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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Beside some of the more noticeable bugs mentioned...there's a reason for that. I don't imagine you running around with as many hull reinforcements in your ship as you can, especially if in a Viper, whereas a lot of the players complaining about "no challenge" have things stacked way up their patooties. This stacking is threatening to de-stabilize the game for those who choose not to.
This is one of the core, fundamental problems this game has.
The Meta is stopping players from being able to play the game.

You're now feeling the effects of the shift in the same way I have to run with hull reinforcements when exploring local systems in an Asp Scout when I would like to have a buggy but I can die too fast to railgun packing Elite ships if I don't have reinforcements.

Playing in the weaker ships is becoming that much more difficult.

I will digress as this thread is about other things though.

Generally:
Simple solution to players putting all their fortifications into the closest system would be to cap it and since I'm feeling particularly evil today, just don't even warn, just don't reward.
I like the vote up / down expansions thing but as for the rest, you can't fix humans.
You can only stop them from doing things if you have the power to do so and that does not lie with me.

FYAQFQ5.jpg


The whole thing. Quality. 10/10.


I would argue that 4v1 gank-squad NPC's wouldn't be very fair in Solo.

I mean, they don't, not do that.


The other day for the Canonn CG, I had logged off in the ring the night before in group. Logged back on in Solo and was about 2km above the ring, looking at a wing of 3 Vipers.


Not exactly 4 FDL's, but, they're getting there.
 
Regarding the PP benefits, the most "fair" way of negating the "benefits" of playing in solo, is as others have said; remove the loss of turn in vouchers on death by another player. That way you're still playing in a preferred mode while not introducing an artificial benefit (above and beyond the already understood and accepted play mode differences) that forces people into other modes to gain.

All this fuss about favouring a mode when the solution is staring them right in the face. Improve the PvP-only aspects and everybody wins. For PP that's merits for player kills and no merit loss on death to a player. We should have opposing forces of players at military zones doing their PvP thing. Encourage the conflict and perhaps they will enjoy fighting each other rather than prowling empty space looking for barrel fish.

It's quite unfathomable why the Open crew aren't asking for real improvement to PP, instead of arguing for this pitiful bonus that will change things not one jot.
 
All this fuss about favouring a mode when the solution is staring them right in the face. Improve the PvP-only aspects and everybody wins. For PP that's merits for player kills and no merit loss on death to a player. We should have opposing forces of players at military zones doing their PvP thing. Encourage the conflict and perhaps they will enjoy fighting each other rather than prowling empty space looking for barrel fish.

It's quite unfathomable why the Open crew aren't asking for real improvement to PP, instead of arguing for this pitiful bonus that will change things not one jot.

The real dilemma is this:

1. If we implement mode bonus, can we catch people cheating their way to shut down p2p connection?

2. If we implement combative PvP bonus, can we do it in a way that doesn't allow abusive farming?

I call for a solution that incorporates both leaning more heavily toward the second.
 
I hope that Sandro puts all this into place and will stop people moaning about Solo and Private groups undermining those in open.
what will happen next will be to force players out of solo and private group by removing community goal contributions and payouts for Solo/private players.
then it will be to reduce payouts for Data gathered for explorers while in solo/private.

Naah, such lack of vision... I'll tell you what will happen next: CG's common goal track will advance faster if you deliver/play it in Open. But all commanders, whether solo or open, will still get their rewards exactly like before, according to how much you actually delivered in comparison to other commanders.

But in the end its not going to change anything, you are still going to get groups of players demanding that open belongs to them and making others their content, your still going to get player killers doing it for the lulz, and players will still moan that commanders are going into solo and private groups.
All this has already happened, and it will happen again... and again... and again...

The cycle cannot be broken.
 
All this fuss about favouring a mode when the solution is staring them right in the face. Improve the PvP-only aspects and everybody wins. For PP that's merits for player kills and no merit loss on death to a player. We should have opposing forces of players at military zones doing their PvP thing. Encourage the conflict and perhaps they will enjoy fighting each other rather than prowling empty space looking for barrel fish.

It's quite unfathomable why the Open crew aren't asking for real improvement to PP, instead of arguing for this pitiful bonus that will change things not one jot.

So, you're special when a trader who is fortifying is not?
Part of the problem is like I mentioned above. Traders doing the fortification, PvP players doing their thing but there is no competitiveness when these things collide.
Ships designed to kill are ridiculously OP against a trader.
And you wonder why players duck to Solo or Private.

How would you feel if you couldn't stack HR, SCB's or even rails if HR's had a bigger demand on a PP?
Maybe the focus should be more on piracy when a player gets a bonus for stealing things and returning them for a bonus?
Shocking players should have to free up some cargo space but that would help balance things.

FD could create dedicated Open PvP things like a Res or similar with a ruleset I won't fashion but in line with a PvP fashion, as in all about the kills.
Would that work?
 
Last edited:
The real dilemma is this:

1. If we implement mode bonus, can we catch people cheating their way to shut down p2p connection?

2. If we implement combative PvP bonus, can we do it in a way that doesn't allow abusive farming?

I call for a solution that incorporates both leaning more heavily toward the second.

1) FD would know something is wrong, but the actual reason for it wouldn't be known - which leaves FD in the situation of trusting people are not doing what I've pointed out, or risk punishing innocent people who have not done anything, but their hardware has UPnP off by default (as some do) or are on sucky internet with more than one person using it (like me).

2) I doubt it, player to player bounties had to be capped due to folks abusing it - so trying to get something worth players time to PvP for it without it being farmed, nope. As long as people have friends willing to help out.
 
1) FD would know something is wrong, but the actual reason for it wouldn't be known - which leaves FD in the situation of trusting people are not doing what I've pointed out, or risk punishing innocent people who have not done anything, but their hardware has UPnP off by default (as some do) or are on sucky internet with more than one person using it (like me).

Then do a preliminary check like the hardware inspection and record it, if something weird suddenly happens, then a punishment is called for.

Look, I don't want to punish people for having bad internet or outdated computer, but there are multiplayer aspects of the game that deserve just as much attention as solo player. If you are a multiplayer fan, I don't know what to say other than get better internet, not in a derogatory way. If you are a single player fan, I don't know why you would oppose this change nor worry about features of the game that you personally take no part in nor has any interest in taking part in.

2) I doubt it, player to player bounties had to be capped due to folks abusing it - so trying to get something worth players time to PvP for it without it being farmed, nope. As long as people have friends willing to help out.

If we figure out a manner to implement it, it might work, I'm going to brainstorm about it.
 
The real dilemma is this:

1. If we implement mode bonus, can we catch people cheating their way to shut down p2p connection?

2. If we implement combative PvP bonus, can we do it in a way that doesn't allow abusive farming?

I call for a solution that incorporates both leaning more heavily toward the second.
The second option could involve diminishing returns for repeatedly killing the same player within a short time frame to mitigate abuse. Also the bonus could be removed altogether if the ship being targeted is under a certain credit value.
 
Then do a preliminary check like the hardware inspection and record it, if something weird suddenly happens, then a punishment is called for.

Look, I don't want to punish people for having bad internet or outdated computer, but there are multiplayer aspects of the game that deserve just as much attention as solo player. If you are a multiplayer fan, I don't know what to say other than get better internet, not in a derogatory way. If you are a single player fan, I don't know why you would oppose this change nor worry about features of the game that you personally take no part in nor has any interest in taking part in.



If we figure out a manner to implement it, it might work, I'm going to brainstorm about it.

Unfortunately Mr Fang - really weird stuff happens on the internet all the time.

Routes come and go. Whole continents can be cut off (or incredibly congested) by fishermen. ISP's go bust, or throttle the snot out of their customers traffic, Windows can choke on new NIC drivers, all sorts of stuff.
 
I would argue that 4v1 gank-squad NPC's wouldn't be very fair in Solo.

I've had wings of up to 12 NPCs come after me in Open, not a Distress Signal either, so if you aren't seeing wings of 4 in Solo, there's a hell of a lot more imbalance going on than we realize between the modes, and Solo is definitely getting some special treatment in that case.

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

The second option could involve diminishing returns for repeatedly killing the same player within a short time frame to mitigate abuse. Also the bonus could be removed altogether if the ship being targeted is under a certain credit value.

Well, that doesn't open up a whole new can abuse now does it...just fly around in a Sidey, no value in killing that ship.

As for catching them shutting down their P2P connection, well, FD could simply enforce specific networking options, you change them, no connecting to their service. Don't like that, tough luck, they can do that you know, it's their service and they can set the exact network protocols required to connect to it. Wouldn't be the first time it's been done specifically to deal with players being players.
 
I've had wings of up to 12 NPCs come after me in Open, not a Distress Signal either, so if you aren't seeing wings of 4 in Solo, there's a hell of a lot more imbalance going on than we realize between the modes, and Solo is definitely getting some special treatment in that case.

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



Well, that doesn't open up a whole new can abuse now does it...just fly around in a Sidey, no value in killing that ship.

As for catching them shutting down their P2P connection, well, FD could simply enforce specific networking options, you change them, no connecting to their service. Don't like that, tough luck, they can do that you know, it's their service and they can set the exact network protocols required to connect to it. Wouldn't be the first time it's been done specifically to deal with players being players.

So 12v1 is fair?
I'd only expect that if I'd been really bad...and make like a banana and split.
Context would help.
 
Last edited:
Hello Commanders!

Lots of lively debate here, for sure, but let's keep things civil, please. I understand that this is an emotive subject, but remember, that's never an excuse for being rude.

So, just to let you folk know a little more of the reasoning behind the concept of an Open Play bonus, I thought I'd pop this out.

Elite Dangerous is a game where you can just as easily play solo, in groups or as part of a nation, as it were.

In general, there aren't mechanical befits within the game to push you towards one style of play over another.

However, there are a few aspects of the game that are specifically aimed at utilising the fact that the game has multiplayer facets, one of these is Powerplay.

Powerplay is unique in that it explicitly *enforces* adversarial multiplayer by making Commanders choose sides. You are no longer fighting against the vagaries of the galaxy; you are competing directly with Commanders pledged to opposing powers.

In addition, Powerplay has rules to handle direct Commander-Commander confrontation. Indeed, this is the core conceit: the system encourages justifiable piracy and homicide for a higher purpose. It’s my belief that Powerplay will always be at its best when opposing Commanders interact directly, whether in an expansion conflict zone or through interdiction.

So it feels natural (to me) to look at ways to encourage Commanders to use Open Play. However, It’s also fairly clear that human opposition is potentially, and generally speaking, much more of a significant threat than NPCs.

Now we have to consider probabilities. Yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that you might never run into a human opponent in a control system, even playing in open. The fact remains however, that you *might* instead run into several. And this is on top of the standard NPC threat, which is identical in all play modes.

What’s more, the more pledged Commanders that play in Open, the greater the likelihood there is of human interaction and conflict.

There are thousands of Commanders that engage to some degree or another in Powerplay. Some play in Open, some don’t. If we are successful in getting more Commanders into Open, then the potential for them bumping into each other could increase rather significantly.

And there’s another point to make here, that’s quite simple but also fairly undeniable, is that playing in Open you don’t just meet other Commanders pledged to Powers. You meet *all* other Commanders. That includes all sorts of scum and villainy (character persona only, of course).

So what would an Open Play Success bonus actually achieve? The idea is that it’s a reward for taking the additional risk, whether the risk actually manifests or not.

If you care about Powerplay, and care that you power does well in it, then playing in Open is a “force multiplier” for your Power’s strength.

If you generally play in a Private Group or in Solo, it’s also a gamble, because in addition to all the NPC challenges you have the possibility of opposing Commanders engaging you.

If you already play in Open then you could treat this bonus as a reward for working with the game to make it the best it can be for all involved.

As to the size of the bonus, well, that’s up for grabs. Clearly it would have to be reasonably large to have the potential to cause significant change, but I’m not too worried about the details of that at the moment, I’m more interested in what folk make of the concept in general.

Of course, it’s equally important to remember that this is, at the moment, just being raised as an idea, nothing more. Everyone’s opinion is equally valid, even in disagreement, and all feedback is useful.

Powerplay doesnt enforce adversarial multiplayer at all... it encourages solo play by those who dont want to play a multiplayer game for risk of a rebuy.

The Devs should be hanging their heads in shame for the current state of powerplay.
 
So, you're special when a trader who is fortifying is not?
...
FD could create dedicated Open PvP things like a Res or similar with a ruleset I won't fashion but in line with a PvP fashion, as in all about the kills.
Would that work?

For the first point, I think most fortifiers have fast tracked their allocations so if we could make the loss of that on death a bit less painful, maybe fortifiers won't mind getting blown up so much. Free re-allocation for losses due to enemy action or somesuch.

On things like RES, keeping with the PP theme we already have military strike zones except they're not optimised for PvP. I can't imagine many players will choose to fly out, get a few kills, get blown up by a player and lose their merits, come back with nothing... over and over again. It's a missed opportunity.

If we figure out a manner to implement it, it might work, I'm going to brainstorm about it.

I hope you can come up with some good ideas and FD listens to them.
 
Unfortunately Mr Fang - really weird stuff happens on the internet all the time.

Routes come and go. Whole continents can be cut off (or incredibly congested) by fishermen. ISP's go bust, or throttle the snot out of their customers traffic, Windows can choke on new NIC drivers, all sorts of stuff.

Damn it =-=, well, focus on the second more than the first then, as I suspected...

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

I hope you can come up with some good ideas and FD listens to them.

On it.
 
Context, ladies and gentlemen. Please observe the post I was responding to.


I know. I'm advocating that NPC's should also do that, on top of using tactics that players would use (like silent running, all-railgun builds).

Firstly, let me supply my definition of 'Gank-Squad'. I believe that a gank-squad is a wing of ships (usually 4) with specialized combat loadouts (i.e. silent running and all rail weapons) that hunt lone ships in supercruise with the intent of forcing an unbalanced combat encounter.

My reply was that this would be unfair in Solo. I didn't include the reason why, that it was because Solo doesn't have access to Wings, as I thought that would have been obvious.



I mean, they don't, not do that.


The other day for the Canonn CG, I had logged off in the ring the night before in group. Logged back on in Solo and was about 2km above the ring, looking at a wing of 3 Vipers.


Not exactly 4 FDL's, but, they're getting there.

Not what I would describe as a gank-squad. This is something I see all the time in/near a RES.

Get Solo players that NPC wingman now! I want it FD!

Edit:

In all seriousness, NPCs can use a substantial buff when that day comes.

I believe you knew what I was talking about :)

I've had wings of up to 12 NPCs come after me in Open, not a Distress Signal either, so if you aren't seeing wings of 4 in Solo, there's a hell of a lot more imbalance going on than we realize between the modes, and Solo is definitely getting some special treatment in that case.

No, I've never seen a roaming pack of 12 NPC's come sniffing around outside of a USS or Distress Signal. The most I've seen I think was a wing of 6, and that was in a RES, not in supercruise stalking me. They were in supercruise, and they interdicted you into a wing of 12? That must have raised the neck hair!

break break break

As I've said before, NPC's can be very dangerous when you're outnumbered. It's when its 1 on 1 they can be a bit of a push-over. And even then sometimes you run across a very capable and well out fitted NPC.
 
So 12v1 is fair?
I'd only expect that if I'd been really bad...and make like a banana and split.
Context would help.


Well, let me see, I wasn't wanted, anywhere for anything. I wasn't doing a mission. I had no cargo. I was flying along and got interdicted, ended up fighting a wing of 12 NPCs, it happens. I was fighting for a few moments before I realized that my sensors were showing a lot of targets and noticed the information on my target indicated he was 5 of 12, HW'd out fast. I've seen more in SS's and definitely more in Distress Signals. Wings of 4 to 8 aren't at all uncommon for me to face, and my Combat Rank isn't that high, Master I think, but I've been encountering those odds since shortly after I got out of my starter Sidey. I do play in Open, so, if that's not what you see in Solo.....
 
For the first point, I think most fortifiers have fast tracked their allocations so if we could make the loss of that on death a bit less painful, maybe fortifiers won't mind getting blown up so much. Free re-allocation for losses due to enemy action or somesuch.

No, as it stands there are plenty of players grinding merits just like others before them. One of the major problems the Devs flagged was that players aren't involving themselves in the PP "game", more just farming it.
Fix the easy mode farming, fix that partcular issue and it really is that simple. If the Devs don't expect a player to make a two or three jump run to gain merits then there really is no hope for this game. Finding things to do in this game is probably the most important thing and since they've said that moving players around the map is a good thing then how is forcing players to fortify other systems and experiencing others more a bad thing?
Dunno why they think only Solo players do it when organized PvP group members do exactly the same on a weekly basis...and usally in Solo or PG so yet again, GG humans.
However, if they effect change on the regular, unaffiliated players who just want to have a good ship then players will leave.
This rot started when they allowed certain things to reward more heavily than they should and that should never have happened.
And yea, PP is one thing, Robigo is another.

With regards Res sites of whatever nature. If you want to take the risk then you need to know when to leave. If they allow players to just stay till they die there will be plenty of complaints about ramming with no consequence and other things.
A player should know when to leave, it's part of knowing when you're outnumbered and try and protect your interests.
If you die you die, no special circumstances as it's a dedicated "kill or be killed, or run away" scenario.

I meant what I said in a dedicated PvP environment so it should be challenging and therefore have consequences. Having none on a purely competitive environment isn't competitive.
It would just become big ships farming everything else with no penalty whatsoever and that would be even more of a joke.

@ Kristov:
I play in Open and have done for a good few months but nice try to discredit.
Are you sure you didn't ask for it by having a bad rep in system or something like that?
I haven't had any similar issues ever beyond attacking a group of 8 for the lulz to test a FAS and it was fun..yet deserved.
I have dropped into 6v6's in a SSS but I killed the stronger side first which made things a bit more same. Worst I faced was 3v1 and 1 being almost destroyed.
Selective targeting thing and playing them against each other.
 
Last edited:
Powerplay doesnt enforce adversarial multiplayer at all... it encourages solo play by those who dont want to play a multiplayer game for risk of a rebuy.

The Devs should be hanging their heads in shame for the current state of powerplay.


More to the point, the current implementation of PP discourages people who are in Open from being in the same sector. People who play Open aren't usually the kind of people who enjoy Fortification, so basically everyone in Open is Undermining, like missiles passing each other in the air. And guess what, no is home to defend because there are no Merits supporting defensive combat. Apart from a few Combat CZ (Security Sweeps) this is fundamentally the exact same as playing Solo.

The only way I see this really working is if it somehow entices people to Fortify in Open, and if we also give some incentive for players who act as Military escorts for Cargo Fortification ships. This would allow for emergent defensive Wings in Open to be a viable strategy/tactic. Also as a back up mechanic, the NPC security in high Sec control systems needs to be johnny-on-the-spot with a rapid fire high power response to criminal undermining activity. Which means that PP NPC foreign agents that harass local traffic in core (high security) control systems should not be an issue. People shouldn't really be harassed by constant interdiction in High Sec systems by foreign agents anyway. That is as realistic as being chronically harassed by ISIS in downtown Houston.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom