Total removal of PvP would have no overall detrimental effect to the game. Pilots federation rules of engagement idea

[Robert Maynard]

Not sure I would call it punishment. Check the meaning here: Definition of "punishment".

If Frontier did not consider removing a player's effects on the galaxy to be a form of punishment then why do they apply it to those who break rules?

Being denied equal reward for less risky involvement is probably better referred to as negative reinforcement. Paying someone more to perform a job requiring more skill, experience, or that involves more danger is a very normal/typical thing.

IRL, possibly, noting that those in the financial sector seem to be paid more than those in the military. When playing a video game, in the safety and comfort of ones preferred gaming environment, with an immortal space pixie as an avatar and an unlimited supply of free ships, there's no "danger". This is a video game where other players, and therefore itsi-PvP, are an optional extra. That other players may pose a challenge is not in question - however that challenge is entirely optional and not a requirement of any game feature apart from CQC.

Secondly, it is not merely just a simple choice in style of play. It is a choice impacting the community and entire face of the game by allowing political rivalry to bypass all combat mechanics, essentially the backbone of the game's entire structure. The weapons, health, and shielding mechanics were built for conflict. If one is combat logging or blocking people, they are simply cheating. It doesn't take a EULA to describe what cheating is...

All players form the community - whether they enjoy PvP or not - and no game features (apart from CQC) require any player to engage in PvP. Those who prefer PvP are not in a position to claim that they are the one and only community that has formed around this game - they can claim to be part of it, of course. No player requires to enjoy or even tolerate PvP to play and affect this game. Those who prefer or tolerate PvP didn't pay a supplement when buying the game to entitle them to change the game for those who don't - every player bought the same game.

It seems that the choice that particularly impacts a subset of the community is Frontier's choice, made long ago, that players don't need to play among other players to affect the game.

Not engaging in PvP combat is not avoiding all combat - NPCs exist in all game modes for the entertainment of players. The ability for each player to avoid any and all combat with other players is by design.

If blocking were cheating then we would not be able to block players. Frontier's stance is that Combat Logging (per Frontier's clear definition, i.e. ungraceful game exit) is cheating and that leaving the game using menu exit, at any time, is not cheating. Sandro acknowledged at the time he made the statement that not all players would agree.

In Frontier's game, it's up to Frontier to define what is and is not cheating - their stance seems to be quite clear.

What is more appropriately concerning is why Frontier has been so adamant in making sure the choices they provide to players are either 1: Play in an open environment where the rules and balance are extraordinarily unfair and imbalanced, or 2: Cheat the unfair system entirely by bypassing it. Just because it feels justified to cheat doesn't mean it's not cheating. Seriously, call it what it is and be honest. It's not just simply choosing to play different...

If affecting the galaxy from Solo and Private Groups was cheating then Frontier would not have included it in their design, published over eight years ago at the start of the Kickstarter. Just because some players consider it to be cheating does not actually make it cheating.

Note: itsi = in-the-same-instance.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Perhaps, and building on that precedent would create zones which provide a better experience for experienced players too.

It could indeed.

It is an evocative description of the BGS, only.

Everything happens in the galaxy (except CQC, of course) - so affecting the connected galaxy does not mean only affecting the BGS. The implementation of those game features that comprise the connected galaxy is pan-modal, e.g. the BGS itself, CGs, Powerplay....

You can imagine my horror when having played ED for an entire year, my actions hadnt affected Powerplay frontiers one iota, because I hadnt pledged. "But!" I mightve thought, "what about 'every players personal story influences the connected galaxy' ? Have I been betrayed by the marketing blurb ?! should I take legal action?!!" No there was no betrayal, and no need for legal advice. Any opt-in feature is not a part of that marketing blurb by virtue of being opt-in. its not going to be everyone's cup of tea, not everyone will want to opt-in to it, not every player's personal story will directly affect it.
thus..

Forgetting to sign up for an optional feature, whether it be Powerplay or a CG or even taking a mission for a Faction, is on the player. It does not change the fact that the features are pan-modal.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

Not sure I would call it punishment. Check the meaning here: Definition of "punishment". Being denied equal reward for less risky involvement is probably better referred to as negative reinforcement. Paying someone more to perform a job requiring more skill, experience, or that involves more danger is a very normal/typical thing.

Secondly, it is not merely just a simple choice in style of play. It is a choice impacting the community and entire face of the game by allowing political rivalry to bypass all combat mechanics, essentially the backbone of the game's entire structure. The weapons, health, and shielding mechanics were built for conflict. If one is combat logging or blocking people, they are simply cheating. It doesn't take a EULA to describe what cheating is...

What is more appropriately concerning is why Frontier has been so adamant in making sure the choices they provide to players are either 1: Play in an open environment where the rules and balance are extraordinarily unfair and imbalanced, or 2: Cheat the unfair system entirely by bypassing it. Just because it feels justified to cheat doesn't mean it's not cheating. Seriously, call it what it is and be honest. It's not just simply choosing to play different...

You going to pay my subscription fees to Sony, so I can play in OPEN?

 

[Rat Catcher]

What is more appropriately concerning is why Frontier has been so adamant in making sure the choices they provide to players are either 1: Play in an open environment where the rules and balance are extraordinarily unfair and imbalanced, or 2: Cheat the unfair system entirely by bypassing it. Just because it feels justified to cheat doesn't mean it's not cheating. Seriously, call it what it is and be honest. It's not just simply choosing to play different...

Terrible, isn't it? Disgusting way to carry on, you'd think by now they would have changed the game to stop those silly folk needing to cheat and not play with you...

What they really need to do to get rid of all this cheating is only permit solo play, then no-one can be cheating anyone else, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Vetinari]

It doesn't take a EULA to describe what cheating is...

Well it patently does or you cant take action against said cheaters because 'its not against the rules'. Every game that ever existed defined what its rules were and what constitutes cheating in that game.

Except open is demonstrably not particularly more risky than solo or private for the most part. Outside certain popular hubs in open (haunted by those actively seeking PvP opportunities due the increased LOCALISED player population), all 3 modes are virtually equal re the hazards faced. Hence these repeated proposals to incentivise open over solo and private are just ridiculous because they seemingly constantly either treat the argument as though ALL of open is equal risk, or they at least ignore the fact that open is not universally hazardous as far as PvP is concerned.

Well said. The actual obvious conclusion is that you should only get a bonus if another player is in your instance and interdicts you coz according to these people thats the only 'danger' whether in Open or not. Also PVPers would get a lower reward as they hinder the economics of the galaxy and keep Insurance costs up so would need to be be 'negatively reinforced' to stop that behaviour.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Not sure I would call it punishment. Check the meaning here: Definition of "punishment". Being denied equal reward for less risky involvement is probably better referred to as negative reinforcement. Paying someone more to perform a job requiring more skill, experience, or that involves more danger is a very normal/typical thing.

Secondly, it is not merely just a simple choice in style of play. It is a choice impacting the community and entire face of the game by allowing political rivalry to bypass all combat mechanics, essentially the backbone of the game's entire structure. The weapons, health, and shielding mechanics were built for conflict. If one is combat logging or blocking people, they are simply cheating. It doesn't take a EULA to describe what cheating is...

What is more appropriately concerning is why Frontier has been so adamant in making sure the choices they provide to players are either 1: Play in an open environment where the rules and balance are extraordinarily unfair and imbalanced, or 2: Cheat the unfair system entirely by bypassing it. Just because it feels justified to cheat doesn't mean it's not cheating. Seriously, call it what it is and be honest. It's not just simply choosing to play different...

Well if using legit function of game is cheating, then engineered weapons&shields&armor&high performance ammo are cheating too.

 

[Achtung-Goomba]

Well if using legit function of game is cheating, then engineered weapons&shields&armor&high performance ammo are cheating too.

Anyone better than me is cheating. And I’m quite bad, so that’s most of you, and especially NPCs, since they’re the only ones who can kill me in Solo because you’re all too bad at cheating.

 

[Bashy81]

affecting the connected galaxy does not mean only affecting the BGS.

It does mean only affecting the BGS in the context of how the game is marketed, since players are not auto-enrolled in Powerplay. So 'all players' do not affect it any more than non-pledges would affect it in Solo/PG, whether or not the feature itself was made Open-Only, (or modes balanced in some way that reflected their differences.)
There is nothing in the marketing that prevents modes being balanced according to their differing natures, or some modes removed for opt-in features if that better reflects the gamestyle they represent.

Forgetting to sign up for an optional feature, whether it be Powerplay or a CG or even taking a mission for a Faction, is on the player.

Indeed, but players create 'transactions' that affect the BGS, by doing anything that creates income. That is what the marketing is referring to & is what creates the living breathing galaxy they talk about, that all players can affect. Powerplay would still be affected by this to exactly the same extent as it is now, whether it was Open-Only or anywhere in between.

It does not change the fact that the features are pan-modal.

..which just brings us back to what I said in the first place..

Doesnt matter, we all signed up to a game under ongoing development. Every change made is going to disadvantage some and benefit others, obviously.

Just because we've got used to placeholder mechanics doesn't mean we have to be forever stuck with them. If some people are too change-averse to accept this, they really should have done their research before buying the game, wouldnt you say?

 

[Robert Maynard]

It does mean only affecting the BGS in the context of how the game is marketed, since players are not auto-enrolled in Powerplay.

I'll agree to disagree on that point - as marketing describes (somewhat) but does not define the game (noting that claiming something in advertising that is not in the product is not a good idea) - the in-game implementation defines the game and the optional nature of particular activities has no bearing on which game modes players can play in while affecting game features.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

It does mean only affecting the BGS in the context of how the game is marketed, since players are not auto-enrolled in Powerplay. So 'all players' do not affect it any more than non-pledges would affect it in Solo/PG, whether or not the feature itself was made Open-Only, (or modes balanced in some way that reflected their differences.)
There is nothing in the marketing that prevents modes being balanced according to their differing natures, or some modes removed for opt-in features if that better reflects the gamestyle they represent.


Indeed, but players create 'transactions' that affect the BGS, by doing anything that creates income. That is what the marketing is referring to & is what creates the living breathing galaxy they talk about, that all players can affect. Powerplay would still be affected by this to exactly the same extent as it is now, whether it was Open-Only or anywhere in between.


..which just brings us back to what I said in the first place..

You would need to make some elaborate schemes to make those Open-only influence stuff working. If you do not, well: I log in open at station. I take bunch of inf missions. I log out, login to solo. I run the missions. Say for example delivery mission. I dock in target station. I log out. I login to open. Now deliver contracted stuff. Hey I did it in "open".

Now then even in Open most what opposing people could do is cause some smallish delays, most of experienced players know how to escape from attacks. And while you are opposing efforts of another side you are not directly helping your side.

Thats why those lets punish those players in other modes stuff is non-working solution.

 

[Vetinari]

It does mean only affecting the BGS in the context of how the game is marketed,

"every player’s personal story influences the connected galaxy and handcrafted, evolving narrative."

Clearly doesnt just mean BGS. If your personal story is to sign up for PP you get to influence that, if you sign up to CGs or blockade them you get to try and influence those. And 'evolving narrative' has nothing to do with BGS, thats the lore and the story which may or may not affect the BGS, debateable how far off track we can actually go.

But why is it so important to read it as only BGS? What point does that prove anyway?

 

[Rat Catcher]

"every player’s personal story influences the connected galaxy and handcrafted, evolving narrative."

Clearly doesnt just mean BGS. If your personal story is to sign up for PP you get to influence that, if you sign up to CGs or blockade them you get to try and influence those. And 'evolving narrative' has nothing to do with BGS, thats the lore and the story which may or may not affect the BGS, debateable how far off track we can actually go.

But why is it so important to read it as only BGS? What point does that prove anyway?

Precursor to the "Open Only BGS" trope?

Being able to choose any of 3 provided modes to play is a bugbear for some players who take their entertainment seriously.

 

[Vetinari]

Better not tell em its on 2 separate consoles as well and played all round the world in different timezones then, their heads will explode.

 

[Bashy81]

"every player’s personal story influences the connected galaxy and handcrafted, evolving narrative."

Clearly doesnt just mean BGS. If your personal story is to sign up for PP you get to influence that, if you sign up to CGs or blockade them you get to try and influence those. And 'evolving narrative' has nothing to do with BGS, thats the lore and the story which may or may not affect the BGS, debateable how far off track we can actually go.

But why is it so important to read it as only BGS? What point does that prove anyway?

'Every player's personal story influences the connected galaxy' is adequately expressed by the BGS as it stands. "handcrafted, evolving narrative" describes CG's. Powerplay is not affected by "every player's personal story" any more by being pan-modal, than it would be by being Open-Only, or having mode-weighted merits, etc.

The point of nailing that down was to get a comment from Robert such as:

marketing describes (somewhat) but does not define the game - the in-game implementation is defines the game

(id correct the grammar in there but if I do Robert will delete my post for meddling with the posts of others)

because he uses the marketing to beat people over the head in Open-Only Powerplay discussions, and I can quote his own words back at him next time he does.

Precursor to the "Open Only BGS" trope?

Being able to choose any of 3 provided modes to play is a bugbear for some players who take their entertainment seriously.

Speak for yourself. Imo, the BGS provides a valuable immersion/interaction backdrop for a lot of players who dabble in different things, in all modes. When it comes to Powerplay, modes provide a negative opt-out when players' efficiency of action is affected directly by opposing players. It nerfs the dynamic elements of Powerplay, which is why I voice support for suggestions that address that issue.

Better not tell em its on 2 separate consoles as well and played all round the world in different timezones then, their heads will explode.

If you had a taste of how Powerplay groups coordinate on 3 separate platforms and with players all around the world in different timezones, seems more likely your head will explode.

You would need to make some elaborate schemes to make those Open-only influence stuff working. If you do not, well: I log in open at station. I take bunch of inf missions. I log out, login to solo. I run the missions. Say for example delivery mission. I dock in target station. I log out. I login to open. Now deliver contracted stuff. Hey I did it in "open".

Now then even in Open most what opposing people could do is cause some smallish delays, most of experienced players know how to escape from attacks. And while you are opposing efforts of another side you are not directly helping your side.

Thats why those lets punish those players in other modes stuff is non-working solution.

Powerplay vouchers and commodities have their values permanently reduced if a Commander enters Private Group or Solo mode with them.
Seems straight forward enough, whats the problem with that working solution?

Personally ive been locked out from handing in merits for at least a day's gameplay at a time due to effective blockades. Sure I can escape from the attacks without rebuy, but it's significantly impinged my & others' ability to take our most effective action. That was good value effort for the opposition since they had no further attacking options that could come close to that level of impact, and is always good value for anyone who has simply already earned all the merits they'd intended for that cycle; its a marathon not a sprint.

Stupendously obviously, the most efficient thing we could've done is to opt-out into a restricted mode. We didn't, because like most Powerplayers we don't consider magic mode opt-outs to be legitimate way to evade a blockade. It just isn't right in a competitive game feature to have consequence-free easymodes to resort to whenever things get challenging. & when every other focus of what you do is to be most efficient for your power within the rules, having legitimised opt-outs from the most dynamic aspects of the gamestyle is an excessive temptation for some people.

It's not about punishing anyone, or any mode, or the disabled, or newbies, or impoverished console players. Its simply to provide a place that allows for competitive play in Open that isn't nerfed by consequence-free Solo & PG efficiencies. One place: Powerplay. Solo/PG have the benefit of their advantage in the whole BGS. Powerplay is by necessity made of more simple mechanics, precisely to create bottlenecks for player activity. Without the evolving complexity of gameplay that competing against rival groups in Open provides, Powerplay is destined to remain a poor cousin of the BGS, and it's a waste of a whole game feature.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Speak for yourself. Imo, the BGS provides a valuable immersion/interaction backdrop for a lot of players who dabble in different things, in all modes. When it comes to Powerplay, modes provide a negative opt-out when players' efficiency of action is affected directly by opposing players. It nerfs the dynamic elements of Powerplay, which is why I voice support for suggestions that address that issue.

If you had a taste of how Powerplay groups coordinate on 3 separate platforms and with players all around the world in different timezones, seems more likely your head will explode.


Powerplay vouchers and commodities have their values permanently reduced if a Commander enters Private Group or Solo mode with them.
Seems straight forward enough, whats the problem with that working solution?

Personally ive been locked out from handing in merits for at least a day's gameplay at a time due to effective blockades. Sure I can escape from the attacks without rebuy, but it's significantly impinged my & others' ability to take our most effective action. That was good value effort for the opposition since they had no further attacking options that could come close to that level of impact, and is always good value for anyone who has simply already earned all the merits they'd intended for that cycle; its a marathon not a sprint.

Stupendously obviously, the most efficient thing we could've done is to opt-out into a restricted mode. We didn't, because like most Powerplayers we don't consider magic mode opt-outs to be legitimate way to evade a blockade. It just isn't right in a competitive game feature to have consequence-free easymodes to resort to whenever things get challenging. & when every other focus of what you do is to be most efficient for your power within the rules, having legitimised opt-outs from the most dynamic aspects of the gamestyle is an excessive temptation for some people.

It's not about punishing anyone, or any mode, or the disabled, or newbies, or impoverished console players. Its simply to provide a place that allows for competitive play in Open that isn't nerfed by consequence-free Solo & PG efficiencies. One place: Powerplay. Solo/PG have the benefit of their advantage in the whole BGS. Powerplay is by necessity made of more simple mechanics, precisely to create bottlenecks for player activity. Without the evolving complexity of gameplay that competing against rival groups in Open provides, Powerplay is destined to remain a poor cousin of the BGS, and it's a waste of a whole game feature.

My misunderstanding, PP is only feature I think that could be Open only. Or Open preferred.

 

[Rat Catcher]

When it comes to Powerplay, modes provide a negative opt-out when players' efficiency of action is affected directly by opposing players. It nerfs the dynamic elements of Powerplay, which is why I voice support for suggestions that address that issue.

Oh, I should have said open only Powerplay then, without the question mark?

 

[Robert Maynard]

The point of nailing that down was to get a comment from Robert such as:

(id correct the grammar in there but if I do Robert will delete my post for meddling with the posts of others)

because he uses the marketing to beat people over the head in Open-Only Powerplay discussions, and I can quote his own words back at him next time he does.

See my revised post - it's a bit clearer.

It's not about punishing anyone, or any mode, or the disabled, or newbies, or impoverished console players. Its simply to provide a place that allows for competitive play in Open that isn't nerfed by consequence-free Solo & PG efficiencies. One place: Powerplay. Solo/PG have the benefit of their advantage in the whole BGS. Powerplay is by necessity made of more simple mechanics, precisely to create bottlenecks for player activity. Without the evolving complexity of gameplay that competing against rival groups in Open provides, Powerplay is destined to remain a poor cousin of the BGS, and it's a waste of a whole game feature.

Except it's not just about Powerplay. Many Open only proponents want the BGS as well, and CGs, to be Open only (or Solo and Private Groups penalised heavily, i.e. greater than 90% reduction in effect) - some go as far as to suggest that Solo and Private Groups should not exist.

 

[Robert Maynard]

With the renewed focus on the game's advertising, some interesting snippets from elitedangerous.com:

POWERPLAY
Pledge allegiance to one of a number of galactic Power characters, gain rewards and influence that character's battle for interstellar conquest, power and control.

COMMUNITY GOALS
Allowing the whole Elite Dangerous community to work together, towards goals which affect the galaxy.

 

[Bashy81]

Except it's not just about Powerplay. Many Open only proponents want the BGS as well, and CGs, to be Open only (or Solo and Private Groups penalised heavily, i.e. greater than 90% reduction in effect) - some go as far as to suggest that Solo and Private Groups should not exist

Yep, some people make different or extended arguments that I dont think stack up. Tends to be most of the opposition to OpenOnly/variant Powerplay suggestions comes from people who have no interest in Powerplay either way, but do have concerns about a slippery slope. While you may think it would be a thin-end-of-the-wedge, its more likely to provide a visible home for people who feel that way. More a lightning-rod than a slippery slope. Hopefully that's enough metaphors for one post

Oh, I should have said open only Powerplay then, without the question mark?

yeh. If you were going to caricature what I was going to say before I said it, that wouldve been nearer the mark. It mightve been a predictable topic, but you failed to predict it anyway, so uh, good job.

 

[Rat Catcher]

yeh. If you were going to caricature what I was going to say before I said it, that wouldve been nearer the mark. It mightve been a predictable topic, but you failed to predict it anyway, so uh, good job.

Such is life... Usually 99.9% going to be, the outliers show up. But close enough to not be a total loss