Mild social pressure as a potential solution to hidden BGS manipulation

[Jack Shaftoe]

Regarding the Fuel Rats home system struggle: I fully understand that FDev have shot down the idea of only having BGS effects earned in 'Open' count, but what if the community took up the torch? What if we spread the idea that working the BGS in Solo/Private Group was 'cowardly' or sleazy, or at least a cheap shot?




I can fully understand peoples desire not to have to deal with other people, or worry about getting pirated/griefed. When I started, I stuck to Solo/Mobius because I knew I was a crap pilot, and wanted to learn things without worry. Now I fly almost exclusively in Open. One of the reasons I left my previous player group (not speaking of Mobius here) was that they worked the BGS from modes 'other than open'.




This isn't a Solo vs. Open debate at all...it's an attempt to swing public opinion on one aspect of the game. This is also definitely NOT a case of naming & shaming or harassing players that would choose to work the BGS outside of Open. If anything, it's asking others to shun/denigrate the action, NOT the person. Any thoughts?

 

[Robert Maynard]

PvP is optional in this game - as are other players.

What could possibly be "brave" (as opposed to "cowardly") about playing a video game with pretend spaceships in the comfort of one's own gaming environment?

This is absolutely a Solo vs Open debate - as the OP seeks to put forward the idea that Open is in some way "the right way to play" - in a game where every player both affects and experiences the single shared galaxy state - by design.

You'd have thought that Frontier's double restatement of what the BGS *is*, in the recent BGS and Scenarios stream and the subsequent recap thread, would have been a strong enough hint....

Then there's the fact that no amount of pressure can force those who choose to participate in Powerplay in Solo / PGs to play in Open instead....

 

[Jack Shaftoe]

What could possibly be "brave" (as opposed to "cowardly") about playing a video game with pretend spaceships in the comfort of one's own gaming environment?

Because people have put a lot of time/effort into whatever ship they currently have, and risking losing said time/effort can be evaluated. Video games are all about decision making, asset management and resource allocation. Often, greater risks bring the potential for greater rewards. There are FPS games where the idea of 'camping' (finding a supremely good sniper spot and just plinking other players from an unassailable position for the lolz) is technically allowed, yet heavily frowned upon by a large portion of the player base. 'Baby-seal-clubbing' falls into the same category. Why is my suggestion any different?

 

[Jmanis]

Nope. Because it's a non-issue... influencing the BGS from any mode is entirely by design.

BGS is the backdrop the game, creating a fluid environment that changes with the world around it. It's not group PvP where acting in a mode where you can't be touched is "cheap". Nobody is meant to have absolute control over a faction's holdings. If you want to denigrate the action, you're calling anything anyone does in the game which isn't in Open cowardly, because you sneeze in the game, and it affects the BGS.

End of the day, none of us belong to a faction (Not even when Squadrons come in... note the choice of wording for that part of it). We're all independent pilots federation commanders.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Regarding the Fuel Rats home system struggle: I fully understand that FDev have shot down the idea of only having BGS effects earned in 'Open' count, but what if the community took up the torch? What if we spread the idea that working the BGS in Solo/Private Group was 'cowardly' or sleazy, or at least a cheap shot?




I can fully understand peoples desire not to have to deal with other people, or worry about getting pirated/griefed. When I started, I stuck to Solo/Mobius because I knew I was a crap pilot, and wanted to learn things without worry. Now I fly almost exclusively in Open. One of the reasons I left my previous player group (not speaking of Mobius here) was that they worked the BGS from modes 'other than open'.




This isn't a Solo vs. Open debate at all...it's an attempt to swing public opinion on one aspect of the game. This is also definitely NOT a case of naming & shaming or harassing players that would choose to work the BGS outside of Open. If anything, it's asking others to shun/denigrate the action, NOT the person. Any thoughts?

From your own group's Squadron page on Inara:

Commanders are free to fly in a Private Group or in Open

Just sayin'.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Because people have put a lot of time/effort into whatever ship they currently have, and risking losing said time/effort can be evaluated. Video games are all about decision making, asset management and resource allocation. Often, greater risks bring the potential for greater rewards. There are FPS games where the idea of 'camping' (finding a supremely good sniper spot and just plinking other players from an unassailable position for the lolz) is technically allowed, yet heavily frowned upon by a large portion of the player base. 'Baby-seal-clubbing' falls into the same category. Why is my suggestion any different?

This is not one of those games. PvP is, by design, entirely optional.

.... and attaching pejorative labels to the play style of others that one does not share is not a good way to go about influencing it, in my opinion.

The first decision each player makes on starting the game is which game mode they feel like playing in. Its their choice, no one else's...

 

[Jmanis]

This is not one of those games. PvP is, by design, entirely optional.

.... and attaching pejorative labels to the play style of others that one does not share is not a good way to go about influencing it, in my opinion.

The first decision each player makes on starting the game is which game mode they feel like playing in. Its their choice, no one else's...

I'd also take a moment to quote FD as saying the BGS is a way for players to interact *indirectly* without ever seeing each other directly in space. 7:53

[video=youtube;y5DGyG6Qwvk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5DGyG6Qwvk[/video]

 

[Jack Shaftoe]

I know FDev's stance on the issue. I wasn't trying to force them to change the game. As for people being free to play in any mode they feel like, I agree with that fully as well...I'm honestly baffled why anyone thinks I'm claiming anything differently. It appears that either I haven't been able to fully express my thoughts, or they're so alien that no one else seems to be able to understand them. Instead it gets blended in with the usual "Force everyone into Open" debate. Oh well, it was just a thought I had over coffee one morning.

I do appreciate the reasoned responses here, even if they seem a little tangential to what I was suggesting. The responses I've gotten on a Facebook group are a heck of a lot worse... I'm accused there of being the voice of a PvP-only group, and my suggestion was deemed the 'juvenile fantasy of a social inadequate'. Maybe I shouldn't have expected anything else.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

When you see a CMDR in a system, how do you know what faction he's working for?

If you don't know who the CMDR is working for, then why would you want to stop him doing what he's doing.

In a CZ, fine, it's clear what side someone is on. So there could be a point in suggesting that CZ are open only. But expecting this for missions isn't going to work. The BGS is the sum of all activities over all modes, it needs to stay that way.

 

[Jack Shaftoe]

You'll never know 100%, but if you see them attacking system authority, or scan them and see that they arrive at a station with a UA in their hold and leave without it, you can draw inferences. Likewise, if you're seeing a precipitous drop in your faction's influence, and the same Cmdrs are spending a lot of time in your system, you can similarly draw inferences. It may lead to Cmdr's shadowing one another, or flying patrols in certain systems, or even terse communications between Cmdr's...all of which could be deemed 'interesting gameplay' by many, myself included.

I shouldn't have to do this, but I'm going to start ending every post on this thread with the statement that I'm not advocating here that the BGS be Open-only...if you're arguing that point, you've missed my point.

 

[Micha]

'Baby-seal-clubbing' falls into the same category. Why is my suggestion any different?

And yet that exact same activity appears to be quite accepted by a large part of the Open community; it's perfectly ok to blast other commanders (irrespective of what they're flying or their skill level) in unassailable combat vessels and any other views are met by "git gud".

"If you fly in open, you accept PvP", isn't that the mantra?

Some people take that as a challenge and "git gud" (or at least "gud enuff"); other people, for whatever reason, don't want to or can't. They are "gud enuff" for PvE, which is what the BGS is all about (as has been stated on numerous occasion by FDev), so why should they have to try to "git gud" for PvP if that's something they're not interested in?

Some people lack the time; others the inclination; and yet others have actual disabilities preventing them from competing on an even footing with Commanders. Should these people all be excluded from enjoying the game?


EDIT: Ps. the comparison with a FPS was kinda interesting, because in an FPS the main differentiator is SKILL. In ED, partially it's skill, and hugely it's outfitting, which is also skill to an extend, but mainly time. Time to unlock ships and engineers and grind credits and materials. CQC was mostly about skill, but funnily enough, a lot of people didn't seem to like fighting on a more or less equal footing here.

 

[Micha]

I know FDev's stance on the issue. I wasn't trying to force them to change the game.

True; but you are wanting to "force" people into open by suggesting that the community should make any interaction with the BGS (which means, pretty much any action in the game) from within solo/private group something to be ashamed of.

Using peer pressure as a tool to achieve your goals isn't nice.

 

[Asp Explorer]

True; but you are wanting to "force" people into open by suggesting that the community should make any interaction with the BGS (which means, pretty much any action in the game) from within solo/private group something to be ashamed of.

Using peer pressure as a tool to achieve your goals isn't nice.

The moment some pvp-pro-bro pew-pew "forces" me into open-only, is the moment I force them to go back to Asda to purchase another potato router

 

[Micha]

go back to Asda to purchase another potato router

Eh, while I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting there, good point; adding to my list of reasons why some people may not be able to be competitive in PvP - technical reasons. Either poor internet connection and/or an older/slower computer would seriously degrade capability.

 

[Florenus]

BGS is trying to simulate whole galaxy, systems with billions of people and wars between factions involving thousands, maybe millions of little digital people.
Players influence things by playing against the game (f.ex. killing NPCs), which levels the field.
It is done in any mode - which means that in space, which is really big, you can probably not notice one small ship doing cargo runs or hunting bounties, or whatever (solo mode).
On the other hand in Open mode you have "magic" ability to see other players millions of miles away and flying away at the 50x speed of light at that, when you drift at 30km/s (isn't that something?).

When you shift all of this to Open only mode, it's just PvP, meaning that five teenagers from somewhere, that do nothing else but hone their skills and engineer their ships, could rule the galaxy, because there might not be a soul able to stop them.

I don't think that this should be that kind of game. Too much control over game world, where players are little specks of dust in enormous universe.

I'm fine with people doing their bit in solo. They are doing background simulation. It's not cowardly or sleazy (or cheap shot).

 

[Asp Explorer]

Eh, while I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting there, good point; adding to my list of reasons why some people may not be able to be competitive in PvP - technical reasons. Either poor internet connection and/or an older/slower computer would seriously degrade capability.

One amusing aspect of PVP in Elite Dangerous - at least as far as I can remember - is that many of the pew-pews are on the short side of technical expertise.

We had one pew-pew demanding the P2P architecture be replaced with HTTPS.

Oh, the lulz! Absolute buckets were filled!

 

[Jack Shaftoe]

And yet that exact same activity appears to be quite accepted by a large part of the Open community; it's perfectly ok to blast other commanders (irrespective of what they're flying or their skill level) in unassailable combat vessels and any other views are met by "git gud".

I guess I fly in a different universe or something... when I started the game, I too thought that Open was nothing more than a gankers paradise, and no one without ridiculous PvP skills would survive more than a few minutes. Then I actually tried playing in Open, and discovered that it was anything but. I think I've been engaged and killed by other Cmdrs a total of two times, and I've been playing for about four years.

If anyone thinks that someone scoffing at how a person plays a game "forces" them into playing it a certain way, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll bet that there are many who are okay with the idea of socially frowning upon baby-seal-clubbers who would hang around killing new Cmdrs in their stock sidewinders. Honest question: Is that an acceptable use of peer pressure? Is it somehow too harsh to say "C'mon man, don't be one of those guys"?

 

[ilo]

You'll never know 100%, but if you see them attacking system authority, or scan them and see that they arrive at a station with a UA in their hold and leave without it, you can draw inferences. Likewise, if you're seeing a precipitous drop in your faction's influence, and the same Cmdrs are spending a lot of time in your system, you can similarly draw inferences. It may lead to Cmdr's shadowing one another, or flying patrols in certain systems, or even terse communications between Cmdr's...all of which could be deemed 'interesting gameplay' by many, myself included.

I shouldn't have to do this, but I'm going to start ending every post on this thread with the statement that I'm not advocating here that the BGS be Open-only...if you're arguing that point, you've missed my point.

Except that this whole argument drops by itself when to help the faction you are aligned to you need to lower its influence. This simple fact known by anyone with some degree of knowledge about BGS makes your claim invalid.

 

[Jack Shaftoe]

Could you elaborate a bit? I fully understand that sometimes to prevent an unwanted expansion you need to lower your faction's influence, but I contend that generally that kind of thing will be known about (and promoted) by the group that has adopted said faction. If you see your squad-mate doing something, you either know about it from your group's Inara profile/Discord/Whatever, or you ask them what they're doing.

Do you mean something else entirely? Simply stating that 'my claim is invalid' without expounding on what you mean seems a little brusque.

 

[Jmanis]

You'll never know 100%, but if you see them attacking system authority, or scan them and see that they arrive at a station with a UA in their hold and leave without it, you can draw inferences. Likewise, if you're seeing a precipitous drop in your faction's influence, and the same Cmdrs are spending a lot of time in your system, you can similarly draw inferences. It may lead to Cmdr's shadowing one another, or flying patrols in certain systems, or even terse communications between Cmdr's...all of which could be deemed 'interesting gameplay' by many, myself included.

I shouldn't have to do this, but I'm going to start ending every post on this thread with the statement that I'm not advocating here that the BGS be Open-only...if you're arguing that point, you've missed my point.

Exactly why I said in my first post here that it's a non-issue.

Basically, you want to "shame" people out of trying to influence the BGS in Solo and PG, on the principle that playing in anything but open is somehow underhanded, cheap or similar.

But how can something be underhanded and cheap for *avoiding* direct player contact, when a founding principle of the BGS is that it's a way to interact *indirectly*?

The BGS, at it's fundamental implementation, has *absolutely no* function regarding direct player interactions. The BGS exists *purely* to facilitate a small part of the galaxy reacting to a PvE activity, and that reaction can be felt and observed by all players. The fact players get competitive about it between each other has nothing to do with the function or purpose of the BGS.

So, your suggestion is to "shame" people who avoid direct player contact, which has nothing to do with the BGS which is entirely an indirect, PvE driven activity. You're basically saying it's "shameful" to play the game as intended.