not gonna lie it'd be pretty hilarious for it to land in a PvE group's system and now the system is flooded with PvPers for the week before the league moves on)

 

[Robert Maynard]

If that was the case they would not start flash-topics in the first place. A lot of people want open only features and benefits to PvP... Fdev shouldn't just ignore that segment of the community for the sake of keeping other areas of the community quiet.

PvP needs to have a purpose/benefit for success in. It's the hardest thing in the game to be good at yet rewards players with virtually nothing...

The Flash Topics were an information gathering exercise, Sandro was clear on that point - and if the first topic had not included any mention of modes then I'd expect that it would have been mentioned very soon thereafter in the comments - I believe that's why Frontier included it in the first topic right out of the gate.

One segment of the community seems to want to PvP-gate large sections of the game - sections of the game sold to all players, not just those who engage in an optional play-style.

The problem with rewards for PvP is collusion - and players will game the system to suit their needs, if it is possible - which is probably why PvP has little or no direct effect on the BGS.

 

[Havvk]

Honestly? Make the CQC league a bigger part of the universe. There's a thing already there in the lore that's a perfect excuse for people to be getting together and blowing each other out of the sky, but it's locked away in its own sandboxed little mode that's completely separate from the actual in-game galaxy.

Tod Mcquinn's profile page thing even says he rose to fame in the CQC league by blowing things apart with overcharged multicannons. I'd love to see a roaming CQC league kinda event in a different system each week.
(Not gonna lie it'd be pretty hilarious for it to land in a PvE group's system and now the system is flooded with PvPers for the week before the league moves on)

You don't hear other Open Only'ers wanting this. So that can only means one thing, they want a mode all to themselves while leaving nothing to the rest of the playerbase just because they choose not to be playing a game in a certain way.

 

[AP Birdman]

You don't hear other Open Only'ers wanting this. So that can only means one thing, they want a mode all to themselves while leaving nothing to the rest of the playerbase just because they choose not to be playing a game in a certain way.

I'm an open onlyer and I want that.

Like if there was a fixed system where players of all levels and engineer unlocks could go to and queue for matchmaking. I think the griefing in elite would drop dramatically if that happened.

Sorry that went way off topic.

 

[Mouse]

I'm an open onlyer and I want that.

Like if there was a fixed system where players of all levels and engineer unlocks could go to and queue for matchmaking. I think the griefing in elite would drop dramatically if that happened.

Sorry that went way off topic.

Would love Power Play modules were restricted to the power you are with. So the "module" shopping would stop.

 

[AP Birdman]

Would love Power Play modules were restricted to the power you are with. So the "module" shopping would stop.

I don't see why that's such a big deal. It's not like the pp modules are OP or anything. They're useful, sure but none of them would be considered "better" than their normal counterparts.
I definitely prefer the Imperial Hammers over standard rail guns but it's not like they hit any harder. I just think they're easier to aim.

What I do think is ridiculous is that it takes a month of just waiting, then making one run of cargo and it's unlocked.
I wish it was more involved but not more grindy for the sake of grind.