If Combat Logging is a bad thing. Then why is it okay to attack a player faction without being seen?

[TheMegaTurnip]

How is that giving full agency to PVE players that want to play the BGS but don't want to shot at?

So those who want to PvP should be forced to indulge in game mechanics they find tedious at best or loose thier territory?

Nothing changes for the PvE players, they can still use the same methods. There is just more risk.

As I've stated before. PvE players are often in larger numbers, erefore, the odds of you being able to make a dent are still good. Not to mention the PvP players will still need some folks on the PvE side to effectively mount a defense.

Even more interesting is the idea that the PvE players would then (On occasion), Hire in PvP players to cover thier butts during the BGS moves, which in turn would more closely knit the two playstyles. Further decreasing the disparity between the two groups views. Something that unfortunatly gets overlooked.

 

[CMDR Carbo]

So those who want to PvP should be forced to indulge in game mechanics they find tedious at best or loose thier territory?

If you find everything tedious and boring except PvP in a game that was designed around PvE (the BGS) with optional PvP, well, then that's a problem.

 

[Lateralus]

Then why bother with the BGS at all?
If PvP is the way to win BGS wars then just skip all this unnecessary trading and mission-running malarkey and jump straight to the combat.

Territory wars without any actual fighting is a laughable concept although, having said that you should be able to defend a system from invaders using PvE only.. that's not in question and is reasonable. But why should you be able to attack, in total safety and anonymity? It's absurd.

FDev should just add PMFs and 'territory' to CQC and all the OOBGS proponents can go there and leave the rest of us to our 'tedious grind'.

Nah, sounds weird to me.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

If you find everything tedious and boring except PvP in a game that was designed around PvE (the BGS) with optional PvP, well, then that's a problem.

I'm not going to dignify this with a decent response.

Read the signature on the bottom.

Again. EQUALITY. Is the argument here.

 

[Theodrid]

So those who want to PvP should be forced to indulge in game mechanics they find tedious at best or loose thier territory?

Nothing changes for the PvE players, they can still use the same methods. There is just more risk.

As I've stated before. PvE players are often in larger numbers, erefore, the odds of you being able to make a dent are still good. Not to mention the PvP players will still need some folks on the PvE side to effectively mount a defense.

Even more interesting is the idea that the PvE players would then (On occasion), Hire in PvP players to cover thier butts during the BGS moves, which in turn would more closely knit the two playstyles. Further decreasing the disparity between the two groups views. Something that unfortunatly gets overlooked.

You can't bemoan having to PVE in one breath then advocate forcing others to PVP in another. Like it or not this is a PVE token moving activity, it always has been, honestly moaning about having to PVE in a PVE activity is.........bizarre.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So those who want to PvP should be forced to indulge in game mechanics they find tedious at best or loose thier territory?

They choose to play a game based on those mechanics - that's up to them.

Nothing changes for the PvE players, they can still use the same methods. There is just more risk.

Other than being forced to play in a game mode where they may encounter players who engage in a play-style that they do not share a preference for.

As I've stated before. PvE players are often in larger numbers, erefore, the odds of you being able to make a dent are still good. Not to mention the PvP players will still need some folks on the PvE side to effectively mount a defense.

It's not the odds - it's being bothered by players whose play-style one has no interest in - to the point where the encounters can be quite tedious.

Even more interesting is the idea that the PvE players would then (On occasion), Hire in PvP players to cover thier butts during the BGS moves, which in turn would more closely knit the two playstyles. Further decreasing the disparity between the two groups views. Something that unfortunatly gets overlooked.

The behaviour of some players, from Alpha onwards, has, in my opinion, soured the already fragile relationship between PvE and PvP players. To the point where what is suggested here seems to be more trouble than it is worth (then there's the likelihood of betrayal by those hired to protect).

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

You can't bemoan having to PVE in one breath then advocate forcing others to PVP in another. Like it or not this is a PVE token moving activity, it always has been, honestly moaning about having to PVE in a PVE activity is.........bizarre.

So we are not allowed to use examples on these forums anymore?

I am sorry, but I did'nt say that I don't enjoy the PvE mechanics did I?

You are ignoring the rest of the concepts outlined in that comment entirely.

This is about giving everyone the same footing and allowing them to engage with the BGS in the means that they see fit. Open only BGS is the only logical way to do this.

No playstyle is pushed out from the BGS and everyone gets to use whichever playstyle they see fit to use.

Once again, Imagine the potential cohesion between the PvP and PvE players we could potentially have?

Some factions, if they were to find a large amount of PvP resistance in the system they were trying to take, could then find another group of PvP players and pay them in commodities, to suppress the threat, allowing them to pass unharmed and continue, just as if a large group of PvE players numbered to many to be suppressed by the PvP group they were attacking, they could hire in another gorup of PvE players to assist them in the transactions side of things.

This would further increase the community knowledge, and further decrease division amongst the community, not to mention making open play more interesting and giving factions more useful allies and better conflicts.

Putting everyone in the same pot, would be very good for the long term health of the game, not to mention be particularly useful for getting the community, in the long term, to give more cohesive and useful feedback to the developers.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No playstyle is pushed out from the BGS and everyone gets to use whichever playstyle they see fit to use.

One optional play-style would be forced into the BGS - and those who don't prefer that optional play-style would have no choice in the matter.

Hence the contention that the basis of the proposal is simply to remove choice from *other* players in favour of those players who prefer PvP.

 

[Theodrid]

Snip

↑ What Robert said.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

We're back to Schrodinger's Open again.

On one hand, PvP players would be able to win BGS wars by destroying the other faction's ships.

On the other, PvE players wouldn't be affected, there's just more risk.

 

[AbsinthSvK]

here we go again. Their concept is just wrong. Whole time. They spend energy time money for something and then abandon it, not surprise CqC, power-play, multi-crew are unpopular.
And what is even worse is, as i remember correctly they said : when people dont using it we dont fix it or something like that. Basically endless circle without solving things.

That is why i think this game is half-coocked and never be done right. Its fun time to time, its true, but it is also tetris.

Also, these kind of topics are still the same. 90% pve players stoned 10% pvp suggestions and some moderator (many times hair donut with eyes) put points about its game you buy, dont complain "you know what you buying" thing. Im tired, frustrated, old ...
Biggest problem i see is conservative approach.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Once again, Imagine the potential cohesion between the PvP and PvE players we could potentially have?

Some factions, if they were to find a large amount of PvP resistance in the system they were trying to take, could then find another group of PvP players and pay them in commodities, to suppress the threat, allowing them to pass unharmed and continue, just as if a large group of PvE players numbered to many to be suppressed by the PvP group they were attacking, they could hire in another gorup of PvE players to assist them in the transactions side of things.

There's nothing stopping this happening at the moment - unless the only reason it *would* happen is if PvE players had no choice in the matter.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

They choose to play a game based on those mechanics - that's up to them.

Incorrect, they choose to play a game where everything is optional, so they should have the right to choose exactly how they interact with these features.

Other than being forced to play in a game mode where they may encounter players who engage in a play-style that they do not share a preference for.

It works both ways. As it currently sits, they have to play in a playstyle they don't have preference for. PvP s easily avoided, even in open, if you think about what you are doing. IE: Submit, and wake.

It's not the odds - it's being bothered by players whose play-style one has no interest in - to the point where the encounters can be quite tedious.

Pretty much the same as the above reply. PvP remains optional, Only if you screw up, you eat a rebuy. PvE remains madatory. Open only just means noone gets shut out from thier chosen playstyle and everyone has equal footing.

The behaviour of some players, from Alpha onwards, has, in my opinion, soured the already fragile relationship between PvE and PvP players. To the point where what is suggested here seems to be more trouble than it is worth (then there's the likelihood of betrayal by those hired to protect).

So because of the very few childish fools who play, the rest of the community should be denied equality? I am sorry, The number of people who go around ganking other folks is very much the minority. (More os on consoles I am sure, but on PC, It seems to be the minority.)

By making it open only, Everyone stands to loose something unless there is an element of cooperation, that means both sect's of the community have to rely on one another more often to progress, long term, that measn better alliances and more interesting gameplay. Really, like in any other game where you can work together, you pick your allies very carefully. A different type of games, but both Ark and Rust demand that you pick your allies carefully. In fact, they demand it. ED's players definatly have the ability to do the same thing.

 

[Taimaru]

Because attacking a faction without being seen (I am guessing in a different mode) is part of the game mechanics whereas Combat Logging is not and is seen as a form of cheating.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

when you make blockade, you make blockade, no trader ships or other activities. Who have better army won. That is how it works.

And from the get go, the vision was that these practices wouldn't work in Elite Dangerous. The reason I bought this game was that Braben stated we could not be strong armed into something like this.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

One optional play-style would be forced into the BGS - and those who don't prefer that optional play-style would have no choice in the matter.

Hence the contention that the basis of the proposal is simply to remove choice from *other* players in favour of those players who prefer PvP.

I'm not sure thats whats being discussed.

Do you honestly beleive that there are enough PvP players to go around upsetting the balance of every BGS effort made on all fronts?

Because the only thing I'm starting to see here, as much as it disgusts me, is that some people are just phobic of taking the odd loss every now and then.

Literally nothing changes if open only BGS was made a thing as far as PvE goes. You would still interact with it with the same methods, the only difference is, you might get shot at once or twice.

Thats the only difference.

Moreover, if you choose to engage a group who's primary skills lie in combat, why should they be denied using thier skillset to stop you? As it stands, you can use your skillset to stop them dead in thier tracks with little to no repurcussion on the matter. That is exactly the example of what we are trying to change.

Not shutting anyone out from their chosen playstyle.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Incorrect, they choose to play a game where everything is optional, so they should have the right to choose exactly how they interact with these features.

They can indeed - what they cannot do is force others to make the same choice.

It works both ways. As it currently sits, they have to play in a playstyle they don't have preference for. PvP s easily avoided, even in open, if you think about what you are doing. IE: Submit, and wake.

Which some PvE players seem to enjoy, as some would seem to play in Open already. Others, not so much - and there's no reason why they should in a game where PvP is optional.

Pretty much the same as the above reply. PvP remains optional, Only if you screw up, you eat a rebuy. PvE remains madatory. Open only just means noone gets shut out from thier chosen playstyle and everyone has equal footing.

Which is fine for those who enjoy PvP, not so much for those that don't. Remembering that people play games to have "fun", at least I do, and there's no requirement to play the game at all.

So because of the very few childish fools who play, the rest of the community should be denied equality? I am sorry, The number of people who go around ganking other folks is very much the minority. (More os on consoles I am sure, but on PC, It seems to be the minority.)

We have equality - we are all free to engage in whichever play-style we choose - however, Frontier don't provide players to play with (either willing or unwilling) and each player makes their own choice who they play among.

By making it open only, Everyone stands to loose something unless there is an element of cooperation, that means both sect's of the community have to rely on one another more often to progress, long term, that measn better alliances and more interesting gameplay.

Whether being forced to tolerate PvP makes for "more interesting gameplay", or not, is a matter of opinion.

Really, like in any other game where you can work together, you pick your allies very carefully. A different type of games, but both Ark and Rust demand that you pick your allies carefully. In fact, they demand it. ED's players definatly have the ability to do the same thing.

A different type of game indeed - and not the type that this one would appear to have been designed to be - even if players of this game can choose to do so.

 

[CMDR Carbo]

here we go again. Their concept is just wrong. Whole time. They spend energy time money for something and then abandon it, not surprise CqC, power-play, multi-crew are unpopular.
And what is even worse is, as i remember correctly they said : when people dont using it we dont fix it or something like that. Basically endless circle without solving things.

That is why i think this game is half-coocked and never be done right. Its fun time to time, its true, but it is also tetris.

Also, these kind of topics are still the same. 90% pve players stoned 10% pvp suggestions and some moderator (many times hair donut with eyes) put points about its game you buy, dont complain "you know what you buying" thing. Im tired, frustrated, old ...
Biggest problem i see is conservative approach.

That is because people bark up the wrong tree. The BGS is the central PvE core of the game, and it will always stay that way. Groups that created PMF should have known this and agreed to this from the beginning.

Now I'm all for open PP or for implementing more meaningful ways of PvP into the game. Heck, if Frontier would have gone through with an all out civil war between Imperials and Feds I would even jump into PvP myself.

What I don't want is to make version of Eve Online out of ED.

 

[Han_Zen]

Open only BGS wars is of course an interesting concept for many players. I do however think that it would work exceptionally poor in ED.

The way the game works, means that it would quickly turn into an 'instancing war'. Large, well organized groups could send scouts into defended systems to get empty instances and then use wings to tunnel in freighters. This would be just as safe as Solo but require more complex meta-gaming.

More meta-gaming is not what ED needs. It would be even less funn and even more advantage to those with large numbers.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

It's "OK" simply because the game offers mandatory PvE and entirely optional PvP.

We could reverse it. Make the PvP mandatory and the PvE optional. Rerelease it as Elite: Battle Royale!