Modes Is BGS PvP a Myth?

[Jockey79]

Sounds like another grind vs grind system to me..

Welcome to the land of MMOs that don't have story driven content.

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.

A few points;

1) This isn't a "serious multiplayer game" - It's Elite: Dangerous, part of a sandbox game. It isn't an E-Sport.
Closest thing you have for the is CQC.

2) Other MMOs have PvE / PvP servers to deal with the difference in opinion over how to play the game.
Perhaps you should back the idea of having that here?

3) If the idea of the mode system is so terrible, why are you here?
The mode system has been around longer than you; https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous

Also, this mode system isn't new. MMOs have been using it for years or variations of it.
Warframe has the same mode system, Star Trek Online lets you play most content in Public, Friends or Single.
Guild Wars 1 had social areas and you could instance alone, with friends or with random people while on missions.

World of Warcraft just changed their PvP servers (I'm on Vashj, which was a PvP server) to all PvE and we have to enable PvP (War Mode) - so they went with a flagging system.

And everyone can influence the game world, regardless of mode or if they are on XBox One, Playstation 4 or Personal Computers.

It's the game you bought. Where we all count.

 

[Marra Morgan]

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

Yes, I have.

Could you elaborate please, I don't understand how it has anything to do with my disapproval of resolving faction conflicts with CQC matches (which is really is an awful idea, Ewwww is the politest gut reaction I could give).

 

[znôrt]

Thoughts?

in a game that enforces conflict resolution by parallel pve grind, it doesn't surprise me you don't find opposition as soon as you decide to go open. open means poorer network performance and longer load screens essentially for nothing. maybe announce it in advance and some might be will be willing to duke it out if they know you are there.

anyway i don't really get your point. you seem to want this experience to imply that people asking for open-only-xyz actually don't want to play in open which is, with all due respect, either a stupid argument or a twisted way to call a lot of people stupid

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

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?

Its a myth in the same way people thought powerplay was a myth.

Its the same damn game with a different set of rules in crime and punishment.

The only reason people never see each other is because they have the option not to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYXTh4TCVo

Put everyone on the same field. And PVP is no longer a myth.

The META lies in Solo and Private for that reason.

And just in case someone comes in saying its a playstyle. Thats 100% garbage because even PVPers through powerplay and BGS wars end up doing it too.

More Cargo, less defenses, more efficient PVE builds and most of all No rebuys.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Welcome to the land of MMOs that don't have story driven content.



A few points;

1) This isn't a "serious multiplayer game" - It's Elite: Dangerous, part of a sandbox game. It isn't an E-Sport.
Closest thing you have for the is CQC.

2) Other MMOs have PvE / PvP servers to deal with the difference in opinion over how to play the game.
Perhaps you should back the idea of having that here?

3) If the idea of the mode system is so terrible, why are you here?
The mode system has been around longer than you; https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous

Also, this mode system isn't new. MMOs have been using it for years or variations of it.
Warframe has the same mode system, Star Trek Online lets you play most content in Public, Friends or Single.
Guild Wars 1 had social areas and you could instance alone, with friends or with random people while on missions.

World of Warcraft just changed their PvP servers (I'm on Vashj, which was a PvP server) to all PvE and we have to enable PvP (War Mode) - so they went with a flagging system.

And everyone can influence the game world, regardless of mode or if they are on XBox One, Playstation 4 or Personal Computers.

It's the game you bought. Where we all count.

Except in WoW PVP mode is severely weighted in influence, experience and rewards. But we didnt want to mention that part now did we?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Put everyone on the same field.

Given Frontier's design for the game, we are all on the same playing field, i.e. the BGS, in whichever game mode we play in - by design.

And PVP is no longer a myth.

PvP is not a myth - it would appear that some players do engage in it in its various forms - it is, however, entirely optional.

And just in case someone comes in saying its a playstyle. Thats 100% garbage because even PVPers through powerplay and BGS wars end up doing it too.

It's not "100% garbage" for a player who does not engage in PvP - and players who don't get involved in PvP would seem to constitute the majority of players, from what one Dev has indicated.

It might be the case that some players who prefer PvP choose to play where no-one can engage them in PvP - that is their choice, just as much as it would be for players who don't enjoy PvP.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Given Frontier's design for the game, we are all on the same playing field, i.e. the BGS, in whichever game mode we play in - by design.



PvP is not a myth - it would appear that some players do engage in it in its various forms - it is, however, entirely optional.



It's not "100% garbage" for a player who does not engage in PvP - and players who don't get involved in PvP would seem to constitute the majority of players, from what one Dev has indicated.

It might be the case that some players who prefer PvP choose to play where no-one can engage them in PvP - that is their choice, just as much as it would be for players who don't enjoy PvP.

100% Garbage Excuses. All of it.

Because unlike you, Ive been involved in those things.

 

[Robert Maynard]

100% Garbage Excuses. All of it.

Because unlike you, Ive been involved on those things.

There's absolutely no need or requirement to engage in PvP in this game to experience and affect it - that much has been crystal clear from the beginning.

PvP is possible, of course - but not in a position to dominate the game.

 

[Goose4291]

Its a myth in the same way people thought powerplay was a myth.

PvP is not a myth - it would appear that some players do engage in it in its various forms - it is, however, entirely optional.

Which is part of the problem when it comes to powerplay in particular.
It's bad game design to allow confrontational gameplay where either party can 'opt out' of risk, particularly when success is so heavily tied to min/max builds, and shows a lack of experience on the developers part when it comes to multiplayer mechanics.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which is part of the problem when it comes to powerplay in particular.
It's bad game design to allow confrontational gameplay where either party can 'opt out' of risk, particularly when success is so heavily tied to min/max builds, and shows a lack of experience on the developers part when it comes to multiplayer mechanics.

That Powerplay was consciously implemented in all three game modes strongly suggests that, at the time, it was not considered to be a "PvP-required" game feature - as, if PvP *had* been required then it would have been implemented in Open only.

That players who prefer PvP heavily optimise their ships to facilitate player destruction is no surprise - however the ability to do so does not change the fact that PvP is an "optional extra" in this game for those who wish to partake of it.

That Sandro has twice engaged with the forums regarding potential changes to Powerplay suggests that at least one Developer was exploring the possibility of changes that would either mode lock Powerplay to Open or give players engaging in it in Open a bonus to their Power. The outcome of the latter forum engagement remains unknown.

The choice of whether PvP should be a mandatory aspect of a feature, or not, is just that - a choice. Frontier has chosen, up to now at least, not to make PvP mandatory in any game feature - and they pitched their game on that basis. We'll never know if the Kickstarter would have been successful if the game had been Open only. We do know that Frontier have recently restated what the BGS is, i.e. something that players on all platforms and in all game modes can both experience and affect - just as at the outset, over six years ago.

We'll see what, if anything, happens regarding Powerplay.

 

[Goose4291]

That Powerplay was consciously implemented in all three game modes strongly suggests that, at the time, it was not considered to be a "PvP-required" game feature - as, if PvP *had* been required then it would have been implemented in Open only.

That players who prefer PvP heavily optimise their ships to facilitate player destruction is no surprise - however the ability to do so does not change the fact that PvP is an "optional extra" in this game for those who wish to partake of it.

That Sandro has twice engaged with the forums regarding potential changes to Powerplay suggests that at least one Developer was exploring the possibility of changes that would either mode lock Powerplay to Open or give players engaging in it in Open a bonus to their Power. The outcome of the latter forum engagement remains unknown.

The choice of whether PvP should be a mandatory aspect of a feature, or not, is just that - a choice. Frontier has chosen, up to now at least, not to make PvP mandatory in any game feature - and they pitched their game on that basis. We'll never know if the Kickstarter would have been successful if the game had been Open only. We do know that Frontier have recently restated what the BGS is, i.e. something that players on all platforms and in all game modes can both experience and affect - just as at the outset, over six years ago.

We'll see what, if anything, happens regarding Powerplay.

.... or it could just show, as I said in my prior post, that the team behind its intergration have limited experience with multiplayer game environments, seen as what you've just written runs completely counter to Sandro's comments on the core ideas of powerplay.

 

[Ian Phillips]

A reminder.

Make comments about the post content, not about the poster.

Thanks all.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Alright why the hell was my post removed?

Dont like the truth laid out eh?

 

[Ian Phillips]

Alright why the hell was my post removed?

Dont like the truth laid out eh?

Read my post.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Alright then,

Its clear some people dont care that the wrong people die.

Its clear some people here have a personal agenda because they dont want to be killed in a video game. Or lose.

So they continue to brigade this topic touting the words "playstyle" even though they know the imbalances of the game.

If you remove meaningful PVP with the given option. Which indeed has been happening and its why hotel california exists.

Then all thats left is griefing. And if people want to be selfish because they dont want to die in a video game.

Leaving griefing all that's left. Then griefing is what this community gets.

If you guys are happy with that. Then I am happy with that.

Im sure thats completely healthy for this community.

 

[xondk]

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?

When I look at the BGS, as someone that enjoy PvP now and then, personally all the posts about people basically calling others cowards for using solo for BGS, seeing it as hiding. I always wonder why people think this, the BGS mechanics in no way promote PvP, there is no exception made to PvP, PvP does not do anything more then a PvE kill against an npc would in terms of BGS.

BGS is not based around PvP it is that simple, no matter how many want to deny it.
If it was there would be a substantial difference between npc and players when it comes to kills and such, and sure I believe players count for 'more' but that still does not do it and seems more like a 'hey you found a rare, good job' reward then an actual incentive to use PvP in the BGS.

Because it entirely relies on you being able to meet and kill enough players to beat a player that is doing the same action but only against npc's and that currently is nowhere near remotely possible, given instancing and a host of other things that need to align to meet a player and more importantly actually meeting an enemy player working against your faction to attack, the game universe is simply so big that only in very central hub locations would that be possible on anything that would seem regular pace and even then, not enough to compete with those in this case attacking npc's.

So yeah, BGS is not a direct PvP thing.

It is in terms of PvP, indirect PvP, meaning you work for your faction to affect another faction, that might be a player faction, and that said, indirect PvP can be a lot of fun as well in my book, though to many it is not because they want to see the person they affect, so they get frustrated and you get the ton of posts you see on a regular basis of people being upset about solo and similar.

 

[Robert Maynard]

.... or it could just show, as I said in my prior post, that the team behind its intergration have limited experience with multiplayer game environments, seen as what you've just written runs completely counter to Sandro's comments on the core ideas of powerplay.

Maybe it shows that, maybe not. If those core ideas were as Sandro suggested then it surprises me greatly that the feature was implemented in all three game modes - especially as DBOBE commented on Solo players affecting Powerplay in a forum post around the time of its introduction.

 

[Mouse]

When I look at the BGS, as someone that enjoy PvP now and then, personally all the posts about people basically calling others cowards for using solo for BGS, seeing it as hiding. I always wonder why people think this, the BGS mechanics in no way promote PvP, there is no exception made to PvP, PvP does not do anything more then a PvE kill against an npc would in terms of BGS.

BGS is not based around PvP it is that simple, no matter how many want to deny it.
If it was there would be a substantial difference between npc and players when it comes to kills and such, and sure I believe players count for 'more' but that still does not do it and seems more like a 'hey you found a rare, good job' reward then an actual incentive to use PvP in the BGS.

Because it entirely relies on you being able to meet and kill enough players to beat a player that is doing the same action but only against npc's and that currently is nowhere near remotely possible, given instancing and a host of other things that need to align to meet a player and more importantly actually meeting an enemy player working against your faction to attack, the game universe is simply so big that only in very central hub locations would that be possible on anything that would seem regular pace and even then, not enough to compete with those in this case attacking npc's.

So yeah, BGS is not a direct PvP thing.

It is in terms of PvP, indirect PvP, meaning you work for your faction to affect another faction, that might be a player faction, and that said, indirect PvP can be a lot of fun as well in my book, though to many it is not because they want to see the person they affect, so they get frustrated and you get the ton of posts you see on a regular basis of people being upset about solo and similar.

I would say this is spot on and the melodrama in the thread would be because some cannot accept it.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Then all thats left is griefing. And if people want to be selfish because they dont want to die in a video game.

Leaving griefing all that's left. Then griefing is what this community gets.

If you guys are happy with that. Then I am happy with that.

Im sure thats completely healthy for this community.

Lol that is some quality toy-throwing and foot-stamping there

 

[Rampant]

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.

BGS groups would be quite happy, I think, to go about their game in a different way, but the game would probably not be any better for it at all.

Off the top of my head - if I was one of those ultra-competitive players who was always looking for a way to get the upper hand - I'd be going about the game differently - like you suggest, above - but, I must warn you that you are not going to like this because it illustrates why your entire point is meaningless.

So, yes, I'd be going about my game far differently - and I'd be doing these things:

1. Play on at least 2 different platforms IN OPEN - in order to leverage the best advantage and not encounter the opposition.
2. Figure out the quiet time and active time of the opposition group - and deliberately go online IN OPEN during the quiet time (on the least active platform for that group)

I'm no internet whizz, but if I was an ultra-competitive type (you know - the type of player that comprise the majority of PvP groups...) then I might also consider:

3. Experiment with throttling my internet connection speed and other network settings - in order that matchmaking has a low chance of instancing me with players with fast connections (you know - the "committed gamer" type of player with a fast machine, etc... who, in a Venn diagram, has a large overlap with the PvP type player?)


So, yes, I *would* be going about my game in a totally different way, gut I cam assure you 100% that the game would not be better for it.



Fortunately for me, I'm not an ultra-competitive PvP type player, and it therefore appears to me that I get far more enjoyment out of this game than those that are ultra-competitive PvP types, because of the way the game was designed, with forethought and intent, from the ground up, as a peer-to-peer game.

I genuinely feel sorry for those that think this game should have been designed a different way - to better suit *their* enjoyment - although that last point does limit my empathy somewhat, because, so far as I can tell, it is always "all about me" (and not, as you say, "for the good of the game").

Yours Aye

Mark H