And if the blue epaulettes immediately instanced with said ganker (assuming maxed noteriety) and disabled his fsd instead of his shields and ended him. They wouldn't would they? Hehe.
The Open v Solo v Groups thread
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
I miss my ramming Orca.
No one engaged in a BGS war and with some brain cells would do what I've read in this sub i.e. like searching all locations here and there or camping hours in a system waiting for a contact etc. [i.e. a "blockade"]... I mean there's no general case, as depending on the various situations/states certain actions and countermeasures might be taken. Intelligence is also a key factor...in particular when numbers or TZs do not cope.
Exactly. And yet, this is what many of the "Oh, won't you think of the BGS" proponents claim... that the only way to "defend" their faction is to kill anyone messing with their faction.
If you can identify the other party, true. But the old 1-9-90 rule applies: 1% of the playerbase actively participates in forums, 3rd party sites, and other out of game communcation channels. 9% lurk, and the rest only play the game. Now, those with PvP inclinations tend to be in that 10% of "hard core" players, and those who engage in BGS manipulation tend to be the same, so there's considerable overlap.
This strategy also assumes that the opposition cares about rebuys, as opposed to results. Personally, I view a tactical rebuy as similar to a donation: as long as I break even at the end of the session, it's all good. Given that this has been my philosophy since ED 1.0, when credits where much harder to get, you can probably guess how little I have to worry about operating at a loss these days.
Ultimately, a "BGS war" is all about filling your buckets faster than the opposition. What many of the "Oh, won't you think of the BGS?" proponents don't seem to understand is this: as long as the opposition keeps things nice and legal, killing them may slow them down on filling their buckets, but it also empties yours, and rather quickly at that.
That's a trade that I, for one, am willing to make. I've found that "incoming" missions are much less efficient, time wise, than outgoing ones. So at worst, I'm trading failing one incoming mission for a much more effective hit to oppositions's influence and security status. Furthermore, what little influence gain that one mission would give would be diluted among all the factions in a system, not just the faction I'm targeting. By playing in Open, I gain access to the opposition's buckets as well as my own... but only if I get murdered by them. It's typically a "heads I win, tails you lose worse!" scenario to me.
But even though simply cooperating with my own murder by the opposition is the better strategy, I still try to avoid the rebuy. Succeeding in safely arriving to my destination in the face of player opposition is much more fun than maximizing my efficiency. And I would hope it would be a lot more fun for the opposition as well. I will always respect the desire to have fun over maximizing efficiency.
In most cases it just does not work like that. Dedicated gank boat, especially multiple of them make short work of most victims. Then add travel time for friends, and it basically means you need to be in same system and preferably in near position of your friend to render any assistance. On other hand if victim ship is sturdy enough to last for some time, it means it has plenty of durability to actually escape from situation. Again rendering co-op escort moot.
I know. We agree here. I'm simply trying to point out the historical significance as to why it is so. In Elite it sometimes feels like this is some new and foreign concept for players in online gaming and we're the pioneers in dealing with gankers and griefers. Ultima Online figured it out for us 27 years ago. This is pretty important history that is often referenced in game design school when covering topics of player behavior.
So yeah, weekly ARX is capped. You're right in that your argument would make perfect sense if there was no cap. Farming is a moot point because those players would reach their cap anyway by the end of the week by playing the game however they were playing it beforehand.
As I originally said, if the formula was 1 kill for 1 ARX and ignored the weekly cap than obviously there would have to be limits imposed such as being unable to claim rewards from repeat kills for x minutes. I'd love to take credit but this isn't some brand new idea I just came up with, many games have had similar systems with similar restrictions to account for potential abuse.
I am painfully aware that is the current state of affairs. I'm just expressing my desires as a player.
It would be awesome if the wing beacon/nav lock functionality could be expanded on to make response more viable. Even a small 5-10 ly buff to your jump range if targeting a wing beacon would be something at least, but that would surely open up doors to using such a feature for other purpose besides coming to help your friend under attack.
Or maybe some kind of distress beacon pinging nearby players that you're getting unlawfully pew pew'd? I'm sure that's probably been suggested before.
"In Elite it sometimes feels like this is some new and foreign concept for players"
That would be me. Never played a MMO before and never gamed online either. Elite was a first for me and I have less than 5 years experience. I come from a background of solo or face to face board games and solo computer games. If Elite was an open only lootable MMO I am unlikely to have bought it. Especially with no save game function.
Steve
That would be me. Never played a MMO before and never gamed online either. Elite was a first for me and I have less than 5 years experience. I come from a background of solo or face to face board games and solo computer games. If Elite was an open only lootable MMO I am unlikely to have bought it. Especially with no save game function.
Steve
Well it takes some time to activate jump, run it succesfully, then it takes time to actually supercruise to location, unless it is very near the star....Typical attacks are at that point resolved in one way or other.
So somehow PvP combat should be rewardable and even more than other activities in game? Why?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Every game has brand new players or players new to the genre. While obviously any experience on the matter helps the player, the onus isn't on the player to know gaming history, it is on the developers. I admit I should have phrased that better. What I'm saying is the solutions to this problem were figured out decades ago and the devs chose to launch their game without incorporating all of them, resulting in history kinda repeating itself.
If a game allows players to kill each other, they will. The developers knew this, yet here we are almost 10 years after release and people are still complaining about it. On the one hand this tells me the devs are saying, "shut up and deal with it" yet on the other hand it's such a hot topic discussed often enough that obviously they show concern about it.
There is no consensual pvp system that facilitates players shooting each other. Power Play appears to be that system from the eyes of a pvper looking at the game, however it appears the general consensus is that it is not or people don't want it to be a pvp system.
There should be safe zones. There should be unique content or incentive to play in open, and there should be a consensual pvp system.
Safe zones for the pvers that wish to avoid hostile players. Incentive in open for risking the hostile players. Pvp system for the honest pvp players.
This game has 1 out of 3.
Because the goal with this suggestion is to promote pvp. More players engaging in a pvp system with rewards means there's less players out there ganking with no reward. This is another important point of pvp systems to note, because not all of the players currently ganking folks would be doing so if there was a system to give them targets to shoot. Some of them would still do it sure, but there is a non zero sum of players who "play as a pirate" because there's really no other option if you want to fight players instead of npcs. Squadrons can't even flag hostile and fight each other, which honestly if they added that it'd probably be enough to satisfy players given the age and state of the game.
The 1 to 1 method would be if you really wanted to go above and beyond to incentivize engagement in a pvp system. The first choice is the realistic option in which you may only reach your weekly ARX cap slightly faster pvping than a pver otherwise would. Or make it the same gain rate as npc combat, the numbers don't matter as much as the actual act of rewarding the player.
Every other system in the game rewards the player, why should a pvp system be any different? Replace the ARX with any other carrot and it'll still work. ARX is a pretty good carrot to chase though.
How does your system NOT promote and incentivise ganking? How does it differentiate it from other PVP activities?
Besides doing stuff that earn you credits all ready pays out ARX. For PVP'ers something like piracy, CZ actions, bounty hunting.
But lets face it going against another engineered to hilt combat ship with even reasonably able pilot is...well long slugging fest and does not lead to destruction of an opponent unless said opponent chooses to stay in fight. So any kills against such opponent are consented ones.
I think you may be assuming that a player could earn rewards by the current status quo of ganking as we know it in game today. In a pvp system this would apply to, the players in question would be "ganking" each other, not you or anyone else not signed up to participate in said system.
Lemme paint a picture and give an example of a simple system.
There's two teams at war. Players may choose either team. Players are flagged hostile to the enemy team everywhere. Players can earn points for blowing each other up. Players then spend points on rewards. (modules, cosmetics, materials, whatever's clever)
That's it, that's the basic formula. You can surely make it more interesting by adding more to it like the whole claim/lose territory bit, spawning motherships to destroy/defend, etc but that is the gist of it.
So if an ingame loop for pvp is created. Involving fetch carry deliver interdict push forward retreat advance etc which in turn is only affected by those who are involved whats the problem?
If pvers happen to goto the said gameloop hoping pvpers will just ignore them and carry on at one another whilst pvers potter about having their tuppence worth surely being ganked is inevitable?
Pvpers ain't asking to get in the mix with pvers their asking for their own ingame event/loop. So pvers should in all conscience avoid like the plague.
Why should pvpers have to organise their content whilst pvers get shedloads on tap?
You wanna give pvpers something to focus on. Something meaningful.
Less ganking more partaking in something made specifically for them
You won't catch me in raid gear going into the arena!
If pvers happen to goto the said gameloop hoping pvpers will just ignore them and carry on at one another whilst pvers potter about having their tuppence worth surely being ganked is inevitable?
Pvpers ain't asking to get in the mix with pvers their asking for their own ingame event/loop. So pvers should in all conscience avoid like the plague.
Why should pvpers have to organise their content whilst pvers get shedloads on tap?
You wanna give pvpers something to focus on. Something meaningful.
Less ganking more partaking in something made specifically for them
You won't catch me in raid gear going into the arena!
Last edited:
"There should be safe zones." Solo and PG. Such modes would not always be needed if there was a toggle to indicate consent to PvP.
" There should be unique content or incentive to play in open" Why should one activity be rewarded more than another? Should Explorers deep in the black gain additional rewards?
"and there should be a consensual pvp system." I think lots of players would like PvP to be consensual in open (I could live with that), the problem is, is than some of those that engage in PvP believe that everyone has to engage in PvP (by stripping away the solo/PG modes) or rewarding those that operate in open or engage in PvP, or removing any (BGS) effects generated by playing in solo.
Steve
" There should be unique content or incentive to play in open" Why should one activity be rewarded more than another? Should Explorers deep in the black gain additional rewards?
"and there should be a consensual pvp system." I think lots of players would like PvP to be consensual in open (I could live with that), the problem is, is than some of those that engage in PvP believe that everyone has to engage in PvP (by stripping away the solo/PG modes) or rewarding those that operate in open or engage in PvP, or removing any (BGS) effects generated by playing in solo.
Steve
Wont help with gankers, in my experience they don't want a fair fight, they are not interested in real PvP.
O7
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which would be guaranteed to be used by those seeking to ambush any responders or responded to by those who would attack the CMDR who used it.
So basically you are paying extra reward for fighting in CZ? As long as opponents are not NPC's. Or somewhat like that.
Because of the "bravery" of "risking" Open...
Yes that would include sitting on your carrier at the edge of galaxy...
Since this has been brought up, allow me to give my own take on the Trammel/Feluca split.
For context, I operated a small Tailor/Armorer shop just outside the guard zone of Minoc on the Great Lakes shard (IIRC). I obtained that tiny shop thanks to being an early adopter, and still suffer from tendinitis thanks to refusing to cheat via UO assist and automation. I kept that shop open and stocked through the worst of the PK deprivations.
Following the split, I lucked out during the initial land rush and snagged a similar location on Trammel. The two locations couldn’t be more different. I could charge five times as much on Trammal that I did on Feluca, and still expect to sell out my inventory daily. Feluca did decent enough business, but I saw no point in raising my prices there. The demand simply wasn’t there.
It was fairly easy to stay in stock, though, because I could do all my hunting and mining in Feluca, and expect to be left in peace. Trammel, though? Malicious duel requests were far too frequent for my liking. Those of us who remained in Feluca didn’t need to be bribed to go there. We would’ve gone there regardless, for a host of reasons. My preferred online experience is a mixed PvP/PvE environment, but if I had to choose, I’d rather choose PvE. PvP demands far more time preparing for PvP than I consider fun. But what I find the least fun? “Unsportsmanlike” behavior.
And that’s the rub: there is a cohort of players who are simply not to play with. Let’s call them the GIFTed, after Penny Arcade’s GIFT comic (look it up.). The GIFTed tend to gravitate towards “PvP,” but that’s less about enjoying PvP and more enjoying messing with others, and PvP is much harder to ignore than other methods. The GIFTed’s preferred victims were PvE players, who lacked the time and/or temperament for PvP, and are thus easy to kill.
Those who think players needed to be bribed or forced into Open are missing the point: those who are naturally inclined to be there are there already, and make up a “significant majority” according to Frontier. The minority who remain in Solo/PG are likely to either remain there regardless of the bribe, or more likely quit playing the game entirely.
It’s been know since the late 80’s that there’s an inverse squared relationship between the health of a game/server/mode, and the amount of GIFT-like behavior. A small increase in volume of GIFT-like behavior results in a much larger decrease in the overall player population.
So if GIFT-like behavior is the problem, what’s the solution? I’ve seen a lot of solutions tried over the last 30 years, and they haven’t had much success. The absolute worst IMO is the PvP switch. An ill-timed malignant duel request can wreck your ingame experience just as much as direct player-killing. Draconian Crime & Punishment systems catch the innocent far more often than the guilty. “Hard Core” servers rarely attract enough players to be worthwhile.
The best solution I’ve encountered to date? ED’s tri-mode system. With these most vulnerable to GIFT-like behavior squirreled away in their own private instances, Open is left to those who can safely deal with the GIFTed. This has created an environment that I find is simply fun to play in: just enough player danger to keep the senses sharp without becoming frustrating, and for the most part, any opposition doesn’t act like the south end of a northern-facing hull.
Sure, there will always be GIFTed players, but those are a rare exception. Separate the GIFTed from their preferred “audience,” and such behavior reduces drastically. Try to bribe players into Open? You’re get far more combat loggers, firewall spoofers, and a slew of other GIFT-like behavior than players who actually are fun to play with.
And that is the last thing anyone should ever want.
For context, I operated a small Tailor/Armorer shop just outside the guard zone of Minoc on the Great Lakes shard (IIRC). I obtained that tiny shop thanks to being an early adopter, and still suffer from tendinitis thanks to refusing to cheat via UO assist and automation. I kept that shop open and stocked through the worst of the PK deprivations.
Following the split, I lucked out during the initial land rush and snagged a similar location on Trammel. The two locations couldn’t be more different. I could charge five times as much on Trammal that I did on Feluca, and still expect to sell out my inventory daily. Feluca did decent enough business, but I saw no point in raising my prices there. The demand simply wasn’t there.
It was fairly easy to stay in stock, though, because I could do all my hunting and mining in Feluca, and expect to be left in peace. Trammel, though? Malicious duel requests were far too frequent for my liking. Those of us who remained in Feluca didn’t need to be bribed to go there. We would’ve gone there regardless, for a host of reasons. My preferred online experience is a mixed PvP/PvE environment, but if I had to choose, I’d rather choose PvE. PvP demands far more time preparing for PvP than I consider fun. But what I find the least fun? “Unsportsmanlike” behavior.
And that’s the rub: there is a cohort of players who are simply not to play with. Let’s call them the GIFTed, after Penny Arcade’s GIFT comic (look it up.). The GIFTed tend to gravitate towards “PvP,” but that’s less about enjoying PvP and more enjoying messing with others, and PvP is much harder to ignore than other methods. The GIFTed’s preferred victims were PvE players, who lacked the time and/or temperament for PvP, and are thus easy to kill.
Those who think players needed to be bribed or forced into Open are missing the point: those who are naturally inclined to be there are there already, and make up a “significant majority” according to Frontier. The minority who remain in Solo/PG are likely to either remain there regardless of the bribe, or more likely quit playing the game entirely.
It’s been know since the late 80’s that there’s an inverse squared relationship between the health of a game/server/mode, and the amount of GIFT-like behavior. A small increase in volume of GIFT-like behavior results in a much larger decrease in the overall player population.
So if GIFT-like behavior is the problem, what’s the solution? I’ve seen a lot of solutions tried over the last 30 years, and they haven’t had much success. The absolute worst IMO is the PvP switch. An ill-timed malignant duel request can wreck your ingame experience just as much as direct player-killing. Draconian Crime & Punishment systems catch the innocent far more often than the guilty. “Hard Core” servers rarely attract enough players to be worthwhile.
The best solution I’ve encountered to date? ED’s tri-mode system. With these most vulnerable to GIFT-like behavior squirreled away in their own private instances, Open is left to those who can safely deal with the GIFTed. This has created an environment that I find is simply fun to play in: just enough player danger to keep the senses sharp without becoming frustrating, and for the most part, any opposition doesn’t act like the south end of a northern-facing hull.
Sure, there will always be GIFTed players, but those are a rare exception. Separate the GIFTed from their preferred “audience,” and such behavior reduces drastically. Try to bribe players into Open? You’re get far more combat loggers, firewall spoofers, and a slew of other GIFT-like behavior than players who actually are fun to play with.
And that is the last thing anyone should ever want.