What do you guys think of a minimum timer locking you in for conflict zones and powerplay zones?

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Peep.

I guess you could focus on a microscopic portion of my post, and dismiss it with some grandfathers curse. I could even see your impotent fist shaking in the air. "Get off mu lawn".

But, you can't answer, or won't answer, how this will effect those not playing in open. Unless, and it's as I suspect, this suggestion is intended to force PvP on to players if they want to support a faction or power through combat. Making your idea just another way to insinuate open only mechanisms into BGS/PP activities. That's going to be a problem.

I just wonder what would do a better job at encouraging PvP, rewarding players for engaging or forcing them to comply? Use your vaunted and in-depth knowledge of game theory and design to answer that.

I ignored all that on purpose. As this does imply the ending result of these interactions only count in open play. Not in solo and private.

I've always suggested that if people want to engage each other for territorial control it should be on the same playing field and not being able to remove yourself from your opponents. We both know this.

Whether they do it, I dont know. This is just how I see the potential of these conflict zones for years now.

To me they could have very deep gameplay instead of one sided NPC farming.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I still disagree with the entire concept as stated by you.

However since others were indulging in a thought experiment of how a CZ could grow and have people leave less, then I offered my thoughts too. I still do not believe that anyone should be prevented from leaving, and using mass lock variations allows people who don't want to continue, the option to high wake. There is no way that forced PvP would ever be an improvement to the game.

Please don't assume that any conjecture on my part (I will let others speak for themselves) is in any way a change of opinion on that score. On the contrary, your own comments after I left last night convinced me even more that your intent was not in the best interests of the game, nor even of PvP taken on its own.

Its fine you disagree. I expect it quite often here as people enjoy fighting each other without actually seeing one another. Because if they lose, it hits them personally. To be expected.

 

[SciTrekker]

No I dont mean to offend anyone.

But I do find it a bit weird people choose to ignore whats in front of them. Or choose not to understand why those things are in the game in the first place.

I don't like brussel sprouts, so I ignore them, even when they're on my plate in front of me and I can smell their horrific odor which ruins the other food on my plate. No timer is going to make me eat them. I'll take whatever punishment is inflicted for leaving early.

 

[Mohrgan]

I ignored all that on purpose. As this does imply the ending result of these interactions only count in open play. Not in solo and private.

I've always suggested that if people want to engage each other for territorial control it should be on the same playing field and not being able to remove yourself from your opponents. We both know this.

Whether they do it, I dont know. This is just how I see the potential of these conflict zones for years now.

To me they could have very deep gameplay instead of one sided NPC farming.

Well, you have been reminded that the field is level. Any actions taken against a power or faction has to be taken through the BGS or PP UI. Filling buckets. Totally level without your help.

If your idea doesn't extend beyond those that play in open (which it certainly shouldn't), then why bother? Anyone interested in uncontested combat instances will just use Solo to compete in these 'Honey Traps'. Instead of waking out and finding another instance, one would just log out, and back in to Solo. Idea negated, and any effort applied wasted.

So, for giggles sake, I wonder how you may have answered my question: what would do a better job at encouraging PvP, rewarding players for engaging or forcing them to comply?

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Well, you have been reminded that the field is level. Any actions taken against a power or faction has to be taken through the BGS or PP UI. Filling buckets. Totally level without your help.

If your idea doesn't extend beyond those that play in open (which it certainly shouldn't), then why bother? Anyone interested in uncontested combat instances will just use Solo to compete in these 'Honey Traps'. Instead of waking out and finding another instance, one would just log out, and back in to Solo. Idea negated, and any effort applied wasted.

So, for giggles sake, I wonder how you may have answered my question: what would do a better job at encouraging PvP, rewarding players for engaging or forcing them to comply?

I explained this here on the last page. Maybe you missed it.

Well, the end goal would be winning the war and expanding your territory. Hopefully controlling assets.

The thing is this game has plenty of room and abilities to reward people for winning certain assets. Like those new installations you see everywhere? They're all sorts of different types of installations.

Some of them could generate income, materials, beef security. All sorts of things. If you notice they are everywhere. To be honest I think that's why they added them. If not, they should definintly be worth capturing in some way to benefit the controlling factions. It also gives an end goal to work towards and a reason to go after certain assets on the playing field.

That would be the bigger picture. These conflict zones would be on a smaller scale but you need to win them in the end to expand and control them.

Macro gameplay vs Micro gameplay. The goal is to win both. Eventually map control could be a thing.

One sided NPC farming is pretty dumb. Especially if you're working against one another to expand or be controlling faction.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I don't like brussel sprouts, so I ignore them, even when they're on my plate in front of me and I can smell their horrific odor which ruins the other food on my plate. No timer is going to make me eat them. I'll take whatever punishment is inflicted for leaving early.

Well you would lose the conflict zone. You would lose the % gains. And eventually lose the war your group is engaged in. No one wants a weak link on their team. Youd have to be active and fight with your team instead of being dead weight.

 

[Mohrgan]

I explained this here on the last page. Maybe you missed it.



One sided NPC farming is pretty dumb. Especially if you're working against one another to expand or be controlling faction.

None of that answered my questions. But, I'm totally not worried about it. This idea isn't going anywhere.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

None of that answered my questions. But, I'm totally not worried about it. This idea isn't going anywhere.

It did answer the question.

Again, I believe you have a false understanding of the game. And I don't believe that to be your fault.

All of this exists already if all participants were in open. Just without the locking mechanism. We should really be seeing long term engagements in these zones.

 

[Wizz15]

Well you would lose the conflict zone. You would lose the % gains. And eventually lose the war your group is engaged in. No one wants a weak link on their team. Youd have to be active and fight with your team instead of being dead weight.

But what if you don't care at all about any wars? What if you are not aligned to any group?

I know I'm not, and I join CZs for some quick action. I couldn't care less who wins or loses, so what does a timer do to incentivize me to care more?

To me a 'team' in ED is non-existent, and I think this is the same for a lot of people.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

But what if you don't care at all about any wars? What if you are not aligned to any group?

I know I'm not, and I join CZs for some quick action. I couldn't care less who wins or loses, so what does a timer do to incentivize me to care more?

To me a 'team' in ED is non-existent, and I think this is the same for a lot of people.

That would be for personal progression. You aren't really there to impact anyone else. They would still exist for you in solo and private. You would still earn some cash. But your activities wont count towards the war or end goal.

Like that powerplay suggestion Sandro made a while back. The activities and assets only count in open. While some of it may be available in solo and private. It just wouldn't count.

You're not there for the team, or risk and reward for winning them.

You definintly shouldn't be joining these hot zones with people in them if you have no interest in trying to win them. This is why I suggest what you'd like to do in the safety of solo and private. Since there would be 0 risk from others you weren't interested in, in the first place.

 

[SciTrekker]

Well you would lose the conflict zone. You would lose the % gains. And eventually lose the war your group is engaged in. No one wants a weak link on their team. Youd have to be active and fight with your team instead of being dead weight.

FD took care of losing the BGS for me and the faction I support by introducing the bugs and now leaving them in for so long. "To Hell with the BGS and FD," they've said. So even if FD implemented your idea, they'd introduce bugs and exploits to go with it. No thanks

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

FD took care of losing the BGS for me and the faction I support by introducing the bugs and now leaving them in for so long. "To Hell with the BGS and FD," they've said. So even if FD implemented your idea, they'd introduce bugs and exploits to go with it. No thanks

All that can be ironed out my good dude. Every game has bugs and problems. It happens.

Its just as frustrating for them as it is for us, trust me. World of warcraft and League of legends when they first started had all sorts of buggy interactions(they still do). Unbalanced OP weapons, Server problems all sorts of stuff. Over time this stuff gets fixed eventually. Id hope people look past that. It comes with the nature of video games.

I wouldn't worry about that stuff.

 

[Crank Larson]

I still disagree with the entire concept as stated by you.

Same here. I can't see that this would add anything to anyone's enjoyment. I don't want to drop out into any instance, wherever it is, and be forced to remain there for any arbitrary length of time. It makes no logical sense, and will annoy far more people than it would please.

 

[Misty_Dark]

So to summarize,



This is to advocate Open only BGS/Powerplay

This is to advocate mandatory PvP

This is to advocate terrible tactics of bait and jump, ie having a bait player in the conflict zone and then ask for reinforcement, to jump the other player/players joining this zone. Just find he OPs remark of the sealclubbing....





Despite all the posts from OP, he has still failed to show how this should work in practice, only adapt to new scenario.


There is a big misconception here, that you need to WIN every fight, despite OP continuation grand talk about people having to learn to loose, or in other words, learn to get blown up. The OP is totally disregarding one of the most important rules of engagement, Live to fight another day.



OP needs obviously would need to learn to loose too, as it is quite clear that people running from OP and not staying around to get killed is the among the WORST offence a player can do to OP. As this is not about winning the zone, it is ALL about killing the other player/players.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

So to summarize,



This is to advocate Open only BGS/Powerplay

This is to advocate mandatory PvP

This is to advocate terrible tactics of bait and jump, ie having a bait player in the conflict zone and then ask for reinforcement, to jump the other player/players joining this zone. Just find he OPs remark of the sealclubbing....





Despite all the posts from OP, he has still failed to show how this should work in practice, only adapt to new scenario.


There is a big misconception here, that you need to WIN every fight, despite OP continuation grand talk about people having to learn to loose, or in other words, learn to get blown up. The OP is totally disregarding one of the most important rules of engagement, Live to fight another day.



OP needs obviously would need to learn to loose too, as it is quite clear that people running from OP and not staying around to get killed is the among the WORST offence a player can do to OP. As this is not about winning the zone, it is ALL about killing the other player/players.

100% wrong.

Ive explained in great detail why this would be beneficial for everyone. You'd still have the chance to escape once you've earned merits or bonds. Just not right away because someone would oppose you.

You should learn to outfit and possess skill to stay in the conflict zone for an amount of time anyways. The goal is; to be there for a period of time to farm while against your opponents on the other side.

If I just wanted to go seal clubbing. I could do this all day every day. Because no one really has a need to outfit correctly at the moment. You can get away with the bare minimum and 0 engineering without ever seeing your opponents. Thats dumb as hell and allows you to skip half the game and modules we should be using.

In this scenario, the people we engage are trying just as hard to farm and kill me at the same time.

You have a serious misunderstanding of what I am trying to accomplish here.

And its sad you cant get past griefing vs meaningful gameplay while fighting in wars against one another.

 

[Crank Larson]

The goal is; to be there for a period of time to farm while against your opponents on the other side.

That's your goal. It would seem that most people don't want that as a goal (based on the replies in this thread). It wouldn't be beneficial to everyone in the slightest.

It may be something that you want because it fits your play style. But it will adversely affect everyone who doesn't play the same way as you and have the same goal.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

That's your goal. It would seem that most people don't want that as a goal (based on the replies in this thread). It wouldn't be beneficial to everyone in the slightest.

It may be something that you want because is fits your play style. But it will adversely affect everyone who doesn't play the same way as you and have the same goal.

Well yeah, they would have a chance to die in a video game while engaged in wars with one another. Why should we be engaged in wars with each other without ever seeing the people you are at war with?

I totally expect people to be opposed against that. Especially most of the people on these forums.

This has 0 to do with playstyle. And 100% meaningful action between groups that's not griefing.

The PVP playstyle is already implied if you're at war with one another. Why wouldn't it be? Thats an obvious given. That discussion shouldn't even be on the table.

 

[Crank Larson]

The PVP playstyle is already implied if you're at war with one another. Why wouldn't it be?

:S Well... Because it isn't. You can be at war in solo mode. Wars in the game are between factions, nothing implies PvP at all. You might get PvP if you have players fighting for opposing factions, yes. But it isn't a given in the slightest. And it certainly shouldn't be forced in any mode (there is always an option to run, wherever you are).

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

:S Well... Because it isn't. You can be at war in solo mode. Wars in the game are between factions, nothing implies PvP at all. You might get PvP if you have players fighting for opposing factions, yes. But it isn't a given in the slightest. And it certainly shouldn't be forced in any mode (there is always an option to run, wherever you are).

Im aware it isn't.

Im showing the benefits of this being played in open. And the meaningful gameplay we should be having. You should always have the risks from the opponents you are facing. Especially in territory control.

 

[Avago Earo]

[video=youtube_share;7DoM3sWkgfU]https://youtu.be/7DoM3sWkgfU[/video]