BGS overhaul Open, Solo, Group debate

[Screemonster]

The ability to impact the people attacking your BGS regardless of their game mode would be nice. E.g. run some espionage missions and do some donations to release info to your favoured faction about who's helping the opposition or has a bad rep with your fac, which then initiates a targeted assassination drive against the hostile CMDR by NPCs capable of having an impact on CMDRs (the dreaded "competent interdiction and combat ability", and FSD disruption). Or some better ideas of you clever people.

The biggest problem of the BGS is that some actions are (1) more effective than others and (2) more repeatable than others.
Some of those actions are easier to do in solo if you're facing opposition, other actions are effectively meaningless as the man-hours needed to stop you vastly exceed the time spent on your own efforts.
Honestly, the only time mode matters one bit the BGS is conflict zones since they're pretty much the only activity that involves direct opposition.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Ok what about this middle way solution:
Systems with PMF in it bgs works in open only. While systems with no PMF factions present can still be affected by PG/Solo. Or somekinda player group decission if they wanna keep old bgs mechanic in their systems or not.

And this is just a reyally I did not think on this at all...

So your faction obviously only would be affected by Open and PvP stuff, just like you suggested..
My faction, would use the oldy style BGS

Explain how these two faction can have a conflict?
I do not play in open or even on your platform, so who would you kill then? and why shoudl you be able to have influence over my faction that allows the Solo/PG option
Since all of my actions would be done in Solo/PG then why should Open stuff from a faction that is rejects Solo/PG stuff affect my Faction?


Just pulling suggestion out like this without even trying to explain how it should work when two conflicting set of rules collide like this is quite telling about how much though have been placed on this. Not understanding what the problem is, and then applying your own wanted gameplay to be the main gameplay as the desired goal is not a good recipe for good solutions.
And lets not forget about the really big elephant in this room, PvP is something most players do not engage with. ie, they do not go looking for PvP interaction, instead most players avoid PvP interactions and prefer to change instance, move to another system, instead of engaging in PvP. And taking this into consideration, then it is quite clear that promoting PvP for BGS is very unlikely. FDev have already told about the most preferred game mode and player engaged in PvP, and failing to understand what FDev said in those statements, is telling about the motives behind these kind of suggestions, a minority group of players want to force other players to become their content, and if that ever happens, the end result would most likely be an exodus of many players, since those players do not enjoy PvP and being forced to do PvP stuff would simply make this game unappealing to them.

 

[Screemonster]

And this is just a reyally I did not think on this at all...

So your faction obviously only would be affected by Open and PvP stuff, just like you suggested..
My faction, would use the oldy style BGS

Explain how these two faction can have a conflict?
I do not play in open or even on your platform, so who would you kill then? and why shoudl you be able to have influence over my faction that allows the Solo/PG option
Since all of my actions would be done in Solo/PG then why should Open stuff from a faction that is rejects Solo/PG stuff affect my Faction?


Just pulling suggestion out like this without even trying to explain how it should work when two conflicting set of rules collide like this is quite telling about how much though have been placed on this. Not understanding what the problem is, and then applying your own wanted gameplay to be the main gameplay as the desired goal is not a good recipe for good solutions.
And lets not forget about the really big elephant in this room, PvP is something most players do not engage with. ie, they do not go looking for PvP interaction, instead most players avoid PvP interactions and prefer to change instance, move to another system, instead of engaging in PvP. And taking this into consideration, then it is quite clear that promoting PvP for BGS is very unlikely. FDev have already told about the most preferred game mode and player engaged in PvP, and failing to understand what FDev said in those statements, is telling about the motives behind these kind of suggestions, a minority group of players want to force other players to become their content, and if that ever happens, the end result would most likely be an exodus of many players, since those players do not enjoy PvP and being forced to do PvP stuff would simply make this game unappealing to them.

Also I'm currently based out of a system that has a PMF present that hasn't been active for at least six months, probably longer, but that's as far back as the inara history goes. They're only present in that one system.
His suggestion is that the entire system's BGS would be open-only if a PMF is present. So I, supporting the anarchists, under his system, would now have a system where I can't be opposed in private or solo. Even though I'm not a PMF, not supporting the PMF, and player group behind the PMF in question has long disbanded.

Not to mention my main objection, which is filling out a form on a website does not and should not make you special.

 

[patttiat]

Whatever one pilot can do, another one pilot should be able to counter - unless the defending faction / group are not playing efficiently... Sorry

look, that is not so hard to understand.
we are want to get into a war with a faction to take over the system, so we have to gain influence there to match the controlling faction and start a war or election.
When a other Pilot is selling now a lot of Painit at the station, the influence gain is going to the controlling faction. that is the big problem, we can´t sell items there to gain more influence, so one pilot is able to counter more than one pilot.

 

[Brrokk]

look, that is not so hard to understand.
we are want to get into a war with a faction to take over the system, so we have to gain influence there to match the controlling faction and start a war or election.
When a other Pilot is selling now a lot of Painit at the station, the influence gain is going to the controlling faction. that is the big problem, we can´t sell items there to gain more influence, so one pilot is able to counter more than one pilot.

Do missions to get into boom.
Do inf+++++ missions.

 

[Rat Catcher]

look, that is not so hard to understand.
we are want to get into a war with a faction to take over the system, so we have to gain influence there to match the controlling faction and start a war or election.
When a other Pilot is selling now a lot of Painit at the station, the influence gain is going to the controlling faction. that is the big problem, we can´t sell items there to gain more influence, so one pilot is able to counter more than one pilot.

So use negative actions against the controlling faction, they work quite nicely too

 

[Fake Newts]

A cumulative INF+ generation bonus for playing in Open would work towards incentivising it without eliminating solo as an option or making players unable to duck out when facing potentially overwhelming player-led odds.

I am generally pro-Open BGS but I also come from a mixed playergroup where some people simply don't have the time or inclination to put together a PvP ship or learn to fly it, and I genuinely wouldn't want those friends to be forced into a dead BGS alternative due to opposition. I do however think playing in Open creates rich opportunities for emergent fun to happen and if there was even a very slight INF+ bonus at stake it'd make people think twice before choosing what's objectively an easier mode, and think about whether they could overcome the obstacles in front of them using the game's diegetic mechanics.

There are a few big problems with this though: the game's diegetic mechanics aren't... that solid, in a lot of cases; some people would use network magic or the block mechanic to play in Open without seeing other players; and also a ton of people would disapprove on principle and will never, ever be convinced. Which is their prerogative. There are compromises that could be struck but it's unlikely to ever happen.

 

[Achtung-Goomba]

I’m sure the key word is background simulation as opposed to being called a ‘foreground strategy game’ or Stellaris or something

 

[Fake Newts]

There are many salient and fair arguments for Solo BGS, but semantics is not one of them, tbh.

 

[Rat Catcher]

There are many salient and fair arguments for Solo BGS, but semantics is not one of them, tbh.

While you did put together a beautiful case, I must ask you if you actually BGS manipulate, or only want someone to shoot at?
PvP combat is inefficient (and possibly damaging against your supported faction - but... whatever...) as nothing worthwhile is gained, BGS-wise by playing pew-pew - apart from a potential distraction from the serious players actually doing something BGS useful.

Now PowerPlay - that could be an entirely different ball-game if the combat options are only effective in open and block is ineffective...

 

[Fake Newts]

I must ask you if you actually BGS manipulate, or only want someone to shoot at?
PvP combat is inefficient (and possibly damaging against your supported faction - but... whatever...) as nothing worthwhile is gained, BGS-wise by playing pew-pew - apart from a potential distraction from the serious players actually doing something BGS useful.

I'm part of one of the oldest BGS playergroups in the game, and we do manipulate the BGS all the live-long day!

Also you're right - PvP is inefficient, although the most fun moments I've had probably in any game ever have been emergent PvP in conflict zones. I would like it if Frontier made PvP in this manner useful but accept the limitations of a P2P game. Even without it being useful it's absolutely joyous to have a fight that has some stakes to it (edit: around it, I guess I mean). I also participate in organised tryhard PvP / duels / tournaments and stuff and while that is fun as a test of skill it's sad for me personally that it's divorced from game's systems.

Even speaking to the losing side on those great BGS occasions tends to result in good banter all around. It's totally subjective, and like I said I really wouldn't want, say, my friends with toddlers in the room to have to let their kids scream in a corner while they line up a railgun shot... that's just not workable for some people and I totally accept that. But I believe there's an untapped depth of multiplayer fun in Elite that could at the very least be better signposted.

Aside from that I also just... like seeing people in space? Even if it leads to no interaction. But maybe that's just me.

EDIT:

Now PowerPlay - that could be an entirely different ball-game if the combat options are only effective in open and block is ineffective...

I also don't really see that this'd be received very differently tbh, there's also a bunch of hauling involved in Powerplay and maybe some people like that? I haven't personally met anyone who does, but... y'know, they could be out there! There is possibly mileage in taking this idea and adding some extra layer to the game that tries to promote Open interactions / PvP in a way which doesn't touch the existing systems but I personally don't like that idea either, I think too many of Elite's systems are isolated and flagged poorly as it is.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

The biggest problem of the BGS is that some actions are (1) more effective than others and (2) more repeatable than others.
Some of those actions are easier to do in solo if you're facing opposition, other actions are effectively meaningless as the man-hours needed to stop you vastly exceed the time spent on your own efforts.
Honestly, the only time mode matters one bit the BGS is conflict zones since they're pretty much the only activity that involves direct opposition.

BGS wars (not minor faction but player wars) I've been involved with, there have been substantial random PvP kick-offs that are at least very expressive, and to some extent for area denial/intimidation, and represent another dimension of the conflict. Even where direct confrontation does not occur, just seeing suspiciously aligned CMDRs or wings in contacts tells you there is active opposition, and that you'll have your work cut out; also that you've likely been spotted. My context here is Powerplay BGS, where you may be focussing on a few low population systems to flip a control bubble as quickly as possible, funneling many CMDRs through a small area with potentially few stations. We find that our opposition in such cases (just as in standard powerplay) will often magically disappear after confrontation, without their efforts diminishing. We assume this is often a switch to closed modes (particularly when it is a group known to have a permissive attitude to solo/pg play). So I disagree with your analysis - if it didn't matter why do they mode-switch? Also, if it didn't matter, why (apart from arguments around the console paywall or poor internet) do people argue so vociferously against open-only BGS?

My point anyway was to have a way to impact adversaries regardless of either CMDR's mode, and is to some extent an acknowledgement that head to head confrontation in BGS is limited, even exclusively in open. But it'd still be nice, given space is so big, to "feel" your foes a bit more, via the medium of NPCs, and be able to impact them too, when they're going to town on your faction.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

there's also a bunch of hauling involved in Powerplay and maybe some people like that? I haven't personally met anyone who does, but... y'know,

Oh you'd be surprised how happy a large swath of our adversaries are to haul 10s of 1000s of merits each in a week in solo/pg in order to "win" powerplay by avoiding our PvPers (all the while sending theirs to decimate our underminers).

There are much stronger arguments for open PP (an overtly competitive strategic meta-game where your "score" can be evaporated by a PvP kill) than BGS, which you'll quickly find in a thread search on keywords!

Agree with pretty much everything in your post, though .

 

[Misty_Dark]

A cumulative INF+ generation bonus for playing in Open would work towards incentivising it without eliminating solo as an option or making players unable to duck out when facing potentially overwhelming player-led odds.

I am generally pro-Open BGS but I also come from a mixed playergroup where some people simply don't have the time or inclination to put together a PvP ship or learn to fly it, and I genuinely wouldn't want those friends to be forced into a dead BGS alternative due to opposition. I do however think playing in Open creates rich opportunities for emergent fun to happen and if there was even a very slight INF+ bonus at stake it'd make people think twice before choosing what's objectively an easier mode, and think about whether they could overcome the obstacles in front of them using the game's diegetic mechanics.

There are a few big problems with this though: the game's diegetic mechanics aren't... that solid, in a lot of cases; some people would use network magic or the block mechanic to play in Open without seeing other players; and also a ton of people would disapprove on principle and will never, ever be convinced. Which is their prerogative. There are compromises that could be struck but it's unlikely to ever happen.

Why? if my faction expands into your system, explain how you destroying my ship would be beneficial for your "defence"...


So a few things you have failed to incorporate here.
1. All modes are equal
2. PvP is optional
3. We have currently 3 different "Open", since there is no cross play.

So how does this now fit your suggestion? Why not simply a bonus for doing BGS in solo?

 

[Fake Newts]

So a few things you have failed to incorporate here.
1. All modes are equal
2. PvP is optional
3. We have currently 3 different "Open", since there is no cross play.

Literally took pains to incorporate all of this. Make a better post and maybe we can discuss it.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Literally took pains to incorporate all of this. Make a better post and maybe we can discuss it.

Discuss what? you did not bvother to care about what FDev have said about their game and their visions about it. you simply made a suggestion that ignored these statements.

 

[Fake Newts]

simply made a suggestion

In a thread in the suggestions forum? Yes.

that ignored these statements.

No it didn't. I specifically made sure to write about why I agreed that Solo BGS was important, I alluded to limitations with the game mechanically and in terms of networking. I acknowledged that many players would simply disregard this notion immediately (like you!) and that it'll doubtless never happen. Just calmly explained why I thought it was a good idea based on my experiences.

You are being passive aggressive and listing some maxims you've latched onto as if it constitutes a real argument in this context. Go in peace and enjoy the game.

 

[Misty_Dark]

In a thread in the suggestions forum? Yes.



No it didn't. I specifically made sure to write about why I agreed that Solo BGS was important, I alluded to limitations with the game mechanically and in terms of networking. I acknowledged that many players would simply disregard this notion immediately (like you!) and that it'll doubtless never happen. Just calmly explained why I thought it was a good idea based on my experiences.

You are being passive aggressive and listing some maxims you've latched onto as if it constitutes a real argument in this context. Go in peace and enjoy the game.

But you made sure to say that all the modes are NOT equal, a design principle from FDev....



So lets do this the other way aorund then,

I think we should give SOLO mode a influence boost for BGS activities. So that all those people that do NOT enjoy getting shot at by other players, which accoring to FDFev is more players than do engage in PvP, so they are encoureaged to do their BGS activities in a game mode that totally blocks PvP.

 

[Eluna Ai]

Where can i vote for Open only cause i love social thingys and if it is not Open only there's no social gameplay?

Free and unpunished extermination of players Is not a problem of an open game existence.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Where can i vote for Open only cause i love social thingys and if it is not Open only there's no social gameplay?

Free and unpunished extermination of players Is not a problem of an open game existence.

The game is Anarchy... No voting for anything...