Page 11 of 31 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 458

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: PFB, Ship Rebuy Penalty and Powerplay

  1. #151
    Originally Posted by Ozram View Post (Source)
    Because they're natural competitors and run the risks as such? This especially at CGs as it will at least help to cut down on unaligned players being hunted who are simply going about their business. Still, so far option three is the best of the ones offered.
    That bit about protecting unaligned players is something I hadn't thought of. It may out-weigh any negative associated with ganking between pledged cmdrs at CGs. Still, how are the LYR murderer and Mahon trader competing, in that instance? It could just be that we're starting from different places: I don't think that being pledged to different Powers justifies hostilities everywhere. I think that someone giving that reason at a non-PP CG is just rationalizing their usual ganking.

    And I like Option 3 too. I think we're arguing over how much we agree!

  2. #152
    Originally Posted by Arkadi View Post (Source)
    I'd be in favor of a system that allows pvp without punishment inside powerplay ruled systems but not outside. If a commander manages to flee with his merits to "unruled" systems it's a bit like a criminal made it over the border into a "safe" neighbour country. He only can cash in his merits in one of his control systems anyway. So if he wants to cash in, he'll have to return to a powerplay legislation sooner or later anyway.
    Indeed, but the only way to stop the undermining is to either eliminate the person in system they are undermining or before they dock at their control station before they cash in


    Elite: Dangerous Xbox One - Uncensored

    "Remember to bring your big boy pants!"

  3. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #153
    Sandro Sammarco is offline
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    Hello Commanders!

    Thanks for all the continued feedback, and for keeping it civil!

    So, still slowly going through the thread, but the following is very clear:

    * Most of you prefer option three, for roleplay, logic and consistency!
    * I agree that if we did go with option 3, we'd need to make it bilateral: not only is it fine to avoid crimes when defending an allied power's system, you're also fair game to those attacking it.

    My main concerns are still that it might be a path of least resistance for those who want to wantonly destroy and avoid the PFB and ship rebuy costs. I know you could argue that it's part and parcel of the risks when pledging to a power, but those words might be scant comfort when you're sucking vacuum at the hands of a player who had no interest in Powerplay and every interest in murder with no penalty.

  4. #154
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    Thanks for the feedback so far.

    A couple of points:

    * This does not affect undermining or opposing. As an opposing Commander, you will trigger the exception by default as long as your target is pledged to the power that owns the system or is trying to expand. So any amount of Commanders can still gang up to attack. There's a part of me that like the potential for destabilising the field that this could bring: always being stronger in attack than defence. But perhaps that's just me wishful thinking.

    * When you say that you should be able to help your Federal/Imperial buddies, remember that this makes the playing field less even - the Alliance and independent factions don't have this benefit, have never had it. "Personal’s not the same as important. People just think it is" - to quote a literary legend.
    If you are a power with less players then it makes sense to form alliances to swell your numbers. The Alliance (given its current superiority) is unlikely to suffer or even be challenged that often, if these alliances cannot be formed (due to ingame mechanics).

    Not really sure what you are trying to achieve with this idea, but anything that reduces co-operative play is likely to be counterproductive in the end (in my opinion).

  5. #155
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    Thanks for all the continued feedback, and for keeping it civil!

    So, still slowly going through the thread, but the following is very clear:

    * Most of you prefer option three, for roleplay, logic and consistency!
    * I agree that if we did go with option 3, we'd need to make it bilateral: not only is it fine to avoid crimes when defending an allied power's system, you're also fair game to those attacking it.

    My main concerns are still that it might be a path of least resistance for those who want to wantonly destroy and avoid the PFB and ship rebuy costs. I know you could argue that it's part and parcel of the risks when pledging to a power, but those words might be scant comfort when you're sucking vacuum at the hands of a player who had no interest in Powerplay and every interest in murder with no penalty.
    I think this is more a case of player education, once the community understands that PVP is an accepted part of the power play experience, then it should be fine. I was always left with the impression that power play was an ideal location for Valid PVP and to give the game an edge if and when you pledge to a power, you have a target on your back from anyone who's not in your power. That's the risk you take for the reward and might give the game mode a shot in the arm with more players taking part.

  6. #156
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    Thanks for all the continued feedback, and for keeping it civil!

    So, still slowly going through the thread, but the following is very clear:

    * Most of you prefer option three, for roleplay, logic and consistency!
    * I agree that if we did go with option 3, we'd need to make it bilateral: not only is it fine to avoid crimes when defending an allied power's system, you're also fair game to those attacking it.

    My main concerns are still that it might be a path of least resistance for those who want to wantonly destroy and avoid the PFB and ship rebuy costs. I know you could argue that it's part and parcel of the risks when pledging to a power, but those words might be scant comfort when you're sucking vacuum at the hands of a player who had no interest in Powerplay and every interest in murder with no penalty.
    Hi Sandro, great to have you here!

    If we consider option 3 (with bilateral pvp exemptions) as the way to go, may I try to charm away your concerns about the murder-hobo loophole?

    Let's assume a Cmdr pledges to an Independent Power just to go on a murder spree without worries about the new C&P system. The Cmdr would have to travel to an other powers domain, presumably an Imperial or Federal HQ - becouse chances to meet a legit target a greatest there becouse all Imperial or Federal factions are legit targets. If he is starting to do his thing there and attack and destroy Imperial/Federal Commanders he would still get standard bountys like usual in Powerplay but no PF bounty and no rebuy carryover. I see this is a problem. This commander could even still use the free sidewinder suicide to clear off his bountys! That's bad. Now what could one do to prevent this?

    Easy. Each station of the offended superpower could prevent him docking. Powerplay bountys could have lower triggers to make the stations hostile. This way, in this exampel, defending Imperial or Federal commanders from all over the Empire/Federation could hunt this murder hobo through all of theire dominion. And also mind, that murder hobo could be simply a commander, who indeed might just play his special way of powerplay as he makes his path in the game.

    This special case is the only real loophole I can think of, but maybe there are more. Still I think this is only a slight detriment against the positives that option 3 brings for organized powerplay.

    edit: Federal/Imperial and more detail about docking prevention when pp boutys reach a certain trigger.

  7. #157
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    Thanks for all the continued feedback, and for keeping it civil!

    So, still slowly going through the thread, but the following is very clear:

    * Most of you prefer option three, for roleplay, logic and consistency!
    * I agree that if we did go with option 3, we'd need to make it bilateral: not only is it fine to avoid crimes when defending an allied power's system, you're also fair game to those attacking it.

    My main concerns are still that it might be a path of least resistance for those who want to wantonly destroy and avoid the PFB and ship rebuy costs. I know you could argue that it's part and parcel of the risks when pledging to a power, but those words might be scant comfort when you're sucking vacuum at the hands of a player who had no interest in Powerplay and every interest in murder with no penalty.
    Hi Sandro, thanks for your feedback. I think that there is already a certain consensus in the community that pledging to a power means drawing a target on you. I think that it is also one of the added values of Powerplay (to be the field for consensual PvP). As I said in my comment, I see it as an opportunity to drive those who are interested in fighting other cmdrs to Powerplay. But the average ganker who camps Eravate or the CGs will probably keep doing it, even with the ship rebuy and the pf bounty. Those people see being wanted as a plus, not as something to avoid.

    In synthesis, my feeling is that witn option 3 you can give the opportunity to people who want fair fights to not find themselves wanted all over the galaxy.


    https://maxwellcorp.wordpress.com

    In-game: John F Casey

  8. #158
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    Thanks for all the continued feedback, and for keeping it civil!

    So, still slowly going through the thread, but the following is very clear:

    * Most of you prefer option three, for roleplay, logic and consistency!
    * I agree that if we did go with option 3, we'd need to make it bilateral: not only is it fine to avoid crimes when defending an allied power's system, you're also fair game to those attacking it.

    My main concerns are still that it might be a path of least resistance for those who want to wantonly destroy and avoid the PFB and ship rebuy costs. I know you could argue that it's part and parcel of the risks when pledging to a power, but those words might be scant comfort when you're sucking vacuum at the hands of a player who had no interest in Powerplay and every interest in murder with no penalty.
    That's why no one should avoid rebuy costs Sandro, not ever. Even if it is a regular bounty. The risk you take with your actions and the ships you choose to take out should be as visceral if you are engaged in purely pve activities as they are with pvp.
    The galaxy wide PF bounty is really a separate matter (and perhaps power aligned bounties should be considered along with escalating consequences).
    A player should be able to be taken in as a hero by one power and reviled by the one s/he's been undermining etc.

    Either way, thanks for listening and overal it really feels like we're headed in a good direction.
    Oh and sorry for anything insulting I've said or occasionally say. I try to be decent but find myself oddly passionate about this game.

  9. #159
    Originally Posted by NascentChemist View Post (Source)
    That bit about protecting unaligned players is something I hadn't thought of. It may out-weigh any negative associated with ganking between pledged cmdrs at CGs. Still, how are the LYR murderer and Mahon trader competing, in that instance? It could just be that we're starting from different places: I don't think that being pledged to different Powers justifies hostilities everywhere. I think that someone giving that reason at a non-PP CG is just rationalizing their usual ganking.

    And I like Option 3 too. I think we're arguing over how much we agree!
    Think of it like frienemies. The power alignment isn't just an excuse to pvp on sight, it's an invitation to do so. That player competitor may not be strengthening a system you are competing for or undermining one of yours at that moment, but you can bet they will be strengthening your competitor. Thus they become targets of opportunity. What's best is there's a direct in game reason for it.

  10. #160
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    Thanks for all the continued feedback, and for keeping it civil!

    So, still slowly going through the thread, but the following is very clear:

    * Most of you prefer option three, for roleplay, logic and consistency!
    * I agree that if we did go with option 3, we'd need to make it bilateral: not only is it fine to avoid crimes when defending an allied power's system, you're also fair game to those attacking it.

    My main concerns are still that it might be a path of least resistance for those who want to wantonly destroy and avoid the PFB and ship rebuy costs. I know you could argue that it's part and parcel of the risks when pledging to a power, but those words might be scant comfort when you're sucking vacuum at the hands of a player who had no interest in Powerplay and every interest in murder with no penalty.
    Hi Sandro,

    Thank you for listening.

    I really don't think you need to be too concerned about the 'path of least resistance to wanton destruction'.

    If a guy has no interest in Powerplay and just wants to attack other players, yes under Option 3 he can pledge to ALD, for example, and then go to a Hudson system and attack any Federal pledger, whether Hudson or Winters.

    But, I can say from considerable experience of doing the above (for the Feds) that he's going to need considerable patience and the enlarged scope will only increase the number of targets by a modest margin. Most of the hostile Cmdrs he sees will be pledged to the relevant system's power, or not pledged at all. The bonus of being able to attack Winters guys as well as Hudson is really not that great.

    It's just relevant to those of us who do Powerplay 'properly'.

    I'd strongly suggest that if someone just wants to blow up other players then if he even tries the Powerplay route as above, he'll soon abandon it and just go to the nearest CG.

    At the CG's, although of course the Powerplay exeption will occasionally apply (depending upon the location of the CG and the pledge-status of those coming into the system) again it will really be in the margins.

    Concerning the plight of the guy who gets blown up by coming within the margin - I venture to suggest that the only players who will be at all concerned by this prospect are pure module surfers. If a player who normally plays in Open truly wants to have his cake and eat it - to do his 28 days without any risk of player aggression at all - he's fully at liberty to exile himself to Solo or PG for the purpose. Please don't make a major change affecting the true Powerplay roleplayers to increase the cushioning surrounding pure mercenary module surfing.

    Put simply, what we have here is the very real possibility, we feel, of doing considerable damage to the gameplay of those of us who have walked the straight and narrow for over two years (legit Powerplayers) by bringing in something more restrictive than Option 3, against the very modest possibliity (on the other side of the scales) of permitting marginal ways around the PFB.

    I'd strongly suggest that the balance of harm favours giving PvP Powerplayers a break here.

    Cheers!
    Federal Vigilante PvP Executioner Friend and Supporter of Adle's Armada

  11. #161
    Sandro, thanks so much for giving this priority!

    Option 3 sounds the best to me also.

    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)

    ...

    OPTION THE THIRD - FRIENDSHIP DRIVE CHARGING

    ...

    * This means no bounties, PFB or ship rebuy penalties will be triggered unless I am attacking a ship from my power, or a ship pledged to a power aligned with my superpower that is not carrying your power's cargo or vouchers.

    ...
    Please help me with this though. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the carrying vouchers part of the above bullet point. Specifically, why would I want to attack a ship from a power aligned with my power which is carrying my power's cargo or vouchers? I assume that it means they would be working against my super power if they have my powers cargo or vouchers but I don't understand how. Maybe it's late and I'm not remembering something.

    Playing Elite on PC, Mac and XBox One

  12. #162
    Originally Posted by CMDR QUANTIS TRAP View Post (Source)
    Sandro, thanks so much for giving this priority!

    Option 3 sounds the best to me also.



    Please help me with this though. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the carrying vouchers part of the above bullet point. Specifically, why would I want to attack a ship from a power aligned with my power which is carrying my power's cargo or vouchers? I assume that it means they would be working against my super power if they have my powers cargo or vouchers but I don't understand how. Maybe it's late and I'm not remembering something.
    Yes, this made me wonder too. I thought it's already the case that it is impossible for powers of the same super-power to undermine each other. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe this has something to do with the collusion piracy thing. But since this was migitated anyway there is not much reason for a counter to this anyway.

    Some enlightment, what exactly Sandro meant with this, wouldn't hurt.

  13. #163
    Originally Posted by CMDR QUANTIS TRAP View Post (Source)
    Please help me with this though. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the carrying vouchers part of the above bullet point. Specifically, why would I want to attack a ship from a power aligned with my power which is carrying my power's cargo or vouchers? I assume that it means they would be working against my super power if they have my powers cargo or vouchers but I don't understand how. Maybe it's late and I'm not remembering something.
    Basically the 'same superpower' powers can still work against each other but they're supposed to do it in non-lethal ways, by distributing propaganda material etc. If you catch someone doing it, you can kill them without it counting as Imp on Imp treachery, for example - because they asked for the bullet by carrying seditious pamphlets. (I think.)

    EDIT: See Cmdr John Casey's post below. Actually, you can kill them because they've been stealing your pamphlets, the little scamps. (I think it fair to say that this particularly esoteric form of PvP is not known to be a frequent occurrence...)

  14. #164
    Originally Posted by Arkadi View Post (Source)
    Yes, this made me wonder too. I thought it's already the case that it is impossible for powers of the same super-power to undermine each other. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe this has something to do with the collusion piracy thing. But since this was migitated anyway there is not much reason for a counter to this anyway.

    Some enlightment, what exactly Sandro meant with this, wouldn't hurt.
    It is possible to umdermine a "sister power" with piracy. In that case, you have the right to shoot somebody who's undermining you even if it's from another power affiliated to the same superpower.


    https://maxwellcorp.wordpress.com

    In-game: John F Casey

  15. #165
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    My main concerns are still that it might be a path of least resistance for those who want to wantonly destroy and avoid the PFB and ship rebuy costs. I know you could argue that it's part and parcel of the risks when pledging to a power, but those words might be scant comfort when you're sucking vacuum at the hands of a player who had no interest in Powerplay and every interest in murder with no penalty.
    I also think that pledged commanders should not be "fair game" simply for being pledged.

    First however, some terms:
    * "allied" power/commander, includes the power and and super-power aligned powers and .. if in the future you expand power play to allow powers to create temporary alliances
    * "enemy" power/commander, includes everything else (aka not allied) .. plus as above, future plans, if they're in an alliance with a non-allied power.
    * "valid" target/kill, a target you can kill without triggering any bounty or SRP.
    * "clean" an unwanted pledged commander with no vouchers/cargo for the scanners allied powers.

    I think a commander should be a valid target if:
    * They are wanted (you can always kill a wanted commander).
    * They are pledged to an enemy power, and in your/contested system (defence against undermining/expansion contest).
    * They are pledged to an enemy power, and in their/contested system (undermining/expansion contest).
    * They are pledged to an enemy power, with allied vouchers/cargo, in an allied system (the assist).

    So. For the purposes of undermining/defence enemy commanders are always "fair game". But, if you're in allied territory assisting in defence you would need to scan targets first, and only at this point can they be "fair game". I think this makes things less of a free-for-all without preventing the desired PP PvP gameplay.

    It does require one additional change however, commanders need to obtain vouchers for all valid kills in all valid PP situations. I may be rusty on current PP mechanics but I believe you only get vouchers for undermining kills, not defence against undermining? Any valid kill should gain you vouchers, making you a valid target for those enemy commanders to retaliate, otherwise you can defend in your system without becoming a valid target for their retaliation, which just seems unfair.

    Edit: Recent thinking update
    I think commanders should get local bounties when undermining, this is part of the danger of being in enemy territory.

    I want to revise one case from before and require a scan when the target is in it's own system, so:
    * They are pledged to an enemy power, with allied vouchers/cargo, in their/contested system (undermining/expansion contest).

    as explained here I think being attacked in your "home" system when you're not doing any power play related activities would be surprising/annoying. Plus if the attacker is coming to your system to undermine, they really ought to be targetting your ships with PP cargo, and not random commanders. It would be a different story if you had vouchers from killing their ships and were actively defending against this.

    I think a commander should additionally be a valid target if:
    * They are pledged to an enemy power, with allied vouchers/cargo, in any system.

    But, in this case you would also get local bounties for attacking/killing them - as your power/allies cannot suppress this.

    CMDR Mal Reynolds (6th Interstellar Corps)

Page 11 of 31 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast