Modes [Suggestion] How to incentivise open play and make it relevant

[Genar-Hofoen]

I just got an idea. I'm not sure whether it's genius or brilliant or just the flu talking.

Actions in Open do not influence the BGS. It makes so much sense. The BGS is a result of PvE activities so it doesn't belong in a mode that enables irrelevant PvP. Anyone who wants to influence the BGS does so in solo/PG, equaling the environment for everyone. The thing that sets open apart from the other modes is not relevant to the BGS anyway. In Open you can use tricksiness with your connection which means you bypass the chance of meeting other CMDRs, plus instancing, plus different gaming platforms, plus timezones, it's a mess. My solution has none of these drawbacks.

Everyone is happy, cake all around.

*achoo*

Maybe it is the flu talking.

I wholeheartedly endorse this idea

 

[Rampant]

I just got an idea. I'm not sure whether it's genius or brilliant or just the flu talking.

Actions in Open do not influence the BGS. It makes so much sense. The BGS is a result of PvE activities so it doesn't belong in a mode that enables irrelevant PvP. Anyone who wants to influence the BGS does so in solo/PG, equaling the environment for everyone. The thing that sets open apart from the other modes is not relevant to the BGS anyway. In Open you can use tricksiness with your connection which means you bypass the chance of meeting other CMDRs, plus instancing, plus different gaming platforms, plus timezones, it's a mess. My solution has none of these drawbacks.

Everyone is happy, cake all around.

*achoo*

Maybe it is the flu talking.

You must be delirious, dude. I reckon that's probably the flu talking.

I've always made my mark on the world by playing cleaner, better, and more credible than the other guy.

So let's play it cleaner, better, and more credible; and have no more talk of removing BGS influence from the "other" mode.

And have a few stiff drinks to get that flu under control, dammit.

[yesnod]

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[CMDR_Elver]

PP wasn't designed for PVP it was designed for all modes, hence it being available across all modes.



A lot of solo/group players left open as a result of experiencing being the content of PVP open players, if the PVP open players find themselves feeling lonely and leave then open may become populated again. We know they are a minority of the playerbase so it won't have much impact on numbers either way.



People would just log out and back in again to achieve the same result.



You change modes via the main menu, so that's not even close to being clogging.



Hasn't Sandro already said no to that, besides which you could just switch to open to get missions/cash in.



Can you source PP being designed for PVP.



There are players who did not refund the game when offline was dropped because solo was intended to replace it, penalizing them now isn't an option. FDEV will never do it.

Just had a brief look for a quote here something that might interest you!
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=237822&p=3680532&viewfull=1#post3680532 post 1388

 

[Robert Maynard]

Just had a brief look for a quote here something that might interest you!
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=237822&p=3680532&viewfull=1#post3680532 post 1388

Indeed.

However, the fact that PowerPlay was consciously implemented in all game modes rather suggests that the direct PvP that it offers is completely optional and that it is also comprised from indirect PvP between modes (and platforms):

For fun

That said, it could be worth thinking about reducing the impact that solo & group players have on the political simulation.

Unlike community goals, Powerplay is a swinging balance - ie solo players are also balancing solo players.

Sandro's post was from March 2016 and follows this post in another thread:

And since I'm in the mood for pulling hand grenades , here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.

My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo. So the playing field is basically uneven as it stands and in this case, maybe change could make things better.

In December 2016, I asked Sandro whether the pin had been pulled on the hand grenade:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uetVzNINdKU;t=26m40s

The first one's from Robert Maynard and he's saying "Has the pin been pulled on the hand grenade I posted in a Collusion Piracy thread?". Just for context this was, I was musing out loud about potentially Open Play Powerplay having some benefit to success over and above Private Groups and Solo - I just want to reiterate that was just me musing, we're not going to do that at the moment, there are no plans to do it, but it is still an interesting thought, nothing's ever completely off the table but nothing to announce at the moment.

Then, in another different thread, in July this year:

Hello Commander Ozram!

I think you are perhaps conflating two separate issues: the amount of challenge present in each game mode, and player versus player interactions. I think these are so fundamentally different that comparisons might not be particularly useful.

The challenge of playing in solo being too low (without taking sides) is a valid argument to make, although it might better be phrased as "the opportunities for challenge are too low in Elite Dangerous". It's actually something we are interested in looking at.

However, cranking up difficulty will not make Open more enticing. Conflict between actual people, even within a game, is a very different matter to taking on NPC ships. It has many psychological and social elements that would otherwise not be present. Incidentally, increasing the difficulty of NPC engagements would also make Open harder rather than fairer, so there's also that.

Perhaps the bottom line is the different modes are there to enable Commanders to play how they want to. We don't want everyone to play in Open because we want some sort of Armageddon PvP scenario. We just think that playing with other people, both cooperatively *and* adversarial, can be more fun, which is why we advocate Open play.

So in the context of a karma system, people playing in Private Group or Solo mode are not relevant. Why should folk in Open be interested in what goes on there? This is about making player versus player interactions more equitable *in Open*, getting more folk in there, surely?

 

[seko]

I don't play in Open anymore, because my empty cargo hold non-wanted ship was sniped one time too many by griefers without a warning or a challenge transmitted.

I don't mind being hunted by a mercenary, in combat zones or when flying for an opposing power, shot down by a bounty hunter when wanted, or robbed by a pirate when transporting goods, if that is done with a proper approach, conduct or an ingame reason... and consequence for the aggressor when he's attaking and killing unprovoked, too.

But if it's just for the pleasure of destruction and ing of a fellow player, then the griefer has to look for someone else to play with him.

It is just not worth my time (in rebuys) to deal with that nonsense.

So, I moved to Mobius. And there I have my pool of - what 20k? - players I can join for wings, meet amassed in CGs or just have a chat with. I don't feel deserted.

I haven't missed Open ever since.

My sentiments exactly

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

All these bonus for an activity 'solutions' have the drawback that you cannot quantify the bonus, because the amount of risk you face is not only down to what mode you are playing, but also which system you're in, which boat you're flying, at what time you're flying it, which gaming platform you're using and the quality of your connection. It's nearly impossible to quantify. The 25% in the OP is laughable of course.

The most elegant way to incentive open in the Elite environment would be to introduce a new mechanic. With regard to Powerplay, the CMDRs are the Elite pilots in Elite. When you best another CMDR from another PP faction in PvP that could have a separate mechanic where that action is rewarded. In other words, have PvP actually have meaning. Not just a meaningless bonus which is artificial and could easily be exploited.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The most elegant way to incentive open in the Elite environment would be to introduce a new mechanic. With regard to Powerplay, the CMDRs are the Elite pilots in Elite. When you best another CMDR from another PP faction in PvP that could have a separate mechanic where that action is rewarded. In other words, have PvP actually have meaning. Not just a meaningless bonus which is artificial and could easily be exploited.

However, as in the case of Collusion Piracy as it relates to PowerPlay (Sandro started the thread where the "hand grenade" comment comes from), any player / player interaction that would be specifically rewarded can also be exploited - Elite pilots pledged to opposing Powers could collude to unduly influence the outcome simply by one being repeatedly destroyed in a ship with a meaningless rebuy amount.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

However, as in the case of Collusion Piracy as it relates to PowerPlay (Sandro started the thread where the "hand grenade" comment comes from), any player / player interaction that would be specifically rewarded can also be exploited - Elite pilots pledged to opposing Powers could collude to unduly influence the outcome simply by one being repeatedly destroyed in a ship with a meaningless rebuy amount.

True. CMDRs with second accounts could pledge for the enemy PP faction and have them be killed repeatedly.

Fair enough, I'll stick to my previous idea

 

[Stigbob]

Tell you what? It's a genius flu. Keep it!
Get well...

You can catch Space Madness by reading forum posts from the infected, you should only read Ziggy's posts whilst wearing polarized swimming goggles and washing up gloves.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

Indeed.

However, the fact that PowerPlay was consciously implemented in all game modes rather suggests that the direct PvP that it offers is completely optional and that it is also comprised from indirect PvP between modes (and platforms):



Sandro's post was from March 2016 and follows this post in another thread:



In December 2016, I asked Sandro whether the pin had been pulled on the hand grenade:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uetVzNINdKU;t=26m40s



Then, in another different thread, in July this year:

Right well they are interesting quotes thanks. The point of me posting the Sandy link was for StigBob's benefit primarily, was to back up the assertion that PP was intended as a consensual PvP game mechanic. You could find quotes going back years to PP's role out. Think this is put to bed now!

Secondly, which is even more interesting (thanks Robert!), there is/was a desire in FDev to balance up OPEN in terms of power play, they just haven't got round to doing this yet. This backs up the main thrust of the OP surely! The "we bought the same game for all modes, just check the small print" argument, looks a bit hollow now? Not wishing to rehash the last 50 odd pages, surely this thread would off been better of spent mulling over and debating how to "incentivize open play and make it relevant", which is a genuine concern and Lateralus' suggestion to do this.

Thirdly, there is no point trying to re-balance OPEN if mode switching totally circumvents this anyway. Mode saves would be a fairly simple solution to this problem!

 

[Stigbob]

Right well they are interesting quotes thanks. The point of me posting the Sandy link was for StigBob's benefit primarily, was to back up the assertion that PP was intended as a consensual PvP game mechanic. You could find quotes going back years to PP's role out. Think this is put to bed now!

Secondly, which is even more interesting (thanks Robert!), there is/was a desire in FDev to balance up OPEN in terms of power play, they just haven't got round to doing this yet. This backs up the main thrust of the OP surely! The "we bought the same game for all modes, just check the small print" argument, looks a bit hollow now? Not wishing to rehash the last 50 odd pages, surely this thread would off been better of spent mulling over and debating how to "incentivize open play and make it relevant", which is a genuine concern and Lateralus' suggestion to do this.

Thirdly, there is no point trying to re-balance OPEN if mode switching totally circumvents this anyway. Mode saves would be a fairly simple solution to this problem!

So it's a bit like CQC in that it was made with PVP in mind but the target audience don't bother with it. Which could explain why there's not much in the way of PVP centric development.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Right well they are interesting quotes thanks. The point of me posting the Sandy link was for StigBob's benefit primarily, was to back up the assertion that PP was intended as a consensual PvP game mechanic. You could find quotes going back years to PP's role out. Think this is put to bed now!

Indeed consensual PvP - and also optional.

Secondly, which is even more interesting (thanks Robert!), there is/was a desire in FDev to balance up OPEN in terms of power play, they just haven't got round to doing this yet. This backs up the main thrust of the OP surely! The "we bought the same game for all modes, just check the small print" argument, looks a bit hollow now? Not wishing to rehash the last 50 odd pages, surely this thread would off been better of spent mulling over and debating how to "incentivize open play and make it relevant", which is a genuine concern and Lateralus' suggestion to do this.

Indeed they haven't - it rather seems to be shelved, in my opinion.

Regarding the the design - not at all - we did all buy or back the game with three game modes, etc..

There's incentivising (which seems to be on the shelf) and there's restriction of content to Open only (in the OP) - Frontier have not offered the latter (which is an even more contentious proposal than an Open bonus).

Thirdly, there is no point trying to re-balance OPEN if mode switching totally circumvents this anyway. Mode saves would be a fairly simple solution to this problem!

Nope. Mode switching (at will) has been another significant part of the game design from the outset. Restricting / removing it is a solution to a "problem" that is not universally agreed to be a problem.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

So it's a bit like CQC in that it was made with PVP in mind but the target audience don't bother with it. Which could explain why there's not much in the way of PVP centric development.

CQC is a bit niche and a bit limiting has its merits though. Good training ground for the griefers.!

 

[CMDR_Elver]

Indeed consensual PvP - and also optional.



Indeed they haven't - it rather seems to be shelved, in my opinion.

Regarding the the design - not at all - we did all buy or back the game with three game modes, etc..

There's incentivising (which seems to be on the shelf) and there's restriction of content to Open only (in the OP) - Frontier have not offered the latter (which is an even more contentious proposal than an Open bonus).



Nope. Mode switching (at will) has been another significant part of the game design from the outset. Restricting / removing it is a solution to a "problem" that is not universally agreed to be a problem.

Exactly so if it gets completely circumvented by solo /pg whats the point to it. Which is the argument your not addressing, if you want to maintain the status quo. Solo is self limiting as you take away the option to interact with other players it cake and eat time again. What's the monty python sketch again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PObBA2wH5l0

Mode switch exploits are a large part of the problem, if you think some work needs doing in this area. If you heavily favor one mode then it shouldn't make any difference to you. Oh well!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Exactly so if it gets completely circumvented by solo /pg whats the point to it. Which is the argument your not addressing, if you want to maintain the status quo.

The argument relates to direct PvP being optional - Frontier designed the game with optional direct PvP - backers backed a game with optional direct PvP - Frontier developed and released a game with optional direct PvP - new players bought a game with optional direct PvP. Frontier then introduced CGs, PowerPlay and the option for players to have a Faction inserted into the game - all offering optional direct PvP.

That the OP seeks direct PvP to be required for some features is obvious. It is patently obvious that Frontier designed, developed, released and updated their game that does not require players to engage in direct PvP

Solo is self limiting as you take away the option to interact with other players it cake and eat time again. What's the monty python sketch again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PObBA2wH5l0

Solo is as valid a game mode choice as Open, in my opinion - playing among other players is also optional. In Frontier's opinion too:

Is there planned to be any defense against the possibility that player created minor factions could be destroyed with no possible recourse through Private Groups or Solo play?

From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us.

Michael

Mode switch exploits are a large part of the problem, if you think some work needs doing in this area. If you heavily favor one mode then it shouldn't make any difference to you. Oh well!

Which particular "exploits"?

 

[Jockey79]

.....Mode switch exploits are a large part of the problem,....

Did I not get the memo?

What "mode switch exploits"?

 

[Stigbob]

CQC is a bit niche and a bit limiting has its merits though. Good training ground for the griefers.!

Griefers and gankers don't play CQC ready willing and able opponents seem to always make them combat log.

 

[Rampant]

...

Mode switch exploits are a large part of the problem....

...

Just so we are absolutely crystal clear about this:

**SWITCHING MODES IS NOT AN EXPLOIT**

Fundamental design of game. Fundamental deliberate choice by game designer.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Stigbob]

Just so we are absolutely crystal clear about this:

**SWITCHING MODES IS NOT AN EXPLOIT**

Fundamental design of game. Fundamental deliberate choice by game designer.

Yours Aye

Mark H

True, spot station griefers hanging round the letterbox taunt them in comm, switch to solo land, switch back taunt them again. Perfectly legit, everyone should do it prior to blocking them.

 

[Jockey79]

Indeed.

However, the fact that PowerPlay was consciously implemented in all game modes rather suggests that the direct PvP that it offers is completely optional and that it is also comprised from indirect PvP between modes (and platforms):



Sandro's post was from March 2016 and follows this post in another thread:



In December 2016, I asked Sandro whether the pin had been pulled on the hand grenade:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uetVzNINdKU;t=26m40s



Then, in another different thread, in July this year:

Was looking for that video link a few pages back and couldn't find it - am I okay to add your post and the video reply to the wall please?