So you don't at least frown upon players hanging out and baby-seal-clubbing brand new Cmdrs? If you answer 'no', then at least you're consistent. If you answer 'yes', then I'm curious as to why, since they're playing the game as intended. If you answer something along the lines of 'but that's different', then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Mild social pressure as a potential solution to hidden BGS manipulation
- Thread starter Jack Shaftoe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bgs
So you don't at least frown upon players hanging out and baby-seal-clubbing brand new Cmdrs? If you answer 'no', then at least you're consistent. If you answer 'yes', then I'm curious as to why, since they're playing the game as intended. If you answer something along the lines of 'but that's different', then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.
You started the thread with the specific aim of dissuading people from affecting the BGS in solo/PG; but now you're saying that's not your intent?
Shaming people out of their preferred (or possibly only viable due to other extenuating factors) playstyle which is both socially acceptable (by the majority) as well as endorsed by the developer is one thing...
... whereas participating in behaviour which, in general, is not as socially acceptable might be more subject to be frowned upon by the rest of society.
It all comes down to the social norms of the society you're "living" in as to what is, or isn't, generally acceptable behaviour.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Fundamentally, you're correct. My answer's no. Same same I don't subscribe to the common groupthink that players ganking "harmless traders" is griefing.
The fact "seal clubbing" can happen virtually risk-free is a symptom of under-developed game mechanics to protect players in, dare I say, their "formative" days of the game.
Conversely, influencing the BGS from Solo/PG is not poor design, as the intent is to reflect players PvE interactions in the universe, not form the basis of direct group PvP activity. That's what Powerplay is for, and why that is getting the "Open-only" treatment, which I totally agree with. Were that not the case... in my opinion FD never would've created Powerplay in the first place, and simply expanded on the BGS system.
Further, take a look at the changes coming in 3.3. While I think there's some exceptions to this statement i'm about to make which I withhold until I've seen how the Beta plays out, the upcoming changes are making things *more* chaotic, and harder for groups as they currently stand to hold territory and expand (given that it looks like multiple wars will be able to be conducted at a time for a single faction, and multiple states can be active at once, and expansion now requires high influence and happiness across *all* systems the faction is present). Happy to hear otherwise on this opinion, but to me that's a change that's totally consistent with the concept of the BGS presenting a vibrant galaxy responding to players actions within it by decreasing player control, and increasing "galactic chaos" if you like, meanwhile the changes are also inconsistent with the idea of the BGS being for coordinated, direct group vs group activities because it's essentially removing some of the mechanics that formed "controls" for player groups to shape the BGS to their needs.
I really don't think finger pointing and name calling just because someone plays the game the way they want to play it and it's not the same way as others is really not the way this community wants to go.
In fact once I read such sentiments as the one in the OP I lose all respect and interest in whatever they were asking for. This whole open vs solo BGS is all balls anyway, when if you think about it wouldn't matter anyway as Xbox ,PS4, and PC all have the three modes and none of them can interact with each other anyway past the fact that they all impact on the BGS so what if little Billy's PMF who are on PS4 are undermining little Sallys PMF who are on Xbox who in turn are having a go at big Jims PMF on PC. Making them all play in open and then calling them names if they dont wont sovle anything.
I might be missing something here but last time I checked FD said the BGS was for all and good luck trying to stop anyone doing anything even if it was open only, what's next for ED GTA’s at 3 pm because a ship has been spotted and it needs to be stopped, oh what's that he seems to be in another instance, he was here a moment ago.
I play the BGS if Im in the bubble I do so away from any PMF's and in solo, do I go on the list.
In fact once I read such sentiments as the one in the OP I lose all respect and interest in whatever they were asking for. This whole open vs solo BGS is all balls anyway, when if you think about it wouldn't matter anyway as Xbox ,PS4, and PC all have the three modes and none of them can interact with each other anyway past the fact that they all impact on the BGS so what if little Billy's PMF who are on PS4 are undermining little Sallys PMF who are on Xbox who in turn are having a go at big Jims PMF on PC. Making them all play in open and then calling them names if they dont wont sovle anything.
I might be missing something here but last time I checked FD said the BGS was for all and good luck trying to stop anyone doing anything even if it was open only, what's next for ED GTA’s at 3 pm because a ship has been spotted and it needs to be stopped, oh what's that he seems to be in another instance, he was here a moment ago.
I play the BGS if Im in the bubble I do so away from any PMF's and in solo, do I go on the list.
Last edited:
I think the modes are one of the best parts of elite I really enjoy PvP both random and planned but if I'm doing bgs work I absolutely hate the game play of point at station get intersected, hi wake rinse and repeat. There's nothing git gud about that it's just annoying.
Since youre never going to kill me and I'm never going to fight you who's getting the lulz from that?
The modes let you just chill and do whatever you like or get a bit more risky. bgs and powerplay (although I support pp open only as that's what it was designed for) is a type of PvP just because you're fighting numbers not actual players doesn't make it less valid.
Since youre never going to kill me and I'm never going to fight you who's getting the lulz from that?
The modes let you just chill and do whatever you like or get a bit more risky. bgs and powerplay (although I support pp open only as that's what it was designed for) is a type of PvP just because you're fighting numbers not actual players doesn't make it less valid.
One of the big "but that's different" things is the ubiquity of the BGS.
You can't - ultra-rare accidents in a RES aside - accidentally seal club. You can quite easily while just playing the game - found a good trade route, or a favourite RES, or some nice missions - make a system unstable. I saw one player faction in a low-population system get stuck in a mess for months while a few other players (who were, as it happens, in Open, which is how I knew what was going on ... not that it helped the player faction in question at all) were having fun in a RES.
If you want to "shame" people for playing the BGS outside of Open, then that's effectively "shaming" people for playing outside of Open. And there's already a strand of player thought which does that, and an entire forum for it.
Good post +1
Btw and just for the fun of it, do yourself a favor and watch your own post in forum theme Elite Orange [fixed] and enjoy the meditative pristine blackness!
Mine is black text on a white background not the one you get before you log in, I do however due to my dslexyia copy and paste from google docs or at least when im on my swedish chrome book
That might have thrown a spanner into the works when it copy and pastes ...
Mine is black text on a white background not the one you get before you log in, I do however due to my dslexyia copy and paste from google docs or at least when im on my swedish chrome book
If you right click, you should have the option for 'Paste as plain text" which removes any formatting.
Shame and guilt are poor means of social control, only fear is universal. If you really don't want someone to do something, making it clear that doing so is contrary to their best interests is the only reliable way to deter them.
Anyway, the BGS is what unites all modes and was always intended to be influenced by actions in all modes. I would not be opposed to having Open BGS actions carry greater weight, but the game could not force the BGS to be de facto Open only with the current networking model, and there is no point in trying to enforce the categorically unenforceable.
Far better to focus on identifying and removing cheats (like botting) and just accept that the BGS is abstract enough for mode to be irrelevant.
Anyway, the BGS is what unites all modes and was always intended to be influenced by actions in all modes. I would not be opposed to having Open BGS actions carry greater weight, but the game could not force the BGS to be de facto Open only with the current networking model, and there is no point in trying to enforce the categorically unenforceable.
Far better to focus on identifying and removing cheats (like botting) and just accept that the BGS is abstract enough for mode to be irrelevant.
Wanting is power.
The answer to your question is simple: just introduce the rule that the actions of the players in solo mode do not count towards the BGS. Or that they count a tenth or a half.
It's a simple rule that FDevs can also introduce in this patch.
But if you do not want to, you can find a thousand justifications for not doing it (legitimate, for God's sake!)
The problem is not that people in private, or solo, or open, can attack a system's BGS unopposed. As many BGS players have pointed out in these threads in the past, direct PvP is the least effective way to fight a BGS war.
The problem is that certain methods of influencing the BGS are massively disproportionate to others, and most of the major BGS groups have been agitating for that to be addressed for a long while rather than whinging about modes. Most of the seriously unbalanced methods of affecting the BGS are practically impossible to track even if they are in open - want to hop into a hazres and blow up clean ships all day? You're not in supercruise, the defending faction can see you on the bounty board, in-system, with an increasing bounty, and have no way of actually locating you even in the same mode. Wanna blow up authority ships? Again, most of the time you spend doing so is going to be done out of realspace. Don't even have to do it at a nav beacon, drop on a convoy USS and shoot a T9, and the cops will come to you. Mode doesn't matter.
If a PvE faction wants to have their little PMF in a single system, I'm not seeing how smacking them with a club and telling them "NO, YOU MUST GET IN OPEN AND BE AVAILABLE FOR PVP" will add anything to the game besides upsetting a bunch of people who want nothing more than to keep to themselves.
The problem is that certain methods of influencing the BGS are massively disproportionate to others, and most of the major BGS groups have been agitating for that to be addressed for a long while rather than whinging about modes. Most of the seriously unbalanced methods of affecting the BGS are practically impossible to track even if they are in open - want to hop into a hazres and blow up clean ships all day? You're not in supercruise, the defending faction can see you on the bounty board, in-system, with an increasing bounty, and have no way of actually locating you even in the same mode. Wanna blow up authority ships? Again, most of the time you spend doing so is going to be done out of realspace. Don't even have to do it at a nav beacon, drop on a convoy USS and shoot a T9, and the cops will come to you. Mode doesn't matter.
If a PvE faction wants to have their little PMF in a single system, I'm not seeing how smacking them with a club and telling them "NO, YOU MUST GET IN OPEN AND BE AVAILABLE FOR PVP" will add anything to the game besides upsetting a bunch of people who want nothing more than to keep to themselves.
I'm all about fairness, honour, doing the right thing, etc. I was one of those guys in Unreal (and Quake) that would come into a server and punish the campers and cheats, so I completely see what the OP is saying.
However, this Elite. You can't camp. Similarly, in other games, there is almost no consequence for death, except a respawn, so combat logging isn't a thing in those games, where it is in Elite. The two types simply don't match.
So now to the point of spreading a word that operating in private is 'not cricket', as we say in the UK.
I personally wouldn't do that (encourage others to manipulate the BGS in open). I don't force any of my players to play in open and in fact, I encourage them to do whatever makes them feel comfortable.
The point about pvp that Robert makes is by far the most pertinent. What the Open proclaimers are saying (some without realising it), is:
I spent time and effort to get really good at combat in this game. I can kill you easily. Why should you who are a far lesser player than I, be able to undermine me while I cannot exact revenge for that, because I don't know who you are and even if I did, we can never instance together, so I can never show you why you are foolish to oppose me! IT'S NOT FAIR! Stamp feet, throw toys.
This point of view would be fine if the players in question were actually cheating, by using some clandestine non-official server to disappear, and the game itself supported operating only in open. But it doesn't.
People have bought this game KNOWING that they don't need to be able to kill another player in honourable (or otherwise) combat in order to: 1) Play the game in a satisfactory way, b) avoid being griefed by other players, c) play the BGS for a faction they choose to adopt. Why? Because FD realised that they would never get a lot of mainstream players if this was the case.
Even WoW realised that forcing pvp on people was a bad idea in a roleplaying game, because not everyone wants to roleplay a combat master. Hence pvp servers and pve servers.
No, this ship has sailed and pvp is the whole reason why. It;s not a bad thing. If you want to pvp you can, if you don't, you don't have to. Win, win, no?
The final thing I want to say is that the important thing here is that Elite has been designed such that it is easier to fight back using the BGS against an attack, than it would be to waste your time sitting outside a station, hoping to be lucky enough to be instanced with your attackers so you can 'give them what for', which of course, does (almost) nothing to change the course of the BGS, so fail again. If a group is big enough to put their best pvp pilots on the gates so to speak, while BGS operatives work away at reversing a trend, then they have enough players to effectively combat almost any BGS attack conducted from PG.
However, this Elite. You can't camp. Similarly, in other games, there is almost no consequence for death, except a respawn, so combat logging isn't a thing in those games, where it is in Elite. The two types simply don't match.
So now to the point of spreading a word that operating in private is 'not cricket', as we say in the UK.
I personally wouldn't do that (encourage others to manipulate the BGS in open). I don't force any of my players to play in open and in fact, I encourage them to do whatever makes them feel comfortable.
The point about pvp that Robert makes is by far the most pertinent. What the Open proclaimers are saying (some without realising it), is:
I spent time and effort to get really good at combat in this game. I can kill you easily. Why should you who are a far lesser player than I, be able to undermine me while I cannot exact revenge for that, because I don't know who you are and even if I did, we can never instance together, so I can never show you why you are foolish to oppose me! IT'S NOT FAIR! Stamp feet, throw toys.
This point of view would be fine if the players in question were actually cheating, by using some clandestine non-official server to disappear, and the game itself supported operating only in open. But it doesn't.
People have bought this game KNOWING that they don't need to be able to kill another player in honourable (or otherwise) combat in order to: 1) Play the game in a satisfactory way, b) avoid being griefed by other players, c) play the BGS for a faction they choose to adopt. Why? Because FD realised that they would never get a lot of mainstream players if this was the case.
Even WoW realised that forcing pvp on people was a bad idea in a roleplaying game, because not everyone wants to roleplay a combat master. Hence pvp servers and pve servers.
No, this ship has sailed and pvp is the whole reason why. It;s not a bad thing. If you want to pvp you can, if you don't, you don't have to. Win, win, no?
The final thing I want to say is that the important thing here is that Elite has been designed such that it is easier to fight back using the BGS against an attack, than it would be to waste your time sitting outside a station, hoping to be lucky enough to be instanced with your attackers so you can 'give them what for', which of course, does (almost) nothing to change the course of the BGS, so fail again. If a group is big enough to put their best pvp pilots on the gates so to speak, while BGS operatives work away at reversing a trend, then they have enough players to effectively combat almost any BGS attack conducted from PG.
I've had this rolling around in my brain since yesterday, so here goes.
I think positive pressure is going to be much more effective and pleasing than negative pressure. Take combat logging for example (and I mean task killing, not menu logging) - the negative peer pressure (shaming videos, websites, ostracizing, harassment) hasn't done a damn thing to solve it. Folks on both sides just dig in their heels and things get more and more toxic with every flareup of the issue. It's honestly stupid as stupid gets at this point.
So what would positive pressure look like with BGS? Play with groups and people that pledge to attack or defend their BGS in Open Play because it's more fun, satisfying, and unpredictable without shamming those that won't or can't. And honestly, if a group is using PG and Solo play because they fear facing your pilots in Open Play take that as a compliment. You've won a significant victory by reputation alone.
Bottom line: we need more 'well played' and 'good game' in Elite however one is working the mechanics of the game.
The game by design is a group designed affair, Open is only group play without the friend list lockout used. For all those looking puzzled at that statement it would be open completely IF we had more open instancing at present the technology cannot handle huge sweeping wars with thousands of ships a side so you have small instances groups which when maxed out nobody else can enter.
Private and Solo are just open with different instancing modes about who can appear in your instance, private is just friends only (those in your group) and Solo is off for everyone.
Your all flying in the same space it's just if the network is set to allow you to see one another which changes. This is why ED is online only as it's always online just you can't see anyone else if your in Solo
Private and Solo are just open with different instancing modes about who can appear in your instance, private is just friends only (those in your group) and Solo is off for everyone.
Your all flying in the same space it's just if the network is set to allow you to see one another which changes. This is why ED is online only as it's always online just you can't see anyone else if your in Solo
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... or just remember that not all players find PvP to be "fun" - and that the game design has acknowledged that from the outset.
More positivity around gameplay in general would be a "good thing™", I agree.
Bingo. Way too many people forget "play your own way" and try to twist it into "everyone should play my way". And they're nearly always the people who fall into the killers group on the bartle test - the people, largely PvPers, that get their enjoyment from imposing themselves upon other players.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That may be true of some who prefer PvP - however others seem to seek a challenge in their PvP and don't just go around popping noobWinders or ships otherwise unsuited to combat.
Those guys would be "achievers". The diamonds on the deck-of-cards version of the test. The people seeking duels, challenges and honourable matches and the like don't really have any incentive to browbeating unarmed traders into presenting themselves for combat.
There's a reason killers are referred to as clubs