(info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP

[Jaggedmallard]

I've mentioned elsewhere that I've recently formed the opinion that Open should see a few bonuses over the other two modes, simply because of the added risk of PVP. Now, obvious networking issues aside (let's pretend that Fdev have found a way to fix it) I believe that Powerplay would be the perfect game to test this out on, simply because Powerplay is entirely player driven, just like many others have pointed out. If this were a success, I'd love to see the idea of other bonuses being applied to other aspects of Open play.

Obvious improvements aside, especially crime and punishment, I generally feel that Open would greatly benefit from having some bonuses to BGS influence, bounty pay-outs, increased loot and other rewards.

I'm not experienced in that sort of thing but couldn't Fdev have something that checks if you're reachable using the same mechanic or whatever other players use to pop up in your instance and if it gets blocked it just boots you out of open.

 

[Brimstone]

I'm not experienced in that sort of thing but couldn't Fdev have something that checks if you're reachable using the same mechanic or whatever other players use to pop up in your instance and if it gets blocked it just boots you out of open.

I know next to nothing about networking. I know the cable goes into the input, then my network cable comes out of an output and into my PC and it makes the internet go.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

… I believe that Powerplay would be the perfect game to test this out on, simply because Powerplay is entirely player driven, just like many others have pointed out. If this were a success, I'd love to see the idea of other bonuses being applied to other aspects of Open play.
…

In my opinion any advantage or bonus should be applied directly for a specific activity and not for the mode the player happens to play the game. This could include activities that are only possible in Open Mode or Group Mode.
Anything else would simply be unfair. (Why should I get a bonus for playing in Open Mode while trading in a lonely corner of the bubble where no other CMDR ever flies by?)

And then it should be very carefully examined if that advantage/bonus is really needed and what effects it will have on the overall player base.

 

[DaveB]

...Yes, still i need to configure it. Does it really matter that much in which way?
Also i prefer not to make rules allowing anything udp... or did i understand you wrong?

iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p udp -m udp --dport 1024:65535 -m state --state RELATED -j ACCEPT

adds an input rule to accept udp traffic to unprivileged ports provided the packet is identified as "related" to previous outbound traffic - just randomly knocking on those ports with udp packets won't work, but if I've sent a udp packet to the address/port it's coming from recently (plus a few other factors but that's the main one) it makes it in, and the iptables NAT code is intelligent enough to route it to the proper destination. That's enough for the udp NAT traversal methods FD use to work without needing UPnP. (if your "outside interface is not eth1, of course change that - and it assumes you have all the other rules for outbound NAT set up correctly. I do most of my filtering in the FORWARD table, the INPUT table only blocks martians and protocols I don't want traversing the firewall at all like SMB)

/offtopic

 

[Brimstone]

In my opinion any advantage or bonus should be applied directly for a specific activity and not for the mode the player happens to play the game. This could include activities that are only possible in Open Mode or Group Mode.
Anything else would simply be unfair. (Why should I get a bonus for playing in Open Mode while trading in a lonely corner of the bubble where no other CMDR ever flies by?)

And then it should be very carefully examined if that advantage/bonus is really needed and what effects it will have on the overall player base.

Perhaps a regional bonus, depending on player activity and whether there is a community goal or not? I don't know.

 

[Jockey79]

remember that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

And if that something is having the settings how the hardware manufacture recommends and has as the default settings?

Are you implying Netgear is causing people to cheat by blocking security issues?

 

[Jaggedmallard]

And if that something is having the settings how the hardware manufacture recommends and has as the default settings?

Are you implying Netgear is causing people to cheat by blocking security issues?

Its clearly unintended behaviour for Elite, just because it happens by default for a small number of setups doesn't make it not cheating.

 

[DaveB]

I'm not experienced in that sort of thing but couldn't Fdev have something that checks if you're reachable using the same mechanic or whatever other players use to pop up in your instance and if it gets blocked it just boots you out of open.

I know next to nothing about networking. I know the cable goes into the input, then my network cable comes out of an output and into my PC and it makes the internet go.

For the game to work, you have to be able to reach the FD servers. a total block on the game traffic wouldn't work. FD will see you as "reachable" if the game is working at all.

now /offtopic for real. Sorry, mods.

 

[GluttonyFang]

That's where we start to disagree. In any game you compete against the people you choose to play with or against. Elite is no different. Now, we've both seen folks claiming on these forums "my kung-fu is superior! You are all scrubs!" but we both know they are simply fools. We're playing the same game whether we are in solo, an arbitrary group or in open. We may not be directly competing against each other at all. We may only be able to oppose each other indirectly or we may find a way to face each other, lasers blazing, across a random piece of space. It's still the same game. It should STAY the same game.

Actually, the majority of games I played that have PvP just randomly pit me against people who also want to PvP, if I want to select the people I face, I use a private match function or something similar, which is equivalent to the current Private Mode function.

Sure, everyone in every mode is working against one another, but the limited membership is what distinguishes the three modes. In Open, you can't control what you face save uPnP shut off, which clearly will be labelled as an exploit or even cheating if this change is implemented.

 

[Deathwatch]

What about just editing your firewall rules that can prevent successful instancing? If I go into Windows firewall and remove the block on the 64 bit rule, I lose the ability to see other players. I can still log in to Open Play, I just don't see anyone else. Re-block the 64 bit rule and bingo, I see everyone.

I wonder how they'll account for that?

Well then thats life, if we can't work a way to discover someone doing that then tough we have to accept a chunk of players will do that.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Its clearly unintended behaviour for Elite, just because it happens by default for a small number of setups doesn't make it not cheating.

Any system that relies on the "honesty" of the player will fail. How successful is FD in preventing combat-logging again?

And UPnP has problems, some players need to deactivate it and adjust port forwarding and the game config to be able to play with others.
Add ISP-side NAT and things get really complicated.

And quality of service settings of the router, other computers in the household consuming bandwidth, firewalls and …

Really, basing any solution for gameplay problems on something that is network related is a really bad idea.

 

[Kristov]

Fixing something with something that doesn't work and results in more problems isn't a good way to fix anything. If there is a problem with PP in Open Mode, then that should be fixed in a way that doesn't devaluate the actions of other players, that isn't easily to circumvent and that doesn't result in giving player groups a huge advantage.

The proposed fix of giving Open Mode players PP actions more weight than the actions of players in other modes is flawed.

- Setting the router turns Open Mode in a very lonely experience. I bet that a lot of the competitive player groups will start tinkering with their routers to prevent other CMDRs to show up in their Open Mode instances. They will all deny doing it, they will all do it. It's human nature, they see an advantage and use it.

- It will result in Open Players wanting special treatment in all other aspects of the game. It doesn't matter if Sandro said it would only be applied to PP, the moment the players realize that this is possible they will want it for everything.
This will be at the cost of the players who don't want to play in Open Mode who will feel treated unfairly and as second class customers. Alienating those players from the game, the community and the publisher.
I bet instead of playing in Open Mode a lot of Solo Mode players will simply stop playing PP. I don't know if that is what FD and the community wants. The next step would be that FD has to adjust the values needed for success in PP to take into account that a lot of players stopped playing PP.

- If Open Mode becomes a better choice to play PP it will turn PP into a part of the game that is only effectively played in a large player group. Making it something only a subset of the Open Player base can effectively participate. This has the potential to completely ruin PP.

- It will be used as an evidence that Open Mode is the only true mode. Further deepening the gap between players.


Short: PP might need a fix, but the proposed fix does more harm than fixing anything.

Networking can be fixed to prevent that, did you know that? Yeah, see, that problem could be totally removed from the equation, so that's a null argument.

Open players wanting special treatment, you mean, UNLIKE the Solo/Group players constantly demanding a PvE Only Open don't demand special treatment? And fixing an imbalance is NOT special treatment, where the hell do you get that? PP is imbalanced right now between the modes, Solo/Group are the most advantageous, this isn't supposition or guesswork, it's a fact, one known since PP was added and one used and abused by the groups doing PP. FIXING something isn't giving anyone special treatment, just saying...

PP is already played by larger groups, were you not aware of this? Go check the PP forums and the PP reddits, these aren't little 2 man groups we're talking about with everyone else being singular, it's generally 1 large overgroup composed of many various groups of all sizes and individuals working together for the PP Power as a singular entity. Welcome to PP, it's not at all what you seem to think it is.

And you keep swinging back to the 'can't give Open anything!!!!!!!!!!!NONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!' argument, seriously, that's not an argument to not fix the problem, that's showing your bias by shooting off flares, having a marching band and a fireworks show.

Which is what most of the naysayers to this fix are showing, nothing but a bias against Open, pure and simple. So what if it's not balanced, Open players can come to Solo! Just dump Open, it's not needed!

You know the REAL fix to this problem with PP? Remove it from all modes but Open, which is exactly how it should have been set in the first place. PP is a purely player vs player game mechanic, the only such mechanic in the game. Most people play in Solo and Group to AVOID player vs player interactions, so it shouldn't be in those modes since it's exactly what the majority of the players there want to avoid. Guess what, problem solved! The player vs player mechanic in the game is put where it belongs, where player vs player mechanics make sense and are desired by the players.

FIXED!

 

[DaveB]

It's amazing that the argument against Sandro's idea has devolved into, "Well I'll just cheat then!"

Before you claim it's not cheating I'm just blazing my own trail or whatever other lame excuse people have used already, remember that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Players should be banned for manipulating such a thing, and the argument of using such a blatant cheat/exploit should not be part of this discussion.

Quite frankly, if FD attempted to dictate MY networks security policy for the privilege of running the game I'll uninstall it and never look back. I will never run UPnP. It's a security hole you can drive a semi-truck through. I agree with you that deliberately making game-specific firewall configs to make sure you are never instanced with other players, even in open, is cheating but the fact remains, it's trivial to do and FD have no way to distinguish between that and what are quite reasonable security measures for a network admin to take - or even misconfigurations by somebody who's not a network admin but knows enough about router/firewall config to be dangerous but not skilled.

If somebody wants to do that, FD can't stop them, because they can't tell the intent behind communications failing. If a particular game needs me to relax the security policy on my net in a specific way, I'll look at that on the merits and decide whether I want to play the game badly enough to make those changes based on the risk they present. That's my decision, not FDs or anyone elses. My net, my rules. As it happens I didn't need to make any config changes for ED to work so for me it's a moot point. I use a few other apps that depend on effective UDP comms so I already had a config where ANY app depending on that would work in a secure manner.


ETA: I also run an IDS - with automatic responses to "suspicious" activity that range from blocking specific IPs to blocking entire netblocks for varying periods of time - if some basement dwelling script-kiddie down the street from you has hammered on my door enough it's quite possible those automated responses will mean I've got your ISPs entire netblock blacklisted and I'll never be instanced with you. Am I cheating? No, I'm taking care of my own security which in the long run benefits everyone I connect to on the internet.

 

[Abil Midena]

Powerplay is, at it's most basic definition, a Player versus Player activity. It's PvP through the means of PvE grinding. The difference in Open is you can actively patrol systems being undermined, raid systems to undermine, escort CMDRs hauling PP commodities etc etc etc.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
It won't be though, not with the current content. Powerplay is it's own "thing" in this game. There isn't another mechanic / activity that is anything like it.

If this change was standalone and never influenced anything else would you be ok with it, in the name of balancing the modes to be truly equal regarding PP?

All of those things would benefit the player, this proposal will not, it only benefits the Power.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Powerplay is ONLY affected by players. The entire idea of Powerplay is players PvE grinding against other players ( players verse players ). It's pretty simple. There also are more normal PVP elements as well. Conflict Zones (Crime Sweeps etc)

Using the BGS is the only way to change influence for a minor faction, and that is EXACTLY like PP. I could replace 'powerplay' with 'BGS' in your second quote, and it would still be accurate.

People play the BGS for their minor faction. It is exactly the same as PP, except I can click to show that I have pledged to a Power, or 'pin their color' as Sandro says. That is an extremely weak excuse for not applying changes that benefit PP Open players also to BGS/faction players in Open. Sandro acknowledged that in this thread.

PP is only affected by players, it is indeed Player versus Player content in it's most basic form.

So is the BGS. It is PVP through PVE where PVP can curtail PVE actions through interdictions.

But if you refuse to fix something because it "might" lead to introduction of other things then, your just sticking your head in the sand, If you refuse to try to fix something then you damn the game with your own fears.

People who think the proposed PP change won't happen for other areas in the game are also sticking their head in the sand. I hope Sandro can find a different fix for PP.

I'm really happy to see these changes being discussed and also very pleased to see Sandro's comments in this thread!

I think that the concept of Powerplay actions in Open being "impact weighted", should really be extended to cover all of the other communally-effected components of the game.

In particular I think that contributions towards Community Goals, and the BGS, should be given the same proposed impact bonus if they are made from Open Play.

It's a nice solution, don't take away anyone's personal rewards or remove the impact from Solo altogether, instead just deny the proposed bonus to the many nefarious abusers of mode switching (I call them "Scenario Loggers"), that undertake their deliberately competitive actions in Solo with impunity.

I fully support the idea, and I'm looking forward to seeing more of the same weighting strategy in other parts of the game.

What about two sides opposing a community goal? In 6 months time if you buff PP, CG players will want a buff.
Why should explorers not in open able to get first discovered on a system? Explorers compete to name stuff, so why not give them buffs too. Im not saying either are entitled, but once you open the flood gates there is no going back.

This is the main issue for this thread. If you follow the logic for making the PP change, how do you NOT make the same changes to other areas of the game? The only reason I can see is that FD simply decide not to do it. Sandro admitted this is a good point, but said they would have to make the PP change first and see how it goes. IMO, if the change is made and kept for PP, the change WILL come to other aspects of the game. Hopefully, this helps people see it coming, rather than getting blind sided.

 

[R3DB3RD]

So there we are, 40 odd pages of argument, when none of it matters because... p2p...

Force everyone into open for pp and you're still only going to get a small percentage of players dropping into your instance so that all you juicy pvper's can get your rage on. And that doesn't even include all the network mods and combat loggers and all the rest of it. You know, there are plenty of players that just have crap internet. Let alone the distances between a lot of players, multitasking and mining in Eve Online, watching Netflix and www.funnakedtimeswithyourmom.com

... So what are we all arguing about? Go ahead, add a bonus for Open Players in PP, it's not going to make the slightest difference. Only all the 'ghosts' might well be in open for that extra bit of incentive and you still won't get the opportunity to engage with them.
What are you gonna do then?
All pitch in and buy FD a server?

 

[Asp Explorer]

All pitch in and buy FD a server?

Naah - it'll be monetized.

"Pay me $50 and I'll put your IP on my Open-List for an hour and you can blow me up all you like. <pew-pew> Ding ding! - time's up! <block>"

oh and DaveB - you are exactly right and I cannot rep you enough. The sad thing is - many of the pew-pew-crew are those very same basement-dwelling script kiddies.

I could send you seclogs that will make you laugh until you run out of lulz

 

[Mohrgan]

Well, I see you have no more arguments to present other than mere commentaries, your lack of understand as to what PvP means is inhibiting you from understanding the flaw in your argument.

No, you have an agenda, and a backstory you keep to like glue. You have formed up a spin-story and like a good politician you are staying on message. I have no patience for that. Competitive scope? Lol, marketing terms used to justify pandering.

P.S. In addition my wife asked me out to dinner. I never pass such an opportunity up.

 

[DaveB]

Actually, the majority of games I played that have PvP just randomly pit me against people who also want to PvP, if I want to select the people I face, I use a private match function or something similar, which is equivalent to the current Private Mode function.

Sure, everyone in every mode is working against one another, but the limited membership is what distinguishes the three modes. In Open, you can't control what you face save uPnP shut off, which clearly will be labelled as an exploit or even cheating if this change is implemented.

+rep because I respect what you're saying, but minor nitpick - UPnP shut off shouldn't impact the game if the firewall is configured correctly (assuming the potatos that are most consumer-grade routers can even BE configured correctly) - UPnP is disabled throughout my network and I get instanced with others just fine. However if I were to choose to block P2P traffic to other players to turn open into "solo with benefits" there is no way FD could tell that it was intentional, so even if it is "labelled as an exploit or even cheating" there's no way they could do anything about it

Naah - it'll be monetized.

"Pay me $50 and I'll put your IP on my Open-List for an hour and you can blow me up all you like. <pew-pew> Ding ding! - time's up! <block>"

I could do with the money.. where do I sign up?

 

[Louella]

so if my router or firewall has certain settings, i can't connect to other players ?

that might explain some problems i have with some other games

 

[Kristov]

Quite frankly, if FD attempted to dictate MY networks security policy for the privilege of running the game I'll uninstall it and never look back. I will never run UPnP. It's a security hole you can drive a semi-truck through. I agree with you that deliberately making game-specific firewall configs to make sure you are never instanced with other players, even in open, is cheating but the fact remains, it's trivial to do and FD have no way to distinguish between that and what are quite reasonable security measures for a network admin to take - or even misconfigurations by somebody who's not a network admin but knows enough about router/firewall config to be dangerous but not skilled.

If somebody wants to do that, FD can't stop them, because they can't tell the intent behind communications failing. If a particular game needs me to relax the security policy on my net in a specific way, I'll look at that on the merits and decide whether I want to play the game badly enough to make those changes based on the risk they present. That's my decision, not FDs or anyone elses. My net, my rules. As it happens I didn't need to make any config changes for ED to work so for me it's a moot point. I use a few other apps that depend on effective UDP comms so I already had a config where ANY app depending on that would work in a secure manner.


ETA: I also run an IDS - with automatic responses to "suspicious" activity that range from blocking specific IPs to blocking entire netblocks for varying periods of time - if some basement dwelling script-kiddie down the street from you has hammered on my door enough it's quite possible those automated responses will mean I've got your ISPs entire netblock blacklisted and I'll never be instanced with you. Am I cheating? No, I'm taking care of my own security which in the long run benefits everyone I connect to on the internet.

FD can set whatever network options they see fit if you want to play on THEIR game, so good luck with that man. You see, online games do exactly that, set the networking options and if you don't like them, you can't play, don't like it, too bad. You are connecting to their service, they set the rules, not you, while using that service. This is not new, this is not some sudden change in how the whole online gaming thing works, it's been happening since the days of dial up and BBSs.

If you don't like that, your options are wide and varied..don't play, don't play, and of course, the ever popular, don't play! You don't get to dictate to anyone how their networking works, if you want to use their service, you have to use what they tell you, or they can just restrict you from accessing their service, that's literally how it works and you have NO rights whatsoever about it. You are connecting to their service, not the other way round. I get to deal with this all the time, it's part of my job, having to connect our systems with other systems that we do business with, and MY security paranoia means jack, I have to disable most of my security systems to allow the services we pay for to work with my systems. This is a business, not a private home, I've got Federal government protocols I've got to follow no less due to our business, and I've still got to play nice with the companies who's services we use. So, once again, good luck with that man.