BGS - Open Vs PG/Solo

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Hello everyone! I came by the forums for the first time today in hopes of finding some support for my suggestion. Since my squad and I have had a BGS faction (about 2-3 years now) we have been victim to several attacks that are trying to reduce our influence. We love this content and the challenges that it provides, not to mention the amount of teamwork and coordination that we somehow muster together and usually manage to pull through with in the end. The problem that we've had is that ONE of about 10 attacks so far has been in open. I understand that not everyone wants to play in open and that's perfectly fine. I think everyone experiences ganking at some point in their journey.

My suggestion is that influence gains or losses for a PMF faction in Private Group or Solo have reduced effectiveness (like 75% as effective or so). Whereas gains / losses in open would be 100% effective.

I feel like this would make fighting wars or hindering mercenary groups way more interactive by encouraging more teams into open rather than looking at a spread sheet and BGS report every day. There's going to be obvious flaws in this idea such as simply switching to open to turn in missions or bounties and then switching back to private... so I'm of course open to discussion and criticism.

This is stemming from someone who is currently tanking our security state in a system. They have a 69 million bounty on our board and there is NOTHING we can do about it other than fight NPC and turn in vouchers.... When we got our own faction, we imagined big wars and big egos... Instead, I am literally doing the same combat that I was doing on day 1 several years ago. It's time for some sort of revamp.
 

Attachments

  • Bounty Board.jpg
    Bounty Board.jpg
    42.1 KB · Views: 31
The technology behind the instancing is the big blocker here. Even if everyone were to be in open it's easy to hide with simple geographical differences, timezones or poor connections. That's before anyone even introduces lag deliberately to avoid instancing.

Even if you had your enemy in open with you it might still not help. PvP is a distraction in a BGS war. You still have to do more work than the enemy. And it's still a war won by the most persistent players, not the most skilled.
 
Been suggested many times over many different threads. I'd pop in here if you want to see where the current discussion is.
 
There's going to be obvious flaws in this idea such as simply switching to open to turn in missions or bounties and then switching back to private... so I'm of course open to discussion and criticism.
That's one of the main problems - the number of exceptions and additional tracking and so on which would need to be introduced to close all the loopholes (plus the lingering suspicion that maybe your opponent had found another one anyway) would be excessive.

Another three major problems:
- you'd lose out as a system owner on some of the positive effect of passing traffic for trade, bounties, etc. In some systems this can be a very strong stabilising force so you'd just be making your opponents' job easier (when you're defending, anyway) by nerfing it.

- there are a lot of ways to carry out BGS transactions absolutely risk-free even in Open: Apex shuttles can't usefully be intercepted, and a lot of Horizons missions don't necessarily take place in the same system, so even if you have a perfect interdiction cordon you're only really stopping inbound trade (usually positive for you) and certain classes of mission. Add on to that things like using carriers+nav lock to avoid spending any meaningful time in supercruise and the inconvenience of having notoriety 10 and a bounty with the faction you're trying to support, or exceptionally dull but legal PvP combat tactics like healbeam-quartet wings or "parking on the medium pad of an outpost and going for lunch", and ask yourself "would a group that currently isn't in Open feel obliged to make sharing Open with us fun?"

- they'd still be able to block you individually (or deliberately play from a low-bandwidth connection or Australia so the instancer gives up on putting you together)

(Leaving aside, as Dillon points out, the more general ongoing discussion on whether it'd be desirable even if it was possible)
 
Been suggested many times over many different threads. I'd pop in here if you want to see where the current discussion is.
I suppose I should have searched first. Thanks for that. Ill compare notes!
 
The technology behind the instancing is the big blocker here. Even if everyone were to be in open it's easy to hide with simple geographical differences, timezones or poor connections. That's before anyone even introduces lag deliberately to avoid instancing.

Even if you had your enemy in open with you it might still not help. PvP is a distraction in a BGS war. You still have to do more work than the enemy. And it's still a war won by the most persistent players, not the most skilled.
I agree with you. In this current moment were not in war. We just expanded from this system and a random team of 4 decided to strike while influence is low. Again well playeed by them... All theyre doing is killing our security forces to drop our security level (i think). All I can do to combat that is kill NPC not even affiliated with any of them and turn in vouches. Thats a terrible game play loop as opposed to me being able to kill them and hand in their bounty to restore some security to my system and hinder them from killing more for a few minutes due to going to jail.
 

Ozric

Volunteer Moderator
One thread to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them

 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom