The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Maur]

Players can choose who they play among, by design - whichever aspect of the game they are engaging in.

Affecting mode shared game features is not something that is exclusive to those players who play in Open, by design.

Taking these two facts together, players may choose to affect mode shared game features from any game mode - and other players can't stop them unless they instance with them.

That is currently true. However, by having asymmetrical instancing as I proposed, it doesn't have to be.

That some seem to think that they have some right to affect the effects of other players on mode shared game features has been obvious for a long time. They don't though....

You are correct, currently players in solo/PG do have the right to affect the shared galaxy with relative impunity. That is by design.

However, is that design really the best way? Instancing is currently symmetrical, perhaps because nobody could concieve that it could be different. A instances with B means that B must be instancing with A.

However, that doesn't have to be true. Solo instences with Open, but Open doesn't instance with Solo, only with Solo's proxy. Solo controls the proxy only until Open interacts with it, and Solo doesn't have to notice when that happens.

It won't work in the real world because the real world is real, but ED happens in computers. You can show A to B without having to show B to A, just by coding it that way.

Open players complain that BGS/PP effects are happening with no way of knowing that they're happening and with no way of changing that. Are their experiences in the game less valid than those of people who want to play in Solo/PG so that they don't have to interact with other players? I say No! Everyone's wishes should be equal. Solo players should be able to affect the BGS/PP and not encounter other players. Open players should be able to affect things happening in the game and interact with other players.

My proposal will allow all of these things to happen. Remember that Solo is billed as, "You won't encounter other players", not that "Other players can't counter the effects that your actions may have".

So, don't tell me that Solo players have rights to affect the BGS/PP with impunity. They have exactly the 'rights' that FDev code the game to give them. They have the right, as advertised, to expect that in Solo, they won't see another player, no more, no less. If FDev chooses to alter the way that Open players can interact with their actions, via a proxy, that's FDev's prerogative.

 

[Darrack]

PP 2.0 should have its own mode - so we end up with 4 modes to select from when starting the game - enabling PP only in that single mode removes concern that players might be hiding somewhere...

From what ive seen so far i don't see the core of PP being any different from now, the graphic updates to stations looks nice but so far no mention at all of PvP - so far so good then.
I think instancing will stay the same especially as last nights stream said they wanted to make PP more accessible, driving Solo / PG players away would contradict that.

O7

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

I think that I might have come up with a solution that would satisfy everyone except the cheaters: Change the way instancing works, just a little. I'll explain.

Right now, we have a system where players in solo don't instance with any other players. Everyone they see is a game-controlled AI. No Private Group/Open players can see them or interfere with their activities. PG players see only NPCs and friendly players who are members of their PG. No other players can see them or interfere with them. What does this mean? It means that when they are doing things that has an effect on the BGS or Powerplay, players who oppose what they're doing can't stop them the way they can stop someone playing in open - by interdicting them and killing them or stealing their mission cargo with hatchbreakers etcetera.

So, what can be done about this? FDev want players to be able to choose which other players they will interact with, whether no other players, just the players in their PG, or all players who they haven't explicitly blocked. Players who like playing the BGS or powerplay want to have the opportunity to stop these hidden players. There is a way that everyone can have what they want:

When a player enters the game in solo or a PG - or even in open, with other players on their block list - they should instance in Open, but to players who would not currently be able to see them, they would not appear as themselves (CMDR ...), but as an obvious proxy, LT <random name> (where LT stands for Lieutenant). Their radar icon would appear not solid, but not empty either, perhaps with a dot or a bar inside to show that this is a proxy. The player in solo/PG/open-with-block-list would be able to see only those players they expect to see. Player proxies would be visible to other players only in Open. Essentially, the proxy would be controlled by the player until it gets into a fight. The AI proxy would fight with a skill equivalent to the solo/PG player's combat rank, but its first priority would be escape - if that's possible.

The first an open player would likely see of such a player proxy would be in supercruise. Whenever a proxy is attacked by a player - whether by weapons or interdiction - the solo/PG player would be removed from the instance, and the game AI would take over the proxy copy of the player's ship in the Open player's instance. As soon as this happened, the proxy's BGS/PP 'stuff' - their commodities, cartographic data and the like - would be tagged with a unique identifier behind the scenes, marking them as being 'At Risk' for BGS/PP purposes.

In solo/PG, the player would be oblivious to this, except for a notification on their comms or status panel that any stuff with a potential BGS impact that they were carrying was now at risk, and gains a mark in the inventory to that effect. Obviously, while the proxy is in combat, it can't also appear in supercruise in its player's place.

If the battle between the Open player and the Solo/PG player's AI proxy resulted in loss of the BGS/PP-sensitive stuff, the solo/PG player's corresponding stuff would be marked as Lost for BGS purposes. Otherwise, if the proxy won/escaped, the At Risk tag would be removed.

Let's suppose that a solo/PG player whose stuff is At Risk tries to sell it or hand it in. When they do so, they would be warned that their stuff is at risk due to player action in Open, and that it might not have any BGS/PP effect. If they do sell/hand in, the at risk identifier stays with their contribution. If the proxy wins/escapes, the tag gets removed and the contributions are counted. If the proxy loses, the contributions are removed and the solo/PG player notified that their contributions had no BGS/PP effect. If the tick happens before the At Risk tag is resolved, it's counted - that's an edge case.

If the proxy loses before its player hands any stuff in, the player is warned that the stuff won't have any BGS effect before they do so, and the stuff is marked in their inventory as being ineligble to affect BGS/PP. This mark stays with the stuff even if it is sold or scooped by another player, and should be a filterable condition for limpets to ignore.

The same would go for players in Open who have blocked other players. They wouldn't see or be able to interact with these blocked players, but would present them with a proxy if they're instanced together. If the blocked player attempted to kill the proxy, their stuff would be at risk and might be lost, but the blocking player would see only anonymous notifications. This would stop a player from flying in Open but blocking everyone unknown that they - or squadron-mates - see so that they turn Open into their own PG by stealth.

This could also be used to deal with combat logging in the presence of other players, both menu logging and dropped connections. If a player tries to menu log when in combat, (or the connection is dropped), the game notifies them that they are at risk and waits (10s IIRC) as usual. During this time, if they are destroyed, it's rebuy time. After this countdown time, their proxy takes over, and they change from CMDR <name> to LT <name>... consider it the time it takes for the AI to take over. If the logged-out player logs back in and their ship is not destroyed yet, they go back from LT <name> to CMDR <name>, get to take over again and continue the fight/flight. If they're destroyed in the other player's instance while logged out after the 10s countdown, when they log back in, they're back in their ship in an empty instance, but their stuff is marked as BGS/PP-Ineligble. If they're destroyed while logged out during the 10s countdown, it's rebuy time. Of course, the AI would try to run if it could, or fight if it couldn't run (not fast enough, FSD disabled etc).

Speaking from my experience as a software developer, this system shouldn't be too hard to code. It would require only small database changes, that there be a temporary unique ID attachable to stuff (commodities and data that can have a BGS effect) to mark it as At Risk, and a flag that says that the stuff is BGS/PP-ineligible or not. It would leverage existing ship AI, and shouldn't require on-foot interactionat all. It would only need a few changes in instancing.

This system would mean that Solo/PG players or even Open players with blocklists wouldn't have to deal with people they don't want to deal with, but Open players would be able to prevent their actions from counting toward the background simulation or powerplay. Solo players would still be able to advance their personal narrative even if their stuff is marked as BGS/PP-Ineligible. Only the cheaters running bots in solo or PG would be particularly inconvenienced. Solo or PG players who want to affect the BGS or powerplay would be encouraged to move to Open, since in my experience, humans tend to become better at fighting in ED than the rate at which their combat rank increases. Huimans are better at avoiding interdiction than the usual human ship AIs.

Finally, with this system in place, it might make sense to have player blocks changed so that they can be "Message Only" blocks or "Message & Instancing" blocks. A player might not want to see another player's messages but doesn't care if they see or interact with that player's ship, or might not want to encounter the other player at all.

No NPC is a match on any level for a somewhat experienced player. What you're proposing is essentially an open player having the ability to destroy the "proxy" at will and thus disrupting the non-open player's gameplay without them having any way to counter it. You might take away the unwanted interaction; but really it's not the interaction that is unwanted, it's the distruption of gameplay and potential waste of time.

Powerplay is going to change, but we don't know how much. BGS is bucket filling, and will probably stay that way. If you lose the BGS, fill your bucket faster. Don't blame players "hiding in Solo" (and expression from your other post you fortunately left out in this one).

Players need to accept that there are others who, for whatever reason, do not want to play with or against them. Live with it and adapt.

Also, as a side note, am I the only one baffled how Zac's "PP 2.0 should give a little more incentive for PvP" from last month's stream became this factual "PP 2.0 is going to be PvP focused" narrative? I think you should brace for disappointment.

Leave the modes alone.

 

[SteveWW57]

I replied to the original post in a now closed thread before it was closed. Here is a snippet.
"There would have to be a much better crime and punishment system in place so that Open only players who attack lawful peaceful ships going about their lawful business would suffer really serious consequences, unless they reserve such lawless behaviour for anarchy systems. Just because the BGS is affected does not give a player carte blanche to interfere with lawful peaceful ships."

The use of a "proxy" to stand in for the solo player that can be attacked by the open player still impacts the solo player, to the effect that what happens to the proxy is then transferred to the solo player. The solo player escape to another system only to be presented with the message that their proxy and them has been destroyed, cargo lost etc.

Any effects caused by a CMDR in solo or PG can easily be countered by other BGS actions. IRL if their is a business competing with yours, you do not burn them to the ground or get a group of vigilantes to harass, instead you run your business better.

I believe that the underlying issue is human behaviour. We are most likely territorial to one degree or another, and this impacts how we like to play the game.

Steve

 

[Maur]

No NPC is a match on any level for a somewhat experienced player. What you're proposing is essentially an open player having the ability to destroy the "proxy" at will and thus disrupting the non-open player's gameplay without them having any way to counter it. You might take away the unwanted interaction; but really it's not the interaction that is unwanted, it's the distruption of gameplay and potential waste of time.

Do you always manage to stop NPC ships from successfully jumping to SC in a space CZ? I don't, even after years and with a dedicated CZ ship. I'm proposing that the proxy AI would try to escape as its first priority, and only fight if it could not jump. It won't turn and shoot back if shot at if there's any possibility of escape, because it's not trying to be an entertaining opponent. It's just avoiding interaction.

And as I said, for most solo players, their personal narrative is likely more important to them than affecting the BGS/PP. With asymmetrical instancing, their gameplay won't be interrupted, and their personal narrative won't be affected. They can still make profitable trades, complete missions, sell cartographic data for lots of credits... there would just be a chance that a player they never have to see might reduce their BGS/PP effects.

Powerplay is going to change, but we don't know how much. BGS is bucket filling, and will probably stay that way. If you lose the BGS, fill your bucket faster. Don't blame players "hiding in Solo" (and expression from your other post you fortunately left out in this one).

Many of us who play in open want to see what's going on. By adding proxies for players in solo/PG, they get their wish, and the player in solo/PG doesn't have to see them back.

Right now, the BGS is just bucket filling. What's wrong with a little PvE to empty someone else's on occasion? You don't actually have to tell the solo/PG player that you've emptied one of their buckets.

Players need to accept that there are others who, for whatever reason, do not want to play with or against them. Live with it and adapt.

I respect that. I don't want to change that. Solo/PG players would continue to experience that as they wish with my suggestion.

Also, as a side note, am I the only one baffled how Zac's "PP 2.0 should give a little more incentive for PvP" from last month's stream became this factual "PP 2.0 is going to be PvP focused" narrative? I think you should brace for disappointment.

I don't have to brace for it... I've been resigned to it for years.

Leave the modes alone.

My proposal wouldn't change them... just enhance Open a little.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That is currently true. However, by having asymmetrical instancing as I proposed, it doesn't have to be.

... as it has been since the game design was published in late 2012, and as it is advertised today:

A Unique Connected Game Experience

Governments fall, battles are lost and won, and humanity’s frontier is reshaped, all by players’ actions. In an age of galactic superpowers and interstellar war, every player’s personal story influences the connected galaxy and handcrafted, evolving narrative.

You are correct, currently players in solo/PG do have the right to affect the shared galaxy with relative impunity. That is by design.

However, is that design really the best way? Instancing is currently symmetrical, perhaps because nobody could concieve that it could be different. A instances with B means that B must be instancing with A.

However, that doesn't have to be true. Solo instences with Open, but Open doesn't instance with Solo, only with Solo's proxy. Solo controls the proxy only until Open interacts with it, and Solo doesn't have to notice when that happens.

Opinions quite obviously vary on whether the choices offered to each player as to who they play among when affecting mode shared game features - and Frontier know that they sold the game to us all with that design in place. Frontier are undoubtedly aware that not all players are satisfied by the game's design.

It won't work in the real world because the real world is real, but ED happens in computers. You can show A to B without having to show B to A, just by coding it that way.

Possible does not mean either easy or desirable.

Open players complain that BGS/PP effects are happening with no way of knowing that they're happening and with no way of changing that. Are their experiences in the game less valid than those of people who want to play in Solo/PG so that they don't have to interact with other players? I say No! Everyone's wishes should be equal. Solo players should be able to affect the BGS/PP and not encounter other players. Open players should be able to affect things happening in the game and interact with other players.

My proposal will allow all of these things to happen. Remember that Solo is billed as, "You won't encounter other players", not that "Other players can't counter the effects that your actions may have".

Players in Solo and Private Groups equally don't know which players they don't instance with are affecting the game. So players who prefer Open are in no way special in that regard.

Players whose gameplay relies on interacting with other players are vulnerable to those other players choosing not to play with them - no player has any right to expect that other players will be forced to play "their" way. Each player's choice of game mode at the start of each game session precedes and over-rides any desire that other players may have to instance with them.

.... and players in Open have exactly the same toolset available to them to affect mode shared game features, noting that they can't force the optional one on any player who chooses not to instance with them.

So, don't tell me that Solo players have rights to affect the BGS/PP with impunity. They have exactly the 'rights' that FDev code the game to give them. They have the right, as advertised, to expect that in Solo, they won't see another player, no more, no less. If FDev chooses to alter the way that Open players can interact with their actions, via a proxy, that's FDev's prerogative.

All players have the same right to affect the BGS and Powerplay - whichever game mode they choose to play in. That some players choose to engage in those features in Open then complain that they can't directly counter others actions is not new - we all have the same tools available to counter other players effects on mode shared game features

 

[Maur]

I replied to the original post in a now closed thread before it was closed. Here is a snippet.
"There would have to be a much better crime and punishment system in place so that Open only players who attack lawful peaceful ships going about their lawful business would suffer really serious consequences, unless they reserve such lawless behaviour for anarchy systems. Just because the BGS is affected does not give a player carte blanche to interfere with lawful peaceful ships."

The use of a "proxy" to stand in for the solo player that can be attacked by the open player still impacts the solo player, to the effect that what happens to the proxy is then transferred to the solo player. The solo player escape to another system only to be presented with the message that their proxy and them has been destroyed, cargo lost etc.

Any effects caused by a CMDR in solo or PG can easily be countered by other BGS actions. IRL if their is a business competing with yours, you do not burn them to the ground or get a group of vigilantes to harass, instead you run your business better.

I believe that the underlying issue is human behaviour. We are most likely territorial to one degree or another, and this impacts how we like to play the game.

Steve

Telling the Solo/PG player that their proxy had been affected doesn't have to happen. If they want to be insulated from other players, let it be so.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

Do you always manage to stop NPC ships from successfully jumping to SC in a space CZ? I don't, even after years and with a dedicated CZ ship.

The ones I am fighing? Yes. Ones around me I am not engaged with? No. Your proposal isn't a CZ, it's a single engagement.

I'm proposing that the proxy AI would try to escape as its first priority, and only fight if it could not jump. It won't turn and shoot back if shot at if there's any possibility of escape, because it's not trying to be an entertaining opponent. It's just avoiding interaction.

So the ship the proxy is flying... it's the Solo player's ship, right? How long do you think it takes to destroy a ship that is purpose built for Solo? I'm not saying it is a good thing to fly paper planes even in solo, but it's somewhat common. So now the Solo player has to build an open capable ship, because otherwise his "proxy" is destroyed in seconds. More weighting against the solo player. Also: sniping out power plants and drives isn't that hard.

And as I said, for most solo players, their personal narrative is likely more important to them than affecting the BGS/PP. With asymmetrical instancing, their gameplay won't be interrupted, and their personal narrative won't be affected. They can still make profitable trades, complete missions, sell cartographic data for lots of credits... there would just be a chance that a player they never have to see might reduce their BGS/PP effects.

That's a bold assumption. My personal narrative can be to support NPC faction X against NPC faction Y because of lore or whatever. Then you (the proverbial you) come, kill the proxy and decide: No faction support for you. And I have no counter for that.

Right now, the BGS is just bucket filling. What's wrong with a little PvE to empty someone else's on occasion? You don't actually have to tell the solo/PG player that you've emptied one of their buckets.

See above. PvE in Solo doesn't mean players don't care for faction support.

I respect that. I don't want to change that. Solo/PG players would continue to experience that as they wish with my suggestion.

Again, no. You disrupt their gameplay, without them having a counter.

My proposal wouldn't change them... just enhance Open a little.

Your proposal makes non-open players become targets in a shooting gallery. Sure, they don't get killed and don't pay a rebuy, but they potentially get their gameplay canceled.

 

[SteveWW57]

Telling the Solo/PG player that their proxy had been affected doesn't have to happen. If they want to be insulated from other players, let it be so.

So if the solo/PG player is insulated from what happens to the proxy, what is the point of your suggestion, apart from the ability of the open player to see pixels go boom with no effect on the BGS?

What are your thoughts on a harsher crime and punishment system to go along with your suggestion?

Steve

 

[TobiasFuzz]

I am wondering myself since a long time how BGS players come to the conclusion that PvP is helping. The mode doesn't matter at all. Players who are investing time to search for other Cmdrs that may oppose them in BGS activities will always loose. Destroying another Cmdr does have almost no impact on BGS... and while time is spend by searching and tracking players, one single Cmdr is doing some simple data transfer mission and winning the BGS game. If you want to play the BGS succesfully then invest time in the right activities.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Come Titan farming in Open and you will see that in reality

No one bothered me personally, but some of our scallywags recorded some funny encounters

 

[Darkfyre99]

Right now, we have a system where players in solo don't instance with any other players. Everyone they see is a game-controlled AI. No Private Group/Open players can see them or interfere with their activities. PG players see only NPCs and friendly players who are members of their PG. No other players can see them or interfere with them. What does this mean? It means that when they are doing things that has an effect on the BGS or Powerplay, players who oppose what they're doing can't stop them the way they can stop someone playing in open - by interdicting them and killing them or stealing their mission cargo with hatchbreakers etcetera.

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a million times: it’s amazing how many of the “Oh, won’t you think of the BGS!” crowd fail to understand the basics of BGS manipulation enough to realize that defending a controlling faction via PvP is functionally identical to attacking a faction via PvP.

That’s why I do my BGS manipulation in Open in the first place: having PvP opposition gives me a far more potent tool to affect a controlling faction than I have normally. At worse, it’s a “Heads I win, tails you lose” situation. More often, it’s a “Heads I win, tails you lose worse” scenario. At best, it’s a sign that they’ve destroyed the largest advantage they had over me already, so I’m dealing with a cohort that doesn't really know what they're doing.

This completely ignores the most basic fact of all: the purpose of the BGS is to bring the galaxy to life, not to be a proxy for whatever emergent gameplay you're using the BGS for. Whether you're using it as a proxy for territorial gameplay, a proxy for political gameplay, a proxy for espionage gameplay, or any of the other myriad reasons that players might want to manipulate the BGS... it's actual purpose is to breathe life into the galaxy, and it does so via player actions.

Players naturally take the path of least resistence. If you haven't manipulated a system to the point where random players will naturally work for the faction you're supporting, then you've failed BGS manipulation. No amount of PvP activity will make up for this deficiency, and in fact will simply make life easier for your opposition.

As for the rest of your… proposal... I’ve played a lot of games that try for the “Holy Grail” of MMO’s: a mixed PvP/PvE environment, and almost all of them either died due to a lack of players, or put a hard barrier between PvP and PvE players to retain those they had. This is due to GIFT*. GIFTed players will first drive off the pure PvE players. Then they'll drive off players like me sit between the boundry between pure-PvPer and pure PvEer, who make up the majority of the remaining playerbase, thanks to no longer having the anonymity of the herd. Finally, the GIFTed leave the game themselves, leaving behind only the most ardent PvP players.

GIFTed players are simply not fun to play with, but need other players to have their fun. They can easily get their "fix" from PvE players. They might be able to get their "fix" from the fence sitters, though this depends upon the nature of the game. And they can't get their fix from PvP players.

I fully expected during the Kickstarter that Open in Elite Dangerous would follow that trajectory. I figured I'd play in Open until it became intolerable, and then switch to other modes. It never did. According to Frontier, the majority of players do play in Open, and in my experience particularly GIFTed players are few and far between. Yes, there are a few hot spots out there, but again in my experience, they're not much of a threat to any players who don't fly paper-thin builds with their eyes fixed to youTube.

A part of this is that ED is a game where player ability, not character stats, is the primary factor for deciding PvP combat outside of the ardent PvP crowd. This includes GIFTed players, who in my experience require active cooperation from their targets to get a kill. I can't remember the last time I was ever killed by another player when I actually cared about not dying. I don't need to be brilliant at PvP to survive in Open. I just need to be better at it than the GIFTed, which is a fairly low bar to clear.

But mostly, this is due to the self-selecting nature of Open. The type of player who is the ideal target for the GIFTed won't play in Open, period. This leaves the type of player in open who are either ardent PvPers, who eat the GIFTed for breakfast, or the proverbial "fence sitters" who aren't an easy kill, if they're killable at all. Faced with a lack of an "audience," the GIFTed eventually leave the game, looking for an environment where they can get their "fix." Sure, new GIFTed players will join the game, thinking that they'll get an easy "fix," but sooner or later they'll seek greener pastures.

Your... proposal... gives the GIFTed their "audience" back. It doesn't matter if the non-open player doesn't experience a "rebuy." Their gameplay is still disrupted by the proverbial "giant space flea from nowhere." Only it's worse this time, because they don't even have the illusion of having a modicum of control over their fate. Their fate is in the hands of an NPC, who are even worse at surviving than they are. And the GIFTed know this. It doesn't matter how little impact they have on the game of others, all that matters is that they have a negative effect at all.

The population in Open has an inverse squared relationship to the number of GIFTed players there. A small increase in the GIFTed leads to a much larger decrease in the overall population of Open. Your... proposal... will increase the GIFTed population and affect Solo and PG... all to appease a BGS manipulation strategy that is not only sub-optimal, but breathtakingly counter-productive, and will result not only a smaller Open population, but drive players from Elite Dangerous completely.

__________
*If you're not already familiar with this term, feel free do a search for GIFT and Penny Arcade

 

[Rebel Yell]

I am wondering myself since a long time how BGS players come to the conclusion that PvP is helping. The mode doesn't matter at all. Players who are investing time to search for other Cmdrs that may oppose them in BGS activities will always loose. Destroying another Cmdr does have almost no impact on BGS... and while time is spend by searching and tracking players, one single Cmdr is doing some simple data transfer mission and winning the BGS game. If you want to play the BGS succesfully then invest time in the right activities.

Well... 1st there no need to search that much around, if something happens on one's BGS, that usually happens in a specific area/system. 2nd we do have that opinion because you mentioned the two opposites... one group in open and the other in solo/PG minding BGS business, in that case I agree with your point, but it's not all black or white, so there are different shades (that's the result of... 10+ years and tons of BGS wars I've personally carried over) 3rd excluding this sub where the argument has been self contained by either rules or because considered heresy, a lot of the BGS-drama happens outside on the various discord/inara/youtube/reddit where groups like to throw salt to eachother about game mode exploits... 4th the points are ok if you look to win at all costs... but I'm afraid to reveal to you that most of the ones believing that PvP should play part in BGS is because of the fun of it, achieving a victory is secondary 5th BGS wars with PvP make good lore/stories/video, BGS vs PvE > no one cares about 6th BGS wars with PvP don't last that much as grinding and attrition is way less > so PvP brings an efficiency bonus to the whole process.

 

[Brrokk]

I am wondering myself since a long time how BGS players come to the conclusion that PvP is helping. The mode doesn't matter at all. Players who are investing time to search for other Cmdrs that may oppose them in BGS activities will always loose. Destroying another Cmdr does have almost no impact on BGS... and while time is spend by searching and tracking players, one single Cmdr is doing some simple data transfer mission and winning the BGS game. If you want to play the BGS succesfully then invest time in the right activities.

This. If you're in a BGS tussle, do those inf missions. Cruising around "your" system in a combat ship looking for players just ensures that you waste your time and "lose" faster.

Complaints about unseen players affecting BGS are IMO dishonest. They're just from frustrated gankers who want more targets. Anyone who really cares about BGS knows that they need to do the missions.

 

[Rebel Yell]

This. If you're in a BGS tussle, do those inf missions. Cruising around "your" system in a combat ship looking for players just ensures that you waste your time and "lose" faster.

Complaints about unseen players affecting BGS are IMO dishonest. They're just from frustrated gankers who want more targets. Anyone who really cares about BGS knows that they need to do the missions.

Pearls of wisdom.

 

[Dragsham]

I see solo and pg "as an optional extra". Clearly I'm wrong.
It's purely a matter of perspective.
Belittling pvp will not solve anything.
Yes spamming inf missions for bgs purposes, running cargo smuggling etc all take their toll on the overall aim. To defeat an enemy thus defending or defeating them.
But saying pvpers are all gankers and are an optional extra just isn't fair.
Like I said. It's just a matter of perspective.
Clearly pvpers are in a minority. That doesn't justify the attitudes of many here who marginalise them as murderers and gankers etc.
We're not all the same.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Alot to unwrap here...

Well... 1st there no need to search that much around, if something happens on one's BGS, that usually happens in a specific area/system.

System? Yes. Location within a system? Not so much.

I'm not sure how many locations there are in the average system, but between planetary ports, stations, and settlements, there are usually lots of locations where people can get missions from, and most player groups can't cover them all 24/7 in all the time zones you'll probably have to cover . And if you do have enough players to cover them all? You'd probably curb-stomp the opposition if you focused on PvE, rather than PvP.

2nd we do have that opinion because you mentioned the two opposites... one group in open and the other in solo/PG minding BGS business, in that case I agree with your point, but it's not all black or white, so there are different shades (that's the result of... 10+ years and tons of BGS wars I've personally carried over)

True.

3rd excluding this sub where the argument has been self contained by either rules or because considered heresy, a lot of the BGS-drama happens outside on the various discord/inara/youtube/reddit where groups like to throw salt to eachother about game mode exploits...

Also true.

4th the points are ok if you look to win at all costs... but I'm afraid to reveal to you that most of the ones believing that PvP should play part in BGS is because of the fun of it, achieving a victory is secondary

Which is a stance I can respect, and actually share. I play in Open first and foremost to have fun, and don't worry about efficiency. Though I do get a lot of amusement out of the notion of "defending your faction via PvP," because it's such a poor strategy if you want to defend a controlling faction.

It is a great way of attack controlling faction, though.

5th BGS wars with PvP make good lore/stories/video, BGS vs PvE > no one cares about

Again... agreed.

6th BGS wars with PvP don't last that much as grinding and attrition is way less > so PvP brings an efficiency bonus to the whole process.

Only if your opposition cooperates by engaging in mass murder, which is only effective if you want to take down a faction, as opposed to promoting a competing faction or any another BGS goal. If your opposition keeps things their activities nice and legal, you'd be doing your enemies work for them, which is much more efficient than doing the work themselves.

 

[Sol Valou]

And lots like my little group of PPers who have no interest in PvP and will just stop doing it if they push it too far.
Luckily there is plenty to do in game if PP does go PvP.

O7

I'm fairly new diving into Elite so please explain this mentality to me. Naturally I'm confused here because Power Play is literally the consensual pvp system in the game. During the launch stream of Power Play the lead designer said so himself. Do players just refute this fact? Sure, you can partake in solo/private if you want but it is by design a system for teams of players to engage and compete with other teams of players in consensual pvp. It's one thing to pledge in order to shop the modules then bug off but to actively play it in open and then complain about pvp is just...odd?

I'm amazed and at the same time not surprised at the community's reaction to "non-consensual" pvp in Elite: Dangerous. I put that in quotes because, as I understand it, Elite has had open and solo from launch, and imo if you choose to log into a game mode that allows players to attack each other then I've got news for you; you have consented to pvp. A non-zero amount of players here didn't play Ultima Online back in its heyday or know its history and it shows in how the community discusses this topic. Ultima Online set the standard for how the online game industry would deal with the annoying griefers 27 years ago. Surprisingly the "trammie noob carebears", as the griefers called them, (also known as the majority of players) didn't want to subject themselves to being ganked and harrased in an mmo whenever they left the protection of the city guard zone. To deal with this social phenomenon of some people becoming bloodthirsty beasts under anonymity, the devs made Trammel, a safe zone carbon copy of the world in which you could not attack another player unless they were in a guild consenting to a state of war with your own. Reds (the pk's enjoying easy kills) complained this would take the reason they played the game away from them. So the solution was to add content to Felucca (the original facet) in the form of pve champion spawns with end game level rewards. They also doubled the rate of acquiring resources (mining) while in fel. These two tweaks combined for a risk vs reward take on non-consensual pvp that worked pretty well. Champion spawns remain one of the highlights of UO even to this day. The long-winded point to this tirade being; every online game made since UO's historical debacle that features non-consensual pvp has included it as an intended choice in game design.

This is a similar situation we have in Elite. We have open (felucca) and solo/private (trammel). Instead of guild wars we have Power Play. The thing lacking in our equation is added incentive to play in open. Devs acknowledged this fact on stream back when Power Play launched, saying that they were considering increasing the passive benefit buffs for powers while playing in open. Sadly I guess that never happened. Personally I think double drop rates in open by itself would be enough incentive in minimizing the engineering grind for many players to gladly accept the risk of dealing with a potential gank. Those that do not will happily choose to continue farming in safety.

On ganking in particular, does anyone recall the wings trailer with the Type-7 getting interdicted by a Vulture and two Vipers? The Type-7 calls for help from his buddies who then come and save the day. What a concept in an online game eh? This imo displays the core aspect of what most of the honest open play advocates desire in their game experience, teamwork. It is for me at least. I want gankers in the game. I also want friends to call me for help when they're pulled out of supercruise by a ganky pirate or opposing faction member, and at least have a chance at getting to the scene in time to assist if I'm fortunate enough to be close. I want to safely escort players flying freighters to drop off merits because each successful delivery that manages to arrive matters in the war effort, not because the only reason is to drop off 750 to unlock a module before moving on to another power for the next module. I want to log on, see what system the current action is in for my pledged power, then go there and pew pew players of opposing powers, not just npcs. If I'm out exploring but need a pew pew break, I want to jump in a multi crew ship that's in the thick of it and hop in a ship launched fighter without lagging everyone in the instance. Ok ok I'm stretching it with that last one, but a man can dream! I want group pvp gosh darnit!

After the latest dev stream it looks like perhaps Power Play 2.0 won't be the rework players were hoping for but instead a polishing "refresh". My ideas for changes given my limited experience are;

1) Properly convey in game the gravity of the consensual pvp basis of Power Play. As it stands in game I think the only reference to it are when you click the help button on the pledge/rating page. Only there does it mention you can be attacked on sight without penalty. It's no wonder folks join this then cry when people shoot at them! Have the help info come up automatically the first time you view each page or make a quick tutorial video. EDIT - I'm a goof there is a video tutorial! Linked with the others from the main menu, hot diggity. Wish I would have found that first instead of YT vids explaining how to acquire all the modules >.>

2) Remove the hit it and quit it module loop. Either by requiring that you remain pledged in order to equip an associated power's module, or add another module for the highest rank tier with said requirement, or separate the module access from pp entirely. I think this paired with number 1 results in several people treating pp as just a pve grind for these modules without realizing the extent & intent of the system.

3) Add actual pvp engagement as a contributing factor towards our weekly free ARX accrual. Ideally separate and more valuable compared to the npc combat tally. Unlocking cosmetics slightly faster than you would otherwise is great incentive for consenting to shoot each other. Even better, bump the weekly cap to 500 if you're pledged! Join the war effort today!11 In this way, regardless of whether you engage in pp, if you would fall victim to a successful gank in open you are essentially awarded fractional shares of ARX to compensate for your loss and emotional damage lol.

My apologies to those of you who have heard it all before as I'm sure many, if not all of these points have been brought up in the past. Please enlighten me if my understanding of the game and its history is off as admittedly I am a slightly experienced noob. There's plenty of other issues that need to be addressed in open play like the poor notoriety system and System Authority Vessels being a far cry from the instant-KO guard whacks of UO. However with current Power Play 2.0 hype my rant divulged into that topic a bit as I'm really frustrated with Fdev. It was said they wanted to encourage more pvp with PPV2. I was envisioning the thargoid invasion mechanism somehow being utilized or plugged into Power Play. Instead we get cosmetics, UI, and stronghold fleet carrier groups that, while awesome in concept, I fear will just be a repeat of the underwhelming capitol ship conflict zones. How exactly are interior station decorations supposed to encourage people to shoot each other in open if shooting each other in open isn't a requirement for acquiring interior station decorations? Hopefully the meat and potatoes are being revealed during the next stream but oy vey I am doin' a frustrate. Grr. Argh.

As for the recently suggested proxy instance idea posted since I started typing out this dribble, I agree it seems a bit too convoluted of a solution and has ways it could potentially be abused. I do appreciate the thought put into it and the intention behind it though.

TL;DR - My opinion on open can be summed up in the old Ultima Online saying that goes, and I say this respectfully with tongue in cheek as an anti-pk, "Go back to tram, noob."

o7

 

[Robert Maynard]

Naturally I'm confused here because Power Play is literally the consensual pvp system in the game.

Indeed it is, doubly so in that players don't need to pledge and, if pledged, don't need to play in Open to engage in Powerplay.

During the launch stream of Power Play the lead designer said so himself. Do players just refute this fact?

Not sure that this was said during the launch of Powerplay in 2015. Maybe in 2018, around the time of the flash topics were posted (which included a possibility that Powerplay might have been made Open only, but the threads were, according to Sandro, investigative and not a fait accompli).

Sure, you can partake in solo/private if you want but it is by design a system for teams of players to engage and compete with other teams of players in consensual pvp. It's one thing to pledge in order to shop the modules then bug off but to actively play it in open and then complain about pvp is just...odd?

Going back to the AMA that DBOBE took part in, around the time of Powerplay's launch in 2015, players in Solo were mentioned, and his response was:

David Braben Powerplay AMA

Are there any Douglas Adams references to be found in the game? (Besides mostly harmless-- edit) I went to Betelgeuse, as a first stop, to check.

forums.frontier.co.uk

The thing lacking in our equation is added incentive to play in open. Devs acknowledged this fact on stream back when Power Play launched, saying that they were considering increasing the passive benefit buffs for powers while playing in open. Sadly I guess that never happened.

That didn't happen at the launch of Powerplay - Sandro brandished his "hand grenade" in March 2016 regarding the possibility of an Open bonus for Powerplay and then acknowledged in December 2016 that it was not happening at that time.

 

[Brrokk]

I'm fairly new diving into Elite so please explain this mentality to me. Naturally I'm confused here because Power Play is literally the consensual pvp system in the game. During the launch stream of Power Play the lead designer said so himself. Do players just refute this fact? Sure, you can partake in solo/private if you want but it is by design a system for teams of players to engage and compete with other teams of players in consensual pvp. It's one thing to pledge in order to shop the modules then bug off but to actively play it in open and then complain about pvp is just...odd?

I'm amazed and at the same time not surprised at the community's reaction to "non-consensual" pvp in Elite: Dangerous. I put that in quotes because, as I understand it, Elite has had open and solo from launch, and imo if you choose to log into a game mode that allows players to attack each other then I've got news for you; you have consented to pvp. A non-zero amount of players here didn't play Ultima Online back in its heyday or know its history and it shows in how the community discusses this topic. Ultima Online set the standard for how the online game industry would deal with the annoying griefers 27 years ago. Surprisingly the "trammie noob carebears", as the griefers called them, (also known as the majority of players) didn't want to subject themselves to being ganked and harrased in an mmo whenever they left the protection of the city guard zone. To deal with this social phenomenon of some people becoming bloodthirsty beasts under anonymity, the devs made Trammel, a safe zone carbon copy of the world in which you could not attack another player unless they were in a guild consenting to a state of war with your own. Reds (the pk's enjoying easy kills) complained this would take the reason they played the game away from them. So the solution was to add content to Felucca (the original facet) in the form of pve champion spawns with end game level rewards. They also doubled the rate of acquiring resources (mining) while in fel. These two tweaks combined for a risk vs reward take on non-consensual pvp that worked pretty well. Champion spawns remain one of the highlights of UO even to this day. The long-winded point to this tirade being; every online game made since UO's historical debacle that features non-consensual pvp has included it as an intended choice in game design.

This is a similar situation we have in Elite. We have open (felucca) and solo/private (trammel). Instead of guild wars we have Power Play. The thing lacking in our equation is added incentive to play in open. Devs acknowledged this fact on stream back when Power Play launched, saying that they were considering increasing the passive benefit buffs for powers while playing in open. Sadly I guess that never happened. Personally I think double drop rates in open by itself would be enough incentive in minimizing the engineering grind for many players to gladly accept the risk of dealing with a potential gank. Those that do not will happily choose to continue farming in safety.

On ganking in particular, does anyone recall the wings trailer with the Type-7 getting interdicted by a Vulture and two Vipers? The Type-7 calls for help from his buddies who then come and save the day. What a concept in an online game eh? This imo displays the core aspect of what most of the honest open play advocates desire in their game experience, teamwork. It is for me at least. I want gankers in the game. I also want friends to call me for help when they're pulled out of supercruise by a ganky pirate or opposing faction member, and at least have a chance at getting to the scene in time to assist if I'm fortunate enough to be close. I want to safely escort players flying freighters to drop off merits because each successful delivery that manages to arrive matters in the war effort, not because the only reason is to drop off 750 to unlock a module before moving on to another power for the next module. I want to log on, see what system the current action is in for my pledged power, then go there and pew pew players of opposing powers, not just npcs. If I'm out exploring but need a pew pew break, I want to jump in a multi crew ship that's in the thick of it and hop in a ship launched fighter without lagging everyone in the instance. Ok ok I'm stretching it with that last one, but a man can dream! I want group pvp gosh darnit!

After the latest dev stream it looks like perhaps Power Play 2.0 won't be the rework players were hoping for but instead a polishing "refresh". My ideas for changes given my limited experience are;

1) Properly convey in game the gravity of the consensual pvp basis of Power Play. As it stands in game I think the only reference to it are when you click the help button on the pledge/rating page. Only there does it mention you can be attacked on sight without penalty. It's no wonder folks join this then cry when people shoot at them! Have the help info come up automatically the first time you view each page or make a quick tutorial video.

2) Remove the hit it and quit it module loop. Either by requiring that you remain pledged in order to equip an associated power's module, or add another module for the highest rank tier with said requirement, or separate the module access from pp entirely. I think this paired with number 1 results in several people treating pp as just a pve grind for these modules without realizing the extent & intent of the system.

3) Add actual pvp engagement as a contributing factor towards our weekly free ARX accrual. Ideally separate and more valuable compared to the npc combat tally. Unlocking cosmetics slightly faster than you would otherwise is great incentive for consenting to shoot each other. Even better, bump the weekly cap to 500 if you're pledged! Join the war effort today!11 In this way, regardless of whether you engage in pp, if you would fall victim to a successful gank in open you are essentially awarded fractional shares of ARX to compensate for your loss and emotional damage lol.

My apologies to those of you who have heard it all before as I'm sure many, if not all of these points have been brought up in the past. Please enlighten me if my understanding of the game and its history is off as admittedly I am a slightly experienced noob. There's plenty of other issues that need to be addressed in open play like the poor notoriety system and System Authority Vessels being a far cry from the instant-KO guard whacks of UO. However with current Power Play 2.0 hype my rant divulged into that topic a bit as I'm really frustrated with Fdev. It was said they wanted to encourage more pvp with PPV2. I was envisioning the thargoid invasion mechanism somehow being utilized or plugged into Power Play. Instead we get cosmetics, UI, and stronghold fleet carrier groups that, while awesome in concept, I fear will just be a repeat of the underwhelming capitol ship conflict zones. How exactly are interior station decorations supposed to encourage people to shoot each other in open if shooting each other in open isn't a requirement for acquiring interior station decorations? Hopefully the meat and potatoes are being revealed during the next stream but oy vey I am doin' a frustrate. Grr. Argh.

As for the recently suggested proxy instance idea posted since I started typing out this dribble, I agree it seems a bit too convoluted of a solution and has ways it could potentially be abused. I do appreciate the thought put into it and the intention behind it though.

TL;DR - My opinion on open can be summed up in the old Ultima Online saying that goes, and I say this respectfully with tongue in cheek as an anti-pk, "Go back to tram, noob."

o7

I agree that ED could do with having a PvP feature, although I doubt I'd engage with it myself. I can see why some think PP is a PvP feature, but I don't think it really is. I don't know whether it was originally intended as one. As far as the PP2.0 update goes, I don't thing FD have ever said they'll make PvP an essential part of it, and I think what we've heard so far means that they don't have that intention.