Please, adjustments to PvP (and no CQC)

[FuzzySpider]

And here I have a different opinion. A player should not always have a choice to escape, atleast not at the beginning of the interaction.

Yes, a player should always have the option to run. Here is why; Elite: Dangerous is not a space combat game. It's a space themed RPG/simulator. There is no way a Type style trader can stand up to a combat ship, or a Cobra outfitted for smuggling can stand up to a diamondback outfitted for fighting, or an Anaconda outfitted for trading can stand up to a Python turned into a laser turret loaded with SCBs.

Combat in the game is severely unbalanced, by design, so that piracy and other forms of roleplay can work. Remove the ability of non-combat ships to escape and you've effectively invented Elite: Griefers Paradise.

 

[whipdiddywhip]

There is plenty of PVP about if you don't distinguish between human and AI.

darwin strikes again

 

[Knot2clever]

darwin strikes again

sorry bit to subtle for you.

 

[whipdiddywhip]

Yes, a player should always have the option to run. Here is why; Elite: Dangerous is not a space combat game. It's a space themed RPG/simulator. There is no way a Type style trader can stand up to a combat ship, or a Cobra outfitted for smuggling can stand up to a diamondback outfitted for fighting, or an Anaconda outfitted for trading can stand up to a Python turned into a laser turret loaded with SCBs.

Combat in the game is severely unbalanced, by design, so that piracy and other forms of roleplay can work. Remove the ability of non-combat ships to escape and you've effectively invented Elite: Griefers Paradise.

module balance is the key, something that eve does well, a rock paper scissors way of doing it, E.G. dont want that trader running away? shut his jump drive down with a module, trader wants to not get caught- fits jump drive stabilizers that counter act the pirates module,

rock paper scissors

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

GTAV online has solo and group mode. Great thing about open in GTA, if some decides to blow up my 1 million $ Lambo or Bugatti Veyron, said pays the full price.

@Op - In all honesty you sound like an 8yr with your constant use of the word boring. Players should have an option to escape - If I'm in my Cobra I can outrun your Vulture, if I am in my Conda I inflict as much damage before your escape, or work in a wing to disable you before you have a chance to escape. If in my T9, chances are I won't get out alive, but against inexperienced cmdrs, chaff, FA OFF, do not try to run & high wake FSD get's me out alive.

Seems to be working as intended.

Here's some good vids of a wing working as a team https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJxiLtMe33YeCZ9jj8gdmjA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMwplY9xf4Q

That video (plus comms chatter from the team) has seriously made me rethink whether self-IM mode is actually worth it (for ED in current form) as that looked like a lot of fun.

+1 Rep for bringing to the forum the link - thanks a lot

 

[FuzzySpider]

module balance is the key, something that eve does well, a rock paper scissors way of doing it, E.G. dont want that trader running away? shut his jump drive down with a module, trader wants to not get caught- fits jump drive stabilizers that counter act the pirates module,

rock paper scissors

Then you create a module that does nothing at all except for force another player to use a counter-module, using up module slots for nothing. The trader can't carry as much cargo so has to grind more, the pirate can't use as much cargo or carry as many limpets so his trade suffers too.

The key is to leave things as they are. At least until safe systems are made actually safe, and security in those systems is considerably beefed up.

Besides the Op is talking about PvP, it really isn't a focus of the main game hence CQC. Waiting for that is a better solution.

 

[Krieger]

Then put the short FSD cooldown after a successful interdiction, which indicates the player was legitimately trying to run, and not after a submission, which indicates that the player is looking for conflict.
|
Get how that works? Right now it's completely backwards.

After a successful interdiction both ships make an emergency drop out of supercruise. It would be strange if one ship then had a short cooldown while the other had not.
.
I think a submission is an indication the target probably does not want to fight. After all, by submitting the target gets a short cooldown and thus creates an opportunity to escape quickly. Every pilot knows that.

 

[Beornfrið]

I like that there's a means to escape but certainly agree that something needs to be done. I'm terrible at PVP but am happy to engage in it.

It seems to me that people rarely engage in PVP to make money but almost always avoid PVP because they don't want to lose money. I have thought and said before that I think the best way to help encourage PVP is to lower insurance costs IF you are killed by another player. My rebuy is 7.3mn and I don't mind paying that. I have enough to die several times and can alter my fitting to lower the rebuy if needed but not everyone sees it like that.

If deaths by PVP yielded a lower insurance rebuy there would be no more reason to stay and fight but there would be LESS reason to run away. By my mind, if FDEV make it harder for people to flee interdictions all they will do is drive people either away from the game or away from Open.

For what it's worth; I don't believe costs should be lowered across the board and that this should be Elite Carebear. I do think death should be punishing but if it's so punishing that people avoid fighting or even actively defending themselves something is - to me - wrong.

 

[raok]

I think there is rather high change that CQC will take a major role in Elite. It is kinda sad, especially because it is ~totally separated from the current game. It will change the game atmosphere, role, from game that tries to have depth to something very light.

Burger gamers will thank you.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

After a successful interdiction both ships make an emergency drop out of supercruise. It would be strange if one ship then had a short cooldown while the other had not.
.
I think a submission is an indication the target probably does not want to fight. After all, by submitting the target gets a short cooldown and thus creates an opportunity to escape quickly. Every pilot knows that.

Every pilot knows that now that the backwards mechanic has persisted for so long. Common player knowledge does not change the fact that the mechanic is 100% broken.
|
When you submit to an interdiction the short FSD cooldown isn't even the advantage that allows you to escape, it's the lack of being thrown into a spin and being able to get your bearings faster than the interdictor. Short or long FSD charge is irrelevant when you are given the only advantage you need to boost to safety. After those first 10 seconds you're free no matter how long it takes to charge up.
|
Lack of disorientation during a submission is intended to put the players on an even footing in the case that the submitting player wants to duke it out. They would still be at a disadvantage while submitting if the interdictor was outright hostile otherwise and that would defeat the purpose of submitting to someone you want to fight, thus encouraging everyone to run if they are interdicted first, and people going back and forth trying to catch each other's tail.
|
Strange or not, the short FSD charge after a successful interdiction is the only logical conclusion to making the mechanic function as intended.

 

[Krieger]

Every pilot knows that now that the backwards mechanic has persisted for so long. Common player knowledge does not change the fact that the mechanic is 100% broken.
|
When you submit to an interdiction the short FSD cooldown isn't even the advantage that allows you to escape, it's the lack of being thrown into a spin and being able to get your bearings faster than the interdictor. Short or long FSD charge is irrelevant when you are given the only advantage you need to boost to safety. After those first 10 seconds you're free no matter how long it takes to charge up.
|
Lack of disorientation during a submission is intended to put the players on an even footing in the case that the submitting player wants to duke it out. They would still be at a disadvantage while submitting if the interdictor was outright hostile otherwise and that would defeat the purpose of submitting to someone you want to fight, thus encouraging everyone to run if they are interdicted first, and people going back and forth trying to catch each other's tail.
|
Strange or not, the short FSD charge after a successful interdiction is the only logical conclusion to making the mechanic function as intended.

Stating "the fact that the mechanic is 100% broken" doesn't actually make it a fact. I think the current interdiction mechanics are fine but it's clear we do not agree on this.
.
BTW submitting puts the target at a disadvantage position-wise because the attacker will drop out right behind him, within weapons range and with little or no tumbling. The attacker can open fire immediately. Big and slow trader ships can not boost out of weapons range of a faster attacker. They have to rely on shields and/or hull armour to survive the (short) cooldown and the subsequent countdown until the FSD engages.

 

[Krieger]

I like that there's a means to escape but certainly agree that something needs to be done. I'm terrible at PVP but am happy to engage in it.

It seems to me that people rarely engage in PVP to make money but almost always avoid PVP because they don't want to lose money. I have thought and said before that I think the best way to help encourage PVP is to lower insurance costs IF you are killed by another player. My rebuy is 7.3mn and I don't mind paying that. I have enough to die several times and can alter my fitting to lower the rebuy if needed but not everyone sees it like that.

If deaths by PVP yielded a lower insurance rebuy there would be no more reason to stay and fight but there would be LESS reason to run away. By my mind, if FDEV make it harder for people to flee interdictions all they will do is drive people either away from the game or away from Open.

For what it's worth; I don't believe costs should be lowered across the board and that this should be Elite Carebear. I do think death should be punishing but if it's so punishing that people avoid fighting or even actively defending themselves something is - to me - wrong.

Rebuy cost isn't the only cost. When his ship is destroyed a trader loses his cargo, bounty hunters and mercenaries lose their vouchers, any bulletin board missions they took will fail and maybe they are in a hurry to get somewhere and don't want to waste time (e.g. fuel rats). There are many legitimate reasons why a pilot does not want to fight and risk losing his ship. And of course the ultimate reason would be he just doesn't like being shot at. After all this game is advertised as "blaze your own trail".

 

[Beornfrið]

Rebuy cost isn't the only cost. When his ship is destroyed a trader loses his cargo, bounty hunters and mercenaries lose their vouchers, any bulletin board missions they took will fail and maybe they are in a hurry to get somewhere and don't want to waste time (e.g. fuel rats). There are many legitimate reasons why a pilot does not want to fight and risk losing his ship. And of course the ultimate reason would be he just doesn't like being shot at. After all this game is advertised as "blaze your own trail".

Very true; with the lattermost point in particular that's why I firmly believe that the ability to escape is a good thing. I hadn't thought about things like the bounties. I wonder if there would be scope for tweaking that so that if you died you only lost bounties from the system in which you died. I admit that it sounds ridiculous but if death outside a system can make a fine go 'dormant' it is - in context - possible that the bounty-holders outside of the system might be unaware of your death and thus have no reason to cancel the bounty payment. Alternatively, perhaps bounties could be recognised and noted by the Pilots Federation and be issued automatically once a day; death or not. That would also save the sort of situation I have where I've got a couple of million in bounties scattered around the galaxy and I just can't be bothered collecting them because they're all only around 60k individually.

Then of course there's the oft-mooted idea of cargo insurance but whether that would really help or not I don't know!

 

[raok]

Ability to escape, it is there because they want to give clear change for people who do not want PvP to escape.

PvP is ~optional, not forced for anyone.


This easy escaping is still an issue even for PvE. It is removing challenge.

 

[M.E.A.T]

A player should have a chance to trap/restrict another player if he fit his ship accordingly
A player should also have a chance to escape from the trap(s) if he fit his ship to counter that trap(s) correctly

We need more modules to offer different types of traps and the countermeasures, and min-maxing damages. Stuffing empty module slots with SCBs and SBs is getting old.

 

[jgm]

A player should have a chance to trap/restrict another player if he fit his ship accordingly
A player should also have a chance to escape from the trap(s) if he fit his ship to counter that trap(s) correctly

This is where it should be. On one side of the argument we have "no-one should be forced in to PvP against their will" and on the other we have "everyone should be potential prey". The reality should be that traders have a choice to sacrifice cargo space for safety, and hunters should have a choice to sacrifice firepower (or similar) for surety. The basic game goes:

• Trader does not have anti-hunter modules, hunter does not have pro-hunter modules: no benefit to either side
• Trader does have anti-hunter modules, hunter does not have pro-hunter modules: benefit to trader
• Trader does not have anti-hunter modules, hunter does have pro-hunter modules: benefit to hunter
• Trader does have anti-hunter modules, hunter does have pro-hunter modules: no benefit to either side

I've been intentionally vague about the specific way that benefits play out because frankly it doesn't matter. There are lots of choices (FSD booster/inhibitor, sensor scrambler or decoys/superboost, whatever) but there should be enough room in the game to allow for both playstyles as well as counters for those who do not want to participate.

 

[Rubellen]

SOLO is killing ED.

You cant stop players effecting PP if they in solo, PP should only be effected in OPEN, and the market too. how can someone try protect their area if they cant stop the players in solo from effecting area. ED should buck up and get rid of SOLO and PRIVATE PLAY. Elite "DANGEROUS" is no longer DANGEROUS. they should just change the name too. I always play OPEN PLAY. thats the whole reason, excitement when you need to escape an encounter.

You are completely right but looking at the PP thread almost every Commander is unpledging. If you remove solo than hardly a handfull would remain ... :-(

 

[jacozilla]

Back in history, trader ships were well armed ships, usually many cannons but no high speed nor good manouverbility.

Re-read your history, in particular the era of sail and cannon ships you just referenced. It was the other way around - trader ships were much faster, nimble, and maneuverable than regular ships of the line.

they had lot less cannon firepower - both in volume and pounders, but could outrun and out sail pretty much every 1st rate and lower class SoTLs. If a typical 1st or 2nd rate SoTL could close with them, a 74 to 80 gun match vs the trader 16 to 24 gun would inevitably be death for the merchant, hence their speed and nimbleness. (On top of which the cannon weight for SoTLs were typically 4x the firepower of smaller ball projectiles used by lighter class ships)

The only quasi-SoTL that could possibly match speed and maneuverability of trade ships such as that fielded by the dutch or english were frigates, and even then only with the right tack and winds in their favor.

 

[jacozilla]

Like most PVP types the OP does not want to PVP with other PVP'ers, he want to PVP with those who chose not to PVP.

PVP types will only wing up with other PVP types to attack non PVP'ers.

They will never form their own PVP group, what would be the point.

Agree, and here's some food for thought. If the pew pew gankers that seem to make up at least the vocal majority of pvp crowd here really do think:
1. Npc is no fun, only humans are challenging
2. Attacking traders really is "fair" and its really not ganking if the poor trader just had some 'leet pvp skillz'
3. And they really want to focus on PvP - actual combat, not massacre -

why not just get yourself a Q-ship?

You know, play in open as a disgused trader as in the days of Q-ships. Wait for your fellow gankers to come jump you and then show us all your mad leet skillz?

wouldnt that be a "challenge"? Actually fighting your own pvp crowd in and of course you wouldnt run from interdiction or immediately fsd jump again - so win win for the gankers that jumped you, and you get your combat thrills in your armed freighter which of course has a great chance to win since its never acknowledged by the pew pew juveniles that unarmed traders are non-combatants.

of course the reason why not is the pew pew crowd would never dare risk an actual fair or unfair on their odds fight. Bullies dont pick on lions, only those they perceive as sheep.

so OP and all others who say you just cant stand this immediate fsd escape preventing your pvp joy? Then go pvp in actual...pvp. Pilot a freighter and guarantee you wont run, which will guarantee your fellow ganker will stay to fight you in a "challenging" fight

 

[Granulated]

Perhaps make it so that if you're destroyed by a fellow human you don't have to pay XXXmillion credits to get your ship back. Maybe just a flat fee of say 100K and you obviously lose all cargo and bonds you were holding. This might reduce the number of runners.

Keep the current system in place if you somehow bizarrely allow an NPC kill you.