Terra EX (DTEA's Squadron) vs The Code BGS War

[Melanthes]

You have to assume a pretty specific (deliberately ignorant) reading of the official homepage to assume that. Given that the game is marketed as a mmo and has fighting as one of the three main feature elements.

Enter a massively-multiplayer full-scale recreation of the Milky Way with a small starship and a handful of credits, and join the ranks of the iconic Elite.

 

[Rubbernuke]

PowerPlay is a pure PvE gameplay loop that FDev at some point claimed to be the intended PvP mechanic. Turning it into a good PvP gameplay mechanic would require a complete rewrite of it. Making it Open only won't change the underlying pure PVE gameplay loops.

Not strictly correct.

Powerplay is partially a PvE loop. The PvE part comes from gathering and then the PvP / NPC conflict part is you taking those gathered things and moving them to another place. Powerplay in Solo and PG fails because in this section NPCs simply don't function as effective opposition, while in open players do. In the proposed changes players are funneled into a few areas (prep areas, expansions, capitals and mega UM sites) and would act as Open 'arenas' of sorts.

"I suspect we will never get something like that. I don't think FDev understands PvP."

We almost did, believe it or not.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You have to assume a pretty specific (deliberately ignorant) reading of the official homepage to assume that. Given that the game is marketed as a mmo and has fighting as one of the three main feature elements.

Not when it also says:

If you choose to fly in Open Play you’ll encounter other commanders in a galaxy where friendly fire is always on. Rogue commanders are those pilots who have betrayed the Pilots federation by turning on their own; those pilots can carry huge bounties, making them prime targets for skilled hunters.

With specific attention drawn to the "if" at the beginning of the statement.

It's also marketed as single-player:

Massively Multiplayer

Experience unpredictable encounters with players from around the world in Elite Dangerous’ vast massively multiplayer space. Experience the connected galaxy alone in Solo mode or with players across the world in Open Play, where every pilot you face could become a trusted ally or your deadliest enemy. You will need to register a free Elite Dangerous account with Frontier to play the game.

https://www.frontierstore.net/games/elite-dangerous-cat/elite-dangerous.html

The information is there - if prospective buyers choose to read it.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Not strictly correct.

Powerplay is partially a PvE loop. The PvE part comes from gathering and then the PvP / NPC conflict part is you taking those gathered things and moving them to another place. …

The part you call "PvP/NPC conflict" is a pure PvE loop. It's just PvP acting as a substitute for NPCs - trying to prevent a PvE successs.
Just allowing PvP to prevent PvE success is not good PvP as not engaging in PvP is in this case always the better solution. Making PP open only is just a band aid for covering up the lack of real PvP gameplay loops.

If it was like capture the flag gameplay, then yes - PvP. Team A needs "token B" from team B. Team B can't get points if they don't have "token B" and vice versa. The teams would instantly require escorts, tough hauler, counter "pirating" ships … PvP galore.

My point is, that a PvP gameplay mechanic needs to be PvP exclusive - no possibility to side step it with PvE actions - and it absolutely needs to be entertaining for both sides.

 

[Melanthes]

It's also marketed as single-player:

Yeah, it's not primarily marketed as a Singleplayer game though. Opening the front-page of the official page, you'll find the information that it's an mmo, not the information that it also has a solo mode. So why should the training wheels be the measurement of the full game? Or even a good measurement of gameplay?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yeah, it's not primarily marketed as a Singleplayer game though. Opening the front-page of the official page, you'll find the information that it's an mmo, not the information that it also has a solo mode. So why should that be the measurement? Or even a good measurement of gameplay?

It's not just an MMO - it also offers each player the choice of who to play among.

That some buy the game expecting a PvP MMO experience is obvious.

That Frontier's stance on player choice has remained consistent in over seven years is also obvious.

What constitutes "good gameplay" is rather subjective - and depends on the context. That Frontier chose to make PvP optional, even in PvE actions that may draw players into competition, was their choice long ago. That they sold the game to every player on that basis is also clear.

Those who prefer PvP have no more "right" to these features than those who don't prefer PvP - even if they do think that they've been short changed due to overlooking information that would prove to be critical in their decision making before buying the game.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

There was a huge one with the Turks and Polish on one side and the American/Brit/Aussie PVPers, lawful and outlaw on the other a few months ago. No need to puff it up on the forums because it was already fun in game.

No need for you in the middle of the conflict, sure - but the overall effect is that the balance on what does get posted to the forums is:
- 80%: it's really unfair that PG/Solo can affect the BGS (general hypothetical case)
- 19%: it's really unfair that PG/Solo can affect the BGS (my system is being attacked)
- <<1%: we had this really fun Open/Open BGS war, here's the after-action reports from both BGS and PvP perspectives, here's how PvP was used intelligently to help the BGS objectives, here's CMDR Bob who was just wandering through the system one day and got press-ganged, we lost but it was the best fun our squadron had since sliced bread, etc. etc.

Saying "we had all this fun and you could too" where people outside the participating sides can see it is - even if it doesn't cause a big swing of general opinion - might at least encourage some other BGS groups to also play Open-only and meet you that way in future.

(Also, it's not like there's much in terms of Frontier-led story going on so I'd like to hear about what else there is! Might have been fun for you but what about the rest of us who didn't even know it was going on, eh?)

And for people that run BGS to support an ethos rather than a particular faction, this is really apparent.
I'd like to see if anyone has any figures from EDDB or the like on the current distributions of controlling factions in the game, PMF or otherwise. Until I started stirring the pot, in every system within 50ly of the place I started looking, most government types were either corporate or fed democracies, and where an anarchy faction was present, the vast majority of the time they were in dead last place.

Sapyx and Mangal Oemie both have a BGS report series that has the information you want and a lot more

Office of Galactic Statistics - Minor Faction Summary Report

After some discussion in another thread regarding the "ethos breakdown" of minor factions, and their proportionate representation in the superpowers, I thought I'd sit down and crunch the numbers. I haven't seen any of the third party tools that directly calculated and compared these numbers. I...

forums.frontier.co.uk

PMFs: data, charts, and the coming galactic player wars...

Are you noticing it? The bubble is heating up, and feels increasingly crowded. As a diplomat for the Alliance I see a rise in conflicts and potential for conflicts between player groups. Where a year or more such conflicts were rare, the frequency has gone up and now it seems every week some...

forums.frontier.co.uk

We all know that FDev would implement this by applying the buff to the transactions when they occur at stations, so to be clear, the way to make this work would be for data, cargo, vouchers etc. that are acquired in-game to be flagged with the game mode tag when it is acquired, and pass a check when changing instance and when docking is complete to make sure open mode data was brought to the station in open mode.

I suspect, even with provenance tracking on every single bit of cargo, data, voucher, etc. there would still be a lot of exploits and edge cases possible.

Questions like "what happens to the stock of Beryllium at a station if someone buys some in Solo" don't necessarily have a good answer either (and could become rather more important if Frontier continues to slowly turn up the economic temperature, whereas at the moment it'd mostly only be relevant to CGs) ... or how you deal with things like picking up money in Solo and then sitting in a station spamming donation missions in Open ... or if someone is pirated in Open, with cargo they bought in Solo, does the pirate get to count it as "Open" cargo? It'd take a lot of work to get a decent solution to all of that.

It'd also be a right pain if you were fighting over a one-outpost system and the other side just blocked the pads. Can be worked around by messing with the instancing but not ideal and against the spirit of Open only...

At the very least I think they'd want to do OOPP, and have that be a long-term success in terms of participation and excitement, first, before even considering anything this complex.

While we're at it, engineered modules are the rule across the galaxy: they should be purchasable for everyone without a grind at this point.

Probably what Frontier needs to do is add a few more semi-obscure reliable sources of high-end manufactured/data materials. That way - just like credits and raw materials - you can get all you need for several ships in a day if you know what you're doing and push the game mechanics to their limits, but people who like slower progressions can just not use them / not find out about them until they're feeling "end game".

They'd get dunked just as hard with G5 loadouts, but at least we'd stop hearing how it's only because we have access to better ships.

Possibly. The CQC loadouts you start out with one of the best general purpose builds possible (especially for a FA-on beginner), can get a "meta" Condor build within a couple of hours play, and people still blame outfitting and hacks rather than, just perhaps, their opponent knowing how to fly. And it's a lot easier to make a really bad engineered build than it is to make a really bad CQC build, too - having to take a bit of a time, at least the first few goes around, might help with gaining an actual understanding of things.

Ah I forgot all about the PMF CGs. Prolly cuz it's been about a year since we asked for a new station for our faction and we've heard nothing since lol. There should be some other mechanic for industry within player factions, because it's strange to assume that all the thousands of stations that have been built have been the exclusive effort of the Pilots Federation, aka players, when there are populations of trillions across the bubble. Also cuz we can't do CGs for every new station someone wants.

Yes, definitely. It would be a pain to balance - imagine, for example, that something like the "station repair" mechanism could also be used ... you get a particular BGS state by maintaining Investment+Civil Liberty for a few weeks, it sets up a "make a new station" goal where you bring a couple of million tonnes of specific cargoes to a port and at the end of it a new station appears in the system. But how much cargo is the really tricky bit to balance - a couple of million tonnes is easily achievable in a month or so by a big group with friends it can call on, whereas most groups don't stand a chance of getting close (see also all the complaints about station repairs being impossible).

Frontier have said they want to provide a non-CG method for developing systems and stations - so far, it's just the Colonia engineers that have been released, but there may be more planned. That initial attempt has revealed a bunch of difficulties to deal with - but on balance it's been very positive and I hope they do more of that sort of thing. I think people stick to PMFs because that's the only sort of "ownership" on offer - but being able to point to a system and say "we built that up from a tiny backwater to a major port" would I think be very popular even without any PMF names attached. Colonia and Witch Head both demonstrate the appeal of "building" stories.
(Plus they're going to run out of space to add more PMFs in a couple of years anyway, so something's going to have to change...)

 

[Rubbernuke]

The part you call "PvP/NPC conflict" is a pure PvE loop. It's just PvP acting as a substitute for NPCs - trying to prevent a PvE successs.

NPCs can never act as joined up opposition over large distances- the way areas are set up in ED makes this impossible (its why missions are so self contained). Drop zones are too short, interdictions infrequent (and the only way for NPCS to attack you). The players do then play the role of joined up NPCs, and this creates an interesting situation because you can then directly influence or help your power with others.

Just allowing PvP to prevent PvE success is not good PvP as not engaging in PvP is in this case always the better solution. Making PP open only is just a band aid for covering up the lack of real PvP gameplay loops.

It is PvP if players track others, create traps, force haulers / preppers to be better protected (i.e. run interference) and in general act in a co-ordinated way in real time to enact a totally player driven plan, I think thats good. I've seen and played these situations in Powerplay and it was my best memories of the entire game. I only wish it happened more often.

If it was like capture the flag gameplay, then yes - PvP. Team A needs "token B" from team B. Team B can't get points if they don't have "token B" and vice versa. The teams would instantly require escorts, tough hauler, counter "pirating" ships … PvP galore.

But this is what Open Powerplay heads for anyway- hauling is the flag, mega UM would focus this task even more since you have to protect or divert your attacker.

Unless FD have changed tack and gone back to what they really wanted to do then this is as close as we'll ever get to it. I really want a redesign, we'll have to see what this year brings.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

Don't confuse a hardline stance which considers a point of view invalid, with an inability to comprehend.

Funnily enough, I have the same view of "the other side" of this; Open-only BGS advocates seem totally unable to comprehend that the ability to affect the BGS from all modes and platforms is explicit and deliberate.

However, I'm entirely understanding of the PoV of people advocating open-only BGS. There is a logic to their wont for the BGS, it's just explicitly contrary to the intent of the system, and therefore is totally incompatible with it.

Take gambling on the outcome of an election. The design intent of an election is to determine the next leading representative of a given entity (Country, state, local knitting club). Parallel to that (and that's a critical word here), people may gamble on the outcome of that election; this is absolutely fine. People may also want to change those gambling mechanics to create a better experience; of course, this is fine too. But should, say, a state election, allow total circumvention of systems put in place to facilitate that election, in order to make a better gambling experience? Of course not, that would be absurd. Open-only BGS advocation is equally absurd, in my opinion, because it would totally circumvent the design intent of the BGS (to have all modes and platforms contribute to the BGS), which is a fact.

But hey... I sound like a "broken record" still not comprehending hey? So let's come at this from a different angle. What's the primary complaint here from open-only advocates? Influencing the BGS safe and sound in solo/private groups is "unfair"? So basically they're advocating for a "fair fight" in the BGS right? Well frankly, an open-only background sim is just a trickle in the river in terms of what's "unfair" about the BGS, because absolutely nothing is "fair" about it[1].

Spoiler: Ways the BGS is unfair

- Community Goals and Interstellar Initiatives cannot exist in an open-only BGS; such events are an abberation of the activities in the BGS, and ultimately is a "who's in FD's back pocket" as to who reaps the rewards, and would be blatant favouritism.

- Government ethos are totally imbalanced[2]. As it stands, Authoritarian ethos are objectively easier than any other ethos (with Dictatorships sitting at the peak of that hierarchy)... Corporates run a close second, Social (democratic, cooperative etc) are well behind in third, and Criminal (Anarchy) are in the trash-bin.

- Action types are totally imbalanced, demonstrated by the continued absence of negative states and overwhelming presence of positive states. Coincidentally, when negative states occur, it's almost always Anarchy factions suffering them, because as explained, they're bottom-of-the-barrel as far as government ethos balance goes.

- The mission generation system needs a total rework. Abberations which occur in more isolated systems (which does occur naturally in the bubble) such as Robigo/Sothis or the handful of ones I've personally identified which allow major effects which are otherwise unachievable elsewhere, to be caused in a non-exploitative manner. The common example of this issue is how you can go to a distant nebula station, and get nothing but donation missions for lawful factions, and often no missions for anarchy factions.

- Direct control of factions needs to be afforded to players. But this runs contrary to yet another thing; players are (Independent) Pilot's Federation commanders and form squadrons; factions are made up exclusively of NPCs; players currently are not "members of", nor do they represent factions or their interests in any form.

- Random Thargoid attacks against systems need to be stopped, as do the state effects which are coming in the January update which are, for the most part, random in nature. That such a random event could potentially jeopardise your control of a system (and let's face it, this is what Open-Only advocates want; control over what happens "in their systems") is not conducive to that.

- The entire peer-to-peer instancing model needs to be ditched, in favour of a centralised EVE-like universe where all players are visible to each other, and crossplay facilitated between platform. Sure, let's get FD to change the fundamental networking model five years into the game's release...

- All PMFs must be removed from the game, and all permit locks must be removed.

I've never seen Open-Only BGS advocates complain about any of this, only that they can't "pew pew" the opposing players, and that this is somehow unfair, and I can only attribute this to a complete lack of understanding of the BGS and it's purpose, because anyone with a lick of understanding of the BGS should already know all these things. By FD going "all in" with it being simply a malleable world environment for players, in all modes to engage with, and not some system for competitive group-vs-group play:

• FD can create dynamic occurrences, no matter how much they may destabilise an affected faction
• FD don't need to resolve crossplay/centralised networking
• FD can (try to) make Thargoids more front-and-center in the universe
• Abberations such as mission boards and random events/states can be sustained as "unique edge-cases"
• Imbalances in state effects from player activity and the governments can just be put down to "not everything is good"

That understanding can really only come about from a hardline interpretation of FD's vision for the BGS being, using FD's own words here, for players to:



I'm not going to dig out the original quote, but there's another quote in one of those videos I linked before, which is words to the effect of "The background sim is meant to be in the background; it's not meant to be at the forefront of players minds when playing the game. That would be a "foreground sim", and if that is the case it means we've done it wrong".

Players seeking to engage other players directly for reasons of "The Background Sim" would mean FD have done it wrong. In fairness, solo/PG players also undertake activities with direct outcomes on the BGS in mind, and equally this implies FD have done the BGS wrong, based on their original design intention. I'll come back to this towards the end.

A quote I've occasionally cited, but don't often use because I can't find the source of it, I only know it happened (@Rubbernuke ?) is that FD did not expect players to take such an empassioned view of the minor factions... rather they expected players to develop personal connections with the Superpowers (Empire, Federation, Alliance, Independent). To contextualise that, FD expected players not to care whether it was the Facece Empire League or the Nobles of HIP 2270 you were supporting, only that you were supporting the Empire.

Going to deviate here with some chatter about open-only Powerplay. If you can take some things I'm about to say at face-value, skip this.

Spoiler: Some Powerplay stuff

Powerplay was FD's attempt to implement a group-vs-group game mechanic when they realised that players cared about this sort of thing. The intention was that minor factions would rise and fall from the status of powers and there would be direct connection to the BGS in that regard. Obviously that never happened, with the core reason I suspect being the innate imbalances of the BGS, as previously discussed. So instead, we got this strange secondary game mechanic that sits over the top of everything and is loosely connected to the BGS where different government types help or hinder a given Power.

I raise this because I'm totally for an Open-Only Powerplay (aka Sandro's proposal), as Powerplay was intended as that group-vs-group territorial conquest mechanic, and it doesn't make sense for that to occur from solo/PG. That Powerplay does tie-in to the BGS loosely I believe is a hangover from the original design intent to have factions rise and fall from power, but for whatever reason, it got abandoned, and those mechanics are the leftovers of that original intention. Given how "bolt-on" Powerplay is, I consider any ties it has to the BGS through Powerplay to be a design flaw in the context of the current intent of Powerplay, and should be removed.

Two critical points of the original design of Powerplay were:

• It was designed to be a group-vs-group territorial control game layer; and
• Minor factions were meant to rise and fall from the status of "Powers"

That first point implies an open-only construct; anything else doesn't make sense. So Open-Only Powerplay makes total sense. And if they went through with Minor Factions rising and falling from power status, an Open-only BGS model would make complete sense too. But I get the feeling FD realised all those dags I mentioned before, and abandoned that, so we now have Powerplay, a bolt-on game layer with problematic ties to the BGS.

The reason I mention this, and coming back to my point about the Foreground/Background Sim concept, I do think there's totally valid discussions to be had around the BGS' implementation, such as:

• Were FD naive to think players wouldn't get attracted to the minor factions and make them central to their gaming experience, given how they function? Absolutely
• Were FD also naive to also think that allowing players to request minor faction's to be added to the game would not be used by players to form the core of a "group vs group" experience? Definitely
• Should FD have leaned harder into the concept of minor factions being the focal point of group-vs-group game mechanics when the popularity of that became apparent? Sure
• Should FD have tied the BGS harder to Powerplay and cleaned up the BGS' imbalances to create that group-vs-group system? Or should Powerplay have functioned more like the BGS?
• Should FD change their stance on the BGS being "the background sim" and acknowledge it's primary purpose being group-vs-group territorial gameplay? Sure, but that totally dethrones that being the role of Powerplay.

I think there's a whole bunch of speculative discussion that can be had around this. But Open-Only BGS is a third or fourth-iteration discussion to be had, and is totally non-sensical as a first-tier discussion given the current BGS state and the intent behind it.

You want to talk Open-Only BGS because the current system is "unfair"? Let's come back to that when all those points I flagged above have been resolved first, because only then an Open-Only BGS starts to make sense. Until then, it's a pointless discussion.

[1] which, coincidentally, is why there's such emphasis on the BGS being just a "background" sim
[2] It would need a totally separate post to explain why this is the case, but for anyone who knows a grain about the BGS, it should be obvious.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say about issues with BGS. For clarity and to reiterate - I'm an advocate of open weighted, not open only. The crux of it comes down to: players already push BGS influence in directions purposefully, for years it hasn't functioned as coincidental activity that magically results in changing forces in faction states. The way in which power play was introduced even exaggerates this issue precisely because the way command capital expenditure/accrual and fortification triggers work pushes power players to bringing in specific government types within the spheres around their control systems to see their faction succeed. It specifically integrates direct and purposeful action on BGS into the everyday function of power play - irrespective of whether merit work is made open only, the main effect power play has on non-powerplayers is through this BGS activity which would still be open/PG/solo if PP alone were made open only.

The reasons I argue for open weighted isn't based on "fairness" as an abstract or purely to shoot at other players. It's because we know that botting, exploits and cheats are an issue in the game and you can't catch people out abusing it if they're in private group and solo. In addition to which the possibilities for different interaction, tactics, politics, diplomacy etc is made much richer if players are encouraged into open. If more people are already in open then suddenly it's less about randoms shooting each other. Which yes has a huge issue considering P2P networking and the way instancing is dealt with in the game - I doubt you'll find a single PvPer that doesn't think there are issues with that ... (same as we'd also love crossplay to be a thing already)

As I've said previously though maybe in other threads: I couldn't give a flying if someone wants to push influence for factions around in some backwater in a PG or solo. But if they're doing it in populated space where it effects other players doing the same, both sides should be incentivised to do it in open. The point at which they're purposefully engaged in such activity in the first place is already the point at which BGS has ceased to be background only and is already PvEvP.

 

[Ethaidan]

And yet they would not be able to use mechanics such as:
-initiating conflicts in various systems controlled by the enemy faction... one strategy for taking on a larger faction with more human resources would be to force a war on several fronts, so the opposing faction doesn't know where to devote resources. Strategy goes out the window when you have no idea who your opponent is.
-buffing minor factions that may draw support from more players (Federation or Imperial aligned minor factions for example) in systems surrounding their enemy's home in order to destabilize their faction by offering missions going into their system that lower their influence
-attempting diplomatic resolutions to the conflicts with their enemy faction.

Why? Because unless the faction reaches out or plays in good faith (Open Play), they would have no idea who is even attacking them.

OOBGS would have no bearing on the viability of using these strategies. As an small Open Only group we do this, and the Open Only PMF we actively oppose sees us in most of their systems, yet have never seemed to figure out it's me/us - at least based on their inaction against us. Probably because...

The BGS is not easily adapted for Open only because its hard to gauge an unknown commanders intention. You can't scan for exploration data held, missions undertaken (and their sucess / failiure), you can't tell what they are doing with those missions to begin with (sometimes you must work against your faction, either killing or failing missions). You only recently have squad ID, but even then thats fluid (in that its not a hard limit on activity across factions). You can only see cargo, and the ship build. It would be very, very difficult to link activity to a commander seen as the tick is 24 hrs apart (ish) and that traffic reports are cumulative. In short its fuzzy- you can't see a 1:1 relationship with cause (a commander) and effect (the BGS).

In fact, in an effort to really make it obvious (more obvious than one of us having the top bounties in their systems, and constantly seeing our Cmdrs in Open, in systems pushed into war), I finally broke down and made a Squadron and linked it to the faction we support - the same faction they should have noticed rising rapidly in all systems we are both present in. So now, they can simply look up the squad tags and they will immediately know who we support, and who has been working against them, in Open.

But... what happens when they finally connect those two massive dots, and I then stack 20 Inf missions in support of their faction, then head to their home system and they attack me (and I let them kill me)? Or, I stack missions in support of them, then attack them and let them kill me? Or, I start a Squadron and link it to an allied faction of theirs (ie another local Fed faction) - they think I'm helping them, or at least not working for Imperial, Alliance, Anarchy factions, so they simply leave me be while I work against them?

 

[Rubbernuke]

In fact, in an effort to really make it obvious (more obvious than one of us having the top bounties in their systems, and constantly seeing our Cmdrs in Open, in systems pushed into war), I finally broke down and made a Squadron and linked it to the faction we support - the same faction they should have noticed rising rapidly in all systems we are both present in. So now, they can simply look up the squad tags and they will immediately know who we support, and who has been working against them, in Open.

But... what happens when they finally connect those two massive dots, and I then stack 20 Inf missions in support of their faction, then head to their home system and they attack me (and I let them kill me)? Or, I stack missions in support of them, then attack them and let them kill me? Or, I start a Squadron and link it to an allied faction of theirs (ie another local Fed faction) - they think I'm helping them, or at least not working for Imperial, Alliance, Anarchy factions, so they simply leave me be while I work against them?

I'm not saying that the BGS is unworkable in Open, just it requires modifications that cross over to Powerplay (which IMO is unnecessary duplication).

Squad tags are like Powerplay pledges and do help. The problem comes from knowing random traffic intentions, do you go round interrogating everyone? What about alts? The BGS is full of contradictions that you use to further your faction that are not easily served in Open as you say.

In straight out fights it would work, because its binary (like Powerplay). Outside fighting it becomes difficult because things become opaque- elections for example, where you pile in data.

For Open BGS to work you'd need:

shorter (almost real time) tick (maybe on each transaction)
way to scan for held missions and data
faction ID (already in) that excluded you from helping anyone else (not in)

Its easy with Powerplay because the variables are low in number, with the BGS there are too many.

 

[Ethaidan]

I'm not saying that the BGS is unworkable in Open, just it requires modifications that cross over to Powerplay (which IMO is unnecessary duplication).

Squad tags are like Powerplay pledges and do help. The problem comes from knowing random traffic intentions, do you go round interrogating everyone? What about alts? The BGS is full of contradictions that you use to further your faction that are not easily served in Open as you say.

In straight out fights it would work, because its binary (like Powerplay). Outside fighting it becomes difficult because things become opaque- elections for example, where you pile in data.

For Open BGS to work you'd need:

shorter (almost real time) tick (maybe on each transaction)
way to scan for held missions and data
faction ID (already in) that excluded you from helping anyone else (not in)

Its easy with Powerplay because the variables are low in number, with the BGS there are too many.

I agree, simply making it OO will not fix the perceived unfairness of influencing the BGS from PG or Solo. The way individuals push (intentionally or not) is too complex, contradictory, often opaque, and too easy to do right in front of people with no recourse. It would take too many convoluted changes. PP, on the other hand, should be reworked to be an Open feature.

 

[Max Bothin]

met a Commander at my homesystem the other day. What was he doing? There is not much I can find out about him. I can look up a Squad-Name, if he has one. I can scan his cargo. I might follow him and he might not notice me.

It does not matter. What I know: what has changed after the tick. What work has happened within the system. Was there anybody working against my faction or not.

What's the benefit of being in open? I would see this commander, but still there would be a lot of things to do, to keep myself in a unclear position. What will I do? Will I kill everyone I don't know in my system? Will I be sure? What happens, when I am offline? When the american dudes rock the system? Even in open. I will never know.

There is only one fact: the numbers of the system after the new tick. And the work happened within that time period.

Talking about "fairness": what is fair? Is it so, that if I do missions/trade/bounties with my adder, the amount of work would be the same, as me, flying a cutter? A fully engineered battleship that makes brazillions of bounties in minutes has more influence, than that Commander flying an laser-Eagle and dogfight for next to nothing bounty-wise? Or not? A commander, playing Elite for 5 years has more influence, than a new player?

 

[Screemonster]

met a Commander at my homesystem the other day. What was he doing? There is not much I can find out about him. I can look up a Squad-Name, if he has one. I can scan his cargo. I might follow him and he might not notice me.

It does not matter. What I know: what has changed after the tick. What work has happened within the system. Was there anybody working against my faction or not.

What's the benefit of being in open? I would see this commander, but still there would be a lot of things to do, to keep myself in a unclear position. What will I do? Will I kill everyone I don't know in my system? Will I be sure? What happens, when I am offline? When the american dudes rock the system? Even in open. I will never know.

There is only one fact: the numbers of the system after the new tick. And the work happened within that time period.

Talking about "fairness": what is fair? Is it so, that if I do missions/trade/bounties with my adder, the amount of work would be the same, as me, flying a cutter? A fully engineered battleship that makes brazillions of bounties in minutes has more influence, than that Commander flying an laser-Eagle and dogfight for next to nothing bounty-wise? Or not? A commander, playing Elite for 5 years has more influence, than a new player?

Don't forget the RNG-factor of "is my faction actually offering missions that I'm equipped for". Some days the board is filled with nothing but mining missions. Some days I can stack 20 surface scan missions.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

met a Commander at my homesystem the other day. What was he doing? There is not much I can find out about him. I can look up a Squad-Name, if he has one. I can scan his cargo. I might follow him and he might not notice me.

It does not matter. What I know: what has changed after the tick. What work has happened within the system. Was there anybody working against my faction or not.

What's the benefit of being in open? I would see this commander, but still there would be a lot of things to do, to keep myself in a unclear position. What will I do? Will I kill everyone I don't know in my system? Will I be sure? What happens, when I am offline? When the american dudes rock the system? Even in open. I will never know.

There is only one fact: the numbers of the system after the new tick. And the work happened within that time period.

Talking about "fairness": what is fair? Is it so, that if I do missions/trade/bounties with my adder, the amount of work would be the same, as me, flying a cutter? A fully engineered battleship that makes brazillions of bounties in minutes has more influence, than that Commander flying an laser-Eagle and dogfight for next to nothing bounty-wise? Or not? A commander, playing Elite for 5 years has more influence, than a new player?

I've met a commander in system that had set up shop for a month or so. We'd seen a downturn in influence. I had a conversation about how their activities effect BGS, who to take missions from and what type, what factions we were supporting in wars, where to sell bounties to not disrupt us (we're an anarchy faction). Our BGS stabilised. What a pleasant interaction.

Not everything has to be fastidious fetishisation of spreadsheets and a blinkered mentality to ignore everyone around you "because the only truth is numbers". Sometimes social interaction* can effect those numbers in positive ways.

*A terrifying concept in a computer game with a comms system.

And yes if you do missions in a Cutter that you could be doing in an Adder it is fair that you would both get the same reward. The advantage of the Cutter is that it can do things the Adder can't, not that it would get inflated rewards for the same activity.

 

[Max Bothin]

I've met a commander in system that had set up shop for a month or so. We'd seen a downturn in influence. I had a conversation about how their activities effect BGS, who to take missions from and what type, what factions we were supporting in wars, where to sell bounties to not disrupt us (we're an anarchy faction). Our BGS stabilised. What a pleasant interaction.

Not everything has to be fastidious fetishisation of spreadsheets and a blinkered mentality to ignore everyone around you "because the only truth is numbers". Sometimes social interaction* can effect those numbers in positive ways.
...
And yes if you do missions in a Cutter that you could be doing in an Adder it is fair that you would both get the same reward. The advantage of the Cutter is that it can do things the Adder can't, not that it would get inflated rewards for the same activity.

nice. But unclear just the same. might be random, might be not. Of course you can talk to people. But people lie. Or are the wrong people. And FDEV will probably not have the social interaction implemented, that your BGS stabilises, when you talk to people. It could, by the way. And it should, as I think.

In the end: it is just numbers.

To the Adder/Cutter-comparison: well, this should be easy: if I use an Adder, I get other missions that if I use the Cutter. But the same reward. Or more or less, just how FDEV wants to get the systems filled with life. They could do that easily.

 

[Simplystyc]

Falter

I see many on the forums know of him. Last I heard he was banned from here and in game.

 

[Simplystyc]

This to me has to be one of the more confusing and disjointed threads currently active and since it is in DD, that is quite an achievement!

It starts off well, the OP lovingly describes in absolute rapture how the mighty Code vanquished their cowardly opponents who cheekily hid in Solo/PG. But instead of being a shining example that PvP isn't the only solution to a faction war, that there are other methods to win the OP takes the sharp left hand turn into Modes are Bad territory, completely ignoring the simple fact that the Code just proved every argument he has subsequently made completely wrong. The Code proved beyond a shadow of doubt that it doesn't matter what mode either side are in, or what platform they are on or what timezone you play in, the better, more organised team will win - without firing a shot at a Commander. Yet somehow, against all logic and common sense, the OP blames FD and pushes for Open Only [Everything]. Now I could understand that sentiment if the Code lost because the other scoundrels were in other modes but that isn't the case.

None of this makes any sense ….

Your post doesn't make sense to me. As I see it all it is is just your opinion, man.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Not strictly correct.

Powerplay is partially a PvE loop. The PvE part comes from gathering and then the PvP / NPC conflict part is you taking those gathered things and moving them to another place. Powerplay in Solo and PG fails because in this section NPCs simply don't function as effective opposition, while in open players do. In the proposed changes players are funneled into a few areas (prep areas, expansions, capitals and mega UM sites) and would act as Open 'arenas' of sorts.

"I suspect we will never get something like that. I don't think FDev understands PvP."

We almost did, believe it or not.

Ye, it's some hybrid and doesn't do well. PvP games just need a different design, imo. And audience. They work best separately.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Ye, it's some hybrid and doesn't do well. PvP games just need a different design, imo. And audience. They work best separately.

Thats the thing- it does do well IMO from the times its occured. You plan your weeks moves, get people set and then do them in whatever way you see fit and see how that meshes with other powers.