Include a "Voucher" system to give meaning, and impact to PvP.

[Mohrgan]

A proposal for creating a "PvP-Voucher" system.

This proposal is intended to suggest a new layer of engagement within the BGS and Power Play features through direct PvP in Elite. The suggestion is intended to create a method where consensual PvP can be rewarded and have influence on the BGS and Power Play mechanics. It is not intended to alter how Open World PvP is currently implemented, it is meant to enhance it. Without removing or altering any existing mechanics.

Alignment:
Alignment would work as in Power Play (PP). A feature of the coming Squadron mechanics would allow a Player to officially align with a Faction. Alignment to a Player Associated Faction (PAF) would display after a scan just as with a player pledged in PP. All of the rules concerning PvP in Power Play would apply. When an Aligned player comes across another aligned, but opposing player, in a contested system, all C&P, Notoriety, and ATR responses would be suspended.
A contested system would be defined as: any system where two or more Player Assiciated Factions are present in a system as we see now through the BGS mechanics.
Just as in PP, a player would be prompted with a warning, that by aligning with a PAF, you are making yourself available to consensual PvP when logged into open.

PvP-Vouchers:
PvP-Vouchers would be a reward for completing a PvP encounter between two or more oppsing Pledged (PP), or Aligned (PAF) Commanders. A Completed PvP encounter would entail a ships destruction. The losing player(s) would gain one Voucher, while the winner(s) would gain three. Rewarding each side proprtionetly makes the attempt worth the loser's effort, and reward the winner's prowess. This would encourage engaging in PvP.
PvP-Vouchers would be used to either increase a players influence within PP or the BGS, or they could simply be turned in directly for influence as in turning in a mission, or delivering materials in PP. The values for this influence would have to be debated.

The intention of a system like this would be to bring meaning, and impact to PvP in Elite: Dangerous. Something players have been seeking for some time. As this is just a simple framework, I welcome suggestions and comments to further the stated intentions.

 

[Riverside]

I like the idea of rewarding a player's skill and allowing them to increase the influence of their regular actions - it provides direction & motivation to an otherwise fun but often fruitless activity.

I would like to suggest though, that an equivalent PvE voucher system be added in parallel to this, for example rewarding the accomplished Thargoid killing 'hero'. An alternative might be to insert new USS scenarios where NPCs are equipped with cookie cutter engineered PvP-type builds. This would allow players the opportunity to prepare or test a PvP capable build of their own as well as rewarding that skill with increased influence.

One concern with giving PvP influence is friends farming each other. A cooldown timer & diminishing returns on killing the same player repeatedly would go some way to mitigate this.

 

[Mohrgan]

As always, applying mechanics throughout the game evenly is the best policy. I am not sure what the current benefit of Thargoid hunting to a Commander, BGS Factions, or Power is, but offering a similar payout, for similar effort cannot go wrong.

Requiring the completion of an engagement, i.e. ship loss, and pledging/aligning to opposing organizations, I feel, goes a long way towards reducing the likelihood of players 'trading' kills. Diminishing returns may not be applicable. Rivalries and repeated attempts to effect a Faction/Power should be met with repeated resistance. DR would/could benefit a persistent agitator. A Cooldown could do the same. The suggestion is to encourage PvP, not box it into scheduled bits.

Maybe putting limits and conditions on Pledging/Aligning could be introduced to counter trading kills. If a friend couldn't just jump between Powers/Factions at a whim trading would be unfeasible when combined with the costs of ship loss.

 

[Robert Maynard]

At present, any player can interact with their player supported Faction without flagging themselves for PvP.

Why should pledging to ones Faction (which has been requested by many) be placed behind a PvP barrier? (i.e. if pledged then it is assumed that the player wants PvP)

As we don't know how Squadrons will interact with the rest of the galaxy (and may have nothing to do with Factions at all), I'd suggest applying the proposed voucher system to engagements between Squadrons that have in some way indicated their opposition to each other.

 

[Mohrgan]

At present, any player can interact with their player supported Faction without flagging themselves for PvP.

Why should pledging to ones Faction (which has been requested by many) be placed behind a PvP barrier? (i.e. if pledged then it is assumed that the player wants PvP)

As we don't know how Squadrons will interact with the rest of the galaxy (and may have nothing to do with Factions at all), I'd suggest applying the proposed voucher system to engagements between Squadrons that have in some way indicated their opposition to each other.

It wouldn't be behind a PvP Barrier. None of the current mechanics in the game should change. Interacting and supporting a Faction without aligning would not change. After aligning, a player could simply not be in open, just as it is now with PP. PvP would only be consequence free in contested systems, and between opposing Commanders, in open. There are plenty of ways to engage in the features without being subject to PvP. That's how I see it at least.

I am suggesting that the Squadrons feature could/should include a system as suggested, in advance of FD's release of their intentions.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If the intent is to take existing features that players have interacted with for over two years, that don't in any way flag a player for PvP in Open, and require them to be flagged for PvP in Open if pledged to their existing Faction then I doubt that it will prove popular with those players who have had Factions inserted, prefer to play in Open, but eschew PvP.

 

[Mohrgan]

If the intent is to take existing features that players have interacted with for over two years, that don't in any way flag a player for PvP in Open, and require them to be flagged for PvP in Open if pledged to their existing Faction then I doubt that it will prove popular with those players who have had Factions inserted, prefer to play in Open, but eschew PvP.

A valid concern. Contrast and compare with how doing just that effected PP. Suggest a way to make it fair in your eyes. Could there be an optional check mark for agreeing to be part of Aligned PvP? This doesn't have to be 'all or nothing', you know.

Recognize that everyone playing in open is already flagged for PvP. All I am suggesting is to create a layer of rewards for meaningful PvP, based on the existing game mechanics.

 

[Robert Maynard]

A valid concern. Contrast and compare with how doing just that effected PP. Suggest a way to make it fair in your eyes. Could there be an optional check mark for agreeing to be part of Aligned PvP? This doesn't have to be 'all or nothing', you know.

PowerPlay has proved to be unpopular - whether that is to do with the fact that it flags players in Open for PvP (or the fact that players can still engage in PowerPlay in the other two modes) is not known.

Maybe it would be for each Faction to flag itself as a PvP or PvE faction, i.e. PvE factions would not be affected by the PvP voucher system - as you seem to suggest.

 

[Mohrgan]

PowerPlay has proved to be unpopular - whether that is to do with the fact that it flags players in Open for PvP (or the fact that players can still engage in PowerPlay in the other two modes) is not known.

Maybe it would be for each Faction to flag itself as a PvP or PvE faction, i.e. PvE factions would not be affected by the PvP voucher system - as you seem to suggest.

PP was unpopular way before the PvP flagging and C&P/Notoriety exemptions were implemented. Those exemptions were included to try and bring meaning to PvP and give players interested an outlet.

I can get behind the notion that the PAF could be the point where flagging for PvP gets done. That's a fine suggestion.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I'm not into PvP, so I'm not going to comment on that aspect.

However, any ability for a Cmdr to align with a minor faction should NOT be limited to Player Minor Factions. Whilst you're not asking for any benefits to alignment and there probably isn't a huge call for the PvP additions for non-P MFs, the simple fact of 'pledging' is something that many players would like to see implemented.

I don't believe that making it 'open' would detract from the major part of your proposal.

 

[Mohrgan]

I'm not into PvP, so I'm not going to comment on that aspect.

However, any ability for a Cmdr to align with a minor faction should NOT be limited to Player Minor Factions. Whilst you're not asking for any benefits to alignment and there probably isn't a huge call for the PvP additions for non-P MFs, the simple fact of 'pledging' is something that many players would like to see implemented.

I don't believe that making it 'open' would detract from the major part of your proposal.

I have aligned myself, my play time, with a non-player associated faction. I work to increase it's influence within my interests. I don't see the Squadrons mechanics relating heavily to non-player factions, but allowing that FD will make it available, lets make them automatically non-PvP factions. So if a player gets to, and wants to Align with a non-player group associated faction, officially, they are not subject to the PvP exemptions in open. Does that seem right?

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I have aligned myself, my play time, with a non-player associated faction. I work to increase it's influence within my interests. I don't see the Squadrons mechanics relating heavily to non-player factions, but allowing that FD will make it available, lets make them automatically non-PvP factions. So if a player gets to, and wants to Align with a non-player group associated faction, officially, they are not subject to the PvP exemptions in open. Does that seem right?

I agree that the squadron mechanics are probably of little relevance to players who are aligned with 'regular' minor factions, but I think the PvP exemptions could still apply to players aligned to MFs that are in a BGS conflict state. They (you, and I) are still working to the same BGS rules even if the factions have generic names. It MIGHT even get me to do some PvP

It's a less common scenario, but 'my' MF lost a system to another MF that was clearly supported by other players.

 

[Mohrgan]

I agree that the squadron mechanics are probably of little relevance to players who are aligned with 'regular' minor factions, but I think the PvP exemptions could still apply to players aligned to MFs that are in a BGS conflict state. They (you, and I) are still working to the same BGS rules even if the factions have generic names. It MIGHT even get me to do some PvP

Well there you are. A related goal is to make PvP more available to those that enjoy it. My idea, I hope, would make it worth, even to the losers, the time spent in attempting to directly assault/defend a BGS Faction, as well as increase the motivation to so so in PP.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Another factor to take into account would be the relative "strength" of each ship (a concept that Sandro mentioned quite some time ago).

If a player in a full-on Engineered meta-build-du-jour were to destroy an unEngineered ship then the disparity in ship strength should probably be taken into account when awarding vouchers.

 

[Mohrgan]

Another factor to take into account would be the relative "strength" of each ship (a concept that Sandro mentioned quite some time ago).

If a player in a full-on Engineered meta-build-du-jour were to destroy an unEngineered ship then the disparity in ship strength should probably be taken into account when awarding vouchers.

I guess. It kind of waters down the contest, but we already have the Notoriety calculations in game, let's see if there is support to have them applied.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I guess. It kind of waters down the contest, but we already have the Notoriety calculations in game, let's see if there is support to have them applied.

On the contrary, I would suggest that it would serve to make a real contest more likely - by encouraging players in OP ships to tone them down so that they receive more reward.

 

[Truesilver]

I like this suggestion, Mohrgan, and feel it is something I would like to take part in.

A few preliminary thoughts / issues:

1. A fundamental problem may be that afaik BGS wars between player factions where both factions are actually present in the same system are the exception, not the rule. They are of course the paradigm but the bubble is large.

2. 5th column farming would be a major problem. The very first thing that an aggressive BGS faction would do would be to have many of their members pledge to the enemy, then farm them.

3. However, I like the fact that would this would tie PvP into the existing BGS and provide no direct reward beyond the BGS.

4. I think it is likely that, however modified according to other posters' suggestions as above, unfortunately if implemented this system would be likely to confer either a substantial advantage, or disadvantage, on PvP factions compared to PvE player factions in terms of promoting their interests. It's difficult to see how it could be so fine-tuned as to be neutral.

Another factor to take into account would be the relative "strength" of each ship (a concept that Sandro mentioned quite some time ago).

If a player in a full-on Engineered meta-build-du-jour were to destroy an unEngineered ship then the disparity in ship strength should probably be taken into account when awarding vouchers.

On the contrary, I would suggest that it would serve to make a real contest more likely - by encouraging players in OP ships to tone them down so that they receive more reward.

This imho is the precise opposite of how it should work and would stop me taking part. The reason is that I am at heart a roleplayer. If I were to take part I would want to be taking part in a simulation of war.

The above is not a simulation of war it is a simulation of sport. IRL the point is to maximise damage to the enemy. The merits should not be reduced if the enemy is wiped out as efficiently as possible. Rather the merits should scale by damage done (broadly speaking, the more valuable the enemy ship destroyed, the better for the destroyer).

Furthermore an important point of the OP's suggestion, to me, and a benefit, is that it would actually provide a purpose to creating the most powerful ship possible. The game currently provides the opportunity but not the reason.

 

[Mohrgan]

On the contrary, I would suggest that it would serve to make a real contest more likely - by encouraging players in OP ships to tone them down so that they receive more reward.

I don't really see that as a motivating factor, but I concede. Some factoring of relative ship strengths could be included. The math is already included in the Notoriety system, just apply that to how vouchers are rewarded. You could also see this as encouraging players to use cheap under developed ships to game the system in a loss.

I would suggest that balance could be seen in the fact that both sides of a conflict would have Combat, Trade, and Exploration ships at risk. In the end, it will still be PvE buckets that dominate the flux in Influence. And those not in Meta ships can still opt for Solo/PG play.

I was looking at this suggestion more as a way for those with the Meta Combat ships to be able to contribute to system/power influence on their own terms. An additional layer of content to give meaning and impact to their efforts at creating and flying those combat ships. This goes along with the idea to create PvE scenarios that can challenge a maxed g5 combat ships.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This imho is the precise opposite of how it should work and would stop me taking part. The reason is that I am at heart a roleplayer. If I were to take part I would want to be taking part in a simulation of war.

The above is not a simulation of war it is a simulation of sport. IRL the point is to maximise damage to the enemy. The merits should not be reduced if the enemy is wiped out as efficiently as possible. Rather the merits should scale by damage done (broadly speaking, the more valuable the enemy ship destroyed, the better for the destroyer).

Furthermore an important point of the OP's suggestion, to me, and a benefit, is that it would actually provide a purpose to creating the most powerful ship possible. The game currently provides the opportunity but not the reason.

Awarding vouchers to the victor based on damage done would have a similar effect and seems to be a quite reasonable counter proposal - I'd happily support that rather than the relative ship strength proposal I made.

Presumably the vanquished would be rewarded a proportion of the victors spoils - or would they be rewarded based on the damage they did (which could actually be more than the victor did to them)?

 

[Truesilver]

The merits should not be reduced if the enemy is wiped out as efficiently as possible. Rather the merits should scale by damage done (broadly speaking, the more valuable the enemy ship destroyed, the better for the destroyer).

Awarding vouchers to the victor based on damage done would have a similar effect and seems to be a quite reasonable counter proposal - I'd happily support that rather than the relative ship strength proposal I made.

Presumably the vanquished would be rewarded a proportion of the victors spoils - or would they be rewarded based on the damage they did (which could actually be more than the victor did to them)?

Forgive my lack of clarity - I was working on the assumption that no merits would be awarded for damaging enemy ships, only for actually destroying them.

I can see the argument that perhaps damage alone should count for something but I think it would need to scaled by quite serious order(s) of magnitude to be less rewarding than achieving an actual destruction.

However, that does lead me on to another issue: the sheer difficulty in actually destroying an apex PvP combat ship that doesn't want to fight to the death. It's perfectly achievable nowadays to fight for 20 mins and leave without shield drop, merely because shield is low...

EDIT: Just going back to Robert's suggestion. Perhaps one way both of our opinions could be incorporated would be if the game heavily factored in extent of Engineering in determining a ship's 'value'. In that way those who used hard-ceiling Engineered ships would have more power but they would also risk more loss for their faction if they were destroyed?