Modes BGS weighting

[Jockey79]

Here's how to demonstrate this.
Make the CQC leagues a more prominent part of the game/setting.
I don't just mean things like "support your faction's happiness by doing CQC matches while parked at their stations".
I'm talking an actual CQC league in-game that's hosted in a different system each week (possibly determined by which faction the winners of the previous week support?) and spawns CZ-like instances. Call them "CQC Arena [no holds barred]" or something. The instant you pledge to a team, the zone becomes lawless. You get paid bonds for blowing stuff up. Maybe scenarios that trigger once there are players on both teams. Allow people to spawn into the actual in-game arena instances from the CQC menu. Whatever other nonsense you want to add, but the long and the short of it would be "here are lawless zones where you get paid for going in and blowing up other player-controlled ships, and an in-game announcement every week to tell the PvPers what system to head towards".

I honestly wonder how many would actually show up.

Depends, if it was available in PGs, then I know who wouldn't be seen in open doing it

But I like the idea of repurposing CQC to a main game, open only, CZ style of play.
I think that could be fun, if teams were balanced properly.
In fact, those who joined from the CQC menu could be placed to make up the numbers in the smaller team and those who do it from the system gets to choose.
That way, those who care about the faction, go and support it and those who just want a scrap can use the menu and end up anywhere.

 

[bigity]

It's about all they have left to say. And even their examples fall flat, as MMOs add content, not rip content away from anyone.

Well, until recently when WoW took away Open PvP servers for a PvP flagging system (War Mode).
Doesn't that speak volumes about PvP.

They also rewarded folks in war mode. And world pvp still exists in some areas even if you don't flag.

 

[Jockey79]

They also rewarded folks in war mode. And world pvp still exists in some areas even if you don't flag.

Still have PvP missions as well. I picked one up by mistake with my DK in Outland.
But I got the choice to no do it and carry on. Just like I got the choice around the small PvP area on the map and I get the choice to completely avoid Wintergrasp with my Druid in Northrend.

So again, PvP is completely optional and everyone has access to high end gear through PvE.

Don't get me wrong, I think they should have kept some Open PvP servers for those who liked that style of play.
I'm on Vashj, which was an Open PvP server until the change and it's a shame I no longer get the choice.
But if the demand isn't there, then it isn't there.

 

[bigity]

Still have PvP missions as well. I picked one up by mistake with my DK in Outland.
But I got the choice to no do it and carry on. Just like I got the choice around the small PvP area on the map and I get the choice to completely avoid Wintergrasp with my Druid in Northrend.

So again, PvP is completely optional and everyone has access to high end gear through PvE.

Don't get me wrong, I think they should have kept some Open PvP servers for those who liked that style of play.
I'm on Vashj, which was an Open PvP server until the change and it's a shame I no longer get the choice.
But if the demand isn't there, then it isn't there.

Open is completely optional too. Not a good argument.

 

[Dietger]

The BGS should be weighted to favour open players trying to defend their system against solo/PG griefers Just look at what happened to the fuel rats this sort of thing is a daily occorance and is happening to many player groups and they are pretty much powerless to do anything about it it takes weeks sometimes months of work to keep a faction yet solo players can sit a a PG and destroy it in a few hours

I see.

While modes provide a wide margin of benefits, they work very well.
Following their very nature out of synchronization, since Elite can't help itself anyway here shifting heavily asymmetrical gameplay. Shifting Solo versus multiplayer and PVP in Open versus modes. All of course according the grand scheme.

While diverseness is in itself a humble thing, innocent, its manifold a benefit, yet its considerable parts may contradict each other severe. Understanding, some here exist exclusive, contradicting each other.
PVP drawing straws, pulled up short.


PS

You'll gonna exclude things you not want to see coming apart

 

[EUS]

I have to put this out there, 95% of the time, I never know what you're saying.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I have to put this out there, 95% of the time, I never know what you're saying.

Yeah ... I like him too

 

[Jockey79]

Open is completely optional too. Not a good argument.

Open is optional, which means so is PvP.

PvE however is compulsory in all modes.
So as I said, "doesn't that speak volumes about PvP"

 

[bigity]

Open is optional, which means so is PvP.

PvE however is compulsory in all modes.
So as I said, "doesn't that speak volumes about PvP"

It speaks more about your opinion of it. Which is one among many.

In any case, you can't really talk about pvp being absent in solo without taking leave of your senses. Voluntarily or not.

 

[Jockey79]

It speaks more about your opinion of it. Which is one among many.

In any case, you can't really talk about pvp being absent in solo without taking leave of your senses. Voluntarily or not.

My opinion is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is PvP is optional.
So if people wanted forced PvP, they should have bought a game made for it.

 

[bigity]

My opinion is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is PvP is optional.
So if people wanted forced PvP, they should have bought a game made for it.

Elite was built for it, it was part of the pitch. It's not for everyone, sure.

 

[Mouse]

Elite was built for it, it was part of the pitch. It's not for everyone, sure.

Was it really built for it? I kind of wish it was, but sadly it isn't and neither is powerplay. They could have been, but they used PVE for the game and for PP. As in the mechanics are all PVE. PVP was thrown in and you can do it, but for the game itself it effects very little if at all. They threw it out there for people to enjoy and you could "hunt down other commanders", but they didn't really give PVP any purpose or meat beyond that. And that is a complaint I've seen again and again that I agree with. They tried to give meaning with CQC but people say no. So PVP is you giving it meaning, which as a sandbox game, works as well. The problem is people don't want to give it meaning themselves and want FDev to figure out how to. Traders make their own meaning, even within power play. Same for Explorers and PVE combatants. I would love to see a PG that was PVP battles and massive fights over territory and such.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Elite was built for it, it was part of the pitch. It's not for everyone, sure.

Built for it? In as much as any player can choose to shoot at anything that they encounter, including other players, yes, that has always been the case in either of the multi-player modes.

Built around it? Not so much, in my opinion, as it is not required to engage in any game features and, in some ways, receives less reward than PvE combat (e.g. no material drops from player ships) - probably due to the inevitable collusion between players (ref. the introduction of the 1M Cr. player bounty limit due to exploitation of the illegal cargo scan / bounty imposed feature). No player requires to engage in it and, subject to suitable choice of game mode, cannot be forced to engage in it. Players who don't want to play among those who may engage them in PvP can choose to play alone or among a finite group of invitees - it's ultimately up to them to decide which game mode suits them best.

While PvP was undoubtedly part of the Kickstarter pitch it sat alongside the single shared galaxy state, three game modes and mode mobility - as Frontier would seem to have recognised that PvP is not for everyone when they designed the framework for their game.

 

[Jockey79]

Elite was built for it, it was part of the pitch. It's not for everyone, sure.

Elite was built with player choice as part of the pitch.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous

Whether you want to trade for profit between systems, take part in multiplayer co-op mission alliances, free-for-all group battles and team raids to bring down planetary economies, even tip the balance of power in the galaxy (for your own advantage, of course..), or simply explore the wonders of the galaxy (and who knows what you’ll find out there..) is up to you.

*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,*

If you choose to PvP, then that's your choice.
But people can just as easily choose not to engage in PvP.
Because that was the plan all along.

This isn't a PvP based game, which is quite clear when all the games content is available in PGs and Solo.
It's a game with optional PvP. Where you can make your own fun with like minded PvP'ers.

 

[00nutzy]

Elite was built with player choice as part of the pitch.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous




If you choose to PvP, then that's your choice.
But people can just as easily choose not to engage in PvP.
Because that was the plan all along.

This isn't a PvP based game, which is quite clear when all the games content is available in PGs and Solo.
It's a game with optional PvP. Where you can make your own fun with like minded PvP'ers.

I believe (or at least hope) its the rather vocal minority of PvPers who have an issue with this.
Its only a problem for those who want to force (key word there) everyone to be their content in a pew pew.
Everyone regardless of mode is everyone's content since everyone affects the BGS and that is the way the game is made to work.
Most games have forces working in the background against players even solo player games.
And in most MMOs you will never see everyone who is having an effect on your game.
I dont see the problem with playing with the ones who share your style of play and just letting the others be.

Getting upset about it (either being blown up or not being able to blow someone up) only takes away from your own enjoyment of the game. Modes should only make this easier.

 

[Lateralus]

The funny thing I have with this argument is, if someone is doing that... it's not PVErs doing it... so... so called PVPers are messing with other PVPers and PVErs are getting the blame. It has been argued so many times that PVErs should be PVPers prey. All the posts about how the defenseless prey are the best, etc.. And the jokes about mining our tears and such...

And now it looks like those same people are turning their sights on other PVPers...

Well I guess then we're into 'what qualifies as PvP' territory, and I think that is a dead horse as far as this forum goes. Large scale BGS attacks are seldom made by single PvE players, I agree.. but I'm not suggesting that they be forced into PvP. Only those who are trying to take system control away from a player group should be forced to do it from open, otherwise the defender;

• does not know who the enemy group is
• cannot directly resist the enemy group in combat
• cannot retaliate against the enemy group

Whatever they do to you in whatever mode they are in (no proof they are in pg/solo) you can counter the same way... PVP should never be forced on ANYONE...

But this is the whole thing.. it basically says a PvP group cannot hold territory without being forced into gameplay loops the don't enjoy. All you guys seem very anti players being forced into gameplay they don't enjoy, so what's different about PvPers? I hear you say "yeah but they have to do BGS to control the system anyway" - yes but PvP groups dislike having to engage in grind vs grind wars with invisible enemies. It plays to the attackers strengths and completely disregards ours, putting us at a severe disadvantage.

If player held systems could only be overthrown from open play warfare then it would be fair to (nearly) all players; PvE players could take control of unheld systems from solo/PG and defend them from there, while PvPers could defend their held territory from open using PvP as a deterrent to invasion. The only group of players that would be out of luck would be those who like to sneak around in private groups crashing influence to troll groups they have beef with.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But this is the whole thing.. it basically says a PvP group cannot hold territory without being forced into gameplay loops the don't enjoy. All you guys seem very anti players being forced into gameplay they don't enjoy, so what's different about PvPers? I hear you say "yeah but they have to do BGS to control the system anyway" - yes but PvP groups dislike having to engage in grind vs grind wars with invisible enemies. It plays to the attackers strengths and completely disregards ours, putting us at a severe disadvantage.

PvP is entirely optional - and PvE is not.

.... and Frontier have recently restated their stance that the BGS is for players on all platforms and in all game modes, just as it has been from the outset.

No-one is forced to play in a single game mode to engage with the BGS - by design - and Frontier have been aware, for a long time now, that some players resent the fact that Factions can be affected from all game modes (and platforms).

 

[00nutzy]

THe BGS is a numbers war Even with no other modes open is not Thermopylae there is not a choke point so if the enemy has more players (or a larger alliance) they will get through.
The complaint that you dont know who is attacking you is pretty much a mute point. Anyone and everyone either aligned or not can cause you damage and indiscriminately blowing others up can mean you are harming your own group. You can never be instanced with everyone who may or may not be harming (intentionally or not) your group. Not even in EvE was that possible (spais spais everywhere)

The offensive arm of a power cant hold a power, that requires allies or members of the offensive arm to do the day to day maintenance (PvE grind) without players who are willing to do that (or allies who will do it for you) the group will falter PvE is a requirement in this game, PvP is optional (a welcome option that can be quite fun) but not required.

Now the ability for groups to mutually declare war on each other and therefore be stuck in open might be a good idea although I am sure it would be more complex than that.

 

[Lateralus]

PvP is entirely optional - and PvE is not.

.... and Frontier have recently restated their stance that the BGS is for players on all platforms and in all game modes, just as it has been from the outset.

No-one is forced to play in a single game mode to engage with the BGS - by design - and Frontier have been aware, for a long time now, that some players resent the fact that Factions can be affected from all game modes (and platforms).

Grind wars between player groups that can't see eachother is poor game design, that's why no other games do it that way. Its also why the issue comes up again and again.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Grind wars between player groups that can't see eachother is poor game design, that's why no other games do it that way. Its also why the issue comes up again and again.

Whether, or not, it constitutes "poor game design" depends on the intent behind allowing players to affect the BGS - and, as all players affect the BGS, regardless of game mode, the intent cannot be that it must be carried out including PvP. What the BGS does offer is asynchronous indirect competition between all players, not just those who prefer to shoot at other players.

It comes up again and again simply because some players cannot accept Frontier's clearly stated game design - Frontier have not changed their apparent stance on the BGS in over six years (since they published their game design information, in relation to the three game modes, single shared glaaxy state and mode mobility, at the start of the Kickstarter) and would seem to be well aware that some players disagree with their stance.

Unlike the BGS, Frontier have sought feedback from players regarding Powerplay, with Open only being one of the possible changes. Whether, or not, Powerplay ever becomes Open only, remains to be seen.