You think I'm joking. Lol.
"...We can actually put griefers off into their own session..."
[video=youtube;Kb5hqjxmf4M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M[/video]
- Status
You think I'm joking. Lol.
"...We can actually put griefers off into their own session..."
[video=youtube;Kb5hqjxmf4M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M[/video]
Ok then mate well maybe David Braben (like how long ago did he actually talk about it? Since release? No, ok moving on. We are in release now) changed his mind slightly, you know, like a human being making a video game in a very tough and competitive modern market? Or perhaps his Lead designer has gone rogue?
Here it is again, in case you missed what you are actually posting about. Maybe read the whole thing and understand what he is saying. He is talking about pvp. yes i know, its amazing. A dev, talking about pvp, and with some gusto too. Hope no one is too upset, has this burst some little Braben party line bubbles?
Hello Commanders!
I'd just like to add this morsel to the debate, again to explain where we're coming from.
I'm not overly interested in the whole "who wins the encounter" discussion, especially when the encounters can be very lopsided. I'm interested in how game play is served for both parties:
So a combat-heavy ship interdicts a trader. What's interesting to me here is: how are the players' game play needs being served? My first thought is: is the frequency and mechanics of the interdiction process working? If it is, then great, I know that the trader is facing a threat that I believe traders need to create interesting and exciting journeys.
I know that if I asked a bunch of traders about their thoughts on this particular interdiction they would all likely cry out in despair - the odds are stacked against them. But I have faith that the potential of this encounter makes their overall game play experience better (of course, this assumes that the frequency and game play is correct, something which might need a number of tweaks).
I look at the combat ship. Regardless of what their intent is, at this point in the game play they have a material advantage. But I want to make sure that the length and options of the encounter mean that both parties have at least *some* tricks to employ (hence I want to make sure that the trader could have fitted modules that make life more difficult if used well, and that the combat ship has the means to potentially prevent instant escape and actually attack). If you fly a stripped down trader with no shields or means to defend yourself, I contend that you are taking a calculated risk and can't complain too much when you get interdicted.
All in all, the end result of this encounter is mostly likely that the trader suffers some amount of material loss (the extreme being that they are destroyed) and that the combat ship more than likely has a bounty. Depending on player skill and materials involved the result can swing one way or another, but this is most likely outcome.
At this point, the trader needs to recoup their losses (being traders, they'll likely trade to do this). I believe we currently have some issues linked to the severity of their potential loss, but I suspect we may be able to find ways of softening the extreme cases a little better (tweaks to the credit line, for example is something we're looking at, or some changes to overall ship costs). Importantly, to me it makes no sense for the trader to perceive that they somehow "lost" this encounter - because the deck was stacked against them from the start.
The only sensible way for traders to assess how well they did is to consider how much they lost. And in a nutshell, this is where we have to make sure that traders can *if they wish* alter their ships to mitigate the loss caused by loss. Tough shields, armour, point defence, weapons - these all make a difference. For sure it's no guarantee that the trader can defeat the combat ship, but - if we get the numbers to the right place - it may well mean the difference between some hull/module damage and complete ship loss, depending on the equipment and *how well* it's used.
And I have to say that this is a core concept for the trader's basic journey. It really has nothing to do with them "beating" or "losing" to ships that are designed specifically for combat. It's about the dangers and efficiencies of haulage.
For the combat ship Commander, who presumably wants to fight - they now have a bounty which allows anyone to attack them in the area. Both player and AI ships can take advantage of this, and, again, almost certainly through some ongoing balancing, they should get more fights, which is kind of what they want, I would hope. The idea we want to create here is that living by the sword means risk of dying by the sword, potentially quite often.
Now, for the combat ship pilot who targets weaker ships then pays off the bounty instantly, I don't believe the answer is in making trader ships invincible, or impossible to find or catch. I'd suggest we will get better results in increasing the likelihood of dangerous combat encounters for them, such as tweaking the frequency of more powerful authority ships, especially around stars and starports, increasing the bounty they accrue based on the imbalance between ships, making bounties they accrue sit around as debt once they've been claimed - basically making their infamy count against them wherever we can do so and in so doing increase the chance for combat.
Again, this isn't to make them "lose", it's to provide an entertaining experience for them to work through. The only time player versus player becomes a clear cut case of win/lose is when too evenly fitted ships decide to slap each other about (which they can do, I have no issues with that).
I'd say that possibly we should look into AI to make sure that the more experienced Commanders can feel challenged, without destroying newer players. I think that there is perhaps room to look at rewards in addition to credits, to minimise the perception/reality that trading is the path of least resistance to progression. I think we can look at improving AI goals and activities in super cruise (for example having AI more interested in players based on how the player acts, maybe AI that can use wakes). We will also have lots of interesting situations to monitor when player wings and other features come on-line.
This game is certainly an ongoing endeavour and we're committed! All I'm saying here is that, due to the nature of the game, Commanders are going to inevitably find themselves in situations that aren't necessarily balanced or fair.
What I want to be able to do is make sure that Commanders who employ skill and knowledge (which can include knowing how to outfit your ship) maximize their success in those encounters.
Of course, to caveat, no guarantee or ETA on stuffs that are discussed here, it's simply me trying to explain our current line of thinking (and therefore is in no way immune to change!) Hopefully though, there's some food for thought (and of course, just because you disagree does not instantly make you "wrong" or us "right").
I hope this proves at least an interesting read
Mind blown!
EDIT: Oh and in case you missed this line, ill repost it for your viewing pleasure:
"And I have to say that this is a core concept for the trader's basic journey. It really has nothing to do with them "beating" or "losing" to ships that are designed specifically for combat. It's about the dangers and efficiencies of haulage."
Sounds to me like pvp is a serious contender, because AI interdictions are laughable at best. Enjoy.
Last edited:
That's about to change. The Bounty for PKing will become legacy. So no matter who claims the bounty, you will have to pay it off the next time you see the insurance screen. Got a 1M Cr bounty? Hope you have that in the bank the next time you eat space.
Those people complaining about unfairness to PvP players and traders get all the money. PvP is not an intended primary focus of the game. If you played previous games in the series you would know Trading IS an integral part of the game. In many ways the core of the game as far as making money. Whether your a miner, pirate, bounty hunter, trader. It doesn't really matter.. your expected to do a fair amount of trading.
As for PvP players preying on weaker players for fun. According to the lead designer. that will be taken care of soon.
Here's the portion of Sandro's latest post on the matter of unlawful PvP and changes to how penalties are to handled in an upcoming update.
Taken from https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=101378&page=15&p=1575950#post1575950 where other stuff is mentioned too.
As for PvP players preying on weaker players for fun. According to the lead designer. that will be taken care of soon.
Here's the portion of Sandro's latest post on the matter of unlawful PvP and changes to how penalties are to handled in an upcoming update.
Taken from https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=101378&page=15&p=1575950#post1575950 where other stuff is mentioned too.
Last edited:
LOL @ claiming statements by Sandro trump those of the CEO, and misinterpreting them to boot. Sandro is indeed the lead designer but just who's vision for the game would you say it is his task to design? Hint: Not yours. There is nothing in anything any official FD source has posted here or anywhere else that runs counter to the philosophy DB expressed.
PvP is a *part* of ED, as in it will happen, but the game is designed such that (a) it has negative consequences for the pilot initiating it (b) non-consensual PvP is trivially easy to avoid for players who want.
If it becomes a matter of players avoiding open because of the PvP activity there, something we are already seeing, then you can expect the game mechanics that discourage PvP to be strengthened not nerfed. We've already seen that with the increase of bounties for murder. If that isn't enough to make the PvP discouragement sufficiently strong (it isn't) then we can expect more mechanics to discourage it to be introduced.
This is not a PvP-centric game and never will be, not in any of its modes. If you bought it thinking it was, you didn't do your research.
Im afraid it does.
Firstly, that 'speil' if you actually read it, is about interdiction, combat in general, and the balance between traders and combat ships. So you are quite clearly wrong, maybe you didn't read it all. By the way its from the game lead designer. Its also about future concepts for features. Nice deflection try though, saying its just about traders in combat. Read it again.
Secondly, what you actually said is that pvp is actively discouraged. This is also wrong. Its not actively discouraged or encouraged. There are procedural features in the game, that are designed to make pvp have negative affects. Bounties and the like. We all know they aren't sufficient right now, but nevertheless its simply a system thats in place, not active discouragement. Its clear, especially from the dev post i linked, that pvp is quite happily embraced by the devs as another aspect of the game as we move forward.
Not sure where you got your quote from either, looks dubious, and/or very old.
EDIT: To clarify on the post i linked, it was about pvp between traders and combat commanders, not NPC's. Cheers.
I would imagine the fact that I can completely avoid PVP altogether is fairly leaning towards "actively discourage PVP". You can drop out of it at almost any time, no matter what situation you are in.
Of course PVP will be an aspect the developers need to look into. And yeah, I kind of agree that it isn't "actively discouraged" but it's definitely not (hopefully) at this point a main driving factor of development and never will be. That's not saying I hope it isn't improved upon.
I think that's where the big divide comes into play. I don't really give a crap about Shield Cell Balance, that can come later, there are so many things that need addressing regarding PVE that seeing the lead designer focus so much of his forum time on discussing this with people is a bit disheartening. I don't want this to become a PVP-focused Arena game. I don't want player owned stations that can control commodity prices. That's not what I read this game was going to be. It's "make my own way in space" and right now, PVP players are causing changes to "my own way". It's just that simple. If I want PVP I play different games. I don't really want that in this game right now but it seems to be the focus.
Is the Python being nerfed because a bunch of players in Solo were able to take out NPCs? I would assume, no.
Are SCB's being nerfed because a bunch of players in Solo were using them to win encounters? I would assume, no.
These changes are happening because of "PVP balance" and I will put that in quotes every time I type it because it doesn't exist, it will never exist, it's a carrot to be chased by developers, something not solved by companies that devote entire teams to it.
One ton of Rabbits of Caerbannog. Evil. I like it! XD
I can mitigate that in one of many ways. I can just not-care about the legacy bounty, then see how many friends it takes in loaner sidewinders to pop a hauler. Supposing my future "murdering pirate wing" doesn't work out, I can snag a couple more accounts with disposable income and multibox them. Failing THAT, I can retire the character, clear save, and be set up with a brand new CMDR for more pirating in a few hours of Solo play. Assuming that all of those are prohibited/unworkable, I can flip my wanted character over to Solo after each kill, grind out a few trade routes with my backup hauler (and no fear of PC bounty hunters), then bounce back into open for more killin'.
That's the magic of Solo. Traders can use it to avoid unwanted PVP, and bad guys can use it to cleanse themselves of bounties without fear of other PCs interfering.
That's not what he said at all. He said it would become a special kind of fine after being claimed and in the long run you would eventually have to pay it off, so far the details of how that works and when exactly you would be required to pay it off haven't been clarified. What they are not intending to do is make sure piracy and playing the bad guy is hammered so hard no-one ends up playing it. Sorry if you think the opposite is true. It does of course mean that in the long run pirates will be paying the bounties to those who collect, and that's not an entirely unreasonable request so long as the career paths remain capable of earning enough to maintain this.
Video date - Mar 2014
Nice one.
And hes talking about griefers, not pvp, or whether its discouraged.
Pvp isn't griefing. Dying to pirates because you cant plan a route or because you dont drop 15t out of 128t of cargo and try to run isn't griefing either. or maybe it could be classed as griefing yourself. I have seen it happen.
Except that mode switching is not possible in certain circumstances. Figuring this *might* be one of them.
It will be interesting to see what FD come up with to address the issues.
I wonder if pirates and traders might agree that it's the player killers/in game murderers that are the ones causing some traders to think twice about trading in open in a non combat worthy ship?
If a ship destroyed in an unwarranted (in game terms - no bounty - non aggressive and had submitted to piracy) transmitted the events via the escape pod to the federation of pilots who then in turn alerted all ships that Commander X has committed a murder.
That way, traders and non combatants could avoid the murderer and genuine pirates could KOS the murderer (without legal consequence) because the PKer was messing up their trade. That would seem reasonable - it's not stopping people outright from being a PKer but it makes for non-trivial consequences.
We know from Sandro they are looking to balance the pirate/trader encounter. Maybe if traders knew that if they took the submit option that they'd stand a very good chance of not being blown up they'd be more inclined to expose themselves in open.
They'd have a choice - try and run - the pirate then needs skill to disable their drives at which point they either cough up the goods and get on their way - or try and fight it out. Obviously if they fight it out then the pirate can't be blamed as a PKer for blowing them up (they still get a piratey bounty and so forth).
But if traders knew the game mechanics mean that they'd getaway if they cough up the goods I wonder would that make a difference?
Let's face it being blown up by someone just because they can with no real consequences isn't great gameplay for the victim is it?
Then I have read too much into it. No, I agree that if you want to be a PKer for the sake of it, it should be the hardest role in the game, but not impossible.
Dying to Pilots who can't be bothered to do the work of a Pirate, more like. I agree that PvP is not griefing. However, what DB and FDev consider griefing may not be what we understand as Griefing. After all, what FDev say about player interaction is not what most people seem to understand as PvP.
If you listen to the video you will hear him talking about fines and bounties, and then if the behaviour persists, the partitioning. So it is about persistent behaviour that is already dealt with by in game mechanics... that just needs that extra hand.
And with all those people saying they can't see any traders in open, who says that's not happened already?
Ahh, so we're extending it just a little here, now I can't switch modes. No biggy. Worst comes to worst, i invest in a totally separate feeder account. I'll use that one to harvest money in solo, then do a controlled commodity flip to my "locked in Open" killin' alt.
That's the problem with attempting to use game mechanics to discourage player behaviours. I just see it as a challenge to be overcome. If the devs don't want PVP, they can turn PvP off. All that implementing game mechanics will do is just encourage people like me to find ways to continue operations in spite of them.
I see where you are coming from... like having the Route toggle that turns off a particular port so that the player can avoid interdictions not of his own choosing and still fly in open.
Still, spending an extra £35 in order to do commander switching is on the extreme end. At the moment there is no challenge to the PKer role. It's easy to do. If it was made a little harder it might encourage PKers to pick a slightly different role. From most posts, it's the unreasoning murder that pushes players in to solo. It appears that these unreasonable murderers want to stop people from doing that.
For a game that was never intended to be a PKer's paradise, that's not too unreasonable. Better that than crippling the modes...
Last edited:
Another overreaction. PVP is ONE aspect of the game. Its not a focus, nor should it be. But does that mean it just gets completely ignored apart from whatever bare bones were present in the intial release?
The main problem with this discussion is that everyone thinks their vision of the game is right. Its not. I would say the vision for the game is constantly going to change, like any online game. PVP will never be the focus, but it will ALWAYS be a factor in the game, whether PVE only players want to think so or not.
If you only play solo, fine play solo, no fear. On the flipside, there are some people will always play open and therefore pvp will always be developed to some extent. I am sure that another factor in the mix right now is that to attract many new players they will need to expand the open mode and make it more attractive. Up to release, and at this stage, the game has probably had maximum catchment of pretty much all the 84'ers and old school gamers that want a re imagining of a solo game. I would put money though that, if they are thinking to attract more players from now on and in the future, and more sales, they need to appeal to other generations and groups who i think will prioritise online play more than the target practice AI and trading spreadsheets. For enjoyment.
Also Star Citizen. Looks great, how it plays will have to be seen. Yet there is no doubt the vision is huge. Friendly rivalry may seem obvious, but make no mistake, SC is a close rival for ED. Yes they are different styles, with different visions. However, if for example, 50% of the current playerbase play solo and 50% play open, and SC releases and its online play (play, not pvp) is more appealing, then ED stands to lose a large proportion of that half of the playerbase that prefer open. Not trying to cause DOOM, just trying to be realistic from not only a development point of view, but a business point of view too.
Agreed. How do you make Open more appealing?
I mean, apart from the things that are in the pipeline?
Last edited:
- Status