New Python PVP focus a hint for adding a bonus for playing PP in OPEN?

[Abil Midena]

So I just watched Obsidian Ant's new video on the new Python MK II (Obsidian Ant Video on new Python).

1. In the video, he mentions that FD intends the ship "to primarily be a PVP ship" to compete with the Mamba and FDL.

2. Also in the video, he mentions that FD intend to "give people more reasons to engage in PVP" in the Power Play (PP) update. That's pretty vague and only the Devs can explain what that means.

3. 2 and 3 were mentioned in the Frontier Unlocked #2 ( FU #2 Video on YouTube ) at around time stamp 1:07 (1 hr, 7 min), but said a little differently "...with a focused intention of being able to compete with the best PVP ships in the game" and "balanced around PVP". Also "we are going to give people more reasons to engage in PVP in PP 2.0".

4. Bonuses for playing in OPEN have been considered before (2016 in this thread ), but limited to a 2x merit bonus for impact to PP when playing in OPEN.

Taking 1, 2, 3, and 4 together, this makes me wonder if FD are once again considering giving bonuses for people playing in OPEN...at least for PP as Sandro (long live the loach) has described. Other bonuses for playing in OPEN (BGS?), who knows.

Does the current community think PP bonuses for playing in OPEN is a good idea?

 

[Weps]

I don’t think so. Can’t read the archive right now, but how would that even work? What would prevent a player from going in Open, using the block list for his known opponents and then essentially playing in a quasi private group while getting all the benefits?

What I can see happening is maybe PvP kills getting more weight towards whichever progress metric the future system will have. Kinda like how Scout and Orthrus kills both contribute for Alerts, but with different weights.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

What I can see happening is maybe PvP kills getting more weight towards whichever progress metric the future system will have.

Though if that's the case what's stopping someone pledging an alt in a Freewinder to the other side and repeatedly blowing it up?

"Collusion piracy" was pretty much the first PP exploit they needed to fix in the first iteration of it.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Meh.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Does the current community think PP bonuses for playing in OPEN is a good idea?

I am not the community but for me its a "nope". I hope what ever they do, it has npc eqivalents so i can still engage in all the content on my lonesome.

Also you can bet your bottom dollar many people who would currently just not play in open, would do internet shinanegans to allow them to get their bonuses but still effectively play solo, which could end up breaking the game for players who do want to play in open.

Open should stand on its own merit. if people wantt o play in open with the opportunity for human interaction let them, but dont force them.

 

[Rubbernuke]

My guess is weighting is on the cards- however in a V1 PP context weighting had to be something crazy like 80- 90% to offset things.

Also it is a brute force measure as it does not take into account context (just you clicked Open). A safe system will score the same as flying into an active expansion. There are ways to mitigate this though: FD could make a heat map of ship destruction (akin to the overlays) and weight from that- so a backwater is 'cool' with a low weight value while a 'hot' system (which is dangerous) has a high weight.

Though if that's the case what's stopping someone pledging an alt in a Freewinder to the other side and repeatedly blowing it up?

"Collusion piracy" was pretty much the first PP exploit they needed to fix in the first iteration of it.

If its BGS based it could have a self limiting cap with a shallow S curve- which (sort of) solves the problem but also limits the feature at the same time (just as murder in the BGS today).

I am not the community but for me its a "nope". I hope what ever they do, it has npc eqivalents so i can still engage in all the content on my lonesome.

Also you can bet your bottom dollar many people who would currently just not play in open, would do internet shinanegans to allow them to get their bonuses but still effectively play solo, which could end up breaking the game for players who do want to play in open.

Open should stand on its own merit. if people wantt o play in open with the opportunity for human interaction let them, but dont force them.

Trouble is NPCs are not functional or any good currently in V1. They are unengineered*, offer no resistance and instancing / persistence is poor (in that, PP is played over a number of systems and requires a lot of traversal- its this empty time that needs NPCs).

*for good reason though- 'free roaming' engineered ships are most definitely needed but inside CZs and navs it would be bullet sponge hell requiring tweaks to UM / fort balance.

If FD use the BGS mission templates to replace plan hauling / shooting this can be mitigated though. Missions could price in better opposition that will appear and offer resistance.

 

[Northpin]

Does the current community think PP bonuses for playing in OPEN is a good idea?

Nope

the only thing "bonuses" would do would be to incentivize players in finding ways to get the bonus while still playing in open (in game block lists, firewall blocking lists, whatever it takes to play in open without being actually in open)
I really hope they dont get on that path - else if they try to incentivize people towards pvp without having strong anti-cheat measures and in-game CSR that could respond to Cheat reports in real time, it will get to be nasty

 

[Rubbernuke]

Nope

the only thing "bonuses" would do would be to incentivize players in finding ways to get the bonus while still playing in open (in game block lists, firewall blocking lists, whatever it takes to play in open without being actually in open)
I really hope they dont get on that path - else if they try to incentivize people towards pvp without having strong anti-cheat measures and in-game CSR that could respond to Cheat reports in real time, it will get to be nasty

It can be one of two things- either weighting or a bounty on other players. Both have problems but also potential solutions. They could also change the block function to block messages but not other pledges (with any wing being treated the same regardless of pledge given its a choice they made to wing with a person).

Weighting I already explained but if you could deal with collusion having a bounty on other players mitigates the Suicide-winder. It could be diminishing returns, destruction influence based on ship (so a lowly starter Sidewinder is low influence while a G5 Cutter is highest) or that FD temporarily de-instance anyone killed for a set time (say, ten minutes).

 

[Rebel Yell]

They're working on a new PP framework, may be even the "merits" are going to be dismissed... so no one knows what could be the PP 2.0 and the potential bonuses belonging to game modes (if any) in advance. I can't even see a link between PP 2.0 and game modes because there's a new ship for PvP incoming... given that I doubt there's deep understanding of PvP on FDEV's side (unless they're planning to hire some PvPers as consultants on the fly).

Powerplay is first of all "ethos" and yes it should be played in open because PvP confrontation was one of its baseline pillars.

Playing PP because of the module, or because of the perks, without embracing the ethos is not playing PP, is just exploiting it.

I doubt there's will be any change in accessing PP 2.0 in relation to game modes, as well as the relative bonus/perks/whatever it's going to be.

 

[Muzz UK]

I hope that this is indication of a PvP rework/balancing OR even a PvP mission board akin to something like they have in Star Citizen or other open world mmo games. Make engineering quicker/open to everyone of every chosen play path. Rebalance PvP and Powerplay so there's actually a purpose to do it. Add in a mission board that increases the chances or running into other players.

Games been screaming for this for years. Arena is dead and serves no point and the only really good PvP is organised as most people just flee or die in seconds in an OPEN gank situation.

I'd love the concept of an open only mission board where by players or wings compete to be the first to scavenge and deliver items. Go to a planet find targets A, B, C and D. Get points for delivering each one. Could add in a mission type first wing to kill four targets etc loads of possibilities.

 

[Northpin]

It can be one of two things- either weighting or a bounty on other players. Both have problems but also potential solutions. They could also change the block function to block messages but not other pledges (with any wing being treated the same regardless of pledge given its a choice they made to wing with a person).

Weighting I already explained but if you could deal with collusion having a bounty on other players mitigates the Suicide-winder. It could be diminishing returns, destruction influence based on ship (so a lowly starter Sidewinder is low influence while a G5 Cutter is highest) or that FD temporarily de-instance anyone killed for a set time (say, ten minutes).

most serious players have alts
if they add player bounties, it will lead to an alt farm fest

 

[Rubbernuke]

most serious players have alts
if they add player bounties, it will lead to an alt farm fest

Yes, but think about exactly how much time it takes to blow up a Sidewinder 50 times, or how much money you need to do that for a Cutter (if its ship type based). For the former its useless (having to fly out to that spot, blow up, fly out, blow up) and for the latter the same but costing you money.

I can see your point because the 'bounty' if pure money could upset this (one funding the other)- but at the same time if its influence or rank points farming alts won't work or be hugely time-wasting.

 

[Jmanis]

Does the current community think PP bonuses for playing in OPEN is a good idea?

Competitive (not outright superior) rewards for commensurate activity in open? Sure.

Simply "in open == bigger reward for everything", no, sounds bad.

Although, that assessment is based off current activities. If PP2.0 does only one thing, it needs to rework and revamp the competitive metrics to not be what they currently are.

Hauling merits is an activity where you can either:

• haul maximally (let's go 600t) in solo, reliably
• haul inefficiently (say, 200-400t), semi reliably in open (defended hauler), or
• haul 600t unreliably in open (no defences hauler)

The thing is, the reliability comes from the nature of pvp threat, which also means its impossible to balance that equation. We suggest that you're 100% successful in the first example, 90% successful in the second, and 40% successful in the third.

But that doesn't mean in, say, case 2, you survive 90% of fights... it means you will survive 90% of players. If someone in that 10% is protecting a system at the same time as you're posting... you're not getting through 90% of the time, you're dying 100% of the time, because that player is there all the time, and they are in the 10% that can kill you.

So what's the "bonus" for doing stuff in open? 10% because that's many players can kill me? Not worth it when i can haul more and more safely.

60% because that's worst- case scenario? Still not worth it even in the extreme case.

1000%? Then it's liable to exploitation line Ian explained and, frankly, would just disincentivise PP for those who would never do it anyway, which would pretty much ensure the failure of the system.

An incentivised PvP mechanism for powerplay can never look like an "open bonus"... rather, it needs to be structured PvP with a commensurate reward for activity. Structure is important here because it's important to control the variables if PvP leads to rewards. Unstructured PvP rewards for a game system don't look like positive contribution, just denial of other positive contributions, because of how it can be gamed as above. You can't game losses though, only gains. That obviously doesn't

But if the structured pvp was, say (purely for example) CQC arenas but in the open game, with bots padding things out like a usual cz, it's incredibly hard to game that with a single alt on the other team, especiallyif instances are randomised. Maybe there's even BYO ship variants, and so even then its very difficult to effectively game.

Then, you could even have (marginally) superior rewards through that mechanism, because they aren't assured and gameable.

So yeh, I'd expect any incentivised pvp to rely on structured activities, not unstructured pvp... and it wouldn't simply be an "in open" bonus.

EDIT: To clarify one thing. The only way you can get a positive benefit from winning unstructured PvP that can't be games is if you inflict a 1:1 or worse ratio of loss. So this would look something like:
- Destroying a power ship carrying 700t of <some good> results in obtaining 700t or less of that good which can be handed in for an equivalent effect, but applied elsewhere.

But that's not how Elite works.

 

[Cosmo]

Taking 1, 2, 3, and 4 together, this makes me wonder if FD are once again considering giving bonuses for people playing in OPEN...at least for PP as Sandro (long live the loach) has described. Other bonuses for playing in OPEN (BGS?), who knows.

Does the current community think PP bonuses for playing in OPEN is a good idea?

A bonus for playing in open is good, because it's more risky and to encourage players to play in open. If they don't like it they can still play solo without the bonus. Maybe some PP objectives could be open-only. Years ago exploration was overhauled (it's now way better). So it's time for Powerplay (and PVP) to be overhauled to improve the experience.

 

[Northpin]

If they don't like it they can still play solo without the bonus.

Well, that's the main issue - depending on how the bonus is implemented (if any bonus) - i can definitely build a custom firewall profile and filter anyone from my game while i do play in open - and ED being a p2p game, FDev can basically do nothing about it.
Even if the bonus relies on being in the same instance with your "enemy" at some give time - here comes the alt i was talking about...

 

[Rainbro]

Well, that's the main issue - depending on how the bonus is implemented (if any bonus) - i can definitely build a custom firewall profile and filter anyone from my game while i do play in open - and ED being a p2p game, FDev can basically do nothing about it.
Even if the bonus relies on being in the same instance with your "enemy" at some give time - here comes the alt i was talking about...

It'll always be impossible to block exploits 100%, but any measure is better than having the firewall profile built into the main menu.

 

[Jmanis]

Well, that's the main issue - depending on how the bonus is implemented (if any bonus) - i can definitely build a custom firewall profile and filter anyone from my game while i do play in open - and ED being a p2p game, FDev can basically do nothing about it.
Even if the bonus relies on being in the same instance with your "enemy" at some give time - here comes the alt i was talking about...

Yep, this.

It's either going to be too low to incentivise it, or too high such that it's just easier to exploit it, and also actually disincentivises the activity at it's core because it's simply not worth doing from Solo anymore. There's no middle ground; the middle ground is one where it's still not incentivised enough, but is high enough to make it worth exploiting with an alt.

I mean... look at current PP where Open isn't incentivised at all. We currently have:
X amount of players doing it from Solo
Y amount of players doing it from Open
Total players doing PP = X+Y

If the incentive is too low... well.. nothing changes. If it's too high (to the point it's not worth trying to compete from solo), you'll end up with solo players who just abjectly refuse to play Open just quitting PP instead of moving to Open. You may get some shifting, but not enough to counter the loss of players. tl;dr you'll just end up with less players playing powerplay.

 

[Northpin]

It'll always be impossible to block exploits 100%, but any measure is better than having the firewall profile built into the main menu.

why is that?
I dont care about pvp or pp enough to bother meself to go there.
But there are plenty of people that do care and would to anything to get an advantage for themselves or to hurt the opposition in any possible way

Edit: or like @Jmanis pointed out above - the people that currently get involved in PP from solo/pg will drop PP alltogether - and we're back to square 0 - a reworked feature that attracts less players than the old feature, is a failure

 

[Jmanis]

why is that?
I dont care about pvp or pp enough to bother meself to go there.
But there are plenty of people that do care and would to anything to get an advantage for themselves or to hurt the opposition in any possible way

And then the chorus of people demanding action on it will redirect efforts from FD to that, rather than the game proper.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Well, that's the main issue - depending on how the bonus is implemented (if any bonus) - i can definitely build a custom firewall profile and filter anyone from my game while i do play in open - and ED being a p2p game, FDev can basically do nothing about it.
Even if the bonus relies on being in the same instance with your "enemy" at some give time - here comes the alt i was talking about...

But if the PvP is based on other players and the bonus is based on the loss of the destroyed ship its going to be very hard for alt exploitation- soon you'll be playing more with the alt than the 'real' account.

For example any failed missions could (if using a BGS like rep mechanism) lead to less / lower value missions being offered- or, like I suggested a long time ago have a trust metric: in that you have a set level of failure before you are ejected from the power. In this case you can't use alts as punching bags.

Its detailed here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ti-5c-mode-specific-plus-other-tweaks.552045/