Modes These arguments are tedious.

[Robert Maynard]

They are disadvantaged by their "choise" of activity. Blaze your own trail?

If they choose an optional activity then that was their choice.

To put it short :

• PP consolidation should be remade with squadrons in mind (as most people do PP in groups)
• "PvP" and "PvE" systems would be distributed by some parameters.
• PvP squadrons would not be able to affect PvE systems and vice versa.

For BGS, at least home system "type" should be determined by the owner.

1) Can you please provide a source for "(as most people do PP in groups)" - and do you mean groups of players or Private Groups?
2) All systems are PvE as all Factions are treated as NPC factions in terms of the BGS.
3) We don't know how Squadrons are going be implemented. There seems to be an assumption that they will be linked to Factions though - I'm eagerly awaiting the expected Focused Feedback threads on the topic.

It has been suggested, by me and others, that one way to offer the possibility for Open only gameplay could be to create new permit locked regions (one per platform), with new Powers, NPC factions, CGs, etc. and permit PvP player groups to have their Faction placed in them - the permit meaning that only players in Open would have access to the region associated with that platform.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

For BGS, at least home system "type" should be determined by the owner.

Interesting rherotic, but how would that work really?

Ok, you've got a PvP system, i've got a PvE system. You want to take my system, then you're going to have to PvE, which you don't want to do (presumably?). I don't want to PvP, so i'll simply not bother trying to take your system.

We end up with a status quo then.

There seems to be an assumption that they will be linked to Factions though - I'm eagerly awaiting the expected Focused Feedback threads on the topic.

I'm hoping they are. I'm suspecting they won't be.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

He asked it to get shut down because people wont take his crappy idea and talk about.

Yeah, he tried another subject for a change. Just in one thread. I did as well some time. Perish the thought. <Nope>

Please post those youtubes again 90s. I don't think 37 times is quite enough. They do add such novelty to the discussion. And don't forget to mention you got all the proof, the evidences, you're 100% right, we should put on our big boi pants, we will see, etc etc etc. Because that never gets old.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

If they choose an optional activity then that was their choice.



1) Can you please provide a source for "(as most people do PP in groups)" - and do you mean groups of players or Private Groups?
2) All systems are PvE as all Factions are treated as NPC factions in terms of the BGS.
3) We don't know how Squadrons are going be implemented. There seems to be an assumption that they will be linked to Factions though - I'm eagerly awaiting the expected Focused Feedback threads on the topic.

It has been suggested, by me and others, that one way to offer the possibility for Open only gameplay could be to create new permit locked regions (one per platform), with new Powers, NPC factions, CGs, etc. and permit PvP player groups to have their Faction placed in them - the permit meaning that only players in Open would have access to the region associated with that platform.

But I had suggested the same thing, right in my second post in this thread. This would be more than fine by me - I would haul all of my 30 weapon storage DBXes to Beagle point if this would happen. This is where PP and CqC money should have went to.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Interesting rherotic, but how would that work really?

Ok, you've got a PvP system, i've got a PvE system. You want to take my system, then you're going to have to PvE, which you don't want to do (presumably?). I don't want to PvP, so i'll simply not bother trying to take your system.

We end up with a status quo then.

Binary alliances. And control transfer. People of different... religions would not come in a single squadron, yet they would be forced to cooperate, but not confront.

And squadrons without control would be an another baby. Every, and I mean every, group of people come together to mutiply their power. Power can have different meaning, but it is what it is. Power translating into nothing is not power.


And I can stress that incentified in a specific way player ownership would be way better than lack of it. You can control something if you can create laws for it. If there would be no such mechanisms, people would make up their imaginary ones. And you can imagine outcomes of both ways.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Binary alliances. And control transfer.

How about: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...e-for-PvPers?p=6613890&viewfull=1#post6613890

"I still like my idea of splitting influence into civilian and military influence and using mega ships to increase military influence by show of force. If military influence exceeds civilian influence, it's under martial law, and the one with the highest military influence gets control. If the civilian influence is larger than military influence, the military doesn't have the presence to control a system and the one with the highest civilian influence gets control.

That way, every one in every mode interacts with each other, but their playing styles aren't limited. Also the often heard complaint you cannot defend your system against actions you can't see stops being an issue if you maintain a large military presence."

If you base your mega ship at home, it will be defended by the home defense system, so little risk to it. But if you want to project power towards other systems, it has to be deployed and becomes vulnerable to attacks.

The question becomes: Would you rather shoot traders like already happens at every single CG so no new gameplay is introduced, or attack or defend mega ships? Which do you think will result in the more memorable battles?

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

How about: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...e-for-PvPers?p=6613890&viewfull=1#post6613890

"I still like my idea of splitting influence into civilian and military influence and using mega ships to increase military influence by show of force. If military influence exceeds civilian influence, it's under martial law, and the one with the highest military influence gets control. If the civilian influence is larger than military influence, the military doesn't have the presence to control a system and the one with the highest civilian influence gets control.

That way, every one in every mode interacts with each other, but their playing styles aren't limited. Also the often heard complaint you cannot defend your system against actions you can't see stops being an issue if you maintain a large military presence."

If you base your mega ship at home, it will be defended by the home defense system, so little risk to it. But if you want to project power towards other systems, it has to be deployed and becomes vulnerable to attacks.

The question becomes: Would you rather shoot traders like already happens at every single CG so no new gameplay is introduced, or attack or defend mega ships? Which do you think will result in the more memorable battles?

But wouldn't it be the same as current state?
It would need a group of PvP players hired by fdev to protect interests of PvE players, to somehow make a anti-PvP defence spectacle.
So why not introduce mercenary PvP factions? Which would be a sort of binary alliance.

Oh, and by the way, I am not talking on 50-50 distribution here. It should actualy reflect distribution of player group types.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

How about: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...e-for-PvPers?p=6613890&viewfull=1#post6613890

"I still like my idea of splitting influence into civilian and military influence and using mega ships to increase military influence by show of force. If military influence exceeds civilian influence, it's under martial law, and the one with the highest military influence gets control. If the civilian influence is larger than military influence, the military doesn't have the presence to control a system and the one with the highest civilian influence gets control.

That way, every one in every mode interacts with each other, but their playing styles aren't limited. Also the often heard complaint you cannot defend your system against actions you can't see stops being an issue if you maintain a large military presence."

If you base your mega ship at home, it will be defended by the home defense system, so little risk to it. But if you want to project power towards other systems, it has to be deployed and becomes vulnerable to attacks.

The question becomes: Would you rather shoot traders like already happens at every single CG so no new gameplay is introduced, or attack or defend mega ships? Which do you think will result in the more memorable battles?

This doesn't make any sense. We want a war not an Olympic sport where you match by weight categories like combat vs combat and trader vs trader.

Besides, it will be the same thing now, PvP is harder so it will be more efficient to grind trade in solo. Same as we have with PP atm, which failed miserably btw.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This doesn't make any sense. We want a war not an Olympic sport where you match by weight categories like combat vs combat and trader vs trader.

You want a war, which is to you is lining up traders who are running the BGS? You don't want to face other combat ships, because you might be destroyed yourself. And that's no fun is it? Because gaining a 200 mil bounty in Erevate shooting sidey after sidey is more your kind of thing, and you would like more of that please. I know Al. I was hoping those who actually enjoy challenging PvP might like the idea.

If you had actually read what I wrote, I'm not matching by categories, those categories happen organically. What do you need to attack a big ship? Combat ships. What do you need to defend your big ship? Combat ships. So yeah ... my proposal would mean that those who wish to engage in the PvP side of things, do face some danger themselves. They even might need to heroically sacrifice themselves to let others achieve a military goal.

Besides, it will be the same thing now, PvP is harder so it will be more efficient to grind trade in solo. Same as we have with PP atm, which failed miserably btw.

That all depends on the amount of military influence doesn't it?

And the way you play PvP it's dead easy. Even a total PvP noob as I am could play your game. Take a buttload of time to rank up, buy a combat ship, engineer up to the eyeballs and target traders.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Binary alliances. And control transfer. People of different... religions would not come in a single squadron, yet they would be forced to cooperate, but not confront.

And squadrons without control would be an another baby. Every, and I mean every, group of people come together to mutiply their power. Power can have different meaning, but it is what it is. Power translating into nothing is not power.


And I can stress that incentified in a specific way player ownership would be way better than lack of it. You can control something if you can create laws for it. If there would be no such mechanisms, people would make up their imaginary ones. And you imagine outcomes of both ways.

I can see a use for squadrons without being tied to factions, but would prefer they are. They might be good as bases for explorers, or just places for groups to move around in. In fact, there might be good reasons for them not to be tied to factions to allow more roaming gameplay style.

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

I don't see why those who bought the game because it was not guild-controlled, pvp-focused eve-in-cockpits style gameplay should have the game we bought fundamentally changed to suit those who want a different game.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

You want a war, which is to you is lining up traders who are running the BGS? You don't want to face other combat ships, because you might be destroyed yourself. And that's no fun is it? Because gaining a 200 mil bounty in Erevate shooting sidey after sidey is more your kind of thing, and you would like more of that please. I know Al. I was hoping those who actually enjoy challenging PvP might like the idea.

If you had actually read what I wrote, I'm not matching by categories, those categories happen organically. What do you need to attack a big ship? Combat ships. What do you need to defend your big ship? Combat ships. So yeah ... my proposal would mean that those who wish to engage in the PvP side of things, do face some danger themselves. They even might need to heroically sacrifice themselves to let others achieve a military goal.


That all depends on the amount of military influence doesn't it?

And the way you play PvP it's dead easy. Even a total PvP noob as I am could play your game. Take a buttload of time to rank up, buy a combat ship, engineer up to the eyeballs and target traders.

Ah, I had not answered a second question.

Thing is, my activity for tonight was consistent of chasing wanted FDLs on my Clapper. And I had to chase as I could not get a 1v1 because other people like me did the same stuff.

But, PP and BGS aside, there is more to Open vs Solo problems. Allow me to try and explain.
From the starting Sidey, I was dead set on getting to top of the grindwall and get into PvP faster. Still, I had visited some stuff in the Bubble, and whirled in Jackson's Lighthouse for a bit.

I was playing in the open, got to Viper 4 in 30 hours, which I had chosen over Cobra cause of centerline seat, continued spamming haulage missions untill I got to T6 and started to haul rares.

I came across PvP pirates many times, but t6 is uninterdictable, although my connection at that time was pretty bad so I were pulled a couple of times. It was a pure joy to give them a finger each and every time.
One time things got hairy, and I still remember my panting when I got out with 5% of hull. I might add, getting away from a pirate is a way more "happy" fun than getting away from the "murderer" but latter is expirience nontheless (I highly recommend for every griefer to copypaste some catchphrase at least before getting to murder. This would improve expirience alot and would improve opinions about you in turn. Please.)

But, one day, I didn't manage to get away and got scrapped, along with two hours of my progression. Then it happened again. And then I understood that there is nothing to be gained for that risk. There are no gains for choosing harder way, and understood how much time I had lost. And I went Solo. But I had ruined my game experience with that. It become a plain and boring grind, so I had dropped haulage ASAP. And that is the problem I want to present as well.

A bit more to that.
After that, i got Vulture and started BH, then graded it into FDL (SCREW that cockpit! I cannot fly it without an eyepatch or my right eye bleeds), then dropped it like it's hot for a T9 (about same expirience... i think they moved drop point or increased manoeuvrability of it in SC, piloting that thing was pure torture) and began a Python.

But let me get to the chase. After that, I had learned about Fehu pole banging. Got a billion there in a week, as my ranks were pretty low.
But I got utterly burned out on that. And that is why such exploits are and should be removed. Because they harm game experience.

My point is: is not lack of incentives to play in Open and the money exploits are the same?

They both ruin game experience, and, IMO, should be dealt in exact same way.



Moreover, I would like to state that griefers, mostly as there is almost no one to pirate, are currently the pillar which holds this meaningless PvP together. So do not go overboard with cries about removing them from the game and getting them all a life sentence IRL.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My point is: is not lack of incentives to play in Open and the money exploits are the same?

They both ruin game experience, and, IMO, should be dealt in exact same way.

Moreover, I would like to state that griefers, mostly as there is almost no one to pirate, are currently the pillar which holds this meaningless PvP together. So do not go overboard with cries about removing them from the game and getting them all a life sentence IRL.

I'll start with the last thing first. No one is crying about removing PvP. The PvP feeling sorry for yourself section is here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php/218-PvP

About incentives to play in Open. It's human interaction. That is your incentive right now. Plus, I hear from our locals Open is alive and well, and doesn't need incentivizing. Added to that, people now chose upon their preference of play. Would I rather be flying by myself, among like minded people, or go with random encounters. If you incentivize one mode, people will chose that just for that incentive, not because they want to. Just as engineers is doing to a lot of CMDRs. They don't want to do engineering, but the incentive makes them do it against their preference.

People need to chose Open because they enjoy the open environment, so if you want to make open more appealing, it should be done through promotions, assistence (Rinzler's video comes to mind) so people will try it and stay if they like it.

edit: By the way, just saw your reply to my initial post, I'm on it!

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

I'll start with the last thing first. No one is crying about removing PvP. The PvP feeling sorry for yourself section is here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php/218-PvP

About incentives to play in Open. It's human interaction. That is your incentive right now. Plus, I hear from our locals Open is alive and well, and doesn't need incentivizing. Added to that, people now chose upon their preference of play. Would I rather be flying by myself, among like minded people, or go with random encounters. If you incentivize one mode, people will chose that just for that incentive, not because they want to. Just as engineers is doing to a lot of CMDRs. They don't want to do engineering, but the incentive makes them do it against their preference.

People need to chose Open because they enjoy the open environment, so if you want to make open more appealing, it should be done through promotions, assistence (Rinzler's video comes to mind) so people will try it and stay if they like it.

About all people who start ED do start in Open. Then, move away from it to either mode after loosing something over nothing.
So would 5% increase in space peso earned be not appropriate? Modes are unbalanced, and I imagine most people would choose either stability or that 5% extra reward. It can be done as an additional flag in ship's computer. Thing is, choise is dead clear at the moment...


... but let's not derail.

In your idea of territorial gameplay, what would be PvP players doing against PvE ones?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But wouldn't it be the same as current state?
It would need a group of PvP players hired by fdev to protect interests of PvE players, to somehow make a anti-PvP defence spectacle.
So why not introduce mercenary PvP factions? Which would be a sort of binary alliance.

Oh, and by the way, I am not talking on 50-50 distribution here. It should actualy reflect distribution of player group types.

No, you misunderstood. It's optional. And I must add, it involves squadrons and mega ships, and no one knows how they are implemented. So this is just an illustration of how you could integrate PvE and PvP factions.

For instance, you're a PvP group. You want to get involved in BGS. You get a faction somewhere. With your squadron you bought a mega ship. As long as your mega ship is in port at home, it is well defended. Another faction can't just come over and destroy or damage your mega ship. The same time, it is delivering military influence into your home system, so PvE factions will have a hard time influencing this, since military influence can be used against civilian influence. Think of it as border control, and surveillance from space.

For the best results, you will have, as you opted, alliances between PvE and PvP factions so they can cooperate in swaying systems.

Now, if you want to project your military power, you can send your mega ship to the system you want to project power to. But your ship will be less effective, so it can't just overpower other systems. But you could try to cause a military coup, or martial law or something like that. Hopefully, the PvE faction notices this and will be tempted to chase away your mega ship. Thus luring them into Open, or trying to get an alliance with another PvP faction. But that also is optional since they can also opt to work the BGS for extra civilian influence. The populace won't be controlled and will start rebelling against military oppression. That sort of thing. PvP kills on either side should weigh heavy on influence as well. Winning confrontations is great propaganda after all.

Mind, this is example is full of holes, because it's not a blueprint but an illustration how you could have PvP and PvE mechanisms operating side by side, have them work cooperative and adversarial. No features are removed from any player, features are added.

edit: done editing now

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

No, you misunderstood. It's optional. And I must add, it involves squadrons and mega ships, and no one knows how they are implemented. So this is just an illustration of how you could integrate PvE and PvP factions.

For instance, you're a PvP group. You want to get involved in BGS. You get a faction somewhere. With your squadron you bought a mega ship. As long as your mega ship is in port at home, it is well defended. Another faction can't just come over and destroy or damage your mega ship. The same time, it is delivering military influence into your home system, so PvE factions will have a hard time influencing this, since military influence can be used against civilian influence. Think of it as border control, and surveillance from space.

For the best results, you will have, as you opted, alliances between PvE and PvP factions so they can cooperate in swaying systems.

Now, if you want to project your military power, you can send your mega ship to the system you want to project power to. But your ship will be less effective, so it can't just overpower other systems. But you could try to cause a military coup, or martial law or something like that. Hopefully, the PvE faction notices this and will be tempted to chase away your mega ship. Thus luring them into Open, or trying to get an alliance with another PvP faction. But that also is optional since they can also opt to work the BGS for extra civilian influence. The populace won't be controlled and will start rebelling against military oppression. That sort of thing. PvP kills on either side should weigh heavy on influence as well. Winning confrontations is great propaganda after all.

Mind, this is example is full of holes, because it's not a blueprint but an illustration how you could have PvP and PvE mechanisms operating side by side, have them work cooperative and adversarial. No features are removed from any player, features are added.

edit: done editing now

But, would not PvP players fighting NPCs most of the time. Or murdering PvE players?

That is what is the flaw here, unless I got something wrong.

A bit more on how I view it.
Different types of PvP and PvE squadrons.
I know for sure that PvP should consist of mercs, military, and pirates. Even then, there could be PvE (stealthy pirates/terrorists) and police (PvE military). And balancing points would be the ... influence is is busy, but, here and after, it is another type of influence.

Attacking system would require moving your megaship and choosing course of actions.
PvP can take PvE methods and reversed, but unnatural course of action would result in increased infuence costs.

• For PvP factions, military would gain most points for attacking other PvP factions directly, as well as defending PvE. Nuff said. Look at Admiral lore, they do dafq they want.
• Pirates would get most points by attacking PvE factions. They are here not because PvE should suffer, but because you can balance their effectiveness. Otherwise, some mil faction would roleplay pirates, and nothing will change.
• Mercs would get most points by helping other factions against attackers or hepling to attack, but not entirely at their expense. They should be least influential ones, although you still should be able to build some sort of Diamond Dogs.

Influence spent on capture of uncontrolled systems, and you have to wage it for every conflict. Maybe for something more, like more capitals in the future. Controlled systems generate influence by their own.

There should be a cap on usable influence, which would increase after balancing.

Edits edits edits... sorry


Oh, and when attack is not retailiated in needed(either PvE or PvE) type of actions, influence would bleed, and fortifying by facition of other type would only slow down the inevitable capture. That is what we are both missing.
Mercs presence would not let die out neglected by military factions easy. And PvE factions would be more influential and numerous.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But, would not PvP players fighting NPCs most of the time. Or murdering PvE players?

That is what is the flaw here, unless I got something wrong.

Nope. Why would they? Both types of influences can be countered by the other. So you can always choose your preferred play style to counteract.

A bit more on how I view it.
Different types of PvP and PvE squadrons.
I know for sure that PvP should consist of mercs, military, and pirates. Even then, there could be PvE (stealthy pirates/terrorists) and police (PvE military). And balancing points would be the ... influence is is busy, but, here and after, it is another type of influence.

Attacking system would require moving your megaship and choosing course of actions.
PvP can take PvE methods and reversed, but unnatural course of action would result in infuence costs.

• For PvP factions, military would gain most points for attacking other PvP factions directly. Nuff said. Look at Admiral lore, they do dafq they want.
• Pirates would get most points by attacking PvE factions. They are here not because PvE should suffer, but because you can balance their effectiveness. Otherwise, some mil faction would roleplay pirates, and nothing will change.
• Mercs would get most points by helping PvE factions against every attacker. They should be least influential ones, although you still should be able to build some sort of Diamond Dogs.

Influence spent on capture of uncontrolled systems, and you have to wage it for every conflict. Maybe for something more, like more capitals in the future. Controlled systems generate influence by their own.

Important for me is:
- Interaction between all players, where all players can choose how to interact.
- The choice should be based on preference, not a X% bonus. This can be tied into the mechanic.

I'm not going into detail, but I think your proposal meets those as well. Quite similar to mine as far as I can see. We know too little about how Squadrons en mega ships to make details proposals I feel.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Nope. Why would they? Both types of influences can be countered by the other. So you can always choose your preferred play style to counteract.


Important for me is:
- Interaction between all players, where all players can choose how to interact.
- The choice should be based on preference, not a X% bonus. This can be tied into the mechanic.

I'm not going into detail, but I think your proposal meets those as well. Quite similar to mine as far as I can see.

Small changes were made.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

turn and face the strange

Small changes

Don't want to be a richer man

See, different solutions possible. Vast arrays of solutions.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Oh, and when attack is not retailiated in needed(either PvE or PvE) type of actions, influence would bleed, and fortifying by facition of other type would only slow down the inevitable capture. That is what we are both missing.
Mercs presence would not let die out neglected by military factions easy. And PvE factions would be more influential and numerous.


Whatever, i do not think I can flesh out such concept on the fly.
But that is to illustrate that player control is not necessary bad, and that EvE was designed to be EvE.

And I seriously need to rest.