[Potential Solution]PvE Vs PvP in Open Play: Pilots Federation Rep & Restricted Matchmaking

[Komemiute]

Potential Solution for PvE Vs PvP in Open Play: Pilots Federation Rep & Restricted Matchmaking

The Problem

Ok I think most of us understand the issue now.. PvE players wish to play in open mode because;

• They are perhaps fed-up with playing alone
• The Mobius groups are limited in their capacity to offer a true 'open experience' as all members have to be granted access and private groups have a hard-coded player-limit
• They are reliant on players administering Mobius or other groups in their own time
• They don't like feeling 'forced' into solo or groups

But their main concern participating in open play is that they do not wish to play in the same game mode as player-killers or so called 'griefers' (this is an overly-misused term but hey-ho).

There has been much talk from the PvE community of ideas such as a 'Open PvE' mode or 'PvE-only flags', with the intention to stop the more aggressive players attacking them, but at the same time allowing them to interact with like-minded players.

Why are 'PvE Open' mode or 'PvE flags' not desirable solutions?

Despite the popularity of these ideas, there are of course issues with them (probably why FDev have not implemented them);

• There is no lore reason why any ship should not be able to damage or destroy another ship
• Dividing up the playerbase into yet another mode could potentially fragment the community more than it already is
• 'Griefing' would not necessarily stop because players can't be damaged, it would just change in nature
• Legitimate PvP gameplay pathways could suffer with these solutions (Powerplay, Bounty Hunting, Piracy, Protection Wings, Faction Combat, Community Goal Diversity)
• Knock-on effect from introducing these solutions would effectively draw most non-combat players into Open PvE, causing what is now 'Open' to become 'Open PvP', which is undesirable to a lot of players (including myself)
• Players would have yet another method of circumventing player-opposition in Community Goals & Powerplay
• The notion that the Elite: Dangerous world is a 'Cut-throat galaxy' would likely be diminished
• Splitting 'Open play' mode up or making certain players off-limits to attack would be an admission of failure from FDev that they couldn't get open working the way they wanted it to

For these reasons, I believe a smarter solution to the problem must be sought, here is my proposal;

Step One: Introduce a 'Pilots Federation Reputation' system

Spoiler

This feature would assign reputation labels to players based on how they interact with other members of the Pilots Federation (i.e players only).

Reputation Tiers

This points-based system would have the following tiers (Not visible in Anarchy systems):

• Legendary (+1000) (Top-end limited to +1500)
• Honorable (+500)
• Upstanding (+100)
• Reliable (+50)
• Neutral (Default)
• Unpredictable (-50)
• Dishonorable (-100)
• Treacherous (-250)
• Murderous (-500) (Bottom-end limited to -3000)

The tier your commander would occupy would be determined by how you interact with other commanders. Everyone's starting tier would be 'Neutral' and would rise or fall depending on recent player interactions. Over time, this rep would reset to 'Neutral' so players must keep their standards high to maintain a good standing. The reset of rep to neutral would take some time, probably somewhere around 25 points a week.

At time of implementation, all players would start from 'Neutral' with a clean slate (not including fines & bounties).

Reputation Gain

Being given an 'Endorsement' by players who themselves have a high-reputation would boost player rep. These could only be given to the same commander once to avoid exploiters boosting their friends up continuously.
Players with negative rep could not give endorsements at all.
Here are the proposed endorsement values;

• From 'Neutral' Commander : +5
• From 'Reliable' Commander : +10
• From 'Upstanding' Commander : +25
• From 'Honorable' Commander : +50
• From 'Legendary' Commander : +75

* Max rep awarded would be capped at +10 for all levels if friends (to stop artificial boosting)
* Endorsements could only be confirmed while docked, to counter potential 'rep extortion' (threatening players to award them rep)

Reputation Loss

Rep-loss penalties would be given for acts deemed dishonorable by the Pilots Federation, these include:

• Killing clean commander ships without cause in secure systems (i.e not wanted, no Powerplay rivalry or not an enemy in a Combat Zone) : See Murder Scenarios
• Speeding 'incidents' around stations with other commanders (player moving fastest gets the rep-loss penalty) : -50 rep
• Using the 15 second 'graceful exit' menu system to log-out during combat (with players only) : -75 rep
• Killing members of your own Powerplay faction (unless self-defence) : -100 rep
• After repeated complaints of task-kill-style combat logging on a certain player, FDev could manually set the player in question's rep to 'Treacherous': Rep-loss at FDevs discretion

The first two points on this list would not apply to 'Anarchy' or otherwise 'Lawless' systems, as they need to remain dangerous places.
There would be caveats to make sure that rep-loss is not applied unfairly. For example, if you are wanted, and get interdicted by a clean commander and managed to kill them; you would not receive any rep-loss because you were not the aggressor.
No rep-loss would be applied for Powerplay related kills regardless of ranks or local security rating (though it still would for logging or killing your own faction).
Also if the victim has 'report crimes against me' set to 'off', no-rep loss is applied to the aggressor (except for menu-logging).

Murder Scenarios

We would need a system to measure murder-severity, so it would be a good idea to have degrees of murder (include rep loss if against other CMDR):

• 4th degree = self-defence (when wanted vs clean opponent) or sanctioned kill (Powerplay) : 10,000 credit bounty & no rep-loss
• 3rd degree = murder of equal or higher level clean pilot or Powerplay Agents : 25,000 credit bounty & low rep-loss (-25 rep if not Powerplay, Wanted or Combat Zone)
• 2nd degree = murder of clean lower-level pilot (all ranks less or equal to 'Mostly xx') : 50,000 credit bounty & med rep-loss (-50 rep if not Powerplay, Wanted or Combat Zone)
• 1st degree = murder of clean lower-level pilot + ship value under 100k credits : 75,000 credit bounty & high rep-loss (-75 rep if not Powerplay, Wanted or Combat Zone)

So we do not return to the days of bounty-farming, FDev would need to standardise the conversion of unpaid fines to bounty value to say 20,000 credits. This will stop illegal-cargo fines being used to bounty-farm, and thereby allow higher bounties for murder.

Low Reputation Consequences

There would be consequences for having a low Pilots Federation rep, these could be:

• Refuse docking permission for 'Murderous' or 'Treacherous' commanders at High-security ports
• Refuse docking permission for 'Murderous' commanders at Medium-security ports
• Refuse to issue a 'clean' status to 'Murderous' commanders in High-security systems
• Issue kill-on-sight orders to NPC security against 'Murderous' commanders in High-security systems
• Some faction-types would refuse to work with negative-rep commanders, regardless of ranks, making some missions unavailable.

Step Two: Give players a 'Restricted Matchmaking' switch in the options menu

Spoiler

So, now we have a system that can measure how honorably players interact with each-other, we can offer commanders an option in the game menu that restricts which players are match-made with them in open-play (in certain systems).

The Switch

This would be a simple two-way switch that could either be set to;

• No Restrictions (Normal)
• Restricted Mode

Who would it filter-out and where?

How this would work is; players who switch to 'Restricted Mode' would not be placed in the same instance as players with:

• Rep-levels of 'Treacherous' or 'Murderous' in High-security systems
• Rep-level of 'Murderous' in Medium-security systems

There would be a few exclusions to this system:

• Low security systems would continue to have full player matchmaking, with commander rep-level displayed to all players in the instance (after basic scan)
• Lawless & Anarchy systems would have full player matchmaking, with commander rep-level displayed as 'Unknown'
• If a player with a negative rep of 'Dishonorable' or lower switches to 'Restricted Mode', it has no effect and they will still be match-made with low-rep players - this is an excellent way to discourage combat logging.
• If a player with Restricted mode set to 'On' is wanted in the local area or system, they are placed in the normal instance with everybody
• Rival Powerplay commanders are always instanced together in power 'Control' systems regardless of rep level or 'Restricted mode' setting

The potential benefits

The effect this could possibly have would be:

• Feeling a bit safer, non-combat or PvE players may return to open.
• Low-rep players would gravitate towards 'Low-security', 'Lawless' and 'Anarchy' systems, where there would be no-matchmaking restrictions.
• Forum-rage may subside quite a bit (it won't go away entirely)
• Pirates would have a motivation to not kill their targets. By keeping their rep high, they would benefit from having access to more targets (No matchmaking restrictions)
• Combat logging would be discouraged naturally, as the end result for the logger would be that 'Restricted Mode' no longer works for them and they are unable to avoid player-killers

Step Three: Make running the risk of Low Security / Lawless Systems worth going to for non-combat players

Spoiler

Dangerous systems have to have an incentive to visit

With a system like I have outlined above, there would need to be a reason for traders, miners & explorers to go to the riskier systems.
What should happen is that profit margins for all activities in these systems should be increased. This would include trade profit margins (including rare commodities), bounty vouchers, exploration data and mission rewards.
Something like this could work well:

• High Security : Profits have 0% bonus modifier applied
• Medium Security : Profits have 10% bonus modifier applied
• Low Security : Profits have 20% bonus modifier applied
• Lawless/Anarchy : Profits have 30% bonus modifier applied

Net result is, non-combat players can stay safe and trade in the secure systems relatively hassle-free -or- they can try their luck trading in risky systems for a nice bonus to their profits. This way if they get killed or robbed, the blame can be put squarely on them for venturing to low or no security systems unprotected.

With a system like this in place, PvE-leaning players would have a barrier of protection against player killers (as long as they stay in secure systems). This way they could have the benefits of Open play social interaction, with a much-reduced risk from player killing. At the same time, criminal players would have more of a reason to keep their rep at a certain level, otherwise their targets will dry up. This may encourage more positive forms of outlaw play (such as piracy).

All of this could potentially be achieved without extra modes being tacked-on to the game.

+1 rep. Well worded, well thought, colorfully presented!
Not sure IF all is as implementable as it looks. I surely appreciate very much the effort and the apparent effect.

Kudos.

 

[Aris_]

I wish they can implement half of what you proposing but you seem to forget that although you punish “outlaw” behavior you don’t actually provide an alternative play style, half or even more of the so called “griefers” would have been in the front lines as paid guns -or not- if the game had a role for them, even a challenge.

They tried with the AI update back in 2.1 and they took it back , I’m sorry but if you want a more secure space only few should make it to elite combat rank. The last 3 ranks should be made really hard meaning special weapons and wing tactics just to take down one mission target.

To get an idea even fighting in a BGS expansion war would require hiring guns or having a special wings dedicated in CZs.

 

[Lateralus]

I wish they can implement half of what you proposing but you seem to forget that although you punish “outlaw” behavior you don’t actually provide an alternative play style, half or even more of the so called “griefers” would have been in the front lines as paid guns -or not- if the game had a role for them, even a challenge.

They tried with the AI update back in 2.1 and they took it back , I’m sorry but if you want a more secure space only few should make it to elite combat rank. The last 3 ranks should be made really hard meaning special weapons and wing tactics just to take down one mission target.

To get an idea even fighting in a BGS expansion war would require hiring guns or having a special wings dedicated in CZs.

You're right, there should be roles for these guys. Check out the ideas threads in my sig (mainly piracy related but there's one on Powerplay too).

 

[Julio Montega]

I welcome this alternative!

Thinking of the reputation system's complexity,
how about simply showing a number of infractions
a CMDR comitted within a month, with assault and murder
being a key player in the count shown?

 

[StiTch]

Nice try, but it's unfortunately assuming everyone should play the game the same way and shoehorning them into that.

If I have the coconuts to pirate in a high security system with a wing because the unexpected location gives better target variety, why should that be taken away from me?

There is no solution to this outside of using PG. Open SHOULD be unpredictable and "anything goes". You already have two game modes and Mobius for when you want bubble wrap mode on.

 

[Lateralus]

Nice try, but it's unfortunately assuming everyone should play the game the same way and shoehorning them into that.

If I have the coconuts to pirate in a high security system with a wing because the unexpected location gives better target variety, why should that be taken away from me?

There is no solution to this outside of using PG. Open SHOULD be unpredictable and "anything goes". You already have two game modes and Mobius for when you want bubble wrap mode on.

I agree with your perspective and have always argued in favor of an unrestricted open whenever the PvE crowd have tried to have it restricted in some way. However, it's getting more and more obvious that Fdev plan to do something to reign-in certain player actions like seal-clubbing or indiscriminate murder.

Anything involving bounties or rep alone will not work (gankers like high-bounties because its a badge of honor, and they would also like being labelled as a murderer if it had minimal consequences). The only thing gankers care about is generating 'salt', so the only way to discourage them in high/med-sec systems is to restrict match-making based on their rep-level. They would then have a motivation to keep their rep up, otherwise a portion of their prey will be ring-fenced from them (unless in low-sec or anarchy).

Pirates will also see more player targets in open as traders would feel a bit safer.

Victims would also have something to lose if they get caught combat logging, as their ability to avoid player killers would be threatened if their rep dropped.

In my opinion this is how the game should have been from the start, instead of different modes, but I realise that is unrealistic now.

 

[StiTch]

I agree with your perspective and have always argued in favor of an unrestricted open whenever the PvE crowd have tried to have it restricted in some way. However, it's getting more and more obvious that Fdev plan to do something to reign-in certain player actions like seal-clubbing or indiscriminate murder.

The fact that players will insta-CL when interdicted, even by a legit pirate, is pretty indicative the problem is not one-sided.

People can blame gankers all they want but it's burying the proverbial head in the sand. The "problem" is not gankers, it's the fear of dying - sure ganking encourages this fear, but it's that fear that is the issue and that drives people to complain about/avoid Open. The unpredictable fear of avoidable death is just too inherent in ED players.

 

[Hessfire]

Not bad, but I have two counter-points to present:

1. This proposal penalizes legitimate menu logging - and Fdev have already stated that graceful exit via the menu is completely valid.
2. Why are you unfairly penalizing everyone involved in Exploration of any kind? According to your system (as presented here) Everyone and Anyone involved in exploration outside of the bubble, as well as those legitimately travelling to Colonia or taking Passenger Missions are considered "viable targets"?? So mass murder of innocent civilians is okay, as long as it happens out on the frontier??

For number 2 I suggest some way of designating Civilian Passenger Transports as such and the Murder penalties go up accordingly wherever they are encountered. After all we are talking about Mass Murder if one were to blow up a Beluga filled with colonists on their way to Colonia (as an example), as such the penalties should scale.

Just my 2cr

 

[Lateralus]

Not bad, but I have two counter-points to present:

1. This proposal penalizes legitimate menu logging - and Fdev have already stated that graceful exit via the menu is completely valid.

That's not correct, they actually view it as an exploit that is not regarded as outright cheating, but still undesirable.

2. Why are you unfairly penalizing everyone involved in Exploration of any kind? According to your system (as presented here) Everyone and Anyone involved in exploration outside of the bubble, as well as those legitimately travelling to Colonia or taking Passenger Missions are considered "viable targets"?? So mass murder of innocent civilians is okay, as long as it happens out on the frontier??

For number 2 I suggest some way of designating Civilian Passenger Transports as such and the Murder penalties go up accordingly wherever they are encountered. After all we are talking about Mass Murder if one were to blow up a Beluga filled with colonists on their way to Colonia (as an example), as such the penalties should scale.

Just my 2cr

Anarchy is anarchy, in open it should always be the wild west. Explorers should not expect to be able to run out into the void naked - the fact they've been able to do this up until now reflects poorly on Fdevs game design.

Also, what's the chances that you will be ganked by griefers in Orion Dark Region AG-N b7-0?

- - - Updated - - -

The fact that players will insta-CL when interdicted, even by a legit pirate, is pretty indicative the problem is not one-sided.

People can blame gankers all they want but it's burying the proverbial head in the sand. The "problem" is not gankers, it's the fear of dying - sure ganking encourages this fear, but it's that fear that is the issue and that drives people to complain about/avoid Open. The unpredictable fear of avoidable death is just too inherent in ED players.

Oh I know this, just look at my YouTube channel....

 

[Roybe]

Leave it the way it is.

Open is a self regulating flag choice. If folks want to play in Open they know what to expect. The current negative feedback loop is working as designed.

It is better for everyone involved to close down Mobius and recreate the ruleset his group uses in a mode that is advertised as open, private, and solo.

This won't lead to more fragmentation...it would just move more like minded players playing together without one player gatekeeping the whole system.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That's not correct, they actually view it as an exploit that is not regarded as outright cheating, but still undesirable.

That's not the way Sandro's latest post on the topic reads....

Hello Commanders!

To clarify: the official stance on exiting the game via the menu, at any point, is that it is legitimate. I suspect at some point we may increase the "in danger" countdown, but for now you just have to wait fifteen seconds.

However, we can't speak for how other Commanders view such actions.

For the record, when we talk about "combat logging" at Frontier, we mean the act of ungracefully exiting the game (either by ALT-F4 type procedures or by cutting the network traffic).

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Dear gods man. That is a damn fine suggestion that might just satisfy a lot of players and cause a big reduction in the amount of tears around here. Ok, maybe some of it needs refining, but i think the general idea is solid.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

That's not the way Sandro's latest post on the topic reads....

Sure, they haven't said they are opposed to it, but i'm fairly certain they would prefer it that players didn't menu exit either. I think that is what Lat was saying.

Besides, you and Lat are having an offtopic side discussion.

 

[Miklos Atreides]

Thanks Commander for all the work putting this together.
Even if I find the basic idea woth a discussion I can see 1 obstacle to do it this way.
Its way too complicated and introducing another layer of reputation which will need a lot of code to function properly.

Maybe the basic is not that bad, because I can consider that (e.g for Murder 1st and 2nd degree the is a 3 step degrade
of the highest Pilots Federation rank) If you are go to loose your Elite label probable loosing access to Jameson Memorial
maybe this will stop some aggressive players from killing newbies in Eravate. The reputation amongst Elite Commanders
is something that no money can buy.

Its a very rought idea and I am not the one to dictate how to compute this and the way back. But still...

Regards,
Miklos

 

[Lateralus]

Thanks Commander for all the work putting this together.
Even if I find the basic idea woth a discussion I can see 1 obstacle to do it this way.
Its way too complicated and introducing another layer of reputation which will need a lot of code to function properly.

Maybe the basic is not that bad, because I can consider that (e.g for Murder 1st and 2nd degree the is a 3 step degrade
of the highest Pilots Federation rank) If you are go to loose your Elite label probable loosing access to Jameson Memorial
maybe this will stop some aggressive players from killing newbies in Eravate. The reputation amongst Elite Commanders
is something that no money can buy.

Its a very rought idea and I am not the one to dictate how to compute this and the way back. But still...

Regards,
Miklos

The essence of this idea isn't so complicated:

If a player's rep is in the bottom two tiers (Treacherous or Murderous) other players with the restricted switch set to 'on' will always be entered into different instances to them while in High or Medium sec systems. For everyone else, matchmaking will remain the same. This is a far easier solution to implement than the 'block-list' idea that people are throwing about, and is also less exploitable.

I've never been a fan of the 'losing combat rank' idea because this rank gives other players an indication of how skilled the player is. If they lose rank, other players will assume they are less threatening/skilled than they actually are, this only helps the player who has lost their rank, not other players around them.

Suspension from the Pilots Federation is possibly a route to take (all ranks frozen), but there would have to be an outlaw alternative of it (piracy, smuggling & assassin ranks). A commanders vs outlaws system could be very interesting.

 

[Xender]

I think that restrictive match making is a little bit immersion breaker, however at some it is good solution to problem of solo/open. Better solution is introducing Pilot Federation Law Enforcement Unit aka PFLEU . In the system with high security their response will be lethal and almost instant. In anarchy wont be any response and in between security levels the response will vary a lot. The only problem it: what outside of the bubble? I think Galaxy in big enough, griefers are the biggest problem only in bubble area where players amount is high. The another question are Community Goals and other events. In that case PFLEU could send to destination system special protection units, this will keep save pve players. With addition of fraction allegiance system, players could be marked as hostiles if their factions are at war, and hostility to each other wont be treated as law violation. Much better, much more immersive in mu opinion.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sure, they haven't said they are opposed to it, but i'm fairly certain they would prefer it that players didn't menu exit either.

Absolutely - however it exists and Frontier have not (yet) increased the delay from 15 seconds.

I think that is what Lat was saying.

I disagree.

Besides, you and Lat are having an offtopic side discussion.

The OP added something to their own thread - I responded to that.

 

[Martind Forlon]

Nice OP, really, many good suggestions. Personally I disagree only with limiting instancing. This thing should be solved with constant, fast and strong (really strong) police NPCs supplied with bounty hunting NPCs. In high security systems should be "murderer" under constant pressure and without possibility dock at stations.


(can't rep OP atm, but will try when can, that post I rly like)

 

[FaithTruthWisdom]

I have a simpler solution. Add a new gameplay mode that instances players based on their Net Worth stat. A cushion between solo/private groups and open.

Think about it. Using this approach, you get to please everybody. Newer/more casual players can still experience the thrill of open, but without the hopelessness of being hazed/PK'd/griefed by a commander in a hopelessly superior vessel. Fresh players would only get instanced with the newer Sidewinder/Adder/Hauler/Eagle crowd, and so forth.

 

[Lateralus]

Nice OP, really, many good suggestions. Personally I disagree only with limiting instancing. This thing should be solved with constant, fast and strong (really strong) police NPCs supplied with bounty hunting NPCs. In high security systems should be "murderer" under constant pressure and without possibility dock at stations.


(can't rep OP atm, but will try when can, that post I rly like)

Thanks! The problem with the police solution is they have to be unrealistically strong and fast to stop a ganker (they already appear near-on instantly in high-sec systems), and when they are like this it makes other more legitimate scenarios impossible (piracy, bounty hunting, powerplay etc). The idea is to threaten the ganker with losing targets if their rep drops too low, as it's the only real thing that will make them think twice.

I have a simpler solution. Add a new gameplay mode that instances players based on their Net Worth stat. A cushion between solo/private groups and open.

Think about it. Using this approach, you get to please everybody. Newer/more casual players can still experience the thrill of open, but without the hopelessness of being hazed/PK'd/griefed by a commander in a hopelessly superior vessel. Fresh players would only get instanced with the newer Sidewinder/Adder/Hauler/Eagle crowd, and so forth.

This wouldn't help non-combat players return to open though, it would only protect newbies. The system I outlined here helps to discourage seal-clubbing and random murder of non-combat players at the same time, while not punishing more meaningful PvP scenarios that Fdev wouldn't want to affect.