PvP in PP V2- rewards for both attack and avoiding attack

[Rubbernuke]

Looking at this from FU #4 and a quick thought:

One (IMO misguided) complaint is that PvP is one sided and that it always favours the attacker (or that, whats in it for the cargo guys?)

Now, in the above picture you have Aisling commanding 'destroy enemy commanders'- if we flipped this and looked at it from LYRs perspective, could there be a reverse bonus to fortify the system by cargo pilots staying alive? In such a way could it balance things out?

So LYRs screen (who holds this system) would say:

Destroy attackers

Evade attackers and deliver XYZ

Deliver XYZ

Attacking is opportunistic but deadly (i.e. it not always happens), while cargo transport (for expansion) should be a regular mundane task and rewarded as such.

In practice that might mean that each delivery has a small completion bonus (say cash) and that has a small BGS uplift- so maybe a ratio of 1 INF (for the destruction) to say 0.1 of each completed cargo run (for PP goods for fortification).

This would then realistically give something back to those who risk in both power terms and undertaking the job- and that both sides can 'win' by doing it.

In some ways this probably already happens with the delivery effect of the cargo (or should), but making the cargo run have explicit rewards for surviving might alter the issue doing it in Open while also leaving the door open for attacks, making both 'fair'.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

I'd just be conscious of the last 2 times I was attacked by players in my Cutter. With one, I still had 90% of my shield at the end of it. The one prior to that I was able to zero my throttle, open the galmap, pick a system to jump to, wait for the timer and then boost out to high wake. That time I lost a ring off my shields.

So what you'd also need is an incentive for players to be floating around those systems in a big game hunter type ship build waiting for people to arrive.

The other alternative is that defensive engineering gets a welcome nerf, but I'm not holding my breath for that.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

Kill enemy commanders is a dumbed down goal.

The goal should always be something else - like interdicting cargo, while killing the commander is the easiest way to achieve that it's not actually technically required. You could hatch break them or just patrol the station to scare them away (into solo where they can do whatever they want).

This doesn't really work for Elite in any way though. Things are too granular and too spread out. The Danger is ambiguous, unpredictable and often non-existent.

It's also a problem with BGS that is amplified here - If I wanted to win, to get to the top 10 weekly PP grind leaderboard why would I want to do PvP? Unless the most risky and difficult activity also pays the most it's not worth doing. In the case of PvP there's worries about people exploiting it and that's reasonable since there are no actual competitive elements in Elite beyond who grinds the most. Having rankings and extremely diminishing returns for killing players who die a lot anyway could fix it a bit, but Elite lacks actual good setups for fair emergent PvP encounters (you only get that in CZs) and PP 2.0 that's based on just doing BGS crap while pledged doesn't change anything unless the FC attacks are a good flashpoint.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'd just be conscious of the last 2 times I was attacked by players in my Cutter. With one, I still had 90% of my shield at the end of it. The one prior to that I was able to zero my throttle, open the galmap, pick a system to jump to, wait for the timer and then boost out to high wake. That time I lost a ring off my shields.

So what you'd also need is an incentive for players to be floating around those systems in a big game hunter type ship build waiting for people to arrive.

The other alternative is that defensive engineering gets a welcome nerf, but I'm not holding my breath for that.

The focus here is the hauler, and making the effort of regular runs in Open 'count' because so far some people feel its lop-sided.

Saying there is an incentive is a bit misguided, given there already is one (an INF bonus for the kill and I assume a bounty on destruction).

 

[Rubbernuke]

Kill enemy commanders is a dumbed down goal.

The goal should always be something else - like interdicting cargo, while killing the commander is the easiest way to achieve that it's not actually technically required. You could hatch break them or just patrol the station to scare them away (into solo where they can do whatever they want).

This doesn't really work for Elite in any way though. Things are too granular and too spread out. The Danger is ambiguous, unpredictable and often non-existent.

It's also a problem with BGS that is amplified here - If I wanted to win, to get to the top 10 weekly PP grind leaderboard why would I want to do PvP? Unless the most risky and difficult activity also pays the most it's not worth doing. In the case of PvP there's worries about people exploiting it and that's reasonable since there are no actual competitive elements in Elite beyond who grinds the most. Having rankings and extremely diminishing returns for killing players who die a lot anyway could fix it a bit, but Elite lacks actual good setups for fair emergent PvP encounters (you only get that in CZs) and PP 2.0 that's based on just doing BGS crap while pledged doesn't change anything unless the FC attacks are a good flashpoint.

Killing is the most direct way, but I agree nicking the cargo would be good too- but both are stopping the transfer which is what the goal is for the attacker.

The Danger is ambiguous, unpredictable and often non-existent

And thats why the cargo pilots rewards are smaller because an attack is not always going to happen- but might.

In the end its the same issue with V1 in that you have roles that overlap modes, when they should be defined roles for defined modes- for example solo and PG generate cargo via missions that people move exclusively in open.

 

[DYSEQTA]

I posted the following in another thread. It seems appropriate to be here instead. (Rank is referring to a CMDR's current rank on the leader board):

"I had some thoughts regarding scoring (leader boards).

In CMDR vs CMDR combat situations what if the score was calculated as some base amount for defeating a CMDR that is then modified based on the difference in rank between the two. So if a low rank CMDR defeats a high rank CMDR the bonus would be increased by an appropriate amount and if a high rank CMDR defeats a low rank CMDR then the score would be proportionally lower (effectively subtracting from the base score due to the difference being negative). This would naturally incentivize going after the big fish as a matter of priority and kind of discourage seal clubbing.

Also for activities where it's more about evading destruction rather than causing it I think it is equally as important to ensure appropriate scoring is applied. So say delivering exploration data is a thing then a CMDR that successfully delivers the data and evades three CMDR interdictions on the way then their score would be increased proportionally based on the ranks of the CMDRs they evaded. Therefore rewarding the skill of the CMDR in question, not just some value derived solely from the quantity of their delivered data."

 

[Dillon Fallon]

The focus here is the hauler, and making the effort of regular runs in Open 'count' because so far some people feel its lop-sided.

Saying there is an incentive is a bit misguided, given there already is one (an INF bonus for the kill and I assume a bounty on destruction).

If a kill can be made. Certainly I'd assume initially it would be the case that you'd see a fair amount of kills if typical player builds of cargo ships are going to be a factor. At some point you'd either have players joining groups to learn how to build better ships, or taking some path of least resistance. At that point, it might not be worthwhile spending the time hunting players when more influence can be gathered elsewhere.

I'm absolutely not saying an incentive is a bad idea, as without players doing deliveries in open in the first place, the attackers in the scenario are going to have a pretty boring time. It might need a bit of time and assessment to make sure it's balanced is all, which hopefully we'll see anyway.

Of course I may be giving people too much credit and it's going to be a killing field, in which case, ramp up those delivery rewards through the roof.

 

[Rubbernuke]

If a kill can be made. Certainly I'd assume initially it would be the case that you'd see a fair amount of kills if typical player builds of cargo ships are going to be a factor. At some point you'd either have players joining groups to learn how to build better ships, or taking some path of least resistance. At that point, it might not be worthwhile spending the time hunting players when more influence can be gathered elsewhere.

I'm absolutely not saying an incentive is a bad idea, as without players doing deliveries in open in the first place, the attackers in the scenario are going to have a pretty boring time. It might need a bit of time and assessment to make sure it's balanced is all, which hopefully we'll see anyway.

Of course I may be giving people too much credit and it's going to be a killing field, in which case, ramp up those delivery rewards through the roof.

Kills can be made, and do often happen in PP. You are right in that it won't be a conveyor belt of death but when it does it will really count to offset the slow and steady INF flow of cargo pilots arriving. Attackers already have an incentive (as per the image) and so would haulers.

In PPV2 cargo delivery is still a thing so its not like it can be avoided, it just gives a balance to hauling powers like Winters or Mahon.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I posted the following in another thread. It seems appropriate to be here instead. (Rank is referring to a CMDR's current rank on the leader board):

"I had some thoughts regarding scoring (leader boards).

In CMDR vs CMDR combat situations what if the score was calculated as some base amount for defeating a CMDR that is then modified based on the difference in rank between the two. So if a low rank CMDR defeats a high rank CMDR the bonus would be increased by an appropriate amount and if a high rank CMDR defeats a low rank CMDR then the score would be proportionally lower (effectively subtracting from the base score due to the difference being negative). This would naturally incentivize going after the big fish as a matter of priority and kind of discourage seal clubbing.

Also for activities where it's more about evading destruction rather than causing it I think it is equally as important to ensure appropriate scoring is applied. So say delivering exploration data is a thing then a CMDR that successfully delivers the data and evades three CMDR interdictions on the way then their score would be increased proportionally based on the ranks of the CMDRs they evaded. Therefore rewarding the skill of the CMDR in question, not just some value derived solely from the quantity of their delivered data."

Not bad but a gear score would be more meaningful than rank comparison.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Not bad but a gear score would be more meaningful than rank comparison.

Yeah, I knew one player a couple of years ago who had played since the game released and was only a rank of master because the only combat they did was PvP. Extreme case, but players like that exist.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yeah, I knew one player a couple of years ago who had played since the game released and was only a rank of master because the only combat they did was PvP. Extreme case, but players like that exist.

This might be simplified down into the value of the ship and cargo lost- so that a Sidewinder counts for nothing while a Cutter is much (much) more.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

And thats why the cargo pilots rewards are smaller because an attack is not always going to happen- but might.

I think the (unfixable) issue here is that individual cargo runs don't matter and aren't worth intercepting. If each cargo run mattered a lot and blockading a station was viable then interdicting logistics could actually be a strategy.

In CMDR vs CMDR combat situations what if the score was calculated as some base amount for defeating a CMDR that is then modified based on the difference in rank between the two. So if a low rank CMDR defeats a high rank CMDR the bonus would be increased by an appropriate amount and if a high rank CMDR defeats a low rank CMDR then the score would be proportionally lower (effectively subtracting from the base score due to the difference being negative). This would naturally incentivize going after the big fish as a matter of priority and kind of discourage seal clubbing.

This is still exploitable - what if you get high rank and want to do some chill cargo runs instead of fighting later in the week, each death now gives the enemy a huge amount of points. Getting a high rank for an unpopular power and then feeding to the enemies is also still going to be an exploit.

The rank (along with threat from ship build) could be used for matchmaking purposes to get more interesting fights, but that's secondary to having good PvP goals.


Trying to make cargo runs work in PvP is a lost cause IMO. There are games that use similar mechanics (extraction shooters etc) but they have a more limited play area and there isn't a gross mismatch in capabilities between haulers and combat ships.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

This might be simplified down into the value of the ship and cargo lost- so that a Sidewinder counts for nothing while a Cutter is much (much) more.

Agree here - doesn't matter if you're a new player or played years. You've still delivered/ lost 700t of leaflets.

 

[HappyMoonMonkey]

I'd just be conscious of the last 2 times I was attacked by players in my Cutter. With one, I still had 90% of my shield at the end of it. The one prior to that I was able to zero my throttle, open the galmap, pick a system to jump to, wait for the timer and then boost out to high wake. That time I lost a ring off my shields.

So what you'd also need is an incentive for players to be floating around those systems in a big game hunter type ship build waiting for people to arrive.

The other alternative is that defensive engineering gets a welcome nerf, but I'm not holding my breath for that.

Sounds like you're already prepared for open and therefore should get the bonus. I regularly fly an unshielded cutter in open purely because I can get away with it through lack of opposition. That way I can get the job done faster. With opposition I'd switch to my shielded build. What you don't want to encourage though is people simply flying unshielded in PG/solo simply because they can haul more unopposed.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I think the (unfixable) issue here is that individual cargo runs don't matter and aren't worth intercepting. If each cargo run mattered a lot and blockading a station was viable then interdicting logistics could actually be a strategy.

It depends on circumstances, though- it all comes down to the weighting of the acts. If cargo is 'worth' more in Open its an advantage, especially if things are tight.

Trying to make cargo runs work in PvP is a lost cause IMO. There are games that use similar mechanics (extraction shooters etc) but they have a more limited play area and there isn't a gross mismatch in capabilities between haulers and combat ships.

Powerplay does have limited areas though. As things settle you will have systems that support multiple others that become prime targets and it will become obvious which ones will be critical.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

Powerplay does have limited areas though. As things settle you will have systems that support multiple others that become prime targets and it will become obvious which ones will be critical.

Unless the new PP galaxy map features include a "CMDRs in open in this system" count, which is extremely unlikely then I don't see it. You still have players split between a dozen powers each with their own interest and potentially multiple systems of interest to dilute things further. There's no apparent mechanics to limit the size of the play area to concentrate players and only let factions expand when the systems get too full to fit all the players.

It might work out, especially on the first few weeks when there's more casual PP and people doing it for potential new rewards, but long term it still has a myriad of other issues.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Unless the new PP galaxy map features include a "CMDRs in open in this system" count, which is extremely unlikely then I don't see it. You still have players split between a dozen powers each with their own interest and potentially multiple systems of interest to dilute things further. There's no apparent mechanics to limit the size of the play area to concentrate players and only let factions expand when the systems get too full to fit all the players.

It might work out, especially on the first few weeks when there's more casual PP and people doing it for potential new rewards, but long term it still has a myriad of other issues.

As I read it, the new system is pretty much Sandros old 'uncapped' UM idea- in V2 there is no real upper limit to fortification or UM (currently 100% = safe). In such as case if you are continually attacked you have to continually defend. Thus, its a magnet for players.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

As I read it, the new system is pretty much Sandros old 'uncapped' UM idea- in V2 there is no real upper limit to fortification or UM (currently 100% = safe). In such as case if you are continually attacked you have to continually defend. Thus, its a magnet for players.

They also hinted that it's possible for powers to go either tall or wide by taking a bunch of uninteresting systems on the outskirts. I think based on BGS painting the map is more appealing to people than attacking a single system.

 

[Rubbernuke]

They also hinted that it's possible for powers to go either tall or wide by taking a bunch of uninteresting systems on the outskirts. I think based on BGS painting the map is more appealing to people than attacking a single system.

And if they do that (i.e. string out systems) if you lose the first in the chain the rest lose support and become vulnerable, hence it becomes a target subject to UM.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

And if they do that (i.e. string out systems) if you lose the first in the chain the rest lose support and become vulnerable, hence it becomes a target subject to UM.

But with a big enough galaxy why would I do that instead of getting more territory for my own power unopposed?