Powerplay in Solo

[Rubbernuke]

Having gone round in circles for some time, as is the case with discussions on this interminable topic that's been running since the game design was published, I'll agree to disagree on which approach Frontier should take in relation to accommodating the desires of those who prefer PvP and those who don't in existing pan-modal content that does not require any participant to engage in PvP, in a game where other players are an optional extra.

And I'll agree to disagree with you, except that Powerplay can never be really coherent until it sorts out its schizophrenic approach to modes, or viewing PvP as some deviant behavior. If you are going to the effort of creating a remote playpen for troublemakers you can use that effort to craft better PvE for solo and PG -letting suitable parts of todays Powerplay be the PvP foundation which has structure and purpose for free.

 

[Bashy81]

The point being, removing powerplay from the game has a broad impact even on players who don't interact with it directly.

Therefore, removing it is taking something away from them, which isn't fair to them.

calling it a broad impact is stretching that meaning extremely thin. You dont have to look beyond this thread to find those complaining that Powerplay just doesnt matter or make any difference beyond gaining modules. Primarily it is a very specific minor bonus or detriment most players did essentially nothing to earn.

Removing the ability to jump-honk-jump explore was a far more considerable loss to some peoples actual gamestyle, and that happened regardless, because that what happens when a game is under continual development. The Powers' effects can be kept in all modes or removed from those who dont participate, whatever people generally desire, its not for me to say as I dont have a stake in it, since I do participate. Which seems fair & sensible to me.

Honestly, I think the fact that it's "All but impossible to comprehend alone" is one of the most fundamental problems with Powerplay. Powerplay is an aspect of the game that should encompass all other aspects of the game. In my opinion Powerplay should just be the macro-level form of BGS.

I do agree about the incomprehensibility. That could be helped by simplifying some aspects (such as the faction in charge of control-systems-only affecting fort triggers, & continuously connected control-bubbles to HQ providing a fortification bonus, so far more is easily visible using galmap & other ingame tools)
What you are proposing however is a fundamental repurposing of Powerplay, and begs the question, why have another BGS level at all?. At present Powerplay is about conflict between hostile powers, and their respective player groups. It is more focused than playing the BGS where nobody is intrinsically 'hostile'.

And just like BGS can be influenced in solo, so should Powerplay.

To make it more of the same? Something distinct from the BGS that serves an unrepresented part of the player base would be a far better use, imo. So did a majority of people when voting on it by the thousands, and replying to a direct Open-Only dev post on this forum.

What I'd like to see if anything, is a revamp to the pvp aspects of the game, including powerplay. If you want to go out and fight enemy players, and you win, your team should be rewarded for that, which currently isn't the case.

They tried it early on with PvP rewards in Powerplay, was gamed by false-flagging, was nerfed. Unfortunately for some, direct PvP rewards are a non-starter unless you allow players to control who pledges, and even then the incentive to 5C would be overwhelming, given the ease of faking it, versus difficulty of a genuine PvP encounter.
Plus even as one of the leaders of Powerplay group, the benefits of not being able to control who pledges are ultimately a far better community that isnt controlled dictatorially by a petty-megalomaniac, which tends to be the case in any situation whenever that level of control over membership is granted.

But I don't see any reason why you should be rewarded for logging into Open in the middle of the night and hauling a bunch of commodities when nobody's paying attention, or rewarded for killing a bunch of powerplay ships in some nav beacon instance in 'open' but where nobody can tell you're even there.

You are conspicuous when jumping a nav beacon. As the controlling power, you see an enemy keep appearing in your history list & your net traffic jumps & immediately know where they are and what theyre doing. and logging in during the night isnt risk-free, its US prime-time for me.
Why is Open such a risk for solo-only players they wont even risk a single cargo-load, yet if im undermining & carrying perhaps more than 50x more merits for a snipe & risking it all on every encounter, that doesnt contribute a significant extra risk in your eyes?

Look, it's hooves are only moving because you're all still hitting it.

Yep, just as it was in april 2018. then suddenly in May, the corpse reared its head, staggered to life and ruined some little girl's birthday, allegedly. This time around, we can have a better alternative argued out & ready if we keep kicking the corpse enough in the mean time. Just because Sandro's proposal was very astute (albeit flawed) doesnt mean the next one wont be a dogs dinner. Cuz they do have 'prior'. Either way, Powerplay needs knocking on the head or a revamp, because it really hasnt been fit for purpose for any group for a long time now.

 

[Para Handy]

... deleted by me ...

 

[DemiserofD]

They tried it early on with PvP rewards in Powerplay, was gamed by false-flagging, was nerfed. Unfortunately for some, direct PvP rewards are a non-starter unless you allow players to control who pledges, and even then the incentive to 5C would be overwhelming, given the ease of faking it, versus difficulty of a genuine PvP encounter.
Plus even as one of the leaders of Powerplay group, the benefits of not being able to control who pledges are ultimately a far better community that isnt controlled dictatorially by a petty-megalomaniac, which tends to be the case in any situation whenever that level of control over membership is granted.

I've actually been pondering pvp rewards for quite some time. The current system clearly isn't particularly functional, but as you point out, you obviously don't want a system where you can just 5C away all the merits in the universe.

Probably the ideal solution would have something to do with rebuys. The more expensive the rebuy, the more merits they're worth. This would have to have diminishing returns as well; dying multiple times should quickly stop providing rewards unless they also kill someone else.

Then, I'd implement some sort of bounty multiplier. IE, the higher your powerplay bounty, the more value you get for killing enemy players.

The idea being that you want highly-aggressive players to keep playing and being available to kill. This is motivated by giving them more rewards the higher their bounty becomes, but which is simultaneously punished by keeping that really high bounty available to be claimed by enemy players.

The net result is that the losing team will always have a relative advantage, as merit losses will decrease the more they die, and the potential for merit gains will increase the more they get killed.

You are conspicuous when jumping a nav beacon. As the controlling power, you see an enemy keep appearing in your history list & your net traffic jumps & immediately know where they are and what theyre doing. and logging in during the night isnt risk-free, its US prime-time for me.
Why is Open such a risk for solo-only players they wont even risk a single cargo-load, yet if im undermining & carrying perhaps more than 50x more merits for a snipe & risking it all on every encounter, that doesnt contribute a significant extra risk in your eyes?

For one, because the player doing the sniping is in a fully combat-optimized ship, which I give 99% odds of escaping, compared to a cargo hauler, which is more like a 50-75% chance of escape. That's assuming the enemy team is even paying attention, which, given there's no overt indicator that undermining is taking place, is by no means guaranteed.

As for why people don't want to play in Open, it's got little to do with practical statistics and much more to do with emotions. It doesn't feel good to be in constant stress watching for an enemy. The actual chances of getting bothered in Open are very small, so any rewards for playing in open would have to be equally small, to the point where it wouldn't really make a difference.

 

[Bashy81]

I've actually been pondering pvp rewards for quite some time. The current system clearly isn't particularly functional, but as you point out, you obviously don't want a system where you can just 5C away all the merits in the universe.

Probably the ideal solution would have something to do with rebuys. The more expensive the rebuy, the more merits they're worth. This would have to have diminishing returns as well; dying multiple times should quickly stop providing rewards unless they also kill someone else.

Then, I'd implement some sort of bounty multiplier. IE, the higher your powerplay bounty, the more value you get for killing enemy players.

The idea being that you want highly-aggressive players to keep playing and being available to kill. This is motivated by giving them more rewards the higher their bounty becomes, but which is simultaneously punished by keeping that really high bounty available to be claimed by enemy players.

The net result is that the losing team will always have a relative advantage, as merit losses will decrease the more they die, and the potential for merit gains will increase the more they get killed.

Its certainly a more promising suggestion than simply increasing merits for Powerplay PvP, but it still reeks of an idea that would be day-1 exploited using carrier money-laundering & exploiting the extremes of the mechanics using multiple Epic accounts (for example). If you didn't get a hefty merit total for each kill, it simply wouldn't be practical for most players as those kills are hard to come by, and those increased merit totals make grinding false-flag activity even more effective. The biggest problem with it is it doesn't provide what Powerplayers have called for for so long, which is PvE mechanics, which can be disrupted by PvP. You've outlined a very simple system. Where is the evolution of tactics & strategy beyond just meeting up at hotspots & duking it out? You would pretty much need pre-arranged collusion between groups just to get a decent fight. So its really just a backdrop for arranged PvP matches. Trying to second guess what is wanted by presuming its all about PvP is the mistake here.

For one, because the player doing the sniping is in a fully combat-optimized ship, which I give 99% odds of escaping, compared to a cargo hauler, which is more like a 50-75% chance of escape. That's assuming the enemy team is even paying attention, which, given there's no overt indicator that undermining is taking place, is by no means guaranteed.

Even in a well-equipped Cutter (which for undermining is equipped for a long-stay incl. Biweave shields & often jumprange & QoL considerations that dedicated PvP ships would never compromise to.) when youre surrounded by a good farming group of 10 ships to kill, & theyre all trying to kill you, and a whale-hunting PvP wing suddenly drops on your wake, youre in big trouble, and are not getting out of there at all if you dont recognise the full danger immediately. Thats at least an equal risk to a sanely outfitted cargo hauler.
If the underminers are taking increased risks, by holding onto merits which can then be lost on ship destruction, then yes there is no overt indicator from Galmap or the Power status screens. Complacency is its own risk, and Powers do snipe-checks routinely by checking the in-system boards that show the merit total of ships destroyed that are yet to be handed in. This is effective when done properly, as the playergroup collates their info so the strategists get a good overall picture. Its not something an individual player can really do all the time on their own, but group & team play is overtly what Powerplay is about, it's clearly not for the individual CMDR, besides that module bait (which would be much better off unlocked in another way that doesn't timegate the items)

As for why people don't want to play in Open, it's got little to do with practical statistics and much more to do with emotions. It doesn't feel good to be in constant stress watching for an enemy. The actual chances of getting bothered in Open are very small, so any rewards for playing in open would have to be equally small, to the point where it wouldn't really make a difference.

it doesn't feel good to be in constant stress watching for an enemy Indeed, it takes more focus, attention, energy & defensive considerations that significantly compromise min-maxing. You cant grind it out in Open to the same extent you can in safe & predictable solo/PG modes, even when the direct opposition doesn't appear. When in a hot war, the chances of getting through can be slim, & I've been parked up for days in nearby systems waiting for a window of top cover because I'm not a particularly ninja-like at dancing my way through well organised blockades with loads of angled mini-jumps & drops using gravity wells to advantage and all that stuff.

I'm very well aware of the differences, and the different motivations for players in the different modes. I spent a year playing exclusively in Solo when I first started, as id decided ED was going to be my little solo experience where I didn't need to worry or take any consideration of 'META' or other players activities at all, & take progress at whatever pace I liked, as what anybody else thought: didn't matter. I exhausted my initial goals & on joining my first Power, was coaxed into Open & soon after fledging (as I later came to view it) found us embroiled in a conflict that showed what a different & far more engaging & rewarding experience it could be played that way. Some of the best multiplayer id ever known, & id played in clans & LANs for a long time at a competitive level of CS, UT2K4, CSS, CS:GO, the Battlefields, COD and including RL sports & games in that list as well.

I've now been pledged to that Power for 210 weeks, & still think its worth slogging it out on these forums to support changes that enable that kind of gameplay in an evolving & not a sporadic way, so that it doesn't collapse into recriminations & grind when one side vanishes from the battlefield, and subsequently turns around a previously precarious position. It shouldn't have to rely on good sportsmanship to keep the gameplay alive. And the teamplay and rolling conflicts are so nearly awesome, I really don't want to fundamentally change it too much, but just let it have a chance to live, as intact as possible.

And fundamentally, that means not giving a supposedly legitimate Solo/PG opt-out available to tempt anyone to succumb to whenever the going gets tough.

If activities really cant be split between modes as befits them, as Rubbernuke suggests, then at least we should have a effective merit bonus for doing it all in Open. Not even personal merits, if you haul 750t you get 750 merits, they may as well all remain the same, its the effect on the Power that needs the incentive, so that to do the best you can for your side, its not so obviously a dumb idea to stay in Open. Cuz that's what really kills it.

 

[DemiserofD]

Trying to second guess what is wanted by presuming its all about PvP is the mistake here.

Don't get me wrong; I don't think that's the case at all.

All I'm saying is, Pvp is the only time in which risk is actually realized. Any time pvp doesn't take place, the actual risk is no different from playing in solo or PGs. So pvp is the only way to identify whether or not players should actually be rewarded.

Because the actual long-term chances of getting attacked are slim, and even if they do happen, your chances of death are relatively slim if reasonable action is taken.

it doesn't feel good to be in constant stress watching for an enemy Indeed, it takes more focus, attention, energy & defensive considerations that significantly compromise min-maxing. You cant grind it out in Open to the same extent you can in safe & predictable solo/PG modes, even when the direct opposition doesn't appear.

You absolutely can, as many people who play in Open constantly demonstrate. I know multiple players who exclusively do powerplay in open, and they rarely if ever face any opposition to their efforts - largely because they don't make it public knowledge when they're doing it, and finding other players even without the many instancing issues in this game is difficult, at best.

People are inherently irrational. Even getting blown up is not a very significant punishment, and yet people respond exponentially more negatively to having it happen than what it actually costs them. On the flip side, gankers often face massive punishments for ganking, but don't care whatsoever about this punishment, because it doesn't meaningfully impact their enjoyment of what is, to them, the primary aspect of the game.

Likewise, how players feel shouldn't be a rationale for inordinately rewarding them for what is, in reality, not nearly as dangerous as it might emotionally seem.

To be absolutely honest, I don't think any sort of weighting system would work in the first place, because players clearly don't care about statistics when it comes to their feelings. Sure, you might coax a few players into open, but they'd likely be the sort of players who probably would have gone there on their own eventually, anyway. But I think most players would just continue to haul blithely in solo. They might complain about it, but they won't actually switch. In fact, for many players, I suspect they'd be more likely to quit the game entirely rather than switch.

 

[Aquaface]

Yall went to work on this post lmao. I saw on Reddit if you mention anything related to boosting open or "attacking" solo play, folk on the forums get a tad angry. They were correct.

 

[Bashy81]

Don't get me wrong; I don't think that's the case at all.

All I'm saying is, Pvp is the only time in which risk is actually realized. Any time pvp doesn't take place, the actual risk is no different from playing in solo or PGs. So pvp is the only way to identify whether or not players should actually be rewarded.

Because the actual long-term chances of getting attacked are slim, and even if they do happen, your chances of death are relatively slim if reasonable action is taken.



You absolutely can, as many people who play in Open constantly demonstrate. I know multiple players who exclusively do powerplay in open, and they rarely if ever face any opposition to their efforts - largely because they don't make it public knowledge when they're doing it, and finding other players even without the many instancing issues in this game is difficult, at best.

People are inherently irrational. Even getting blown up is not a very significant punishment, and yet people respond exponentially more negatively to having it happen than what it actually costs them. On the flip side, gankers often face massive punishments for ganking, but don't care whatsoever about this punishment, because it doesn't meaningfully impact their enjoyment of what is, to them, the primary aspect of the game.

Likewise, how players feel shouldn't be a rationale for inordinately rewarding them for what is, in reality, not nearly as dangerous as it might emotionally seem.

To be absolutely honest, I don't think any sort of weighting system would work in the first place, because players clearly don't care about statistics when it comes to their feelings. Sure, you might coax a few players into open, but they'd likely be the sort of players who probably would have gone there on their own eventually, anyway. But I think most players would just continue to haul blithely in solo. They might complain about it, but they won't actually switch. In fact, for many players, I suspect they'd be more likely to quit the game entirely rather than switch.

Youre suggesting weighting as compensation for direct attacks, im in effect calling for hazard pay. Albeit the personal payments dont bother me, but the effect on the simulation does.
Compensation would be readily & extensively exploitable. Top-cover for inbound fortifiers would be pledged to another power instead, and interdict friendlies in order to buff the fortifiers' results. If the only benefits were personal & not factionwide, then the weighting would be pointless anyway.

You say people are inherently irrational, and this is partially true, but we have both rational and irrational elements to every choice we make, ofc.
Players are constantly looking for the best methods & shipbuilds in order to be as effective as possible for the Power they support. These are not irrational decisions, they are the results of hardnosed number-crunching. & nor is going to Solo if danger is perceived, irrational, even if the perception of danger is irrationally extreme.

A rational reason to stay in Open despite the increased sense of risk, encourages teamplay to overcome or mitigate those risks. That has to be a benefit in a feature designed for competition between playergroups.

To be absolutely honest, I don't think any sort of weighting system would work in the first place, because players clearly don't care about statistics when it comes to their feelings. Sure, you might coax a few players into open, but they'd likely be the sort of players who probably would have gone there on their own eventually, anyway. But I think most players would just continue to haul blithely in solo. They might complain about it, but they won't actually switch. In fact, for many players, I suspect they'd be more likely to quit the game entirely rather than switch.

I think your judgement of the intent behind merit weighting, or Open-Only for that matter, is the problem here. I want a weighting system (a poor solution compared to split activties between modes, or even Open-Only, but weighting may end up the only option) to incentivise people to stay in Open, and not resort to solo/pg so readily for the efficiency advantage.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think your judgement of the intent behind merit weighting, or Open-Only for that matter, is the problem here. I want a weighting system (a poor solution compared to split activties between modes, or even Open-Only, but weighting may end up the only option) to incentivise people to stay in Open, and not resort to solo/pg so readily for the efficiency advantage.

Open only would not be an incentive to play in Open to participate in a game feature - it would be the only way to participate in a game feature - that's coercion rather than incentive.

 

[Bashy81]

Open only would not be an incentive to play in Open to participate in a game feature - it would be the only way to participate in a game feature - that's coercion rather than incentive.

Indeed. It poses each player the same question: are you more dedicated to taking part in a competitive teamplay feature, or playing on your own. Its the same question everyone with an interest in a RL team sport is posed as well, at some level or another. if 'no' they go play golf instead: the BGS of sports.

Despite being perfectly reasonable and an accepted part of life for as long as sports have been defined, I prefer the split-modes solution. It treats the modes as horses-for-courses, it recognises the differences between them and removes the antagonism as they all need each other, in a legitimised way that doesnt disenfranchise anyone, in any way.

 

[Para Handy]

... deleted by me ...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed. It poses each player the same question: are you more dedicated to taking part in a competitive teamplay feature, or playing on your own. Its the same question everyone with an interest in a RL team sport is posed as well, at some level or another. if 'no' they go play golf instead: the BGS of sports.

Despite being perfectly reasonable and an accepted part of life for as long as sports have been defined, I prefer the split-modes solution. It treats the modes as horses-for-courses, it recognises the differences between them and removes the antagonism as they all need each other, in a legitimised way that doesnt disenfranchise anyone, in any way.

If the change was made, yes it would - however the change has not been made, so it's not.

Specifically regarding the contention "that doesnt disenfranchise anyone, in any way", PvP-gating disenfranchises those who don't enjoy in-the-same-instance (ITSI) PvP in a game sold to all with other players, and therefore PvP, are optional extras. It would remove the feature completely from those console players who don't enjoy premium platform access - and premium platform access is not a requirement of playing the game or participating in Powerplay, BGS, etc..

Comparing RL to a game where other players are an optional extra in all game features (except CQC, of course), by design, doesn't really work. The rules of this game do not require direct interaction of players (excepting CQC as mentioned), no matter how much some players would wish it were different.

As it stands, there's no requirement to engage in PvP to participate in the feature, and has not been in the near six years since it was implemented. What is being sought is retrospectively PvP-gating existing pan-modal game content, that everyone bought access to when they bought the game, to suit a subset of the player-base.

Whatever Frontier do with regard to Powerplay they will annoy / upset a subset of the player-base - from that perspective, it's a lose / lose proposition.

Removing content from Solo and Private Groups would not remove antagonism - as there would be players who would be adversely affected by such a change. Change proponents seem quick to disregard their concerns.

What PvP-gating any game feature to Open would do is incentivise players to make extensive use of the block feature to remove hostile players from their game, in Open, while continuing to access the feature.

 

[Rubbernuke]

If the change was made, yes it would - however the change has not been made, so it's not.

.... and comparing RL to a game where other players are an optional extra in all game features (except CQC, of course), by design, doesn't really work. The rules of this game do not require direct interaction of players (excepting CQC as mentioned), no matter how much some players would wish it were different.

As it stands, there's no requirement to engage in PvP to participate in the feature, and has not been in the near six years since it was implemented. What is being sought is retrospectively PvP-gating existing pan-modal game content, that everyone bought access to when they bought the game, to suit a subset of the player-base.

Whatever Frontier do with regard to Powerplay they will annoy / upset a subset of the player-base - from that perspective, it's a lose / lose proposition.

Removing content from Solo and Private Groups would not remove antagonism - as there would be players who would be adversely affected by such a change. Change proponents seem quick to disregard their concerns.

What PvP-gating any game feature to Open would do is incentivise players to make extensive use of the block feature to remove hostile players from their game, in Open, while continuing to access the feature.

And it comes down to how you design it. For example none of my suggestions slam the door on anyone. The most extreme separates out jobs to modes, but each mode gets targeted non-overlapping roles.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And it comes down to how you design it. For example none of my suggestions slam the door on anyone. The most extreme separates out jobs to modes, but each mode gets targeted non-overlapping roles.

As I understand it, no player proposed potential solutions are under consideration, given Will's statement some time ago - and not all players agree on any player's proposal(s).

 

[Rubbernuke]

As I understand it, no player proposed potential solutions are under consideration, given Will's statement some time ago - and not all players agree on any player's proposal(s).

Thats not the point though- all of FDs proposals were bare bones and Powerplay is a minefield of considerations- a lot of what Sandro proposes co-depend on other suggestions being implemented.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Thats not the point though- all of FDs proposals were bare bones and Powerplay is a minefield of considerations- a lot of what Sandro proposes co-depend on other suggestions being implemented.

Depends which point is being discussed.

Given the reversion to the (rather unpopular, in terms of the reception it received on both sides) Open bonus proposal in the second flash topic, it seems that the Open only proposal in the first was not integral to the rest of the proposed changes - it may well be that the other changes are under discussion.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Depends which point is being discussed.

Given the reversion to the (rather unpopular, in terms of the reception it received on both sides) Open bonus proposal in the second flash topic, it seems that the Open only proposal in the first was not integral to the rest of the proposed changes - it may well be that the other changes are under discussion.

Open only (or weighting) works hand in hand with the shrinking of Powerplays footprint and unifying fort direction and uncapped UM. These syngergistically focus players together- and the only 'real' new gameplay added I might add. The other changes are voting changes and housekeeping.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Open only (or weighting) works hand in hand with the shrinking of Powerplays footprint and unifying fort direction and uncapped UM. These syngergistically focus players together- and the only 'real' new gameplay added I might add. The other changes are voting changes and housekeeping.

As before, I'll agree to disagree on the perceived need to PvP-gate or otherwise mode-penalise any existing pan-modal game content.

 

[Rubbernuke]

As before, I'll agree to disagree on the perceived need to PvP-gate or mode-penalise any existing pan-modal game content.

I don't agree gating either, believe it or not. What I want to see is the game loops untangled so that each mode does not undercut each other. For example, you could make quotas for each mode- so 50% can be done in solo, and 50% is limited to open. You could make fort / UM past the uncapped UM threshold Open only.

In the end the biggest question is how much FD are willing to change. If its everything then all bets are off. If they intend to keep the skeleton they have now then thats where the soul searching begins, because Powerplay needs a firm design direction to justify its existence.

 

[DemiserofD]

Youre suggesting weighting as compensation for direct attacks, im in effect calling for hazard pay. Albeit the personal payments dont bother me, but the effect on the simulation does.
Compensation would be readily & extensively exploitable. Top-cover for inbound fortifiers would be pledged to another power instead, and interdict friendlies in order to buff the fortifiers' results. If the only benefits were personal & not factionwide, then the weighting would be pointless anyway.

You say people are inherently irrational, and this is partially true, but we have both rational and irrational elements to every choice we make, ofc.
Players are constantly looking for the best methods & shipbuilds in order to be as effective as possible for the Power they support. These are not irrational decisions, they are the results of hardnosed number-crunching. & nor is going to Solo if danger is perceived, irrational, even if the perception of danger is irrationally extreme.

A rational reason to stay in Open despite the increased sense of risk, encourages teamplay to overcome or mitigate those risks. That has to be a benefit in a feature designed for competition between playergroups.

The trouble is, 'hazard pay' is typically based on the chance of losing your one, limited, life. The odds of death don't have to be very high for hazard pay to be disproportionately higher, because once you die, that's it.

Ingame, death is a mild inconvenience at best. Add to this the fact that death, even in open, is extremely rare, and any argument for this being in any way 'hazardous' quickly goes out the window. So how can you rationally reward players when 99% of them aren't actually in any sort of situation worthy of reward?

There's always potential for exploitation with a pvp-focused system, but in my mind, that's better than a system that is essentially being constantly exploited by everyone playing in open who doesn't actually face danger equivalent to the reward they're being given for no reason. Especially since there are ways to fix and avoid 5C pvp, but once you add global multipliers there's not really anything you can do past that.