Modes Reimagining Open Mode

[Ian Skippy]

You lose your gank ship and it's gone - no insurance.
Disabling the IFF marks that ship permanently, not just after commiting a single crime.

It's a giant red flag - this guy is potentially out to get you but if you get them, it's costly for them - in credits and engineering time.

I still think that you dont fully appreciate the current system. Suppose the average trade conda costs 120m cr with a rebuy of 120*.05=6 million. That means if I kill you in my corvette I get 6m added to my bounty. That is tied to me, not my ship. If I would hang around a CG for an evening I would already have a bounty beyond the cost of my entire ship. And I'd have to pay that no matter which ship I was in when I get killed. I'll be blocked from stations, will eventually lose hundreds of millions of credits. Meanwhile my 'victims' would have suffered a tiny rebuy due to the notoriety reduction and simply have made slightly less profits during the CG.

Now if you're really saying that all mods are permanently gone, then that is so extreme you might as well drop the pretense of a compromise and suggest PvP is fully banned. Seriously, as a non-griefer, open-only player, current C&P is heavily biased towards 'the victim'. Anyone who wants it more strict either doesnt understand the current system or has some psychological issue with the concept of people shooting their ship.

As for red flag: if you're flying in Open at a cg amd a big Cutter named BigHater92 is aiming for you, with a dude wearing make up and a purple wig, some alarm bells should start ringing. Really. Its not as if griefers are super sneaky about their intentions...

 

[MadDogMurdock]

I still think that you dont fully appreciate the current system. Suppose the average trade conda costs 120m cr with a rebuy of 120*.05=6 million. That means if I kill you in my corvette I get 6m added to my bounty. That is tied to me, not my ship. If I would hang around a CG for an evening I would already have a bounty beyond the cost of my entire ship. And I'd have to pay that no matter which ship I was in when I get killed.

Now if you're really saying that all mods are permanently gone, then that is so extreme you might as well drop the pretense of a compromise and suggest PvP is fully banned.

That is what I'm saying.
I've also provided specific arenas for competitive PvP, so roll back your drama.

What I'm suggesting creates a choice - you can continue to pursue one-sided asymmetric combat in a completely OP combat-engineered ship, but at the risk of losing it.
Alternatively, choose a cheaper ship with less time invested for those fun and games - level the field a little.

You're actually spot on about the red flags - that's actually the primary reason I fly in PG.
It's not the threat - it's the l337 crew and their pre-teen antics.
I honestly only see ship loss as something that would give them a second thought.

I have promoted Open PvE as well, but I'm wondering if there is another way.
These guys want to play sociopath - let them, but as pariahs at their own risk with no recourse whatsoever.

 

[Ian Skippy]

That is what I'm saying.
I've also provided specific arenas for competitive PvP, so roll back your drama.

What I'm suggesting creates a choice - you can continue to pursue one-sided asymmetric combat in a completely OP combat-engineered ship, but at the risk of losing it.
Alternatively, choose a cheaper ship with less time invested for those fun and games - level the field a little.

You're actually spot on about the red flags - that's actually the primary reason I fly in PG.
It's not the threat - it's the l337 crew and their pre-teen antics.
I honestly only see ship loss as something that would give them a second thought.

I have promoted Open PvE as well, but I'm wondering if there is another way.
These guys want to play sociopath - let them, but as pariahs at their own risk with no recourse whatsoever.

You already have severe consequences for asymmetrical combat ships that are far more likely to be enforced than your proposal, and choosing cheaper ships for murdering people is already rewarded. As someone who actually plays in Open: thanks for the effort invested in the suggestion, but it would completely destroy the purpose of Open and change it into Mobius+. Its not really 're-imagining Open', but almost replacing it with PvE Open except for some tiny PvP corners. I get you dont like Open, but this isn't much of a solution to people who like what Open is now, and how FD envisions Open.

Honestly, if the current system is not to someone's liking, and they want even more draconian punishments and even less consequences to traders, then they simply dont like the very core concept behind Open. Which is fine, but any re-imagining will just cripple Open to the point of not existing.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

You already have severe consequences for asymmetrical combat ships that are far more likely to be enforced than your proposal, and choosing cheaper ships for murdering people is already rewarded. As someone who actually plays in Open: thanks for the effort invested in the suggestion, but it would completely destroy the purpose of Open and change it into Mobius+. Its not really 're-imagining Open', but almost replacing it with PvE Open except for some tiny PvP corners. I get you dont like Open, but this isn't much of a solution to people who like what Open is now, and how FD envisions Open.

Honestly, if the current system is not to someone's liking, and they want even more draconian punishments and even less consequences to traders, then they simply dont like the very core concept behind Open. Which is fine, but any re-imagining will just cripple Open to the point of not existing.

It's really not Mobius+.
In Mobius+ those antics would just not be possible - that has an attraction to many players and in the absence of an alternative that's the mode I would choose.

However, in this thread I'm actually leaning towards the argument that OK, space is dangerous and psychopaths do exist.
But, in this particular setting they have a massive target on their back and everything to lose.

PvP is absolutely a valid gameplay style, so please don't paint me as an extremist.
I don't think anyone has an issue with consensual PvP in evenly matched ships.
The support for Open PP suggests there may well be an appetite to run the gauntlet of asymmetric combat in support of PP objectives.
And being consensual, what really is the issue with it needing to be a defined space or a defined commitment?

It's the non-consensual PvP that proves a bit more problematic.
That is almost always asymmetric.
There are certainly many players who accept that additional risk and enjoy it - thus making it consensual.
There are many others who find it distasteful full stop and will never take part.

But there's also a third group.
I'm trying to find a way to separate the griefers from the RP pirates.
I genuinely think that there are players who would accept the risk if the risk of piracy was far higher than the risk of gank (I admit that risk is actually usually grossly overstated).

If there's a sweet spot that discourages ganking in favour of piracy, I'd be far more likely to engage in Open and accept the RP risks.

So, for once, let's not fall into forum stereotypes and labelling and maybe discuss the issues instead.

 

[Ian Skippy]

It's really not Mobius+.
In Mobius+ those antics would just not be possible - that has an attraction to many players.

I'm actually leaning towards the argument that OK, space is dangerous and psychopaths do exist.
But, in this particular setting they have a massive target on their back and everything to lose.

PvP is absolutely a valid gameplay style, so please don't paint me as an extremist.
I don't think anyone has an issue with consensual PvP in evenly matched ships.
The support for Open PP suggests there may well be an appetite to run the gauntlet of asymmetric combat in support of PP objectives.

It's the non-consensual PvP that proves a bit more problematic.
That is almost always asymmetric.
There are certainly many players who accept that additional risk and enjoy it - thus making it consensual.
There are many others who find it distasteful full stop and will never take part.

But there's also a third group.
I'm trying to find a way to separate the griefers from the RP pirates.
I genuinely think that there are players who would accept the risk if the percentage piracy was far higher than the percentage gank.

If there's a sweet spot that discourages ganking in favour of piracy, I'd be far more likely to engage in Open and accept the RP risks.

I dont think we differ that much on perspective, so let me explain a bit more what my 'issue' is with the proposal: currently random psycho murder is already heavily punished, whereas piracy without murder is pretty much not punished at all. So anyone who is currently a griefer is unlikely to become a pirate with your proposal anyway. People currently griefed at CGs and such are nearly always killed because they have poorly outfitted ships for going into 'danger zones', pay little attention in SC and have no plan for what to do when interdicted. I frequently do trade CGs in my Hauler. You can try to grief me all day long in whatever ship you want; you'll fail (until I get too drunk maybe ). People who make the above mentioned mistakes are not going to be safe from griefers with your proposal either; I can easily get some boys together in A-rated but non-modded Vipers and wack those T9 commanders all day long. And it gets worse: even if I would lose my Viper after every single kill, I would still be less punished than I would be if i would take my griefconda against the same T9s in the current C&P system.

And now some other consequence of your system: I can follow your Corvette hi-wakes all day long, trolling you around in a myriad of ways in my sidey. And if at some point you'd get annoyed to much and want to just shoot me already, you'd have to toggle the IFF and risk your entire ship forever just to get rid of trolling me. I can follow you into hazres and keep flying in front of your lasers. I can keep trying to get in your way when you boost towards a station. I can bait you into becoming a murderer in any way I want, and there is nothing you can without switching the IFF and becoming 'a criminal' just because you want to deal with me obviously trolling you for all to see.

I just dont think your proposal will limit the griefing, or provide an incentive towards traders to protect themselves better. It will allow creative trolls to have a field day, limit the meaning of anarchy systems etc.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

I dont think we differ that much on perspective, so let me explain a bit more what my 'issue' is with the proposal: currently random psycho murder is already heavily punished, whereas piracy without murder is pretty much not punished at all. So anyone who is currently a griefer is unlikely to become a pirate with your proposal anyway. People currently griefed at CGs and such are nearly always killed because they have poorly outfitted ships for going into 'danger zones', pay little attention in SC and have no plan for what to do when interdicted. I frequently do trade CGs in my Hauler. You can try to grief me all day long in whatever ship you want; you'll fail (until I get too drunk maybe ). People who make the above mentioned mistakes are not going to be safe from griefers with your proposal either; I can easily get some boys together in A-rated but non-modded Vipers and wack those T9 commanders all day long. And it gets worse: even if I would lose my Viper after every single kill, I would still be less punished than I would be if i would take my griefconda against the same T9s in the current C&P system.

And now some other consequence of your system: I can follow your Corvette hi-wakes all day long, trolling you around in a myriad of ways in my sidey. And if at some point you'd get annoyed to much and want to just shoot me already, you'd have to toggle the IFF and risk your entire ship forever just to get rid of trolling me. I can follow you into hazres and keep flying in front of your lasers. I can keep trying to get in your way when you boost towards a station. I can bait you into becoming a murderer in any way I want, and there is nothing you can without switching the IFF and becoming 'a criminal' just because you want to deal with me obviously trolling you for all to see.

I just dont think your proposal will limit the griefing, or provide an incentive towards traders to protect themselves better. It will allow creative trolls to have a field day, limit the meaning of anarchy systems etc.

You point about who gets griefed is noted and I largely agree.

The IFF change I'm suggesting is not a toggle - it's a permanent change to your ship, requiring you to go somewhere and actively disable it.
Once done, that ship is flagged permanently.

As for the C&P costs, they do mount up, but let's be honest many of the players we're talking about have used every exploit in the book and have almost unlimited credits.

As for the meaning of Anarchy, let's explore Piracy a little more.
At its core, piracy is about stolen goods.

Create a system of Marques - sell enough stolen goods at a Black Market and get offered a Marque.
That would be something like a stolen goods wing mission.
Return X amount of stolen goods in Y amount of time and get a reward above and beyond the sell price.
However, do not generate too much heat.
If your Notoriety goes over Z, your Marque is cancelled and the criminal equivalent of ATR will KoS you.
Vary Z according to the security level.

As far as other means of trolling goes, that will never stop - the block feature is the ultimate sanction for attery.
However, the IFF would mitigate the 'get in the line of fire' troll at least, although that does create a different method of trolling - target blocking.

At least offer some ideas of your own - or do you think Open is perfect as it is?

 

[kofeyh]

How far does that go to providing something for everyone?

It assumes the only negative input is being directly shot at. Given the shear amount of posts about every conceivable way people can lose a ship and how hellaciously evil that is? Frontier would play an endless game of whack-a-mole. The only certainty that can be provided for zero interaction in this scenario, is to 'ghost' players (ie ships would fly through each other, no collisions, no interaction, nothing). The end.

Frontier have limited choices, today. They are, very simply:

- split the BGS between solo/pg and open, or
- default to a ghosted PVE mode, with dedicated PVP instances, or
- accept that neither of these are viable five years on and adapt mechanics as best possible

They can fundimentally break the back of the game (split the BGS), or have ghost-based PVE (essentially people can wing up but there is zero interaction possible) like every other multiplayer game. This would be fairly catastrophic on player counts initially, and there is zero guarantee the counts would bounce back. Change can be good. Massive architectural shifts? Entirely unpredictable. And is Frontier, honestly, going to risk it?

Frontier has elected option the third; maintain a single BGS (which is the architectural linchpin at this point) and adapt mechanics the best they can. The notion that the genie can be stuffed back into the bottle, surely, ignores that it really can't be. They are essentially stuck with a model and five years on, the appetite for potentially completely rebuilding it into an entirely new structure, which opens up all sorts of issues for people who've previously purchased, is likely simply not there.

The best Frontier can do now, is recognise fundamental issues, just like power-play's mode outcome imbalance, and address it. Make those hard decisions. And get them done. It's simply not trivial at this juncture to entirely change the basic premise of the game. Issue, really, has never been a lack of ideas here. It's just the game is built in a way that requires that it's back is broken, and the player base massively, massively shocked and the entire thing rebuilt, to achieve almost any of them.

And as my signature so eloquently quotes (really DocPossible's comment is one for the ages) there needs to be some reasonable consideration and understanding here. You have some solid ideas. The reality of the thing, however, still has to be understood.

Frontier are struggling to meet existing commitments; they've delayed the mining update detail, so folks kinda have to think about what is realistically achievable given the landscape.

--

Let me give a bit of a context here for why I don't see this as much of an issue to solve as others might.

Yesterday, a kindly content delivery expert sent my Type-9 to Valhalla. A little irksome, and it cost me ~2 mil to re-buy (as ~3mil was discounted due to the unsanctioned kill). So Frontier has already massively adjusted the costs associated with loss. In the space of two runs, I had completely repaid the loss of both ship and cargo. It's the first time I'd actually been destroyed in a while.

I had more ongoing issues with Frontier's new market comparison functionality trolling me, than the single content delivery expert. Because I had quite a few comparison totals that were simply wrong on arrival. No idea how often they actually poll the BGS to cache market data for the new trade tools, but imho it needs to be way more often. Seeing half, or less, of estimated profit is just depressing.

Oh, and the AI that tried to jam me in the mail-slot of one station; not speeding, got a fine anyway and hey imagine that I am now unable to access that stations services; I elected not to return, and the specialist destroying my ship actually cleared that fine so saved me having to drop everything just to clear the damn thing. Swings and roundabouts?

Given the costs to me have tumbled if I lose a ship, the content delivery specialist earned a gnarly bounty and probably had ATC to content with, never mind a hiked rebuy price? I think Frontier have honestly balanced the books fairly well there.

tl;dr - Frontier's own trading tools cost me more lost profits than the single content delivery expert did; so what are we trying to solve?

I think folks have become a little obsessed with a thing, and do so almost to the exclusion of all else. At this point I have more interest in the developer improving the experience, over endless obsession with other players behaviour. I'm hoping the developer shares that view; that the game itself probably needs more focus than solving something that's mostly solved already.

 

[DaggerSnake]

Obviously there have been loads of posts about Open, PP, Open PvE, etc. recently.
Sifting through the chaff and gathering my thoughts I came up with the following ideas to perhaps create an unlikely one-size fits all Open:

1. By default, all players are part of the Pilots' Federation and their ships are fitted with an IFF device that prevents fire on other PF members with an IFF device.

2. To provide meaningful PvP, this device is partially disabled when a player commits to one of the following scenarios:
--- Picks a side in a CZ - the IFF device allows fire on PF members who have picked the other side.
--- Pledges to a PP Power - the IFF device allows fire on PF members pledged to an opposing power.

3. A player can disable their IFF device at specific locations (e.g. Black Markets, Engineers, something new):
--- The IFF on that ship can never be reenabled
--- IFF disabled ships are identifiable on the scanner
--- Disabling the IFF is a crime - a passive ship scan by a PF member displays a Wanted status with a PF Bounty
--- Disabling the IFF device revokes the PF insurance scheme - no rebuy available
--- Significant loss on selling the ship

How far does that go to providing something for everyone?

The missing piece is support for genuine piracy - some kind of workaround that only works in Anarchy or Low Security environments?

I think it's a good list.

1. The Pilots Federation is the single thing in the game that separates players from NPC's. It does have an ingame design in the form of hollow markers, so using that to decouple NPC from CMDR fire seems logical in lore. You're ship shouldn't be able to fire on a fellow Pilot's Federation unless there is a reason that circumvents weapon lock protocols.

2. I think that the list of encounters that disable the weapons lock is pretty straightforward, you have a good start.
---opposing CZ sides
---hazardous REZ site
---anarchy system (piracy happens in these)
---low security system, but security is slower (piracy happens)
---target is has WANTED status
---target has status HOSTILE (pp related)

For Piracy you need to have Traders willing to take risk. For risk you need reward. There is no way to balance the trader side of a pirate/trader encounter without upsetting the "all modes equal" concept. If we say Piracy can happen in Anarcy or Low sec, then there should be at least one weekly CG in addition to all the others that is all about Pirate/Trader gameplay. These should be in OPEN and should pay out huge for Traders. Goods being delivered should be worth WAY WAY more and can also be turned in by Pirates. ALso, just make goods self destuct with ships.

The thing is, it's easy to make a game have meaningful PvP, but what about players who aren't really interested in playing Elite, but just want to annoy people in the real world and are using the game to do it? That's what keeps alot of people from OPEN.

 

[znôrt]

Frontier are struggling to meet existing commitments; they've delayed the mining update detail, so folks kinda have to think about what is realistically achievable given the landscape.

this is the sad truth. the pp-open-only probe is an exciting prospect, but if they even go through with that it will bring several more issues on the table. some of them messy, none impossible to fix but then it's all about priorities and resources. it's a challenge, and it will be a big temptation to just carry on adding superficial features and ignoring the fundamental issues as long as a playerbase big enough keeps up with that. many seem to just not want to realize that elite is now just a fraction of frontier's interests.

 

[kofeyh]

this is the sad truth. the pp-open-only probe is an exciting prospect, but if they even go through with that it will bring several more issues on the table.

I would rather they try positive moves, and give it a shot; than entertain the endless navel gazing around open and player behaviour, that is an endless pit. Frontier have already approached C&P with far more consequence; and based on my interaction last night, it was actually the least of my issues game experience wise, to be fair. I wouldn't have said that prior to 3.0.

The inaccurate data for trading (which is otherwise actually quite well done) cost me more than my rebuy. So I tend to think at this point folks are just churning the water for the sake of it.

There is an over-abundance of opinion on solving open, which all essentially boils down to simply removing a portion of the player base by ostensibly removing the floor from under people. Which isn't going to happen. Ergo, focus on areas that can lead to positive gains, is more constructive and it's pretty clear Frontier are heading in that direction now (partly why some of the conversation has become one-way; it needed to be).

PP changes are solid and would provide more purpose to conflict; which is a solid win for most everyone. It also better clarifies the purpose of modes, where solo is purely engaging PVE, and Open a broader approach with mechanics that structure combat. They have delayed other, quite important work for the C&P changes, which seem pretty solid now they have bedded in. The station fine-as-bounty is irksome but if that's the extent of my dramas, I can live with that fine.

Squadrons. Mining. Exploration. And now power-play. All areas that are ripe for solid, constructive improvements adding a lot more replay value. We are already at the stage of diminishing returns for C&P, imho. I'm glad to see Frontier are moving on a bit and just focusing on improving the experience. It's a promising sign (as is seeking more constructive, broader feedback). My views on Frontier have improved markedly of late. Again, I'd not have said that prior to 3.0 either.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

I think it's a good list.

1. The Pilots Federation is the single thing in the game that separates players from NPC's. It does have an ingame design in the form of hollow markers, so using that to decouple NPC from CMDR fire seems logical in lore. You're ship shouldn't be able to fire on a fellow Pilot's Federation unless there is a reason that circumvents weapon lock protocols.

2. I think that the list of encounters that disable the weapons lock is pretty straightforward, you have a good start.
---opposing CZ sides
---hazardous REZ site
---anarchy system (piracy happens in these)
---low security system, but security is slower (piracy happens)
---target is has WANTED status
---target has status HOSTILE (pp related)

For Piracy you need to have Traders willing to take risk. For risk you need reward. There is no way to balance the trader side of a pirate/trader encounter without upsetting the "all modes equal" concept. If we say Piracy can happen in Anarcy or Low sec, then there should be at least one weekly CG in addition to all the others that is all about Pirate/Trader gameplay. These should be in OPEN and should pay out huge for Traders. Goods being delivered should be worth WAY WAY more and can also be turned in by Pirates. ALso, just make goods self destuct with ships.

The thing is, it's easy to make a game have meaningful PvP, but what about players who aren't really interested in playing Elite, but just want to annoy people in the real world and are using the game to do it? That's what keeps alot of people from OPEN.

This seems fair - I'm trying to be reasonable and still keep that opportunity to become a rogue pilot, but to somehow separate that from piracy.

The unstated thing about piracy that no-one really touches on is that it shouldn't be a complete free for all - criminal gangs should be very protective of their turf.
They should be the means by which you can go about your piracy - with the proviso that the goal is to bring back the goods without generating excess attention from whatever authority exists, if any.
If you're blundering about and reducing their opportunities, then maybe there should be repercussions from them.

I think where I'm trying to go is that in general the PF should be a coherent entity with rules of engagement.
Provide plenty of opportunity for consensual and RP-based PvP.
Try and make piracy more viable without adding griefer tools.
But still let people go rogue by disabling the IFF completely - but that acts like a permanent notoriety flag on that ship with potentially costly consequences.

 

[comdr0303]

Wen i first started playing this amazing game, i saw in the list of systems "sol" locked system and others like that. I was thinking (silly me) that these systems would be as safe as can be...sol system right !
Create whole systems where destroying someone is not tolerated, no agressive action permited at all. Then you will see howmany players would stay outside in the dangerzone...all this in open. I would never come out the safe zone and sell all my weapons that i never use anyway. I would lower my shields to a minimum and have more fuel/cargospace. Let's see who would complain then, again. As i read in another topic, no players from elite will change to open if not yet done so, get to other games and bring new gamers to open, ask what they think of it.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

As I have stated before, I have no problem about violence if it is done for valid reasons. Pirating someone, powerplay, doing some needed CG job, bounty hunting, consensual duel, self defence. Only real problem in open are those players who are ruining about every big world multiplayer game. Those who just concentrate on attacking other players with no valid reason. Especially now when developers had closed down fastly most means to make money quickly. Think about this you have slowly grinded money for three last game sessions, something like 20 million. Now then comes merry group of big space heroes, blasting your ship under five minutes to rebuy screen, costing you 30 mil. So for you their five minutes of "fun" made 10 million loss, and you lost effectively your last three game sessions, and some more.

That kind of costs would not be problematic, if you can make something 100 million with big ship and one three to four hour game session. But good luck with that. More time you need to just recoup losses, more "carebearish" you turn. Especially if you do not have 1-2 billions on bank account.

So perhaps that IFF scheme would be nice. (Even nicer would be establishing own mandatory group for identified murder trolls, where they can blast each other as much as they ever want.)

 

[Morbad]

How far does that go to providing something for everyone?

The missing piece is support for genuine piracy - some kind of workaround that only works in Anarchy or Low Security environments?

It doesn't provide anything for anyone that wants a credible, organic, challenge and is missing far more than support for piracy.

I do not like pitched battles. I do not go out of my way for duels or tournaments. If people cannot attack my CMDR without me explicitly allowing it, the game is essentially over for me.

 

[JohannStrauss]

Which is patently false. If a notorious 'griefer' kills your little PvE ships the following will happen:

1) The victim's rebuy is drastically reduced.
2) The bounty on the attacker is drastically increased (if my corvette butchers your T9, I'll easily get 5 million per kill added to my bounty!)
3) Docking rights are revoked, and if the player keeps it eventually the majority of the bubble will be locked.
4) Insane OP uber-ships will haunt the attacker.
5) All the above wont stop until the attacker either pays his bounty (the total sum of all full insurance fees he caused, even those not payed by the victims due to the price reduction!) or his forced to pay it at a detention center.

There are already very serious penalties and costs to killing people in Open, far more than the victim faces.



This. But I do feel many people in Solo/PG dont appreciate the changes to C&P.

The best post in this thread. Al you say is true and I can subscribe to all of that.

 

[Jockey79]

Which is patently false. If a notorious 'griefer' kills your little PvE ships the following will happen:

1) The victim's rebuy is drastically reduced.
2) The bounty on the attacker is drastically increased (if my corvette butchers your T9, I'll easily get 5 million per kill added to my bounty!)
3) Docking rights are revoked, and if the player keeps it eventually the majority of the bubble will be locked.
4) Insane OP uber-ships will haunt the attacker.
5) All the above wont stop until the attacker either pays his bounty (the total sum of all full insurance fees he caused, even those not payed by the victims due to the price reduction!) or his forced to pay it at a detention center.

There are already very serious penalties and costs to killing people in Open, far more than the victim faces.



This. But I do feel many people in Solo/PG dont appreciate the changes to C&P.

I must admit, I didn't know points 1 and 2 had been brought in.

And you're right, some folks don't appreciate what has been done with C&P, I think it is because somep arts of it were not advertised as much as some other parts of it.
Like me not knowing about points 1 and 2. I've not seen that documented but I had seen about points 3 - 5.

If it's okay with you, I'd like to link this post on "The Wall of Information" please? - as I feel it is useful information for folks.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I must admit, I didn't know points 1 and 2 had been brought in.

And you're right, some folks don't appreciate what has been done with C&P, I think it is because somep arts of it were not advertised as much as some other parts of it.
Like me not knowing about points 1 and 2. I've not seen that documented but I had seen about points 3 - 5.

If it's okay with you, I'd like to link this post on "The Wall of Information" please? - as I feel it is useful information for folks.

You may want to check/link to this as well:
https://support.frontier.co.uk/kb/faq.php?id=423

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

While my attitude towards wanton killing had begun to change long ago, the C and P update further reinforced my desire to be more thoughtful in regards to applying violence.

There have been three instances under the latest C and P rules where I've gone outside my normal rules of engagement to include non-PowerPlay pledged Commanders. Each of those times earned me bounties in the neighborhood of 30-40 million credits. As my notoriety increased I became more selective in targets (why bother with a Sidewinder when a T-9 was rolling though?). After the operations concluded and my notoriety cooled off I paid off the bounties at my friendly neighborhood Interstellar Factor.

In a way it was very cool to have my choice validated, so to speak, by the C and P system. I know there are other outlaw types who have enjoyed similar textures to their gameplay.

Finally, bringing it back to the OP here, I'd very much like to see players take a more active and creative role in giving the C and P changes some real teeth and making Open dangerous for the outlaws as well. In my view, there are advantages provided that don't seem readily leveraged yet.

 

[Jockey79]

You may want to check/link to this as well:
https://support.frontier.co.uk/kb/faq.php?id=423

Nice one, thanks.

 

[jasonbarron]

While my attitude towards wanton killing had begun to change long ago, the C and P update further reinforced my desire to be more thoughtful in regards to applying violence.

There have been three instances under the latest C and P rules where I've gone outside my normal rules of engagement to include non-PowerPlay pledged Commanders. Each of those times earned me bounties in the neighborhood of 30-40 million credits. As my notoriety increased I became more selective in targets (why bother with a Sidewinder when a T-9 was rolling though?). After the operations concluded and my notoriety cooled off I paid off the bounties at my friendly neighborhood Interstellar Factor.

In a way it was very cool to have my choice validated, so to speak, by the C and P system. I know there are other outlaw types who have enjoyed similar textures to their gameplay.

Finally, bringing it back to the OP here, I'd very much like to see players take a more active and creative role in giving the C and P changes some real teeth and making Open dangerous for the outlaws as well. In my view, there are advantages provided that don't seem readily leveraged yet.

A kinder and gentler Phisto? I guess Hell does freeze over, occasionally.