Once again, and with this are already 3 answers, I excluded the bot and I talked about the mode currently in use by some players who use missions and other types of mechanics in the game to boycott victories in cz.
BGS does't work in this way!!!
- Thread starter lollo1572
- Start date
Once again, and with this are already 3 answers, I excluded the bot and I talked about the mode currently in use by some players who use missions and other types of mechanics in the game to boycott victories in cz.
Open Only, and you need to buy ARX in the last week. That should solve all the issues with the BGS.
Sandro was correct in that the current iteration of Powerplay would benefit from being Open only. Its because Powerplay currently is superficially PvE with nothing else that makes it a failed design. The PvE gathering needs to be tempered by player v player interaction because NPCs in ED are highly abstracted and wholly unsuitable opposing players in a structured manner in a competitive feature.
However, do not mix this issue with an open BGS which would not work.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Then it's not a bug or an exploit - it's using a game mode other than Open to affect the BGS - which is, from what Frontier has said, intended gameplay.
Frontier have been aware for a long time that some players can't accept that the BGS is affected by all players - they haven't changed their stance and, in the stream video I linked to above, have reiterated their stance.
If you are unable to 'prove' anything against the opposing faction, apart from they are winning, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Reporting the situation to Support would be your best recourse as it will at least bring an awareness to the situation.
BGS play is fascinating, particularly CZ's - now that there is a definite 'end' to a session I can't see a 'bot turret ship' being viable, but what would I know?
But, as suggested, be prepared to accept that someone is playing against you and is better than you... What is that favourite, short PvP meme again....
The current iteration of PP is not designed for PvP, simple as that. Making it Open Only won't change that, adding PvP to it won't change the way it is designed.
It doesn't matter what Sandro said to appease players who want PvP gameplay mechanics in the game. And even Sandro's comments about Open only PP was just that, talk and nothing more. Raised once an then forgotten after enough players got fixated on "Open Only PP" and stopped asking for better PP gameplay mechanics.
That's what connects the "Open Only PP" with "Open only BGS" - both systems are not designed for PvP. Just making them Open Only won't change the way they are designed and how to achieve something in those aspects of the game.
Making parts of the game Open Only doesn't fix the game in favor of PvP oriented players as the core gameplay mechanic would still be PvE. What is required - in my opinion - would be a redesign of the specific gameplay mechanics to incorporate PvP at their core.
That would be easier for PP as it is somewhat disconnected from the rest of the game. Impossible for the BGS in it's current form - it would require a split of the BGS between economic and political BGS (something I would like to see).
So, you're telling me that to fail the opposite mission massacres as the community does and as it was reported months ago is correct. Because the game allows you to take them, to make them expire and for the design of Elite this is ok.
Good...
Let me be as clear as possible about FD's position on this...BINGOOOO !!!!Thanks Friends for all your replies, but IMO this is the "real reply" !!!! BGS and POWER PLAY should be played OPEN ONLY. If I go in a CZ, compatibly with time zone of course, sooner or later I must find enemy human players to fire at them!!!!! Maybe lose, maybe win..... doesn't matter! Yes.... BGS works fine (small bugs permitting!
It is deliberate design that you don't see the people pushing against you. BGS isn't even designed for PvP competition, simply to bring the galaxy to life.
EDIT: Here's the full post, with sustained quotes about this by FD in every single BGS livestream.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Taking then abandoning missions used to affect influence - that was patched out.
If failing massacre missions by letting them time-out affects influence then that is either intended or not yet patched out.
.... and failing missions can occur in any game mode.
Last edited:
Some people want things to change. Some people don't.
Meanwhile I've been having the opposite problem. Started pushing a faction up, apparently some local player group got mad about the very idea that factions are changing positions and started bountyhunting hard, like 200+ turn-ins per day on the board without me seeing any of them, so I just left and went to stir the pot elsewhere until a conflict triggered.
Cue conflict, and I've won every day so far. I don't even know what's got 'em so mad, I didn't even flip control of the system. Unless there's a player group supporting one of the stellar forge factions and they're mad about losing control of some random installation
Cue conflict, and I've won every day so far. I don't even know what's got 'em so mad, I didn't even flip control of the system. Unless there's a player group supporting one of the stellar forge factions and they're mad about losing control of some random installation
The current iteration has a PvE focus and then.....nothing. Its a CG that wants to be more but can't because there is nothing else pushing against it other than someone grinding the opposite way.
It would. The proposed changes would focus and funnel players into direct opposition with each other, in effect allowing direct competition (network permitting) over player set objectives.
Yes they were talk, but they were very good ideas that deserved to be developed more.
The BGS is set up with modes in mind. For the BGS to be suitable for open you'd need to know the intention of the rival, the missions they are doing as well as know cargo and destinations. In Powerplay thats all set, with singular cargoes for prep and forting, as well as overt pledge status. In PP its blatantly obvious what a Patreus pledge is doing in an Archon control system. Seeing a CI pledge in MoM system is not.
WIth the changes creating more focused areas with overarching objectives it would.
As long as its not abstracted or forced then great. But players want organic, opportunistic encounters rather than forced 1:1, something that PP would be ideal for.
Last edited:
A problem we seem to have hit is that someone's been pushing my faction up and starting wars, even winning some. Problem is, they're with people we put together a bit of a truce with. Now some of our other systems are being hit in response, but we're in no real position to stop either our winning or the fight back.Meanwhile I've been having the opposite problem. Started pushing a faction up, apparently some local player group got mad about the very idea that factions are changing positions and started bountyhunting hard, like 200+ turn-ins per day on the board without me seeing any of them, so I just left and went to stir the pot elsewhere until a conflict triggered.
Cue conflict, and I've won every day so far. I don't even know what's got 'em so mad, I didn't even flip control of the system. Unless there's a player group supporting one of the stellar forge factions and they're mad about losing control of some random installation
It's lots of fun
(and kinda how we wanted our faction to prosper or fall; at the whim of other players)"we keep winning too many wars" is a strange problem to have!A problem we seem to have hit is that someone's been pushing my faction up and starting wars, even winning some. Problem is, they're with people we put together a bit of a truce with. Now some of our other systems are being hit in response, but we're in no real position to stop either our winning or the fight back.
It's lots of fun
Seriously though, the pushback seemed to start in earnest when I won a war for an installation against the controlling faction of the system next door, not the controlling faction of the system where I was, and the traffic reports and boutny turnins suggested that they were bounty hunting there and turning them in at my home station.
Which seems to me like the perfect excuse for a retaliatory "I was prepared to leave your system alone but if you want to mess with mine I'll flip yours too, preferably to a faction that isn't present in mine".
It's an MO I've rolled with in the past. Not recently though, so don't worry
You don't strike me as the sort to be a NIMBY about anarchy factions gaining influence in systems that are near to the ones you ownIt's an MO I've rolled with in the past. Not recently though, so don't worry
Intended????
I guess you don't know the game here....
It's not a correct mechanic at all, and you might as well throw things in at random. Actually, it won't be fixed and it's the very nature of this post where we propose once again to change things and talk to people who know about it instead of people who don't know the game mechanics or who take the players who love the game by the bottom.
Which is exactly what the BGS is about. Players providing gameplay for other players Indirectly. It shouldn't matter whether you are winning or losing, as they both give reasons to play the game.A problem we seem to have hit is that someone's been pushing my faction up and starting wars, even winning some. Problem is, they're with people we put together a bit of a truce with. Now some of our other systems are being hit in response, but we're in no real position to stop either our winning or the fight back.
It's lots of fun
BGS can be strange. I see factions rising in INF until they trigger a conflict and then no support for those factions in the conflict. The result is "winning too many" conflicts.
Not sure if it's players not understanding how the BGS works or just random players doing random missions (and the effect of those missions on the target system) and some factions just offering more missions (or more useful/interesting mission).
BGS is a bit like herding cats now since a few updates ago.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Has Frontier commented on the issue whereby timing out missions affects influence?
I know that the game was designed around the principle of three game modes, that share a single BGS, that players can switch between at will.
Not agreeing with part of the game does not automatically make it incorrect.
Change which things, specifically? Which specific game mechanics are being referred to?
.... and there would seem to be plenty of players who don't engage in PvP who "love the game" too - and knew what they were buying when they bought the game.