Code action against CoR

[Harley Quinn]

Blimey. 4 hours and then producing this. I am impressed.

And what you're saying is all true. It's not fair to press a certain play style on other players.

So, I want to meet random people in this game, I can't without always factoring in the possibility of PvP. And if I don't learn the tricks, I'm going to lose each and every time.

There are pillocks everywhere. Whaddyagonnado?

Moan about it and point out what I think is unfair on the forums and not get listened to by many people while carrying on enjoying playing my game in the way I think right, that's what I'm going to do.

You, you will carry on being Ziggy

 

[Asp Explorer]

This tends to annoy the PvP community and generates a lot of the reactions we PvE players find unacceptable. But until we accept our fault and stop doing it, the cycle continues.

That's mostly due to PVP-Pro-Bro's (not all of them of course) being completely unable to grasp that when it comes to the BGS, PVE is PVP. Blowing up other peoples space ships has a very minor effect on the BGS, and in many cases it has the complete opposite effect that some PVP players believe it has.

If they simply want to roam around blowing up everything in sight, that is perfectly ok. The game allows for that. If they want to roam around blowing up everything in sight and manipulate the BGS to their desired outcome - there are only three outcomes possible.

1: - they mess their own faction up.
2: - they achieve precisely nothing.
3: - they git gud

 

[Harley Quinn]

That's mostly due to PVP-Pro-Bro's (not all of them of course) being completely unable to grasp that when it comes to the BGS, PVE is PVP. Blowing up other peoples space ships has a very minor effect on the BGS, and in many cases it has the complete opposite effect that some PVP players believe it has.

If they simply want to roam around blowing up everything in sight, that is perfectly ok. The game allows for that. If they want to roam around blowing up everything in sight and manipulate the BGS to their desired outcome - there are only three outcomes possible.

1: - they mess their own faction up.
2: - they achieve precisely nothing.
3: - they git gud

you are forgetting the option of stopping people mucking with their system though, which does apply to any PvP group who care about their BGS and the RP, but otherwise accurate in my opinion

And if in an anarchy system, quite easy to do without messing up your own system

 

[Asp Explorer]

you are forgetting the option of stopping people mucking with their system though, which does apply to any PvP group who care about their BGS and the RP, but otherwise accurate in my opinion

And if in an anarchy system, quite easy to do without messing up your own system

How is a PVP group going to stop people mucking with their system? The only way they can do that is to protect their system via BGS interests - which mostly involves PVE that many PVP-Pro-Bro's find utterly beneath them - as it doesn't involve blowing players up.

 

[Harley Quinn]

How is a PVP group going to stop people mucking with their system? The only way they can do that is to protect their system via BGS interests - which mostly involves PVE that many PVP-Pro-Bro's find utterly beneath them - as it doesn't involve blowing players up.

if we forget about instancing and platform issues for a minute, easily, they could use PvP to stop people they don't trust from running missions in their system that would harm their BGS. Particularly an issue when being attacked by a group who would be noticed in open, but strangely enough be hidden and safe in PG/Solo. It's not the total answer, but if as a PvP player I could stop even half of the attacking group harming my influence by running missions in my system my PMF controls, I would have just halved the PvE work needed which I don't like doing.

Personally if you are attacking my BGS system, I would prefer PvE only please, But I can see and understand their point, particularly as if the threat level is high enough they have the potential to stop 100% of players trying to run missions in their systems.

And with PMFs in place, system ownership is a valid position to take now.

 

[Asp Explorer]

It's not the total answer, but if as a PvP player I could stop even half of the attacking group harming my influence by running missions in my system my PMF controls, I would have just halved the PvE work needed which I don't like doing..

And that is exactly why many PVP groups fail at the BGS. They don't want to do it, so they don't do any BGS work.

Guess what happens then?

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

Fail quote: @ Harley...

"And if in an anarchy system, quite easy to do without messing up your own system"
I wonder why that is...

 

[Harley Quinn]

And that is exactly why many PVP groups fail at the BGS. They don't want to do it, so they don't do any BGS work.

Guess what happens then?

They lose. But those who will do the BGS PvE work and want the chance to defend with PvP, not an unreasonable ask and a bit unfair that we have an "avoid PvP" button when choosing to attack their BGS as they do not have a "must play PvP" when attacking ours button

 

[Harley Quinn]

Fail quote: @ Harley...

"And if in an anarchy system, quite easy to do without messing up your own system"
I wonder why that is...

because killing pilots is not illegal. I would prefer the BGS to be developed so killing enemies is not illegal when PMF players go to war, but FD would need to develop that

 

[Spenceuk99]

Id just like to say that
A) I have seen zero proof of COR organising an attack on anyone's BGS and
B)I have heard that FDEV examined the allegations regarding IP harvesting by certain COR peeps and dismissed those allegations.

 

[JosiahD]

and as soon as you hit that button to go PG/Solo to attack a PvP group, this part of your statement becomes false as you are not allowing PvP in this context. At which point we are excluding PvP from having any effect.

Everything else you said is spot on, but can't you see how a PvP player may consider that by hitting that button you are mandating that they must play only PvE to defend their BGS. And can they stop BGS action against them in PvP in open, yes, they can defend a system from people coming in and running missions against them in open, but not in other modes. It will not be perfect due to instancing and platforms, but it would have an effect. But by clicking that PG/Solo button we neuter any PvP action.

We complain about them insisting we play their way and become prey, by clicking that button when attacking their BGS we are no better and justify 90% of their reaction to PvE.

I'd agree with you IF this was a PvP-centric game, but it's not. Any direct combat-based PvP is merely a sideline, an adjunct to the PvE focus - a bonus. I get why certain PvPers don't like that but it just means they don't have the level of control over player interaction and influence they're used to. And even if all players were forced to play in open for certain activities they still wouldn't be able to control or defend their BGS from groups playing on other platforms, not instanced with them or in a different timezone (unless they're a large enough group to cover multiple platforms, timezones and lots of instances all at the same time). So what's the solution that would make them happy given these other impacts as well, because I can't see one in the absence of centralised servers (ain't happening) and cross-platform play at a minimum? Even if we were forced to play in open for certain activities they'd then gripe about not being able stop people in other instances or using other platforms and demand separation of the BGS between modes and platforms, which also ain't going to happen. Best if they adapt, accept it is what it is and focus on what they can control/influence rather than what they can't. Just my opinion though.

 

[Gunnet]

The problem with this is that it's mainly a defensive weapon. If we had something like a tractor beam or even a breakable magnetic harpoon (must match speed with target and slow at a certain rate, i.e. difficulty involved and doesn't always work well) then we'd have a more offensive capability here.

I would say this: If I had that ability I would destroy 99% less targets. The 1% would be the rare ones that decide to cuss me out in game chat (or voice, had one guy 'call me' just to do that) or issue out of game threats. Those I always destroy instantly!

The harpoon idea sounds pretty interesting. I'd actually like to see something like that tested.

The target having a chance to try to evade/resist it would add some active piracy gameplay for both parties. I think many traders would find being pirated a less negative experience if their options included a middle ground between the current extremes of either passively submitting or causing the pirate to attempt to destroy them.

I find mines reasonably viable as offensive weapons, at least on a Clipper. Now that I've thought of ion mine piracy I almost wish I had an inclination towards PvP piracy so that I could test it

 

[Asp Explorer]

They lose. But those who will do the BGS PvE work and want the chance to defend with PvP, not an unreasonable ask and a bit unfair that we have an "avoid PvP" button when choosing to attack their BGS as they do not have a "must play PvP" when attacking ours button

But it is PVP within the mechanics of the game

If for example, Random Drunken Lager Louts want to eradicate the Generic Gentle Gin Samplers on a PVP basis, then it will be conducted wholly via the BGS - blasting other players space pixel ships will not matter one iota.

The winning team will be the one to out-BGS the other, and if they are playing top game, they will never ever even see an opposing player unless it's a sacrificial lulzbucket to get the defending faction to tank their own influence.

 

[JosiahD]

if we forget about instancing and platform issues for a minute, easily, they could use PvP to stop people they don't trust from running missions in their system that would harm their BGS. Particularly an issue when being attacked by a group who would be noticed in open, but strangely enough be hidden and safe in PG/Solo. It's not the total answer, but if as a PvP player I could stop even half of the attacking group harming my influence by running missions in my system my PMF controls, I would have just halved the PvE work needed which I don't like doing.

Personally if you are attacking my BGS system, I would prefer PvE only please, But I can see and understand their point, particularly as if the threat level is high enough they have the potential to stop 100% of players trying to run missions in their systems.

And with PMFs in place, system ownership is a valid position to take now.

But we can't ignore the instancing and platform issues/complications because they have such a fundamental impact on how things play out. Particularly now we're going to have PS4 in the mix as well, also playing in the same BGS. The argument 'I can't stop someone in solo or private' is basically no different to 'I can't stop someone who's playing on X-box or PS4'. The impact on one's BGS efforts is the same either way.

 

[Harley Quinn]

I'd agree with you IF this was a PvP-centric game, but it's not. Any direct combat-based PvP is merely a sideline, an adjunct to the PvE focus - a bonus. I get why certain PvPers don't like that but it just means they don't have the level of control over player interaction and influence they're used to. And even if all players were forced to play in open for certain activities they still wouldn't be able to control or defend their BGS from groups playing on other platforms, not instanced with them or in a different timezone (unless they're a large enough group to cover multiple platforms, timezones and lots of instances all at the same time). So what's the solution that would make them happy given these other impacts as well, because I can't see one in the absence of centralised servers (ain't happening) and cross-platform play at a minimum? Even if we were forced to play in open for certain activities they'd then gripe about not being able stop people in other instances or using other platforms and demand separation of the BGS between modes and platforms, which also ain't going to happen. Best if they adapt, accept it is what it is and focus on what they can control/influence rather than what they can't. Just my opinion though.

I respect your position, but disagree. The game allows for PvP and as such should not allow it to be neutered at will, particularly when allowing for player factions and PP and the conflicts that come with it.

For time zones and platforms, the few PvP groups I know have people around the world and on different platforms. I would prefer platforms not to be an issue for all aspects of the game and interaction, but while it is, that's life and they would have to cope with this. On time zones, if you want to play a group but want safe time, tough. War does not stop because you go to bed in real life so there is no reason it should here.

Instancing is another technical issue I would like to se sorted, but again on that I would say suck it up, the same problem when defending is a bonus when attacking so over time it will balance out.

I would annoy all sides though with my solution. I would introduce a PvE open as mobius is this by default anyway, but alongside that I would get PMFs to declare if they are open or PvE and only allow a system they control to have it's BGS influences in that mode. You could play your mode wherever you like and gain rep in any mode, but if you want to attack a PMF, it's on their playing field. As an aggressor, you don't like the mode to attack in, then don't attack. As a defender you get to play as you want.

 

[Harley Quinn]

But it is PVP within the mechanics of the game

If for example, Random Drunken Lager Louts want to eradicate the Generic Gentle Gin Samplers on a PVP basis, then it will be conducted wholly via the BGS - blasting other players space pixel ships will not matter one iota.

The winning team will be the one to out-BGS the other, and if they are playing top game, they will never ever even see an opposing player unless it's a sacrificial lulzbucket to get the defending faction to tank their own influence.

My issue is with defence rather than attack. I have no problem with a defending group playing their way, it's an attacking group neutering their opponents options that bothers me

 

[Harley Quinn]

But we can't ignore the instancing and platform issues/complications because they have such a fundamental impact on how things play out. Particularly now we're going to have PS4 in the mix as well, also playing in the same BGS. The argument 'I can't stop someone in solo or private' is basically no different to 'I can't stop someone who's playing on X-box or PS4'. The impact on one's BGS efforts is the same either way.

But I can stop somebody on Xbox/PS4, I buy the game on that platform or recruit people on that platform

 

[Asp Explorer]

My issue is with defence rather than attack. I have no problem with a defending group playing their way, it's an attacking group neutering their opponents options that bothers me

There are always options.

Besides - any "group" proclaiming ownership of anything has to be able to monitor, maintain and advance their BGS position continually, or they are just stinks in the wind.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

I respect your position, but disagree. The game allows for PvP and as such should not allow it to be neutered at will, particularly when allowing for player factions and PP and the conflicts that come with it.

For time zones and platforms, the few PvP groups I know have people around the world and on different platforms. I would prefer platforms not to be an issue for all aspects of the game and interaction, but while it is, that's life and they would have to cope with this. On time zones, if you want to play a group but want safe time, tough. War does not stop because you go to bed in real life so there is no reason it should here.

Instancing is another technical issue I would like to se sorted, but again on that I would say suck it up, the same problem when defending is a bonus when attacking so over time it will balance out.

I would annoy all sides though with my solution. I would introduce a PvE open as mobius is this by default anyway, but alongside that I would get PMFs to declare if they are open or PvE and only allow a system they control to have it's BGS influences in that mode. You could play your mode wherever you like and gain rep in any mode, but if you want to attack a PMF, it's on their playing field. As an aggressor, you don't like the mode to attack in, then don't attack. As a defender you get to play as you want.

The BGS IS PvP.

The logical fallacy here is that some "Combat PvP" guys believe that Weapons fire was the only means of PvP in the entire Game.
Quite ironic, considering the BGS basically was provided to "demand a little bit of everything" to be successful. And "Weapons fire PvP" just happens to be a rather ineffective way in that huge mix.

The BGS teaches Players one thing : there's more to being successful than flying a big Ship or being good at a single thing.
So if PvP is the exclusive playstyle for any Group - such a Group is best to stay away from the BGS and Minor Factions.
Because it demands so much more than primitive Weapons fire in order to be successful.

Can't handle it? Too hot?
Well, there's that huge BGS Threadnaught to read up on.
Prepare to buy more Ships, kit them and equip them for Trading, Exploration, Mining, Salvaging, Passengers and Couriering. Learn how it works... Then be better than anyone who opposes you, even if it's just a number on the Traffic Report.

That's the BGS. In a nutshell.

 

[Harley Quinn]

The BGS IS PvP.

The logical fallacy here is that some "Combat PvP" guys believe that Weapons fire was the only means of PvP in the entire Game.
Quite ironic, considering the BGS basically was provided to "demand a little bit of everything" to be successful. And "Weapons fire PvP" just happens to be a rather ineffective way in that huge mix.

The BGS teaches Players one thing : there's more to being successful that flying a big Ship or being good at a single thing.
So if PvP is the exclusive playstyle for any Group - such a Group is best to stay away from the BGS and Minor Factions.
Because it demands so much more than primitive Weapons fire in order to be successful.

Can't handle it? Too hot?
Well, there's that huge BGS Threadnaught to read up on.
Prepare to buy more Ships, kit them and equip them for Trading, Exploration, Mining, Salvaging, Passengers and Couriering. Learn how it works... Then be better than anyone who opposes you, even if it's just a number on the Traffic Report.

That's the BGS. In a nutshell.

Before I go off looking forward to the hangover tomorrow, are you stating that defending your system by stopping people running missions there would have no impact on a BGS fight? If not, why should 1 party to a fight have the option to avoid a valid defence.