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

[Robert Maynard]

But you can instance with players in open and can't instance with players in solo.

Only in the particular version of Open that one plays in, of which there are four, with players who are playing in the same version of Open at the same time - and not all players play at the same time as the game runs 24/7.

That and they also have to participate in BGS, another optional part of the game, in a certain way that doesn't actively involve combat to get that benefit. This muddles things enough for it to be an interesting idea in my opinion and helps break down the myth that open is/should be only for PVP.

All players can choose to participate in the BGS - regardless of game mode - by design. To suggest that combat does not exist outside of Open is inaccurate - it would be more correct to say "in a way that doesn't actively involve PvP combat" - and, as mentioned, PvP is an optional extra that no player needs to engage in.

 

[Zieman]

None of this nullifies the fact that the purpose of the BGS is to bring life to the Galaxy. The fact that some players have repurposed it for other uses doesn’t obviate its actual purpose. There’s no point in knowing what mode everyone is in, because most traffic will be random, so it will tell you nothing. The mere fact that you even care means you’re already at a disadvantage.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Greasetrap42]

Its why I'd love a detailed log you could download (or have available via a KWS) where you can see who is where at a given moment in time. You could even make gameplay out of it- in that these detailed logs only record people and ships who have been scanned. So APEX / FCs would automatically log you, with the only stealthy way in via private ships avoiding all scans.

A detailed log by cmdr name? A log so you can determine exactly which cmdrs in whatever mode have been acting for/against your personal interests?

What exactly would you do with this information? Msg cmdrs who have been acting against your interests? Try to hunt them down to stop them? Many (most?) of whom are just randoms minding their own business running missions that don't give a rats butt about BGS or your faction.

Honestly this sounds more like a strategy for organized player harassment.

 

[Greasetrap42]

But you can instance with players in open and can't instance with players in solo.

You can only intentionally instance with players in open if you know their name and follow when they are online. Which sounds mighty creepy if you are planning on monitoring other player schedules and activities. If you go down the path of messaging random players because they are acting against your personal BGS interests that sound kinda.... bad.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

But you were suggesting a special advantage for open players - let's not obfuscate that - asking precisely for specific information on activity of players withing PG or solo, with the 'optional' inclusion of players in open being included if they elected to be counted.

I clarified it here, https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...r-actions-in-station-info.605928/post-9893427

Only in the particular version of Open that one plays in, of which there are four, with players who are playing in the same version of Open at the same time - and not all players play at the same time as the game runs 24/7.

Stop being disingenious, even in open players would need to be instanced to even know another was there, ED's instancing isn't a testament to precision, nor fairness, and depends on multiple factors for 2 or more players to appear in instance together.

How inaccurate would the solo information have to be to compensate for that?
I was actually thinking that having a

Faction support past 24h
faltering/weak/medium/strong/very strong/extreme

could be better than numbers as those might need to be obfuscated to ranges like 0-250, 251-500, 501-1000 anyway to keep the bgs secrets intact. The things currently not listed in station info probably work on a s-curve basis like the rest so it could even be a subtle hint that enough has been done and effort could be better spent elsewhere unless there's a good reason (something unavailible if you are in open and opt-out).

What exactly would you do with this information? Msg cmdrs who have been acting against your interests? Try to hunt them down to stop them? Many (most?) of whom are just randoms minding their own business running missions that don't give a rats butt about BGS or your faction.

I've totally been hunted down and messaged on INARA for my terrible acts of BGS terrorism and public nudity even without extra in-game data. I was ok with being found out though - not everyone would be though and that's why having an in-game sanctioned way to hide despite the extra info/tools would be necessary too. This is why just showing all the info without extra steps isn't a good idea on its own.

It's right to assume most of the interaction would be negative since this is an online environment and currently the only actions you can get noticed for are negative and you're unlikely to get random messages from players thanking you for ending an outbreak or something in their systems even in the best case scenarios.

 

[Nadreck]

Modes are irrelevant to this discussion.

If you want to have more info on what other players are active in a system, and what effect they might be having, then OK. But it makes no difference whether they are in open, solo, in a different timezone, on console, not instanced with you due to a poor Internet connection, or whatever.

 

[Rochester]

I like the idea of highlighting the activity of players and the BGS more visually in game, this would fit with FD very early ideas for players activity to be promoted in game news.

Sadly, much as it is with Power Play, the BGS is a static mesh which ultimately flips back to its static state after a fashion, and I suspect FD ultimately dont really want this highlighted, I also suspect they wouldn’t want any genuine positive action highlighted either, such as ‘turning the wheel’ etc or any negative actions, such as it being ‘weaponised’ against other players, as it would require an actual person to cross check and sanitise, it also might interfere with their ongoing narrative.

Note the BGS was never intended to be a visible and player interactive element in game, the manipulation we see in the BGS is a wholly emergent, player driven entity.

FD generally, want to do as little as possible, such proposals, although commendable are unlikely to transpire.

In short although I feel it technically is possible, I don’t believe FD has the dedicated resources to pull it off and for it to be cohesive.

As to it being a method to increase activity within Open I highly doubt it would have any impact, as it’s more about behaviour, and Private and Group actually attract and engage a certain demographic that FD wouldn’t want to loose. At present O-G-P works as intended.

 

[Robert Maynard]

How inaccurate would the solo information have to be to compensate for that?
I was actually thinking that having a

Faction support past 24h
faltering/weak/medium/strong/very strong/extreme

Which would be functionally no different than the results of the daily tick, i.e. players see the new influence level of each Faction in the system daily.

From these existing results, and their claimed knowledge of how much activity there has been in Open, BGS players in Open should be able to estimate how much activity there has been in Solo and Private Groups - unless their knowledge of activity in Open is lacking for the aforementioned reasons, in which case the estimates of activity outwith Open will be inflated.

I've totally been hunted down and messaged on INARA for my terrible acts of BGS terrorism and public nudity even without extra in-game data. I was ok with being found out though - not everyone would be though and that's why having an in-game sanctioned way to hide despite the extra info/tools would be necessary too. This is why just showing all the info without extra steps isn't a good idea on its own.

Using Inara, or any of the third party apps, is opt-in - the same should be the case for any information provided by the game, especially given the following:

It's right to assume most of the interaction would be negative since this is an online environment and currently the only actions you can get noticed for are negative and you're unlikely to get random messages from players thanking you for ending an outbreak or something in their systems even in the best case scenarios.

I doubt that Frontier would go out of their way to give players prone to harassing other players access to information that would make harassing players easier - given that other players are optional in this game.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

Using Inara, or any of the third party apps, is opt-in - the same should be the case for any information provided by the game, especially given the following:

At that point they could've added me as a friend in game or messaged me in-game too I think. People do that stuff too, but I only have a second hand story of that which happened after encounters in open to begin with even though it was ultimatley a BGS issue. In both cases the matter was resolved by diplomacy so it was a terrible and traumatizing experience for me.

I doubt that Frontier would go out of their way to give players prone to harassing other players access to information that would make harassing players easier - given that other players are optional in this game.

Yep and that is why I'd want this to be the something more feasible - the most minimal amount of aggregated information that would be useful and not top 10s or an exact running log of every mission done in the system with a player name attached.

 

[Robert Maynard]

At that point they could've added me as a friend in game or messaged me in-game too I think. People do that stuff too, but I only have a second hand story of that which happened after encounters in open to begin with even though it was ultimatley a BGS issue. In both cases the matter was resolved by diplomacy so it was a terrible and traumatizing experience for me.

A friend request does not need to be accepted - and one can't message a player one is not instanced with unless they are a friend (or in one's Wing).

Yep and that is why I'd want this to be the something more feasible - the most minimal amount of aggregated information that would be useful and not top 10s or an exact running log of every mission done in the system with a player name attached.

See edit to preceding post.

 

[Rubbernuke]

A detailed log by cmdr name? A log so you can determine exactly which cmdrs in whatever mode have been acting for/against your personal interests?

What exactly would you do with this information? Msg cmdrs who have been acting against your interests? Try to hunt them down to stop them? Many (most?) of whom are just randoms minding their own business running missions that don't give a rats butt about BGS or your faction.

Honestly this sounds more like a strategy for organized player harassment.

Calm down lad. You already have this across the game, FD even naming the top 10 guys in CGs.

What exactly would you do with this information?

Use it to work out who is potentially working against you.

Msg cmdrs who have been acting against your interests?

While I'd not bother, why is this bad? Means you can talk directly with people and negotiate perhaps. And if they go against T+Cs you can block or report them- not to mention- I thought it was not possible to message across modes now? Or for that matter why are you not creeped out by INARA if names are a problem?

Try to hunt them down to stop them?

Why is this bad? If they are in open and you know what time they play, why not? And if they are in solo or PG you at least know who is opposing you.

Many (most?) of whom are just randoms minding their own business running missions that don't give a rats butt about BGS or your faction.

And....so what? These people will be ignored.

Honestly this sounds more like a strategy for organized player harassment.

Like I stated above, this is nothing more than INARA in game really- bringing data together from in game activity. Maybe you need to try decaf tomorrow and chill a tad?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Calm down lad. You already have this across the game, FD even naming the top 10 guys in CGs.

It's not hard to stay out of the Top 10 in a CG - while contributing significantly to the progress of the CG.

Like I stated above, this is nothing more than INARA in game really- bringing data together from in game activity. Maybe you need to try decaf tomorrow and chill a tad?

Inara is out of game - an opt-in third party app (and a rather good one at that).

 

[Rebel Yell]

Then Kumo is not very clever. I am not surprised indeed, did i suspect this for quite some time now.

We are a bunch of idiots, indeed but we deliver the best burgers in the Galaxy. Adamantine!

It's a "pride" thing...

We like to be different.

The only Open players who are disadvantaged by playing in Open are those who falsely believe they can PvP their way to BGS success.

If you’re actively hunting me, you’re not filling your BGS bucket, while I am. I win.

[cut some bla bla]

Yes, but we'd have some nice pew-pews and kabooms for YT videos... where we do say "we've lost, but we had a lot of fun!"

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

"...but we had a lot of fun!"

The only real winning anyway.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Why PG/solo only?

You forget about instancing, timezones, platforms?

Why not all modes and all platforms so the whole picture is presented?

Problem is, total number of missions is useless, because once you have done so much INF of a certain type, extra missions/efforts have a diminishing return, so you can't calculate anything with such data.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's not hard to stay out of the Top 10 in a CG - while contributing significantly to the progress of the CG.

And that same logic applies to what I'm saying. Randos in this system are just flotsam, while exposing more data highlights the top actors people will want to know about because in BGS terms they are the ones who might need opposing / knowing about.

Inara is out of game - an opt-in third party app (and a rather good one at that).

Indeed it is, but its exposing what is already generated in ED itself via logs and the game itself. If FD want the BGS to be really alive its this sort of info that would allow more depth to BGS play. It also has upsides in that known pirates, killers etc will have a harder time hiding since their info (unless the game also uses stealth mechanics to smuggle yourself about) is also exposed- INARA does this IIRC and this takes it one step further and into the game proper.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yes, but we'd have some nice pew-pews and kabooms for YT videos... where we do say "we've lost, but we had a lot of fun!"

But what happens when someone goes kaboom before they fill that bucket?

 

[Robert Maynard]

And that same logic applies to what I'm saying. Randos in this system are just flotsam, while exposing more data highlights the top actors people will want to know about because in BGS terms they are the ones who might need opposing / knowing about.

Merely knowing about a player does not mean that any of those who they choose not to play with can in any way influence the way they choose to play the game.

Indeed it is, but its exposing what is already generated in ED itself via logs and the game itself. If FD want the BGS to be really alive its this sort of info that would allow more depth to BGS play. It also has upsides in that known pirates, killers etc will have a harder time hiding since their info (unless the game also uses stealth mechanics to smuggle yourself about) is also exposed- INARA does this IIRC and this takes it one step further and into the game proper.

... and the logs are private to each player, unless they choose to make them available to others.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Yes, but we'd have some nice pew-pews and kabooms for YT videos... where we do say "we've lost, but we had a lot of fun!"

Which is part of the reason why I play in Open. This game is an anomaly in the open-PvP games I’ve played in the past: it’s remarkably GIFT free. I like this environment, and prefer to keep it this way.

 

[varonica]

Or for that matter why are you not creeped out by INARA if names are a problem?

For the same reason I am not creeped out by the fact my name appears on the members board of the local memorial club, I gave it to them and gave them permission when I joined. Any attempt to validate compulsory acquisition of personal data using the argument that some people volunteer to share their information is the creepy bit. You do understand that don't you? You see how that's creepy and instantly turns every rational minded person against you. You are not entitled to everyones data because some people choose to share their data voluntarily