Terra EX (DTEA's Squadron) vs The Code BGS War

[Screemonster]

Yea and all we hear is "wahh my pvp I must rulez ", thx also for your contribution. No niche extremists should change game design.

The same goes for the anti-PvP crowd as well. And by that, I don't mean "I don't want to participate in PvP", I mean the people that think that because they don't like it, nobody else should either, and do things like showing up to pvp threads in the pvp subforum fingerwagging at people for doing pvp. In conflict zones.

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

The same goes for the anti-PvP crowd as well. And by that, I don't mean "I don't want to participate in PvP", I mean the people that think that because they don't like it, nobody else should either, and do things like showing up to pvp threads in the pvp subforum fingerwagging at people for doing pvp. In conflict zones.

Agreed , can we close thread now ?

 

[Slange Lands]

They would if they got good. Regardless, optional PVP is fine, there are game modes for it. That those game modes can still somehow be PVP is ridiculous. The idea that the bears can completely avoid gameplay they dislike and get equal rewards to everyone else, while the open players can't avoid the gameplay they dislike and get equal rewards to the bears is ridiculous. As it stands, bears can invade a PVP faction's BGS and force PVPers to waste 4 nights of quality gameplay to putter around with NPCs. That is the status quo. There is no counter benefit for the PVPers, nothing they can force the bears to do. Furthermore, all those players who are hiding in private group get a buff to all other BGS activities because they make no concessions to:
-learning to build a ship
-learning evasion in supercruise and normal space
-grinding for a build
-building for survival
-being interrupted in delivering gameplay tokens by hostile players
All of this leads to a clear and unfair advantage for the carebears hiding away from the full game.

"On paper" it may seem that those who choose Solo or PG may get the same benefits for less "cost". However, psychologically, when I became a Pvper, I ceased to be afraid of anything. The entire universe is my oyster.

Fearlessness is a great thing.

 

[CMDR Corky the Great]

"On paper" it may seem that those who choose Solo or PG may get the same benefits for less "cost". However, psychologically, when I became a Pvper, I ceased to be afraid of anything. The entire universe is my oyster.

Fearlessness is a great thing.

Obviously you're preaching to the choir here! The real benefits of pvp are the engrossing gameplay. There's literally no in-game reward whatsoever, unless my 3 billion in rebuys count lol, but we do it anyway cuz it's the best part of the game!

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

Obviously you're preaching to the choir here! The real benefits of pvp are the engrossing gameplay. There's literally no in-game reward whatsoever, unless my 3 billion in rebuys count lol, but we do it anyway cuz it's the best part of the game!

Cool , so hugs all round and we can all agree that such engaging and engrossing gameplay needs no extra rewards or forcing of ' participents' .

 

[Jmanis]

This is the part that gets me.

Dislike PvP all you want, but the instant you seek them out to impose undesired gameplay upon them while using game mechanics to stack the odds in your favour, when you have the option of not doing that, you're morally little different to someone going out and attacking trade ships with a combat fit.

Modes aside, don't claim the moral high ground if you're the one initiating aggression, and definitely don't go out of your way to seek someone out and attack them if you want to pretend to be a good guy.

And this is why FDs definition of the BGS is critical, in that it is explicitly, by design a system to create a malleable universe, which accepts the input of all modes and platforms into it, where players interact indirectly.

That's not my opinion. That's standing design by FD, so it bewilders me why you'd enter that activity thinking you can make your mark purely through PvP. It's like a trader complaining that successful trade doesn't earn them bounty vouchers; it's nonsensical.

 

[Slange Lands]

Cool , so hugs all round and we can all agree that such engaging and engrossing gameplay needs no extra rewards or forcing of ' participents' .

Certainly, no one should be forced to do anything. However, people need to express themselves, especially when it involves something they dearly love. Whether we agree or not, the attempt to understand opposing points of view, no matter how difficult, is good for ourselves and the game in the long run.

 

[Screemonster]

"On paper" it may seem that those who choose Solo or PG may get the same benefits for less "cost". However, psychologically, when I became a Pvper, I ceased to be afraid of anything. The entire universe is my oyster.

Fearlessness is a great thing.

Yeah

Honestly my issue with the modes (and platforms) is that while system chat exists and is definitely a step in the right direction, it's not really helpful for communicating between them, since you've got no way of knowing if there's anyone listening in the other modes unless they're willing to play marco polo.

It's why I'd love to see a station bulletin board or something where you can leave a message for people to find. If I start running BGS in a system and there's an xbox group based out of it, I have no way of knowing that they're there, or vice versa. All they see is their influence going crazy, and all I see is that influence isn't moving as much as I expected after a couple of days. Most of my attempts at communicating with other players in open are trying to find out if the other player has a stake in the system, haha

 

[CMDR Corky the Great]

Cool , so hugs all round and we can all agree that such engaging and engrossing gameplay needs no extra rewards or forcing of ' participents' [sic].

In the way that cars didn't need to be faster than the Model T and the Wright brothers' original design was flying as intended. Smh. I guess this mentality of "it's good enough, no need to improve" is pervasive for the solo crowd. Works for your builds, your skills and even what you want from the game as a whole.

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

In the way that cars didn't need to be faster than the Model T and the Wright brothers' original design was flying as intended. Smh. I guess this mentality of "it's good enough, no need to improve" is pervasive for the solo crowd. Works for your builds, your skills and even what you want from the game as a whole.

But it's only those who want pvp to rule things not designed for pvp who feel this would be progress, so not a good analogy . I also play open but feel free to also strawman me without knowledge.

 

[CMDR Corky the Great]

And this is why FDs definition of the BGS is critical, in that it is explicitly, by design a system to create a malleable universe, which accepts the input of all modes and platforms into it, where players interact indirectly.

That's not my opinion. That's standing design by FD, so it bewilders me why you'd enter that activity thinking you can make your mark purely through PvP. It's like a trader complaining that successful trade doesn't earn them bounty vouchers; it's nonsensical.

Cuz they gave us player factions and told us we could make the systems ours, but forgot to give us an option to defend them. It will never be an exclusively PVP option. There are too many NPCs in CZs even without the carebears to make it exclusively PVP. Would be nice to know who's undermining your system, though, so you can return the favor. And god forbid they show up in your CZ, players might learn that they enjoy actually playing the fun part of the game!

 

[Deleted member 192138]

The same goes for the anti-PvP crowd as well. And by that, I don't mean "I don't want to participate in PvP", I mean the people that think that because they don't like it, nobody else should either, and do things like showing up to pvp threads in the pvp subforum fingerwagging at people for doing pvp. In conflict zones.

Dedicated solo players put their fingers in their ears and scream when Open only/Open weighted is mentioned - they don't want to listen to anything that's said. As far as they're concerned anybody that wants to play in Open must be a nasty griefer that only wants more opportunities to blow up unsuspecting CMDRs. They don't care about any arguments that are put forward, they don't care why people end up focusing on PvP instead of PvE elements of gameplay, they don't even have a clue what proportion of people in Open actually are pure gankers. All they want to do is pout and sulk and complain about the nasty people whilst sitting in solo and trolling system states like they have some moral highground for it. Toddlers in bubblewrap comes to mind.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

And this is why FDs definition of the BGS is critical, in that it is explicitly, by design a system to create a malleable universe, which accepts the input of all modes and platforms into it, where players interact indirectly.

That's not my opinion. That's standing design by FD, so it bewilders me why you'd enter that activity thinking you can make your mark purely through PvP. It's like a trader complaining that successful trade doesn't earn them bounty vouchers; it's nonsensical.

It's really hard for you to comprehend that the intended design ethos FDev has for BGS is not reflected in the functional implementation of mechanics and social interactions it generates.

 

[Robert Maynard]

They would if they got good. Regardless, optional PVP is fine, there are game modes for it. That those game modes can still somehow be PVP is ridiculous. The idea that the bears can completely avoid gameplay they dislike and get equal rewards to everyone else, while the open players can't avoid the gameplay they dislike and get equal rewards to the bears is ridiculous. As it stands, bears can invade a PVP faction's BGS and force PVPers to waste 4 nights of quality gameplay to putter around with NPCs. That is the status quo. There is no counter benefit for the PVPers, nothing they can force the bears to do. Furthermore, all those players who are hiding in private group get a buff to all other BGS activities because they make no concessions to:
-learning to build a ship
-learning evasion in supercruise and normal space
-grinding for a build
-building for survival
-being interrupted in delivering gameplay tokens by hostile players
All of this leads to a clear and unfair advantage for the carebears hiding away from the full game.

Getting good at an optional play-style is not a requirement in this game. The so-called "bears" paid for the game as those who prefer PvP did - no-one bought the right to demand that game features be retrospectively locked behind an optional play-style.

When players buy a game with optional PvP and expect the game to be redesigned around them to force others to engage in that optional play-style it's perhaps unsurprising that they will end up disappointed.

If players can't accept that no-one needs to play with them then it may be that this is not the game for them.

That's nice. If your assumption is correct (it's more likely that they simply failed to think through these aspects of game design, since BGS was not "intended" to be manipulated), their intention was incorrect. It can be fixed.

It's not an assumption - it's based on Frontier's design - nothing is restricted to Open in this game, therefore engaging in any game feature does not require direct player interaction.

This is an ignorant statement. There are rock/paper/scissors builds, but it would be foolish to go into an open PVP engagement with hard counter builds, especially over a prolonged conflict, when your opponent can simply switch to a more versatile build or a hard counter to your hard counter. All counter builds are very weak to something.

A counter with weakness is an RPS build.

It's optional to play the full game, yes. There are restricted modes. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there's no sensible reason for those modes to have impact upon the full game.

No reason for those seeking for force players into PvP, maybe - however Frontier sold the game to every single player based on the mode-shared galaxy. That some bought it and want it changed to suit their preference is obvious - and has been for a long time now. The thing is, we don't all want the same changes - so expecting things to change may, in the event that changes are made, result in things getting "worse" rather than "better" depending on ones perspective.

Why would anyone take non-combat builds into a conflict zone? Maybe one time to see what happens, but are Elite players as stupid as you're accusing them of being? I can understand a new player needing help escaping ganks. It took two hours of theory and practice to make one of my squadron's noobs unkillable for a G5 FDL in his unengineered material gathering DBX, but an entire faction of players experienced enough to expand their influence and start a war with a neighboring faction can't be held to the same standard.

I was referring to the general case, not the specific CZ scenario.

This "playing as intended" schtick is a crutch. The game as intended did not include engineering. We play the game as it is, and we lobby for the game to be improved as it should be.

PvP only exists because players can choose to shoot at anything they instance with. At the same time, players can choose who they won't be instanced with - through the modes or with the block feature.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Cuz they gave us player factions and told us we could make the systems ours, but forgot to give us an option to defend them.

The players have all the options needed to defend their supported faction. It might just not be what some players think the BGS should be or how a conflict between two player groups using the BGS should look like.

… And god forbid they show up in your CZ, players might learn that they enjoy actually playing the fun part of the game!

People consider different aspects of this game as the fun part. What might be fun to you might be boring for others and vice versa.

 

[Brrokk]

Dedicated solo players put their fingers in their ears and scream when Open only/Open weighted is mentioned - they don't want to listen to anything that's said. As far as they're concerned anybody that wants to play in Open must be a nasty griefer that only wants more opportunities to blow up unsuspecting CMDRs. They don't care about any arguments that are put forward, they don't care why people end up focusing on PvP instead of PvE elements of gameplay, they don't even have a clue what proportion of people in Open actually are pure gankers. All they want to do is pout and sulk and complain about the nasty people whilst sitting in solo and trolling system states like they have some moral highground for it. Toddlers in bubblewrap comes to mind.

This is... completely untrue.

 

[CMDR Corky the Great]

But it's only those who want pvp to rule things not designed for pvp who feel this would be progress, so not a good analogy . I also play open but feel free to also strawman me without knowledge.

You look like a duck and you quack like a duck, so you'll have to forgive me for thinking you're a duck. Nobody is saying for pvp to rule anything. They're saying a player vs player conflict, as in a conflict between warring player factions, should involve player vs player conflict, as in warring players warring with each other. This is really, really simple to understand.

Imagine teaching your kid to play soccer, teaching him how to dribble, how to spot an open player in a good position to pass to, how to space himself out on the field, then once he loves that, you tell him to play against an empty goal all night for 4 nights in a row. He can bring friends if he wants. Some other kids will be doing the same thing at another field somewhere else. Neither team can see each other. Then at the end of each night, the most goals are tallied. This is objectively ing horrible gameplay, and nobody rational should include it in their game.

And yet. Here we are. With a game that includes it. And people... defending it. Mind-boggling.

Edit: BRUH! HAVE YOU SEEN THE CENSOR AT WORK? "Gently caressing" is NOT what I said! Rofl! THIS IS BRILLIANT! Bring this humor and creativity to the game, FDev!

 

[Thepirateorc]

The simple solution to people doing bgs in private group or solo is make it that you can do the missions but you dont receive any influence reward. Players in solo or pg should not be able to freely affect someone bgs with no consequence.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The simple solution to people doing bgs in private group or solo is make it that you can do the missions but you dont receive any influence reward. Players in solo or pg should not be able to freely affect someone bgs with no consequence.

Frontier have reiterated a stance that does not agree with this opinion.

 

[StevieG]

Word is in the Lave cluster, that the moral high ground has sunk so fast its gone past Achenar and is quickly reaching warp factor 10 and will be leaving the galaxy shortly.