I'm thinking of infiltrating an empire system to gain enough trust to purchase a courier, perhaps I'll chase you half way across the galaxy interdicting you whenever I can and then running away, so you can't escape more nor fight me nor go anywhere un troubled; I'd not really find this that much fun, but knowing how easily you get bored, I may well find it quite amusing for quite some considerable time.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
Yes they would, but how do you remove such an exploit? Its something that many games I have played have struggled with in the past, and with the exception of upping the capabilities of the enemy they are farming, none ever really take, as workarounds tend to be found by those wishing to continue with them.
Regardless of whether you like it or not, (and to be clear I'm not be facitious), combat is a core part of the Elite experience which everyone is going to experience at some point, unless you literally plot a route straight out of the bubble 500ly (I believe thats still the AI spawn cutoff limit) and never go back within the limits of that spawn. How that player chooses to engage with that Combat opportunity (e.g. run or fight) is a moot point. Its still happening, or at the very least the game is encouraging it (e.g. interdictions). Also, as a sidebar, I think you'll find its 3 'of the game paths to Elite' that require combat.
Regarding the PP2.0 tweak, I wouldn't call tweaking the AI of PP2.0 based on the views of a 'chosen few' who seemed irked the AI might attack them while they are holding court on their twitch/youtube streams a better position for the playerbase. Particularly when you read how folk who don't claim to be steely-eyed combat veterans are finding the AI in its current form as weak, lacklusre and unchallenging.
As has been explained a few times to you by Rubbernuke in the posts you've exchanged over the past year plus, the continued prevalence of the Shieldess Trader in the aforementioned playstyles is noticeable by being (in my case) being engaged with some of the groups and communities of Elite where such discussing such activities boiled down to that being the guidance passed by those running said groups (which is also why I stopped being involved in such activities as a player), including a 'if you dont conform, you have to leave' mentality, screenshots being put out, or simply 'in-passing' conversation.
Ah you must've not been here in 2018 when they proposed the idea and ran a special forum thread on it.
Can't recommend it high enough! I still have one built as on-foot mission runner and that is in my list of ships that I will never sell.
P.S. To win an interdiction it is probably all what iCourier can do to engineered Pmk2...
a) clearly that didn't happen, and b) were talking about open only PP 2.0 here, not what maybe could have happed six years ago. Not trying to be insensitive, but the Sandro years have passed. <Insert Spaceballs "this is now" meme>.
lol didn't happen
... FDEV posted a 'Focused Feedback' thread proposing the idea of open only powerplay which garnered lots of attention (and surprisingly a lot of positive feedback here - as well as a hissy fit from the usual naysayers). Most of the pro-open voices who contributed no longer post here unfortunately...You may dismiss this as 'The Sandro years' but FDEVs development pipelines take so long to result in a release it should not be viewed as obsolete information (especially as the devs still keep referencing the open only debate). Remember they were in the midst of building Odyssey at that point, they were not going to stop halfway and build Powerplay 2.0.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If an AFK turretboat requires to not move (so that it does not leave the combat zone it is in) then NPCs could be sent after ships that sit at or near zero speed for a period exceeding <some time period>.
While being able to beat an NPC interdiction might be considered to be "combat" (at some very low level, that does not require the ship being interdicted to be fitted with either weapons or even a shield) once beaten the NPC tends not to try again - so it's very simply avoided, even in the bubble. So while combat may be core to the experience of some players, the same cannot be said of all players, also noting Zac's comment in a recent stream that "a lot" of players don't engage in combat "at all".
Which three in-game paths to Elite require the player to engage in combat?
Opinions naturally vary - and that Frontier chose to make the change based on feedback might indicate what they expect would be better received by the player-base in general. Noting that there are some players for whom the NPC challenge will likely never be set high enough to satisfy their desire for what players in general should face.
Sounds like out-of-game rules that no player needs to consider, much less abide by.
How far back do we have to take posts ? 6 years ?? 3 years ( consoles getting EDO but having to wait ) 2 years no EDO for consoles?
There is no in game need for PvP you can BGS and PP till your heart's content without PvP so the only need is a few who think it's a good idea or assume that's what it meant . It's a bit like Elite Dangerous ? It's not because it was a Dangerous galaxy, it was solely the most average rank.
There is no in game need for PvP you can BGS and PP till your heart's content without PvP so the only need is a few who think it's a good idea or assume that's what it meant . It's a bit like Elite Dangerous ? It's not because it was a Dangerous galaxy, it was solely the most average rank.
I am not disputing that the process didn't happen. But clearly OOPP 1.0 didn't happen. Or did I miss something?lol didn't happen
People regularely pull the 11 year old kickstarter out of their hats, so....
Again: I didn't dispute the proposal didn't happen. But OOPP 1.0 didn't.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It did not. Some time after the Flash Topics Will posted that some of the proposals in the Flash Topic threads were under consideration - and here we are with Powerplay 2.0.
Seems we are in agreement. Coincidentally, OOPP 2.0 didn't happen either. For now.
1. That 'fix' you propose is so easily circumvented, using a simple macro (or in the case of one player I had the displeasure of being opposing sides of in Battlestar Galactica Online, a 'dipping bird toy'). The only way to deal with AFK Farming in the long term is to increase difficulty of AI to make it unfeasible, otherwise you're constantly playing 'catch up' in a war between the Devs trying to find a way to detect them and police it, and the Players using increasingly ingenious means. Something, based on the way they have handled exploits in the past, they are very reluctant to do (with a few exceptions).
2. I really wish you'd actually engage rather than sticking to the same tired arguments and stock responses. The NPC is interdicting you to engage in combat with you. In anecdotal context: I mostly fly as a trader (well, smuggler), and while I don't necessarily need to fight back, the game is sending AI to me that are wanting to engage in it. The point I'm making is that, regardless of whether you will it or not, the potential of Combat (around which a lot of the core of the game is built) being thrust upon you is still there.
3. You forgot 'Odyssey' has a ranking systems for Combat. (CQC, Combat and Odyssey Ground)
4. Opinions naturally vary, but that isn't the point of what I said is it? Pushing out a tweak based on feedback from a very small sample of the playerbase within a certain niche is not the way to go.
5. Whether its a 'out of game rule' or not is irrelevant. You asked how there prevalance was known. I gave you the answer.
Last edited:
In game design, there’s a structured approach to managing progression, often using a "content consumption curve" to balance the growth of both players and NPCs.
This table helps define the pace at which players advance and face increasingly challenging obstacles, preventing either stagnation or overly rapid progression.
In Frontier's case, this seems to have been long overlooked, hence the phrase "a mile wide, an inch deep," allowing AFK farming to thrive because player power progression far outpaces that of NPCs.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which, if NPC difficulty is the only way to stop AFK farming, is probably why it hasn't been "dealt with" - as increasing the NPC difficulty to that level would very likely make chunks of the game unfun for many legitimate players.
The potential for combat, if several things go wrong, certainly - however no player needs to engage in it to play the game.
CQC is a separate game (and was sold as one for a time), i.e. not something that can be done "in-game" without logging out of the game back to the launcher and selecting an option that is neither Horizons or Odyssey.
If it wasn't the way to go then one wonders why Frontier chose to do it so quickly....
Some players telling some other players to do something does not mean that it is actually "prevalent", i.e. happening on a large scale among the player-base.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
How would such an approach apply to an open world multi-player game where players at all stages may instance together in ships outfitted for very different roles?
Last edited:
1. I genuinely don't see what the point your making here is. Its not like I'm suggesting that the moment you spawn in a Sidewinder you should be subjected to a wing of G5 engineered FDLs (which I feel is what you're inferring). What I'm saying is that in 2024 the AI of a game should at the very least be able to deal with a single ship, parked static and left untended by a player.
2. Whether the player chooses to engage in it or not is a moot point. Its there, it forms a core of the games design and regardless of a players desire can impact on their gameplay any time they find themselves in a system populated with AI.
3. CQC Forms part of the game, its ranks and rewards for using it (i.e. that system permit), are part of the game. Just because theres an option to buy it seperately doesn't render it not part of Elite Dangerous, I find it funny you have had no issues throughout the last 160 pages of posts, in which you have been very prolific, with folk referring to CQC as a mode when the talking point is "PvPers have their own mode.. its called CQC, they should go play that.." or words to that effect.
4. Because that is FDEVs standard practice, listen to a select few and bend rules when it suits for them (see: Canon receiving a mega-ship, Obsidian Ant being able to beg for money for a new GPU on the Forums a while back and a slew of moments). Always has been, always will.
5. Again, you asked, you got an answer.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I don't disagree with the last - how it would be achieved would be of interest though, noting apparent issues with being able to avoid detection of a ship that is effectively static.
For the player with little or no interest in combat it's not moot - and the ability to avoid it is welcomed.
It's not part of the game that is played in the game, i.e. the use of "in-game" in the post that spawned this sub-topic was deliberate.
People quite often refer to game features as modes - it's not worth correcting every time.
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
I feel duty bound to clear up the fact that Canonn did not "receive" a mega-ship in the way you seem to be suggesting. Frontier wanted to test the idea, following on from Jaques, of a megaship that tours around presumably to pave the way for the Guardian ruins shuttle. They asked Canonn if they wanted it put in their name, as it fit the science nature and as a nod to the work the collective has done in progressing the Thargoid storyline. It was added to a CG that was being proposed to get a decal, which other player groups also had back in the day when you could submit CGs. In the beginning Canonn had no control over where it went, then as the time passed and other things were added to the game they were allowed to submit potential systems for it to jump to. Which lead to the incident... #RememberTheGnosis
Also while I'm clearing things up
OA never posted on this forum begging for anything. There was a thread started by a community member, as there has been for many other things over the years. But that was over 8 years ago and this community and Frontier are very different to those days.You may disagree with how Frontier chose to handle those situations certainly, but the reality is quite different to those two throwaway remarks.