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

[Robert Maynard]

That's the goal isn't it? If general PvE BGS gameplay is not affected but attacking a PvP group from private modes becomes impossible then we would have a result would we not?

There's no such thing as a PvP (or PvE for that matter) Faction. They are all treated the same as NPC Factions once inserted into the game.

What would constitute an "attack" on a PvP group's Faction?

Trading to a station where that Faction was present in the system?

Trading from a station where that Faction was present in the system?

Missions to?

Missions from?

Passengers to?

Passengers from?

Tourists starting out there?

Influencing a Faction in a nearby system?

Initiating an expansion from a nearby system that might cause a new Faction to be inserted into a system where the PMF was present?

etc.

 

[Redomus]

There's no such thing as a PvP (or PvE for that matter) Faction. They are all treated the same as NPC Factions once inserted into the game.

What would constitute an "attack" on a PvP group's Faction?

Trading to a station where that Faction was present in the system?

Trading from a station where that Faction was present in the system?

Missions to?

Missions from?

Passengers to?

Passengers from?

Tourists starting out there?

Influencing a Faction in a nearby system?

Initiating an expansion from a nearby system that might cause a new Faction to be inserted into a system where the PMF was present?

etc.

I think the hope from most of us involved in the BGS is that we can actually properly link with our PMF's so while technically its not an attack on us from a gameplay mechanics, people have ownership of the faction as they created it.

So any form of influence drop/booting out of a system/leveraging for control is an attack.

We just use our imagination to do that because frontier havent given us what we want yet. Its a bit like the combat trailers for ED.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think the hope from most of us involved in the BGS is that we can actually properly link with our PMF's so while technically its not an attack on us from a gameplay mechanics, people have ownership of the faction as they created it.

So any form of influence drop/booting out of a system/leveraging for control is an attack.

We just use our imagination to do that because frontier havent given us what we want yet. Its a bit like the combat trailers for ED.

I don't know about "most of us" - as I haven't seen any data on that question.

As to players linking to PMFs - we'll see. It may be that the only thing that players can link to are Squadrons - we don't know yet.

Plus the fact that "we", rather obviously, don't all want the same things.

 

[Redomus]

I don't know about "most of us" - as I haven't seen any data on that question.

As to players linking to PMFs - we'll see. It may be that the only thing that players can link to are Squadrons - we don't know yet.

Plus the fact that "we", rather obviously, don't all want the same things.

Come now, I know you are trying to be neutral - but if a group make a faction they want to be part of it. Much like a squadron - I am hoping squadrons can be affiliated with the PMF's or the squadron system is largely redundant other than a chat function.

If it didnt matter for most, we could all make dummy factions called "tank me please" because we wouldnt care what happened to them.

 

[Lateralus]

There's no such thing as a PvP (or PvE for that matter) Faction. They are all treated the same as NPC Factions once inserted into the game.

What would constitute an "attack" on a PvP group's Faction?

Trading to a station where that Faction was present in the system?

Trading from a station where that Faction was present in the system?

Missions to?

Missions from?

Passengers to?

Passengers from?

Tourists starting out there?

Influencing a Faction in a nearby system?

Initiating an expansion from a nearby system that might cause a new Faction to be inserted into a system where the PMF was present?

etc.

First of all, all PvP groups could apply to Fdev to have their BGS faction tagged as such. Then a rule could be implemented whereby if a PvP tagged faction controls a system, an open token system is in effect for that system only. If the PvP faction loses control, then the BGS rules for the system return to normal.

Problem solved.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Come now, I know you are trying to be neutral - but if a group make a faction they want to be part of it. Much like a squadron - I am hoping squadrons can be affiliated with the PMF's or the squadron system is largely redundant other than a chat function.

If it didnt matter for most, we could all make dummy factions called "tank me please" because we wouldnt care what happened to them.

Fair point. However having a PMF inserted into the game does not mean that the group behind it is PvP oriented and therefore does not, by itself, suggest significant support for Open only BGS.

It'll be interesting to see if Squadrons can be linked to Factions - and if so, how it will be managed as there is no player control over Factions in game.

I suspect that Squadrons will be able to declare / accept declarations of war on each other - which, freed of the BGS, could happen in either multi-player game mode only when opposing Squadron members meet and be completely unaffected by what other players are doing.

 

[Redomus]

First of all, all PvP groups could apply to Fdev to have their BGS faction tagged as such. Then a rule could be implemented whereby if a PvP tagged faction controls a system, an open token system is in effect for that system only. If the PvP faction loses control, then the BGS rules for the system return to normal.

Problem solved.

This works.

Fair point. However having a PMF inserted into the game does not mean that the group behind it is PvP oriented and therefore does not, by itself, suggest significant support for Open only BGS.

It'll be interesting to see if Squadrons can be linked to Factions - and if so, how it will be managed as there is no player control over Factions in game.

I suspect that Squadrons will be able to declare / accept declarations of war on each other - which, freed of the BGS, could happen in either multi-player game mode only when opposing Squadron members meet and be completely unaffected by what other players are doing.

If squadrons can claim territory and exploit resources to fund ships and combat I am all for it. Without this, its just another cqc/powerplay.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

True, for some it's just about the BGS. And for those there is no solution. As was pointed out (by you?) if they get OOBGS, the next complaint is instancing and not being able to effectively blockade. These people cannot be satisfied, so it's a waste of effort to try. However, lumped in with them are CMDRs who are looking for meaningful and challenging PvP. Can you blame them when they attach themselves to any cause that might further that goal?

For me, whenever I am in these discussions, the complaint: there are no inherent PvP mechanics is one I have no argument against. Because there aren't, and it's not that weird to expect there should be.

I totally agree that PvP mechanics that meaningfully affect the BGS (and PP) should be added to improve the balance between that and PvE. But players should not be forced into a PvP environment to impact the BGS.

Also, the effectiveness of murder needs to be reduced to bring it into line with its counter-actions.

Doing these things won't please the extremists on either side, but it would do a lot to improve the game for the majority of playerd.

 

[_Flin_]

Also, the effectiveness of murder needs to be reduced to bring it into line with its counter-actions.

.

This. So much this.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

First of all, all PvP groups could apply to Fdev to have their BGS faction tagged as such. Then a rule could be implemented whereby if a PvP tagged faction controls a system, an open token system is in effect for that system only. If the PvP faction loses control, then the BGS rules for the system return to normal.

Problem solved.

Only if other PMFs can apply to have their factions tagged as 'PvE Only' with PvP functionality disabled in those systems - otherwise there is no balance.

However, this is still special treatment for PMFs. Any player, or group, manipulating the BGS without being a PMF gets shafted, which isn't remotely fair.

 

[Lateralus]

Only if other PMFs can apply to have their factions tagged as 'PvE Only' with PvP functionality disabled in those systems - otherwise there is no balance.

However, this is still special treatment for PMFs. Any player, or group, manipulating the BGS without being a PMF gets shafted, which isn't remotely fair.

No as PvE factions already have private groups to use.. The current system is what is unfair, you've just suggested fixing a fix with another fix, which would not be needed at all.

 

[Backelaer]

No as PvE factions already have private groups to use.. The current system is what is unfair, you've just suggested fixing a fix with another fix, which would not be needed at all.

The current system isn't unfair. Everybody has got the same tools to influence the BGS. You might not like those tools, but they're there for everyone to use.

 

[WhoCares]

Only if other PMFs can apply to have their factions tagged as 'PvE Only' with PvP functionality disabled in those systems - otherwise there is no balance.

However, this is still special treatment for PMFs. Any player, or group, manipulating the BGS without being a PMF gets shafted, which isn't remotely fair.

That doesn't really work either. Somebody mentioned that Colonia is one big PMF battleground. If that was turned into one big open PMF battleground, Colonia would become off-limits for all random independent players.
And the same applies to the bubble - there is always somewhere a PMF nearby that might turn open PMF, and random players would "stumble" into their systems due to trade routes (be it via internal tools or EDDB.io), or missions from neighboring systems, etc. That's players that don't care about BGS, PMFs, etc., but whose actions still will have an influence on it anyway.

 

[Lateralus]

The current system isn't unfair. Everybody has got the same tools to influence the BGS. You might not like those tools, but they're there for everyone to use.

Is it, otherwise this argument wouldn't keep coming up again and again. If you want to attack a PvP orientated faction you should have to do it in open.. it's not really a crazy concept.

 

[Mohrgan]

Is it, otherwise this argument wouldn't keep coming up again and again. If you want to attack a PvP orientated faction you should have to do it in open.. it's not really a crazy concept.

The issue keeps coming up because people continue to confuse 'preference' with 'fairness'.

 

[Mercy Killing]

Is it, otherwise this argument wouldn't keep coming up again and again. If you want to attack a PvP orientated faction you should have to do it in open.. it's not really a crazy concept.

Yes, it is. Simply because a vocal group of people won't let a horse die in peace does not lend your opinion any more credulity. Fact is, the modes are currently equal, due to the simple fact that payouts are the same regardless of mode. Methods of income are the same regardless of mode.

PvP is it's own reward.

 

[Backelaer]

I would like to add, "PvP is it's own reward" I don't agree with. There should be a place for meaningful PvP. It's just that BGS isn't that place. In my opinion, PP is.

 

[The Replicated Man]

This is a juicy thread OP. Let me get my thoughts in here.

1. I PvP in Open, and have done powerplay pvp when I was a Fed. I was introduced to powerplay pvp in the first weeks of playing almost 3 years ago by a CMDR Na'Qan. That started a friendly rivalry which developed into a friendship and mutual respect between The Imperial and myself. I've seen threads like this before, and these questions are asked by many on a daily basis in many discord servers and reddit posts. When it comes to Elite in general, I believe we have more questions than answers right now.

In my opinion, if I am powerplaying in open and/or affecting the BGS, I personally feel that anyone including an enemy has the right and ability to engage and try to stop me from what I am doing. I personally feel that running to SOLO or PRIVATE modes to hide from players in game is cheap and feels cheaty. It happens quite often, someone is in open, gets attacked and combat logs. Then they venture to solo to continue their BGS or Powerplay unhindered (PVE NPCs against a Engineered CMDR are a joke and pose little to no threat). So it kinda makes Powerplay PVP and Anti-BGS PVP countering pointless if someone can just run to another mode. So OP yes, I do agree that TO ME it is cheating the system.

PVP is alive and well, sure there are "Gank wings" and people who have no interest in BGS or Powerplay PvP out there, but there are many of us that do pvp for powerplay/bgs. I have also been hit with the argument that "Oh my T9 runs shieldless and can haul 700 merits at a time!" My answer to that has and always will be this:

YOU have the ability to outfit and engineer your ships properly. With the 3.0 system a ship can be engineered very quickly that can survive open hauling no problem.

Please don't hit me with the classic excuses like "I don't have time" Or "I don't have horizons" Or "I don't want to grind out the engineers." I have heared it all and it all comes down to you my friend.

Always willing to offer build advice to my PVE friends. If you need advice on getting into PVP or OPEN, feel free to PM me.

Rep

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I would like to add, "PvP is it's own reward" I don't agree with. There should be a place for meaningful PvP. It's just that BGS isn't that place. In my opinion, PP is.

PP is dominated by PvE activities. I don't think that forcing PvE activities into a PvP setting is the best solution. There should be dedicated PvP methods for impacting both PP and the BGS. That way people can continue to choose how and where they perform their activities, but everyone's playstyle has meaning and impact.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Is it, otherwise this argument wouldn't keep coming up again and again. If you want to attack a PvP orientated faction you should have to do it in open.. it's not really a crazy concept.

When I play chess, i win by punching my opponent in the face and then taking a dump on the board. I mean, its not how chess was designed to be played, but i win!