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

[Rubbernuke]

Right - so claiming that you have the right to see who is 'affecting your game' shows a misunderstanding of what the BGS is. People aren't doing anything to YOUR game - they're simply playing THEIR game, and how, when and where they're playing it is nobody's business but their own.

As long as everything about PMFs and the BGS is purely cosmetic, complaints about damage to your pretend space empire are as meaningful as NPCs moaning the 'you scratched their paint'.

Which for people who do back factions, or BGS for PP it does affect them because by its definition the BGS is shared. So what I do can affect them, and what they do can affect me.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Knowing "who" affected all the factions in one system does not improve the situation much - as they neither need to play or communicate with any other player.

Well it does, because I can then try to get in touch or take other steps (like hammer thier BGS) to stop / persuade them to stop.

The existence of altCMDRs and the ability for each CMDR to be allied with a number of Factions that is only limited by the number of Factions would make identifying which Faction to punish rather challenging, if not impossible - and delightfully vulnerable to 5th column actions if such information were to be made available - which I doubt it would be.

Its not what the commander is called, its what they do that is of interest. Since names are immutable people will note what they are for the future-t hat is, you buy a new copy of ED each week or something? Many players have been outed for breaking player agreements simply for being identified by squadrons and groups.

Plus a lot of PMF backed factions have patches they like to call home and tended to stop bombarding yours when you pay a visit.

What is dull for some is not dull for all.

When its into its 6 or 7th week and never knowing who it is it gets dull.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Which for people who do back factions, or BGS for PP it does affect them because by its definition the BGS is shared. So what I do can affect them, and what they do can affect me.

It affects the role-playing you're doing ON TOP of the game. It doesn't affect your actual game in anything other than a cosmetic sense.

If we're gonna start changing the game based on how it affects MY roleplay, then there's going to be a whole lot of PMFs, Cmdrs and NPCs who're getting a name change.

 

[Rubbernuke]

You mean like the time I smuggled 14,000 land mines into a system because they were paying good money for "fetch land mines" missions, and there I was just making good money! Didn't realise someone had the right to know I was smuggling land mines in, I mean the very point of smuggling is that no-one knows you are doing it, right, it's like, a big secret, I'm smuggling, I'm a criminal, how on earth is that supposed to suddenly appear in the system reports? What's the point of even having a smuggling mechanic if the moment it affects your favourite part of the game my name gets posted up for all to see?

Didn't know the state of the BGS, who was the minor factions being affected by my nefarious deeds, I'm just making money, in secret, because I'm smuggling, unless I get scanned carrying illegal goods no-one should know who it is smuggling the land mines in.

There is a difference between smuggling for money and outright warfare.

And if you read what I suggested, I wanted:

Gameplay where if you avoid sec, station, faction or power scans you don't show up- or that some states / compromised navs / gov types either restrict or don't record, such things. So while the information is there, if you wish to you can avoid it by fair in game mechanics. So if you wanted to be a sneaky sod you can, its just not automatic and you have to work a bit more and not get sloppy if thats your goal.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well it does, because I can then try to get in touch or take other steps (like hammer thier BGS) to stop / persuade them to stop.

How does one propose to "get in touch" - or even identify which Faction they back (if they choose not to make such information public)?

Its not what the commander is called, its what they do that is of interest. Since names are immutable people will note what they are for the future-t hat is, you buy a new copy of ED each week or something? Many players have been outed for breaking player agreements simply for being identified by squadrons and groups.

Plus a lot of PMF backed factions have patches they like to call home and tended to stop bombarding yours when you pay a visit.

What they do is reflected in the daily tick. Names can be changed trivially - all one needs to do is reset a CMDR - and one need not be heavily engineered to be effective in the BGS.

Many players have systems that they like to call home - that does not confer any ownership over those systems.

When its into its 6 or 7th week and never knowing who it is it gets dull.

Maybe BGS play just isn't for some players....

 

[Rubbernuke]

Good job wrecking my BGS, I don't have one lol, be a lot of running around for nothing, I could care less who runs the galaxy, I just do my own thing!

Then fine, a lot of player groups do have territory they are keen on. But then if you are simply doing something for profit people would not be that interested. Its a months long BGS war that is what I'm talking about here.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It affects the role-playing you're doing ON TOP of the game. It doesn't affect your actual game in anything other than a cosmetic sense.

If we're gonna start changing the game based on how it affects MY roleplay, then there's going to be a whole lot of PMFs, Cmdrs and NPCs who're getting a name change.

How is it role playing when a certain alignment of gov types in a control bubble raises or lowers the trigger and thus the work needed to defend it? If a hostile PMF is trying to upset that balance I need to know who it is.

 

[Rubbernuke]

How does one propose to "get in touch" - or even identify which Faction they back (if they choose not to make such information public)?

INARA, word of mouth, Discord (if you are lucky).

What they do is reflected in the daily tick. Names can be changed trivially - all one needs to do is reset a CMDR - and one need not be heavily engineered to be effective in the BGS.

Again, its not all in a name but what is going on. While doing those things would muddy waters its not the only thing that people are looking at. Plus, it would be nice to know what numbers player wise as well as other stats (like what Power) is doing this.

Many players have systems that they like to call home - that does not confer any ownership over those systems.

In the end its whoever pushes the numbers who owns it. And if they don't want the numbers pushed the wrong way then they talk or fight. #

Maybe BGS play just isn't for some players....

By making long term BGS wars set in who attacks and who defends forever (i.e. endurance) and never being able to land a counterpunch it gets dull. Having several of these in a Powers territory becomes tiresome when simply knowing who they are opens up other avenues of response.

 

[Robert Maynard]

INARA, word of mouth, Discord (if you are lucky).

.... and for the (very likely) majority who don't use these?

Again, its not all in a name but what is going on. While doing those things would muddy waters its not the only thing that people are looking at. Plus, it would be nice to know what numbers player wise as well as other stats (like what Power) is doing this.

What proportion of the player-base even bothers to pledge to a Power - and, if they did, who can say whether any pledge at the time of affecting the BGS is the "real one"?

In the end its whoever pushes the numbers who owns it. And if they don't want the numbers pushed the wrong way then they talk or fight. #

Everyone can push the numbers - in any way they see fit. No need to talk or fight - as neither is a requirement of this game.

By making long term BGS wars set in who attacks and who defends forever (i.e. endurance) and never being able to land a counterpunch it gets dull. Having several of these in a Powers territory becomes tiresome when simply knowing who they are opens up other avenues of response.

There is no irrevocable "end condition" to a BGS conflict - it can be restarted at a moment's notice.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Not at all.

I do think FD have definitely confused the issue for players, as a byproduct of their original naivety that players would care about superpower allegience before factional allegience. I think their lack of firm language and evasiveness around the general BGS has also contributed to a substantial amount of further confusion. And don't forget the lunacy of PMFs, which FD thought was just giving players the chance to add a lick of flavour to the galaxy, not a flag to rally behind.

But none of the gradual release of information is necessarily outlandish or incongruent to the BGS being that background flavour, and facilitating indirect interaction between players.

It's still to this day not clear exactly what contributes to war & election success. Sure, the big ticket items are known. But it's only natural for a player to see a war, and want to help one side win... or see an economic boom and take advantage of it for profit.... or how to help an outbreak... and as you get more understanding, you'll notice you can spin profit in medicines during outbreak, so you start to want to increase the chances of that state occurring.

Of course, some of the mechanisms there aren't straightforward, and i think that's a failing of the BGS, but i digress... more information about how the bgs reacts fits right in with an awareness of how your actions can affect the game world.

And sure, that can be seen through the lens of encouraging direct interactions.... but that doesn't mean it's no longer just background flair either. I think what FD has done is increased information for players as much as they can while both staying in the remit of the BGS being the backdrop we play against... but given the ways people play, there is always overlap with that competitive aspect.

Some firm, direct language would clear that up, but when players can't even understand that Squadron allegience does not mean you "own" a faction... i think FD is quite aware that such language would just alienate some players.

So, no, i don't think FD needs to keep a tight lid on the black box even if this is just background flair, if only so players can have more meaningful interactions with it. There will be overlaps with group vs group activity, but that's secondary in nature. But i do agree it's become confused as time goes on.

Looking at it from a more abstracted viewpoint- take for example wars or elections. In the past I've asked for more proc gen like local news. It would be fantastic if these reports gave hints (even if they are light) as to who is doing the opposition- for example "In war X, faction Y gained the upper hand with strong / good / poor support - the change in wording reflecting the player numbers (strong = 10 plus, good 5 to 10, poor less than 5). Or with elections where something similar might be done. So not all of what I'd love to see is overt, just exposing the giant database that is the BGS and have more hooks.

 

[Rubbernuke]

.... and for the (very likely) majority who don't use these?

To be blunt: the people who this concerns would be on them because those are the circles they move in. This is not about randoms and never has.

What proportion of the player-base even bothers to pledge to a Power - and, if they did, who can say whether any pledge at the time of affecting the BGS is the "real one"?

Powers have dedicated BGS teams, and PMFs have well known members. On many, if not all Power and organised discords there is a BGS discussion section where they report sightings and odd goings on.

Everyone can push the numbers - in any way they see fit. No need to talk or fight - as neither is a requirement of this game.

Whoever pushes the numbers for a faction 'owns' it for that time until someone else pushes it another way. Its when those pushed numbers go against something you have done when you do something to counter it. So its whoever is doing the pushing that is of interest.

There is no irrevocable "end condition" to a BGS conflict - it can be restarted at a moment's notice.

There is when that undesirable push ends. For example, when I was with Utopia we had a massive bust up with BoTM because they were expanding outside TM which would ruin the triggers on an important control system. The end condition was us fighting them to a standstill and reducing their influence inside TM to the point where they were forced to the table. Another was with the 8DS where some Utopians and I reduced their system influence to ash, and they in turn stopped attacking ours. So while you are right that there is no offical 'end', there are ends to events within the BGS players generate.

 

[Robert Maynard]

To be blunt: the people who this concerns would be on them because those are the circles they move in. This is not about randoms and never has.

That does not change the situation at all - as it assumes that the CMDR name is "known" in the first place.

Powers have dedicated BGS teams, and PMFs have well known members. On many, if not all Power and organised discords there is a BGS discussion section where they report sightings and odd goings on.

Is this about Powerplay or the BGS? According to Inara, less than half of players are pledged at all.

Whoever pushes the numbers for a faction 'owns' it for that time until someone else pushes it another way. Its when those pushed numbers go against something you have done when you do something to counter it. So its whoever is doing the pushing that is of interest.

Which does not constitute ownership in any way.

There is when that undesirable push ends. For example, when I was with Utopia we had a massive bust up with BoTM because they were expanding outside TM which would ruin the triggers on an important control system. The end condition was us fighting them to a standstill and reducing their influence inside TM to the point where they were forced to the table. Another was with the 8DS where some Utopians and I reduced their system influence to ash, and they in turn stopped attacking ours. So while you are right that there is no offical 'end', there are ends to events within the BGS players generate.

Sounds like the push for BGS information relates to Powerplay - it would be better to break all links between Powerplay and the BGS in that case.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That does not change the situation at all - as it assumes that the CMDR name is "known" in the first place.

And quite often they are known- from being spotted in Open and people ask on the Discords who X is.

Is this about Powerplay or the BGS? According to Inara, less than half of players are pledged at all.

Powerplay, and to a lesser extent the squadrons and groups people are members of. INARA holds a lot of info but again its word of mouth too once you know who to talk about. Quite often it'll be "spotted X at station y, anyone know him?" type stuff.

Which does not constitute ownership in any way.

Well from a POV it does, since its them pushing the faction until someone else steers it another way.

Sounds like the push for BGS information relates to Powerplay - it would be better to break all links between Powerplay and the BGS in that case.

A lot of this does come from Powerplay, but also from large PMF groups too. As groups scale up, so does the need for better information.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And quite often they are known- from being spotted in Open and people ask on the Discords who X is.

I'd strongly suspect unknown more often than not - which defeats the purpose of the proposal to "name and shame" anyone who dares affect the BGS. No-one need ever play in Open to play this game, nor join a Discord.

Powerplay, and to a lesser extent the squadrons and groups people are members of. INARA holds a lot of info but again its word of mouth too once you know who to talk about. Quite often it'll be "spotted X at station y, anyone know him?" type stuff.

Again this relies on players being in Open - which no player needs to do to affect this game.

Well from a POV it does, since its them pushing the faction until someone else steers it another way.

In which case it belongs to everyone who affects any of the factions in the system in any way.

A lot of this does come from Powerplay, but also from large PMF groups too. As groups scale up, so does the need for better information.

While the desire for more information is obvious, a substantive case for it, especially as it could (and would) be used to harass players, isn't.

 

[Brrokk]

You mean like the time I smuggled 14,000 land mines into a system because they were paying good money for "fetch land mines" missions, and there I was just making good money! Didn't realise someone had the right to know I was smuggling land mines in, I mean the very point of smuggling is that no-one knows you are doing it, right, it's like, a big secret, I'm smuggling, I'm a criminal, how on earth is that supposed to suddenly appear in the system reports? What's the point of even having a smuggling mechanic if the moment it affects your favourite part of the game my name gets posted up for all to see?

Didn't know the state of the BGS, who was the minor factions being affected by my nefarious deeds, I'm just making money, in secret, because I'm smuggling, unless I get scanned carrying illegal goods no-one should know who it is smuggling the land mines in.

You raise a good point. If you don't get scanned, you shouldn't appear on any system statistics. I have no idea whether this works ATM or not.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'd strongly suspect unknown more often than not - which defeats the purpose of the proposal to "name and shame" anyone who dares affect the BGS. No-one need ever play in Open to play this game, nor join a Discord.

But thats the thing, its only when known troublemakers are about or spikes in undesirable activity does the machinery turn.

Again this relies on players being in Open - which no player needs to do to affect this game.

And the suggestion being that more information is exposed so that pan modally activity is described better.

In which case it belongs to everyone who affects any of the factions in the system in any way.

A rivals interest is in those who are pushing that faction if its bad for them.

While the desire for more information is obvious, a substantive case for it, especially as it could (and would) be used to harass players, isn't.

For me the player identifiable info would come from substantive activity- so as your BGS activity increases to the maximum the s curve allows so does your footprint in the information. So if you are pushing the BGS hard then more of your movements / activity (if you choose not to hide it via gameplay mechanisms added in parallel) shows more proactively rather than being smushed into a bucket the next day.

 

[Rubbernuke]

You raise a good point. If you don't get scanned, you shouldn't appear on any system statistics. I have no idea whether this works ATM or not.

It does not for system traffic (not unless you enter via Apex or FC). As far as remaining unscanned I never explicitly tested it, but I'd wager it does not work like that (as much as I'd love that to be a thing).

 

[Robert Maynard]

But thats the thing, its only when known troublemakers are about or spikes in undesirable activity does the machinery turn.

That's certainly the claim - whether it's consistent with the data that Frontier hold is a different matter entirely.

And the suggestion being that more information is exposed so that pan modally activity is described better.

.... and rebutted - players don't need to let anyone know where they are or what they are doing in this game, as they don't need to play among or communicate with other players - unless they want to, of course, the choice is theirs and theirs alone.

A rivals interest is in those who are pushing that faction if its bad for them.

An interest, certainly, no right to receive detailed information as to who is affecting one or more Factions in the system.

For me the player identifiable info would come from substantive activity- so as your BGS activity increases to the maximum the s curve allows so does your footprint in the information. So if you are pushing the BGS hard then more of your movements / activity (if you choose not to hide it via gameplay mechanisms added in parallel) shows more proactively rather than being smushed into a bucket the next day.

What "gameplay mechanisms added in parallel" are envisaged that would let players choose whether or not to "hide it via gameplay mechanisms"?

 

[Rubbernuke]

That's certainly the claim - whether it's consistent with the data that Frontier hold is a different matter entirely.

Well it happens all the time, and has done for years like that. Sightings and actions.

.... and rebutted - players don't need to let anyone know where they are or what they are doing in this game, as they don't need to play among or communicate with other players - unless they want to, of course, the choice is theirs and theirs alone.

And for me its not if you engage with the BGS, because its a giant output machine that changes the backdrop based on what everyone has done. Unless you use the suggested gameplay to hide (which to me is fair), information on local activity should be more illustrative.

An interest, certainly, no right to receive detailed information as to who is affecting one or more Factions in the system.

This is not some spoon fed info dump- you still have to put the picture together, its just more detail with better breakdowns.

What "gameplay mechanisms added in parallel" are envisaged that would let players choose whether or not to "hide it via gameplay mechanisms"?

As I've said earlier lots of times:

Avoiding security, other NPC, station, PP NPC scans (which would enter your ship onto the traffic report)
BGS states and events (such as civil unrest and navs changing to compromised) not recording ships when they go live. This can go the other way, with things like civil liberty in say, democracies stopping this too (just for different reasons- in this case as the state suggests civil rights).
Certain gov types either never (such as anarchy) or others either fully recording or partially recording ships.

Also remember wanted or dangerous players would be more visible too (unless they smuggle themselves- could dovetail with something like this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-npc-player-scan-spawns-an-atr-vessel.533172/)

In short by augmenting and complimenting the BGS and what it contains you can add a lot of depth and function.

 

[Greasetrap42]

I'd strongly suspect unknown more often than not - which defeats the purpose of the proposal to "name and shame" anyone who dares affect the BGS. No-one need ever play in Open to play this game, nor join a Discord.

Additionally "Name and Shame" and targeting specific players is explicitly against Frontier's Code of Conduct.

There might be some game elements that might be argued break these rules by cracking the door open a little bit. That's a different topic and does not justify swinging the door wide open.

Frontier Code of Conduct - Frontier Developments plc.

The Code of Conduct will apply to all users of Frontier Development's products and/or services and are designed to provide a friendly and welcoming atmosphere for all users.

www.frontier.co.uk