What do you guys think of a minimum timer locking you in for conflict zones and powerplay zones?

I imagine that if a group of friends meet up for a chat at the OP's house, and then someone suggests that they go down the pub, they might be a bit startled to find that he's locked them all in and swallowed the key.

And a bit perplexed on being told that this is due to their failure to understand the rules of social interaction, or their cowardice. Or that everything will be OK next time if they bring sleeping bags.

But first let's discuss how to bar the windows to stop them getting out that way. Hey, isn't this exciting!
 
I imagine that if a group of friends meet up for a chat at the OP's house, and then someone suggests that they go down the pub, they might be a bit startled to find that he's locked them all in and swallowed the key.

And a bit perplexed on being told that this is due to their failure to understand the rules of social interaction, or their cowardice. Or that everything will be OK next time if they bring sleeping bags.

But first let's discuss how to bar the windows to stop them getting out that way. Hey, isn't this exciting!

My friends have concealed carry permits and proper reloads to fit them.

Im pretty sure we would be just fine.
 
Does leaving, and thereby conceding, a CZ count as a transaction against the faction you declared for? That wouldn't be open to abuse at all.

Well the other side would have the complete the conflict zone by filling the bar. No matter what. One side has to complete the zone and fill the bar up to win it.

I don't really see how this could be abused. It takes both sides to be active in the fight. If one side is not fighting for it. Then they would concede the zone and lose the %'s because the opposing group completed the objective and got a free win.

The goal would be to farm and win the zone by thinning the conflict zone so you can eventually fight the other side without the Aggord NPC's helping them. There would be strategic times to strike.

This is why working together, team comps, skill and communication would come into play.
 
Last edited:
Honestly you don't really need to force people to stay in the instance anyway. If the goal is to encourage people to stick around for protracted periods of time, the mere existence of scenario objectives can accomplish this. All Frontier has to do is make the scenario objectives much more important than the combat bonds (or not even *start* awarding combat bonds until an objective has been completed, with exponentially increasing payout multipliers for each subsequent objective completed).

If it worked that way, people would have to stick around long enough to achieve these objectives and will be reluctant to bug out at the first sign of human opposition. What's more, if the mere *arrival* of a player-controlled opposing force causes them to leave the instance and lose the progress they've made towards completing their objectives, then the opposing force will in fact have secured a very real "victory" by driving them out, whether they fire a shot or not.

The problem right now is if you're doing BGS work the "smart" thing to do is still to do lots and lots of hit-and-run sorties and turn in 2-3 kills worth of bonds each time. And then for credit farmers the thing to do is just roll on weak ships to raise the kill count for those massacre missions. But if completion of objectives, and winning the little bar graph tug-o-war were the only thing that moved the BGS needle, and if combat bond payouts were somewhat tied in to this same system, you wouldn't need to "trap" players in a CZ. Instead, scaring someone away would be nearly as beneficial as killing them, and running away would be almost as much of a "loss" as being shot down.
 
Last edited:
Honestly you don't really need to force people to stay in the instance anyway. If the goal is to encourage people to stick around for protracted periods of time, the mere existence of scenario objectives can accomplish this. All Frontier has to do is make the scenario objectives much more important than the combat bonds (or not even *start* awarding combat bonds until an objective has been completed, with exponentially increasing payout multipliers for each subsequent objective completed).

If it worked that way, people would have to stick around long enough to achieve these objectives and will be reluctant to bug out at the first sign of human opposition. What's more, if the mere *arrival* of a player-controlled opposing force causes them to leave the instance and lose the progress they've made towards completing their objectives, then the opposing force will in fact have secured a very real "victory" by driving them out, whether they fire a shot or not.

The problem right now is if you're doing BGS work the "smart" thing to do is still to do lots and lots of hit-and-run sorties and turn in 2-3 kills worth of bonds each time. And then for credit farmers the thing to do is just roll on weak ships to raise the kill count for those massacre missions. But if completion of objectives, and winning the little bar graph tug-o-war were the only thing that moved the BGS needle, and if combat bond payouts were somewhat tied in to this same system, you wouldn't need to "trap" players in a CZ. Instead, scaring someone away would be nearly as beneficial as killing them, and running away would be almost a sort much of a "loss" as being shot down.

True. But the issue is there is TOO MUCH running away. There is not enough time for interaction even if you pull someone from super cruise. A full wing can grom people twice and not kill anything with the way engineering works right now. And its not because the players are bad. These are the best players in the game experiencing these problems.

This is why shield booster nerf was brought up many moons ago.

There has to be some platform for winning and losing an instance. Rebuys need to be important in wars. Not only is the group affected. But your personal skill is affected.

IF you're just hitting and running all the time. You're always running and never losing anything yourself. And never really stopping them from completing the goals against you, both sides need to be capable of losing. This happens way too much in this game. They still get to turn in their objectives.

These conflict and power play zones are the perfect platform for this.

My issue is if people can just drop in and out at any time, even while in open play. You can instance with specific friends and ignore the people working the same zone that's technically in the same place. Avoiding conflict all together from other commanders.

Removing tons and tons and TONS of gameplay that could be available. Just in these conflict zones alone.

Again the goal is to keep them there for a little while. Not forever. You just shouldn't be able to nope out right away.

The worst that happens is people see the rebuy screen. Thats really not a big deal once we get into these late game activities against one another we are talking about here.

There is no consequences in this game for losing. And no one really loses on either side.
 
Last edited:
Well the other side would have the complete the conflict zone by filling the bar. No matter what. One side has to complete the zone and fill the bar up to win it.

I don't really see how this could be abused. It takes both sides to be active in the fight. If one side is not fighting for it. Then they would concede the zone and lose the %'s because the opposing group completed the objective and got a free win.

The goal would be to farm and win the zone by thinning the conflict zone so you can eventually fight the other side without the Aggord NPC's helping them. There would be strategic times to strike.

This is why working together, team comps, skill and communication would come into play.

You don't see how it could be abused? Do you really think all other players are so daft that they won't think of declaring for the side they're really against and then running away to purposely damage the score for that side?
 
You don't see how it could be abused? Do you really think all other players are so daft that they won't think of declaring for the side they're really against and then running away to purposely damage the score for that side?

Again, you have to be active and fill the bar. You cant do that running away can you?

Fill the bar for the other side, and you can hurt yourself.

However, there are times my group has lost wars on purpose because we did not want to expand into a certain area.
 
Last edited:
I play co-op in league of legends against another team thats playing co-op against me.

I play co-op in counter strike against another another team thats playing co-op against me.

I play co-op in guild wars 2 against other groups that are playing co-op against me.

I play co-op in escape from tarkov against other players playing against me.

I think we both know how this would work. So lets stop with the poking and prodding okay?

That is not co-op.... just ask the other side...
 
My issue is if people can just drop in and out at any time, even while in open play. You can instance with specific friends and ignore the people working the same zone that's technically in the same place. Avoiding conflict all together from other commanders.



so what is prohibiting players to do this with your system then? Drop in tag anyone on the "wrong" side as unwanted, wait the 15 seconds to logout, wait a little longer and log back in, and after a very short time, they do not have face any of you on the opposing side.... and now your suggested timer is basically useless....
 
so what is prohibiting players to do this with your system then? Drop in tag anyone on the "wrong" side as unwanted, wait the 15 seconds to logout, wait a little longer and log back in, and after a very short time, they do not have face any of you on the opposing side.... and now your suggested timer is basically useless....

This is an obvious fix im really not worried about.
 
what fix?

Don't bother with the details. Don't let them get in the way of my idea.

They have spoke several times about the Karma system, Combat logging, Timer changes and so on many times. I assume those would still be in the pipeline at some point and would come with whatever PVP content they decide to give us.

They even spoke about FSD cooldown changes at one point too. Long ago.

There are many ways to skin a cat. There are many ways to solve problems. Not everything has to stay the same as it is now :)

This game is going to change and change and change over the course of its lifetime. This game evolves as we play it.

Its pretty neat.
 
Last edited:
Its been answered multiple times thought this thread. Read.

Again, these conflict zones shouldn't be there to jump in and see if anyone is there so you get a quick farm unopposed against the people you would be at war with. Unless there is something to keep people in them. That's all that will happen.

People will do their best to reset the instance or go somewhere else where they cant be bothered.

People spazzing out about this being played in open should tell you this.

This game does not have compulsory PVP in any mode. You can always duck out - either by the built in mechanics or by non-punished logging. You're kind of asking for a feature change that's contrary to the design principles. As I said before, CZs aren't a requirement of your underlying premise which is to compel PVP without retreat upon instance entrance.
 
This game does not have compulsory PVP in any mode. You can always duck out - either by the built in mechanics or by non-punished logging. You're kind of asking for a feature change that's contrary to the design principles. As I said before, CZs aren't a requirement of your underlying premise which is to compel PVP without retreat upon instance entrance.

They seemed awfully interested with at least with powerplay. A Lot of this can apply to that alone.

Dont be afraid of change.
 
You don't see how it could be abused? Do you really think all other players are so daft that they won't think of declaring for the side they're really against and then running away to purposely damage the score for that side?

I think the idea is there is no direct penalty (bgs or otherwise) for leaving and conceding the battle, it's just that since you're no longer in the zone, you can't do anything to push the progress bar further in the direction you want. The "penalty" is an opportunity cost. If you pledge for the "other side" and leave, well, that would be the same thing as never showing up at all. So not really prone to abuse.
 
That 'we' you mention, it includes all of the posters here saying they don't like the idea. They are saying they don't want to use 'fly-paper' to get a fight.

Well, alot of these players really dont have lots of experience in certain places of the game either. So that's okay. And that's not their fault.
 
Back
Top Bottom