But then your advocating forcing pve on pvp players so wouldnt that make pve supporters of a view such as you suggest as hardline pvpers
The fallacy of how PvP can protect your system from being undermined.
- Thread starter Agony_Aunt
- Start date
- Status
Do you happen to have evidence to hand to support that?
It was my understanding the combat missions and combat actions contribute while these states are active. How do you determine which has the most effect?
Im interested to hear back as we recently flipped He Bo back to the Alliance factions and while some chose to farm their hearts out in the CZ others were heading back to collect CZ based and other combat missions to affect influence.
Well, I'm no sage in all things ED, but I'm pretty confident the "pure PvP players" did not aquire their FAS/FDL with killing other players. (the FDL.. maybe, if you're a very good player bounty hunter with a looooot of time on your hands .. the FAS with it's rank requirement? highly doubt that)
So who's going to draw the line between "an acceptable amount of playerless advancement" if not FD and the individual player?
(did I mention I also still have Team Fortress 2 on my computer and use it every now and then as a quick pewpew game?)
Last edited:
As you know AA (/me waves), I just want to know "roughly" what I am up against and have the ability to speak to people who may well be unknowingly undermining my faction. I totally understand that instancing would still prevent every player being interacted with but currently the chance is zero rather than possible. Secondly whilst direct affirmative action might only slow the undermining down the very fact that is slows it down means you have less to do to counter it from a PvE perspective.
I just don't like dealing with an invisible enemy with completely no chance to do anything at all about it other than to start an un-quantifiable 1:1 grind against X number of players. I imagine someone will mention time zones but again some chance still exists vs the zero chance of solo / group.
To reiterate I don't necessarily want to blow these people up, just the chance to let them know its a player faction they are undermining would be helpful
I just don't like dealing with an invisible enemy with completely no chance to do anything at all about it other than to start an un-quantifiable 1:1 grind against X number of players. I imagine someone will mention time zones but again some chance still exists vs the zero chance of solo / group.
To reiterate I don't necessarily want to blow these people up, just the chance to let them know its a player faction they are undermining would be helpful
That's my interpretation as well, looks like it might have been a small perfect storm.
Further on the topic of whether ship to ship player vs. player activities can protect against other players undermining minor faction influence; I dislike having to be this specific but okay:
To interpret the Dev Update from 07.01.2016:
- The state Lockdown means no actions taken will have any effect on influence.
- During the state Famine, Combat missions and actions have no effect but the effect of food is doubled.
- If your faction is in a War state, only combat missions and actions count towards influence.
The way the BGS functions is opaque and I don't particularly blame anyone for having an incomplete understanding of it, I just have a casual interest in it and am by no means an expert; there are great threads by people who possess this knowledge. But from my perspective it appears that it's mainly a numbers game. Twenty friends in five wings cannot muster the manpower to interdict ten intruders. Unless the timing and matchmaking specifically enables it. Even then I don't see how PvP would have an effect during a Lockdown state for example.
The most effective means of countering changes to the BGS is through directly poking at the BGS, not indirectly having an effect by eliminating players who are actively poking it themselves.
Sounds to me like open already has an incentive, just one that isn't measured by weekly metrics and is entirely ignored by a crowd that just wants more targets to shoot at.In fact it's better than that for PVP though, because if you spend 1 hour collecting PVE Merits, and I log in for 5 minutes and manage to kill you before you turn them in, that's a 12:1 time advantage for PVP anti-undermining.And my control station is only a few Ls away to turn in my kill merits and cash bounty.
I used PP as I think PvP goes beyond just the BGS. Sure, it may be a number game in a BGS situation but not in a wing interdiction, PowerPlay (especially when it comes to merits), general PvP for various reasons, etc.
While I am aware that this is somewhat BGS specific, we can not really devide it up for just a single area as it affects more than just the BGS. It affects modes, BGS affects PP and so on.
Also if a PvPer causes more damage than the PvEer ears, it is a win for the PvPer. Example would be if one player gets a bounty of like 1 million, a kill would result in a total loss of these.
That's insurance + 1 million credits lost. Same for merits. Imagine a loss of 1k merits in powerplay. that is by FAR a more efficient way to prevent undermining than hauling cargo every three hours.
A NPC gives 30 effective merits. A player kill gives between 0 and approximately 1000 on average. Or if someone hunts me, up to 5350.
Rinzler o7o7o7
Banned
PvP has absolutely no place in any war or fight for the control of a system. If you want PvP, go play call of duty or something like the rest of the children.
I think faction wars should be strictly PvE only, affected only by people from solo and private groups (since instancing exists in open, it's irrelevant). Wars should be a fun grind-war against other solo enemies, where the side that grinds the most is the winner.
/s
I think faction wars should be strictly PvE only, affected only by people from solo and private groups (since instancing exists in open, it's irrelevant). Wars should be a fun grind-war against other solo enemies, where the side that grinds the most is the winner.
/s
----------------------
Oh, this is the Frontiers’ aim. Due to the fact that the game does not provide enough gameplay options, the players must be involved in pointless and worthless overgrinding. The quantity beats the quality. *The 300* and Herodotus should be forbidden in 3300
------------
The 300 and Herodotus are forbidden at least since the last century, let alone in 3300
the proper way to fight a war isn't to send your tanks to fight enemy tanks, but to bomb the factories that produces those tanks and the railway lines which supply them so there aren't any tanks to be fought in the first place. Modern wars are won with resources, not warriors, and the best way to win is not having to fight at all. Actually, Sun Tzu said that about 2,500 years ago, so the concept is hardly 'modern'. If you want realism, then grinding resources is the correct grand strategy. Combat is just a side show.
I think this post misses the point. Most people that complain about the subject at hand don't care about the BGS at all. They care about having fleets of commanders having wars with other fleets of commanders. The BGS just looks a bit like it could be an integral enabler for that so they claim it is broken because it actually isn't and was never meant to be.
Regarding Wolfberg.
Traffic Reports showed between 200 and 300 ships at the start of the "siege" (not really the entire mobius group
Given the number of defenders in their low 20ies, a fraction of that attacking force (maybe not even the best PvPers .. just the wealthiest commanders who could afford to throw rebuy after rebuy at the opponent just to keep him busy) would have been enough to bind all the combat PvP force of the defender in some ultimately useless skirmishes, while the the other 40-260 commanders could have done what they did anyway.
I can't help but think that would have been excellent gameplay though - if it had happened like this.
Your hyperbolic satire is misplaced. A commentary on the actual state of a system is neither an endorsement nor a damnation. Simply an objective observation.
Last edited:
Goose4291
Banned
Agreed. This would have been a story to capture peoples imagination and something that would have drawn the gaming community into Elite, rather than the myriad "LOL I beat the doggiez by going into Solo." forum-warrioring we saw.
It could be, however I think other game mechanics like the death penalty, and how long it can take to accumulate the Cr. balance to fly competitive ships with a good fitting, means that the potential loss of defeat is almost always greater than the incentive to engage in combat where the outcome is more in limbo than your typical NPC encounter.
PvP in game is fun, and certainly deserves more of a center stage than it has been granted. Some real mechanical rewards for PvP are long over due. The penalties for engaging in PvP far outweigh any tangible benefits, to the point where to many players enganging in PvP is counter-intuitive because of the long grinds many players put in for their ships and modules, and the high re-buys associated with those ships (more grinding).
If the game did not punish death or progression so heavily, I think PvP would become more prominent in game. However those are two aspects that many players consider essential to the game.
This message brought to you by Rock & HardPlace Drinking Co.
Yea. Gospel goes there were attacking commanders in open looking for some action and none of the defenders showed up.
WoW Aunty, that's a lot of words!
I've had a skim through the thread and I think I'll spend some time this evening reading it all in depth as it seems to have a lot of relevance to my little BGS war in Frey - Work has put this on the back burner for a while for now though.
As others have mentioned War relies on one major thing - a supply line, war uses a lot of resources. WW1 and trench warfare showed us that with improved travel to the front for men and munitions a status quo of the battle line can be maintained. Break that supply line and everything can change regardless of the numbers of troops ready to go over the top.
One thing Bethesda got spot on in FA4... War never changes.
I've had a skim through the thread and I think I'll spend some time this evening reading it all in depth as it seems to have a lot of relevance to my little BGS war in Frey - Work has put this on the back burner for a while for now though.
As others have mentioned War relies on one major thing - a supply line, war uses a lot of resources. WW1 and trench warfare showed us that with improved travel to the front for men and munitions a status quo of the battle line can be maintained. Break that supply line and everything can change regardless of the numbers of troops ready to go over the top.
One thing Bethesda got spot on in FA4... War never changes.
Yes the devs designed the game so that PVP combat has no relevance to anything. It's an awful awful awful design decision because it doesn't reward skill. It rewards mindless grinding. Unfortunately frontier seems convinced PVP is cancer and that the PVP community is wholly compromised of immature bumbling schoolboys.
Frontier just doesn't care about pvp or open play. Of course they deigned power play to be fought in solo, not in open.
Frontier just doesn't care about pvp or open play. Of course they deigned power play to be fought in solo, not in open.
I read your post and that's exactly the point - you chose the wrong strategy. Never mind that quite likely nobody there even knew they were damaging you, even if everyone did it on purpose and they all showed up in CZs in Open, you would not have made any difference. The correct strategy would have been working the BGS and preventing the conditions for the switch. Also treating everyone passing as an hostile was clearly an error, as has been noted likely nobody was actually fighting you, calling for help would have been better. In short, you beat yourself.
- Status