Regardless of whether that is the case or not, FDEV didn't really help by bigging up their prefered groups that did BGS warfare, or offering them the prize of becoming a PP Faction.
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
Maybe not originally but Fdev for some time up until a year or so ago allowed players to insert a minor faction into the game to represent their squadron. They also increased the accessibility of BGS info in the game over the years even going so far as to add BGS info to the local map with a graph. Playing the BGS is one of the main ways many players in this game enjoy it so do they not deserve to be able to do so?
Edit: I would like to add that even the squadron interface allows you to track a minor faction of your choice.
My squadron shares the same name as the faction it fights/works for. Luckily for us our home system is an unassailable anarchy system. No ground assets at all, and only 1 space station. We could lose control of it but not ousted as its our home system.
Which leaves us to do as we please locally hehehehe. We're hoping we will come under the new PP2.0 umbrella coming very soon. Which will no doubt make things really interesting!
But if not we will stick our noses in & hunt.
Which leaves us to do as we please locally hehehehe. We're hoping we will come under the new PP2.0 umbrella coming very soon. Which will no doubt make things really interesting!
But if not we will stick our noses in & hunt.
PowerPlay maybe. For BGS, I guess that anyone "attacking" you is doing so by doing inf missions, in which case you have an easy way to hit back. Need I spell it out?
I am not talking about incidental BGS changes that happen because some random is doing missions. I am talking a group of players suddenly coming to one of our systems during a war and making system traffic go from 20+ commanders to 90+ commanders and not a soul to be seen in system yet they are fighting against us. It makes holding the systems a job where I come home from work and have to spend all night running CZs just to counter them and the other side never shows their faces!PowerPlay maybe. For BGS, I guess that anyone "attacking" you is doing so by doing inf missions, in which case you have an easy way to hit back. Need I spell it out?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Neither the BGS nor Powerplay v1 or 2.0 require players to engage in PvP to affect these pan-modal game features. That some who enjoy / prefer PvP want to face their opposition and engage them in PvP is well understood, however no player needs to present themself to be shot at in a game where no player needs to play among other players to enjoy, experience, and affect the game.
Noting that all players bought a game where all players affect pan-modal game features from whichever game mode they choose to play in, only some players enjoy / prefer PvP, and no players require to play among others to affect the game that all players share.
Put differently, while some players' out-of-game rules mean that they choose to only affect game features in Open - other players only need play by the actual rules of the game.
But you are talking about the status quo. Just because something is a certain way now and always has been is not a valid argument for why it should stay that way (especially because the whole point of this thread is to debate the merits and demerits of changing these mechanics).
I am just presenting the reasoning behind why I and many others who enjoy these features advocate for changing PP and BGS to open only in a civil and thoughtful manner.
It all boils down to it feels awful fighting ghosts that you can never know.
Sure. But instead of moaning that there's nothing you can do to oppose them, why not use against them the very game features they're using against you? To "win" the BGS, use BGS features.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Just because a subset of the player-base want changes to be made to the game that would adversely affect the game for those who choose not to play with them does not mean that changes should be made.
Put differently, some players want shared game features to be taken away from players who don't choose their preferred, and entirely optional, play-style.
Indeed - however the civility displayed does not change the fact that some players want to take mode shared gameplay away from other players (or force them to play in Open to continue to affect the features in question).
Which is the case regardless - as there are two Open modes (Horizons Live and Odyssey), the matchmaking system may not instance players together, and players can block other players at will.
Last edited:
I object to such characterization of my advocacy for a change in mechanics. That's a low blow to attack my arguments by setting up a characterization that's unappealing. I could characterize the oppositions arguments as whining and crying but that would fly in the spirit of fair and civil debate.
I am and I can win against them. That was never my point at all. The point is the fact that I cannot see who is doing it means I can't even go to their personal BGS space and retaliate against them since they are effectively phantoms to me! Part of the fun of BGS is the social aspects where you have alliances, treaties, defense pacts, and enemy groups. All that fun gets undermined as well whenever players take advantage of the game mechanics as they exist now and attack your BGS with no fear of consequences to their own. Why would these phantom players care if you defeat their proxy in your system? It creates a situation where they have everything to gain (the destruction of your BGS) and nothing to lose.
The game itself combined with third party tools provide some possible measures for Intel operation. IF your bgs is effected by more then a random cmdr and you suspect a larger player group behind this, to track them down is not impossible.
Would you be so kind and enlighten me on some of the ways how to detect who exactly is operating in a system, given there are no new carriers nowhere around and open play is vacant from commanders and opposition isnt favouring any particular faction or even system.
Of course not! But you can pay 500 Mio credits and contract me. Give me one or two weeks and you will know who is your opponent and how he acts. Some cmdrs earn their money with providing Intel. Like in RL where you would pay a detective/spy or an entire Intel branch.
in a time when 500 mil is a job for a lazy afternoon id gladly give you 500 bil for an accurate information. though were you to sic us against an innocent faction, the diplomatic damage would far outweigh any credit value.
and as i have no reason to trust you blindly, respectfully, your offer is as worthless as your argument.
Of course i could provide prove who is attacking you... i am no amateur. But my price has just risen up to 2 bil. Still a bargain for someone who would pay gladly 500 bil. One free advise: never tell anybody that you have more credits then requested.
Sensible suggestions aren't welcome here, you'll just get stawmanned by people who are desperate to maintain the status quo and are afraid of change (even though that change was suggested by FDEV themselves originally 5 or 6 years ago and obviously they still have it on their radar).
This is the key point, Powerplay was designed with PvP very much in mind - but leaving it open to all modes with zero restrictions just makes the PvP players give up as everyone undermines enemy systems from private groups for tactical reasons. When I log in I'm not going to waste a whole evening looking for enemy players in my powers' territory if I know there's a high probability they will be in a private mode, it's just a poor use of time and you never find anyone.
Robert Maynard always says 'PvP isn't a requirement in the game' as his main argument against these points. But my argument is that to do certain activities, such as undermine an enemy player groups controlled system, it should be a requirement to run the risk of PvP because you are doing something deliberate against the interests of another group of players within the context of a PvP-associated system (I.E Powerplay - a system that depends on player activity, unlike the BGS which runs on its own).
The BGS is different because it was never really designed with PvP in mind at all, so we may as well give up trying to make anything open-only there. It will never happen.
PowerPlay was designed to be played in any mode according to player choice.
No other approach is possible without breaking all instancing (giving people an incentive to play in Open while doing the opposite of everything the Port Forwarding Thread says).
But how big does your ego have to be, to think that anyone who doesn't want to play with you is afraid?
Last edited:
They simply can't grasp the simple fact: no one is afraid of them.
It's not fear, but annoyance. An irritant in something meaningful a player wants to do.
Didn't read all pages but, anyone posted about weight diferently the effect of open vs solo/pg?
I mean:
So you can affect BGS in all modes, but there is some good incentive to play in open, the Y should be dicussed (1/3, 1/5, 1/10...) but the point is about the general idea.
I mean:
- You play in Open, do an activity win X points towards BGS stuff
- You play in Solo/PG, do an activity win X/Y towards BGS stuff
So you can affect BGS in all modes, but there is some good incentive to play in open, the Y should be dicussed (1/3, 1/5, 1/10...) but the point is about the general idea.