Terra EX (DTEA's Squadron) vs The Code BGS War
It would not benefit Frontier or ED at all if they heavily nerfed solo/group rewards and force everyone into solo. In fact, I’m sure they’d lose a lot of players. I could care less about PMFs and player wars.
Agreed. Open only is a bad idea IMO. I like the chill experience of solo and exploring myself and Im sure I’m not the only one.
-k
Why? You won anyway! Are you so insecure that you not only need to beat your opponents by an overwhelming margin but know that they couldn't possibly have won even if you'd not put in the effort?
You've gone to a great length to prove that your opponents "hiding" in PG/Solo doesn't give them any real advantage compared to knowing what you're doing in a BGS conflict ... and you seem to think it proves the exact opposite. If you'd lost the war, narrowly, 4-2 or 4-3 perhaps - then you might be able to claim that if your opponents had been in Open you might have been able to drive them off to win a couple of extra days. But that's not what happened.
I've seen a lot of BGS conflicts - PG vs PG, Open vs PG, Open vs Open - in all cases the winning group has been the best organised one with the best understanding of the BGS. PvP happened in the Open vs Open one ... but it was a long way from being the decisive factor.
Powerplay, possibly.
BGS Frontier are on the record as saying no to that (it wasn't even intended originally as a "playable" thing, hence the "background" name) and it's so large and entangled into everything that it would be basically impossible for them to change their mind on that if they wanted to. The only practical way to have "Open only BGS" would be to have an entirely separate copy of Elite Dangerous - separate servers, separate accounts, no crossover at all - for a new "open only" mode. And the expenses of that would be far too high to be justifiable. (And it would still be somewhat pointless without crossplay first)
While I agree with you on the points (we won all our wars in Carcosa in open, against opposition mostly in PG/solo after all),
I'd still say it's a psychological thing and very annoying, that a war (which is pew pew, regardless how you view it) can only be fought out
in a shadow proxy CZ slaughter of NPCs.
CZs being not allowed for PvP is the premier reason I left Mobius, because I simply find it asinine that you can opt out of this player versus player conflict.
I'm not even saying open only is the way to go, but there should be parts of the game (Powerplay, CZs) where the effort in open is weighted more then the efforts in solo/PG. You still can and should partake, but you should need to put more effort into it than in open.
This is my opinion though, and I accept Frontier's call on this.
Deleted member 192138
D
Heavily weighted payoffs for open play is the most sensible thing imo. It means players are still able to do what they want in solo, so they still get to play the game they want to. But if they're affecting the activities of other players it should encourage the players to interact with each other.
It would enrich gameplay for people, remind them that open isn't such a scary place (around my home system I only gank people that ignore my comms which, admittedly and despite frequent claims that people would love roleplayed interactions, is nearly everyone tbf but I do try), generate interactions, encourage diplomacy, build awareness of who's doing what and where to whom, and also make it less advantageous to use the obscurity of solo to run BGS against player groups by using bots, running a trainer or abusing exploits where you can't be seen, challenged and reported by the players you're undermining.
It's not a complex concept.
Keeping PG and solo equally weighted encourages infinite grinds to run BGS because there's no way of discerning how much work your opponents are throwing into it which is an unhealthy, obsessive playstyle that kills gameplay as a challenge or skill based activity and makes it into a chore to be made more efficient. It shuts down tactical diversity by enforcing purely engagement with the mission structure and NPC conflicts rather than having the intricacies of player interaction, politics, diplomacy and skill in combat being factors that can contribute towards outcome. Oh and it makes it next to impossible to catch red handed if anyone is engaged in some form of cheating to get an advantage in BGS and PP because they'll just be in solo and PG where they don't have to worry about being encountered by an actual player that can recognise odd behaviours.
It would enrich gameplay for people, remind them that open isn't such a scary place (around my home system I only gank people that ignore my comms which, admittedly and despite frequent claims that people would love roleplayed interactions, is nearly everyone tbf but I do try), generate interactions, encourage diplomacy, build awareness of who's doing what and where to whom, and also make it less advantageous to use the obscurity of solo to run BGS against player groups by using bots, running a trainer or abusing exploits where you can't be seen, challenged and reported by the players you're undermining.
It's not a complex concept.
Keeping PG and solo equally weighted encourages infinite grinds to run BGS because there's no way of discerning how much work your opponents are throwing into it which is an unhealthy, obsessive playstyle that kills gameplay as a challenge or skill based activity and makes it into a chore to be made more efficient. It shuts down tactical diversity by enforcing purely engagement with the mission structure and NPC conflicts rather than having the intricacies of player interaction, politics, diplomacy and skill in combat being factors that can contribute towards outcome. Oh and it makes it next to impossible to catch red handed if anyone is engaged in some form of cheating to get an advantage in BGS and PP because they'll just be in solo and PG where they don't have to worry about being encountered by an actual player that can recognise odd behaviours.
Sure, I understand that side of it. And diplomacy as well as combat is easier if you can see who you should be talking to - I still have no idea who the traditionalists are, for example ... and that whole situation would be more fun to watch if they actually said who they were and what they were up to (plus a bit of recruitment might mean they did better against any actual opposition)
But I do remember - almost two years ago now - another conflict in Colonia. One faction made rapid gains, took a couple of home systems of large player groups ... and then those player groups regrouped and stomped them into the floor.
As the stomping was going on, one of the players from the original aggressor group came on to the forums to complain about how their opposition was hiding in Solo and this was deeply unfair etc. etc. raqequit etc.
This amused me greatly, because:
1) I had people on both sides on my friends list at the time and I saw a lot more of the groups opposing them on my map than I did of them.
2) There were three of them trying to hold off two largish player groups and their allies. No amount of "Open only" would have saved them from the stomping anyway.
3) The specific player they complained most about (obliquely, but a quick look at the system bounty board got me the name) had the same name as a forum account which had itself made many "Open only BGS" posts. Might not have been the same person, of course, but still funny.
I suspect a combination of timezones and guessing wrong about where their opponents were for why they never actually saw them.
Your last point is true, but IF there were a open only policy on wars or powerplay, it would instantly collapse because one could be sure it's not a shadow/PG/solo war. Now it's a lot of guessing and tinfoil hattery going on. Every one accuses the other side of doing shady things, because the rules are so that it is possible.
It's the same with the cheating.
Although its a bit less like it now, the BGS is / was like a game of chess played in the mail- move, countermove. When I was with the Utopian Powerplay group it was an amazing Enders Game like level of out-thinking your opponent with war being a small part of that. It was against anarchists in Terra Mater wanting the rare, while it messed up the Utopian BGS efforts to flip 100% and keep the area stable.
It was highly annoying that we could not eradicate them but we used BGS moves to really hurt them in other places.
Saying that Powerplay should be in Open only and be the mirror of the BGS- one multi mode the other locked to one. I kind of like the idea CZs are open too, but then consistency starts to go out the window.
It was highly annoying that we could not eradicate them but we used BGS moves to really hurt them in other places.
Saying that Powerplay should be in Open only and be the mirror of the BGS- one multi mode the other locked to one. I kind of like the idea CZs are open too, but then consistency starts to go out the window.
Deleted member 192138
D
ngl, I don't trust any claims someone makes on forums or Reddit about their gameplay being open only unless I have them on my friend list and I can see where they are. Talk is cheap.
Recycling the same old post I always drag out when people don't understand what the BGS is...
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5DGyG6Qwvk&t=430
[7:10] Ed: What is the backround sim?
Dav: So, to us the whole point of... the background simulation, is to try and bring the galaxy to life.
[7:53]... it also lets players interact with each other, kinda indirectly, trying to push in same directions or indeed in opposite directions, without ever actually seeing each other directly in space and breaking out the laser beams.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCy1ZYjLvdQ&t=862
[14:22]Adam: It's a big question, what is the background sim... at it's core it's supposed to represent a simulation of the humanity in our game... it's supposed to represent how players action's impact that world around them, so we're talking about actions from players no matter what platform or mode they're on, it's all part of one shared galaxy.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0zBtQcdHvs&t=642
[10:46] (after listing the different types of simulations going on)
... these are all background simulations, they are designed to bring the galaxy to life based on player activities. They are not necessarily intended to be the end goal in and of themselves, they are supposed to enrich the game using gameplay loops that are a little more immediate... these are a little more immediate, they work in concert, they work across many different players on many different platforms in all the different game modes, so, they're bringing the galaxy to life.
tl;dr the BGS is about a malleable, changeable galaxy influenced from any mode, platform or TZ, and the way players interact with each other through it is deliberately indirect.
[7:10] Ed: What is the backround sim?
Dav: So, to us the whole point of... the background simulation, is to try and bring the galaxy to life.
[7:53]... it also lets players interact with each other, kinda indirectly, trying to push in same directions or indeed in opposite directions, without ever actually seeing each other directly in space and breaking out the laser beams.
[14:22]Adam: It's a big question, what is the background sim... at it's core it's supposed to represent a simulation of the humanity in our game... it's supposed to represent how players action's impact that world around them, so we're talking about actions from players no matter what platform or mode they're on, it's all part of one shared galaxy.
[10:46] (after listing the different types of simulations going on)
... these are all background simulations, they are designed to bring the galaxy to life based on player activities. They are not necessarily intended to be the end goal in and of themselves, they are supposed to enrich the game using gameplay loops that are a little more immediate... these are a little more immediate, they work in concert, they work across many different players on many different platforms in all the different game modes, so, they're bringing the galaxy to life.
tl;dr the BGS is about a malleable, changeable galaxy influenced from any mode, platform or TZ, and the way players interact with each other through it is deliberately indirect.
Deleted member 192138
D
It is possible to understand what BGS is intended to be and still consider many elements of its implementation to be bad game design representing a patchwork of mechanics that do not synergise well with the environment and gameplay possibilities they create.
Oh there's lots wrong with the BGS worth discussing.
That it isn't open-only is definitively not one of them.
BGS battles are Group vs Group events which are affected through PvE actions.
If the Code are trying to fight an invisble enemy through PvP, they are going to have a bad time of it. They need to work the BGS to fight back, and that can be done in any mode.
I see its acknowledged that the opposing side has more players, and let's for the sake of argument more player hours, therefore they will win the conflict regardless of mode. Even if the conflicts are wars instead of elections, unless the code can provide 24/7 coverage of all CZ with more numbers, they will lose out in even an open only battle.
PvPers need to stop being salty over not being able to win PvE fights. They need to git gud.
If the Code are trying to fight an invisble enemy through PvP, they are going to have a bad time of it. They need to work the BGS to fight back, and that can be done in any mode.
I see its acknowledged that the opposing side has more players, and let's for the sake of argument more player hours, therefore they will win the conflict regardless of mode. Even if the conflicts are wars instead of elections, unless the code can provide 24/7 coverage of all CZ with more numbers, they will lose out in even an open only battle.
PvPers need to stop being salty over not being able to win PvE fights. They need to git gud.
ShippyMcShipface?
Deleted member 192138
D
Not a universally shared opinion, regardless of whether or not it reflects the original design ethos.
Except the PvPers won the PvE fight. So they did git gud and still think the system is broken.
In your hypothetical what you're forgetting is more player hours doesn't equate to more wins. You can play for a very long time and still be incompetent in a 5 res-aug booster Corvette.
Except in this instance the Code were not PvPers, they were PvEer's
Deleted member 192138
D
Even in solo BGS is PvP mediated by PvE, so I guess you could call it PvEvP. But even so with the way the game is designed there's no way to function and be able to exclusively do PvP activity.Except in this instance the Code were not PvPers, they were PvEer's
Excellent, so what are people crying about then?
Deleted member 192138
D
Maybe read the posts and you'd be better informed before commenting.