Not IF but WHY discussion around modes in the BGS

[Robert Maynard]

If some people decide to support a PMF and keep it running preferably in open and kill those people who disturb their gameplay, which right does someone in solo (other instance, console etc bla bla....) have to declare this as the wrong way and not valid?

One exists because the developers chose to design the game that way and the other does not.

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

And yet in spite of all of your points people still use solo and pg at cg’s, guardian sites, etc to avoid aggression from other commanders. Why is that do you suppose

If people go in guardian ruins and such in private, they usually do not intend to change things in the BGS. same goes for explorers on expeditions. Those people go into private with the intention to find a peacefull environment for their actions.

But people going to private with the intention to attack the bgs of a (p)mf are participating in a direct PvP activity.
PvP does not always mean shooting at each other, but it is one aspect of it and should in my opinion not be separated from PvP activities.

Hiding and attacking infrastructure from someone else from inside without a real battlefield or soldiers vs soldiers has a name today....it's called terrorism
(Please be aware that this is no offense against ANY player, i make just a pure statement)

That would be the marketing literature from when the game was sold.

One exists because the developers chose to design the game that way and the other does not.

Never seen such a statement, that the Developers intended the BGS to work that way.
If you can provide a source of that, i would change my mind about it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Never seen such a statement, that the Developers intended the BGS to work that way.
If you can provide a source of that, i would change my mind about it.

Here you go:

FAQ- Elite: Dangerous
​

How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?

The galaxy for Elite: Dangerous is a shared universe maintained by a central server. All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer.​

Will at any time solo and private group play be separated into a different universe/database from open play? It's kind of cheap that you can be safe from many things in solo, like player blockades and so on, and still affect the same universe.

No.

Michael

Is there planned to be any defense against the possibility that player created minor factions could be destroyed with no possible recourse through Private Groups or Solo play?

From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.

Michael

.... and before someone pipes up with the fact that these statements were made some time ago, here's what the current advertising says on https://www.elitedangerous.com/en/gameplay/wings

GAMEPLAY

WINGS

FLY ALONE, OR WITH FRIENDS AS PART OF A WING
Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous' vast massively multiplayer space. Fly alone or with friends in a connected galaxy where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy.

Whether you experience the open multi-player galaxy on your own or in a Wing where you can stay connected to a group of your buddies as you share in jointly-earned spoils, the connected galaxy delivers a constant source of new opportunities and people to play with and against.

In Solo play you can choose never meet another human player, yet the results of your actions still contribute to economy, politics and conflicts of the connected galaxy, and you experience the echoes of their activity.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Maynard is right here.

Powerplay was a different story and they have been wanting to tweak that for a long time.

The question is if the BGS for player groups should get the same treatment. Because after all its players affecting one another.

Whats crappy about this is, Frontier are trying to support gameplay around player groups pushing and pulling the BGS against each other.

While at the same time the BGS didnt start out as something that was made for that. Its been adapted and moulded into what people are using it for today.

And its really cool. Frustrating. But Cool.

Sooner or later there will be some balancing for cause and effect between players. There always is.

 

[BluStar]

BGS always was, is, and will be mechanics where bunch of people interact together (form of PvP) to affect faction status/influence etc. So anyone who says I WANT MY BGS IN SOLO should go play different game

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

Here you go:







.... and before someone pipes up with the fact that these statements were made some time ago, here's what the current advertising says on https://www.elitedangerous.com/en/gameplay/wings

Haha i should have known that you have them on hand, but yes those are definitly statements, that the one thing many people don't like are working as intended.
It's awkward but seems like there is just the hope, they change their mind some day.
Until that, the "solo"-crowd seems to be on the developers support list.

In this light, the option of PMF should better have never been made. Because if reading the FAQ's of pmf-submissions, you can read that a playergroup indeed owns a pmf and nobody else than this group.
(It should be noted that frontier grants in terms of ownership only rights for giving them a name and description)

I don't like it that way and will here and there still tell my opinion about it, but i accept that it is intended this way! [up]

 

[Bashy81]

A fairly in depth post, but you ignored 2 out of 4 points outright, those being different platforms and lack of ability to track other players.

On the other hand, you ignored the Instancing problems while implying that you'd be able to respond in force. I concede that your comments about winging down are well founded, but you still have to get the initial Instance.

Yes I forgot to expand the point to include those parts. It was past 3am in the morning here We have players on the different platforms, our coverage isnt a complete patchwork quilt of all timezones and platforms, but it's a goal and we do alright. I hope it becomes more relevant soon.

There are combinations of methods to track individual opposing players, it works ok, but really for our interests it's less about tracking one person than defending/attacking a zone. Its the location that's important, not the individual, especially in high traffic situations. It's about tactics & strategy, not persecuting individuals.

All of this relates to Powerplay, both in player numbers involved and the organised nature of it. It is a bit off-topic, & I apologise for that. When it comes to an Open-Only BGS, I see the attraction of that but I cant see any way of squaring the circle that balances the inherent meta of Solo/PG in BGS work, without alienating a large proportion of the player-base.

There is a significant number who play in Open, (it is apparently in one interpretation or another, a significant majority.) and it seems madness not to provide some form of interaction with the gameworld that doesn't put Open players at a continual disadvantage.

Powerplay would seem to be the perfect outlet for that, at a minimal time & cost investment for the devs. There is also very strong support from Powerplay groups in general for this. There are objectors of course, but the overall balance seems to be far more in favour than in the general forum/reddit population, which itself was overall in favour in anycase. Having said all that, there are more pressing issues that need fixing with Powerplay, and I for one, would sacrifice the ongoing mode debates if it would help to get those addressed more quickly..

 

[Screemonster]

Maynard is right here.

Powerplay was a different story and they have been wanting to tweak that for a long time.

The question is if the BGS for player groups should get the same treatment. Because after all its players affecting one another.

Whats crappy about this is, Frontier are trying to support gameplay around player groups pushing and pulling the BGS against each other.

While at the same time the BGS didnt start out as something that was made for that. Its been adapted and moulded into what people are using it for today.

And its really cool. Frustrating. But Cool.

Sooner or later there will be some balancing for cause and effect between players. There always is.

I would be 100% behind changing the mechanics of the BGS such that PvP activities were rewarded somehow, but that'd have to be thought out carefully to avoid cheesing it by things like someone pledging to a faction in a cheap ship with next to no rebuy and flinging themselves into the guns of their friends over and over.

The issue is that some methods of influencing the BGS are so overwhelmingly potent that a defending group can't help but want to stop them. Like the sheer number of people talking about authority-murder, in which a single player can effectively tank a faction's influence without limit regardless of which mode it's done in, and yes, I absolutely get that you'd want to go out there and stop them.

Personally I'd rather see the BGS itself tweaked so that regardless of mode, regardless of instancing issues or cheap tricks, "stealth" methods of influencing BGS weren't as effective.
Attacking a faction by killing authority ships, for instance, you barely need to be in-system as far as the nav beacon to be effective, much less dock (like every other method).

I seriously wonder how many of these complaints would evaporate if, say, negative influence actions only served to cancel gains for the day rather than outright subtracting influence. Over time the faction's influence will still tank as other factions have actions performed for them (like being in a perpetual war state only without any CZs - if the attacker keeps it up, they'll be able to lock the faction from being able to grow) but it won't be an instant drop-to-zero like we see with such attacks now. Or - shock horror - they'll have to coordinate with someone or switch to a clean ship and perform positive actions like running missions for the non-controlling factions.
Bonus points if the influence-cancelling was gated to types of influence. Murder and the like cancelling non-combat actions but still allowing influence to rise from combat actions (such as bountyhunting), with black market transactions and the like cancelling gains from bountyhunting.

But oh no this won't let people justify why they need to be able to use their murderbarge on traders silly me

 

[Robert Maynard]

BGS always was, is, and will be mechanics where bunch of people interact together (form of PvP) to affect faction status/influence etc. So anyone who says I WANT MY BGS IN SOLO should go play different game

It's not that Solo players are asking for change to give them BGS in Solo - it's the way that Frontier consciously designed, developed and released the game.

If anything it's those seeking Open Only (i.e. for existing content to be removed from Solo (and Private Groups, of course)) who might be less frustrated if they were to actually play a game that supported their preferred play-style - because this one is not it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Haha i should have known that you have them on hand, but yes those are definitly statements, that the one thing many people don't like are working as intended.
It's awkward but seems like there is just the hope, they change their mind some day.
Until that, the "solo"-crowd seems to be on the developers support list.

In this light, the option of PMF should better have never been made. Because if reading the FAQ's of pmf-submissions, you can read that a playergroup indeed owns a pmf and nobody else than this group.
(It should be noted that frontier grants in terms of ownership only rights for giving them a name and description)

I don't like it that way and will here and there still tell my opinion about it, but i accept that it is intended this way! [up]

I don't know how much hope there really is in that regard as, during the recent PowerPlay investigation, Sandro was quite clear, on a number of occasions, that PowerPlay was the only feature being considered for change:

Hello Commanders!

For clarity: Open only is being considered for Powerplay. Not anything else. Also, Open only would still be limited to platform, so no instanced crossplay.

Folk can demand whatever they wish, but we are only considering Open only for Powerplay, as we feel it may be uniquely suited to supporting the feature.

Hello Commanders!

Firstly, thank you for your continued feedback. The passion here is both amazing, terrifying and humbling.

To reiterate a few points:

1. The reason we have opened this feedback channel is specifically to hear your opinions before we decide on how to proceed. Although any final decision will always settle on our shoulders, feedback you provide plays a massively significant role and nothing yet is set in stone.

2. We see a number of interesting issues that we're chewing over: accessibility of Powerplay modules, PMF and Powers, pad blocking to name a few. We'll keep you update with our thoughts.

3. We are looking at the *possibility* of Open only for Powerplay only. Not the BGS or anything else.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I would be 100% behind changing the mechanics of the BGS such that PvP activities were rewarded somehow, but that'd have to be thought out carefully to avoid cheesing it by things like someone pledging to a faction in a cheap ship with next to no rebuy and flinging themselves into the guns of their friends over and over.

The issue is that some methods of influencing the BGS are so overwhelmingly potent that a defending group can't help but want to stop them. Like the sheer number of people talking about authority-murder, in which a single player can effectively tank a faction's influence without limit regardless of which mode it's done in, and yes, I absolutely get that you'd want to go out there and stop them.

Personally I'd rather see the BGS itself tweaked so that regardless of mode, regardless of instancing issues or cheap tricks, "stealth" methods of influencing BGS weren't as effective.
Attacking a faction by killing authority ships, for instance, you barely need to be in-system as far as the nav beacon to be effective, much less dock (like every other method).

I seriously wonder how many of these complaints would evaporate if, say, negative influence actions only served to cancel gains for the day rather than outright subtracting influence. Over time the faction's influence will still tank as other factions have actions performed for them (like being in a perpetual war state only without any CZs - if the attacker keeps it up, they'll be able to lock the faction from being able to grow) but it won't be an instant drop-to-zero like we see with such attacks now. Or - shock horror - they'll have to coordinate with someone or switch to a clean ship and perform positive actions like running missions for the non-controlling factions.
Bonus points if the influence-cancelling was gated to types of influence. Murder and the like cancelling non-combat actions but still allowing influence to rise from combat actions (such as bountyhunting), with black market transactions and the like cancelling gains from bountyhunting.

But oh no this won't let people justify why they need to be able to use their murderbarge on traders silly me

Exactly!

 

[BluStar]

It's not that Solo players are asking for change to give them BGS in Solo - it's the way that Frontier consciously designed, developed and released the game.

If anything it's those seeking Open Only (i.e. for existing content to be removed from Solo (and Private Groups, of course)) who might be less frustrated if they were to actually play a game that supported their preferred play-style - because this one is not it.

oh really, they designed powerplay to be fully influencable in solo too, and they plan changing that. anything else ?

 

[Robert Maynard]

oh really, they designed powerplay to be fully influencable in solo too, and they plan changing that. anything else ?

Read Sandro's quotes above....

.... they seem to be quite clear to me.

Plus the fact that, up to now, no results of the investigation into PowerPlay have been published, much less a schedule for any changes that might arise.

Then there's this:

Hey Rubbernuke,

Sorry for the delay in replying, I know you're keen to hear about the Powerplay details.

The focused feedback thread was always meant to be exploring content and measure on certain hot topic questions. It was never confirmed as a Q4 update, although I can understand why you're asking if it will make it in. Sadly for all the reasons being discussed in the thread above, this also isn't an area that will make it into the Chapter Four update.

I know your history as a mega Powerplay dude of awesomeness, but I think it best to be as open as possible. I hope you understand.

 

[Screemonster]

Exactly!

The same goes for powerplay IMO too, it's frankly silly that the one part of the game that you could argue is intended from the ground up to be a pretext for PvP is one where PvP is objectively the least effective way to carry it out, and indeed that to be truly effective it requires you to run builds that are not capable of surviving a PvP encounter.

The first time I went into powerplay and saw the commodities were limited every half-hour I thought "oh hey great, this is a great use for something like a dropship - a moderately tanky and reasonably-armed ship that can still pack like 25t of cargo" but then I saw the fast-track button and was like "oh, welp, guess it's the T9 that wins again"

But we're getting off-topic

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Read Sandro's quotes above....

.... they seem to be quite clear to me.

Plus the fact that, up to now, no results of the investigation into PowerPlay have been published, much less a schedule for any changes that might arise.

Then there's this:

I hope you understand.

Ever think it may come early?

We still have month in Q3.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I hope you understand.

Ever think it may come early?

We still have month in Q3.

While that is obviously a possibility, given the pressure on development time alluded to in Zac's OP on Friday, I very much doubt it.

As ever, time will tell....

 

[Jane Turner]

I seriously wonder how many of these complaints would evaporate if, say, negative influence actions only served to cancel gains for the day rather than outright subtracting influence. Over time the faction's influence will still tank as other factions have actions performed for them (like being in a perpetual war state only without any CZs - if the attacker keeps it up, they'll be able to lock the faction from being able to grow) but it won't be an instant drop-to-zero like we see with such attacks now. Or - shock horror - they'll have to coordinate with someone or switch to a clean ship and perform positive actions like running missions for the non-controlling factions.
Bonus points if the influence-cancelling was gated to types of influence. Murder and the like cancelling non-combat actions but still allowing influence to rise from combat actions (such as bountyhunting), with black market transactions and the like cancelling gains from bountyhunting.

But oh no this won't let people justify why they need to be able to use their murderbarge on traders silly me

Exactly... which make me think 90's may not have read it

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Hmm... See I'm thinking I may do an experiment.

I'm on a different platform to the PC guys, so I think I'm going to find a random PC player faction, and spend a couple of days wasting thier influence down to zero by killiing system sec'.

Then we can all see (Most likely from the resulting posting on here), exactly why doing BGS from solo/PG is at best, slimy.

Trust me, it's not a struggle to kill 4/500 cops in a day. Potentially more with a high alpha damage ship with a good pair of legs.

Just an experiment mind, I wish noone any ill by my actions whomever you may be, but I would like to see how quickly that influence drops, I have single handedly dropped a factions influence by 20% within a few hours before, so we shall see if all this talk about effective counters is true.

 

[Robert Maynard]

All that does is reaffirm the opinion that murder is too effective a tool in the BGS, in any mode.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

All that does is reaffirm the opinion that murder is too effective a tool in the BGS, in any mode.

Not to mention, there is'nt a damn thing they can do to effectively stop me, seeing as they have no interaction with me whatsoever.

Which is the point really.

Things like murder being "too effective" can easily be resolved by cutting the influence gained within PG/Solo by either one half, or preferable, two thirds. IE: Stopping said cmdrs by direct action.

Moreover, every faction tends to have it's PvPers, or indeed the means to stop the opposing side from continuing murdering the cops.

If you're going out with the intention of starting wars/conflict with opposing factions, it should be mandatory, or at least to some degree, to interact with those cmdrs, if you don't want to shoot them fine, it's simple enough to have one bloke on interdiction/masslock duty to stop them continuing the murder spree is it not?

As I have said before, the BGS is PvE, until it directly starts to effect another playersubset of players gameplay, then it becomes inherently PvP based gameplay.