Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking
- Thread starter Hole in Head
- Start date
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Probs.About as unlikely as FD making the game open only?
They need to crack the gank trader.
murderboat vs always weaker target. Once that's done I reckon the rest will follow regardless of the Bgs or powerplay.
And the way to do that is to limit armaments so that pvpers can't stack more than say 2 weps the same namely 2 PA's or rails etc.
Also the build...
PvP is about capping shields not resistances. Do away with it. Make resistances relevant in PvP too.
Finally shield cell banks and heatsinks. Limit those to one per vessel.
Then overall you'll have a level playing field where anyones build is not pve or PvP but the same.
So. That's my penny worth.
murderboat vs always weaker target. Once that's done I reckon the rest will follow regardless of the Bgs or powerplay.
And the way to do that is to limit armaments so that pvpers can't stack more than say 2 weps the same namely 2 PA's or rails etc.
Also the build...
PvP is about capping shields not resistances. Do away with it. Make resistances relevant in PvP too.
Finally shield cell banks and heatsinks. Limit those to one per vessel.
Then overall you'll have a level playing field where anyones build is not pve or PvP but the same.
So. That's my penny worth.
And yet, it had a strong PvP element to it- ill thought out with holes, but there. All the structures are / were there for it. Other modes certainly were valid choices, but it was made in a way that made things easy to identify without having to cargo scan, with big badges telling others who you work for.
We don't know either way is the honest answer, which is part of the problem- if you don't know whats the developers intended to be the ideal way, then its hard to have consistent rules. In this case (because its a competition) people use the most efficient ways possible, which is solo and PG where NPC opposition (trying to fill in the PvP half) is minimal to non-existent, which then artificially allows bigger territories and also makes it far harder to attack (since people can fortify easily). Without a firm bias to instability and attacking, Powerplay has run out of road because everyone is bullet proof.
Going in cold with Powerplay is like playing Civ with 1000 other players and not being able to communicate with them. It was only when Reddit and later Discord came in groups built up and co-ordinated. If you play it apart its overwhelming and good moves are not shown (i.e. you are expected to know good from bad).
My proposal makes it incredibly accessible- as you know PP NPCS do not scale from mission instances to a wider, pan bubble level- the logical conclusion (if keeping the current framework) is to keep them local for PP missions for Solo and PG, make them a vital support role and then leave the delivery (i.e. pick something up, deliver it) in Open, where PvP happens. What its doing is splitting the two halves of Powerplay and making the separate modes responsible for each.
Powerplay groups have run squadrons, wings, training and fly together too- after all the aim of Powerplay is to deliver- you lose if you do not. Its in your own Powers interest for you to survive. Even alone this can be achieved, if you break the large ship meta and make something fast and nimble (at the expense of volume). This slows delivery but is safer. It leads to all sorts of tactics, even involving FCs.
The irony is, the PP NPCs should be doing the griefing, they try desperately hard with two Eagles.
Powerplay currently in Open when away from gathering is PvP- my issue is that currently people holding game winning amounts of merits can log out or block you per-emptively when their destruction would be meaningful for that cycles outcome. I do want it to be more meaningful, because if it was (and changed to my proposal if FD are keeping the current design) it would make the game much more uncertain, with larger territories being much harder to keep, make the game more dynamic and actually use squadrons, FCs, wings to enable more complex interactions.
If you sign up and go into Open, then it is.
Well, they should be prepared for it in Open if they pledge, and not be surprised if they get attacked. A great example was Capo, described as 'a CZ but with hollow triangles'- challenge aplenty there.The reason why Powerplay is not seen as fun by many is because the meat of Powerplay is repetitive tasks flying between A and B with nothing happening in two modes. When I said 50 keypresses I was not joking, when I fortified one day I counted them- it was shocking how little interaction was needed repeatedly. Thats why its not fun, because sod all happens between you taking off and landing. It should be PQ 17, not Wallmart shopping day.
From my view, a lot of people do want it. If 5000 respondents wanted something while the current playerbase estimated at less than a thousand, what does that say? Powerplay has to change to justify its inclusion- the BGS has developed into what Powerplay should have been, so unless its removed it has to evolve and offer something different otherwise its duplicating existing experiences.
Currently it would at least allow for any encounter in Open to be truly meaningful- as in, it has a conclusion that is a win or a loss. So taking an earlier example, anyone with merits who then is destroyed makes that battle meaningful- team B lost 10000 merits via enemy action for example. Thats why (based on whats been proposed) people push for Open Powerplay, because Solo and PG distort the game- they make hauling and the maintainance of systems far too easy and predictable. Now, if you separated that again and gave solo and PG a vital, non-overlapping role, everything fits.
"Hey, you know that thing you already don't do, well now it's even more exclusive to group players and griefers"
Well, from the excitement that was generated from it, trading 250 people from 1000 and adding 5000 players suggests otherwise. If the battles are meaningful people will want to fight them.
Erm.....what we have is more than that- if let loose it would be a complete, self contained conflict-
All fortification inbound: everyone hauling comes to the capital- means haulers have to get past people hunting, with allies playing overwatch to keep them suppressed. FCs make this even more complex, as it allows closer jumps (and proximity) at the strategic cost of having ships lifting off and vulnerable.
Scouting: a minimal role currently, but to know where FCs might be, enemy strength in systems, you need to go find out in a real time way.
Intel: when does your rival fortify? What do they fortify with? Can we disrupt it? Open Powerplay would require much more information on rivals habits and timings.
Co-ordination: for risky plans this would require close co-operation between wings and even powers at a planning as well as flying stage. We have wings, squadrons etc for this now.
Mega UM: if attacked enough, a system enters a spiral where fortifiers have to keep reinforcing while under fierce attack. This creates a war zone where the defender has to protect, drive away attackers and retain control.
Preparation: don't like where your enemy is preparing? If you see them via patrol, stop them.
Bear in mind since there is no impulse to expand all the time, powers can choose to be aggressive for a cycle- and that since instability is greater large empires will be much harder to hold, meaning more game space to fight over (in short, no trench warfare and more dynamism).
Now compare that to playing Powerplay in Solo and PG:
Fortify / shoot faster than the next guy who you can't see.
I'm not against radical change away from the current template though- these are my other suggestions:
'Inverted' NPC Driven Powerplay where teamplay means survival
A random thought I wanted to externalise before I forget it. Problem: in Powerplay you have two 'phases' of play- merit earning in PvE zones and merit dropping (hauling, sniping etc). In the latter you do not have effective opposition, or opposition that reacts to your efforts. This idea might...
[POWERPLAY] Proposal for redesign using BGS style mechanics that work with the new BGS
Here is an alternative concept for Powerplay, where Powerplay works like a modifier for the BGS to make each system more unique. Unlike the current system it simulates the political aspect and is 5C proof. Powerplay V2: Expansions / prep / CC / bubbles removed and each system has every power...
Powerplay - Powerplay V.2 using Squadron / megaship mechanics
Wall of text alert! Powerplay is all about people (us) who support a leader who appeals to our sense of moral (im)purity and values (or lack of them!). We support them outside of the law, in essence we are paramilitary groups fighting over who is 'right'. Powerplay is always seen as an...
If you mean the Gnosis incident I guess you mean, that was awesome too. I went along knowing that the jump would fail and there would be Thargoids, just for a 0.01% chance of discovering a Thargoid home system. Playing a rat leaving the sinking ship was great fun. After that I RPd being lost and adrift in space for a bit and had a look at the Orion nebula.
Honestly, I feel like if PvPers were really interested in having "wars", they'd simply find a way to organise it, either based on Squadrons, PP, or the BGS.
ED has a bunch of PFs who have embraced this and they seem content (if not actually happy) with how it works so I can't help thinking that those who ignore the options already available aren't actually that interested in any kind of "respectable" PvP.
A PVP Flag is a sad flag
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Sad for whom and why?
That's how it is, but I wouldn't call those PvPers. There are PvP events and we've been told of some in this thread. But then there are people who say they want PvP but organise things like DG2 so that they can fight unarmed explorer ships, claim they're Thargoid sympathisers so they can fight ships only having AX weapons, or use advantage of numbers to destroy noobs.
Not everyone who says they want PvP really do want PvP opponents. There are too many who just want easy targets, and they'd like those targets lined up in a box please.
I respect the real PvP community and if I were among them I'd be asking them to be more vocal in condemning the hangers-on who give them a bad name.
Sad for me - because I prefer games where bullets just work rather than bouncing off magic flags.
(Also for reference, just in case, I dislike ganking - which I define as destroying commanders without an (communicated/understood) in game reason)
I couldn't agree more.
Those that are genuinely interested in anu of the game options as an engaging activity are out there doing it rather than whining to FDev to supply them with something.
Interesting idea that would however modify the PvP piracy dynamic, as it would remove the threat of destruction which is a part of the negotiation - do we really want that?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Understood.
.... the game already has two experimental effects that disable weapon damage to Wing members though.
It would generally include anyone who believes logging out is a legitamate way to avoid the loss of a ship.
Almost any contextually plausible combat will be goal oriented.
Fighting for the sake of fighting, or failing to stack the odds of a potentially dangerous encounter in one's favor as heavily as possible, is something you rarely see in reality outside of sporting events...and for damn good reason.
In this case it means using a mechanism in a way contrary to intent to provide an advantage.
Regardless of Frontier's stance on what is worth punishing, there is no rational reason to conclude that logging off via menu was intended as a means to avoid combat, or other encounters that could result in inconvenience. The presence of a timer specifically to delay such action in a variety of scenarios is a pretty damning piece of evidence to the contrary of such an idea.
And they were just as wrong as anyone thinks menu logging out of combat, or to unstick their CMDR's ship from the toaster rack, isn't.
This is less a matter of opinion than it is the inevitable product of deductive reasoning based on the evidence at hand.
Either menu logging is intended as a means to bypass in-game consequence, in which case there would be no timer to delay it--or it's not, in which case using it for such purpose is unintended and undesirable, and thus an exploit.
It being an exploit is in no way incompatible with Frontier's statements on the matter either. There needs to be a way to cleanly leave the game, regardless of circumstances, but they do not have a network model capable of enforcing the consequences they'd like, so they had to compromise. They are never going to bar people from using the menu log off and they are never going to publicly admit that certain mechanisms of their product are completely broken.
Haha, yeah, but those are smart bullets - which the person firing them has set to explode before hitting an ally - it's not a magic flag
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
True - but the functionality exists - and could, if Frontier wanted, be expanded to all Pilots' Federation members, not just Wing members.
Sure, technically, it would make me sad though (There'd also need to be something to explain ramming but this risks an entirely different conversation - I was mostly just voicing my opinion that PVP flags, in my opinion, diminish the game)
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I'd agree - which is why I'd prefer a fully-fledged Open-PvE game mode to be added rather than PvP flags.