Modes An old gripe, revisited... [apologies]

[Marklar_]

There was some discussion about making PP open-only, but I don't think it went anywhere. I wouldn't hold my breath on this kind of thing happening.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I'm not native English speaker (probably neither Cmdr Esteban).
This is a bit hard to understand for me too!
To me it sounds you're asking why BGS can be affected only in OPEN.

If I understood correctly your question is not correct because this is not true. BGS can be affected in all modes: SOLO, OPEN and PRIVATE GROUP.

The 2018 biggest discussion about BGS was to make it OPEN only, but this proposal never passed

Is about "butt" open, I believe. Cos constipation is very uncomfortable.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The 2018 biggest discussion about BGS was to make it OPEN only, but this proposal never passed

Not a Frontier instigated discussion though - some people took the fact that the Powerplay Flash Topic investigation included, as one of the possibilities, making Powerplay Open Only to mean that "all the things" would be made Open Only. Sandro was quick to quash that speculation and stated that Powerplay was the only feature being possibly considered for Open Only, nothing else.

 

[Andovar]

because it's against fdev's religion
*ba-dum-tsh!*



...i'll get my coat.

 

[ADAMtheWELSHMANz]

because it's against fdev's religion
*ba-dum-tsh!*



...i'll get my coat.

10/10, was wondering who was going to be the first to bring that up

 

[Zed]

I know this has been mentioned a thousand times, but I'm curious as to why it has not been visited by FDEV.

Why is it still possible to affect BGS in anything BUT OPEN?

I won't trail on for a ridiculous spiel about why my opinion matters, just a starter for someone to explain why things are the way they are, and FDEV's justification for this. Thank you.

Possibly it's because it's the way it was sold to us in the beginning and changing it could be considered a breach of contract.

 

[Stamford Rider]

I'm not native English speaker (probably neither Cmdr Esteban).
This is a bit hard to understand for me too!
To me it sounds you're asking why BGS can be affected only in OPEN.

If I understood correctly your question is not correct because this is not true. BGS can be affected in all modes: SOLO, OPEN and PRIVATE GROUP.

The 2018 biggest discussion about BGS was to make it OPEN only, but this proposal never passed

I'm sorry, but as a native English speaker his meaning was clear, and correctly phrased. If you still have anyone helping you to learn you might like to discuss it with them; sadly while I have many skills, "teacher" is not among them.

 

[00nutzy]

its more of a matter of not being able to actively prevent opposing influence... its kind of counterintuitive...

You can actively oppose their actions though. Using the same methods they are applying to generate that influence.
Perhaps you instead are referring to an option to attack those doing the other things?
However there is a fallacy in play here. First you have no idea if any particular commander is opposing you or not so blowing them up can hurt as much as help your faction.
Exploding clean ships (weather working for you or against you) actually harms your faction.
Many of the players in the system are not knowingly working for or against any faction, they are just playing the game.
For every opposing player you stop there are others who slip through and they may actually be more detrimental to your faction than the one you did stop.
And lets not forget instancing, time zones, geographical regions and platforms that put the kibosh on the whole thing.
The way it stands everyone gets to have an effect on the game which was the intention of the developers from the start.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

You can actively oppose their actions though. Using the same methods they are applying to generate that influence.
Perhaps you instead are referring to an option to attack those doing the other things?
However there is a fallacy in play here. First you have no idea if any particular commander is opposing you or not so blowing them up can hurt as much as help your faction.
Exploding clean ships (weather working for you or against you) actually harms your faction.
Many of the players in the system are not knowingly working for or against any faction, they are just playing the game.
For every opposing player you stop there are others who slip through and they may actually be more detrimental to your faction than the one you did stop.
And lets not forget instancing, time zones, geographical regions and platforms that put the kibosh on the whole thing.
The way it stands everyone gets to have an effect on the game which was the intention of the developers from the start.

This. Not sure how anyone on PC stops me when I'm on PS4. You got there before me!

 

[Kenneth McGrew]

because it's against fdev's religion
*ba-dum-tsh!*



...i'll get my coat.

no mention of raxxla yet either I’m dissapointed

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

Mmm. Why...

You see, I think Elite would have been a better game with an offline mode, as it was initially planned. Because servers are a total sheitfest right now, even when you launch an incursion challenge you'll get message errors. Also because I could roll back this instagram filter update who made everyone lose 10 FPS for a rose tincted-skybox, and mod the game. Elite flight model is enough gameplay for me.

As opposed to you, who seems to embrace totally the B S (it's the true acronym of background simulation). A broken simulation that constantly needs the devs to nerf feedback loops in their grinding machine so people cant make stupid amounts of creds while datamining with third party sites in their browser.

Obviously FDevs just try for us both to get the worst of both world. Also maybe as a poor man's piracy protection.

So why? Maybe because it's simply just not a well thought and good game.

 

[Dietger]

I know this has been mentioned a thousand times, but I'm curious as to why it has not been visited by FDEV.

Why is it still possible to affect BGS in anything BUT OPEN?

I won't trail on for a ridiculous spiel about why my opinion matters, just a starter for someone to explain why things are the way they are, and FDEV's justification for this. Thank you.

Hurt?

 

[Mouse]

I know this has been mentioned a thousand times, but I'm curious as to why it has not been visited by FDEV.

Why is it still possible to affect BGS in anything BUT OPEN?

I won't trail on for a ridiculous spiel about why my opinion matters, just a starter for someone to explain why things are the way they are, and FDEV's justification for this. Thank you.

because apparently unlike you FDev wants everyone in the game to have an influence in the game, plus that is how it was advertised. Why do people like you think the mode YOU play in should be special and be the only mode that affects anything?

 

[Mouse]

https://www.elitedangerous.com/features/trade/

"The trading rules are simple and universal: buy goods cheaply where they are most common and sell them where prices are high. Supply and demand drives prices, and every trade you make affects the markets for every player on every platform."

https://www.elitedangerous.com/features/explore/

"Explorers may work alone or in teams, planning expeditions into unknown space. By visiting star systems and collecting data commanders are gradually mapping our galaxy, and the first commander to discover a new system will have their name forever marked in the history books."

https://www.elitedangerous.com/features/fight/

"If you choose to fly in Open Play you’ll encounter other commanders in a galaxy where friendly fire is always on."


It is spelled out plainly in Trade and Exploration and the only "mention" of Open in combat is that you can PVP... not that you can control everything...


Advertisement... read it and study it before buying a game. Would save you the grief.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

When you've done it all... what is left, but manipulation of what is manipulatable?

Doing it in a different ship?

 

[Jockey79]

I know this has been mentioned a thousand times, but I'm curious as to why it has not been visited by FDEV.

Why is it still possible to affect BGS in anything BUT OPEN?

I won't trail on for a ridiculous spiel about why my opinion matters, just a starter for someone to explain why things are the way they are, and FDEV's justification for this. Thank you.

Here you go, right from Frontier;

The Wall of Information;


A quick look at the history of; and tech used to bring you this game (explains why some things are not possible).

Spoiler

[video=youtube_share;EvJPyjmfdz0]https://youtu.be/EvJPyjmfdz0[/video]


Thanks to Roybe for for the link to the video.

Kickstarter Information;

Spoiler

From the Kickstarter Page;

*And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours...*
*you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends
*Play it your way*
*Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends.*
*You simply play the game, and depending on your configuration (your choice) *
*We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will,*

Regarding Multiplayer;

Spoiler

Steam Store Page

"Multi-Player" and "Co-Op" : Not just "MMO"


Frontier website; www.elitedangerous.com/en/gameplay/wings


https://imgur.com/0kmpH03


Dev comments;

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

Thanks for that clarity Michael.


Are you in a position to confirm that group switching between the three game modes will remain as a feature of the game?

We're not planning on changing that.


Michael

FuzzySpider
The mechanics of powerplay, particularly the interface between player and power being an almost direct copy of the community goal model, gives the entire experience an MMO-guild type feel to the gameplay.


Is this MMO-style a new direction for Elite: Dangerous? Or will you be still focussing on the single player immersive experience, even if that single player is playing in a universe filled with other players?


Thank's very much to you and the FDev team for all of your efforts. One or two subjective les of mine aside the game is the one I've been waiting for for years and I'm totally enamoured with it.

We are supporting multiplayer and the solo experience. Community Goals are carrying on too.

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]

And regarding the game design;

Spoiler

I pointed out that there’s frequent contention online about the “right” way to play, be it casual or hard-core, and Braben agreed. “But there shouldn’t be a ‘right’ way,” he said. “You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play. And people have come up with lots of suggestions, some of them very constructive and sensible, and we do listen, and people hopefully have seen that we’ve changed things and adjusted things, but not in a way—we hope!—to upset people. We’re doing it to make the game better!”

To highlight something from that above quote;

“You should do what makes you excited. I don’t want there to be a ‘right’ way, because then you’re not necessarily playing the way you want to play."

Here is a quote from Zac Antonaci for the "game is dying" proclaimers.
Dated 10th July 2015;

They need to be.

Look at the current posts on the subreddit and the forum. Your core player base is simply stopping playing. You might be selling copies but if your core community is splitting or stopping playing then you have a problem.

Hey Fred,

I wanted to reply to this honestly if I may.

I'm not going to be talking about active player numbers explicitally but I can tell you without question that the game has a very healthy and thriving community who enjoys hours upon hours of Elite. You really don't need to worry on that point.

<snip>

Zac

And a nice, clear, concise comment from Michael Brookes regarding the modes;

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

Dev Update 6th August 2015 (https://community.elitedangerous.com/node/248);

What we are doing is new in many ways, both technically and in terms of how we are realizing our long term ambitions for Elite Dangerous. As we evolve the game we are trying to give the best value we can to both existing and new players, for the long term benefit of everyone. That’s why we’ve worked hard to keep backwards compatibility for the Elite Dangerous: Horizons season, and are continuing to release updates for ‘season one’ players. Everyone will continue to fly in the same galaxy, and be impacted by, participate in and help to drive the same events.

(I added the bold / underline in the quote to highlight the last line)

Engineers Live Stream (RE: Open PvE Mode);

Spoiler

2 Points raised and answered;

Open PvE Mode? (42:43);
Is ED a PvP game? (44:12);

[video=youtube;gEtHu3AXw2Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHu3AXw2Q&t=42m30s[/video]

Some General Information;

Spoiler

DB was asked a question "Is Elite and MMORPG?" in the LiveStream tonight.

Spoiler

[video=youtube_share;RdP1DmRYco8]https://youtu.be/RdP1DmRYco8[/video]

He answered it like this:

19:42
"Well I think the problem is this: Different people mean different things by saying MMOs, you know. I think we're massive (19:53) by most measures, in terms of we have a lot of people playing, all at the same time. We have instancing, but then you know so does every other or every MMO out there. (20:10) The case, you know, you look at the way Warcraft does it. Now the case is (20:15) where do you set the number. So currently it's you know around 32 players in a session plus NPCs and all that sort of thing. (20:23) You know we could go higher if it weren't for the NPCs, we could go higher if people had perfect network connections. You know if we had a LAN we could go way higher. You know this is the point. (20:31) And it's a case of balancing the experience and also how much data you have to exchange. You know it's a quality of the experience that I expect over time we will increase it.

"But are we an MMO? I think we are by all measures."

Ed speaks and then David adds:

"It's not an RPG in a sense that (21:09) you increase your personal stats but a lot of people play it as a role playing game. I think if that's what you want it to be then so it is I suppose. I don't think it really matters. Someone said 'That's a silly question. Such a waste of time.' Well there you go."

Regarding the PvP / PvE split;

On PvP vs PvE
We listen to both sides. While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP. A few changes here are more focused on one or the other (torpedoes have no real place in PvE at the moment for starters), but overall I think they promote variety of loadouts in both styles of play, and will make both more fun. On a personal note: I play more or less entirely in PvE, so if anything my bias in favour of that .

Extra note on "Griefing" and posts by Sandro on the topic;

Hello Commanders!
In this instance, blocking the Commander might prove quite useful.
When you block somebody, a couple of things should happen.
Firstly, you will receive no communications from them.
Secondly, during any transition where matchmaking is at work (so basically, hyperspace jumps, entering and exiting super cruise) you are much less likely to be matched with the blocked Commander.
Blocking becomes weaker when it comes up against friends (and next year, player wings), because if a blocked Commander is in the same session as a friend (say, because they haven't blocked the Commander, the blocking effect is overruled by the friendship matchmaking.
Outside of this case though, blocking should work fine.

Hello Commanders!
A couple of points worth noting:
The block effect is asymmetrical, in that it is much stronger when the blocking player is arriving at a location where the blocked player already is - effectively more of the onus is on the blocker to change their game than the blocked player.
Instancing is a pretty complicated calculation, affected by a significant number of checks, such as instance populations, quality of player connections, friends, wing members, blocked players, blocking players, recent connections (and possibly more - far cleverer folk than me work this out). The weightings for these elements varies as well - wing membership, for example, is an extremely strong weighting towards allowing a match up.
Whilst I'm sure that to some degree matchmaking can be influenced, the complexity and number of elements completely out of the player's control (or even knowledge) are a strong limiting factor.
At the end of the day, ignoring players is a completely personal choice, that *influences* the chance of meeting ignored players, reducing the *potential* for match making with them.

Reddit AMA from X-Box One launch, in relation to the Back Ground Simulation and Modes;
https://np.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/3nlmdg/its_frontier_developments_developers_of_elite/

Updated Crime and Punishment system, thanks to Sleutelbos for the link / information;
(from : https://support.frontier.co.uk/kb/faq.php?id=423)


Crime & Punishment FAQ

Updated: Thursday 28th June 2018
How do fines and bounties work?

• When you commit a crime, a fine or bounty is applied to your ship.
• Fines never mature into bounties and bounties never become dormant or expire.
• If you commit a crime in another pilot’s ship during multicrew the fine or bounty will be applied to your most valuable ship.
• Fines can be paid at security contacts, however, bounties can only be paid at Interstellar Factors when your Notoriety is at zero.
• New for 3.1: You can now hand yourself into security contacts if you have a bounty and a zero notoriety rating. Handing yourself in will pay off the bounty and result in deportation to the nearest detention center.
• If your ship is destroyed with a detected bounty you will respawn in a Detention Centre, where you will need to pay off all valid fines and bounties in that jurisdiction.

What other types of bounty are there?

• Interstellar bounties are issued when fines and bounties for factions aligned within a superpower become too high. They are valid in any jurisdiction governed by that superpower or their associated minor factions.
• Power bounties are issued for Powerplay related crimes. They do not affect starport services access and are only valid in Powerplay-specific scenarios. Currently, power bounties can be paid off at Interstellar Factors.
• Pilots Federation bounties are issued for illegal PVP crimes. They are valid in all non-anarchy systems.

What are hot ships and modules?

• When a bounty is applied to your ship it is “hot”. All equipped modules also become hot.
  - Stored ‘hot’ modules will need to be cleaned (at 5% of their rebuy cost) before being transferred to a clean ship
  - Hot modules in storage will not be cleaned when paying off fines/bounties on a hot ship, potentially incurring extra costs if you have a low-value fines/bounties
• While docked in a jurisdiction where your hot ship is wanted your Starport Services access is restricted.
  - Ships can access outfitting anywhere except Starports controlled by a faction that has issued a bounty or fine against them.
  - Basic refuelling will be available at all Starports that offer the service regardless of a ship’s legal status
• Hot ships can be cleaned at Interstellar Factors if your Notoriety is at zero.
• Hot ships can be sold for a significantly reduced profit.

What is Notoriety?

• When you commit a murder your Notoriety is increased by one unit up to a maximum of ten.
• Notoriety is applied to your commander, not your ship.
• The higher your Notoriety, the higher the bounty on your head.
• If you murder another player (i.e. not an NPC) the higher your Notoriety, the lower their rebuy cost.
• If your Notoriety becomes too high you will attract the attention of the ATR.
• Notoriety decreases one unit every two hours of play when obeying the law.
• Notoriety does decay while docked, however, it will not update in your statistics until you undock and jump to supercruise.

What is the ATR?

The Advanced Tactical Responders are heavily armed security ships. They are tasked with stopping high-Notoriety commanders, either by forcing them out of a system or destroying them.

10th Jan 2019, information awating confirmation regarding the C&P / ATR :

...

They just made updates to ATR and how rebuys work. Someone killing super weak ships all the time based off their playtime. Their Rebuy gets reduced, they dont lose as much.

Someone with a high notoriety their rebuy is much higher, some cutter guys have had over 1 bil in rebuy to get their ship back or they lose it.

It works well right now. People just dont see it yet.

Other Information;

Missing Feature from the DDA;

Ironman Elite
During commander creation the player may set the "ironman" flag. Ironman commanders can never be grouped with normal commanders. Players can use the same name for both normal and ironman commanders.

• Escape pod systems can be damaged and made inoperable (they are still invincible once launched)
• Escape pods are disposable: after use, a new pod can be purchased
• Escape pods must be manually activated
• Failure to use an escape pod permanently kills the commander if the ship suffers catastrophic hull damage (breaks apart)
  • Permanently killed commanders can be resurrected as a normal commander (no ironman flag), continuing from when they died
  • Ship warning systems and visual/aural cues activate when the ship nears total operational failure
  • The commander is not killed by any amount of ship operational failure
• Commanders have emergency personal life support which activates in the event of life support failure
  • Personal life support can only sustain a commander for a limited time, but restocks when the commander is in a breathable atmosphere
  • If a commander's personal life support runs out the commander is permanently killed

The BGS / shared Galaxy

https://youtu.be/VCy1ZYjLvdQ?t=872

The other Adam: "But more importantly than that, it represents how player's actions represent the world around them. We're talking about actions from players no matter what platform, or mode they're on"
Adam: "Yeah"
Adam & Will nodding
The other Adam: "It's all part of one shared galaxy, which is something amazing, in the same way we're doing things with exploration [...] every one is part of Elite is part of the same shared world"
Will: "Yes"
The other Adam: "And that I think is a really special part of our game"

Those who have checked out of Hotel California will now be allowed to leave.

 

[Stealthie]

Why is it still possible to affect BGS in anything BUT OPEN?

This is incorrect.

It's possible to affect the BGs in every mode, including Open.

This is entirely reasonable since those who are playing in different modes have an equal opportunity to infuence the BGS.

 

[Sylveria]

This is incorrect.

It's possible to affect the BGs in every mode, including Open.

This is entirely reasonable since those who are playing in different modes have an equal opportunity to infuence the BGS.

As was conceptualized from before release of this game. They intended every mode to have an effect on the BGS.

The only ones "sore" about it are those who didn't properly research it before they bought the game. They simply thought they'd be able to "blockade" everything through Elite 2.0 rather than realize the game was always intended to be a hybrid.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I know this has been mentioned a thousand times, but I'm curious as to why it has not been visited by FDEV.

Why is it still possible to affect BGS in anything BUT OPEN?

I won't trail on for a ridiculous spiel about why my opinion matters, just a starter for someone to explain why things are the way they are, and FDEV's justification for this. Thank you.

Because the purpose of the background simulation is to simulate what's happening in the background of the game. It's there so when you visit a system weeks later, what you'll find there will have changed. There might be a war, famine, poverty, or pirate activity. Perhaps a brave freedom fighters have overthrown the cruel Galactic Federation corporate state that was in control. Frontier wants a dynamic background setting, not a static one, and the BGS is how they go about doing that.

The fact that some players are using the BGS as a proxy for territorial warfare does not, in any way, obviate its intended purpose. Nor does the fact that some players are using the BGS as a proxy for espionage gameplay, political gameplay, deliberately manipulate the BGS to create favorable conditions to trade, earn reputation, or spawn missions that they find enjoyable, or any of myriad ways players manipulate the BGS for fun and/or profit.

All these are examples of genuine emergent gameplay. Emergent gameplay, however, does not trump intended purpose. It's great that Frontier is willing to support such gameplay, but they're not about to abandon the BGS' intended purpose to do so.

 

[Darkfyre99]

its more of a matter of not being able to actively prevent opposing influence... its kind of counterintuitive...

The way the BGS was designed... actively opposing influence is definitely counterproductive... if you support the controlling faction. You don't control a faction, NPCs do. You're just an independent pilot, with no official power or authority in a system. A faction that is in control of a system is only in control because the plurality of other NPCs in the system see the leadership of that faction are able to get things done.

If an "independent pilot" (AKA terrorist) suddenly starts blowing up random ships in the system, disrupting trade, then the controlling faction loses influence. It doesn't matter why the "independent pilot" is doing so, what matters is how such actions are perceived by the general population. That is why "defending" a faction via PvP is functionally identical to attacking a faction via PvP.