Not IF but WHY discussion around modes in the BGS

[Jane Turner]

In DD not the BGS forum since no one really shouts for it in the BGS forum

I see a lot of "demands" for open only, or open enhanced BGS effects. I'd like to try and unpick the reasons for the demand, past its not fair, or I don't like it, and try and pull out what it is that people/groups making this call are hoping to achieve, and use those as discussion points.


E.g. I had a long and interesting "debate" the other night on the subject and it transpired that the main reason was that the person I was chatting to was advocating open only BGS that they wanted to know who was undermining them. One solution to that might be for example top 5 boards for hostile players, or mission deliverers, which would be a lot more effective at informing who was working against a faction than putting a player in every platform, in every instance and watch who comes in and out.


So what are your reasons for making the call, specific reasons please. I'll do my best to collate them.

Knowing who is undermining my faction/who to contact for diplomatic resolution	Augmented top 5 boards, eg name and locaition of hostile commanders or combined positive and negative effects Information about state buckets
Make PvP more relvevant in player group BGS conflicts/Be able to take more direct action against players we know are working against us, rather than indirect grinding	Require murder to be redeemed to balance the effect Is there a way a PvP murder/bounty/war bond could have a bonus effect
I I want the game to feel more alive/adds to emergent gameplay	Find ways to allow consentual and BGS affecting PvP outside CZs in a way that doesn't affect people who have no interest. E.g. squadrons having hostile, neutal and ally status or allowing combat-keen players pledged to warring factions interact outsude CZs

[td]Need[/td]
[td]Suggestions[/td] [/td]
[/tr]

[tr]

 

[babelfisch]

I want more targets to shoot at.

 

[Jmanis]

Because people fundamentally misunderstand the point of the BGS.

 

[Jane Turner]

I want more targets to shoot at.

Is that another way of saying I want to know who is undermining us, or is it not BGS related at all, you just want to go postal on all comers?

 

[Jane Turner]

Because people fundamentally misunderstand the point of the BGS.

Could you spell that out a bit, in particular how it relates to the open/BGS thing?

 

[Parmo]

I want more targets to shoot at.

Then do mining by shooting at chunks of rock.

 

[Chrystoph]

I want more targets to shoot at.

This is it in a nutshell. You either have people that feel, mistakenly, they can solve their BGS woes by blowing people up, or it is just another excuse for the quoted text.

The sad truth is, for the actual BGS crowd, it ignores timezones where the person you object to is not on when you are, as the OP pointed out, plaforms, and instancing.

As with PowerPlay, combat against other players is the least effective way of influencing the BGS.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Could you spell that out a bit, in particular how it relates to the open/BGS thing?

One factor is that there really isn't any such thing as 'Open', at least not in a definitive way. For a start there's three different Opens (one for each platform), each of which will be subdivided by ping times/instancing/etc.

 

[Jane Turner]

This is it in a nutshell. You either have people that feel, mistakenly, they can solve their BGS woes by blowing people up, or it is just another excuse for the quoted text.

The sad truth is, for the actual BGS crowd, it ignores timezones where the person you object to is not on when you are, as the OP pointed out, plaforms, and instancing.

As with PowerPlay, combat against other players is the least effective way of influencing the BGS.

Oh I see its putting words in someone else's mouth - I'd like to keep away from that if at all possible thanks, and hear from people who genuinely do have a belief that Open only/augmented is appropriate. Furthermore I'd really like to avoid any slanging matches - casting no aspersions just making the case early in the thread.

 

[Jane Turner]

One factor is that there really isn't any such thing as 'Open', at least not in a definitive way. For a start there's three different Opens (one for each platform), each of which will be subdivided by ping times/instancing/etc.

Well yes, but that doesn't obviate the reasons why people might want it, just the practicality of making it the solution.

 

[znôrt]

fwiw, to me it's that you have a 'territorial conflict' and you have 'first person action' but both are disconnected in the game. it's not inherently wrong, those are very different levels of abstraction, but imo territorial conflicts should be just that, territorial, specially in a game where you can pilot armed spaceships. i think this disconnect is a core reason for powerplay getting largely ignored and needing the crutch of faction modules to trick players into participating.

just that. i think this change would add a whole missing dimension to the game, but this would be only one high level step since the game needs to be ready for that. next instancing issues and limitations would be imperative to solve (and that's why i'm so skeptic about this).

 

[Jane Turner]

fwiw, to me it's that you have a 'territorial conflict' and you have 'first person action' but both are disconnected in the game. it's not inherently wrong, those are very different levels of abstraction, but imo territorial conflicts should be just that, territorial, specially in a game where you can pilot armed spaceships. i think this disconnect is a core reason for powerplay getting largely ignored and needing the crutch of faction modules to trick players into participating.

just that. i think this change would add a whole missing dimension to the game, but this would be only one high level step since the game needs to be ready for that. next instancing issues and limitations would be imperative to solve (and that's why i'm so skeptic about this).

So could I phrase that make PvP more relvevant in player group BGS conflicts? I have done but can change it

 

[Jmanis]

Could you spell that out a bit, in particular how it relates to the open/BGS thing?

The point of the BGS is for every player's actions to have impact on the galaxy, no matter how big or how small, regardless of mode, in order to give the appearance of a living, breathing universe. While players can turn aspects of it into a player-group vs player-group game of territorial conquest, that is not it's fundamental purpose.

To make BGS effects open-only means that players undertaking activities in systems which are not contested at all, will never be able to experience that living, breathing universe FD want to achieve, without being potentially forced into a mode they simply don't want to play.

To take this one step further... what is meant by "Open only effects?". For example, do commodity purchases/sales made in Solo not affect market supply/demand, in which case congratulations, you just broke one of the major challenges of trading CGs. Don't make that happen, and you get a way for groups to trash the economy of a target system from the safety of Solo.

EDIT: Oops, misquote.

 

[Jane Turner]

The point of the BGS is for every player's actions to have impact on the galaxy, no matter how big or how small, regardless of mode, in order to give the appearance of a living, breathing universe. While players can turn aspects of it into a player-group vs player-group game of territorial conquest, that is not it's fundamental purpose.

EDIT: Oops, misquote.

Well that is a view, but not the one I started this thread to discuss.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Is that another way of saying I want to know who is undermining us, or is it not BGS related at all, you just want to go postal on all comers?

Because they are not undermining anyone. What they are doing is creating gameplay for the other play to do within the BGS. You don't need to know who the other player is. It is irrelavant and in fact that player should be happy as it is supplying him with PvE gameplay which is what the BGS is all about.

Basically players are supplying other players gameplay opportunities by interacting with the BGS. People just want to use it as an excuse to PvP and kill other players. I do not want to see that happen with the BGS. In my view that is what Powerplay is for. Do not make the BGS a powerplay clone.

 

[Starman 1966]

"We" (a huge player group) very well know who is undermining / working against us in terms of BGS. But these guys act in Solo Mode only and we simply would like to have the option of apprehending them directly rather than indirectly leading a war of attrition.

 

[Robert Maynard]

For some, it seems to be a desire to be able* to engage any BGS opponent in PvP combat - to stop them doing what they are doing.

*: Instancing and lack of cross-platform play notwithstanding.

 

[Jane Turner]

Because they are not undermining anyone. What they are doing is creating gameplay for the other play to do within the BGS. You don't need to know who the other player is. It is irrelavant and in fact that player should be happy as it is supplying him with PvE gameplay which is what the BGS is all about.

Basically players are supplying other players gameplay opportunities by interacting with the BGS. People just want to use it as an excuse to PvP and kill other players. I do not want to see that happen with the BGS. In my view that is what Powerplay is for. Do not make the BGS a powerplay clone.

I'm trying to find out why people want things from people who want them, not otherpeople saying why they are not allowed to want them, or why with won't happen!

 

[El-bizor]

The point of the BGS is for every player's actions to have impact on the galaxy, no matter how big or how small, regardless of mode, in order to give the appearance of a living, breathing universe. While players can turn aspects of it into a player-group vs player-group game of territorial conquest, that is not it's fundamental purpose.

To make BGS effects open-only means that players undertaking activities in systems which are not contested at all, will never be able to experience that living, breathing universe FD want to achieve, without being potentially forced into a mode they simply don't want to play.

EDIT: Oops, misquote.

Exactly!

 

[znôrt]

So could I phrase that make PvP more relvevant in player group BGS conflicts? I have done but can change it

we can go with that