Expose more info about solo/pg player actions in station info

[Rat Catcher]

Does this mean it's ok for solo/pg to have an advantage by being lower risk as people claim and that it should never be adressed or even mentioned?

Isn't it only a claim made up by those big, brave, boys & girls who flex their mighty muscles in open?
Same old claims, same old "I want an advantage because I play in open" arguments.

You claim to be a BGS player, you already know how it works, how to counter the effect of other players... It doesn't really matter which mode or timezone or platform they are on, just keep on checking the existing stats and planning from them.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Blah blah blah, another one of these threads.

Time for FDev to bite the bullet and make the BGS only affected by actions taken in Cobra IVs.

 

[Greasetrap42]

The exemption for open is there for several reasons:

• In open you could theoretically just instance with the players working the system and see them in-game (maybe actual scouting/recon required? :O ).
• Having perfect information might expose too much of the BGS' inner workings that FDev doesn't want to reveal.
• Doing sneaky stuff should be a possibility, but require extra thought/effort (or some slight risk of extreme trauma via PvP if most of this thread is to be believed).
• I actually am a bit biased too.

I'm confused. Is the idea to call out players by name who are activelly doing trade in a system over the past period of time, such that other players can "meet up" with them, send messages, etc? (as per the first bullet point). If so that sounds like a frightening thing to do in any kind of mmo.

 

[Greasetrap42]

The simplest implementations of this could just be tallying up all the missions/trade influence done for each faction in solo/pg in a station news item like the bounty/crime reports (either as a percentage or some abstract "influence points" value). Maybe with an extra war report for CZs done in solo/pg.

I think having more information available would actually cut down on the need for spreadsheets to derive that information from how much work your side is doing.

I'm definitely confused.

I don't understand how you present this information in-game. Please give a mocked-up sample of how the following in-game information might be presented for:
(make up whatever other data you need).

Orbital Station X

• 3200 formal missions completed by 82 different cmdrs in the last week.
• 25 cmdrs sold a bunch of commodities (non-mission)
• 42 cmdrs purchased commodities to be sold elsewhere (non-mission).
• 10 cmdrs completed 14% of the missions.
• 10 cmdrs sold 28% of the total non-mission commodities.
• 10 cmdrs purchased 42% of the non-mission commodities.

Is the idea to list the names of the top 10 cmdrs for each major activity for each minor faction at each station? How else do you identify who is doing what?
And then what? You go after them?

 

[TobiasFuzz]

Yes, and that's why we do play solely in open.

Then Kumo is not very clever. I am not surprised indeed, did i suspect this for quite some time now.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Then Kumo is not very clever. I am not surprised indeed, did i suspect this for quite some time now.

It's a "pride" thing...

 

[Screemonster]

Not all players can log in to Open.

For a good long time I avoided combat with other players because AMD appear to have subcontracted the writing of their display drivers to a thousand monkeys with typewriters and wouldn't know how to make a driver that doesn't crash at random intervals if their lives depended on it.
To avoid the inevitable combat logging drama, I stuck to flying in the boonies. The one time I did get into a scrap with other players I ended up crashing moments after getting the other guy's shields down and sending him running. Getting a kill snatched away from me by my own damn hardware was frustrating, to say the least.

Was very very glad to ditch that thing.

 

[SteveWW57]

Been out for the evening (table top gaming) and catching up.

Don't give up even an inch! Hold the line!

Steve 07.

 

[insanephoton]

? You'd be able to see the amount of ships working in an area, what they are doing. So no more 'wah I'm being steamrollered by a whole PMF' because you can see who is doing the work better, unlike now where its largely mysterious unless you go about things noisily.

And does it count Apex taxis? If it doesn't then Ody players could be doing a lot of stuff under the radar.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Well consider this thread completely derailed.

Now whilst I would encourage more CMDRs to play in open because I believe it enhances gameplay, I ask anyone in this thread to answer this question. If BGS were all conducted in open what advantage do you think it would actually give the normally open only CMDRs?

I ask this as there seems to be perception that solo players have an advantage in BGS whereas realistically there is no significant advantage. If I truck in solo then I force my opposition to truck. If I truck in open then my opposition might also interdict me. But if they spend their time doing that and I still run cargo through then I get the inf advantage over them. There is no inf and BGS advantage to PvP unless you manage to get a commander to fail inf missions as a consequence. So any time spent looking for PvP is time wasted that could have been better spent on inf.

Zero advantage to BGS by engaging in PvP. It's just fun for those that enjoy it.

Always nice to see someone else who gets it. In addition, the way the BGS works, it’s actually to my advantage to let them catch me… assuming they’re “defending” a controlling faction. The amount of influence that faction will lose with my death is greater than the influence they’ll lose if I complete my incoming missions.

But that’s beside the point. The purpose of the Background Sim is, as the name suggests, to simulate the background activity of the galaxy. The fact there is emergent gameplay arising out of manipulating the BGS does not obviate its actual purpose: to create change throughout the galaxy.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

Isn't it only a claim made up by those big, brave, boys & girls who flex their mighty muscles in open?
Same old claims, same old "I want an advantage because I play in open" arguments.

Are you claiming there is no difference between solo and open or just answering a question with a question?

You claim to be a BGS player, you already know how it works, how to counter the effect of other players... It doesn't really matter which mode or timezone or platform they are on, just keep on checking the existing stats and planning from them.

The lack of stats and feedback makes everything require more guesswork which makes BGS so much more unapproachable for newer players.

I don't understand how you present this information in-game. Please give a mocked-up sample of how the following in-game information might be presented for:

This comes down to what FDev feels is appropriate to provide. I think top 10's might be too much like the crime/bounty things, the idea there being you have to do something naughty to get noticed as an individual. The important bit of information would be which factions are getting supported, so something like

Faction support past 24h:
Faction A has 10 points of influence / 10% of the total influence work done in the system
Faction B has 25 points of influence / 25% of the total influence work done in the system
...

The aggregated anonymous info you mentioned such as trade volume/missions done and even how much of traffic was people who docked vs just passed through the system would be helpful and maybe more in line with how the bounty/crime stuff works.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Are you claiming there is no difference between solo and open or just answering a question with a question?

Yes, I am. Each mode affects the BGS equally - it is unlikely to change.
Of course, there are some who believe open is 'special', so will want 'special treatment', aren't there?
I play in each mode as the mood takes me, though rarely solo as I'm a social animal.

The lack of stats and feedback makes everything require more guesswork which makes BGS so much more unapproachable for newer players.

Newer players can do the same as everyone else, learn, surely? Perhaps the flight model should be seriously dumbed down to assist newer players also?

Obscure yes, but also transparent enough for anyone interested, not that I could imagine many newer players wishing to involve themselves in the idiosyncrasies of the BGS rather than progressing to something useful first, but there are bound to be some, I suppose.

ETA: Of course, the other little "BGS trick" is to stack as many missions for the faction being attacked as possible, then wait for the trigger happy ones to attack the unshielded, unarmoured ship one is flying, up to 20 missions failed, all due to the actions of the defenders. (plus, if the system is not anarchy, even more negative effect for the 'murder')

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

Of course, there are some who believe open is 'special', so will want 'special treatment', aren't there?

I outlined why here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...r-actions-in-station-info.605928/post-9892952
and solicited for ideas for alternative ways to allow for sneaky stuff while providing more info in another post.

My point was that if open and solo were the same this wouldn't be a contentious issue - they aren't, they shouldn't be and I think it's more interesting to treat it as such.

Newer players can do the same as everyone else, learn, surely? Perhaps the flight model should be seriously dumbed down to assist newer players also?

Are you suggesting some sort of Flight... Assist? Lets not get too silly here.

Obscure yes, but also transparent enough for anyone interested, not that I could imagine many newer players wishing to involve themselves in the idiosyncrasies of the BGS rather than progressing to something useful first, but there are bound to be some, I suppose.

I meant players new to BGS. Either way, things being outright inscrutable at times does limit the BGS to only players "interested enough" in it and drives away the rest, resulting in less players engaging with a part of the game that's supposed to be more fun the more players engage with it (similar to open).

 

[HappyMoonMonkey]

It's quite simple. Forcing an open only approach on this game will make the vast majority of players who play either in solo or private groups simply leave. Playing in open in the thargoid czs at the moment just underlines that players don't want their time wasted by gankers who want to spoil their gameplay.

DB-OBE quoted studies done into Ultima Online (the original MMO which turned into an absolute PvP gankfest), showed that every PVP ganker caused on average 50 account cancellations (i.e. players leaving the game) and then you look at Jumpgate, a space MMO with Newtonian physics, once the sealclubbers started smashing the noobs, the noobs just cancelled their free trials and the game died a death because there were no new players.

Open Only has it's place. for example, I always wanted it in Powerplay and for some community goals, it would add extra player agency. However, both of those game-play elements you're signing up for it and you should know what your getting into. But for general day to day play, lets keep it as it is.

Points taken but this is not an open only thread.

how to counter the effect of other players

Any mode you like.

I'm confused. Is the idea to call out players by name who are activelly doing trade in a system over the past period of time, such that other players can "meet up" with them, send messages, etc? (as per the first bullet point). If so that sounds like a frightening thing to do in any kind of mmo.

Seems a bit confrontational. Especially if they're in solo. What's the point?

Then Kumo is not very clever.

That's the challenge of being a pirate. You have to role play stupid some of the time.

It's a "pride" thing...

Sure. Get over it, you're adults.

For a good long time I avoided combat with other players because AMD appear to have subcontracted the writing of their display drivers to a thousand monkeys with typewriters and wouldn't know how to make a driver that doesn't crash at random intervals if their lives depended on it.

This is a you problem. Don't bring it here.

Don't give up even an inch! Hold the line!

You do you. I see no disadvantage in more information if disseminated from all modes of play.

Always nice to see someone else who gets it.

Thank you.

Yes, I am. Each mode affects the BGS equally - it is unlikely to change.

It does. And I will continue to have fun in open. The tech doesn't support open only but I will continue to evangelize that open is a brilliant way of playing for those that understand the risks.

BGS is frustrating when you can't see or understand your enemy. More info would be welcome but in absence of that we're still all playing the same game. If you want to take advantage of information limitations then that's part of the game you play.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I skipped the thread as it seems to be about the usual snark. But the basic idea I like. The "pg/solo" bit is unnecessary though and it's been pointed out that actions in open in a system as distributed and asynchronous as faction BGS (in contrast to powerplay) can be similarly obscured.

What I'd like is to get more of a sense of the opposition in contested situations. For it not to be a nameless, faceless, invisible hoard, because that's boring. While it might not be possible or at least likely to regularly meet opposing CMDRs, it would be good to get a genuine whiff of what/who you are against or is acting in the same sphere as you. This could be valuable for diplomatic reasons or merely for tactical/strategic ones. Such information could even be hidden behind some new mission types. Deep traffic reports (as opposed to the shallow ones we get now) that require some infiltration or interrogation (e.g. threatening but not destroying an NPC ship or on-foot individual).

Imagine you could take this a step further and send a diplomatic or assassin NPC after a CMDR thus discovered. It's really about immersion and an enhanced sense of interactivity, even if interactions are not occurring "live". The nature of the BGS really demands something more "offline" and NPC-focused to create this enhancement.

 

[Rat Catcher]

My point was that if open and solo were the same this wouldn't be a contentious issue

Wasn't your point that PG / Solo activity be made transparent and open activity logging optional? A contentious issue in itself.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Sure. Get over it, you're adults.

I sometimes wonder otherwise.

 

[Rat Catcher]

BGS is frustrating when you can't see or understand your enemy

Indeed, even when you know exactly who they are, yet the majority of their 'agents' work in PG or solo, despite having an active membership of over 1,000. (been there)

 

[HappyMoonMonkey]

Indeed, even when you know exactly who they are, yet the majority of their 'agents' work in PG or solo, despite having an active membership of over 1,000. (been there)

Frustrating. But open activity by the same group isn't going to help your frustration given all the current game mechanics. It's just going to emphasise quite how little impact you have by challenging then in open.

In all actuality BGS work is best done in open as that offers an opportunity for more time to be wasted by an opposition in trying to counter it by PvP than by actually spending time on positive inf effects.

 

[Tiramu]

There are a few problems with your suggestion.

1. You're trying to address an issue nobody cares about to get people into a PvP environment
Your suggestion is based on something that doesn't affect the vast majority of players because most players don't care about the BGS and the game gives them little reason to give even the tiniest damns about it. If you think anything to do with the BGS is going to encourage anyone into open then you're grossly overestimating how much people care about the BGS.

Minor factions and missions are nothing more than fodder to build superpower rank and make money for the majority of players. And, of course they're not, they're lifeless and don't really impact anyone other than those who get excited about algorythms. Since ED's release people have criticised the station missions and minor factions as being dead behind the eyes, obviously automated, and the game not giving people a tangible reason to care about them. Why support faction A against faction B? The game gives you no reason to care.


2. The issue with Open is that Elite is too shallow and slow paced for PvP to appeal
You're never going to get the majority of players out of a safe environment into a PvP environment in a game like ED, and if there was an Open mode push, then you're not suddenly going to have more people to interact with or compete against, you're going to have less players and see ED's life decline.

ED is way too slow paced and oftentimes teedious. If a player who has spent hours hopping from system to system to unlock an engineer gets ganked outside of a workshop, they haven't suddenly met a challenge, they've just had a boring and teedious process scrubbed and are likely to quit the game entirely if they're getting ganked every time they try.

ED just isn't built to compliment a thriving PvP environment.