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

[Robert Maynard]

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

It doesn't matter how many - it's the proposal to force PvE players, who wish to affect the BGS, to play among them - one can be too many for some.

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.

It's not about loss in general, it's about PvP. There's another common conflation whereby it is assumed that players that don't like PvP cannot stand to lose. I don't enjoy PvP, in general, but particularly in this game. Which is fine - because this game does not require any player to engage in PvP.

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.

.... by players, not by NPCs.

Thats the only difference.

Which is the fundamental 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.

.... because no-one here is playing a game that requires PvP.

Not shutting anyone out from their chosen playstyle.

Find some willing participants - rather than trying to force the unwilling to engage in a play-style that they do not enjoy.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

I'm bored of this dicussion.

I have actually made a case for something twice now and been refuted by constant opinionating.

Someone else can pick it up from this point as I'm starting to get irritated by the drivel.

Equality, or the game suffers, it's that simple.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

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

*uninstall*

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

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.

What if I'm not interested in alliances? What if I'd rather play the game on the terms the developers have set, instead of needing to subject to other player's terms?

There's a very good reason I am not a member of any player group, although I have supported and cooperated with them in the past. No player is going to tell me what I should deliver, or is going to block me from delivering something if I don't feel like that interaction.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

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.

Good point. PvPers are if anything competitive, and not all have any sense of fair play (eg: gankers). I can see the forum threads already. "FD - open only doesn't work. People are abusing instancing to win!!! Make it client server now with a global network of high speed pipes and servers!"

 

[Robert Maynard]

Equality, or the game suffers, it's that simple.

People were, during the DDF phase, predicting the death of the game if the three modes and single shared galaxy state were to make it as far as release. They were wrong.

 

[Han_Zen]

Good point. PvPers are if anything competitive, and not all have any sense of fair play (eg: gankers). I can see the forum threads already. "FD - open only doesn't work. People are abusing instancing to win!!! Make it client server now with a global network of high speed pipes and servers!"

If there is a hint of competition at hand, both PvPers and PvEers will mini-max to win. Instancing manipulation is a low hanging fruit. As long as we are given tools like wings, friends lists and squadrons there will never be an even playing field.

Personally I like PvP. I just don't think it's working or will ever work in ED.

If I really wanted that type of game play, I would hang out on the EVE forum and demand that CCP put Valkyrie game play in EVE.

 

[Metamartian]

Good point. PvPers are if anything competitive, and not all have any sense of fair play (eg: gankers). I can see the forum threads already. "FD - open only doesn't work. People are abusing instancing to win!!! Make it client server now with a global network of high speed pipes and servers!"

That is exactly what Zac's recent announcement about the next exciting era of Elite development is referring to!

 

[Redomus]

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).

Perhaps if we had a form of player trading and a more functional economy then it probably wouldnt happen. There are some, but if they do it too much they will never be hired.

Having some core systems in place to allow better interaction for defending territories, for example forms of manufacturing, things worth fighting over would allow a lot of these issues to sort themselves out. The BGS is quite disjointed at best, at least having PvP involved in it would give it some meaning.

Simple things like being able to assign yourself to a PMF and maybe you get discounts in controlled systems would be useful and simple things which are worthwhile pursuing BGS. Its sorely needed, the fragmentation of private group heroes is deterimental to the game in a sense.

I understand why people are shy from it, but its not like you will be station camped as per other games. It gives much needed meaning to the BGS and the game, and ironically will tie the systems together. It would be worthwhile for PMF's to seek out combatants to cover the endeavours of the haulers. Actual trader protection etc.

Monetary rewards and a little sensible player contract/trading would bring this close to being a life filled galaxy with actual gameplay mechanics for all if done the right way.

Even tharglets could be meaningful to fight if PMF's started having their economic activities hampered by some light NPC griefing aka scouts/interceptors which we see now, which are actually quite seperate and can honestly be ignored for the most part if you wish in the current gameplay.

 

[UmbraRex]

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

*uninstall*

Ditto

 

[CMDR Carbo]

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.

That's why open only BGS would be followed up immediately with the demand from FEDV to change the P2P mechanic, cries form PvPers that it is way to easy to escape interdiction making the whole defending inconvenient, etc, etc....

 

[Roybe]

Wah wah I can't get everyone to play the way I want...change the basic game design to make me happy! Wah wah!

Just leave already.

 

[Han_Zen]

That's why open only BGS would be followed up immediately with the demand from FEDV to change the P2P mechanic, cries form PvPers that it is way to easy to avoid interdiction making the whole defending inconvenient, etc, etc....

Of course it would, but to what?

Local 128 player fps servers?
WoW type servers with a few thousand players and subscription?
Single global server like EVE, with slow point and click combat?

I CCP aren't able to do cockpit combat with their networking experience, I doubt FD would do much better.

 

[Frank Craft]

Wah wah I can't get everyone to play the way I want...change the basic game design to make me happy! Wah wah!

Just leave already.

After reading the OP's post history, that's about the long and short of it. And other, er, "issues".

 

[Backelaer]

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.

Ding ding. We have a winner here.

Btw OP, you CAN counter players influencing the bgs. Do missions. Blow up npc's. That you don't like that particular toolbox, doesn't mean anything is 'unfair': both sides on a bgs conflict have the same tools.

That being said, I am all for making PP open only. That way all playstyles get catered to. And PP always was designed with pvp in mind anyway, whereas playing the bgs was not.

 

[Redomus]

That's why open only BGS would be followed up immediately with the demand from FEDV to change the P2P mechanic, cries form PvPers that it is way to easy to escape interdiction making the whole defending inconvenient, etc, etc....

Another issue that would solve itself, if the player logs on combat they arent pushing down other peoples influence etc. So mission achieved right? Gives some meaningful consequence being tied in imo.

 

[Redomus]

Ding ding. We have a winner here.

Btw OP, you CAN counter players influencing the bgs. Do missions. Blow up npc's. That you don't like that particular toolbox, doesn't mean anything is 'unfair': both sides on a bgs conflict have the same tools.

That being said, I am all for making PP open only. That way all playstyles get catered to. And PP always was designed with pvp in mind anyway, whereas playing the bgs was not.

Imagine this scenario - private group cutter hero with everything engineered and a second account/3rd account with healy beams putting an open relatively poor player faction into lockdown from the safety of a private group as they have sideys cobras and vipers and they cant do a thing about it.

Sure they might lose in open, but at least they can be the mosquitos which are quite annoying.

Edit: Thinking about it now, perhaps this could be a new campaign to highlight the issue. I'm not advocating for this to be used, but its a legit gameplay mechanic - it might drive the issue home to those who dont see it as a problem.

 

[babelfisch]

Obviously some of the engagements in Elite are meant for fights over territory. However the attacker can simply opt out of being attacked back or defended against. With no need to combat log at all.

Why is combat logging such a big deal, when people have the option to remove themselves from the people they are attacking to begin with?

Which one is the bigger problem here?

Personally I am not bothered by either.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Combat logging isn't a bad thing in ED, tho.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Imagine this scenario - private group cutter hero with everything engineered and a second account/3rd account with healy beams putting an open relatively poor player faction into lockdown from the safety of a private group as they have sideys cobras and vipers and they cant do a thing about it.

Sure they might lose in open, but at least they can be the mosquitos which are quite annoying.

Edit: Thinking about it now, perhaps this could be a new campaign to highlight the issue. I'm not advocating for this to be used, but its a legit gameplay mechanic - it might drive the issue home to those who dont see it as a problem.

In your scenario the poor player's faction is screwed either way.

Sure they might be the mosquitos in Open, but at least they get to pay a lot of rebuys. Hooray? I think they stand a better chance at working the BGS until that private group cutter hero loses interest, than provide it with easy targets that has a better chance of keeping it's interest.