Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Jockey79]

I don't know anything about the historical situation you describe, though your views on it are coming through loud and clear.

I'm just suggesting one possible way that PowerPlay could contribute to the stated desire for more PvP encounters with IM(H)O a better chance of success than tinkering with game modes.

lol, "loud and clear" will be etched on my headstone I think. Even IRL I get told I'm "loud and clear" a lot

Despite the history, it is nice to see people making fresh suggestions and trying to meet various communities halfway.

Yes, those tools exist. However the problem is this at that point: what use are such tools if the folk you are flying there to meet are using the various modes/block mechanics to avoid engaging in PvP in such hotspots to maximise their ability to impact on the Powerplay system?

The entire game was built on an indirect PvP system. Even Power Play was built on the same indirect PvP system.
So when you say you're flying somewhere to meet people, you can only meet people who have agreed to meet you.
If others do not want to play with you, they don't have to play with you.

This is not "a problem" it is the main feature of the game, as described before you bought it.

The only aspect of the game that was made purely for PvP, where no one can "hide" is CQC/Arena.

 

[Darrack]

I thought as much. My point is (just to reiterate), even back in the glory days of early powerplay (before everyone shuffled off to the solo or PG modes for min/max yields) if you're in another powers turf, unless you're actively attacking other commanders, they're not going to organise a posse to hunt you down.

Back in the old days, with Arissa (which is where I spent most of my PP time), if you had PvPists floating around either individually or in wings, it'd get flagged on the discord by commanders who encountered them, and then a group would organically come together to deal with it.

It was good, organically developing play which foistered by its nature interaction and cooperation between players on the same 'team', which is where Elite's sandbox nature to me is at its strongest.

Completely understand that but i have no interest in PvP, hence why im in a PVE PG, if some folks see that as an advantage its not really my problem as i don't see PP as a PvP activity.

O7

 

[Jockey79]

Completely understand that but i have no interest in PvP, hence why im in a PVE PG, if some folks see that as an advantage its not really my problem as i don't see PP as a PvP activity.

O7

If only some folks would understand that no aspect of the main Elite Dangerous game has ever been about direct PvP.
That has always been advertised as an optional component of the game and subsequent added features.

It really shouldn't be this hard, we shouldn't need thread after thread after thread saying the same thing over and over.

 

[Northpin]

If only some folks would understand that no aspect of the main Elite Dangerous game has ever been about direct PvP.
That has always been advertised as an optional component of the game and subsequent added features.

To be more concise: other players are optional in ED

 

[Jockey79]

To be more concise: other players are optional in ED

Yup. Something that has been stated a lot.

I've noticed they've also removed the "MMO" sticker from their website, though I think it's a cheek they've kept the console stickers.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Because some of us love the whole powerplay thing but don't want to engage in PvP.
PP2 should cater for all and not penalise those who don't care about combat with other players.
Again PP is not solely about PvP.

O7

This is where things get confusing and muddled, because by taking part in powerplay, your actions at that point mean you are engaging in PvP (to be clear, in a factional indirect context rather than a literal hardpoints deployed scrap).

Much like me driving a respawn/ammo truck in WWII Online (god I am old), you might not be pulling the trigger, but you're helping your team move towards its goal over another set of players.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

The entire game was built on an indirect PvP system. Even Power Play was built on the same indirect PvP system.
So when you say you're flying somewhere to meet people, you can only meet people who have agreed to meet you.
If others do not want to play with you, they don't have to play with you.

This is not "a problem" it is the main feature of the game, as described before you bought it.

The only aspect of the game that was made purely for PvP, where no one can "hide" is CQC/Arena.

It is a problem in the context you refer to it: saying 'tools exist', when said tools simply don't work for the purpose you ascribe in the initial post, is a problem with those tools.

 

[Jockey79]

It is a problem in the context you refer to it: saying 'tools exist', when said tools simply don't work for the purpose you ascribe in the initial post, is a problem with those tools.

Sorry, for my misunderstanding there.

Yes, perhaps the tools should filter by mode. That way those in Open could find other Open mode players

 

[Darrack]

because by taking part in powerplay, your actions at that point mean you are engaging in PvP

No it doesn't, it really doesn't, or we would have Open only and not other modes where interaction with other players is impossible.
PP is not PvP.

O7

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

No it doesn't, it really doesn't, or we would have Open only and not other modes where interaction with other players is impossible.
PP is not PvP.

O7

I strongly disagree.

Boiling it down to the plainest brass tacks, if you and I are representing two different factions that are competing to control a system, regardless of whether we are actually interacting with each other directly, we're competing against each other.

This is where the term indirect PvP came from. It and the BGS wars where PMFs used to try to assert dominance over each other using the BGS as a metric.

 

[Darrack]

indirect PvP came from

There is no PvP if we never meet.
Players are competing against each other yes, but to call that PvP is a bit of a stretch.

O7

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

There is no PvP if we never meet.
Players are competing against each other yes, but to call that PvP is a bit of a stretch.

O7

Which is where the crux of the issue stems from in terms of debate on this, as from my experience most BGS Faction players (At the time, I haven't really got involved in that side of the game in a long time) or folk heavily invested in PP regard such activities as Factional PvP (again, in an indirect sense).

 

[Doctor Dread]

There is no danger for the attacker.
You keep on about risk v reward, well the attackers are risking nothing and are the only ones to get any reward.
Why should I risk my cargo, my ship, my rebuy, my credits and my game time - when you're putting up nothing at all?

Honestly, it should be rewarded totally opposite: the unarmed soft haulers getting 300% more for the risk and costs, fully safe G5 murderboats nothing, or even minus - their true reward is in moar kills of defenseless commanders.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Honestly, it should be rewarded totally opposite: the unarmed soft haulers getting 300% more for the risk and costs, fully safe G5 murderboats nothing, or even minus - their true reward is in moar kills of defenseless commanders.

My understanding of RN's original point is that as things are with the AI and the threat they pose, a PP Hauler in Open should receive a greater reward (be it at the commander level, or going towards their factions progress) than one operating in a Private Group or Solo due to the nature of the environment they're facing, not an 'attacker' getting a greater reward than a 'hauler'.

Which to be honest (I am sure you won't be surprised to hear me say) tracks, because in a situation where you're competing with another player who doesn't need to surrender cargo space for the sort of survivability you will need (and the associated uptick in rebuy costs for your higher-grade modules) in case you meet a nae'r do well, you're setting yourself at a serious disadvantage.

 

[Doctor Dread]

My understanding of ....

It's all misleading, 80 pages of several of them pulling some logical smoke over the core demand: we want moar victims, yaaargh!

That's all there is, don't fall into the logical trap - it's irrelevant.

 

[Jockey79]

Honestly, it should be rewarded totally opposite: the unarmed soft haulers getting 300% more for the risk and costs, fully safe G5 murderboats nothing, or even minus - their true reward is in moar kills of defenseless commanders.

I'd be happy if Frontier added items to aid in self-defence.

For example;

Something similar to a heatsink launcher but it sends out false signatures in SC. When people target it, it shows as your ship. And they can try to interdict it. (resulting in ending up in an instance with it - showing itself as a decoy beacon once in normal space). Perhaps have a lifespan of 20 seconds after launch. (utility slot item, limited ammo)

An internal module that disrupts an interdiction device. So on the first attempt from someone to pull you over, your module ticks and turns their interdiction device off. Then your module goes into cooldown (30 seconds? or base it on module size like; the larger the module the shorter the cooldown) before it will work again while they have been thrown out of SC into normal space (as if they failed the interdiction mini-game).

Improve mines, so they have a better range and effectiveness to disorientate and delay someone from following/ attacking you.
Perhaps some sort of EMP to cause all ships within 5Km to reboot, 60 second cooldown?

Haulers should have some options when it comes to defending themselves from those G5 murder boats.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

I'd be happy if Frontier added items to aid in self-defence.

For example;

Something similar to a heatsink launcher but it sends out false signatures in SC. When people target it, it shows as your ship. And they can try to interdict it. (resulting in ending up in an instance with it - showing itself as a decoy beacon once in normal space). Perhaps have a lifespan of 20 seconds after launch. (utility slot item, limited ammo)

An internal module that disrupts an interdiction device. So on the first attempt from someone to pull you over, your module ticks and turns their interdiction device off. Then your module goes into cooldown (30 seconds? or base it on module size like; the larger the module the shorter the cooldown) before it will work again while they have been thrown out of SC into normal space (as if they failed the interdiction mini-game).

Improve mines, so they have a better range and effectiveness to disorientate and delay someone from following/ attacking you.

Haulers should have some options when it comes to defending themselves from those G5 murder boats.

Theres a lot of potential there, but I think the struggle would be how they would (hillariously) interact with the AI and how they're coded (for example, an interdiction device would render you pretty much invulnerable to 90% of NPC interdictions in such a form).

That said, nothing for me beats the glorious moment of being dragged out of supercruise, popping chaff, smashing my boost and screaming away from a would be assailant at 800 m/s in the old smuggling adder.

 

[Jockey79]

Theres a lot of potential there, but I think the struggle would be how they would (hillariously) interact with the AI and how they're coded (for example, an interdiction device would render you pretty much invulnerable to 90% of NPC interdictions in such a form).

That said, nothing for me beats the glorious moment of being dragged out of supercruise, popping chaff, smashing my boost and screaming away from a would be assailant at 800 m/s in the old smuggling adder.

Any effective measure to thwart the G5 murder boats is going to be overpowered versus NPC's.
We already had AFK farming in CZ's before engineering was introduced, then engineering only made the problem worse.
It would be the same issue again with anti-combat measures.

So either the AI gets a serious overhaul (which a former Dev; SJA tried once before and was made to undo her changes) or we all acknowledge the AI are just there for amusement value (like those £1 crane machines where you always win a prize, no matter how many tries it takes to get the prize)

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Any effective measure to thwart the G5 murder boats is going to be overpowered versus NPC's.
We already had AFK farming in CZ's before engineering was introduced, then engineering only made the problem worse.
It would be the same issue again with anti-combat measures.

So either the AI gets a serious overhaul (which a former Dev; SJA tried once before and was made to undo her changes) or we all acknowledge the AI are just there for amusement value (like those £1 crane machines where you always win a prize, no matter how many tries it takes to get the prize)

We were discussing SJA's overhauls a few pages back oddly enough, same for the NPCs vs. PP Pledged folk who are a bit 'higher tiered' in terms of their output for their faction. I don't think anyone would object to them being extended out appropriately, either for PvP, BGS or other activities. I personally would welcome them back in less than a heartbeat.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I never knew players could use gatling rails

They would if they could....

Again, Powers such as The King and FUC overcome G5 kill death murder ships all the time.

Some players obviously can. What proportion of the player-base can remains to be seen.

But I agree there should be a learning curve- its why for V2 I felt weighting is better because Open is more difficult.

.... and it needs to be shallow enough to not put players off before they get hooked.

True, but at the same time unless the feature offers something compelling its not going to grab people either. If its dull, just as many will not play it either.

Indeed. Noting Zac's recent comment about "a lot" of players who don't engage in combat "at all" (while also noting that "a lot" of players do).