Modes BGS weighting

[Jockey79]

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.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it "dodgy" and it has nothing to do with a "solo warrior backlash".

They advertised the game this way from the very start. It's not our fault you didn't understand it and don't like it.
But Frontier are not the first company to use a selective mode system for multiplayer, because of the problems it solves.
I play a few games with the same or similar systems.

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...

Quantify "A lot of people want open only features and benefits to PvP..."
Because the PvP crowd are the minority - which you've seen the information I've posted countless times to back my statement up.
Mark Allen made it very clear very few people PvP but the minority PvP crowd are the most vocal.

And if you actually remove the people arguing against Open Only PP from the flash topics and offset for duplicate posts;
Less than 1,000 pro PvP people posted in the Flash Topics. Game sold 3.1+ million copies.

Why should 1,000 people get to decide to yank content from over 3 million people who are not complaining?

 

[Lateralus]

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.

Yes.. you said its not up to us, yet they ask what we want to see in the game.

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.

Powerplay should always have been 'PvP-gated' because that was the whole point of the concept. Fdev oof'ed massively by making in available in all modes, now backtracking is difficult but still necessary to make it work the way it was originally intended.

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.

Smart design can overcome exploiting... For example tying rewards to rebuy costs of the destroyed party results in a net loss for both players, therefore making it unexploitable. Squadron membership can now also help overcome this problem.

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

They should just make PP weapons available from tech brokers... then module shopping would not be a thing anymore.

 

[Havvk]

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

This is the only thing that needs to be changed about PP. Not this "Open only because I can't PvE better than other PvErs" salt nonsense. But instead to make PP actually have its proper weight and consequences.


Like I've been pledged for Hudson for months now, if I leave him, I should have the highest rated ATR-like NPCs hunt me down until I can't afford rebuy anymore. It should be a punishment for betraying the President of the Federation for everybody's waifu, Aisling Duval(for example). Because of this, I have to wait out that timer before the power even begins to consider me ready to start the "countown/wait 4 weeks" type of mechanic and all that. Sort of like a "Look, you're a wanted pilot, you have to lay low for a good while while we straighten things out for you. Until then, here's a fake ID and some spare cash to live off of"

 

[Jockey79]

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.

PP needs some love, the time gating on it is beyond a joke.
A more engaging system would be nice.

 

[Mouse]

This is the only thing that needs to be changed about PP. Not this "Open only because I can't PvE better than other PvErs" salt nonsense. But instead to make PP actually have its proper weight and consequences.


Like I've been pledged for Hudson for months now, if I leave him, I should have the highest rated ATR-like NPCs hunt me down until I can't afford rebuy anymore. It should be a punishment for betraying the President of the Federation for everybody's waifu, Aisling Duval(for example). Because of this, I have to wait out that timer before the power even begins to consider me ready to start the "countown/wait 4 weeks" type of mechanic and all that. Sort of like a "Look, you're a wanted pilot, you have to lay low for a good while while we straighten things out for you. Until then, here's a fake ID and some spare cash to live off of"

How dare you call her Blue Haired Royal Highness "Everyone's Waifu", she is working to free the slaves so I support her. Plus Cubeo has some awesome Razorback Bacon. You should try it sometime.






Plus she's mine not everyone's

 

[Havvk]

How dare you call her Blue Haired Royal Highness "Everyone's Waifu", she is working to free the slaves so I support her. Plus Cubeo has some awesome Razorback Bacon. You should try it sometime.






Plus she's mine not everyone's

Shhh. Let communism do its work and have us all share

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes.. you said its not up to us, yet they ask what we want to see in the game.

Even in the DDF, Frontier put up topics for discussions - and made the final decision themselves. The Flash Topics were no different, in my opinion.

Powerplay should always have been 'PvP-gated' because that was the whole point of the concept. Fdev oof'ed massively by making in available in all modes, now backtracking is difficult but still necessary to make it work the way it was originally intended.

Whether it should, or should not, have been implemented in all three game modes remains a matter of opinion. Whether backtracking is necessary, or not, remains a matter of opinion. What Frontier do know is that, as Powerplay forms part of the base game, all players bought the game with this feature as part of the scope of purchase (even if not yet released at the time of purchase) - which means that they sold it to all players, not just those who enjoy PvP.

Smart design can overcome exploiting... For example tying rewards to rebuy costs of the destroyed party results in a net loss for both players, therefore making it unexploitable. Squadron membership can now also help overcome this problem.

It would not be unexploitable if implemented like that - just expensive - and there are players out there with multi-billions of credits (and new credits are not that difficult to accrue).

 

[Screemonster]

It would not be unexploitable if implemented like that - just expensive - and there are players out there with multi-billions of credits (and new credits are not that difficult to accrue).

yeaaaah, tying BGS effects into what amounts to "who can afford to throw the most money at this" would turn the money-fountain exploits from "okay the worst thing someone can do with this is buy an anaconda before some forumdad thinks he should be allowed to buy an anaconda" into "okay this is actually unbalancing the entire game". The worst that can come of someone moneygrinding at the moment as far as the BGS is concerned is how long they can keep cop-killing up before their bounty pushes them into the realm of flying without rebuy.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

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

Design mechanisms specifically focussed on PvP.

 

[Havvk]

Design mechanisms specifically focussed on PvP.

Like CQC. But nah, that's too easy, nobody wants that amirite?

 

[Jockey79]

Like CQC. But nah, that's too easy, nobody wants that amirite?

While I agree with the sentiment, CQC fell flat because you don't get to use your own stuff and that put people off.
Add in the fact you have to log out of the main game and sit waiting looking at a menu screen to get a game.
It's just wasting time and boring.

Don't get me wrong, I like CQC. But even I've given up losing play time to sitting in a queue for no reason for 30 minutes then logging out without playing anything.

If they add NPCs to make up teams, or moved it into the main game and let you holo-connect like we do with SLFs. Then maybe it would help out.
But as it currently stands, it's just a time sink without a purpose.

 

[Darkfyre99]

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

But this is the whole thing.. it basically says a PvP group cannot hold territory without being forced into gameplay loops the don't enjoy. All you guys seem very anti players being forced into gameplay they don't enjoy, so what's different about PvPers? I hear you say "yeah but they have to do BGS to control the system anyway" - yes but PvP groups dislike having to engage in grind vs grind wars with invisible enemies. It plays to the attackers strengths and completely disregards ours, putting us at a severe disadvantage.

If player held systems could only be overthrown from open play warfare then it would be fair to (nearly) all players; PvE players could take control of unheld systems from solo/PG and defend them from there, while PvPers could defend their held territory from open using PvP as a deterrent to invasion. The only group of players that would be out of luck would be those who like to sneak around in private groups crashing influence to troll groups they have beef with.

The thing that "Open Only" advocates never seem to understand is that the purpose of the Background Simulation is not to facilitate PvP battles over territory. It isn't there to facilitate PvE empire building. It isn't there to facilitate the spread of certain ideologies across the Cosmos. It isn't there to facilitate secret agent roleplay. It isn't even there to facilitate creating faction state-based trading opportunities or increasing the generation of certain types of missions.

The sole purpose of the Background Simulation is to simulate the background environment of this game. It is there to make sure that said background isn't static, but instead wars come and go, factions have good times and bad, famines and outbreaks occur, and that if you haven't visited a system in a while, it may look very different from when you were last there.

All those other uses for the Background Simulation I mentioned above? Those are alternate ways to use the BGS that players have discovered. It is a classic example of emergent gameplay: using a game mechanism in ways other than its intended purpose. But just because players have discovered alternate uses for a game mechanism doesn't obviate its actual purpose in the game.

 

[Darkfyre99]

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.

There are no "Player Factions." All factions are owned by NPCs, are controlled by NPCs, and consist solely of NPCs. Players may support a faction. They may choose to be affiliated with a faction. They may even roleplay that they are part of a faction, but players neither own or control minor factions in this game. Players have no control over who supports a minor faction, who affiliates with a minor faction, and they have no way of directly controlling it. The best they can do is influence it through being selective with what PvE activities they do.

The largest group of minor factions is by far the Stellar-Forge named minor factions. Then there is the smaller group of player-named minor factions. These were added for various reasons, many of which were not for BGS manipulation. Whether is was to make a player's headcanon officially part of the lore, to establish a home base for a non-BGS orientated player-group, or even as Elite: Dangerous' version of grafitti, these "player factions" are not being used to manipulate the BGS.

Of these PNMFs, only half of them control the system they're in. Given how easy it is to at least put a minor faction in control a system, a single player can do this unintentionally in most systems if they're not opposed by other players and are choosy who they work for, its clear to me that they're not being used to manipulate the BGS. Only about 30% of PNMFs can be considered "interstellar empires," in the sense that they control more than one star system, which is a pretty good sign of deliberate BGS manipulation.

Compare and contrast this with the Stellar-Forge named minor factions. They outnumber PNMFs by almost a factor of fifty to one. They control more than one out of five inhabited star systems. The number of SFNMFs that are "interstellar empires" outnumber all PNMFs by almost 50%! Heck, six of the fifty largest "interstellar empires" are SFNMFs, and that proportion drops rapidly from there, so even size is no guarantee that an "interstellar empire" is a "player faction," only that a faction was, at one time, supported by players. Not even the name of a minor faction can reveal whether it was named by players or the Stellar Forge. Two of the five largest PNMFs in the game look like SFNMFs IMO, and the stellar forge can be surprisingly creative at times when it comes to names.

All factions are NPCs. If a player was to drop into random system and decide to work for or against a faction there, the chances are very good that a) that minor faction was named by the Stellar Forge, and b) that faction isn't being supported by players.

 

[Lateralus]

.....

 

[Havvk]

While I agree with the sentiment, CQC fell flat because you don't get to use your own stuff and that put people off.
Add in the fact you have to log out of the main game and sit waiting looking at a menu screen to get a game.
It's just wasting time and boring.

Don't get me wrong, I like CQC. But even I've given up losing play time to sitting in a queue for no reason for 30 minutes then logging out without playing anything.

If they add NPCs to make up teams, or moved it into the main game and let you holo-connect like we do with SLFs. Then maybe it would help out.
But as it currently stands, it's just a time sink without a purpose.

Maybe if you can. See, I'm not a PvP person, but I know the differences between some of these...well...idiotic "feature suggestions". Just because I don't do much PvP doesn't mean my understanding of it is invalid. If CQC was put into the game, then made into something that functions similarly to what our CGs are like now, but instead its like Elite's version of ship-to-ship boxing or some kind of crash derby with guns.

 

[Jockey79]

Heard the best thing ever on the live stream regarding the BGS and balancing.
As there is now more "buckets" to fill, in order to influence the BGS, Dav said;

"How many fish is one murder?"

I laughed. That's an amazing way of putting it.

 

[Lateralus]

Maybe if you can. See, I'm not a PvP person, but I know the differences between some of these...well...idiotic "feature suggestions".

Oh wow so rude o7

Maybe if you canJust because I don't do much PvP doesn't mean my understanding of it is invalid.

[haha]

 

[Havvk]

[haha]

PvP=Player versus player. It's not that hard to understand. Whether it's direct pew pew, or players vying to gain certain BGS factors against one another via PMF or such. It's still playing against other players.

 

[Goose4291]

While I agree with the sentiment, CQC fell flat because you don't get to use your own stuff and that put people off.
Add in the fact you have to log out of the main game and sit waiting looking at a menu screen to get a game.
It's just wasting time and boring.

Don't get me wrong, I like CQC. But even I've given up losing play time to sitting in a queue for no reason for 30 minutes then logging out without playing anything.

If they add NPCs to make up teams, or moved it into the main game and let you holo-connect like we do with SLFs. Then maybe it would help out.
But as it currently stands, it's just a time sink without a purpose.

CQC is another of those points that really highlights the inexperience the team have with multiplayer games, in my opinion.

The fact we're now at a point roughly three years since its original release, and they still havent added private lobbies for matchmaking (leading to you being stuck at the matchmaking screen for long periods) all but confirms this.

 

[Rampant]

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*

The bit in bold is utter hogwash and well you know it, LOL, LOL, LOL...

*YOU* clearly prefer to play in Open, because it is "advantageous" to your style of play, so on those terms alone, Open has ALL the advantages, from *your* perspective.

So don't try to foist clearly very ill-analysed concepts onto us - because we're onto you and you're busted.

Thanks in advance

Mark H