(info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP

[Mohrgan]

If you don't justify your perspective with rationality, of course I'm going to argue that there is a lack of reasoning behind statements.

<snip>

As long as there is competition and direct opposition, it's PvP. There are plenty of games where they have modes where opposing teams fight in PvE fashion that creates obstacle of the opposing team. Tera for one has exactly this sort of mechanic where the more PvE mobs one team defeats, the more difficult the opposing team has it in PvE. There is no Pk happening, but it's a PvP mechanic regardless because the final results and what matters for the said mechanic is PvP, not PvE. If we are all fighting in one faction against say thargoid, then it's PvE. But it's clearly not the case.

Desperate grasping. We will not unravel each others knots.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Desperate grasping. We will not unravel each others knots.

Well, I see you have no more arguments to present other than mere commentaries, your lack of understand as to what PvP means is inhibiting you from understanding the flaw in your argument.

 

[Globusdiablo]

The design focuses confuse me also. Over 50% of players currently have no interest in open and competitive pvp, another percentage are open to negotiation, and a similarly sized portion actually enjoy competitive pvp. Removing any solo player influence from PP would just make an unattractive game feature all the more unattractive. This is unhelpful, especially when the feature needs coercion to get people involved with it in the first place.

Just to be clear, no one beside FD know how many plays where, and they will never tell. I was just guessing as everyone else does on these matters.

 

[Arkadi]

Instance switching will always remain a problem. The thing Elite does, is to advert instance switching as a feature not a glitch. Ok that was sarcastic. Somehow I also like the slack and easy way of being able to switch to solo - just to have a relaxing time with no worrys about human adversaries.

That said, Powerplay really suffers the hardest for inconsequent instancing (or game mode switching if you like it better) and people doing really harmful stuff in solo mode, wher no one can really do anything against it (fifth columning). So I would advice to look at Sandros thread in powerplay and opt for the suggestions to vote for strong expansion systems (or veto against harmful ones).

In the current state of the game I see no real purpose in giving mulitpliers or bonus to people prefering one gamemode over another. If something could be done about that painful gamemode discussion I would propose to give them PVE players theire Open-PVE or go the other way and include all players in an open mode with pve-flag and pvp-regions...

Thats just my two cents ofc.

 

[Commander Biscuit]

Just to be clear, no one beside FD know how many plays where, and they will never tell. I was just guessing as everyone else does on these matters.

Yeah the results were from a forum poll. But given a large enough poll you might get an idea of the kind of player you are typically catering to.

FD should know their biggest demographic are balding old coots with a fondness for Star Trek, rather than the anime watching cod players of the modern gaming generation.

But videogame development is subject to Darwinism as much as any business. Elite is a great game but it's not doing as well as it should be.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Hello Commander Asp Explorer!

Clearly we would need mechanisms to prevent activities performed in Solo Play from being counted in Open Play.

Again, this is all hypothetical at the moment, but I think we would be able to achieve this.

Thanks again Sandro - but if you prevent activites performed in Solo from being counted in Open Play as far as Powerplay only is concerned - then in my humble opinion you'll need to make Powerplay Open Only. As soon as a CMDR pledges to a Power - they'll have to be in Open until they abandon that Power.

That may sound hypocritical of me - and in a way it is - but to me it's the only mechanism that appears to be compatible with keeping "all the modes are equally valid", and "Powerplay is explicitly designed to be competitive in nature, where Commanders are mechanically pinning their colours to the mast, so to speak."

Even with an enforced Open Only for Powerplay (which many seem to have wanted) - it would still be open to abuse. Players with no interest in Powerplay but still interested in the BGS will remain in whichever mode they prefer - and the ability to effect change in the BGS would have to remain equal in all modes. You would need to provide some reason for players to participate in Powerplay, and credits and shiny things simply don't cut it with many.

 

[Globusdiablo]

Yeah the results were from a forum poll. But given a large enough poll you might get an idea of the kind of player you are typically catering to.

FD should know they're mostly catering to balding old coots with a fondness for star trek, rather than the anime watching cod players of the modern gaming generation.

But videogame development is subject to Darwinism as much as any business. Elite is a great game but it's not doing as well as it should be.

I would suggest that hardly one percent of those who bought the game visit this forum, and even voted on a poll. (Again not knowing - I think the numbers are out there for how many bought the game and how many visit this forum regularly) But I hear what your getting at.

Oddly I think Elite: Dangerous has a lot of potential as a PvP game as well as Group and Solo (see what I did there ), but it doesn't seem as though FD saw this polarising coming during development.

In my opinion it should be/have been one universe or 3(4) completely separate universes. With pros and cons and all.

I still enjoy this game immensly. The visible roadmap, or lack thereof, bothers me sometimes though.

 

[DaveB]

But this equality that people seem to champion for so much was completely non-existent under a competitive scope of examination. This change if anything attempts to bring balance to the mechanic.

That's a fair point and I agree with it to a very limited extent although I do not agree with where you extrapolate it to.

To date, the ONLY way to have a real impact on the BGS, on Powers, on anything at all persistent in the ED galaxy, is indirectly. This is achieved completely by PvE mechanics and while you can impede folks from doing so by PvP play, pirate the traders, shoot down the mercenaries and bounty hunters, you can't actually STOP them that way. The only way you can is by being better PvEers than they are.

This is competitive and in that regard the modes are indeed equal. If I were so inclined I would move on from that point to dismiss your entire argument based on your mistaken conflation of "competition" with "PvP" - however I think what you're saying is a little deeper than that.

Players compete in different ways. Some players don't "compete" against others at all. Some use their credit balance as a way of keeping score, for others it's their kill count or the progress of a particular power or faction. PP is, if you discount CQC, the only part of ED that pits players directly against others - even more so than joining a CZ on one side or the other. In that respect your argument holds water and should be considered. Arguing against that propagating beyond such a situation to the extent that it breaks the "equal PvE competition" of players in multiple modes, multiple instances is not incompatible with what you are saying.

Wanting a "bonus" for simply being in open mode (as opposed to taking out Cmdrs in a combat scenario rather than NPCs, which can also happen in private groups) DOES fly in the face of mode equality and will be opposed much more vehemently. Any "bonus" or "penalty" should be based on what you do, not what mode you do it in. If you should choose to play in a way that means you can't do something that gets you that bonus, well that's on you not the game. If taking on Cmdrs in a combat mission, CZ or PP scenario is worth more to me then I'm fine with not getting that bonus in a mode where I cant do what will get me that bonus.

It has to be what you DO, not what your game settings are. For as long as that is the case the modes remain "equal". Change it and you break that.

 

[Commander Biscuit]

I would suggest that hardly one percent of those who bought the game visit this forum, and even voted on a poll. (Again not knowing - I think the numbers are out there for how many bought the game and how many visit this forum regularly) But I hear what your getting at.

Oddly I think Elite: Dangerous has a lot of potential as a PvP game as well as Group and Solo (see what I did there ), but it doesn't seem as though FD saw this polarising coming during development.

In my opinion it should be/have been one universe or 3(4) completely separate universes. With pros and cons and all.

I still enjoy this game immensly. The visible roadmap, or lack thereof, bothers me sometimes though.

If you don't believe the forums represent the playerbase, that's even more reason to ignore the complaints that go on around here from small despised minorities of players asking for things to be shifted in their favour.

Polls and forums aside, the Elite franchise has a long established playerbase of now older gamers, FD know who their players are, or I would hope. And they should know how older gamers feel about being either forced into pvp or have their participation in the game removed. Wanting to make everyone happy is admirable and should be commended, but they should know that you can't make everyone happy in online gaming, that's just how it is.

 

[JosiahD]

Pk is not PvP, it is a part of PvP, a mere aspect to it. The overall mechanic of PP remains as a PvP mechanic. Not seeing players in Open very often is precisely due to the unequally incentivized modes under competitive examination of the modes, now that there is actual equality, we will start seeing more players.

Seeing little players and the impossibility of seeing players are two different stories.

I would argue the opposite - for MOST PvPers, combative player-on-player PvP IS exactly all PvP is, not merely a part of it. For MOST of the PvPers who post on these forums, I would argue that playing PvE mechanics to get their fix of PvP doesn't even come remotely close to what PvP 'is' for them, based on the language many use. I think we both agree that PP has a PvP objective (Power competition being driven by opposing player behaviour and actions), but the mechanics for executing it are PvE focused (ie player actions influencing the BGS behind each Power, countering the PvE actions of other players), not combative PvP. But it's only those PvE mechanics that most see - because PP participants can participate in PP without actually ever seeing or encountering their opposing players, even in open, for them it is PvE and it might as well be NPCs on the other side. And thence there is almost no difference between the modes - if they don't see other players in open just because of the P2P and matchmaking, which is my experience, what's the point of an incentive? Overt combative PvP combat actually has little to do with PP in the main, even though PvP combat is what most PvPers want. Incentivising PP to favour open play won't have the effect some desire. Those that have no interest in combative PvP won't suddenly switch to open, to be targets for combative PvP zealots, simply because of an incentive to do so - and the alternative of making PP open-only would be in direct conflict with all 3 modes being equal, a state promoted previously as being effectively set in stone. Discussing options is fine, and I would expect Frontier to discuss it as part of the ongoing design process, but implementing it is a different matter.
.
Those that seem to think that encouraging people to play PP in open (by incentivising open participation over the other modes) will somehow suddenly enable them to instead use combative PvP as their principal method to directly oppose player PP actions need to remember that because PP is based around PvE mechanics (to indirectly achieve PvP), the most effective way to oppose other player actions is in fact by playing those same PvE mechanics themselves to promote their Power's cause, not hope that the P2P and matchmaking will provide them targets for combative PvP. And for that, the mode played is irrelevant. Playing PvE mechanics to achieve a PvP effect/outcome is NOT what I perceive most PvPers want (and that's fair enough I might add) - they simply want targets to shoot, and THAT'S the underlying reason why some want such incentivisation of activities open, not some generous desire on their part to make PP more effective.

 

[GluttonyFang]

That's a fair point and I agree with it to a very limited extent although I do not agree with where you extrapolate it to.

To date, the ONLY way to have a real impact on the BGS, on Powers, on anything at all persistent in the ED galaxy, is indirectly. This is achieved completely by PvE mechanics and while you can impede folks from doing so by PvP play, pirate the traders, shoot down the mercenaries and bounty hunters, you can't actually STOP them that way. The only way you can is by being better PvEers than they are.

This is competitive and in that regard the modes are indeed equal. If I were so inclined I would move on from that point to dismiss your entire argument based on your mistaken conflation of "competition" with "PvP" - however I think what you're saying is a little deeper than that.

Players compete in different ways. Some players don't "compete" against others at all. Some use their credit balance as a way of keeping score, for others it's their kill count or the progress of a particular power or faction. PP is, if you discount CQC, the only part of ED that pits players directly against others - even more so than joining a CZ on one side or the other. In that respect your argument holds water and should be considered. Arguing against that propagating beyond such a situation to the extent that it breaks the "equal PvE competition" of players in multiple modes, multiple instances is not incompatible with what you are saying.

Wanting a "bonus" for simply being in open mode (as opposed to taking out Cmdrs in a combat scenario rather than NPCs, which can also happen in private groups) DOES fly in the face of mode equality and will be opposed much more vehemently. Any "bonus" or "penalty" should be based on what you do, not what mode you do it in. If you should choose to play in a way that means you can't do something that gets you that bonus, well that's on you not the game. If taking on Cmdrs in a combat mission, CZ or PP scenario is worth more to me then I'm fine with not getting that bonus in a mode where I cant do what will get me that bonus.

It has to be what you DO, not what your game settings are. For as long as that is the case the modes remain "equal". Change it and you break that.

However "what you do" is incorporated into Open mode, in choosing Open, you choose to face the possible encounter of enemy Cmdr, whereas you choose not to if you play in Private/Solo (private is a controlled environment where you can very much invite only your friends that will not oppose you, this is a control Open does not have).

 

[Deathwatch]

Ok making changes like this before fully implementing the player minor faction portion of powerplay is a sure way to wreak the whole system. Sure powerplay does suffer from 5th columning and poorly thought out rules, but to make changes before having the players factions and a proper anti powerplay (freedom fighters) implemented is only going to cause problems when they do get implemented.

I think this would work brilliantly for the freedom fighters aspect it was the first thing that i thought of when reading sandro's suggestion.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I would argue the opposite - for MOST PvPers, combative player-on-player PvP IS exactly all PvP is, not merely a part of it. For MOST of the PvPers who post on these forums, I would argue that playing PvE mechanics to get their fix of PvP doesn't even come remotely close to what PvP 'is' for them, based on the language many use. I think we both agree that PP has a PvP objective (Power competition being driven by opposing player behaviour and actions), but the mechanics for executing it are PvE focused (ie player actions influencing the BGS behind each Power, countering the PvE actions of other players), not combative PvP. But it's only those PvE mechanics that most see - because PP participants can participate in PP without actually ever seeing or encountering their opposing players, even in open, for them it is PvE and it might as well be NPCs on the other side. And thence there is almost no difference between the modes - if they don't see other players in open just because of the P2P and matchmaking, which is my experience, what's the point of an incentive? Overt combative PvP combat actually has little to do with PP in the main, even though PvP combat is what most PvPers want. Incentivising PP to favour open play won't have the effect some desire. Those that have no interest in combative PvP won't suddenly switch to open, to be targets for combative PvP zealots, simply because of an incentive to do so - and the alternative of making PP open-only would be in direct conflict with all 3 modes being equal, a state promoted previously as being effectively set in stone. Discussing options is fine, and I would expect Frontier to discuss it as part of the ongoing design process, but implementing it is a different matter.
.
Those that seem to think that encouraging people to play PP in open (by incentivising open participation over the other modes) will somehow suddenly enable them to instead use combative PvP as their principal method to directly oppose player PP actions need to remember that because PP is based around PvE mechanics (to indirectly achieve PvP), the most effective way to oppose other player actions is in fact by playing those same PvE mechanics themselves to promote their Power's cause, not hope that the P2P and matchmaking will provide them targets for combative PvP. And for that, the mode played is irrelevant. Playing PvE mechanics to achieve a PvP effect/outcome is NOT what I perceive most PvPers want (and that's fair enough I might add) - they simply want targets to shoot, and THAT'S the underlying reason why some want such incentivisation of activities open, not some generous desire on their part to make PP more effective.

What many people don't understand those of us whom serve groups do it because we enjoy playing with other people, I want to support my group in its system and its background sim, I also want to be able to help our combat pilots with being an additional fodder.

The suggestion would mean that people working together could feel that they are having an effect compared to those whom decide not to interact with others, I came to this game for the Roleplay and the Simulation, I found that the universe was soft once the game came out, people preferred to be away from others after the Alpha, I can't understand that why would you not want to have the chance of meeting someone to fight alongside, Ive made friends that way and the reason I keep playing is because another group of friends took me in and asked me to come play with them and ever since ive been with them.

 

[DaveB]

However "what you do" is incorporated into Open mode, in choosing Open, you choose to face the possible encounter of enemy Cmdr, whereas you choose not to if you play in Private/Solo (private is a controlled environment where you can very much invite only your friends that will not oppose you, this is a control Open does not have).

I'm a member of several groups - only one prohibits PvP and only one (a different one) is "mine" and includes only the folks I invited. That's too simplistic to fly, sorry. Heck, my "own" group of friends doesn't prohibit PvP and I've had memorable fights with my buddies when we ended up on opposite sides of a conflict, just we have when we ended up assigned to opposing teams by the matchmaker in other online games. You're making an assumption there that is not borne out by reality.

 

[Globusdiablo]

...I came to this game for the Roleplay and the Simulation, I found that the universe was soft once the game came out, people preferred to be away from others after the Alpha, I can't understand that why would you not want to have the chance of meeting someone to fight alongside, Ive made friends that way and the reason I keep playing is because another group of friends took me in and asked me to come play with them and ever since ive been with them.

Emphasis mine.

But here's the rub. I appreciate that you don't understand it, but can you accept it as fact? Understanding is not a requisite of accepting.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I would argue the opposite - for MOST PvPers, combative player-on-player PvP IS exactly all PvP is, not merely a part of it. For MOST of the PvPers who post on these forums, I would argue that playing PvE mechanics to get their fix of PvP doesn't even come remotely close to what PvP 'is' for them, based on the language many use. I think we both agree that PP has a PvP objective (Power competition being driven by opposing player behaviour and actions), but the mechanics for executing it are PvE focused (ie player actions influencing the BGS behind each Power, countering the PvE actions of other players), not combative PvP. But it's only those PvE mechanics that most see - because PP participants can participate in PP without actually ever seeing or encountering their opposing players, even in open, for them it is PvE and it might as well be NPCs on the other side. And thence there is almost no difference between the modes - if they don't see other players in open just because of the P2P and matchmaking, which is my experience, what's the point of an incentive? Overt combative PvP combat actually has little to do with PP in the main, even though PvP combat is what most PvPers want. Incentivising PP to favour open play won't have the effect some desire. Those that have no interest in combative PvP won't suddenly switch to open, to be targets for combative PvP zealots, simply because of an incentive to do so - and the alternative of making PP open-only would be in direct conflict with all 3 modes being equal, a state promoted previously as being effectively set in stone. Discussing options is fine, and I would expect Frontier to discuss it as part of the ongoing design process, but implementing it is a different matter.

I would like to see citation as to the statistical claim that PvP players in ED counts PK as the only factor of PvP and all PvP encompasses. I've already given the example of Tera that hosts a PvP mode that uses PvE as a mean to conduct PvP, which I'm sure I can find more models in favor of that argument if necessary.

The reason why there was never equality is that Solo/Private mode were the rational choice to compete in this competitive PvP mechanic.

Those that seem to think that encouraging people to play PP in open (by incentivising open participation over the other modes) will somehow suddenly enable them to instead use combative PvP as their principal method to directly oppose player PP actions need to remember that because PP is based around PvE mechanics (to indirectly achieve PvP), the most effective way to oppose other player actions is in fact by playing those same PvE mechanics themselves to promote their Power's cause, not hope that the P2P and matchmaking will provide them targets for combative PvP. And for that, the mode played is irrelevant. Playing PvE mechanics to achieve a PvP effect/outcome is NOT what I perceive most PvPers want (and that's fair enough I might add) - they simply want targets to shoot, and THAT'S the underlying reason why some want such incentivisation of activities open, not some generous desire on their part to make PP more effective.

It isn't to use combative PvP as the primary element of PP but rather making combative PvP elements relevant again. And the completion of the PvE activities hinges on the interruption, allowance, nullification of combative PvP influence in Open. Hence why there is now a balance between the nullification of combative PvP activities and engagement of combative PvP activties. The latter is currently irrational in the light of the competition, which is why it needs to incentivised for the sake of equality in said competition.

Your analysis of PvPers' psychology is a loose one. Those that merely wish to engage in combative PvP know that they must be strategically defending/patrolling/striking a point of interest to be effective in escorting or disrupting PvE activties. In my time of being a coordinator, we had some very meaningful and organized PvP encounters. I think the reality of PP itself makes it clear to PvPers that the ultimate purpose is to secure or disrupt PvE activity for PP, those that seek combat PvP activtiy as a primary means to participate in PP are "blazing their own trails," since they can be classed as mercenaries.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I'm a member of several groups - only one prohibits PvP and only one (a different one) is "mine" and includes only the folks I invited. That's too simplistic to fly, sorry. Heck, my "own" group of friends doesn't prohibit PvP and I've had memorable fights with my buddies when we ended up on opposite sides of a conflict, just we have when we ended up assigned to opposing teams by the matchmaker in other online games. You're making an assumption there that is not borne out by reality.

But that those private groups where you have PvP occurring is within a controlled environment, only certain people are available. Hence there is a distinction.

 

[DaveB]

...But that those private groups where you have PvP occurring is within a controlled environment, only certain people are available. Hence there is a distinction.

Yes there is - but what we can do in those groups, to the BGS and to each other, along with what benefits we gain from doing it are exactly the same as in open. That's the essence of my contention that it has to be what you do, not what mode you're in.

 

[Bearcat]

That equality is flawed under a competitive scope of examination, what Sandro is doing is precisely to uphold the actual equality:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=237773&p=3669496&viewfull=1#post3669496

The fundamental problem is that there is no difference playing in open between a high sec system and an anarchy system. None whatsoever. I don't even bother to look at the security levels of systems because it is meaningless. this is what needs to be fixed.

 

[Arkadi]

It think its fact there are two intended ingame mechanics to avoid PvP combat totally, if one wants it, at any time: mode switching and exit to menu logging.

If this really is fact, it concludes to me that pvp-combat is purely optional and not game-decisive.

This would mean Elite does not support real strategic, combat oriented pvp - edit: this also would mean that pirating is total fuss.

The game does support a sandbox where playergroups can meet (if instancing lets them) and stage organized pvp battles (like in space-(p)reenactment groups)

Correct me if I am wrong.

The problem are groups who think 5th columning is fun... its not... and we should have means to counter them.

Also communication tools could be better ... there really could be some powerplay ingame message boards or chat systems - available for all instances / game modes and ofc optional to switch on and off... but thats a different story...

 

[Faybs]

The fundamental problem is that there is no difference playing in open between a high sec system and an anarchy system. None whatsoever. I don't even bother to look at the security levels of systems because it is meaningless. this is what needs to be fixed.

To be fair there is a difference, but it's really subtle - you have to be a smuggler to see it. If you're doing smuggling missions into an Antal controlled system odds are much higher that you're going to be interdicted by the fuzz. Other than that you're right - I've done lots of smuggling runs through Delaine space, which should in theory be a nightmare for a cargo ship full of high value loot, and I actually prefer it because it's much easier to sneak into starports. Before I reset my save I made a few hundred million smuggling in an anaconda (which should be ludicrous), security was that lax. I would get interdicted by pirates about as often as anywhere else (and CMDRs were nowhere to be seen).

 

[Commander Biscuit]

It think its fact there are two intended ingame mechanics to avoid PvP combat totally, if one wants it, at any time: mode switching and exit to menu logging.

If this really is fact, it concludes to me that pvp-combat is purely optional and not game-decisive.

This would mean Elite does not support real strategic, combat oriented pvp.

It does support a sandbox where playergroups can meet (if instancing lets them) and stage organized pvp battles (like in space-(p)reenactment groups)

Correct me if I am wrong.

The problem are groups who think 5th columning is fun... its not... and we should have means to counter them.

Also communication tools could be better ... there really could be some powerplay ingame message boards or chat systems - available for all instances / game modes and ofc optional to switch on and off... but thats a different story...

If pvp is just optional and not game decisive, then 5th columning is not a problem and doesn't need a counter. If solo underminers were actually making things unbalanced rather than just causing butthurt then they'd need a counter.