Modes Is BGS PvP a Myth?

[Old Duck]

Some months ago, my alt-CMDR went to war with a relatively popular player faction on PS4. I wanted to experiment with intentionally affecting the BGS along with being a criminal. I was actually able to trigger a lockdown for this faction! I wanted to do this "honorably", so I always played in Open, flying a modest PvE-focused ship. My CMDR hit #1 on the "Most Wanted" list in the systems I was targeting, so anybody could see where I was and what I was flying.

And nobody did a thing about it.

Sure, I got some "threats" via the forum and my message box, but I never once encountered an actual player, despite hanging out in their home system for hours at a time. I was actually hoping someone would come along and collect my multi-million bounty, as I didn't have anything against this faction, it was all just a gameplay experiment for me. However, I might as well have been playing in Solo.

And that's my point. For all the "make XYZ Open-only" arguments I see in the forum, my own experience makes me wonder if the idea of using PvP to defend the BGS is more of a myth than reality.

Thoughts?

 

[Screemonster]

I've had people do the same thing you did, in solo. We've been actively patrolling the system in open and seen no sign of the player in question even when their bounty has been actively going up.
Failing that, it might simply be instancing since their active hours suggest they're probably on a different continent to us.

Between modes and instancing, the BGS is a pretty poor way to wage a competition, and some of the mechanics (such as murder) are well-known to be horribly unbalanced and cheap. Killing authority ships in particular stands alone as being notoriously unbalanced since it's literally the only BGS lever that allows you to rack up more than one transaction per instance. Honestly I'd call for that to be addressed long before I called for mode changes, since even with both pilots flying in open, actually getting instanced together is a roll of the dice.

 

[Speedcuffs]

Yep, me too Old Duck.
Made a point of always doing BGS work in open. Nothing. No response, interdictions or anything.[knocked out]

 

[Marra Morgan]

Having some PvP in a BGS conflict is a nice little extra, but by no means an effective way of conducting your campaign.

There's an opportunity cost with having your pilots fly around enemy systems looking for mission-runners to shoot at - your pilots aren't doing your missions, so it's highly ineffective.

It can be fun to have active opposition in the CZs when war breaks out, though

 

[Jockey79]

I've had people do the same thing you did, in solo. We've been actively patrolling the system in open and seen no sign of the player in question even when their bounty has been actively going up.
Failing that, it might simply be instancing since their active hours suggest they're probably on a different continent to us.

Between modes and instancing, the BGS is a pretty poor way to wage a competition, and some of the mechanics (such as murder) are well-known to be horribly unbalanced and cheap. Killing authority ships in particular stands alone as being notoriously unbalanced since it's literally the only BGS lever that allows you to rack up more than one transaction per instance. Honestly I'd call for that to be addressed long before I called for mode changes, since even with both pilots flying in open, actually getting instanced together is a roll of the dice.

Instancing, Networking (Peer to Peer isn't that reliable for this), different platforms (XB1, PC and PS4 all on one BGS).

So opening with "I've had people do the same thing you did, in solo." is misleading at best, dishonest at worse.
As you have no idea why you couldn't see the other person(s). They could have been quite happy in Open, but a technical issue stopped you from seeing them.

 

[Morbad]

For all the "make XYZ Open-only" arguments I see in the forum, my own experience makes me wonder if the idea of using PvP to defend the BGS is more of a myth than reality.

Of course it's a myth, and that's exactly why there are calls to make it Open-only or increase the weight of Open contribution.

If the side less inclined to directly oppose the actions of other CMDRs didn't retreat to a different mode, there would be no calls to restrict them to Open.

 

[Goose4291]

Some months ago, my alt-CMDR went to war with a relatively popular player faction on PS4. I wanted to experiment with intentionally affecting the BGS along with being a criminal. I was actually able to trigger a lockdown for this faction! I wanted to do this "honorably", so I always played in Open, flying a modest PvE-focused ship. My CMDR hit #1 on the "Most Wanted" list in the systems I was targeting, so anybody could see where I was and what I was flying.

And nobody did a thing about it.

Sure, I got some "threats" via the forum and my message box, but I never once encountered an actual player, despite hanging out in their home system for hours at a time. I was actually hoping someone would come along and collect my multi-million bounty, as I didn't have anything against this faction, it was all just a gameplay experiment for me. However, I might as well have been playing in Solo.

And that's my point. For all the "make XYZ Open-only" arguments I see in the forum, my own experience makes me wonder if the idea of using PvP to defend the BGS is more of a myth than reality.

Thoughts?

As someone who's previously been involved in such events, I can confirm they're very much a thing. Been chased out of a system more than once due to this when the 4 man Fer De Lance QRF team shows up.

HOWEVER

For you to experience the things you're describing, your opponent has to be (i) motivated, (ii) organised, (iii) proactive in the prosecution of you as their OPFOR, for example using KoS lists, or IFF checking software (which matches names against a kill list for you to confirm) to track you down.

Otherwise, it just turns into a 'not in my watering hole' shoot first, ask questions later drama, like that chap posted about in Dangerous discussion last week.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/459883-thiana-under-new-management?highlight=EXO

 

[Dietger]

Of course it's a myth, and that's exactly why there are calls to make it Open-only or increase the weight of Open contribution.

If the side less inclined to directly oppose the actions of other CMDRs didn't retreat to a different mode, there would be no calls to restrict them to Open.

Which is where modes start chasing after their own tails ...

 

[Jockey79]

Which is where modes start chasing after their own tails ...

The modes are not chasing anything.

It's players who refuse to let the rest of us play how we want are chasing their tails.
The game was made with equal access to all content in all modes, which Frontier have reinforced time and time again.

 

[Arkadi]

Some months ago, my alt-CMDR went to war with a relatively popular player faction on PS4.
Thoughts?

Have you been playing on the PS4 too?

 

[Screemonster]

Honestly, the problem is nothing to do with modes, it's just down to the uniqueness of murder.

1 - negative transactions, unlike positive ones such as missions, don't appear to have any kind of cap. It's literally possible to tank a controlling faction's influence down to 0 in a single day if you work hard enough.
2 - murder, unlike literally every other bgs transaction in the game, can be stacked without changing instance. Even exploration data requires you to visit multiple systems and take a lot of time to build it up. Murder doesn't only allow you to stay in the same system, but the same instance. ATR was introduced as an attempt to address this, but it achieves nothing since the timer resets every time you high-wake, letting you easily rack up multiple kills when you come back before they show up again.
3 - if you're committing murders, you don't even have to go out and find targets - you can literally summon them to your instance. Fire on literally any clean ship and the authority ships will present themselves - and they'll start with vipers and eagles which go pop pretty nicely.

Any of these three factors would be unbalanced enough on their own, but for the method to have all three just makes elevates it to ridiculous levels.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Honestly, the problem is nothing to do with modes, it's just down to the uniqueness of murder.

1 - negative transactions, unlike positive ones such as missions, don't appear to have any kind of cap. It's literally possible to tank a controlling faction's influence down to 0 in a single day if you work hard enough.
2 - murder, unlike literally every other bgs transaction in the game, can be stacked without changing instance. Even exploration data requires you to visit multiple systems and take a lot of time to build it up. Murder doesn't only allow you to stay in the same system, but the same instance. ATR was introduced as an attempt to address this, but it achieves nothing since the timer resets every time you high-wake, letting you easily rack up multiple kills when you come back before they show up again.
3 - if you're committing murders, you don't even have to go out and find targets - you can literally summon them to your instance. Fire on literally any clean ship and the authority ships will present themselves - and they'll start with vipers and eagles which go pop pretty nicely.

Any of these three factors would be unbalanced enough on their own, but for the method to have all three just makes elevates it to ridiculous levels.

^^ Yep, this.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Some months ago, my alt-CMDR went to war with a relatively popular player faction on PS4. I wanted to experiment with intentionally affecting the BGS along with being a criminal. I was actually able to trigger a lockdown for this faction! I wanted to do this "honorably", so I always played in Open, flying a modest PvE-focused ship. My CMDR hit #1 on the "Most Wanted" list in the systems I was targeting, so anybody could see where I was and what I was flying.

And nobody did a thing about it.

Sure, I got some "threats" via the forum and my message box, but I never once encountered an actual player, despite hanging out in their home system for hours at a time. I was actually hoping someone would come along and collect my multi-million bounty, as I didn't have anything against this faction, it was all just a gameplay experiment for me. However, I might as well have been playing in Solo.

And that's my point. For all the "make XYZ Open-only" arguments I see in the forum, my own experience makes me wonder if the idea of using PvP to defend the BGS is more of a myth than reality.

Thoughts?

Defending any fixed position in an online game effectively via PvP has been a myth from day one.

Unlike real life, where the defenders are physically there 24/7, in online games the defenders will have their strength divided across the day, due to real life taking priority... and quite frankly players will want to do fun things with their game, rather than wait around doing nothing on the off chance they get attacked. The attackers, OTOH, will always have the initiative, able to concentrate their strength both by taking advantage of coordinating the time of the raid, and because PvP raids are fun, so more players will participate as opposed to doing their own thing.

And this is the problem defenders have to contend with with a client/server networking solution, where everyone connects to the same server. Elite: Dangerous adds a second layer to the problem with their peer-to-peer networking solution: latency and its effect on matchmaking. Due to the effects physical proximity has on latency, the defenders not only have dilute their strength throughout the day, but further divide it across geographical areas. This also adds a third layer: those who play during their local prime time, and those who don't. Now multiply all those problems across all three platforms.

This is why I was able to spend several days in Open in what should've been a busy Hudson control system while pledged to ALD, and saw only one Hudson aligned player during that time. As a Midwestern player who primarily plays well before my local prime time, I might as well be playing in Solo, for all the opposition I face.

There's a reason why PvP focused games generally have short matches of small teams, matchmaking algorithms that focus on grouping similarly skilled players against each other, balanced maps that focus players into choke points, and other features. PvP is much more fun that way. In games with freeform PvP like Elite: Dangerous, defending has always been an frustrating exercise in futility. An attacker almost always holds the advantage. This is doubly true in ED, where the contest isn't who can destroy the most opposing players' ships, but who can gather and move the most (edit) PvE tokens.

 

[Jockey79]

...
There's a reason why PvP focused games generally have short matches of small teams, matchmaking algorithms that focus on grouping similarly skilled players against each other, balanced maps that focus players into choke points, and other features. PvP is much more fun that way.

It's more fun that way, if you're after a decent challenging match.

Perhaps if people want the BGS to be affected by PvP, then CQC should have an option to represent a faction.
And instead of getting Credits, you earn Rep for your faction.

 

[Screemonster]

It's more fun that way, if you're after a decent challenging match.

Perhaps if people want the BGS to be affected by PvP, then CQC should have an option to represent a faction.
And instead of getting Credits, you earn Rep for your faction.

See, I'd be all over that. Have victories in CQC matches raise happiness in your supported faction, kinda like the home team winning a football match.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Perhaps if people want the BGS to be affected by PvP, then CQC should have an option to represent a faction.
And instead of getting Credits, you earn Rep for your faction.

Ewwwww

 

[Jockey79]

Ewwwww

I take it you've never seen any fans of any sport after their team win a game?

 

[Lateralus]

It's more fun that way, if you're after a decent challenging match.

Perhaps if people want the BGS to be affected by PvP, then CQC should have an option to represent a faction.
And instead of getting Credits, you earn Rep for your faction.

Sounds like another grind vs grind system to me..

The whole point about PvP & BGS warfare is a defending faction should be able to provide a deterrent to the attacking group via opposition, rebuys and eventually stop them in their tracks altogether.

Also many people talk about instancing/platforms/blocking etc as a reason it wouldn't work, but this is just agenda-driven whataboutery in my opinion. If the risk of direct opposition exists, BGS groups would have to go about their gameplay far differently - the game would be better for it.

No other serious multiplayer game out there would let players directly influence the world and other player groups from the total safety of a private mode... It's terrible game design IMO.

EDIT: As for the OPs point, no it's not a myth... it just depends what group you're attacking. Groups like mine (The Code) and Privateers Alliance will defend their systems in open. However we're all aware of how pointless this is because of the design flaws, so have to resort to other less interesting gameplay to see off the solo warriors.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The whole point about PvP & BGS warfare is a defending faction should be able to provide a deterrent to the attacking group via opposition, rebuys and eventually stop them in their tracks altogether.

Whether this "should" be the case, or not, remains a matter of opinion - and Frontier's clearly stated stance (as recently as the BGS & Scenarios stream) is that the BGS remains affected by players on all platforms and in all modes.

Consequently, "direct" PvP remains optional in relation to the BGS - for those who wish to engage in it - and those who do not can continue to play the game without requiring to engage in PvP, albeit in a game mode other than Open.

EDIT: As for the OPs point, no it's not a myth... it just depends what group you're attacking. Groups like mine (The Code) and Privateers Alliance will defend their systems in open. However we're all aware of how pointless this is because of the design flaws, so have to resort to other less interesting gameplay to see off the solo warriors.

One player's "design flaws" are another player's "features that made the game worth backing / buying".

If BGS play is to be considered PvP then Frontier's implementation would seem to be PvP of the asynchronous, indirect, type - available to all players at any time of day or night - without the need to meet other players (as Frontier cannot guarantee that there will be any to encounter).

 

[Goose4291]

It's more fun that way, if you're after a decent challenging match.

Perhaps if people want the BGS to be affected by PvP, then CQC should have an option to represent a faction.
And instead of getting Credits, you earn Rep for your faction.

I'd be up for intergrating CQC into the BGS, but judging by the gnashing of teeth that introducing a new flavour of NPC to the BGS has caused, I imagine you'd get massive kickback for such a thing.