Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Mk III

[relayer]

<snip>

Solo merit farming and underhand 5th column tactics are grinding PP into the ground on occasion at the moment and i like fairness in my gaming.

"Underhand 5th column tactics" are exactly what PowerPlay is about.


"A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group—such as a nation or besieged city—from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Forces gathered in secret can mobilize openly to assist an external attack. This term is also extended to organized actions by military personnel. Clandestine fifth column activities can involve acts of sabotage, disinformation, or espionage executed within defense lines by secret sympathizers with an external force."


You'll find that nowhere in that definition is mentioned overt combat. You'll also find it pretty close to the given mechanics of PowerPlay. The Powers are not at war. Outright combat is not intrinsic to the mini-game.

 

[KaizoMK]

All of this aside, I like the idea of two changes:
1) give players a hidden score increased by killing invalid targets (killing a player that isn't wanted, hostile, or lawless) and high scores gets shadowbanned. This would decay over time, giving a chance for said players to repent, while not completely removing the threat of wanton murder.

2) keep the escort bonus, and in addition allow ships to divert trade profits to other ships in the wing, either in a flat rate or at a percentage of profits.

3) instead of ship destruction and repurchase via insurance, your ship is salvaged at 1% hull and 0% module health. You spawn at the station and must decide what on your ship to repair. Repair costs should be altered such that full repair of modules, hull, and integrity should equal or exceed current insurance costs. This wouldn't change much for most people, except that you can choose to partially repair your ship if you're low on funds, and if you can't afford to fix it it'll stay docked and useless until you can. This'll add a lot of depth and preserve the threat of death, while putting players in less of a risk-averse position.

I feel all of these things are smart changes that can benefit the game as a whole, as well as encourage multiplayer/open to those who want to be social.

 

[relayer]

<snipped>

EDIT: even if open was more difficult/dangerous, who cares? There are no leaderboards, therefore no competition.

I've said before, I think the structure of ED is pretty unique & perhaps these players calling for a change in the modes do not understand that. You're right; there's no leaderboards (except maybe the Top 5 in CGs?); there's no "final ship"; there's no "I got billions of cr so I win!" condition. There's no "end campaign."

 

[Mouse]

All of this aside, I like the idea of two changes:
1) give players a hidden score increased by killing invalid targets (killing a player that isn't wanted, hostile, or lawless) and high scores gets shadowbanned. This would decay over time, giving a chance for said players to repent, while not completely removing the threat of wanton murder.

2) keep the escort bonus, and in addition allow ships to divert trade profits to other ships in the wing, either in a flat rate or at a percentage of profits.

3) instead of ship destruction and repurchase via insurance, your ship is salvaged at 1% hull and 0% module health. You spawn at the station and must decide what on your ship to repair. Repair costs should be altered such that full repair of modules, hull, and integrity should equal or exceed current insurance costs. This wouldn't change much for most people, except that you can choose to partially repair your ship if you're low on funds, and if you can't afford to fix it it'll stay docked and useless until you can. This'll add a lot of depth and preserve the threat of death, while putting players in less of a risk-averse position.

I feel all of these things are smart changes that can benefit the game as a whole, as well as encourage multiplayer/open to those who want to be social.

can't rep you again so soon so visual +1.

I really like 3. But I would also add that if killed by a human player that the computer survives. So survey data, bounties, fines all of that survives. As well as the cargo. That I feel would lesson the desire for some to grief others, if they can't have a huge negative inpact on someone else just for giggles and grins then why grief them.

 

[KaizoMK]

can't rep you again so soon so visual +1.

I really like 3. But I would also add that if killed by a human player that the computer survives. So survey data, bounties, fines all of that survives. As well as the cargo. That I feel would lesson the desire for some to grief others, if they can't have a huge negative inpact on someone else just for giggles and grins then why grief them.

Well, I think that flies in the spirit of the game, and also diminishes the consequences of death a bit too acutely.

 

[Seonid]

Giving traders and other non combat roles, a reason to play in open.

Which is completely pointless as you are missing the reasons why people leave Open in the first place...

 

[Schpam]

The FSD Interdiction Device should expend fuel to use. The device should lose integrity and need regular repairs and maintainence. Expending fuel limits how often it can be used, limits how long a player can stalk an area before needing a period of rest to refuel. This creates windows for players to evade and avoid being repeatedly hounded by the same aggressive player in an endless cycle of interdiction and escape events. Repairs reward players who are good at interdiction, (ie: less chase = less repairs), but also means that choosing to evade interdiction inflicts damage on the pirates module eventually forcing him to give up and retire for repairs (costing the pirate money and reduced profit).

This would also mean that simply making an attempt against another player costs a black-hat player something just for trying. It means risk assement and picking profitable targets that will earn enough reward to pay for the cost of the attempt. Less unscrupulous targeting of players that have very little value (being needlessly vindictive).


Players should have a toggle function in the system panel to enable/disable a Distress/Rescue Beacon. When enabled, a player who gets interdicted by a Wanted player will emit a distress signal source that will prompt action from both other NPC factions (depending on the players reputation levels) and other lawful players in the system. Player on Player interdictions will appear in supercruise as Distress Signal Sources to other Lawful players having a good reputation with the ruling NPC faction. The system does not respond to Wanted players.

An "All Points Bulletin" (APB) should broadcast across local systems to report black-hat pirates and increase pressure on them as a consequence of their persist aggression. APB's put the security forces on alert, increases their scrutiny and searches for reported players (increases aggression aggro) and the system periodically reports on locations back-hat players have been seen. When an APB is generated by an NPC faction, it will broadcast to all players in the system with a certain level of reputation for that faction (making it beneficial to be on good terms with NPCs), an APB Scanner could be installed by Bounty Hunters to receive APB's regardless of faction reputation.

Destroying wanted players inside a Distress Signal Source should reward lawful players a good bonus in bounties and increased reputation with the local NPC factions.

 

[Mouse]

Well, I think that flies in the spirit of the game, and also diminishes the consequences of death a bit too acutely.

As I said though, only against human players. People are not leaving open because human pirates rp with them take part of their load and continue on. Nor are they leaving open because they got into PVP fights and lost. They are leaving Open because a certain group of players think it is extremly funny to grief other players. So.. remove the "benefits" of greifing someone and they will still make the person pay to repair their ship, but they won't get the satisfaction of destroying everything the player has done recently. It will waylay the driving to solo/groups.

- - - Updated - - -

The FSD Interdiction Device should expend fuel to use. The device should lose integrity and need regular repairs and maintainence. Expending fuel limits how often it can be used, limits how long a player can stalk an area before needing a period of rest to refuel. This creates windows for players to evade and avoid being repeatedly hounded by the same aggressive player in an endless cycle of interdiction and escape events. Repairs reward players who are good at interdiction, (ie: less chase = less repairs), but also means that choosing to evade interdiction inflicts damage on the pirates module eventually forcing him to give up and retire for repairs (costing the pirate money and reduced profit).

This would also mean that simply making an attempt against another player costs a black-hat player something just for trying. It means risk assement and picking profitable targets that will earn enough reward to pay for the cost of the attempt. Less unscrupulous targeting of players that have very little value (being needlessly vindictive).


Players should have a toggle function in the system panel to enable/disable a Distress/Rescue Beacon. When enabled, a player who gets interdicted by a Wanted player will emit a distress signal source that will prompt action from both other NPC factions (depending on the players reputation levels) and other lawful players in the system. Player on Player interdictions will appear in supercruise as Distress Signal Sources to other Lawful players having a good reputation with the ruling NPC faction. The system does not respond to Wanted players.

An "All Points Bulletin" (APB) should broadcast across local systems to report black-hat pirates and increase pressure on them as a consequence of their persist aggression. APB's put the security forces on alert, increases their scrutiny and searches for reported players (increases aggression aggro) and the system periodically reports on locations back-hat players have been seen. When an APB is generated by an NPC faction, it will broadcast to all players in the system with a certain level of reputation for that faction (making it beneficial to be on good terms with NPCs), an APB Scanner could be installed by Bounty Hunters to receive APB's regardless of faction reputation.

Destroying wanted players inside a Distress Signal Source should reward lawful players a good bonus in bounties and increased reputation with the local NPC factions.

That is nice, I would also like the option for NPCs as well.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Jordan, I think there is a point, with your assertion, that hasn't been addressed. What makes open worthy of incentivizing over the other modes? Why should open be propped up? Shouldn't each mode be left to their own fates?

I'm not asking about why open might want to be more attractive. I'm not asking about why open has image problems. I am asking why open should have an artificial advantage over the other modes?

No, each mode should not be left to their own devices. If it turns out that the modes don't work well, that one is better than another, should they not be changed? For another example, pvp piracy is better than pve piracy, is it wrong to give pve piracy a boost?

I believe that each of the modes can and do support just what population they can. After that if open has a population problem it's just demonstrated what the community wants in Elite.

Why should that be the case? If PP was/is suffering from a population problem, should FD not be allowed to make changes because that is what the community wants? I'd say no, they should find the underlying reasons why, and try to fix them. I think it should be the same in this case.

 

[Faded Glory]

Giving traders and other non combat roles, a reason to play in open.

The 'reason' for playing in Open, or any mode, or actually playing the game at all is for fun. Some players might see the challenge of a game as a reason for playing, but even then, if it's not fun, why would you do it?

In the majority of pirate / trader encounters, the trader comes out worse off than the pirate, at least, I would presume that to be the case in a PvP situation, and while the RP aspect of the encounter might be fun, I reckon the fun wears pretty thin after a while for the trader.

The fact that a financial 'buff' to trading in Open would be unlikely to make much of a difference to players who don't find human encounters fun anyway, and would have to be pretty large to make it any kind of incentive, thus making it outweigh the risk, thus inherently unfair, what you are really asking for is FD to incentivize a mode so that you can have content. I'd concentrate on pressing them to make NPC targets better for piracy, that after all is the only thing they realistically have any control over.

I don't care if other players can earn more credits than me, but they have to do that by being able to do something I cannot in order for that to be fair. So, for example, if it's trading, they have to have a better trade route than me, perhaps they will need a bigger ship than I have, and they will need the dedication to spend more time trading than me (not difficult at all), and in combat, they have to be able to destroy ships that I cannot, thus claiming the bigger bounties (probably also not that difficult).

PvP falls outside of FD's ability to control, they can only control the environment. They offer it for those who think it is fun, they don't claim it is the correct way to play over the other modes, therefore trying to incentivize it, or coerce / force people to play in a way that they are not currently choosing would seem to be a very contradictory move.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If it turns out that the modes don't work well, that one is better than another, should they not be changed?

Better is such a subjective term.

I bolded the key word there. That still has to be established. Until then, no changes necessary.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

All of this aside, I like the idea of two changes:
1) give players a hidden score increased by killing invalid targets (killing a player that isn't wanted, hostile, or lawless) and high scores gets shadowbanned. This would decay over time, giving a chance for said players to repent, while not completely removing the threat of wanton murder.

2) keep the escort bonus, and in addition allow ships to divert trade profits to other ships in the wing, either in a flat rate or at a percentage of profits.

3) instead of ship destruction and repurchase via insurance, your ship is salvaged at 1% hull and 0% module health. You spawn at the station and must decide what on your ship to repair. Repair costs should be altered such that full repair of modules, hull, and integrity should equal or exceed current insurance costs. This wouldn't change much for most people, except that you can choose to partially repair your ship if you're low on funds, and if you can't afford to fix it it'll stay docked and useless until you can. This'll add a lot of depth and preserve the threat of death, while putting players in less of a risk-averse position.

I feel all of these things are smart changes that can benefit the game as a whole, as well as encourage multiplayer/open to those who want to be social.

I like 2, that should have been in since the start. 3 could be interesting, if it's well done. However for number 1, you're talking about shadowbanning, something usually reserved for cheaters, anyone who does something, FD themselves have said is allowed and in some cases encourage.

Which is completely pointless as you are missing the reasons why people leave Open in the first place...

Which is?

 

[stripealipe]

"Underhand 5th column tactics" are exactly what PowerPlay is about.


"A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group—such as a nation or besieged city—from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Forces gathered in secret can mobilize openly to assist an external attack. This term is also extended to organized actions by military personnel. Clandestine fifth column activities can involve acts of sabotage, disinformation, or espionage executed within defense lines by secret sympathizers with an external force."


You'll find that nowhere in that definition is mentioned overt combat. You'll also find it pretty close to the given mechanics of PowerPlay. The Powers are not at war. Outright combat is not intrinsic to the mini-game.

Indeed - but there is at least the option to try and counter this should suspicions be aroused. It's not about all out war, but at least some hassle to try and slow the offence?
It's not about ganking, griefing, but simply another part of the game.

Also, i see a lot of talk about 4 man wings coming down on traders. Now, i can appreciate new players succumbing to the might of a wing of 4 in maybe an FDL, Clippers etc
But once the learning process has set in, it's fairly easy to avoid and if not, get away from such attacks should they happen.

I'm very happy to buy a Type 6 now and go meet you guys somewhere to prove that point?

And larger more powerful ships tend to be slower and less agile. Most smaller, affordable ships that new players can get into early on are more than capable of fleeing from pretty much anything.

Finally, i do appreciate where you guys are coming from in regards to certain types still frequenting Open from time to time and causing problems.
Cheats, psychos, and whatever other names we wish to give, i can tell you this. The majority hates these kind of players in Open and we generally band together and actively try and oust such behaviour. Reporting cheaters, protecting traders, teaching new players how to survive in a sometimes dangerous universe.

I guess i with there were simply more willing to help the cause, keep it alive and get on with one another.

 

[Brujah]

I mentioned this in another thread, but figured it bears repeating here, since this is the place for it.

In my opinion, if you choose not to play in Open, your actions should not affect the game world. So whilst you can still gain personal rep with factions, merits from powerplay or whatever else, your actions cannot, for example, flip a system to another minor power's control or add to Fortification or Undermining attempts for your Power in Powerplay.

I don't feel this is at all unfair. You're still getting the advantages of not being at risk of attack from other players, but your consequence for that choice is you don't get to change things either.

 

[Stigbob]

No, each mode should not be left to their own devices. If it turns out that the modes don't work well, that one is better than another, should they not be changed? For another example, pvp piracy is better than pve piracy, is it wrong to give pve piracy a boost?
Why should that be the case? If PP was/is suffering from a population problem, should FD not be allowed to make changes because that is what the community wants? I'd say no, they should find the underlying reasons why, and try to fix them. I think it should be the same in this case.

You are spot on about giving pirates a boost, they need practical ways of making money and shifting stolen goods for profit. And interacting in game with pirates is really good fun, or it was on the two occasions since gamma that I've met actual pirates.

Pirates aren't the problem, gankers and griefers are. I can't remember the number of times I've been jumped by a entire wing, rammed at a station (now ramming wings are the latest thing) or had dumbfires launched at me coming in to land.

I like pirates, I like their RP comms and negotiating the terms of a gentlemanly duel with them and I also enjoy straight up PvP.

I don't enjoy interacting with the people who got us all a speed limit, got missiles nerfed and play only to destroy other players.

Perma-banning griefers would do more for open than a credit boost or supercruise adjustment.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

Better is such a subjective term.

I bolded the key word there. That still has to be established. Until then, no changes necessary.

And how exactly is it possible to establish? I don't think anyone can argue that solo isn't a financially better option. Where the argument lies is if the increased chance of player interaction balances out the risk of decreased finances. Since that answer varies so wildly from person to person, there's no way to answer verify it. The only way to do so would be to get some concrete numbers from FD on the number of players, and breakdown of each profession, between the modes. Too bad they don't seen keen on releasing them. You have your guesses on what the number will say, I have mine.

 

[stripealipe]

Pirates aren't the problem, gankers and griefers are. I can't remember the number of times I've been jumped by a entire wing, rammed at a station (now ramming wings are the latest thing) or had dumbfires launched at me coming in to land.

I honestly believe you have been ridiculously unlucky dude and i'm sorry to hear that. I've been rammed in a station once back before 1.2 i think, and that's about it.
And i've not heard of anyone else having had such problems in a very large group of friends. I'm sure these are generally pretty much isolated and few and far between in their nature.

This kind of thing really does not happen much anymore, honestly!

 

[Neminem]

As I said though, only against human players. People are not leaving open because human pirates rp with them take part of their load and continue on. Nor are they leaving open because they got into PVP fights and lost. They are leaving Open because a certain group of players think it is extremly funny to grief other players. So.. remove the "benefits" of greifing someone and they will still make the person pay to repair their ship, but they won't get the satisfaction of destroying everything the player has done recently. It will waylay the driving to solo/groups.

How about adding the insurance cost of the destroyed player ship to the attacker's insurance as deterrence? Sooner or later anyone has to rebuy his ship for various reasons - even more so, if he/she "lives by the sword". If every destroyed player ship increases the rebuy-costs of the offender, those who go on a killing spree "for the lulz" sooner or later would end in a Sidey.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And how exactly is it possible to establish? I don't think anyone can argue that solo isn't a financially better option. Where the argument lies is if the increased chance of player interaction balances out the risk of decreased finances. Since that answer varies so wildly from person to person, there's no way to answer verify it. The only way to do so would be to get some concrete numbers from FD on the number of players, and breakdown of each profession, between the modes. Too bad they don't seen keen on releasing them. You have your guesses on what the number will say, I have mine.

Why would I guess? Why would we need to see the numbers? The establishing has to be done by Frontier, not us.

We can make our desires known and that's it. We're not in the making decisions for Frontier Development business.

 

[Mouse]

How about adding the insurance cost of the destroyed player ship to the attacker's insurance as deterrence? Sooner or later anyone has to rebuy his ship for various reasons - even more so, if he/she "lives by the sword". If every destroyed player ship increases the rebuy-costs of the offender, those who go on a killing spree "for the lulz" sooner or later would end in a Sidey.

Nice idea.