General [MEGATHREAD] Rebalances and fixes for the progression system, risk/reward ratio, ingame learning curves, pvp, and more!

[PepelatziGravetzappa[ICU]]

the main goal of the game in the open is not to fill the bucket, but to prevent others from doing it. Thus, open players do not play the game at all, but only parasitize.

I'm open only BGS manager. but I respect any work of people in any mode

 

[PepelatziGravetzappa[ICU]]

The Federation of Pilots introduces criminal prosecution for all lawbreakers that will be detected at stations or caught by security forces. Violators will be demoted in rights and completely deprived of the opportunity to fly on any (+ their) middle and large class ships. They will be forced to fly only on small class ships until the status is completely corrected and their fine is eliminated.

 

[Decksmeck]

That was a very detailed and thoughtful post. Although it does address several balance issues, it seemed to assert that splitting the servers into more types is beneficial. On the premise that PVP would probably work better on its own server, I think it probably would. But, whenever you split the player base you run the risk of having a server with population levels too small for the server type.

PVP isn't much fun if you hardly see people. So, is there enough players to justify a server split?

 

[Deleted member 121570]

Violators will be demoted in rights and completely deprived of the opportunity to fly on any (+ their) middle and large class ships. They will be forced to fly only on small class ships until the status is completely corrected and their fine is eliminated.

That's a punishment? Sounds more like a promotion

 

[Ethaidan]

the main goal of the game in the open is not to fill the bucket, but to prevent others from doing it. Thus, open players do not play the game at all, but only parasitize.

I couldn't disagree more. I fill all my BGS buckets in Open, and know that spending time chasing others to try and stop them filling their buckets is the least efficient way to manipulate the BGS in my favour. *

I accept that platform/mode/timezone differences mean far less than sheer numbers of Cmdrs on opposing sides, or the BGS tactics employed.

The only benefits from having opposing Cmdrs in a BGS conflict on the same platform, in the same mode, and the same timezone are:

1. The possibility of actually putting a name to your enemy.
2. The possibility of diplomatic engagements with your enemy.
3. The rare opportunity to instance with and engage in combat against your enemy, knowing full well it will not advance your cause, but might give you a few minutes of excitement. Oh, and tempering your BGS defeat with the fleeting satisfaction of having blowed up an enemy ship.

#'s 1 & 2 are far more important to me than making the BGS Open Only or Crossplay.

What I'd like to see from FDev is an ingame cross-platform/mode Cmdr/Faction/Squadron search function. One that allows me to enter a name (Cmdr, faction, squadron) and pull up Pilot Federation details - platform, mode preference, Cmdr numbers, recent activity level, etc. so at least I can make an informed decision about my opponents when we/they expand into a system. Are we on the same platform/mode, how big are they, are they even still active... as it is, it can take a fair bit of out of game tracking.

*certain specific conditions excepted.

 

[Decksmeck]

disclaimer: I know very little about the BGS. I just pledged a couple of days ago to a power for a specific reason but I have not done much with it.

That being said, I just want to think about the BGS for a little bit and share the point of view of a complete novice for what is is worth.

Is the BGS an aspect of the game that is independent and not strongly coupled to whether the game allows PVP or not? I think, from what I have learned about the BGS, it works just as well for PVE players as it does for PVP players. A BGS in an complete PVE enviroment can become a compettition between players as to how well they can complete non-PVP content such as cargo runs and any thing else that affects the BGS. In a purely PVE environment, the presence of PVP activities dullutes the purity of the PVE contest.

The same can be said about the PVP contest. The problem is that there are people who want a pure competition between PVP players or a pure competition between PVE players. Both of these competitions are valid. Open is a mix of the two competitions.

Suggestion

If the players really wanted pure competition very badly, from the standpoint of wanting to keep the player community from being fragmented as much as possible, there could be multiple bubbles in the galaxy with different rule sets. In this bubble, it is open/solo/group/PVP optional. In another bubble it could be open/PVP only and in another it might be open/PVE only. This way you can fight for control the bubble you prefer.

This could be done by permit activation process. Example, some systems might require a Open/PVP permit to be activated. When activated they can enter PVP only systems and the permit status cannot be deactivated while they are in the system.

However, while the mechanics to make that happen are probably not very difficult (not that i really know), should it be done and should it be explainable by the Elite Dangerous lore or can new lore be written to explain it. And, what would that lore be?

 

[castelman]

Is the BGS an aspect of the game that is independent and not strongly coupled to whether the game allows PVP or not?

BGS is all PVE, there is no way to effect it with any PVP action.

 

[Decksmeck]

BGS is all PVE, there is no way to effect it with any PVP action.

I thought that there was the chance to engage in PVP on the open server with an opposing power player? In that way, can you affect the other players who are trying to affect the BGS?

 

[MK Regular]

• expanding the basic tutorial that new players have to do when they start playing this game for the very first time
• a tutorial section in the main menu, which contains tutorials in text and video form either created by the veteran playerbase and approved by the developer, or created by the developer and approved by the veteran community to ensure that everything in these tutorials are as informative and correct as possible.
• deeper descriptions of modules and their properties/use in the outfitting panel
• small tooltips in the outfitting screen to hint key aspects of ship outfitting, such as example how effective good shields are and how you can achieve a good balance of survivability and versatility
• better descriptions of the three main activities in this game: Combat, Exploration and Trading

Things that would make the game easier to learn and more accessible to new players are always good. I definitely support these changes.

• disconnect Solo Play and Private Group BGS and Powerplay from Open Play but keep those features in seperate the gamemodes. Therefore any exploiting and undermining of Open Play is fixed and the singleplayer playerbase do not lack any content.
• completly remove BGS and Powerplay features from Solo Play & Private Group and turn those two gamemodes into static Singlerplayer environments
• disconnect any BGS and Powerplay directed progress from Solo Play & Private Group so they cannot undermine and break the Open Play environment

Your initial premise here is flawed. You are assuming you would have an opportunity to oppose anyone and everyone who is working against you if they were playing in open. Someone could only ever fly in open and you might never see them because of the time of day and platform they play on, not because of what gamemode they play in. Removing BGS and Powerplay from solo and PG would not allow you to see these other players and would only allow you to oppose a very small fraction of the players you previously could not. Removing the ability for players to interact with the BGS and powerplay from solo or PG would not fix the issues you have with it. In order to solve the issues you have with the BGS and powerplay, the way each system works would need to be changed (which would make mode-locking them kinda pointless).

• completly remove BGS and Powerplay features from Solo Play & Private Group and turn those two gamemodes into static Singlerplayer environments
  & nerf all reputation and credit payouts outside of Open Play by 50% to compensate for the almost non-existent risks and challenges
• increase the skill level of NPC pirates and outlaws in Solo and Private Group
• increase ATR response time in Open Play to fix crime & punishment and increase the risks for notoric outlaws

Open play has very little added risk over solo/PG unless either go looking for trouble or go somewhere with a lot of player traffic. In fact, you could probably make an argument that increasing the difficulty of NPCs in solo/PG would make the amount of risk in solo/PG for an unprepared player higher than the amount of risk in Open.

If you're going to balance the reward for playing open/solo/PG compared to the amount of risk in each gamemode, it would be much more fair to balance the rewards based on the average risk (which is only marginally higher in open) than the highest risk (which is how people usually compare them), at which point the difference in the credit earnings between modes would be so small that introducing it would have next to no impact.

• buffing the downtrading and crosstrading ratio between all g4-5 materials at all material traders
• creating more obvious and various material farming spots inside the powerplay bubble and rest of the galaxy in order to reduce the time it takes to find and collect the materials
• a material market that lets players sell and buy materials from other players for credits

More and better primary (you physically collect it yourself) and secondary (you trade with someone) material sources are something that I would definitely be in favour of.

Back when material trading was first announced, I theory-crafted a system where trading up in rarity gave materials at a 3:1 ratio, trading down gave materials at a 1:2 ratio, and trading to the same grade gave materials at a 3:2 ratio (compared to the respective 6:1, 1:3, and 6:1 ratios we currently have) that wasn't as good at trading down but was much better when trading for same-grade or higher materials. Admittedly, the system I created was a little bit too generous, but something somewhere between it and the current system would be a significant improvement imo.

More varied locations and methods for gathering materials would definitely be something I would like. there are currently several materials that can only be obtained through a specific activity or traded at a rather significant loss of time and effort with a material trader. Having multiple sources for each material (preferably with very different gameplay attached) would definitely be a nice change.

• add a player mission board where players can hire or contract other another player for credits for their own descretion.
  This way veterans and PvPers have something to do and are less likely to resort to activities such as "ganking". PvP also becomes actually lucrative for everyone as well.
• add a proper player banking system to support the player mission board.
• addition of a galactic outlaw bounty tab, on which a list contains all outlaw players with a minimum notoriety of 5 and/or a pure bounty of 1 million credits. Any time one of the players on the list is scanned by another player who has Crimes On enabled, or by a system security NPC their current system location gets updated on the list and is visible for everyone
• removal of premium ammo reload's effects on player ships (increased damage) OR implementation of an indicator to notify the player if someone hits them with increased damage premium ammo reloads IE: Warning, irregular damage detected!

I'm not that big on players interacting with each other (e.g. player A hiring player B), but I really don't see a problem with this. You could argue that it allows for "gold farming" and selling in-game assets for real-world money (somewhat like pay-to-win), but as long as the developers do not have access to any of the money used to buy said assets (and therefore no incentive to make the game grindier to encourage players to spend more money) I don't really have much of an issue with it.

I definitely like the idea of the galactic "most wanted" list, I'm sure some players would try to compete to see who could be the most infamous player in-game.

The "your opponent is using premium ammo" warning would be good for organized PvP fights with rules against premium ammo. It would also be good for players that get attacked when it comes to determining just how much trouble they're in and the appropriate response. I'd definitely support it being added

• ramming things in general should connect to the hulls kinetic resistance, especially when you ram another ship. This is a softfix for netcoding issues -> shadowrams where you fly past someone's ship but they ram you on their screen and the damage connects on your ship but not on their own ship.
• engineerable Module Reinforcement Packages to give shieldless combatships a buff and overall better chance of fighting off shielded combat ships
• increase overall ship cockpit canopy health as it gets destroyed way too easily in raw shieldless PvP encounters and renders the vessel completly combat ineffective

If there is one thing that the game doesn't really need more of it's more defensive stacking and ship survivability. That said, the biggest culprits for the massively inflated healthpools that we have in-game are engineered shields, shield boosters, and SCBs. Given that what you are suggesting would only affect the hull healthpool and not shields, I am definitely more open to these suggestions, but I would like some numerical values to play around with before I decide either way.

• revert the changes made to the blocking feature in one of the previous updates: Players should not be able to block instancing with another player and therefore exploit their way around player combat. It's however completly understandable to block another player from harassing you through text chat or voice comms.
• increase the menu logging timer upon being in a "dangerous environment" aka being in direct combat to 30 seconds to counter notoric combat logging
• make combat logging a fully bannable offence and also make that clear to every player in form of tooltips

I'll make a counter proposal and say "add an option to ignore a player on comms without affecting your ability to instance with them." There are cases where preventing a player from instancing with you is unnecessary (e.g. the player is spamming in chat), but there are also some situations where a player wouldn't want to ever see a particular player again (see the old argument on "when does repeatedly killing someone become harassment?"). It is better to give players a wider variety of tools that allow them to respond to a situation with something other than a yes/no choice than to replace one of the player's options with something that might be less effective.

 

[castelman]

I thought that there was the chance to engage in PVP on the open server with an opposing power player? In that way, can you affect the other players who are trying to affect the BGS?

Power Play yes bgs no.

 

[Decksmeck]

Power Play yes bgs no.

Oh, I think I am confused then. I thought the BGS was about Power Play too.

 

[castelman]

Oh, I think I am confused then. I thought the BGS was about Power Play too.

Power play killing cmdrs of another power will gain you merits with your power. It may have a small effect on Power Play overall, maybe? Like most things in the game doing deliveries of one type or another is the most efficient way of doing things.

 

[Ryuonato]

I agree with the principle, but I dont recognise the distinction between Private Groups and Solo. Private Groups provide at least a balanced risk versus Solo, since any risk from other players is offset by the added safety & efficiency of being in a cooperative wing. Nevermind that anyone can create a Private Group of their own and accept no other players within it, or just have Alt accounts of their own to benefit from Wing mission rewards, multicrew pip benefits etc. If anything, the risk/reward balance of Solo and Private group is if anything favourable to Private Groups, not the other way round, but the net effect can balance so they may as well be both treated as the same minimal risk category.

You have a great point there... So the private group session should be on an adjusting scale, that provides rewards for the number of players actively connected to the session at a given time, but at least 25%-50%+ less than open offers and more than 1-25% than solo offers to incentivizing the playing with others. Basically this kind of change would ultimately give player risk/reward options to pick from, to better customize their play experience within Elite.

 

[Mohrgan]

If you want to reward for the risk of PvP, make the reward come from actually doing PvP, not just for floating around in open, instead of getting paid for the chance at extra risk. Reward players with credits and influence for completing a PvP encounter. If you choose not to PvP, you don;t get those rewards. If you do, you can add them to your bucket filling.

Getting actual in-game advancement from PvP might even get some peeps, that are on the fence, to take the leap. Integrating PvP into the BGS/PP this way would hurt no one.

 

[castelman]

If you want to reward for the risk of PvP, make the reward come from actually doing PvP, not just for floating around in open, instead of getting paid for the chance at extra risk. Reward players with credits and influence for completing a PvP encounter. If you choose not to PvP, you don;t get those rewards. If you do, you can add them to your bucket filling.

Getting actual in-game advancement from PvP might even get some peeps, that are on the fence, to take the leap. Integrating PvP into the BGS/PP this way would hurt no one.

This makes the most sense. A creation of a new gameplay loop that involves PVP as the key part. Maybe something could be introduced with power play. Like small skirmishes that pop up between powers that are open only CZ's.

 

[Decksmeck]

This makes the most sense. A creation of a new gameplay loop that involves PVP as the key part. Maybe something could be introduced with power play. Like small skirmishes that pop up between powers that are open only CZ's.

Doesn't the problem of keeping players from cheating the game system become an issue? If you and I were friends, we could pick opposite sides of an event and one of us could throw the match.

 

[castelman]

Doesn't the problem of keeping players from cheating the game system become an issue? If you and I were friends, we could pick opposite sides of an event and one of us could throw the match.

They would need to make joining a power more like joining the mob. Once you are in you're in for life. Well make joining and leaving more difficult. Possibly move the modules (the main reason anyone joins powerplay) off to the tech brokers for unlocks there. As for someone throwing matches, there could be some setback for your status in a power if you are constantly losing. Then after some time if you are constantly failing your failure doesn't effect the power much. Making your death equal to that of an npc would likely work in that regard.

 

[Decksmeck]

They would need to make joining a power more like joining the mob. Once you are in you're in for life. Well make joining and leaving more difficult. Possibly move the modules (the main reason anyone joins powerplay) off to the tech brokers for unlocks there. As for someone throwing matches, there could be some setback for your status in a power if you are constantly losing. Then after some time if you are constantly failing your failure doesn't effect the power much. Making your death equal to that of an npc would likely work in that regard.

What do you think of the idea that making a long term pledge to existing in open mode means that all profits from all enterprises including power play salaries receive a hefty bonus? Like a week or a month or a year and perhaps the bonus can go up based on the length of time?

 

[castelman]

What do you think of the idea that making a long term pledge to existing in open mode means that all profits from all enterprises including power play salaries receive a hefty bonus?

I think it shouldn't effect existing game loops. This should just be a new type of game loop and it should be very profitable due to the risk. Some kind of combat salary from your Power play master.

 

[Decksmeck]

I think it shouldn't effect existing game loops. This should just be a new type of game loop and it should be very profitable due to the risk. Some kind of combat salary from your Power play master.

I was thinking in terms of attracting people to open mode. A hefty enough bonus can take a lot of sting out of losing in PVP. Say a 25% bonus for a week of being contracted to open mode, 50% for a month, and 100% for a year? I was thinking all activities just to entice players to open mode but if being pledge to a power as a prerequisite makes sense, then ok.