Yes PVP is unfair.

[_Dastardly_]

Dons asbestos suit.. (Note that I'm not actually against PVP, I quite enjoy it) but it's currently unbalanced.

We have crime but no punishment.

The victims of the crime are punished.. traders lose their whole inventory + insurance every time they are destroyed, however the attacker has a bare minimal slap on the wrist.

So the victims run or combat log. Reporting people that combat log does not help, because they will get told off once and then

• Go to Solo
• Go to Mobius

This means that there are less people for the PVP'ers to attack. So they go off and kill newbies in sidewinders or just get bored.

Wings made things worse because now a trade anaconda that *might* have had a chance to fight back against a single player, is instead being attacked by wings of 3 players.

The victims in the trade ships see this as griefing because they are being attacked and losing (up to) everything they own, while they know that the attacker is risking nothing.

I think that if PVP was made to be riskier it would actually be more fun for the attacker. If traders knew that the law was on their side it might bring more of them back to open. HOWEVER it would need big changes. Big fines for PVP, big bounties and immediate and escalating police response to ships being attacked. This results in more difficult fights, more risk, more reward. Make the police response relative to the system politics etc, so that core empire systems have more police than independent anarchy systems, completely empty systems have no police. Increase the trading reward for going into more dangerous systems.

As I'm writing this I'm realising that as you try to fix a single point it leads on to more points that are broken, that need more fixes to fix up the core gameplay that lead to dead ends in the core gameplay that cannot be fixed due to the way the game is written. If you increase the rewards in anarchy systems so more PVPers go into the system to catch the traders then the traders that are in solo have an unfair advantage, unless you have more NPC pirates. All of this is broken because the bigger ships can just submit, boost away and jump (especially from the npc's)

To be honest I dont think this can be fixed without a complete overhaul of everything from the ground up with input from the players. But for now, The PVP balance is so far on the attacker's side that there is no reason to participate in it.

Maybe some of this would help...

• Remove ship scans from supercruise so that players cant tell if they are attacking a combat-conda from a trade-conda.
• Increase the penalties for attacking other player ships
• Allow traders to insure their cargo?
• Quick (NPC Viper System Authority?) Response to attacked ships. (Variable. Sometimes quick, sometimes longer.. )
• Make insurance null and void on ships that attack in PVP. (and are reported.. say for 24 hours).

I know this *seems* like nerfs to PVP, but if the sides are balanced then more people might participate..

 

[Exiton]

This results in more difficult fights, more risk, more reward.

I compltely agree. I mean, right now if I manage to destroy a trader what do I get? Absolutely nothing!

I should be able to strike a secred agreement with the insurance company and make some big buck killing those traders!

 

[vulkman]

Just prevent a killer from docking anywhere but anarchy stations and have them constantly interdicted by Elite NPC bounty hunters for a week should do the trick...

 

[_Dastardly_]

I compltely agree. I mean, right now if I manage to destroy a trader what do I get? Absolutely nothing!

I should be able to strike a secred agreement with the insurance company and make some big buck killing those traders!

I think the reward from PVP is that glow you get from watching the ship blow up. There is and can be no in-game reward or it's too easily exploited unfortunately.

 

[GluttonyFang]

• Remove ship scans from supercruise so that players cant tell if they are attacking a combat-conda from a trade-conda.

So pirates now have to interdict every possible trading ship? Which can potentially induce more frustration?

• Increase the penalties for attacking other player ships

What exactly? Credits barely mean anything.

• Allow traders to insure their cargo?

Want to bet how many people are going to complain still because all they care about is maximizing profit?

*Chuckles at the shieldless trade ships flying around*

• Quick (NPC Viper System Authority?) Response to attacked ships.

Unless there is a balance pass that is implemented at the same time to decrease overall profit in high-sec system and increase in low-sec system where the former has quicker response and the latter have delayed response and low reinforcement strength, this is just another excuse at flatly discouraging hostile player interaction.

• Make insurance null and void on ships that attack in PVP.

Do you hear that chuckling? Ah, it's the griefers running around CZ/RES trolling people...

Treating player targets differently than the NPCs seem to be opposing the fundamental design of FD, not sure how fond of that FD is.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Just prevent a killer from docking anywhere but anarchy stations and have them constantly interdicted by Elite NPC bounty hunters for a week should do the trick...

Griefers are chuckling at the rich opportunities you are providing them.

 

[KevinMillican]

Maybe some of this would help...

• Remove ship scans from supercruise so that players cant tell if they are attacking a combat-conda from a trade-conda.
• Increase the penalties for attacking other player ships
• Allow traders to insure their cargo?
• Quick (NPC Viper System Authority?) Response to attacked ships.
• Make insurance null and void on ships that attack in PVP. (and are reported.. say for 24 hours).

I think the most important one of these is the improved System Authority response. Should be much more robust and faster in so-called safe systems.

I'd also like to see a message appear with expected ETA so that you can make a more educated guess at whether to run or fight. Something like :
"Interdiction crime detected. Security ships on their way. ETA 3 minutes."

This would add to the immersion a lot IMHO.

All this assumes that when the SA ships arrive, they actually do take on the pirates; been in many situations where they just hang about scanning me.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I think the most important one of these is the improved System Authority response. Should be much more robust and faster in so-called safe systems.

I'd also like to see a message appear with expected ETA so that you can make a more educated guess at whether to run or fight. Something like :
"Interdiction crime detected. Security ships on their way. ETA 3 minutes."

This would add to the immersion a lot IMHO.

All this assumes that when the SA ships arrive, they actually do take on the pirates; been in many situations where they just hang about scanning me.

As long as people are fine with having their profits reduced in these so-called "safe systems," otherwise it's just a shameless request to make the game easier.

 

[EddyRockSteady]

Treating player targets differently than the NPCs seem to be opposing the fundamental design of FD, not sure how fond of that FD is.

Lol that is EXACTLY what FD does:

They treat Players and NPC's differently.

How else does one explain the hollow orange square vs solid orange square, which is incidentally probably the biggest single design faux pas FD could have and indeed did make? Oh well, the cracks are now beginning to develop into fractures.

 

[Jack Schitt]

Treating player targets differently than the NPCs seem to be opposing the fundamental design of FD, not sure how fond of that FD is.

They were fond enough of it to give player targets a nice hollow scanner signal and a CMDR prefix.

 

[_Dastardly_]

[/LIST]

So pirates now have to interdict every possible trading ship? Which can potentially induce more frustration?

[/LIST]

What exactly? Credits barely mean anything.

[/LIST]

Want to bet how many people are going to complain still because all they care about is maximizing profit?

*Chuckles at the shieldless trade ships flying around*



Unless there is a balance pass that is implemented at the same time to decrease overall profit in high-sec system and increase in low-sec system where the former has quicker response and the latter have delayed response and low reinforcement strength, this is just another excuse at flatly discouraging hostile player interaction.



Do you hear that chuckling? Ah, it's the griefers running around CZ/RES trolling people...

Treating player targets differently than the NPCs seem to be opposing the fundamental design of FD, not sure how fond of that FD is.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



What is your credential on ED's PvP exactly?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



Griefers are chuckling at the rich opportunities you are providing them.

How about responding with something constructive instead of sarcasm? There's always going to be ways for griefers to take advantage of the system. I'm trying to help improve the currently unbalanced system.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Lol that is EXACTLY what FD does:

They treat Players and NPC's differently.

How else does one explain the hollow orange square vs solid orange square, which is incidentally probably the biggest single design faux pas FD could have and indeed did make? Oh well, the cracks are now beginning to develop into fractures.

Hah... what I mean is in terms of interaction, it's not like NPCs take less/more damage toward certain weapons when compared to players.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

They were fond enough of it to give player targets a nice hollow scanner signal and a CMDR prefix.

Read the above.

Edit:

Being fastidious can be fun, but unless we're playing it seriously, don't bother.

 

[_Dastardly_]

As long as people are fine with having their profits reduced in these so-called "safe systems," otherwise it's just a shameless request to make the game easier.

No it's a request to make the game more difficult and interesting for the people who would like to use the sandbox for PVP and to attempt to draw people back to Open instead of forcing them to solo due to the unbalanced mechanics around PVP.

 

[KevinMillican]

As long as people are fine with having their profits reduced in these so-called "safe systems," otherwise it's just a shameless request to make the game easier.

I've said many times in other threads that there should be much more difference between anarchy systems and corporate states with graduation in between. Trade profits in anarchy systems should be much better than safe systems, but the danger should be much higher than it is now, and yes pirates should be able to kill with impunity in these.

 

[CMD Malandark]

Your analogy of crimes & punishments in Open is all wrong on so many levels. As long as players have the choice to play in non-pvp modes i.e Solo, Mobius or other private networks then what happens in Open mode is irrelevant. Open is like the 'Wild West', it's lawless, it's harsh, it's unfair to it's so called 'victims', but that is *exactly* what playing in Open is all about.

If players choose to play in Open then they are NOT victims if they are later killed/murdered in this environment, they chose to play in this environment knowing these risks *exist* and are very high when compared to other modes that are available to them.

If Open becomes a 'ghost town' (which it won't and never will be) then a natural hearding effect of players will take place over time where they will seek alternative environments that better suits their gameplay.

 

[GluttonyFang]

No it's a request to make the game more difficult and interesting for the people who would like to use the sandbox for PVP and to attempt to draw people back to Open instead of forcing them to solo due to the unbalanced mechanics around PVP.

The PvP in main game ED isn't a balanced arena. Those willing to take up the challenge will play in Open, those who do not won't. The difference in attitude is basically this:

PvP:

Hm, I didn't do so well, I should research and learn about how to be competitive in this environment and study my opponent's build and take time to reflect on my own build.

PvE:

Unfair, unfair, I'm so done with this, I'm out. I don't want to put in the hours those people that beat me did to become informed of the current meta and counter methods.

This mentality difference is usually immutable.

 

[CMDR Dumbfries]

If the PvP experts want their victims to stick around and put up a fight instead of running or combat logging, get rid of insurance for PvP encounters. Pretty simple.

 

[Nitek [pl]]

• Remove ship scans from supercruise so that players cant tell if they are attacking a combat-conda from a trade-conda.

You actually think this makes a difference for a pvp player?:] The only thing is that pvp player will fight or leave - others are cheating by combat logging.

 

[GluttonyFang]

If the PvP experts want their victims to stick around and put up a fight instead of running or combat logging, get rid of insurance for PvP encounters. Pretty simple.

In terms of what I do, I don't want my victims to put up a fight nor combat log .-.

 

[Viscera]

Stuff

Hi Mr Fang. I see many good things written by yourself dismissing some of the various ideas thrown into the pot, mostly with good reasons as to why they most likely would not work.

Are there any things that you think that could possibly be implemented to assist in the great pirate/griefer/cheater war *.

Cheers, John.

* also known as "the war of many circular posts"

 

[Roguey]

I agree too; PvP is pretty low risk for the attackers but very high risk for the single person being attacked. 3 vs 1 isnt fair - especially how the ships have been designed. A single ship that is ten times more expensive is only x1.5 better. So when 3 commanders gang up on you (even with much cheaper ships) then you dont stand a chance (they risk like 1mil between all of them, whilst you may risk up-to 20mil+). Some commanders deploy bad tactics - ie. one person rams you (making your shields go down fast), whilst the other commanders attack.

Another thing to note, is that because the game is point-to-point, you arent total sure if the other person/people are cheating or not... and also both the attackers and victim can combat-log.

So I can completely understand why people go solo or mobius; I do it myself. Wouldnt be so bad if the attackers had to pay your rebuy or something (if they kill you) - so they risk losing money or something. I dont know what the solution is but things arent right at the moment. I personally still like to see a coop option on the menu too; for people wjp just want to enjoy the game without all this unfair pvp junk.