Expose more info about solo/pg player actions in station info

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

The consequences for the gankers are, very likely, less onerous than those on the targets - as the targets often have something in their ship to lose whereas the gankers' ships are likely to contain nothing of value.

Ganking exists because players are free to shoot at anything they instance with - the latter is very, very unlikely to change so neither is the former.

For good or ill we all experience and affect the single galaxy state - those who don't enjoy sharing it with those that they can't shoot at don't have any say in which game mode any player plays in though.

You are stating some obvious facts that don't relate to any point I was making. Still, you got an upvote so there's that .

 

[Robert Maynard]

You are stating some obvious facts that don't relate to any point I was making. Still, you got an upvote so there's that .

Better to do what one wants than to be forced to do something because someone else decided that we should.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I find that ironic, given how some people object to PvPers being called griefers, just because they’re blowing up people in Open for “reasons.” Yet here you are, calling people who dare influence the BGS in any way, outside of how you want to them to do so, the same thing. Especially given that the only function of the BGS is to generate change in the Galaxy.

That some are manipulating it as a proxy for other forms of gameplay, ranging from role-playing, all the way to a proxy for empire building and territorial conflicts, does not obviate it’s actual purpose.

I like the state of Open, because I very rarely see the racial slurs, sexism, homophobia, and general unpleasantness that, in my experience, accompanies an open-PvP environment. At best, the experience is actually fun. Mostly, it’s simply been polite indifference. Without the accompanying bad behavior, I get the feeling that there was nothing personal about the situation. They’re just playing the same game I am. And I can live with that.

Perhaps you should consider that other people are doing likewise. Their effects on the BGS is nothing personal. They’re just playing the same game you are.

Oh I didn't mean to tar everyone with the same brush. FWIW I think the BGS has to be affected by everyone, because FDev harness player activity as a resource to move the cogs of the minor faction simulation, and the ratio of players to minor factions is not that huge. But "playing" the BGS has emerged as a feature, and people get invested. That makes them vulnerable to those who may not share the same vulnerability. Just as I might pass a newb CMDR in my g5 combat ship - I have no interest in destroying them but it doesn't stop them being vulnerable to someone in my position. If I changed my attitude though, they would at least know who it was that blew them up.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Better to do what one wants than to be forced to do something because someone else decided that we should.

That sounds great, but as we know, freedom has to have limits if it is not to impinge on the freedom of others. Like it or not, game design consciously aims to regulate player behaviour. I think much more could be done about ganking (I'm okay with people who want to shoot everything, but there should be a counterbalance; ironically, I think a lot of PvPers would be happy with that). Perhaps you think ganking is great as it is? For BGS, there could also be more consequences for determined sabotage of a faction. Enabling other players to better counter it, with more exposure of information for instance, could feature in that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That sounds great, but as we know, freedom has to have limits if it is not to impinge on the freedom of others.

Indeed - as one example, just as players have the freedom to shoot at anything they instance with those players are limited, in terms of availability of access to player targets, by the fact that they don't get to decide which game mode players play in.

Like it or not, game design consciously aims to regulate player behaviour.

It can, it's not always successful in its aims though.

I think much more could be done about ganking (I'm okay with people who want to shoot everything, but there should be a counterbalance; ironically, I think a lot of PvPers would be happy with that).

More could likely be done - although Frontier don't seem to have any particular desire to do so - and it'd have to be provided by the game as the game is too big for players to provide it.

Perhaps you think ganking is great as it is?

Not a particular fan of it, no. However it's a consequence of players having the freedom to shoot at anything they instance with. I doubt that would ever change.

For BGS, there could also be more consequences for determined sabotage of a faction. Enabling other players to better counter it, with more exposure of information for instance, could feature in that.

There could indeed. As ever, the devil is in the detail - and the level of information being requested by some in the thread goes way too far IMO - not helped by the fact that the OP calls for it to be an advantage only to those who play in Open.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Cosplayers really out here thinking they have the right to know how I'm playing the game

 

[Rubbernuke]

Following the gaming habits of a player, including their activities and when they are online so you can confront them is a form of harassment called stalking. Totally not not cool in an online game. There is absolutely no way that Frontier is going to implement tools to enable this kind of behavior.

Like, what Powerplay does you mean? This is how Powerplay works each cycle

Following the gaming habits of a player, including their activities and when they are online so you can confront them is a form of harassment called stalking.

Er, no. Its called playing an MMO. By your definition simply playing is stalking and that anyone you see more than once in Open is a stalker- and that 'confronting them' is bad, in a game where player destruction is a valid outcome as any and that people fight each other as they support different factions, powers etc.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Cosplayers really out here thinking they have the right to know how I'm playing the game

Or just know who is currently about across modes, so you can make informed choices as what to do yourself?

 

[Rebel Yell]

Making it very simple, since the game keeps track of all players activities having INF effect in system X for each faction... they can just disclose the numbers in the system/station (like bounties, how many goods have been smuggled or explo data sold in the last 24hrs) or under the faction status (how many INF points have been redeemed for the current tick).

This doesn't disclose how many players are there or who, or the game mode/platform, but helps both supporters and opponents as it drastically reduces overlap or overshoot...

 

[Valorin]

I think there's two very common requests/suggestions/complaints related to BGS - give us more info and make open only. Both are controversial and neither is really too viable, especially in the absolute.

This suggestion weakly addresses both of these, which I think is all that's needed. More a gentle nudge towards open and more info, while allowing for sneaky stuff too.

The simplest implementations of this could just be tallying up all the missions/trade influence done for each faction in solo/pg in a station news item like the bounty/crime reports (either as a percentage or some abstract "influence points" value). Maybe with an extra war report for CZs done in solo/pg.

A more complicated implementation of this could also show the most common mission types for each faction/overall - this could help players find stations/factions where missions they like doing are likely to pop up.

Allowing people to opt-in to this data collection while in open could be an useful feature too.

For it to work perfectly all missions/goods would have to be "tracked" if a player logs into solo with those missions active, but I'm not 100% sure that's even necessary to get the desired effect - mildly inconveniencing solo BGS players to log into open to hand in missions might be enough of a push to get them to consider open more.

Here we go again.
All these posts come with the idea that Open is the preferred game mode people need to be nudged at.
However, this is not the case. Open is one of three game modes which are all equal in gameplay mechanics except from multiplayer and I am pretty sure that will never change.
As far as I gathered in those 6+ years I am playing now it's not in Frontier's interest to create an incentive for players to go Open apart from meeting other players there.
I think a part of this stance might be the fact, that in the kickstarter they said there would be an offline mode, which they couldn't implement later and Solo mode is as close as it gets to playing offline they could manage to implement.

So... suggestions about how to "nudge" players towards Open play are pretty much obsolete because players are not to be nudged towards open via gameplay-changes-carrots.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

Following the gaming habits of a player, including their activities and when they are online so you can confront them is a form of harassment called stalking. Totally not not cool in an online game. There is absolutely no way that Frontier is going to implement tools to enable this kind of behavior.

This could hold more weight if you could establish that there was a pre-existing problem with this sort of harassment and stalking - we already have the opportunity for all of that crime/bounties and it doesn't seem that bad? Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be a problem. Establishing these things is hard and not as clear cut - we don't have the data on how many players get reported/banned for harassment and predicting things based on that is even harder.

 

[Brrokk]

This. It's all based on a misconception about what this game actually is. Sure, playing in Open, meeting other people, chatting, cooperating or fighting are all fun, but the game also caters for people who don't want a social experience and prefer solo play. The BGS is simply a feature which aggregates everyone's game actions and makes the galaxy seem "alive".

Open play is good, but it's not the preferred way of playing; there is no preferred way. Every person can play however they want but no-one has any right to dictate how anyone else plays. In particular, no-one owns the BGS.

<Edit> "This" was for Valorin's post. Not sure where my quote went.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

This. It's all based on a misconception about what this game actually is. Sure, playing in Open, meeting other people, chatting, cooperating or fighting are all fun, but the game also caters for people who don't want a social experience and prefer solo play. The BGS is simply a feature which aggregates everyone's game actions and makes the galaxy seem "alive".

Open play is good, but it's not the preferred way of playing; there is no preferred way. Every person can play however they want but no-one has any right to dictate how anyone else plays. In particular, no-one owns the BGS.

It's not an either-or - the gentle nudge towards open I mention in my original post doesn't have to come at some sort of great loss to solo players which is how I've tried to position the suggestion. Is it possible to make open better in itself without hurting solo in a noticeable way?

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's not an either-or - the gentle nudge towards open I mention in my original post doesn't have to come at some sort of great loss to solo players which is how I've tried to position the suggestion. Is it possible to make open better in itself without hurting solo in a noticeable way?

It depends whether the "gentle nudge" constitutes any penalty for those who choose not to play in Open - as many proposals to in some way "encourage" players to play in only one of the two multi-player game modes available to players (who can play in multi-player that is - not all can) seek to penalise those who don't play in Open.

 

[Darrack]

Is it possible to make open better in itself without hurting solo in a noticeable way?

Yes with an opt out of PvP or even better a PVE only Open mode.

O7

 

[Robert Maynard]

Making it very simple, since the game keeps track of all players activities having INF effect in system X for each faction... they can just disclose the numbers in the system/station (like bounties, how many goods have been smuggled or explo data sold in the last 24hrs) or under the faction status (how many INF points have been redeemed for the current tick).

This doesn't disclose how many players are there or who, or the game mode/platform, but helps both supporters and opponents as it drastically reduces overlap or overshoot...

That level of increased detail relating to aggregated data covering anonymous players in all game modes would not seem to be very contentious.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Er, no. Its called playing an MMO.

A rather odd contention that it's only an MMO when other players are an optional extra - where each player's choice of who to play among precedes and may over-ride any other players' desire to play with them.

 

[Rubbernuke]

A rather odd contention that it's only an MMO when other players are an optional extra - where each player's choice of who to play among precedes and may over-ride any other players' desire to play with them.

How is it odd, in a massively multiplayer game which has a vast, connected database where everyone influences each other its an 'odd contention' to know what someone is doing who may be working against you?

Again you are veering into modes as usual when this is nothing to do with playing in them, its the information generated in the modes being exposed to everyone playing. Like it or not, regardless of mode you are playing with other people and hiding what you do by default runs contrary to that.

 

[JoeyTheMooch]

I am beginning to think this forums has a "rewind" button somewhere...

 

[SteveWW57]

I am beginning to think this forums has a "rewind" button somewhere...

More open just keeps being resurrected. And, like a new Friday 13th movie, you know that a lot of innocents are are going to die because they are at the whims of a deranged killer.

Steve 07.