Seen this a bit recently from a couple of player groups complaining about how they lost a system and that how modes are to blame for it. That people in solo and group can waltz past them and undermine their influence, and there is nothing they can do about it.
I've responded to a number of such comments, and think its time i'll try and put this argument to rest (and i might fail miserably of course).
So, let's imagine a version of ED, where either only Open exists or that the BGS can only be affected from Open. Let's not make this a discussion about whether this should happen - we have had millions of threads on the topic. Let's just assume for the moment it is the way it is. Imagine this is a parallel universe where the game is the same, but FD opted to make Open the only mode if you like.
So, why is it a fallacy to blame modes on a faction being undermined.
1) Affecting the BGS is a PvE only task. You cannot stop undermining with no amount of PvP, unless you are stopping every single ship that enters your system. At best, you can only slow it down. The more resources you put into stopping people, the less you have actually working on defending the influence of your faction.
2) Its a numbers game, one largely dominated by who has the more resources in terms of player hours that are dedicated to defending/attacking. The side that has more player hours invested in attacking/defending should win regardless. Even if you are PvPing all the time while you are logged in, defending the system, if the other side has more player hours, you will never stop everyone. To increase your chances at sucessful PvP, you have to wing up, meaning less interdictions as well, so more people flying past you.
3) There is an attitude that if the PvPers could interdict everyone, they would win all encounters. This one is a bit funny and highly arrogant. Sure, the dedicated PvPers do tend to be (much) better at PvP combat (on average), and fitted for it and are more likely to win, but no guarantees. Some PvE players might be surprisingly good at PvP, they just tend not to be interested it doing it, but would if forced into it. And besides, any PvEer who stops to fight, ties up defending resources anyway.
4) An assumption that even with successful interdictions you are going to stop people getting through. Imagine the PvE player, wanting to undermine. What ship is he going to choose to get those missions done? Something fast, something that can't be masslocked easily. Ships like the Cobra and Clipper are going to be obvious favourites. Cargo space, speed, and in the case of the Clipper, hard to masslock unless the defenders are flying something big... and big is usually slow. Go ahead, interdict, the attacker can submit and run. Enjoy trying to kill people who constantly run away. Or they can high wake out, and jump back, and while the defenders are dealing with that, others are flying past unattended. The experienced players will get past eventually, one way or another.
5) PvPers getting involved on the attacking side. When systems are being undermined, its not always just going to be the PvEers getting involved. There could be PvPers, and since they know the system is defending, its a great opportunity for them to get their PvP kicks, they might not even care about the particular system. Some might join the defending side as well. Defenders are then faced with dedicated PvPers taking up their time, inderdicting them, and not allowing them to get on with their jobs of defending the system.
6) Instancing - this is a killer. You can defend and defend, and yet people will get past you anyway, some players you will never see. There could even be those players that (wrongly) tinker with their network settings to ensure they never see other players, or maybe they don't tinker, maybe they just had bad connectivity.
7) Timezones - you are a Euro group, the attackers are primarily located in a timezone when your players are asleep or at work/school. You're not going to stop them.
NEW! 8) Someone said having the ability to PvP gives them a chance. Another fallacy unless it happens in CZ. If you try and stop attackers in your system by interdicting them, then unless they are wanted (which they probably won't be), attacking and killing them will reduce security and increase civil unrest, which you really don't want in your own system. And unless you are an Anarchy, it will result in a bounty on your head, in your own system, which presumably is not ideal when you are trying to defend it... it will even reduce your chances of being able to take missions to support your faction.
Now it gets to the point there is a war, and the game can change a bit, depending on what sort of war it is.
I'm a little hazy here on this, and would need to check the BGS info thread. But IIRC there are two types of wars that can happen. There are those where non-combat missions are the way to win the war (actually elections), in which case most of the above still applies. Attackers zipping around in couriers and Cobras making deliveries and stuff.
If its a combat war, then CZs come into play, which can tip things in favour of the defending PvPers a little, but still no guarantee for them, again, numbers are still the bigger factor. the attacking PvEers could still just do bounty hunting in their choice of RES, or run combat missions for the faction they are supporting. AFAIK, it still is good for influence and winning wars, although as i understand, CZs are the best way to go in these situations. So, the PvEers go into the CZ. Let's assume the defenders have enough defending players to have 24/7 coverage of at least 1 defender in every CZ that spawned. Again, we come back to numbers though. Even if the defenders are better skilled, if the attackers have the numbers, and instancing works ok, i'd still put good money on two PvE attackers giving a run for the money on the lone PvP defender (or scale it up). However, if the attackers have brains, and coordinate, they would split up. One handles the PvP, running when attacked, turning and attacking when the defender goes for the other player, who is happily farming combat bonds.
If the defenders have the numbers, and can camp CZ, then the attackers can simply avoid the CZ and keep doing combat missions instead.
Further thoughts
While a lot of this has been focused on the attackers having more numbers, and its a major contribution, even if you are defending with superior numbers, relying on PvP to win is still a losing strategy. You still have to work on the BGS using PvE. Some of your resources have to be devoted to that.
Same goes if we turn the situation around, with a PvP group attacking a PvE groups system. You cannot win the BGS fight with PvP. The more resources you dedicate to PvP, the less your chances are. All you do is hurt your own efforts.
What about blocking at stations?
If they can't get in to the stations, they can't turn in bounties, turn in or take missions, etc. Again, assuming we for the moment ignore things like instancing/timezones/etc, its again at best a delaying strategy. It only takes one person getting through, and you have lost ground. Again, the more you then dedicate to working the BGS, the less you have to run blockades on station. Do you have enough players online at the same time to stop people getting into every station in your system? You know you can go to any station in a system and get missions for the faction you are supporting? Yeah, amounts of mission vary, but they will be there. Can you field enough players to stop people approaching the station from any angle, without putting yourself in the no-fire zone and earning the wrath of your own faction or another one, that will mean you have problems near that station and in its territories? What about planetary stations? No drop out from SC in a limited area with these, people are going to be approaching quite close, you can even drop out of glide very close to a planetary base if you are skilled and get it right.
Final points
There is no way to win a BGS fight with PvP. Blaming losing a system on groups/solo is not productive. In our imaginary Open only scenario, at best you can hope to achieve with PvP activities is to slow it down. If the two sides are fairly closely matched, even if slightly outnumbered, you should still be able to win, as long as you dedicate a majority of your efforts to PvE actions rather than PvP - treat the PvP as a side activity, you should win. However, if you are under attack even by less players, but you insist on focusing on PvP, you will simply lose due to influence attrition.
Once again, even in Open, affecting the BGS is a PvE activity.
Whatever you do though, do not assume that if the BGS was Open only, that everything would be sweetness and light for you.
I've responded to a number of such comments, and think its time i'll try and put this argument to rest (and i might fail miserably of course).
So, let's imagine a version of ED, where either only Open exists or that the BGS can only be affected from Open. Let's not make this a discussion about whether this should happen - we have had millions of threads on the topic. Let's just assume for the moment it is the way it is. Imagine this is a parallel universe where the game is the same, but FD opted to make Open the only mode if you like.
So, why is it a fallacy to blame modes on a faction being undermined.
1) Affecting the BGS is a PvE only task. You cannot stop undermining with no amount of PvP, unless you are stopping every single ship that enters your system. At best, you can only slow it down. The more resources you put into stopping people, the less you have actually working on defending the influence of your faction.
2) Its a numbers game, one largely dominated by who has the more resources in terms of player hours that are dedicated to defending/attacking. The side that has more player hours invested in attacking/defending should win regardless. Even if you are PvPing all the time while you are logged in, defending the system, if the other side has more player hours, you will never stop everyone. To increase your chances at sucessful PvP, you have to wing up, meaning less interdictions as well, so more people flying past you.
3) There is an attitude that if the PvPers could interdict everyone, they would win all encounters. This one is a bit funny and highly arrogant. Sure, the dedicated PvPers do tend to be (much) better at PvP combat (on average), and fitted for it and are more likely to win, but no guarantees. Some PvE players might be surprisingly good at PvP, they just tend not to be interested it doing it, but would if forced into it. And besides, any PvEer who stops to fight, ties up defending resources anyway.
4) An assumption that even with successful interdictions you are going to stop people getting through. Imagine the PvE player, wanting to undermine. What ship is he going to choose to get those missions done? Something fast, something that can't be masslocked easily. Ships like the Cobra and Clipper are going to be obvious favourites. Cargo space, speed, and in the case of the Clipper, hard to masslock unless the defenders are flying something big... and big is usually slow. Go ahead, interdict, the attacker can submit and run. Enjoy trying to kill people who constantly run away. Or they can high wake out, and jump back, and while the defenders are dealing with that, others are flying past unattended. The experienced players will get past eventually, one way or another.
5) PvPers getting involved on the attacking side. When systems are being undermined, its not always just going to be the PvEers getting involved. There could be PvPers, and since they know the system is defending, its a great opportunity for them to get their PvP kicks, they might not even care about the particular system. Some might join the defending side as well. Defenders are then faced with dedicated PvPers taking up their time, inderdicting them, and not allowing them to get on with their jobs of defending the system.
6) Instancing - this is a killer. You can defend and defend, and yet people will get past you anyway, some players you will never see. There could even be those players that (wrongly) tinker with their network settings to ensure they never see other players, or maybe they don't tinker, maybe they just had bad connectivity.
7) Timezones - you are a Euro group, the attackers are primarily located in a timezone when your players are asleep or at work/school. You're not going to stop them.
NEW! 8) Someone said having the ability to PvP gives them a chance. Another fallacy unless it happens in CZ. If you try and stop attackers in your system by interdicting them, then unless they are wanted (which they probably won't be), attacking and killing them will reduce security and increase civil unrest, which you really don't want in your own system. And unless you are an Anarchy, it will result in a bounty on your head, in your own system, which presumably is not ideal when you are trying to defend it... it will even reduce your chances of being able to take missions to support your faction.
Now it gets to the point there is a war, and the game can change a bit, depending on what sort of war it is.
I'm a little hazy here on this, and would need to check the BGS info thread. But IIRC there are two types of wars that can happen. There are those where non-combat missions are the way to win the war (actually elections), in which case most of the above still applies. Attackers zipping around in couriers and Cobras making deliveries and stuff.
If its a combat war, then CZs come into play, which can tip things in favour of the defending PvPers a little, but still no guarantee for them, again, numbers are still the bigger factor. the attacking PvEers could still just do bounty hunting in their choice of RES, or run combat missions for the faction they are supporting. AFAIK, it still is good for influence and winning wars, although as i understand, CZs are the best way to go in these situations. So, the PvEers go into the CZ. Let's assume the defenders have enough defending players to have 24/7 coverage of at least 1 defender in every CZ that spawned. Again, we come back to numbers though. Even if the defenders are better skilled, if the attackers have the numbers, and instancing works ok, i'd still put good money on two PvE attackers giving a run for the money on the lone PvP defender (or scale it up). However, if the attackers have brains, and coordinate, they would split up. One handles the PvP, running when attacked, turning and attacking when the defender goes for the other player, who is happily farming combat bonds.
If the defenders have the numbers, and can camp CZ, then the attackers can simply avoid the CZ and keep doing combat missions instead.
Further thoughts
While a lot of this has been focused on the attackers having more numbers, and its a major contribution, even if you are defending with superior numbers, relying on PvP to win is still a losing strategy. You still have to work on the BGS using PvE. Some of your resources have to be devoted to that.
Same goes if we turn the situation around, with a PvP group attacking a PvE groups system. You cannot win the BGS fight with PvP. The more resources you dedicate to PvP, the less your chances are. All you do is hurt your own efforts.
What about blocking at stations?
If they can't get in to the stations, they can't turn in bounties, turn in or take missions, etc. Again, assuming we for the moment ignore things like instancing/timezones/etc, its again at best a delaying strategy. It only takes one person getting through, and you have lost ground. Again, the more you then dedicate to working the BGS, the less you have to run blockades on station. Do you have enough players online at the same time to stop people getting into every station in your system? You know you can go to any station in a system and get missions for the faction you are supporting? Yeah, amounts of mission vary, but they will be there. Can you field enough players to stop people approaching the station from any angle, without putting yourself in the no-fire zone and earning the wrath of your own faction or another one, that will mean you have problems near that station and in its territories? What about planetary stations? No drop out from SC in a limited area with these, people are going to be approaching quite close, you can even drop out of glide very close to a planetary base if you are skilled and get it right.
Final points
There is no way to win a BGS fight with PvP. Blaming losing a system on groups/solo is not productive. In our imaginary Open only scenario, at best you can hope to achieve with PvP activities is to slow it down. If the two sides are fairly closely matched, even if slightly outnumbered, you should still be able to win, as long as you dedicate a majority of your efforts to PvE actions rather than PvP - treat the PvP as a side activity, you should win. However, if you are under attack even by less players, but you insist on focusing on PvP, you will simply lose due to influence attrition.
Once again, even in Open, affecting the BGS is a PvE activity.
Whatever you do though, do not assume that if the BGS was Open only, that everything would be sweetness and light for you.
Last edited:
