How could players be encouraged to put themselves into dangerous pvp scenarios, even when they don't have to?

[{SAS}Stalker]

Create a feature that has rival groups of players coming together maybe? If its opt in then no one can complain because everyone has options. But hang on

The trouble is, the "not my content people" have led FD and ED into a game which feels flat and lacking consequence because its leaked into the PvE aspect as well.

There's never been consequences in ED because consequences mean barriers and it's pretty clear that barriers are excluded by design.

Not withstanding the fact that it was never set up to do what the OP wants it was irrevocably prevented by the release of engineers. I understand the reasons for engineers, it was deemed, rightly or wrongly "attractive content" but it widened the gap between hauler build and death machine build to galactic proportions. There's no way back from that now.

Back in the day we had people say they would rather self destruct than be a victim of piracy etc, these days you wouldn't have chance to even navigate to the option. Then came mobius and the creation of a sever within a server.

The game should have had two distinct modes and galaxies from the beginning but even if it had open would still be void of people because it's both massive and the other guys would still be on the other server.

The only thing that could be changed now is how you can be undermined by ghosts but I no longer really care about that either.

 

[rootsrat]

How about Neo-Marlinist Liberation Army?

They are NPC's. Players can support them, but they can't join them.

 

[Tharrn]

Personally speaking: good luck encouraging me. I hate combat unless it's a pushover of NPCs in an over-engineered ship.

 

[Rubbernuke]

There's never been consequences in ED because consequences mean barriers and it's pretty clear that barriers are excluded by design.

Now withstanding the fact that it was never set up to do what the OP wants it was irrevocably prevented by the release of engineers. I understand the reasons for engineers, it was deemed, rightly or wrongly "attractive content" but it widened the gap between hauler build and death machine build to galactic proportions. There's no way back from that now.

Back in the day we had people say they would rather self destruct than be a victim of piracy etc, these days you wouldn't have chance to even navigate to the option. Then came mobius and the creation of a sever within a server.

The game should have had two distinct modes and galaxies from the beginning but even if it had open would still be void of people because it's both massive and the other guys would still be on the other server.

The only thing that could be changed now is how you can be undermined by ghosts but I no longer really care about that either.

The irony is Sandro before the first Powerplay flash topic did a clean sheet PvP design for Powerplay, so FD already have the answer right now sat in Adams office.

FD made a string of poor choices - starting with making NAVs useless in point to point flight, making SC the only place to collar people, making station drop zones so small people drop in total safety. The POI model coupled with SC makes SC just a lobby when it should be a POI in itself...it almost is, its just FD are blind to the dots that need joining up.

Logging off should not be an escape- your ship should persist enough to be killed if you log out mid combat. There are loads of little things that just make me scratch my head.

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

The irony is Sandro before the first Powerplay flash topic did a clean sheet PvP design for Powerplay, so FD already have the answer right now sat in Adams office.

FD made a string of poor choices - starting with making NAVs useless in point to point flight, making SC the only place to collar people, making station drop zones so small people drop in total safety. The POI model coupled with SC makes SC just a lobby when it should be a POI in itself...it almost is, its just FD are blind to the dots that need joining up.

Logging off should not be an escape- your ship should persist enough to be killed if you log out mid combat. There are loads of little things that just make me scratch my head.

Agreed but even if they fixed that, solo.

Force it to open won't work because as I've said people would just stop doing it. That's why none of Sandro's solutions ever saw light of day.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

We have already solved this problem in my power, and our haulers love it (speaking as a hauler who owns no FDLs). We do it by devoting forces to protect them. It works as a preventative measure (often someone'll pay for one rebuy, sure, but subsequent rebuys get harder for the opponent to realise ) and fosters esprit de corps that makes the rebuys feel quite different.

There's a carrot you could get from this if you don't want to rely on people fostering this kind of culture.

Give the guys running overwatch merit rewards for doing their job. So, if they (with no cargo bays) instance with a hauler carrying merits, within 10ls as the hauler enters the system, and then instance again with the hauler when they drop those same merits at the station, then they get a merit award toward the same goal of 20% of those merits delivered. The PvP overwatch need to then drop their merits at a control system, so they themselves become a target for attack while they hold their accumulated merits (which are lost on destruction).

You could do the same with trading. If someone escorts a trader in this way then the system authority awards them cash that increases with the profit made. You could even rig something similar up concerning pilots doing engineering.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Agreed but even if they fixed that, solo.

Force it to open won't work because as I've said people would just stop doing it. That's why none of Sandro's solutions ever saw light of day.

Then let them stop, and flow into the parts of the game that they do like. Nothing can develop a personality or edge if its continually churned to try and please everyone because that way has failed.

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

Then let them stop, and flow into the parts of the game that they do like. Nothing can develop a personality or edge if its continually churned to try and please everyone because that way has failed.

I totally agree, FDev don't but I do.

It won't however satisfy what the OP is asking, it won't lure people into open.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I totally agree, FDev don't but I do.

It won't however satisfy what the OP is asking, it won't lure people into open.

Nothing will, if ED is to remain compartmentalised then the only way is to make a compartmentalised feature that has PvP as a big ticket item.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

And they could add a special button for it on the Main Menu and put it near CQC and forget about it.
While PP die-hards will still ask for open-only PP as it is now, so they can shoot T9 and Cutters with FDL and Mambas - simply because they dont want a pure PVP powerplay.

(for what is worth, i like the sound of it, but it looks like a mini-game, pretty much like CQC is - which ultimately could be taken as it is and tied to the PowerPlay in some ways, any ways)

Yep - this could be tacked on as a "pure combat PvP" scenario which is part of PP. It would draw some PvPers away from haulers though and give them more gameplay options. I actually like the existing organic system which creates unique emergent team play scenarios.

Edit: Instead of a button, put it in an empty system (it's a "black op" involving some secret military target), and no-one not involved will ever know it's there.

 

[ethelred]

"Terrorists" should not exist as players in a video game. IMO. (Unless the game is specifically about that, i.e. CSGO).

I get you. To explain my reasoning:- ultimately this ties into a model to which FDEV do not subscribe - that of career paths that pilots can choose to follow.

A "Terrorist" path would be one about overthrowing major or minor powers and have engineers and unlocks to help them do this and further the opposing career path would be that of the "bounty hunter" who would likewise progress with unlocks, engineers and modules to counter the "terrorists" activities. "terrorist" is just a label for this really.

As I say just a framework for gameplay that isn't, won't and probably can't be introduced into the game as it is.

I'm a firm believer in that anything outside of cheating should be allowed and so, knowing human behaviour can be excerable, IMHO FDev should create gameplay around what people are likely to do rather than than the fudge we have at the moment.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

There's a carrot you could get from this if you don't want to rely on people fostering this kind of culture.

Give the guys running overwatch merit rewards for doing their job. So, if they (with no cargo bays) instance with a hauler carrying merits, within 10ls as the hauler enters the system, and then instance again with the hauler when they drop those same merits at the station, then they get a merit award toward the same goal of 20% of those merits delivered. The PvP overwatch need to then drop their merits at a control system, so they themselves become a target for attack while they hold their accumulated merits (which are lost on destruction).

You could do the same with trading. If someone escorts a trader in this way then the system authority awards them cash that increases with the profit made. You could even rig something similar up concerning pilots doing engineering.

You could further augment this by reducing the cumulative financial cost of overwatch. Subsidise rebuys for pledges in systems where lots of CMDRs are being destroyed - the system clearly matters to the power if such fierce fighting is going on. You could link it to the surplus CC balance of the power to incentivise being a successful or compact power. In the trading example (for CMDRs without a bounty/notoriety), it's a golden thank-you for keeping business flowing.

 

[VR Murgle]

Sigh one of these again? I'm sure this will be the one to finally solve the problem...

 

[Hanerib]

Always wondered though how we have these system security states, but a high security still does very little to protect a trader, or punish the criminal. Wouldn't it be nice if a hauler would actively try to avoid passing through low security and anarchy space, plotting routes ahead with this in mind? Now imagine a bunch of criminals lowering the security of a system so that they could blast at everything that goes there, or simply keep themselves to the dangerous space.

It's so sad navigation means so very little anymore... How about those dark systems they talked about ten years ago? Just add a few thousand systems to the bubble that only appear in nav panel, not in the map. Also lower all FSD ranges. Man, FDev really should listen to me in all these matters, would solve everything.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Always wondered though how we have these system security states, but a high security still does very little to protect a trader, or punish the criminal. Wouldn't it be nice if a hauler would actively try to avoid passing through low security and anarchy space, plotting routes ahead with this in mind? Now imagine a bunch of criminals lowering the security of a system so that they could blast at everything that goes there, or simply keep themselves to the dangerous space.

It's so sad navigation means so very little anymore... How about those dark systems they talked about ten years ago? Just add a few thousand systems to the bubble that only appear in nav panel, not in the map. Also lower all FSD ranges. Man, FDev really should listen to me in all these matters, would solve everything.

And suddenly there's an explicit point to doing BGS to increase security, a new role that supports other CMDRs.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Sigh one of these again? I'm sure this will be the one to finally solve the problem...

It's futile to discourage us. You should know that by now.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Encouraging is not equal to "making", unless I am missing something?

Indeed it's not - however the OP contains the line "How do you make players WANT to instance together?" noting the use of "make" rather than "encourage" (even if "encourage" is used in the thread title)

Encouragement will work in some cases, not in others - and no-one can be "made" to do anything, as noted previously.

 

[Northpin]

It's futile to discourage us. You should know that by now.

Yea, but ED is what it is specifically because people can choose what to play and with whom to play it.
Any attempt to force a gameplay favored by one category over other categories of players will not end up well.

So instead of pressuring FD for open-only stuff... pressure them:

• to find ways to diminish the 5C effect.
• to remove the PP CZ and replace them with the current mechanics for High CZ (a finite number of targets, the need to reset the instance and so on) to prevent turret boats afk farming thousands of pp merits.
• Make the pledge a more serious affair instead of: bye, i will join another power tomorrow

And so on and so Forth.

Open only will not solve any of those.

 

[Brrokk]

Since the beginning of Elite, there have been two camps; those who want some or all of the game to be Open-Only, and those who prefer to remain out of the sight of the first group.

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about this, and proposals for Open Only activities, since the recent dev posts about powerplay. And here's the conclusion I've ultimately come to:

It's impossible to make open-only work with the current system.

The primary reason for this is twofold:

1. One side of any powerplay-related engagement prefers to never see the other player.
2. The underlying mechanics of Elite make avoiding other players almost impossible to prohibit.

When it comes to Elite, the p2p matchmaking system means that, in order for any two players to instance together, their computers must be able to connect with each other. Open only only means you see the players in close geographical proximity to you; the chances of instancing with someone who lives any significant distance from you is severely curtailed. This can be exploited in multiple ways, including VPNs to shift your apparent location, to simply adding enough lag to your connection you can connect with the frontier servers for basic transactions like trade or delivering commodities, but not for high-bandwidth contact like pvp. But at its core, even a player with a bad internet connection will have a profound advantage over those who can connect easily.

Compounding this is the existing of ingame features such as Fleet Carriers, that make interdictions of players nigh-impossible, if they don't actively want it to happen. Players can jump in from an adjacent system, land their fleet carrier 25MM from the station, and drop in so fast it would be impossible to intercept them.

But worst of all is the fact that one half of players are intensely driven to avoid other players as much as possible. If a hauler can guarantee they won't see enemy players, they can dramatically increase their hauling efficiency. So any strategy they can come up with to avoid pvp contact entirely is always going to be the ideal solution.

This is where this problem can actually be fixed, and where I would like to draw attention and focused brain power: How do you make players WANT to instance together?

---

There's a paradox, here. On the one hand, you want players to interact and engage with one another. On the other hand, every mechanic is pushing players to avoid contact and engagement as much as possible. The haulers don't want to engage the interdictors. The interdictors don't want to engage the hauler's defenders. And the haulers defenders don't really even want to kill the interdictors, because that just means a quick respawn, instead of a prolonged fight.

At no stage of the powerplay cycle are players actually wanting to fight.

So how do you fix this?

The first idea that came to my mind was rewarding the haulers for interaction with the interdictors. Maybe giving them a large multiplier to their hauling efforts if they get interdicted and escape.

Only, that hangs on a tightrope. If the bonus is too small, then it won't be worth it, and people will still just avoid contact entirely. If the bonus is too big, then you end up actively discouraging interdictors from participating, for fear of making the situation worse.

You could simply reward players for pvp outright. Killing enemy players in combat ships rewards you with merits.

Only that's open to exploitation and farming.

You could instigate a pvp elo-based system, with duels between high-skill players giving great rewards.

Only that ignores any complexity at all, and simplifies powerplay down to an elaborate dueling mechanic.

---

The list goes on. None of my ideas are perfect. The one thing I know is this; without making the haulers want to participate with other players, given the architecture and design of multiplayer in elite, you cannot make them do it. Open only or not makes no practical difference in that fundamental problem of the desire(or lack thereof) for participation.

So I turn to you. Help me answer this question. How do you make players want to play in open, knowing they might be killed? How do you do this without discouraging the interdictors from interdicting, feeling as if they're useless?

People who enjoy PvP can do it.
People who don't enjoy PvP can avoid it.
- No "encouragement" needed.

(In ED the only people who don't have what they want are the ones who want to attack other people who don't want PvP).

 

[Northpin]

(In ED the only people who don't have what they want are the ones who want to attack other people who don't want PvP).

This makes a nice tagline