Modes The solution to the different interpretations of the modes and the misunderstandings that are a result of that

[Robert Maynard]

One aspect of TNB would be that everyone in it consciously chose to be in it, i.e. chose to be in a zone where players can only be in Open mode.

This could create the need for the different roles (i.e. convoy escorts) that are hitherto rendered largely superfluous.

Making each TNB platform specific would offer the possibility of players blockading systems.

Commodity delivery CGs would be reliant on sourcing all relevant commodities in Open too (as they could not be sourced outside TNB).

PowerPlay within TNB would, I expect, be more attractive to those who don't like the pan-modal nature of the current implementation of PowerPlay.

 

[Jockey79]

What would be handy, is if you could jump in/out of these areas without going back to the main menu.
Kind of like how you get warnings now about jumping to low sec space, it could come up "Warning: Jumping will move you to [mode]" and the loading screen will sit there as normal while it mode jumps you in the background.

(Just thinking of ways to make it more seamless)

 

[Darkfyre99]

Third time in a post: this isn't about just improving PvP.

This is about improving open more specifically, and the stance on that is "all game modes are equal" - which while that may be the intention is not actually true; Open is quite disadvantaged.

If an equal number of players take part in Open and PG/Solo, the Open players will face more opposition - and opposition that means something. While this is fundamentally enjoyable, it means that Open players have a decreased effect on the objective they are working on than PG players. It also means that players interested in the objective consequently shift to PG to get the work done more effectively, which was seen in PP.

This is why I discussed equal Open/PG objectives, which while concurrent are independent in terms of affecting each other.

Oh, I get that. But the only opposition in Open players face is the potential that someone might try to shoot at them, with a heavy emphasis on potential. Everything else is the same.

If I use my Type-7 Blockade Runner, Careful! There's a Deposit on It!, to buy the entire supply of a very profitable commodity at a station near a CG, the effects of my actions are felt across all modes and platforms. And yet, it doesn't matter what mode I do this in.

Even in Open, unless another player wanting that commodity just happens to:

• be in the system for the five minute window between my arrival in system, and when I jump out
• also play on the PC
• there is good enough latency between the two of us that the matchmaking server is willing to put us in the same instance

They will never know that I, Baroness Inga Stevenson, was the one that bought all Superconductors! All they'll know is that someone beat them to it.

The only activity that needs to be in Open, PvP wise, is combat. Everything else is indirect enough, that getting placed in the same instance really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. And personally, unless someone faces actual opposition in the way of other players, I don't think they deserve a single thing for flying in Open. You shouldn't get an "I participated" reward for flying in Open. You should only get it if you actually face a hostile Commander.

I have played a lot of games similar to Elite Dangerous, that attempted to include PvP in what is inherently a PvE game. Some of these included objectives that needed to be defended, similar to what you're discussing now. Your idea might work for CGs, because it would only have one bottleneck, where players can meet.

In the case of Powerplay, we're talking about the existence scores of individual objectives. ALD, for example, has 20 systems under her banner. Each of those systems needs to have its own objective. Do you think any organized group is going send equal numbers "roles" to each system? Of course not. Everyone is going send out scouts, and then send their people to locations where the opposition isn't. Any direct opposition of players will likely to be unintentional for both parties involved.

I shudder to think how that'll work in regards to the BGS, which is four dimensional chess to Powerplay's checkers.

There is a reason why PvP focused games tend to focus on short matches, played on carefully designed maps that bottleneck players at choke points. Players have more fun that way. Nothing in Elite: Dangerous, besides CQC, is designed with those ethos in mind. And we all know how popular CQC is with the general audience of this game.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

One aspect of TNB would be that everyone in it consciously chose to be in it, i.e. chose to be in a zone where players can only be in Open mode.

This could create the need for the different roles (i.e. convoy escorts) that are hitherto rendered largely superfluous.

Making each TNB platform specific would offer the possibility of players blockading systems.

Commodity delivery CGs would be reliant on sourcing all relevant commodities in Open too (as they could not be sourced outside TNB).

PowerPlay within TNB would, I expect, be more attractive to those who don't like the pan-modal nature of the current implementation of PowerPlay.

Been thinking about this one. You know the colors we have on the map regarding power-play right now? The invisible "open" bubble should over lap that by like 50 ly. So you have some breathing room on the way in. And you arent just dumped in the middle of a warzone. Know what I mean?

Only because we know how instancing is. And that would give people the chance to meet up properly for escorts and all that good jazz.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

The current bubble is already a PvP bubble. Anyone who has issues can watch the loading screen while moving to Colonia. See ya.

 

[Jockey79]

The current bubble is already a PvP bubble.

Not in my PG it isn't. Doubt many Solo players see it as a PvP zone either.

Anyone who has issues can watch the loading screen while moving to Colonia. See ya.

Or just opt out of playing with people they don't like and stay in the bubble, even in Open.
Number 2 menu > recent contacts > block. No more PvP zone.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

1. Reward players for actually participating in PvP. Not just combat, either. Give haulers who make it through a player blockade bonus merits. Any such rewards should be based on the relative strengths and skills of the ships and Commanders involved. Systems need to be in place, of course, to prevent the inevitable player collusion to game the play, rather than play the game.

Posted in another thread, and I like this idea, because it's conditional on the situation, not just on the Mode one is in. To make this mode independent there would need to be some triggers. I have never liked the idea of a blockade, but in this case it can be circumvented.

• If an enemy ship wonders into a system, it would need to state the intention of wanting to block traders. If that doesn't happen, the kills have no other effect than a kill would have now, after all you could just be a mugger and not be motivated by politics. After stating a blockade, that status will be seen once that ship is scanned.
• When a system is under blockade, this will not have any effect on Solo and Private Group modes. You cannot block an entire planet, just some approach routes to it (the handwavium is strong in this one)
• CMDRs running the blockades routes will get a better price for their goods, because the blockade causes a scarcity in those goods. <Warning! Continuity breach detected>The same goods will not be sold at a higher price in Solo/PG, but to make this thing work the routes will determine scarcity, not the goods</breach> <- this part is quite iffy. Needs to be improved. (also if there are blocked players in the runners list participating in the blockade, the price of the goods decreases. 1 in 4 blockaders is on the block list, 25% decrease)

Why I like this approach is, it's not a blanket bonus, it depends on actions of others, you need to react to the situation. It might even be beneficial to the blocked system if they have good blockade runners, so both sides may come up as winners of the confrontation. As in all player triggered events, exploits are quite tricky to deal with I guess.

Not sure if I have sold myself on this idea yet because of the 'routes' (which don't exist) determine scarcity, not the amount of goods. Anyway, just another idea on the pile. Courtesy of Darkfyre

 

[Darkfyre99]

Not in my PG it isn't. Doubt many Solo players see it as a PvP zone either.



Or just opt out of playing with people they don't like and stay in the bubble, even in Open.
Number 2 menu > recent contacts > block. No more PvP zone.

[enormous cured porcine rump mode]
*Points dramatically at Jockey*

How dare you.

How dare you!

How dare you use game mechanics, added by Frontier Developments, in the manner they, themselves, recommend?

Do you not know that that an entire play style is at steak?

How are these poor gankers supposed to get any kills, when the sheep remove themselves from the slaughter?

Look at those hungry faces!

Why could you not serve yourself up, like the fattened lamb?

The only people left in Open are the wolves!

And those there for the halibut.

What are you chicken?

Just some turkey who can't play the game right?

Now get yourself into Open, and run like a rabbit!

Elmer Fudd wants to hunt, and its duck season!

[/enormous cured porscine rump mode]

 

[Robert Maynard]

Posted in another thread, and I like this idea, because it's conditional on the situation, not just on the Mode one is in. To make this mode independent there would need to be some triggers. I have never liked the idea of a blockade, but in this case it can be circumvented.

• If an enemy ship wonders into a system, it would need to state the intention of wanting to block traders. If that doesn't happen, the kills have no other effect than a kill would have now, after all you could just be a mugger and not be motivated by politics. After stating a blockade, that status will be seen once that ship is scanned.
• When a system is under blockade, this will not have any effect on Solo and Private Group modes. You cannot block an entire planet, just some approach routes to it (the handwavium is strong in this one)
• CMDRs running the blockades routes will get a better price for their goods, because the blockade causes a scarcity in those goods. <Warning! Continuity breach detected>The same goods will not be sold at a higher price in Solo/PG, but to make this thing work the routes will determine scarcity, not the goods</breach> <- this part is quite iffy. Needs to be improved. (also if there are blocked players in the runners list participating in the blockade, the price of the goods decreases. 1 in 4 blockaders is on the block list, 25% decrease)

Why I like this approach is, it's not a blanket bonus, it depends on actions of others, you need to react to the situation. It might even be beneficial to the blocked system if they have good blockade runners, so both sides may come up as winners of the confrontation. As in all player triggered events, exploits are quite tricky to deal with I guess.

Not sure if I have sold myself on this idea yet because of the 'routes' (which don't exist) determine scarcity, not the amount of goods. Anyway, just another idea on the pile. Courtesy of Darkfyre https://i.imgur.com/6hIjJT8.gif

Any bonus for any encounter that is assumed to be contested is vulnerable to out-of-game collusion between the players behind the CMDRs involved in the encounter.

How would any in-game system determine whether the blockade runner was good at it or whether the opposition was sandbagging?

From what I have read recently it seems that even the 1 merit for destroying an opposing PowerPlay CMDR has been removed.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Any bonus for any encounter that is assumed to be contested is vulnerable to out-of-game collusion between the players behind the CMDRs involved in the encounter.

How would any in-game system determine whether the blockade runner was good at it or whether the opposition was sandbagging?

From what I have read recently it seems that even the 1 merit for destroying an opposing PowerPlay CMDR has been removed.

As with everything else, the devil's in the details.

I posted a bare bones version of my idea earlier in this thread, but one of the reasons why I recommend an ELO system for player skill, and basing rewards on the same, is that the inevitable sandbagging tends to drag down the sandbagger faster than it raises the one benefiting from it. There also needs to be diminishing returns, if the same players are involved repeatedly.

It's also why I prefer any such system to be opt-in, especially in the case of the BGS. If players can flag themselves as supporting this Superpower or that minor faction, and Steller Forge assigns traditional enemies and allies to factions, for when they're not in a state of war, it gives the game more information to make decisions, and provides more information to players as well.

Finally, in the case of blockade running, I've always assigned how "threatening" players are by their proximity to me. If they're nowhere near me, they're not much of a threat. If they approach me to within interdiction range, but are not yet on my six, then they might be a threat. If they're actually on my six within interdiction range, they're probably a threat. Actual interdiction attempt? I've failed to evade the enemy. If I get blown up? A whole lot of failure.

Both Powerplay and BGS work are largely a hearts and minds campaign. Players, by participating, are trying to convince the unwashed masses (aka NPCs) that the power or faction a player supports has their best interests at heart. Sneaking stuff in past a blockade is good. Blasting dramatically through a blockade, making the blockaders look like chumps, is great. Reward actually taking risks, as opposed to providing a blanket "I participated" reward.

 

[Robert Maynard]

As with everything else, the devil's in the details.

I posted a bare bones version of my idea earlier in this thread, but one of the reasons why I recommend an ELO system for player skill, and basing rewards on the same, is that the inevitable sandbagging tends to drag down the sandbagger faster than it raises the one benefiting from it. There also needs to be diminishing returns, if the same players are involved repeatedly.

It's also why I prefer any such system to be opt-in, especially in the case of the BGS. If players can flag themselves as supporting this Superpower or that minor faction, and Steller Forge assigns traditional enemies and allies to factions, for when they're not in a state of war, it gives the game more information to make decisions, and provides more information to players as well.

Finally, in the case of blockade running, I've always assigned how "threatening" players are by their proximity to me. If they're nowhere near me, they're not much of a threat. If they approach me to within interdiction range, but are not yet on my six, then they might be a threat. If they're actually on my six within interdiction range, they're probably a threat. Actual interdiction attempt? I've failed to evade the enemy. If I get blown up? A whole lot of failure.

Both Powerplay and BGS work are largely a hearts and minds campaign. Players, by participating, are trying to convince the unwashed masses (aka NPCs) that the power or faction a player supports has their best interests at heart. Sneaking stuff in past a blockade is good. Blasting dramatically through a blockade, making the blockaders look like chumps, is great. Reward actually taking risks, as opposed to providing a blanket "I participated" reward.

Indeed - and, don't get me wrong, I'm firmly of the opinion that no "bonus" should be offered for an activity that is not credibly opposed.

.... however, acknowledging the frustrations of those who would very much prefer particular activities to be Open only, my first choice as a compromise position is something akin to The New Bubble - a region that can only be accessed in Open where all activities must be carried out within the region to have any effect on the region. Tackling the issue in that manner would be to avoid fiddling with the relationships of the modes on the BGS / Factions / PowerPlay entirely.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Indeed - and, don't get me wrong, I'm firmly of the opinion that no "bonus" should be offered for an activity that is not credibly opposed.

.... however, acknowledging the frustrations of those who would very much prefer particular activities to be Open only, my first choice as a compromise position is something akin to The New Bubble - a region that can only be accessed in Open where all activities must be carried out within the region to have any effect on the region. Tackling the issue in that manner would be to avoid fiddling with the relationships of the modes on the BGS / Factions / PowerPlay entirely.

Personally, I find the idea of a PvP Bubble unappealing. My favorite part of the game is BGS play, and IMO BGS play is at its best when you manipulate BGS states to the (dis)advantage of the faction(s) your manipulating. For that to work, you need the 90% of players who are only in the system in the pursuit of profit.

An Open Only Bubble would be unappealing to that 90%, which means if I want to get anything done, I'd have to grind away at influence myself.