I completely agree with you that PVE players deserve meaningful game loops and the entire crux of my suggestion is that by doing this we will have a better game for both PVP and PVE players. thanks.
Open Play and Crime and Punishment; a Proposed Holistic Approach
- Thread starter CMDR Kai Zen
- Start date
- Status
These ideas would completely change the feel of open, the actual danger on anarchy, the safety of High Sec where all but the most fanatical killers go to converse and collaborate. It would give those of us who want PVP, off and on, or even all of the time a reason to fight. A reason to chase others across the vast expanses of space, or gain a reputation and let the fight come to us!!! This system would also allow people to manage their own risk in a much more meaningful, and in universe way.
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
So Elite doesn't have non consensual PvP anyway.
This system would heavily punish "ganking"... Why do you say it would increase it? Also, what do you care about this proposal for open if you only play in Solo?
Last edited:
I've never liked the presumption that CMDRs are being killed. CMDRs cannot die and the game doesn't even pretend they can, except for the assignment of obviously fallacious 'murder' bounties. I also don't like systems that mandate local authorities treat the actual murder of their civilians and security forces less seriously than the destruction of property of interloper CMDRs.
None of these proposals treat security states well. The current system fails to adequate distinguish one security level from another, but the changes proposed here are irrational and completely implausible. The assumption that an anarchy is dangerous because of a lack of security is as much a farce as the idea that a place with high security is that way because crime never happens. In most believable situations security is either a reactionary response to crime, or a precaution against it because of a clear threat. An area with no security doesn't imply danger nor should security forces on every corner make people feel particularly safe...in most real locales crime rates and police presence have a very strong correlation, for good reason...the police are there because the crime is (and often vice versa, because police often make things worse or degenerate into criminality themselves).
Ultimately, I see a lot of complexity, a fair bit of redundancy, for little meaningful reduction in ganking and a significant reduction in the already sketchy verisimilitude of the setting.
It also takes five ATR vessels a lot longer than ten seconds to shoot down a combat fit medium ship that didn't neglect hull.
There are some very fundamental gameplay mechanisms that this proposal doesn't even touch on that would need to change for security forces to be able to protect anyone.
None of these proposals treat security states well. The current system fails to adequate distinguish one security level from another, but the changes proposed here are irrational and completely implausible. The assumption that an anarchy is dangerous because of a lack of security is as much a farce as the idea that a place with high security is that way because crime never happens. In most believable situations security is either a reactionary response to crime, or a precaution against it because of a clear threat. An area with no security doesn't imply danger nor should security forces on every corner make people feel particularly safe...in most real locales crime rates and police presence have a very strong correlation, for good reason...the police are there because the crime is (and often vice versa, because police often make things worse or degenerate into criminality themselves).
Ultimately, I see a lot of complexity, a fair bit of redundancy, for little meaningful reduction in ganking and a significant reduction in the already sketchy verisimilitude of the setting.
It also takes five ATR vessels a lot longer than ten seconds to shoot down a combat fit medium ship that didn't neglect hull.
There are some very fundamental gameplay mechanisms that this proposal doesn't even touch on that would need to change for security forces to be able to protect anyone.
There are flaws here, but it's miles above and beyond what we currently have. And some flaws are fundamentally unfixable due to the core nature of the game, so a proposed fix shouldn't be rejected just because it doesn't fix EVERYTHING (block list, overpowered engineering in PvP, etc etc).
BGS and Powerplay stuff - Agreed 100%. If you want to have an effect on other people, play the multiplayer mode. If you want to be singleplayer, then play singleplayer. The only people this would negatively impact would be the people who want to oppose other players while opting out of being opposed themselves.
Promoting PvP stuff - ehh, I'll let the actual PvPers weigh in on that, but definitely better than what we have (nothing). The scoreboard would probably go the way of Squadron leaderboards and just be a competition in who can game the system the most, but uncapping bounties and better tools for tracking potential targets are only a good thing.
Piracy kills dropping cargo - kinda invalidates the normal piracy gameplay, but that's not the fault of the proposal. Short of getting actual tools for piracy (ways to stop a target, commodity pricing that makes it worth stealing, etc) it'll do for making piracy vaguely profitable. I'm not holding my breath on the actual fixes coming.
I don't especially like the idea of ATR being basically everywhere. Time to kill on a properly outfitted ship would be well in excess of even low-sec systems. The core problem is that the game doesn't do a good job of teaching what is a "good" level of defenses. You go from pathetic NPCs 99% of the time to a wing of engineered murderlances in a split second. Makes sense for high-sec at the least though. Definitely not low-sec.
Adding the value of the ship to a bounty, and then doubling it every subsequent kill - Y I K E S. That's insane. We're fine with the current scaling based on rebuy and notoriety, which discourages a lot of rapid kills. There are "legitimate" reasons to kill clean commanders as well - not everyone opposed to you, in BGS, Powerplay, or whatever, is going to have a bounty. I don't want to have to scrap a ship because I killed a few hostiles.
strong 7/10, with the current mechanics being a 2/10
BGS and Powerplay stuff - Agreed 100%. If you want to have an effect on other people, play the multiplayer mode. If you want to be singleplayer, then play singleplayer. The only people this would negatively impact would be the people who want to oppose other players while opting out of being opposed themselves.
Promoting PvP stuff - ehh, I'll let the actual PvPers weigh in on that, but definitely better than what we have (nothing). The scoreboard would probably go the way of Squadron leaderboards and just be a competition in who can game the system the most, but uncapping bounties and better tools for tracking potential targets are only a good thing.
Piracy kills dropping cargo - kinda invalidates the normal piracy gameplay, but that's not the fault of the proposal. Short of getting actual tools for piracy (ways to stop a target, commodity pricing that makes it worth stealing, etc) it'll do for making piracy vaguely profitable. I'm not holding my breath on the actual fixes coming.
I don't especially like the idea of ATR being basically everywhere. Time to kill on a properly outfitted ship would be well in excess of even low-sec systems. The core problem is that the game doesn't do a good job of teaching what is a "good" level of defenses. You go from pathetic NPCs 99% of the time to a wing of engineered murderlances in a split second. Makes sense for high-sec at the least though. Definitely not low-sec.
Adding the value of the ship to a bounty, and then doubling it every subsequent kill - Y I K E S. That's insane. We're fine with the current scaling based on rebuy and notoriety, which discourages a lot of rapid kills. There are "legitimate" reasons to kill clean commanders as well - not everyone opposed to you, in BGS, Powerplay, or whatever, is going to have a bounty. I don't want to have to scrap a ship because I killed a few hostiles.
strong 7/10, with the current mechanics being a 2/10
Doesn’t work as long as the game’s multiplayer is still peer 2 peer. I can block any and all connection requests to and from other players, still play in Open, and have exactly 0 threats coming my way.
Effectively the same thing.
See above. The game’s entire infrastructure design is 180° opposed to any mode restrictions / bonuses / whatever.
Don’t get me wrong. I like the idea of a lot of the things you outline. It just can’t work. At this point there are literally 3 options for frontier:
1. status quo
2. officially making murder hoboing a bannable offense, enforcing that and dealing with the backlash (haha, as if)
3. entirely rework how the multiplayer infrastructure works (see above)
Or I guess they can also just get rid of the consequences of dying and make being ganked a minor inconvenience even for new/unprepared players. But that would be kinda boring. A world in which you don’t lose cargo/missions/data on death … ugh.
Good stuff on the whole. For me I think the thing I like the most is the stuff around system states which should always have been like this. Hell, even in the 1984 Elite you were scared to jump into an Anarchy system. In Elite: Dangerous it's meaningless, I literally never give it a moment's thought (and we even have a pre-jump HUD warning when jumping to Anarchy systems which tells us how to cancel the jump - a complete waste of time at the moment imho).
The two things I'm slightly uneasy about:
1) The idea of bonuses for all activities in Open. I totally get the idea of Open only (or incentivised) Powerplay but I feel like the "all modes are equal" tenet of the game is so central to the ED mmo design philosophy that people might begrudge that one and I can't really see Frontier going for it either. Perhaps I'm wrong.
2) The idea of the KWS being fitted to all ships. I don't really like that. I think a central part of ED ship design is that we have to make compromises and trade-offs when outfitting. Do I fit a KWS or do I fit a passenger cabin? Each profession has its selection of modules and, for bounty hunting, the KWS is pretty much the main one. If everyone has a KWS then a miner can also be a bounty hunter and I think that undermines the whole design around outfitting trade-offs.
Like I say, good stuff tho and I'm going to follow this discussion with great interest,
The two things I'm slightly uneasy about:
1) The idea of bonuses for all activities in Open. I totally get the idea of Open only (or incentivised) Powerplay but I feel like the "all modes are equal" tenet of the game is so central to the ED mmo design philosophy that people might begrudge that one and I can't really see Frontier going for it either. Perhaps I'm wrong.
2) The idea of the KWS being fitted to all ships. I don't really like that. I think a central part of ED ship design is that we have to make compromises and trade-offs when outfitting. Do I fit a KWS or do I fit a passenger cabin? Each profession has its selection of modules and, for bounty hunting, the KWS is pretty much the main one. If everyone has a KWS then a miner can also be a bounty hunter and I think that undermines the whole design around outfitting trade-offs.
Like I say, good stuff tho and I'm going to follow this discussion with great interest,
One major reason I like these ideas is that they are clearly drafted with an emphasis on in-game mechanics reducing the workload for FD to implement.
Thanks Alec, I appreciate the thoughtful feedback and completely understand that not everyone will agree with my ideas in total. Hopefully, my proposal can be a starting point from which to build upon.
![CMDR Mayonnaisee [NEWP]](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/259/259000.jpg?1606846014){kind=avatar}
Not sure is bankrupting a player is the right way to go here if they are a murderhobo or not. Make it harder for sure but it seems a touch extreme.
I like the idea of them being lucrative but I can also see it being changed due to the BGS system of flipping the controlling faction. While some systems may be the most lucrative with rings and hotspot overlaps etc I can see groups actively targeting these systems to flip them out of anarchy so they can enjoy their bonuses and still be free from piracy. How to control the bonuses from that system seem to be quite difficult with system states changing.
100% bonuses to open play BGS and Powerplay.
And here is why BGS and Powerplay may not work in open. The block list needs to change to comms block, not instancing block.
All in all most of this looks good, some of the technical bits may need some tweaks but I like it! Whether it happens or not (please let something happen) I'm glad for the dialogue.
I dont play in solo, i only play in a group, and i care as the goal of this is to only have Open as a play mode
Where does Kai say that this proposal would eliminate Solo and Private in favor of Open?
You really think Fdev will do this? (haha)
This will teach me for having 2 topics going on the same time, but if more ppl come to open if the punishment for ganking fit the crime, then sure go for it, i wont attend no matter how attractive open is
First of all my individual points below are mostly just nitpicks. Your entire proposal hinges on a massive redesign of the base game, and ignores many of the technical issues with open play that would have to be solved first. I kinda of see your entire post as a stalking horse for controversial ideas which may make sense in your redesigned game, but which do not fit into the game that we all currently play. In my opinion a much more realistic approach has a better chance of being productive. Don't get me wrong, I like aspects of your imagined game, but that's all they are, imagination.
A player already has to pay their entire bounty when they die. Giving the total amount to the one who killed them results in no net loss of credits. This leaves an obvious end run around your proposed bounty system. It may not be a money transfer method, but taking turns killing your friends does completely negate the punishment factor.
This statement shows an obvious ignorance of the scope and complexity of BGS mechanics. The stated intent of the BGS is that every action a player makes has an effect on a shared universe. There is so much more involved than just missions.
This statement further cements your ignorance of BGS mechanics. PvE crime has a significant effect on INF distribution. As it is now the existing system would not be able to prevent rampant use of this mechanic.
Your point is neither obvious nor valid when it comes to BGS. I encourage you to go back and listen to old live streams. Frontier staff have made statements that directly contradict your assumptions. The "intent" of the BGS mechanics are clearly a primarily PvE activity. I don't disagree that giving PvP players a meaningful game loop is a laudable goal. However shoehorning BGS into this role does not make sense to me. Powerplay however has PvP mechanisms built into its design, expanding on those may be a better fit for your goal.
A player already has to pay their entire bounty when they die. Giving the total amount to the one who killed them results in no net loss of credits. This leaves an obvious end run around your proposed bounty system. It may not be a money transfer method, but taking turns killing your friends does completely negate the punishment factor.
This statement shows an obvious ignorance of the scope and complexity of BGS mechanics. The stated intent of the BGS is that every action a player makes has an effect on a shared universe. There is so much more involved than just missions.
This statement further cements your ignorance of BGS mechanics. PvE crime has a significant effect on INF distribution. As it is now the existing system would not be able to prevent rampant use of this mechanic.
Your point is neither obvious nor valid when it comes to BGS. I encourage you to go back and listen to old live streams. Frontier staff have made statements that directly contradict your assumptions. The "intent" of the BGS mechanics are clearly a primarily PvE activity. I don't disagree that giving PvP players a meaningful game loop is a laudable goal. However shoehorning BGS into this role does not make sense to me. Powerplay however has PvP mechanisms built into its design, expanding on those may be a better fit for your goal.
Last edited:
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
The entire PvP section is new mechanics.
What I'd like to see is the C&P changes that were started to be implemented by FD, finished. The thing we had the Focused Feedback Forum on. It's already been started, it just needs to be finished.
The problem is that this can never be achieved by player actions. Gankers will play the system to ruin other players game. They do not want a challenge, they are not interested in anything else than ruining other players game.
They can't do it when we play in groups they are not allowed in, so they use the forums instead.
- Status