Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ghost Hunter]

Relevant kick starter : Developer commentary on the use of Developer mods to insure Event Actors were ungankable by players in High Security

This thread is for the debate on the legitimacy of using developer mods to 'artificially' force an event (railroading) in a particular direction.

Please center your discussion on the merits and detriments of this idea. In general, while player participation is important, it should not become a contest of saying 'oh some big nullsec alliance will curb stomp everything'.

[Matoko]

The problem is that the whole thing is one giant circular Catch-22. You start with group A wanting to kill person X. And you have group B which wants to keep person X alive. First you start out with high-sec. Good choice. CONCORD and empire control shows up if anything happens, things are safe and easy. Of course, group A knows this. If they start anything, whoever did the starting is going to die. This, they deem, is acceptable. Thus enters the suicide gank. Group B also knows this. But the problem is that if they try to gank first, CONCORD just blows them up instead. At which point group A has free-fire on person X.

So, how do we solve this? One solution is make the target ungankable. This was met with much resistance and generally viewed as a bad idea, however, so we'll toss that one out for now.

Solution two; capitals. I really like this idea, and would love to see a high-value NPC chugging along in a legit NPC fleet. Something I don't think we get to see enough of, given the implications that the four empires can field Titans as fleet command ships... Even a carrier would be interesting.

Solution three; alliance / corporate security status. Or even better, reputation and standings. In theory a good idea, since player actions would actually reflect on their organization rather than just they themselves.

Solution four; NPCs behave more sanely. This kind of ties into number two, but essentially ends up with VIP NPCs able to organize fleets with capsuleers. Or at least flying with their own fleet. And, when trouble strikes, they behave like players should.

Solution five; war-decs. While technically an option, it's really not a viable one. War decs cost money, and not everyone plays regularly enough or at levels high enough to keep up the necessary funds for it to be ongoing. That, and war-dec doesn't really suit the purpose of a live event. They're a bit too long-term for a one-day event.

Just as a few ideas off the top of my head, either independent or borrowed from the previous threads.

[Louella Dougans]

I've noticed a few things.

1. In the past, there have been many things relevant to the storyline that occurred with no player involvement.

Example: The entire Empyrean Age setup events, with dreadnought fleets attacking Yulai, the battle of Mekhios, and so on. These events all occurred while the server was offline for the patch.

Example: The coronation of Empress Jamyl. A vast Amarr fleet was apparently present. No evidence of this ingame.

With no player involvement, not even to observe, players do not have much stake in the storyline. Why does it matter, if it can't be interacted with ?


2. Events necessary to advance the overall storyline have to go according to some form of plan.

Example: The inevitable Nation victory in the Sansha live events. Nation was becoming the major actor in the entire Incursion expansion. Nation simply must be in a position where that situation seems credible. Believing that shooting at the handful of actor carriers or Nightmares that appeared at the abduction sites could halt the Nation plan, was wildly optimistic and/or naive.

When there's a definite plan, then events have to be aligned to run in accordance to the plan.


3. Players have a tendency to do things because they can. Mantra of Sandbox.

Players can organise a variety of things, with all manner of interesting consequences. Butterfly Effect. Every Action has Consequences.

However, this does not really mesh well with:


4. Reluctance amongst CCP for NPC entities to affect player actions. Trend for reducing NPC involvement.

Examples: Opinions that say the FW navy that pursue highsec interlopers should be removed, and have players provide the consequences.

Opinions that wish to remove Customs NPCs, again, so that players provide consequences.

This creates impression that a significant proportion of CCP feel that the NPCs are a hindrance to game design.


All this means, that really, WHY does the storyline have ANY relevance ? Why does it matter if the ships are occasionally invulnerable ?


With invulnerable ships:

Pros:
Players that are present at events can point at things appearing in trailers, and say "i was there"
Storyline progresses in a smoother fashion towards the intended situation that facilitates the next expansion.

Cons:
Lack of consequences for acting a clown during an event. E.g. bumping ships.
Invulnerability means player presence is somewhat irrelevant.


With vulnerable ships:

Pros:
Players at events, can say "I was there!", and there is considerable feeling that "I made a difference!" (even if that's not entirely true)
Players feel they have a significant influence on storyline.

Cons:
If Designated Bad Guy loses all the time, it becomes jarring when the next expansion has them as the main antagonists.
Lack of consequences from player actions during events. It doesn't matter if you shot Shakor, you can still dock at Minmatar stations.

[Natalcya Katla]

Why not simply have the NPCs use decoys? They are wartime leaders in a very dangerous universe. If they absolutely have to make public announcements on where, how and when they will be traveling (baffling in itself), why should they be honest about it? If would-be assassins suicide gank a ship presumably carrying say, a Tribal delegate, only to find that the delegate in question actually left an hour earlier aboard an unassuming little frigate and is already safely arrived at his or her destination, that makes sense to me.

Of course, in the interest of keeping things "fair", that also means that if somebody - either through skillful intelligence work or simple happenstance does blow up said unassuming little frig, they should be credited with the assassination. In fact, if secret information regarding the actual travel schedule happens to be leaked or lost somehow, that could lead to a behind-the-scenes event arc all of its own.

An example of how this could work: Sometime before an event, an actor playing the role of a diplomatic aide of some sort takes a discreet and round-about route through low-sec on his way to a meeting where the upcoming event is going to be a topic of discussion. In his cargo hold is documents with sensitive information about the VIP's plans. If this delegate runs afoul of death along the way, suddenly whoever took him down and looted his ship have their hands on some golden information. They can either use it to stage their own ambush or broker the information to someone who would have an interest in doing so, all the while being careful to keep it out of the public spotlight (let's say if some pilot or other discovers this and alerts the appropriate NPC faction liaison or smears it out across the IGS, the opportunity is lost).

It would require a bit extra work on the actors, but not a whole ton of it, as far as I can tell. Much of it would be player driven. And in my opinion, if somebody did manage to get their hands on the secret info and use it to pull off a successful assassination, it would make for a cooler story and shinier bragging rights than 40 ships suicide ganking a predictably exposed target.

Thoughts?

[Ciarente]

What about the possibility of CONCORD/ Navy being on more 'high alert' when dignitaries are moving through space - much in the way that various law enforcement agencies are when IRL Important People are out and about. Jumping into a system with a dev actor with your safety set to red - or switching your safety to red - would get you scrammed, jammed, and warned to stand down or leave. Much as waiting to shake hands with the President while holding a handgun would attract some, ah, vigorous attention.

To retain the possibility of player interaction for those who feel such interaction is meaningless if they can't shoot the actors, CCP would play with the wardec and ally mechanics for the purposes of such events. The actors could be deccable (meaning CONCORD's heightened alert system wouldn't affect an attack from a known hostile) but supporting players could become short-term war-allies of the actors, with a much abbreviated waiting period (minutes, not hours) and a shorter time period (hours, not days) for the alliance. To make it accessible, and meaningful, both dec and ally agreements would have to operate on individual rather than corporate or alliance members and be super-affordable.

Players who want to, say, assassinate Jamyl on her progress, thus have to flag their intention to do so (yes, real assassins don't do so, but on the other hand, real security forces have watch lists of likely offenders and hit the big red button if any of them or their associates get close to a target) while those wishing to protect Jamyl would sign up to do and thus be able to take preemptive action.

[lallara zhuul]

Easiest EVAR!

Pay CONCORD so that the capsuleers will never get the transponders of anyone important.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

I'm not entirely clear on the limits of dev control of NPC ships. However.

In the Sansha events the actors had huge spawns of NPC attack ships. What if a convoy type actor had a small NPC escort and logistic retinue that would have to be killed before the actor could be affected? This would give defenders time to rally & provide their own support.

CONCORD don't seem to react to shooting at NPC craft so this would also mean the attackers could start the engagement without getting killed themselves. Defenders could enter the resultant limited engagement simply by using a support module on one of the defending NPC ships. If the actor also does this then that makes them a participant and thus freely shootable by the attackers.

[Gottii]

There are a vast number of arbitrary things I cant blow up in space.  Things I really wish I could.  Warp and Jump Gates come to mind. 

Im just gonna add "live actor ships" to that kinda silly list. 

[Ghost Hunter]

I'm not entirely clear on the limits of dev control of NPC ships. However.

In the Sansha events the actors had huge spawns of NPC attack ships. What if a convoy type actor had a small NPC escort and logistic retinue that would have to be killed before the actor could be affected? This would give defenders time to rally & provide their own support.

CONCORD don't seem to react to shooting at NPC craft so this would also mean the attackers could start the engagement without getting killed themselves. Defenders could enter the resultant limited engagement simply by using a support module on one of the defending NPC ships. If the actor also does this then that makes them a participant and thus freely shootable by the attackers.

To the extent of my awareness, control over NPCs is both fickle and the tools for them are deplorable. This was an issue throughout the Sansha events, and the most that could reliably done for them is : ignore target, focus fire on target. I am not certain if the new team has had gotten resources for new tools, if not then they are still very limited.

This is an interesting idea, though, if it could be researched further.

[Streya]

Perhaps invulnerability of dev actors could be conditional? For example, perhaps the dev actors are accompanied by Special Logistics NPCs. Mechanically, this would just be a regular NPC not doing much flying alongside the dev actor. For as long as X number of such NPCs are alive, the dev actor could legitimately use invulnerability mechanics under the pretense of their ship being reinforced in some manner by the Special Logistics squad. Those logi NPCs, however, are quite vulnerable and more or less helpless; they could be killed. Upon a certain number of them being killed, the dev actor in question could state in local something along the lines of "Shield reinforcement harmonics are destabilizing!" and then offline their fancy Dev Invulnerability modules, thus making them vulnerable to attack themselves.

What does this mean? This means random suicide gankers wouldn't be able to impact the storyline to a huge degree, but a concerted and tactical effort could. Of course, attacking the logistics NPCs would NOT cause a CONCORD response, so gankers could pick them off and then turn their guns to the tastier targets. This also means that players supporting the faction actors could try to logi the NPCs or the dev actor, or at least give the actor realistic time to warp out. In this way, both sides have a reasonable shot at achieving their aims.

Thoughts?

[Alizabeth]

Perhaps invulnerability of dev actors could be conditional? For example, perhaps the dev actors are accompanied by Special Logistics NPCs. Mechanically, this would just be a regular NPC not doing much flying alongside the dev actor. For as long as X number of such NPCs are alive, the dev actor could legitimately use invulnerability mechanics under the pretense of their ship being reinforced in some manner by the Special Logistics squad. Those logi NPCs, however, are quite vulnerable and more or less helpless; they could be killed. Upon a certain number of them being killed, the dev actor in question could state in local something along the lines of "Shield reinforcement harmonics are destabilizing!" and then offline their fancy Dev Invulnerability modules, thus making them vulnerable to attack themselves.

What does this mean? This means random suicide gankers wouldn't be able to impact the storyline to a huge degree, but a concerted and tactical effort could. Of course, attacking the logistics NPCs would NOT cause a CONCORD response, so gankers could pick them off and then turn their guns to the tastier targets. This also means that players supporting the faction actors could try to logi the NPCs or the dev actor, or at least give the actor realistic time to warp out. In this way, both sides have a reasonable shot at achieving their aims.

Thoughts?

I can see the merit, but I would rather CCP focus on how players can affect the story--on both sides.  For every player that has the ability to gank, there should be an ability by a player that wants to protect to do so.  The less that is in the hands of NPCs the better. 

I've offered several suggestions here and on the Live Events thread about ways that the defense squad can defend.  If those are not feasible, then it should be examined why and then decided if new tools should be added.  The same rules that govern all forms of player interaction elsewhere in this game should apply to live events in space.

[Sakura Nihil]

Why can't escorting capsuleers show up in logistics ships and rep them up?  Are people just worried about the sheer amount of alpha floating around, or more concerned about the deeps?

[Ghost Hunter]

Why can't escorting capsuleers show up in logistics ships and rep them up?  Are people just worried about the sheer amount of alpha floating around, or more concerned about the deeps?

If someone is going to suicide gank, enough damage will be brought to instagib the target without any hope of repairs saving it. Logi are functionally useless for stopping suicide gankers because they do not transfer EHP, only DPS tanking. If a protracted battle was to be the occasion, Logi would be very useful.

[Streya]

No, pretty sure alpha pretty much foils any usefulness for logistics ships. It's not as if the defenders could apply TDs to the gankers without themselves getting CONCORD'd, and there is no helpful reverse-TP module you can use on your friends (or the dev actors) to screw up the gankers' tracking by way of lowering an ally's signature radius.

[Akrasjel Lanate]

Easiest EVAR!

Pay CONCORD so that the capsuleers will never get the transponders of anyone important.

Best solution if such similar event will ever occur again