Incentives for Group/Squad/Wing Play in Open Space

1

There are a few serious concerns in Open Space. The lowered loot value discourages players from venturing out, but many of the features of open space are meant to be done in groups. As there is no incentive for players to play together in Open Space, I suggest several solutions:

 

1. The value of all credit loot, as well as the % chance of rare trophies, is given a multiplier based on the number of players in your squad.

Originally I envisioned a linear multiplier, so for example you would have an 8x multiplier for credits and % chance of loot if you had 8 players in your open space wing. (and repeat for other player counts.)

However, I can see some potential issues with this, and instead simply suggest the concept rather than a specific number. This would dramatically change group incentives for Open Space, encouraging wings to be as large as possible - and players would be much more inclined to join wings. The current denial reasons are usually “the loot isn’t good enough” or “it’s not worthwhile to do so”, and similar. There must be an incentive to change this.

 

2. Daily missions, as well as blue missions, offer a credit and synergy reward for all players who are in the squad when the quest is complete.

Though obtaining Monocrystal as well would be nice, I do understand the reasoning behind preventing this. Therefore, a reward of synergy and credits (perhaps 40% of the actual quest’s reward) would be given to players for assisting someone in their squad who completed it. This is _especially _important for quests that are very difficult, if not impossible to complete alone, such as Transport Escort quests in Pallas Border and Vanguard Outpost. Giving players an incentive to help their friends complete these quests would help ease concerns about the frustrating quests that are available. It won’t lower the current difficulty - it will simply encourage people to play them as they were meant to be played.

 

I’ll be honest. When I said I was quitting, I meant it. A hefty effort on the Developer’s part convinced me that I should stay and help, but I specifically stated that I would only do so if I felt I could create positive change.

If I can’t get any positive change, I will leave as I said I would. Here is one attempt at said change.

 

Your support with this idea is appreciated and welcome, as is any constructive discussion on how to improve the idea!

 

2

 

1. The value of all credit loot, as well as the % chance of rare trophies, is given a multiplier based on the number of players in your squad.

 

 

 

Relating to this, I’d like to see a dynamic spawning system for enemies in open space -

 

I.e. the better you or your squad does against enemies in a sector, the more and stronger enemy reinforcements are spawned - and the quality of loot dropped increases.

 

 

Also the idea of pirates/biomorphs ‘leveling up’ as they destroy other ships in the sector (like the Goliaths in Borderlands 2).

 

Once the feral ship reached a certain level, a global chat alert could be broadcast (naming the enemy and sector) so that pilots could squad up to take the ‘boss ship’ down, the loot being of great value.

 

Maybe this too complex to implement at the moment, but I hope it makes sense.

3

Relating to this, I’d like to see a dynamic spawning system for enemies in open space -

 

I.e. the better you or your squad does against enemies in a sector, the more and stronger enemy reinforcements are spawned - and the quality of loot dropped increases.

 

 

Also the idea of pirates/biomorphs ‘leveling up’ as they destroy other ships in the sector (like the Goliaths in Borderlands 2).

 

Once the feral ship reached a certain level, a global chat alert could be broadcast (naming the enemy and sector) so that pilots could squad up to take the ‘boss ship’ down, the loot being of great value.

 

Maybe this too complex to implement at the moment, but I hope it makes sense.

This would be iffy since sector instances are independent of who is in them. I agree that it’s a cool concept but yes, it’s probably too complex to implement at the moment.

4

Diablo 3 uses an interesting feature where everyone gets his own loot (all loot displayed at player client is solely of him. He cant see nor pick loot from other players unless they deliberately drop from their inventary). It works pretty well there, but i find it very “unrealistic” to SC, wich makes me remember loot system at Lineage 2: loot is displayed exactly the same for all players, but it can only be picked by the player that dealt more dmg to the destroyed NPC (ship in this case), of course, this only lasts some seconds (about 15 seconds if i recall correctly): after those seconds are over, the loot protection is removed and anyone can pick the loot. Now, to make it work in SC–> for strong and challenging ships that would drop multiple items, each player that dealt a decent amount of dmg or assisted heals/buffs to damagers (some decent score here too) would have a part of the loot granted for them (highlighted, just like when your ship is destroyed and drop items) for some seconds to pick up.

Groups could have a common drop storage which is delivered to each pilot after docking or sending through mail drone (loot granted to specific players by: turn, random, another option). That common drop storage could also have a trade “item for item” between group pilots, to avoid dropping the item for the other to pick it up, and pick up the item the other player dropped (actual trade system in open space)…that in esence reminds me when fuel cells had to be dropped and re-picked to be used xD.

5

Diablo 3 uses an interesting feature where everyone gets his own loot (all loot displayed at player client is solely of him. He cant see nor pick loot from other players unless they deliberately drop from their inventary). It works pretty well there, but i find it very “unrealistic” to SC, wich makes me remember loot system at Lineage 2: loot is displayed exactly the same for all players, but it can only be picked by the player that dealt more dmg to the destroyed NPC (ship in this case), of course, this only lasts some seconds (about 15 seconds if i recall correctly): after those seconds are over, the loot protection is removed and anyone can pick the loot. Now, to make it work in SC–> for strong and challenging ships that would drop multiple items, each player that dealt a decent amount of dmg or assisted heals/buffs to damagers (some decent score here too) would have a part of the loot granted for them (highlighted, just like when your ship is destroyed and drop items) for some seconds to pick up.

Groups could have a common drop storage which is delivered to each pilot after docking or sending through mail drone (loot granted to specific players by: turn, random, another option). That common drop storage could also have a trade “item for item” between group pilots, to avoid dropping the item for the other to pick it up, and pick up the item the other player dropped (actual trade system in open space)…that in esence reminds me when fuel cells had to be dropped and re-picked to be used xD.

This seems overly complicated and would require a rather significant overhaul that isn’t really all too necessary.

It is   an interesting idea, though. Perhaps something to consider should the game reach a significantly higher population.

6

I really like everything about this idea.

 

It will promote more people in open space.  It will promote team work.  Also more squad based battles in open space which lead to amazing video content, and some of the best PVP experiences in Star Conflict.  I think 75-80 % of all people who play star conflict have played Eve online.  The reason I m bringing that up is corp play and team play was really important in EVE PVP.  Which is one of the best aspects of EVE.  Put that gameplay in StarConflict you would definitely have player retention.

 

The scary part is this is a very simple and elegant change that only promotes team play.  Team play leads to team v team battles.  Which leads to Awesome gameplay.

7

There is a main difference. Eve is a subscription based game, so economics doesn’t have a factor into the developers benefits. That is the reason it is so good, because it is a self regulated, fully capitalist market.

 

Here, economics are the main reason people pay for premium time, while others pay with their time for playing free.

 

What you propose would mean that a single pilot with premium account and specially with premium modules (like spatial scanner) will give its benefits to a whole wing, also multiplied by the number of people on the wing.

 

Not going to happen.

 

I think that with the current instanced feature we have in the open space maps, it is really difficult to introduce events which will be good enough for a 4 man squad or even an 8 pilot wing, without screwing up the current balance in the maps.

 

But I’m thinking about “special” instances, which only be activated if a wing joins the gate at the same time, so they trigger destructor or defiler like events, and give good rewards, like 16 containers, or a lot of high end alien or pirate ship spanws with more loot drop.

 

That would be great. But I also understand that coding something as particular in a game which already features high end “raid” content, will be difficult to get from the developers.

 

PS: Adam, while I agree that PvP is the best part of EvE, I hope SC pvp never look like that. In eve pvp is all about deception, information, and decisions. It has nothing to do with skill or ship builds. As my old FC usually said “If we are in a fair fight, I have made something really wrong”

8

+1 again

All of this would be great, but it’s a matter of getting the devs to put in the effort for a suggestion in the English forums.

Even if an English idea is amazing, it will take ages for them to even consider it.

9

PS: In eve pvp is all about deception, information, and decisions. It has nothing to do with skill or ship builds. As my old FC usually said “If we are in a fair fight, I have made something really wrong”

 

All pvp is about deception, information and decisions.  And in Star Conflict open space only we could use a hell of alot more of that.

 

Here is a for instance:  When I was in GOD we had a great tactical leader XofJSA.  We were in a 3 man squad in open space roam with a deadly combo, Tackler, ECM and gunship.  We came across a 4 man esb squad.  (Information) They only saw Tesla.  We went on our coms and called for backup while tesla kept an eye on them, their position and numbers.  We then got 2 more people to join our wing.  Tesla, I and X jumped into the system but stayed close to gate knowing esb wanted the fight.  (Deception) Tesla, X and I started the fight with the ESB squad and immediately after our additional 2 guys warped in.  It was a great fight as it was a russian server so they had the advantage but we had the numbers and a anti vet ship setup.  We focus fired each of them stun, tackle, dps watch them explode.   You said above that SC was about personal skill.  I agree but in open space you can nullify skill with tactics and preparation. It was also one of the funnest matches I ve had in SC.  We need more of this and this suggestion would heavily promote squads in open space.  Leading to much better battles.  Heck a freaking Kill Board like Battle Clinic for open space kills.  You think your a stats hore in Arcade pvp.  Try and keep those stats being solo in open space. 

 

 

I think that with the current instanced feature we have in the open space maps, it is really difficult to introduce events which will be good enough for a 4 man squad or even an 8 pilot wing, without screwing up the current balance in the maps.

 

 

I disagree, I believe that it would introduce events that would be good for a 4 man squad or an 8 pilot wing.  I don t fully understand the “balance in the maps”, maps are pre-defined spawns with pre-defined trajectory paths for Biomorphs or cybers and NPC’s.  Everything about open space PVP should be built off “If we are in a fair fight, I have made something really wrong”.  If your looking to kill people in open space why would you not take every advantage before the fight. This creates major coordination and teamwork.  Teamwork always promotes player retention. Not only that but it forces your opponents to counter your tactics, have their own death squad that required major teamwork.  If you want individual skill to be the key for success you will only find that in Arcade mode pvp.  As open space was designed for no balancing or rules of engagement. 

10

Adam, thats a nice story, but there is a difference between one encounter which worked once, when all was new, and the reason why it doesnt work now anymore. It makes a good story, but it isn’t really something you can repeat or make available just like that.

 

in eve, exploring the different sectors has many different reasons. from the tengu searching for wormholes and anomalies, to the miner searching for mining sites, to the trader coming through, to the mere scout, or a major hunting party. while all the players occupy the same instance, they do different things in it, and they can. if someone is farming pve, he is far away from others, and has to be found. if he is mining, he is at the asteroids. if he is trading, he will only travel between stations and jumpgates.

This is called incentive. The world of Eve basicly gives you opportunities, and in the search for opportunities, you cross others, who see you as an opportunity. The complexity is intended and constantly expanded, and balanced by the devs, but also creativly exploited by the players themselves. The sandbox is the main game design element, since its basicly ultima online in space, giving you basicly the option, which kind of character you play if you dock out, and therefore, which goals you can achieve, and how much risk you take.

It also breaks down to the dark side of eve, which we usually do not mention in such talks: the boredom, if you do not find anything you want to do, or find a bad time where your corp is offline. Because many times eve is simply doing nothing for a very long time, and all the stuff just happens out of players trying to play the sandbox and leave their mark in it.

 

In SC we have simply maps, we can jump between. You cannot really follow anyone. You are there to either complete contracts, or hunt players, or because you are bored or exploring. There is no different incentives playing into that. The complexity is very low. It is a read-only sandbox where you can basicly only go looting, and the only way to mark your territory is by doing SQ. You see the problem, there is no gameplay involved, which would make sense, and therefore even the monocrystals are somewhat more of a failed incentive to bring people out there.

Also mechanics of this game mode (collecting loot) are really obnoxious after a while, and people just leave loot where it is, except its a blueprint or sth.

 

In fact, my biggest problem is that these missions are open space only, while open space itself has no meaning atm. If they would have alternatives in PvP, open space would not feel so bitter.

It’s not a real sandbox. There are no real opportunities there, and it has no dedicated gameplay, either. 

 

I think Nuclears’ idea is good basicly, but not enough in the long run, still it would be a start.

In fact, incentives to squad up by rewards has been stated quite often in the past, and would not hurt. In fact the “group” GS boosters should have at least one Credit based one, so there is incentive to squad up no matter what you play.

It would be important to separate open space development from the arcade development, and take it as its own gameplay, while leaving it completely optional, until this is achieved. This means, all missions in open space should have the ability to be completed in the Arcade aswell.

 

This would give a good incentive for the devs to develop openspace further, if this is in the vision of their game. If however, openspace should simply stay this kind of add-on, which is also perfectly okay, any kind of “forced” use of that mode should be optional, or at least, get to the point, where you allow trading between fans of different game modes, with resources they can only acquire in one or the other.

11

I think Nuclears’ idea is good basicly, but not enough in the long run, still it would be a start.

In fact, incentives to squad up by rewards has been stated quite often in the past, and would not hurt. In fact the “group” GS boosters should have at least one Credit based one, so there is incentive to squad up no matter what you play.

It would be important to separate open space development from the arcade development, and take it as its own gameplay, while leaving it completely optional, until this is achieved. This means, all missions in open space should have the ability to be completed in the Arcade aswell.

 

This would give a good incentive for the devs to develop openspace further, if this is in the vision of their game. If however, openspace should simply stay this kind of add-on, which is also perfectly okay, any kind of “forced” use of that mode should be optional, or at least, get to the point, where you allow trading between fans of different game modes, with resources they can only acquire in one or the other.

One step at a time.

 

 

All of this would be great, but it’s a matter of getting the devs to put in the effort for a suggestion in the English forums.

Even if an English idea is amazing, it will take ages for them to even consider it.

I will bring it up with them, but I am waiting for some discussion on this topic first. Not much point pushing for a topic that nobody else wants.

12

There is a main difference. Eve is a subscription based game, so economics doesn’t have a factor into the developers benefits. That is the reason it is so good, because it is a self regulated, fully capitalist market.

 

Here, economics are the main reason people pay for premium time, while others pay with their time for playing free.

 

You haven’t played Eve, have you? In Eve you can also pay with your time and play free. There’s an in-game item that’s called a PLEX (short for Pilot License Extension) that adds subscription time to your account. A lot of people who don’t want to pay a subscription just grind more and buy PLEX.

13

You haven’t played Eve, have you? In Eve you can also pay with your time and play free. There’s an in-game item that’s called a PLEX (short for Pilot License Extension) that adds subscription time to your account. A lot of people who don’t want to pay a subscription just grind more and buy PLEX.

First, I played Eve, quite a lot in fact.

 

Second, the Plex is not the same. You are not playing for free. You are buying with ISKs other player real money. CCP get the same money from 2 players if both of them subscribe, or if one of them pay for ISK with plex and the other grind double to get more Plex.

 

The final money per month that CCP gets is the same.

 

Here is not really that way. If you play for free, Targem doesn’t get a cent. They just get another warm body to fill up the MM and the PvE missions while you grind. But even if those benefits are good for the game, and help the overall health of the game, the economical benefit is just nil.

 

Plexes are not something you buy from the market, but something other players have to introduce into the market, hence for every plex out there, something had to pay 20 € in advance, hence CCP already got a subscription fee.

 

That is the reason it is different.

14

Here is not really that way. If you play for free, Targem doesn’t get a cent. They just get another warm body to fill up the MM and the PvE missions while you grind. But even if those benefits are good for the game, and help the overall health of the game, the economical benefit is just nil.

While this is technically a way to view things, it’s an extremely destructive business model and horrendous management practice. With a Free to Play game, the truth is some players will  never  pay for it. Rather, you can ‘monetize’ those players by using them to create a game in which other players decide it’s worth their while to spend their money.

 

This is not ‘lost revenue’ - it’s an investment. You bank on some amount of your game population to pay, but you can never ensure 100% of your consumerbase will pay. A big reason why many people play F2P games is because they are, in fact, Free to Play, and that paying is optional. You have to take this into account when you manage the studio’s finances.

15

While this is technically a way to view things, it’s an extremely destructive business model and horrendous management practice. With a Free to Play game, the truth is some players will  never  pay for it. Rather, you can ‘monetize’ those players by using them to create a game in which other players decide it’s worth their while to spend their money.

 

This is not ‘lost revenue’ - it’s an investment. You bank on some amount of your game population to pay, but you can never ensure 100% of your consumerbase will pay. A big reason why many people play F2P games is because they are, in fact, Free to Play, and that paying is optional. You have to take this into account when you manage the studio’s finances.

And that is the main reason what you propose is never going to work, because every economical advantage and faster progression mechanics here is behind a paywall. You play for free? good, here you have your grind, provide me with a warm body to fill up the game ranks, while you enjoy my game for free.

 

You pay? good, enjoy your speed up progression.

 

Good thing about F2P games is that if you want to play for free, you can do it, and it is really fun. Also, you can choose when to join and when you want to leave. I pay for premium in World of Tanks from time to time. Maybe I want to grind one T10 tank, or maybe I want to hoard some credits to play T10 non stop without worrying about losing money. I pay for 1 month of premium, I do my stuff, and then I keep playing for free the next 2 or 3 months.

 

Same with LoL, Smite, HotS etc…

 

But imagine you could squad with a guy paying for a license, and then all the squad receive the license bonuses. Well, then almost nobody would pay for license. They will be asking in chat every day for the few players with license to squad with them.

 

In fact, we have already a booster which gives a bonus to all the people in the team. Does anybody use it? I don’t think so.

16

+1 again

All of this would be great, but it’s a matter of getting the devs to put in the effort for a suggestion in the English forums.

Even if an English idea is amazing, it will take ages for them to even consider it.

Hey. Why are you telling this? Not long ago we discussed one of your suggestions (about repair drones) and there were others.

 

About KT’s suggestion. I like the idea. Some of the details are impossible to implement, but the general concept is fine by me. Considering it.

17

 

Here is not really that way. If you play for free, Targem doesn’t get a cent.

 

True, however a free player adds to population, and only uses a couple of cent of bandwith in the process, along with assets which are already created, they are in fact cheap if you do it right. And nothing is more important than population. You can’t just keep seeing a free player as a non-customer. He is a potential customer, and he might be responsible for additional customers.

In fact, if you do not give 110%, and stay around in fear and conservative decisions around your game, trying to stay in a low risk monetization setting, it is much more likely you fail over time, no matter which kind of marketing you use. Games cannot succeed as purely precalculated commercial products, they have to be innovative and artistic to stand the test of time, besides fun and challenging of course, and evolve into the classic they want to be.

No game in the history of successful games is an exception to this, even if the success was a predecessor, and its only a cash-grab-re-iteration. Not even Eve, which was a niche game for a long time :slight_smile:

 

This has to do with the fact, that even if we have different interests in games, like the traditional explorer/achiever/killer/socializer categorization, most players stick to a game because of the socializing part, as this isn’t just the major type of player in any population, it is also basicly almost never absent in anybody using the internet :stuck_out_tongue:

 

Grindwalls should exist to prevent players from unlocking content too fast for their own good, as an actual security measure, they actually never ever work to increase income, because unlocking with money usually leads to lower retention, except its only to “keep up” with an older population, or personalization/individualization, again something we only do because we are socializers and want to let our inner artist out.

You will just not be interested in content, you did not “play for”, even if there are limits to this aswell, since only “achievers” will go the extra miles to unlock every single bit, while many players rather will enjoy the actual gameplay.

18

Hey. Why are you telling this? Not long ago we discussed one of your suggestions (about repair drones) and there were others.

 

About KT’s suggestion. I like the idea. Some of the details are impossible to implement, but the general concept is fine by me. Considering it.

Good to hear. Really the concept is more important than the specifics of the execution, so I look forward to seeing what can be done. I’m always around or close by if you need some input. :slight_smile:

 

And that is the main reason what you propose is never going to work, because every economical advantage and faster progression mechanics here is behind a paywall. You play for free? good, here you have your grind, provide me with a warm body to fill up the game ranks, while you enjoy my game for free.

 

You pay? good, enjoy your speed up progression.

 

Good thing about F2P games is that if you want to play for free, you can do it, and it is really fun. Also, you can choose when to join and when you want to leave. I pay for premium in World of Tanks from time to time. Maybe I want to grind one T10 tank, or maybe I want to hoard some credits to play T10 non stop without worrying about losing money. I pay for 1 month of premium, I do my stuff, and then I keep playing for free the next 2 or 3 months.

 

Same with LoL, Smite, HotS etc…

 

But imagine you could squad with a guy paying for a license, and then all the squad receive the license bonuses. Well, then almost nobody would pay for license. They will be asking in chat every day for the few players with license to squad with them.

 

In fact, we have already a booster which gives a bonus to all the people in the team. Does anybody use it? I don’t think so.

Games with nonexistent playerbases can’t exactly monetize their populace. Smaller games have a harder time with this as well. However, if Star Conflict’s playerbase is full of players playing for free, that increases the likelihood that someone decides to make a purchase - especially considering what people in this game are paying for.

 

The entire business practice of F2P is relatively recent, so many studios are trying to find a way that both pays the bills and doesn’t piss off their players. No solution will be permanent right out of the gate, and SC’s pay model really isn’t so bad. In most cases, premium ships only offer reduced grind rather than being significantly or even strictly better than their free counterparts (the only real exceptions being in T5) and having a license is another method of reduced grind.

 

The GS boosters are not a good example of purchasing, as their prices are abnormally high for marginal results. If they were at a fraction of their price (~50GS for 3 battles use) they might be seen more often. But most players want to spend their GS, freely earned or not, on Licenses and Ships, both of which offer far better returns on their investment. So it’s understandable that they see little to no current use.