Meaningful PvP Proposal

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
A regular complaint justifiably levelled at ED is that there is no 'meaningful' PvP, it has no effect on the BGS, combat ranks etc. It cannot, because the idea of effecting change via PvP is incompatable with the instancing filters (blocklist and solo/group modes). The aim of this proposal is to find a way to incorporate meaningful PvP into the regular game, without disturbing existing styles of play.

Currently we have the BGS (Background simulation) of faction manipulation, including the new C&P (Crime & punishment) rules introduced in 3.0. We also have a separate layer of power manipulation with it's own C&P rules with Power Play, which nominally allows for PvP encounters to have some justification. Finally we have a new layer of manipulation with the Alien races, which is purely PvE and significantly affects the BGS in remote locations.

Power Play potentially lends itself well to meaningful PvP encounters, but as an existing mechanism in the game it could be frustrating for existing (non-PvP) Power Players to have to give it up for the sake of an acivity they might have no interest in.

I'd like to propose a new layer of manipulation specifically for PvP, only manipulated via PvP, in specific locations only, and only in Open Play.

The player would sign up (much the same as a Power Play Pledge) and in specific systems any PvP combat with another signed up player would count towards a scoreboard visible to all signed up players.

Scoreboard:

Many PvP encounters don't result in ship destruction, however the 'losing' player may concede defeat by high-waking or similar so the score would need to be based on damage rather than kills. The win is what's important, ship destruction is just one way to win, for example getting all modules to zero health while keeping the opponent alive could potentially earn more points.
Player skill (ie your rank on the scoreboard) could be a points multiplier, rewarding the defeat of a high-scoring player.
Ship & loadout choice could be a factor too, with a multiplier based on simple stats like dps & hitpoints (this would be difficult to balance).
There would need to be a cooldown period that prevents repeatedly fighting a friend to artificially bump up your score. This is one of the justifications why PvP has not been given more meaning in the main BGS or PP.
Your score on the board should be over a certain time-period, or the UI should allow a filter to only count points gained within the past month, quarter etc to allow active players to rise up the ranks.

External tools could be used for simulated faction or player group wars, taking stats from each player's score history, if it were in-game there is potential for interference from existing BGS manipulation.


Location:

The location is important - it needs to be in Anarchy systems within the bubble, close to Founders for access to good outfitting & fairly central to the Engineers. I'm not sure it needs to be a location that's populated, there might be some benefit to having structures that can be fought over/around, but anything linking them to the BGS would potentially allow a cynical player to interfere with the intended play (eg UA bombing). I think the benefits of unpopulated systems outweigh the benefits of a populated one (new or existing). Systems could be given a flag that allows them to be included within this new layer though - the PvP Hub system comes to mind.




Any feedback would be appreciated, particularly to fill in any gaps or ways in which it could be cynically manipulated. This is an extra layer of activity, and would not prevent any player from carrying on their normal play, nor would this PvP scoreboard affect existing parts of the BGS.


EDIT: Nemayn has put forward an excellent suggestion in post #44:

Not convinced just a leaderboard makes for meaningful pvp. However rather than just being negative an alternative suggestion that builds on it

have seven close systems
have three powers
the central system has a manufacturing base for each of the three powers
each power then has a refinery system and a mining system of their own
no base gives any missions
all bases suppy fuel, repair and restock

at random intervals npc freighters will leave the mining bases and travel to the refinery bases for each power
at random intervals npc freighters will leave the refinery bases and travel to the powers manufacturing base in the shared system
freighters are invulnerable to damage as long as their is a defending ship with in 2000 metres ( to prevent zerg targeting the freighter)

The shared system will have an indicator showing the % control of all 3 powers
this percent control will depend on how many freighters get to the manufacturing base for each power

All players wanting to sign up do so with one power. Their job is then to stop the enemy freighters getting through while defending their own

Players get a leaderboard for killing the other players each week. At the end of the week the powers reward those taking part in engineering coupons. The reward being based on your contribution and the overall control percentage of each power. These coupons can then be exchanged for the appropriate level engineering roll at any engineer.(rp terms the power is supplying the mats from its account)
 
Last edited:
Sounds good, we need to try to break it now.

Wing ganks shouldn't count towards it at all, so anyone flying in a wing shouldn't score. Or only score if up against another wing with a score penalty for having greater numbers.

Ramming damage whilst effective is too easily exploited, simply remove it from the score system. You can still ram and gain an edge in a fight, but you can't farm score with a suicidewinder.



Edit : what about negative scoring for things like noob-sidewinder splatting
 
Last edited:
I love this idea. This type of pvp mechanic would get me interested in pvp. Some sort of super structure in these systems would add to the wow factor as well.

In a future populated with elite pilots with practically unlimited funds and a fleet of combat ships at their disposal something like this would most likely exist.
 
This idea is not far from the already posted ideas of CQC with our own ships, integrated into the game. I like it. I wouldn't mind having the rebuy removed or at least reduced under such rules, so that everyone would want to have a go.
 
[blah] No thank you, we do not need to encourage certain players with mechanics like this - sounds like CQC to me, extend that mode perhaps but lets not try and mess up the main environment with this kind of stuff.

To clarify a bit - sounds too much like a move towards EvE type mechanics - a step too far IMO.
 
Well Elite is not a PvP game, at best it is a competitive via BGS PvE game, but that's it.

Adding 'another' layer onto it focusing on PvP, would mean you'd need to introduce something that the game simply isn't built for currently, and people are already complaining about the lack of progression in features.

So would it really be worth it for the majority of players is my question? I'm not against the idea as a whole, but yeah.
 
[blah] No thank you, we do not need to encourage certain players with mechanics like this - sounds like CQC to me, extend that mode perhaps but lets not try and mess up the main environment with this kind of stuff.

To clarify a bit - sounds too much like a move towards EvE type mechanics - a step too far IMO.
For the Eve reference I'm not coming from there, but if there are parallels so be it. I am not proposing faction warfare with battle fronts in-game (we have the BGS for ED's version of that), only a skeleton on to which player group warfare could be tied using inara or similar. I agree it's a bit like CQC, that's intentional.

Personally I disagree about encouraging 'certain players' (I understand what you mean ;)), and other than giving a purpose to those that currently lack one, it will have no real effect on reducing griefing & other issues. The regular BGS C&P rules could potentially be simplified though, if there is no need to cater for semi-organised PvP (crimes off etc).

It's worth repeating too that this would not affect the existing players who do not sign up to it.
 
Well Elite is not a PvP game, at best it is a competitive via BGS PvE game, but that's it.

Adding 'another' layer onto it focusing on PvP, would mean you'd need to introduce something that the game simply isn't built for currently, and people are already complaining about the lack of progression in features.

So would it really be worth it for the majority of players is my question? I'm not against the idea as a whole, but yeah.
ED is a game that allows PvP, but has little to no tools to make it meaningful - there is currently no benefit to doing so other than because it's fun. You make a good point about dev workload and what other features this could delay. I hope it would be relatively straightforward to implement, less work than recolouring the galaxy was in 3.0 for example but that's something for FDev to determine, not us.
 
This idea is not far from the already posted ideas of CQC with our own ships, integrated into the game. I like it. I wouldn't mind having the rebuy removed or at least reduced under such rules, so that everyone would want to have a go.
Could you link to any relevant threads please?
 
For the Eve reference I'm not coming from there, but if there are parallels so be it. I am not proposing faction warfare with battle fronts in-game (we have the BGS for ED's version of that), only a skeleton on to which player group warfare could be tied using inara or similar. I agree it's a bit like CQC, that's intentional.

Personally I disagree about encouraging 'certain players' (I understand what you mean ;)), and other than giving a purpose to those that currently lack one, it will have no real effect on reducing griefing & other issues. The regular BGS C&P rules could potentially be simplified though, if there is no need to cater for semi-organised PvP (crimes off etc).

It's worth repeating too that this would not affect the existing players who do not sign up to it.
Still don't like the idea... as a separate mode, yes, but not integrated with the main environment and certainly should not be restricted to Open only if integrated with the main environment IMO.

As for facilitating INARA wing v wing warfare... too far towards the EvE mentality, so still a resounding no on that score.

CQC being expanded upon based on this idea is the only thing I could personally buy into.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to add that IMO it would be better if both parties CONSENTED to the combat. Would seem inappropriate to reward a player for deliberate griefing.
 
I like how OP managed to put together meaningful and pvp in the same sentence, that is a real challenge!
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Systems could be given a flag that allows them to be included within this new layer though
That flag could be a permit lock, i.e. access to the (previously uninhabited so as not to inconvenience existing Factions) system could be restricted to players in Open only - any player in Open could enter or leave the system however any player approaching the system in a mode other than Open would be denied access due to a permit requirement.
 
That flag could be a permit lock, i.e. access to the (previously uninhabited so as not to inconvenience existing Factions) system could be restricted to players in Open only - any player in Open could enter or leave the system however any player approaching the system in a mode other than Open would be denied access due to a permit requirement.
I think a permit lock would work just as they do now - ie in all modes (no extra complexity to code). If you sign up to this new layer you are automatically granted a permit to all the flagged systems regardless of modes, if you go there in group mode you can practice uninterrupted (by anyone not signed up) but the scoreboard only counts stuff that happens when you are logged into Open.

I'm imagining these systems to be brown dwarf types of little interest to anyone, they could be updated to 'already explored' (as high population systems are) so that they are of no value to even the most determined explorer. No station assets means no chance of pad blocking or BGS manipulation, potentially CQC-like structures could be added to give something to fight around, existing landable planets would allow players to fight close to the surface if they choose.

I like the permit lock idea, it solves a lot of problems without creating many (any?) more.

I like simple solutions, ones that can be incorporated using minimal extra work and making maximum use of existing assets.

So far it would require:

A flag/permit mechanism for marking certain systems where this new layer of rules would apply, and those systems to have exploration data completed,
A scoreboard UI with filters,
Data capture for damage delivered, in what mode, where, when, how and by who (this may already be available, or may need to be refined), accessible by external tools,
A definition table for points scoring (could this be external?)
Non-interacting assets could be added, or systems with existing assets could be added to the list of flagged systems.

I have in mind half a dozen or so systems near Founders (for convenience) but if it proved popular there's no reason why other suitable locations couldn't be requested, all it would require is for a flag to be added to that system.

Thanks :) I'll have a read through & see if anything stands out.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom