There you have it. Come up with a better C&P system first, then we can discuss Open Only PP.
Elite Dangerous | Powerplay 2.0 Questions and Answers
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
A much better C&P system will definitely encourage more people to risk playing in Open. We'll see how well the system security works in PP 2.0 for fortified systems & strongholds. If that works well, it could serve as a template for the rest of the galaxy.
It may happen, and even without an alt... consider what "allied" powers can do.
I don't know if FDEV have/will included/include some ways to prevent this to happen... so, I can only speak on behalf of my group, as I always promoted a fair and sporty game and I apply here same stance as for clogs, ghosting, exploiting non-open-game-modes and so on: players will be kicked if I'd find that [from the combat logs] something fishy is happening.
It may happen, and even without an alt... consider what "allied" powers can do.
I don't know if FDEV have/will included/include some ways to prevent this to happen... so, I can only speak on behalf of my group, as I always promoted a fair and sporty game and I apply here same stance as for clogs, ghosting, exploiting non-open-game-modes and so on: players will be kicked if I'd find that [from the combat logs] something fishy is happening.
Good point. Would just require someone "joining" the other side.
I don't think anyone would advertise the fact they are doing that though, even on their own real power's discord. It might open them to action from FD if evidence was presented they had been abusing the mechanics like that.
I suspect if it does happen, it will be someone dual accounting.
Not by any amount that matters, it wouldn't.
1) The subset of people playing in PG/Solo specifically to avoid hostile PvP (as opposed to the many other reasons someone might, and there's the Hotel for that...) generally feel that being shot down by another player in uninhabited space (exploration, Guardian ruins, Titan attacks, whatever) is still something they'd rather not chance. "Well, Distant Ganks 2 was good Clean [1] fun but I draw the line at shooting people in the bubble" ... said no-one, ever. Likewise, someone worried about another player shooting them down isn't going to think "well, I had a 200 credit trespass bounty from that last mission so it was fair enough" when it happens.
2) In the specific Powerplay context of this thread, C&P is likely irrelevant anyway. Shooting people on the other side down is unlikely to directly win you a system but certainly seems to be something Frontier want to encourage as a side activity, so it's probably not going to be a case of "that kill was worth 1% system progress for Hudson, and now you need to grind for N hours as penance"
3) Since the Engineering rewrite, various player activity measures are up by almost 50%. Player numbers in Open are therefore almost certainly also up by about 50% - far more effective than convincing a few people on the borderline that it was "safe" to swap modes. Unless you're taking an "anyone playing in Solo is a personal insult to me" line, absolute numbers in Open are far more significant than the proportion who do, and changes which have nothing to do with modes or PvP or anything else like that are going to be way more effective at moving those.
4) In the last four days in Open I've seen four other commanders - all at Engineer systems - flying respectively an unshielded T-9, a Viper III, a T-8 and a Python 2, none of which seemed either hostile nor expecting hostilities (and only the Python 2 looked set up to deal with them if there had been). Most other systems I've visited the most obvious reason from the traffic report for not seeing anyone was "they weren't there". The actual threat of hostile PvP in >99.9% of systems is already zero, so there's really limited scope for a new C&P system to change that.
[1] Yes, yes, technically Lawless.
Powerplay C+P bounties are crazily low because if you applied BGS C+P you'd be in the hole for billions in days.
In reality its a mark for NPCs and players to know who needs offing- so calling it C+P is a misnomer. Its really I +P - Identify and Punish
It just twigged: next week at this time is the time!
Yeah, knock yourself out if that's your idea of fun! Hard to imagine anyone really caring, but I suppose some would. I do think the whole business of instancing with alts is pretty dubious (wings, extra pips..), but without a formal link between accounts owned by the same individual it's not that easy to police I guess.
Is that the Panther or the Puma?
Oh hell, no, not interesting for me at all. Not my idea of fun. I was just presenting it as something people could do.
But there are the competitive types who would sink countless hours into doing this sort of thing and they could have a very real impact on the results.
And in another week :
It seems strange to me at all, to take away new mechanics at once without explanation ...
It'll be interesting to see how Frontier solves this, since there are plenty of options to make it unexploitable
- that bit from the prototype screenshot doesn't make it into the game because after testing, they didn't like any of the other options either
- the points you get for a kill are proportional to that account's own PP contribution in recent weeks, so blowing up a no-action alt gets you nothing, and running up points on the alt is unlikely to be anywhere near as beneficial as just doing the same actions for your own power
- the points you get are specifically proportional to that account's current PP bounty for their own PvP kills, so blowing up the same person twice in a row only scores the first time
- you only get points for distinct kills in a week, killing the same player ten times doesn't get extra points
- "actually, we were hoping to sell more alts this way"
- it's mentioned as helping on the indicator because it stops/slows the other player pushing the bar the other way, not because you get points directly
- the points you get are (as in PP1) less than you'd get for blowing up an NPC, and you don't have to wait as long for those to reinstance
The killing collusion potential is the reason why I'm more for either a passive open bonus, or if 2 cmdrs are interacted (whether you are interdicting or interdicted then shoot/receive damage) both sides get token/risk bonus whatever. In this fashion none of the two opposing PP players can use it as collusion - however PP's that cooperate with each other could then collude anyway in the sense that they would look for a bonus to benefits them both.It may happen, and even without an alt... consider what "allied" powers can do.
I don't know if FDEV have/will included/include some ways to prevent this to happen... so, I can only speak on behalf of my group, as I always promoted a fair and sporty game and I apply here same stance as for clogs, ghosting, exploiting non-open-game-modes and so on: players will be kicked if I'd find that [from the combat logs] something fishy is happening.
And this is sadly why I'm more up for a passive PP bonus when playing in Open.
Cockpit Gremlins?And in another week :
It seems strange to me at all, to take away new mechanics at once without explanation ...
I don't think it would be very hard for Frontier to detect a commander that keeps repeatedly killing the same commander for hours or days..
Or just provide diminishing returns, especially if the player gets destroyed repeatedly. I’ve long said that the CQC ranking should be a relative one, rather than based on time served. If that was the case, high ranking players should provide more compared to a low-ranking one.
Or they could just not waste time on this style of gameplay. Don't have to solve a problem if it's not a problem. It's not like they don't already have enough fish to fry without making more fish.
If they are looking for it. Plus there are people out there with many alt accounts.
And that’s the true question here: is Frontier willing to spend any payroll dealing with these kinds of issues. Given Frontier’s history to date, I’d say that the answer is a firm “No.”
Last edited: