[Suggestion] Powerplay PvP Mission Concept

[Lateralus]

Goal-driven or 'meaningful' PvP is still very hard to find..​

Even with the improvements of Powerplay 2.0, trying to find Powerplay specific PvP is still quite a challenge due to the vast gameplay area (unless you camp high traffic systems, but that is more of an exercise in pot luck and not really goal orientated).

Even if all players are in open, there can be a 'ships in the night' situation due to different time-zones, versions of the game, instances etc.

PvP missions could be the answer to this problem, and get people PvP'ing over actual goals rather than just random fights / ganks.

Spoiler: TLDR

• There would be PvP Powerplay missions that when accepted, generate a defensive counter-mission on the opposition side (thereby focusing opposing players towards each other at specific locations)
• An alert will message nearby players (in open >500 LY from mission location) pledged to the defending power that a hostile PvP mission has been triggered and a defensive counter mission can be picked up from a specific stronghold carrier close to the mission location
• Both the offensive & defensive side of the mission will run for the same duration until one side is successful, it expires or the attacker violates mission terms
• These Powerplay PvP missions would offer much needed content to the PvP community within a consensual system
• PvE players would not be impacted by these missions, they'd still be able to do everything they currently do
• This proposed mission structure also offers a solution to long-running PvP-related problems such as combat logging, mode/version switching and instance blocking without affecting the wider-game

The idea is as follows:

• PvP labelled, Undermining or Acquisition missions would be available from a powerplay contact for a certain enemy location which would offer outsized merit payouts (maybe something like 20-30k (maybe more) depending on activity - FDEV would need to balance the risk vs reward here).
• These could be space-based locations, stations, stronghold carriers, megaships, power conflict zones or on foot locations just like regular Powerplay tasks.
• These missions could also be offered as a team mission for up to 4 players.
• Accepting the mission will trigger a counter mission to appear on the enemy side, with the aim of stopping the opponents' mission succeeding. This would result in a similar merit payout should the attacker be destroyed or driven off by the defender, also generating sizeable fortification points for the defenders in that system. Edit: Fortification rewards would have to be handled carefully to avoid exploitation. There would have to be functionality to stop 5C exploitation via organised kills; such as attacker loyalty-level scaling of rewards, diminishing returns, no rewards for friend kills etc. The idea would be to make it too much effort to bother with over normal PvE fortification methods.
• This counter mission would be offered from stronghold carriers in the stronghold system closest to the attackers' mission target.
• Potential defending players who are currently located in any 'Allied' system would be alerted by message to the counter mission becoming available from the specific stronghold carrier, but they would need to travel there to get the mission to give the attacker a bit of time (This would passively encourage defensive players to gather at stronghold carriers, creating organic player bottlenecks at those locations).
• The defensive counter mission would only be available to the first 4 players who accept it as to limit the amount of defenders who would be alerted (also allowing for a full wing) Edit: Exploitable
• Counter mission will direct defenders to the approximate location of the attackers (4-6 possible systems depending on the mission type, with a hint as to whether it is a space or surface location).
• Both attacker and defender missions will have a matching expiry time to be fair to both sides partaking (something like 1-2 hours).
• Any (defending)power NPC scans of the attackers ship while the mission is active will give an update to the defending player(s) with a more precise location of the attacker and their mission target.
• Should the defender perform an identifying scan on the attackers' ship, it will be flagged as the mission target.
• Edit: Defenders will get periodic updates to the attackers progress in the mission via message, to confirm their target(s) remain active in the mission and haven't just let it run without any intention of completing it to distract their opponents. E.G 'Target has arrived at mission location', 'Target has completed stage x of x of their mission'.
• To add urgency to the final stages of the attackers' mission (and depending on difficulty rating), any final data breaches or penultimate mission stage completion will update defenders to the attackers' precise location (with a minute or 2 delay).
• The attacker will have to return to a specific station in a friendly system to complete the mission to prevent them simply logging out after they have finished their activity (allowing for a short hunting period for the defenders).
• Once the attackers have returned to the completion station (likely a friendly stronghold carrier), they will complete the mission, be rewarded with the merit + credit or materials payout and control points for the target system.
• Defenders would be notified if the attacker completes the mission
  
  

  Other PvP Mission Criteria​

• Should the attacker fail the mission without enemy player involvement, no merits would be attributed to either side (to stop exploitation)
• Should the defenders kill the attacker while the mission is active, the attackers' mission fails and the defenders mission successfully completes
• Should the attacking player log in to a different mode other than open while the mission is active it will automatically fail
• Should the attacking player make use of the 15 second log out timer while the mission is active, it will also fail (counting as a mission success for the defender if in the same instance)
• If the attacker logs to the main menu or crashes while the mission is active they have 10 minutes to log back in otherwise the mission will also fail (allowing for crash recovery - however this timer will run down for multiple menu visits or crashes, not reset per crash/logout)
• Defenders would get notified if the attacker completes or fails the mission in real-time. This would prevent players wasting their time looking for potential PvP possibilities that have expired
• Instance blocking would not work between mission participants (as obviously that would be too exploitable) and instancing would actively prioritise all those involved in the mission
• Edit: Missions should also fail if the player were to switch between Odyssey/Horizons - Ian Doncaster

Positive outcomes from implementing this concept would be:​

• All participants are willing
• PvP would have a tangible use in the game
• Players are given some specific direction as to where to find their opponents at a specific time (so they don't spend all their game time wandering around aimlessly looking for enemies)
• While waiting for a defensive PvP mission to trigger, players can do other things - making better use of their game time
• Edit: Players can choose to trigger a potential PvP scenario without any external communication or third party tools
• Players would know their opponents are in open so would be more motivated to hunt them (and know when they can stop hunting for them)
• The issues of combat logging and instance blocking for gain would have a solution/consequence
• This would draw some of the gankers away from high traffic systems and into Powerplay
• The open only debate may subside somewhat if PvP'ers have content
• Powerplay as it stands would not change for PvE players
• Edit: Some players have been criticising the lack of gameplay options for undermining, this idea would help alleviate that issue
• Edit: The dynamic choke points this system would create would lead to secondary PvP between attackers and defenders around the mission, not just within its scope. This would likely lead to larger player conflicts flaring up as a result of the close opponent proximity, regardless of the mission outcome
• Edit: This would be an excellent system for streamers to broadcast interesting and dynamic, player-driven gameplay, potentially drawing more players to the game

Cheers

 

[Ian Doncaster]

for a certain enemy location

How much control over the location would you expect here?
(I can see cases for lots of different answers)

• Accepting the mission will trigger a counter mission to appear on the enemy side, with the aim of stopping the opponents' undermining mission. This would result in a similar merit payout should the attacker be destroyed or driven off by the defender, also generating sizeable fortification points for the defenders in that system.

This bit feels somewhat exploitable on both sides:
- on the reinforcing side, having an alt pledged to the other side take the missions, broadcast its exact location, give the defenders plenty of time to get there and destroy it.
- on the undermining side, it feels like so long as you run away early enough you can probably avoid triggering this condition by making it look like a "fail due to NPCs / mode switch / etc"

I'm not sure it needs an incentive for the defenders beyond "your system won't get undermined by X thousand points which you'll need to make back some other way"

 

[Lateralus]

How much control over the location would you expect here?
(I can see cases for lots of different answers)


This bit feels somewhat exploitable on both sides:
- on the reinforcing side, having an alt pledged to the other side take the missions, broadcast its exact location, give the defenders plenty of time to get there and destroy it.
- on the undermining side, it feels like so long as you run away early enough you can probably avoid triggering this condition by making it look like a "fail due to NPCs / mode switch / etc"

I'm not sure it needs an incentive for the defenders beyond "your system won't get undermined by X thousand points which you'll need to make back some other way"

To be clear, the counter mission would be triggered the moment a player accepts the attacking mission (there could be a 5 or 10 minute delay to give the attacker some time to start the mission).

I feel that we could write off most of powerplay if we worry too much about alts and 5C type gameplay. To combat these things you could have a system where the amount of merits and control points it generates is dependant on the loyalty level of the destroyed attacker or a diminishing returns system for the same player being killed over and over within a cycle.

There are definitely ways to stop exploiters (all this happening in open makes it easier to identify too).

The motivation to earn decent merits through infiltration/pvp hunts would be high too, for both sides of the mission.

Would also be good content for content creators.. have to take that into account these days.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I feel that we could write off most of powerplay if we worry too much about alts and 5C type gameplay.

They've - so far as I can tell - managed to avoid any situation where you can damage the power you're pledged to, or help its enemies any more effectively than you would be able to without pledging, at the moment. Even the minor things you could get up to with an enemy-pledged alt are so inefficient that they're clearly not worth the hassle over just attacking the system normally.

For Powerplay 1, sure, what's one more reason to pledge to every Power except the one you're supporting. For PP2 it would seem a shame to start bringing that back, when I don't think the proposal needs to open up that risk to still be a solid way of getting people together for a fight.

There are definitely ways to stop exploiters (all this happening in open makes it easier to identify too).

Theoretically easier to identify - but the problem is that the people most able to identify it (seeing the same under-equipped person try missions over and over again, receiving the notifications about the mission start) are the ones with the least incentive to mention it - especially since the defenders will be sitting ready in the Stronghold ready to accept the mission and also stop any more honest players on their side noticing it.

People have generally kept a lot quieter about "this lets you fortify really quickly" than they do about "this lets you undermine really quickly" where the complaints to Frontier have been near-instant, and that's for things where no-one is doing anything wrong as such.

To combat these things you could have a system where the amount of merits and control points it generates is dependant on the loyalty level of the destroyed attacker or a diminishing returns system for the same player being killed over and over within a cycle.

Diminishing returns could end up very non-transparent as to how much you get (especially bearing in mind it might be different defenders and even different powers in the case of a genuine attacker) - and someone who does a lot of these with an implied 50% success rate is going to die/flee quite a lot. Again somewhat exploitable, too - fail a bunch of attacks on a system you don't care about so you don't reinforce the system on failure for the one you do, etc.

Loyalty level is barely going to matter once everyone is high rank; conversely it's again exploitable by someone who's keeping a PvP alt for this purpose and can just reset their own rank between attacks because the PvE bonuses don't matter to it (and rebuys are trivial anyway) so that no-one gets points for shooting them

I think it's simpler and clearer to just keep it as a pure undermining method, and let the defenders choose between trying to stop it or taking the opportunity to launch a counter-attack of their own. If a power has people who want to seek out PvP, they should be reacting to this sort of attack anyway just for the opportunity to get an actual fight.
(And they'll still get some merits for scans, power kills, etc.)




Minor thought, just going back to the original proposal:

Should the undermining/attacking player log in to a different mode other than open

... this probably also needs a "fail on switching between Horizons Open and Odyssey Open" clause in it. Either's fine to use but once the opposition are picked, switching feels unsporting even if you are theoretically followable. Initial mission adverts to the defenders would also need to be in that "half" only to avoid frustration.

 

[Lateralus]

They've - so far as I can tell - managed to avoid any situation where you can damage the power you're pledged to, or help its enemies any more effectively than you would be able to without pledging, at the moment. Even the minor things you could get up to with an enemy-pledged alt are so inefficient that they're clearly not worth the hassle over just attacking the system normally.

For Powerplay 1, sure, what's one more reason to pledge to every Power except the one you're supporting. For PP2 it would seem a shame to start bringing that back, when I don't think the proposal needs to open up that risk to still be a solid way of getting people together for a fight.


Theoretically easier to identify - but the problem is that the people most able to identify it (seeing the same under-equipped person try missions over and over again, receiving the notifications about the mission start) are the ones with the least incentive to mention it - especially since the defenders will be sitting ready in the Stronghold ready to accept the mission and also stop any more honest players on their side noticing it.

People have generally kept a lot quieter about "this lets you fortify really quickly" than they do about "this lets you undermine really quickly" where the complaints to Frontier have been near-instant, and that's for things where no-one is doing anything wrong as such.


Diminishing returns could end up very non-transparent as to how much you get (especially bearing in mind it might be different defenders and even different powers in the case of a genuine attacker) - and someone who does a lot of these with an implied 50% success rate is going to die/flee quite a lot. Again somewhat exploitable, too - fail a bunch of attacks on a system you don't care about so you don't reinforce the system on failure for the one you do, etc.

Loyalty level is barely going to matter once everyone is high rank; conversely it's again exploitable by someone who's keeping a PvP alt for this purpose and can just reset their own rank between attacks because the PvE bonuses don't matter to it (and rebuys are trivial anyway) so that no-one gets points for shooting them

I think it's simpler and clearer to just keep it as a pure undermining method, and let the defenders choose between trying to stop it or taking the opportunity to launch a counter-attack of their own. If a power has people who want to seek out PvP, they should be reacting to this sort of attack anyway just for the opportunity to get an actual fight.
(And they'll still get some merits for scans, power kills, etc.)




Minor thought, just going back to the original proposal:

... this probably also needs a "fail on switching between Horizons Open and Odyssey Open" clause in it. Either's fine to use but once the opposition are picked, switching feels unsporting even if you are theoretically followable. Initial mission adverts to the defenders would also need to be in that "half" only to avoid frustration.

I've added your points about fortification exploitation & the Odyssey/Horizons point to the OP as I agree.

Generally I think the amount of fortification exploitation a player could do via deliberately allowing themselves to be destroyed could be mitigated by just keeping the fortification rewards very limited and equal to normal PvE activities like you mentioned, making it not worth the hassle of alts etc. The reward focus should primarily be on the attacker (you either succeed and get the points/merits, or you fail/get stopped and get nothing).

Perhaps the defender could get a decent payout of personal merit rewards for the kill but the control points could be minimal (with diminishing returns in play for killing the same player repeatedly + rank of killed player scaling the rewards).

Also, I've just seen the other thread about lack of undermining gameplay options... This concept could also help with that problem.

 

[Nowski]

Coming from a slightly different angle I had a similar idea a while ago: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/open-only-in-pp2-0.624749/post-10410356

Much less specified, since I was mostly concerned about the practical implementation side of introducing PvP oriented elements, but I was definitely thinking along the lines of defensive counter-missions and so on at the time. Interesting to see the idea more fleshed out!

 

[Lateralus]

Coming from a slightly different angle I had a similar idea a while ago: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/open-only-in-pp2-0.624749/post-10410356

Much less specified, since I was mostly concerned about the practical implementation side of introducing PvP oriented elements, but I was definitely thinking along the lines of defensive counter-missions and so on at the time. Interesting to see the idea more fleshed out!

I also used to approach the PvP issue from the angle of blanket-weighting open-based Powerplay payouts or making Powerplay open only... and as much as I would love those things to happen, I just don't think FDEV will do it, as they do not tend to be a developer that takes too many risks - and they are scared to death of negative PvE player backlash..

Also I now think that PvP missions would be a better solution than just doing those things previously mentioned because of the amount of long running PvP problems the mission idea would solve... With open only or weighting alone, we'd still have the needle in a haystack issue of not being able to find opposing players in the game area while they are actively engaged in Powerplay actions (the chances of finding them while they're undermining for example is very low).

 

[Nowski]

I also used to approach the PvP issue from the angle of blanket-weighting open-based Powerplay

Yeah, my proposal was intended to head that off at the pass because of the lack of cogent rules for when the game should so weight

This made me consider missions with an implementation detail which could solve this:

making the missions unavailable when not in open and failing the mission immediately if the mission is still active but the game is not in open mode.

Essentially the same as your own:

Should the attacking player log in to a different mode other than open while the mission is active it will automatically fail

 

[Dragsham]

Rather than localised ie if your in a certain area, that particular stronghold would have the missions stipulated, why not have an overall tab in powerplay depicting the various 'scraps' going on for your Power? So cmdrs have a choice as to which one they're going to respond too? Likewise for the counters. So in essence 2 tabs.

 

[Lateralus]

Rather than localised ie if your in a certain area, that particular stronghold would have the missions stipulated, why not have an overall tab in powerplay depicting the various 'scraps' going on for your Power? So cmdrs have a choice as to which one they're going to respond too? Likewise for the counters. So in essence 2 tabs.

You could have that as well, a 'current active pvp missions' tab or similar...

However the localisation aspect of the suggestion was to limit the number of opposition responders somewhat, otherwise you may end up with a huge mob chasing one or two players. You'd probably get something like that happen with discord anyway, but we would want to give attackers a decent chance of completing their mission and not draw in excessive amounts of defenders (this could also be something which varies depending on mission difficulty/reward level).

 

[Ian Doncaster]

otherwise you may end up with a huge mob chasing one or two players.

I'm not sure that's necessarily a problem - unless it's something like Torval versus ALD where that skew is because of how many players each power has, if a huge mob is chasing two players, they're not stopping the other eight missions being carried out concurrently.

 

[Dragsham]

Or you could have a hard cap on the tabs. For example 17 per side...not sure what the instancing cap is? 34?
And if there are more the tabs just create another instance

 

[Darkfyre99]

I'm not sure that's necessarily a problem - unless it's something like Torval versus ALD where that skew is because of how many players each power has, if a huge mob is chasing two players, they're not stopping the other eight missions being carried out concurrently.

Which would cause those other eight missions to fail, per their rules:

Should the attacker fail the mission without enemy player involvement, no merits would be attributed to either side (to stop exploitation)

Which is ultimately the central problem with any PvP-centric feature of this game, in my opinion. There needs to be enough PvPers to overcome the concurrency problem, and the instancing problem. Which, given my little experiment running the Hudson blockade at George Lucas during 2.0's premier, is pretty huge.

And that, @Lateralus, is the main problem with your proposal. I think you covered your bases pretty well, but if over 90% of the missions fail because players never meet opposition, you're not going to get a lot of players doing it.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Which would cause those other eight missions to fail, per their rules:

I read that rule as "if the attacker somehow messes up the mission due to PvE events" rather than "the attacker automatically fails if no player defenders show up"

 

[Darrack]

Goal-driven or 'meaningful' PvP is still very hard to find..​

Even with the improvements of Powerplay 2.0, trying to find Powerplay specific PvP is still quite a challenge due to the vast gameplay area (unless you camp high traffic systems, but that is more of an exercise in pot luck and not really goal orientated).

Even if all players are in open, there can be a 'ships in the night' situation due to different time-zones, versions of the game, instances etc.

PvP missions could be the answer to this problem, and get people PvP'ing over actual goals rather than just random fights / ganks.

Spoiler: TLDR

• There would be PvP Powerplay missions that when accepted, generate a defensive counter-mission on the opposition side (thereby focusing opposing players towards each other at specific locations)
• An alert will message nearby players (>100 LY) pledged to the defending power that a hostile PvP mission has been triggered and a defensive counter mission can be picked up from a specific stronghold carrier close to the mission location
• Both the offensive & defensive side of the mission will run for the same duration until one side is successful, it expires or the attacker violates mission terms
• These Powerplay PvP missions would offer much needed content to the PvP community within a consensual system
• PvE players would not be impacted by these missions, they'd still be able to do everything they currently do
• This proposed mission structure also offers a solution to long-running PvP-related problems such as combat logging, mode/version switching and instance blocking without affecting the wider-game

The idea is as follows:

• PvP labelled, Undermining or Acquisition missions would be available from a powerplay contact for a certain enemy location which would offer outsized merit payouts (maybe something like 20-30k (maybe more) depending on activity - FDEV would need to balance the risk vs reward here).
• These could be space-based locations, stations, stronghold carriers, megaships, power conflict zones or on foot locations just like regular Powerplay tasks.
• These missions could also be offered as a team mission for up to 4 players.
• Accepting the mission will trigger a counter mission to appear on the enemy side, with the aim of stopping the opponents' mission succeeding. This would result in a similar merit payout should the attacker be destroyed or driven off by the defender, also generating sizeable fortification points for the defenders in that system. Edit: Fortification rewards would have to be handled carefully to avoid exploitation. There would have to be functionality to stop 5C exploitation via organised kills; such as attacker loyalty-level scaling of rewards, diminishing returns, no rewards for friend kills etc. The idea would be to make it too much effort to bother with over normal PvE fortification methods.
• This counter mission would be offered from stronghold carriers in the stronghold system closest to the attackers' mission target.
• Potential defending players who are currently located in any 'Allied' system would be alerted by message to the counter mission becoming available from the specific stronghold carrier, but they would need to travel there to get the mission to give the attacker a bit of time (This would passively encourage defensive players to gather at stronghold carriers, creating organic player bottlenecks at those locations).
• The defensive counter mission would only be available to the first 4 players who accept it as to limit the amount of defenders who would be alerted (also allowing for a full wing) Edit: Exploitable
• Counter mission will direct defenders to the approximate location of the attackers (4-6 possible systems depending on the mission type, with a hint as to whether it is a space or surface location).
• Both attacker and defender missions will have a matching expiry time to be fair to both sides partaking (something like 1-2 hours).
• Any (defending)power NPC scans of the attackers ship while the mission is active will give an update to the defending player(s) with a more precise location of the attacker and their mission target.
• Should the defender perform an identifying scan on the attackers' ship, it will be flagged as the mission target.
• Edit: Defenders will get periodic updates to the attackers progress in the mission via message, to confirm their target(s) remain active in the mission and haven't just let it run without any intention of completing it to distract their opponents. E.G 'Target has arrived at mission location', 'Target has completed stage x of x of their mission'.
• To add urgency to the final stages of the attackers' mission (and depending on difficulty rating), any final data breaches or penultimate mission stage completion will update defenders to the attackers' precise location (with a minute or 2 delay).
• The attacker will have to return to a specific station in a friendly system to complete the mission to prevent them simply logging out after they have finished their activity (allowing for a short hunting period for the defenders).
• Once the attackers have returned to the completion station (likely a friendly stronghold carrier), they will complete the mission, be rewarded with the merit + credit or materials payout and control points for the target system.
• Defenders would be notified if the attacker completes the mission
  
  

  Other PvP Mission Criteria​

• Should the attacker fail the mission without enemy player involvement, no merits would be attributed to either side (to stop exploitation)
• Should the defenders kill the attacker while the mission is active, the attackers' mission fails and the defenders mission successfully completes
• Should the attacking player log in to a different mode other than open while the mission is active it will automatically fail
• Should the attacking player make use of the 15 second log out timer while the mission is active, it will also fail (counting as a mission success for the defender if in the same instance)
• If the attacker logs to the main menu or crashes while the mission is active they have 10 minutes to log back in otherwise the mission will also fail (allowing for crash recovery - however this timer will run down for multiple menu visits or crashes, not reset per crash/logout)
• Defenders would get notified if the attacker completes or fails the mission in real-time. This would prevent players wasting their time looking for potential PvP possibilities that have expired
• Instance blocking would not work between mission participants (as obviously that would be too exploitable) and instancing would actively prioritise all those involved in the mission
• Edit: Missions should also fail if the player were to switch between Odyssey/Horizons - Ian Doncaster

Positive outcomes from implementing this concept would be:​

• All participants are willing
• PvP would have a tangible use in the game
• Players are given some specific direction as to where to find their opponents at a specific time (so they don't spend all their game time wandering around aimlessly looking for enemies)
• While waiting for a defensive PvP mission to trigger, players can do other things - making better use of their game time
• Edit: Players can choose to trigger a potential PvP scenario without any external communication or third party tools
• Players would know their opponents are in open so would be more motivated to hunt them (and know when they can stop hunting for them)
• The issues of combat logging and instance blocking for gain would have a solution/consequence
• This would draw some of the gankers away from high traffic systems and into Powerplay
• The open only debate may subside somewhat if PvP'ers have content
• Powerplay as it stands would not change for PvE players
• Edit: Some players have been criticising the lack of gameplay options for undermining, this idea would help alleviate that issue
• Edit: The dynamic choke points this system would create would lead to secondary PvP between attackers and defenders around the mission, not just within its scope. This would likely lead to larger player conflicts flaring up as a result of the close opponent proximity, regardless of the mission outcome
• Edit: This would be an excellent system for streamers to broadcast interesting and dynamic, player-driven gameplay, potentially drawing more players to the game

Cheers

No problems with PvP missions as long as they don't offer any higher reward than current PVE PP2 gameplay, however good luck finding folks who want to take part in PvP with the current issues the game has with cheats/hacks etc.

O7

 

[Lateralus]

Which would cause those other eight missions to fail, per their rules:



Which is ultimately the central problem with any PvP-centric feature of this game, in my opinion. There needs to be enough PvPers to overcome the concurrency problem, and the instancing problem. Which, given my little experiment running the Hudson blockade at George Lucas during 2.0's premier, is pretty huge.

And that, @Lateralus, is the main problem with your proposal. I think you covered your bases pretty well, but if over 90% of the missions fail because players never meet opposition, you're not going to get a lot of players doing it.

I don't think that would be an issue... Most powerplay groups have a subgroup of players active in their discord servers waiting for any hint of enemy player activity in their territory. Lack of in-game alerts though makes it all based on player observation.

I read that rule as "if the attacker somehow messes up the mission due to PvE events" rather than "the attacker automatically fails if no player defenders show up"

Yes that's correct... if no defenders show up then the attackers can complete their mission without issue. The stipulation about no merits being awarded if the attacker fails a mission without the involvement of defenders is to stop 5C exploitation shenanigans going on.

No problems with PvP missions as long as they don't offer any higher reward than current PVE PP2 gameplay, however good luck finding folks who want to take part in PvP with the current issues the game has with cheats/hacks etc.

O7

I don't think that would be an issue considering players can earn millions of merits a week with PvE gameloops atm. It would have to have a pretty decent payout though to justify being actively pursued in open by multiple players (reward would also depend on the mission criteria - surface missions would leave you more vulnerable due to being out of your ship and mass lock, so would need higher rewards).

Re. finding enough players to take part... There's always people looking for PvP (especially in a Powerplay context), there's just no real mechanism in the game that focuses opponents together in a location + timeframe + mode scenario. That's the main reason PvP players just default back to haunting high traffic systems... It's just not time-efficient to look for opponents in Powerplay-relevant areas right now.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Yes that's correct... if no defenders show up then the attackers can complete their mission without issue. The stipulation about no merits being awarded if the attacker fails a mission without the involvement of defenders is to stop 5C exploitation shenanigans going on.

Thanks for the clarification. I misread it the first time. I should’ve waited until I was on break at work before actually replying.

If that’s the case, I think that, depending upon the mission type, that would be tempting enough to give it a shot. I very much enjoyed running Hudson’s blockade at George Lucas, even though I very rarely encountered hostile players. But then again, I was having fun even before I learned about the blockade.