Another solution to ganker problem

[EdzUp]

All of this can be mitigated to a huge degree by "you change modes you fail the missions" this would stop relogging to avoid things much more troublesome. At present i can enter a system drop to solo then fly though untroubled by any contact.

If that was implemented PP would be much more hair raising if it was Open only

 

[XComanceX]

Which seems to be rather unlikely, given that Frontier implemented it in the game at or before launch and have only strengthened its effects and made it easier to use over the years, as they see a continued need for its existence in their multi-player game.

I'm not talking about completely eradicating it from the game, there may be a thousand ways to accommodate the block list along with open only activities. The most curious thing is that this was already raised by the development team.

 

[Jack Winter]

Pad hogging has been a problem for more than eight years. There are plenty of potential solutions and implimenting at least one of them would be a prerequisite to anything Open only. Frankly, even in the absence of Open-only this is something that should have been done eight years ago, because having to mode switch (and leave and reform wings) to participate in communal events is entirely backwards.

I wonder if we could all agree that pad blocking is bad and what a suitable solution would be?

 

[XComanceX]

I wonder if we could all agree that pad blocking is bad and what a suitable solution would be?

well, simply that when your ship lands, it puts you inside the hangar

 

[XComanceX]

"Powerplay Proposal Part 2

Hello Commanders!

There’s been lots of feedback about the Open only aspect of the Powerplay proposal flash topic. Thank you!

Most of the suggested rules changes in the proposal have now received a reasonable amount of feedback to the point where we’re happy we could tweak and move forward with them if the opportunity presents itself, which leaves us with the interesting mode question.

Continuing in the same investigative vein regarding modes, we have another option that we’d like to get your opinion on. It’s a very simple mechanically and we’re interested in how well it stacks up against the current two options: keeping things as they are or making Powerplay Open mode only.

Powerplay Weighted Success

“Powerplay vouchers and commodities have their values permanently reduced if a Commander enters Private Group or Solo mode with them, or acquires them in these modes.”

As a caveat, it’s worth noting that availability of Powerplay modules, which seems to represent a significant portion of concerns, could be made available in some fashion outside of Powerplay. The reason I’m mentioning this is to keep the feedback as focused as possible. What we want here are your opinions on the concept itself rather than secondary effects.

So, have a chew and tell us what you think.

Do you like the idea? What kind of value drop would be suitable between Open and the other modes? How do you think it stacks up against the other options? What issues do you think it addresses and how well? Conversely, what issues do you think it fails to fix or introduces?

As usual, please answer this post only, debate freely in non-sticky posts. And remember, this is still just an ongoing investigation, which is why your feedback is so important! "

 

[Morbad]

well, simply that when your ship lands, it puts you inside the hangar

It's always done that.

However, the station is not a tesseract. It holds what it holds, and one of the appeals of the game design and art direction, at least initially, was that things like scale and basic logic were given more than token consideration.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm not talking about completely eradicating it from the game, there may be a thousand ways to accommodate the block list along with open only activities. The most curious thing is that this was already raised by the development team.

The possibility (but no guarantee, as the thread in question clearly stated that it was investigative and not a fait accompli) of one particular game feature becoming Open only (with all other game features specifically excluded) was raised - slightly over four years ago. No mention of the block feature, or the impact of any potential Open only feature on the block feature, was made by the Dev who led the Flash Topic .

 

[babelfisch]

With all these arguments, we could also say that ganks are impossible. On the subject of the block list, it is clear that it would have to be removed for this to work.

Yes, after 8 years in open I've not been ganked once.

Making stuff open only wouldn't achieve anything. The people who now play in Solo / PG wouldn't suddenly become PvP fans, they would:

a) continue to play in Solo
b) learn how to escape annoying attacks
c) leave the game

The others already are in Open. So you would just annoy half of the player base to please the few people who can't accept that the game can be played Solo. Without changing anything because blockades still don't work. Personally I am not even against PP / BGS open only, I already play in Open - I have nothing to lose. I just think it wouldn't help. Maybe you would feel better, but that would come at the cost of annoyed Solo / PG players...

 

[XComanceX]

The possibility (but no guarantee, as the thread in question clearly stated that it was investigative and not a fait accompli) of one particular game feature becoming Open only (with all other game features specifically excluded) was raised - slightly over four years ago. No mention of the block feature, or the impact of any potential Open only feature on the block feature, was made by the Dev who led the Flash Topic .

well, they didn't give details, but it's clear that a block list would not make sense in an open only activity. And that with a correct approach, the solution could be found.

 

[Riverside]

Polite reminder that this is a 'solve ganking' thread not an 'open only' thread.

Potentially having an open only element to the game might significantly reduce the number of PvP players attacking unwilling opponents.

If that open only aspect were an existing gameplay element that was converted to open only it would remove gameplay from those that do not wish to be attacked by other players. It makes sense to create something new for PvPers to fight over.

 

[Rubbernuke]

"Powerplay Proposal Part 2

Hello Commanders!

There’s been lots of feedback about the Open only aspect of the Powerplay proposal flash topic. Thank you!

Most of the suggested rules changes in the proposal have now received a reasonable amount of feedback to the point where we’re happy we could tweak and move forward with them if the opportunity presents itself, which leaves us with the interesting mode question.

Continuing in the same investigative vein regarding modes, we have another option that we’d like to get your opinion on. It’s a very simple mechanically and we’re interested in how well it stacks up against the current two options: keeping things as they are or making Powerplay Open mode only.

Powerplay Weighted Success

“Powerplay vouchers and commodities have their values permanently reduced if a Commander enters Private Group or Solo mode with them, or acquires them in these modes.”

As a caveat, it’s worth noting that availability of Powerplay modules, which seems to represent a significant portion of concerns, could be made available in some fashion outside of Powerplay. The reason I’m mentioning this is to keep the feedback as focused as possible. What we want here are your opinions on the concept itself rather than secondary effects.

So, have a chew and tell us what you think.

Do you like the idea? What kind of value drop would be suitable between Open and the other modes? How do you think it stacks up against the other options? What issues do you think it addresses and how well? Conversely, what issues do you think it fails to fix or introduces?

As usual, please answer this post only, debate freely in non-sticky posts. And remember, this is still just an ongoing investigation, which is why your feedback is so important! "

Its certainly an interesting idea which has been ping ponged about since. My reservations were (and are):

It is a blanket reward if applied 'as is'
FD need to apply some sort of check for how many deaths per system (so building a more representative modifier)
Players with alts can game it (so PvP kills would have to have an INF cap)

 

[Morbad]

Anything that specifically incentivizes Open should probably take into account that even without block, one can turn Open into Solo simply by refusing all peer connections.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

As with other contentious features like engineering, there is no right or wrong opinion only different viewpoints & preferences.

We were talking about BGS and its convienient misconceptions among a certain demographic, not engineering

 

[XComanceX]

Its certainly an interesting idea which has been ping ponged about since. My reservations were (and are):

It is a blanket reward if applied 'as is'
FD need to apply some sort of check for how many deaths per system (so building a more representative modifier)
Players with alts can game it (so PvP kills would have to have an INF cap)

Sounds like a reasonable argument to me. And let it be clear that I am not referring exclusively to power play. What I mean is that the game does not have any activities focused on PvP. And it is clear that a PvP activity would have to be only open. My main argument is that this kind of activity would get a lot of people into it, instead of killing players on hot sites.

 

[XComanceX]

We were talking about BGS and its convienient misconceptions among a certain demographic, not engineering

That does not matter. Your only argument in the thread has been to call me a grieffer and that all this has already been discussed and we are wrong.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Sounds like a reasonable argument to me. And let it be clear that I am not referring exclusively to power play. What I mean is that the game does not have any activities focused on PvP. And it is clear that a PvP activity would have to be only open. My main argument is that this kind of activity would get a lot of people into it, instead of killing players on hot sites.

Well ED does have a trade heat map, and I expect its trivial to count player deaths per system and do something similar so that doing stuff in open rewards better. So if you do a mission in a 'cold' tin shack system (which is identical to solo at that point) your bonus is close to zero, and when you go to Shin Dhez the bonus.....gets a lot higher

 

[Riverside]

Anything that specifically incentivizes Open should probably take into account that even without block, one can turn Open into Solo simply by refusing all peer connections.

If the game actively encourages competitive combat those that employ any method to avoid it will be uncompetitive, making blocking & mode switching irrelevant. The issue would be with collusion & 5c strategies.

 

[rootsrat]

[Modhat on]

I strongly advise to put away the handbags.

Discuss the topic, not the poster.

Do not backseat moderate the thread

Do not discuss moderation either.

Be nice.

Just a polite request at this stage.

 

[EdzUp]

I don't think punishing players for ganking is a good idea. People should be able to play the game how they want regardless if they gank or if they choose to play solo.

Whilst if they want to play murder hobo its upto them the result of said action should be harsh punishment

 

[Jmanis]

Whilst if they want to play murder hobo its upto them the result of said action should be harsh punishment

Why? If the only outcome you can consider for an in- game action is "harsh punishment", then the activity shouldn't be in the game... that's what you're really asking for.

It's pointless to have an activity whose sole purpose is to penalise the player.

Otherwise, if you want to keep the activity and have it harshly penalised, there needs to be a commensurate reward for it.