Why should a player not interested in chasing off the louts, be forced to do it? It's much more conducive to certain players to just leave Open to stew in its own juices, and move to a Private Group, or Solo. One click and the trouble is gone. I encourage players to seek out the environment they most like to play in and play there. There is no reason to glorify Open. Leave open for what it is, a free-for-all, and ignore it, if that doesn't suit your immediate gaming interests.
Yes PVP is unfair.
- Thread starter _Dastardly_
- Start date
Why should a player not interested in chasing off the louts, be forced to do it? It's much more conducive to certain players to just leave Open to stew in its own juices, and move to a Private Group, or Solo. One click and the trouble is gone. I encourage players to seek out the environment they most like to play in and play there. There is no reason to glorify Open. Leave open for what it is, a free-for-all, and ignore it, if that doesn't suit your immediate gaming interests.
Personally PVP pirates vs traders is ALWAYS going to be unfair as one geared for combat the other for trading, so that is the players choice.
Common sense keeps me from to much PVP even while I test out powerplay (Which is asking for trouble).
Though I do think insurance should be higher on a wanted ship.
Also given we have distress calls, should not players be able to issue one?
Common sense keeps me from to much PVP even while I test out powerplay (Which is asking for trouble).
Though I do think insurance should be higher on a wanted ship.
Also given we have distress calls, should not players be able to issue one?
Last edited:
Meanwhile I´ll be at Mobius.
?..problem solved and the Galaxy will find a natural equilibrium!
So by playing in open, having my trader blown sky high and all my hard work is getting what I deserve? I don't really understand that. Are you saying that by choosing open I should expect to get attacked, but if I wish to play it safe then choose solo or similar? Apologies if that sounds antagonistic, its not meant to
The problem with pre-emptive responses is that not everyone spots what it is that you're pre-empting. As I already said I don't think the concept of insurance tweaks for continued criminal acts comes close to wanting wholly different PvE and PvP "rules", but if the latter is what you were referencing then fair enough.
Yep, I agree with pretty much all of that. I would Rep it but I used up a +1 on an earlier, much less detailed version.
Open Play is unbalanced due to the woefully inadequate security / crime / punishment / risk / reward system that bears scant resemblance to what FD claimed to be aiming for in the DDF, and makes even less sense in terms of the fiction. Mode switching is being used in response to that, but that doesn't mean that mode switching is the problem. The broken risk / reward system is, and until FD addresses that Open will continue to lose players to the other modes. I'm one of them, and freely admit that I will not be returning unless the fundamental problems are addressed. Yes, I could play Open and high wake from every PvP encounter, but that would just waste the time of both parties and benefit neither.
(Knowing FD's history, their response to that would probably be to nerf the high-wake and thus make the perceived imbalance problem worse).
I've said it before (and it depresses me no end that it continues to be true) but with many aspects of this game the frustration that should be directed at FD often ends up being directed at other players (or groups of players) when those other players aren't the root of the problem.
So by playing in open, having my trader blown sky high and all my hard work is getting what I deserve? I don't really understand that. Are you saying that by choosing open I should expect to get attacked, but if I wish to play it safe then choose solo or similar? Apologies if that sounds antagonistic, its not meant to
That is the gist of it. Open has no restrictions on PvP. And, very small repercussions for it. I see it as FD offering an environment for those that consider the current state of affairs as desirable. Many players want to whip around in a lawless galaxy taking up what ever comes their way. Open is for them. Many players are looking for something different. FD has wisely created a system for those players to create/join the environments they seek.
Vote with your feet. If the current state of Open doesn't suit you, move on. There is no magic in Open that you wouldn't be able to capture anywhere else. You can bump into just as many players in Private Groups as you can in open. We have choices, use them.
X-Terminator
Banned
Fugitive? For killing a ship that has an escape pod? We are always blowing ships up and the Police can only have so many resources unless they start war on all civilization. Even if we accidentally shoot or ram another ship we become WANTED and the only way Police respond to that is by blowing up your ship! Rather harsh huh!
Also, we can not become Fugitive in all Systems under each independent systems law but yes I think WANTED should apply to each belonging to the same Faction just to be cruel and yes send out both NPCs after them but also do add their name on a Nearest Present Online Wanted Bounty List in Starport.
So YES, the accidental shooting punishment must stop and allow a harsher method to help both PvP action and also stop Griefing - but there should be a payout from the direct opposite of Fed & Empire to any independent Bounty Hunter who manages to kill a Faction allighned Pledged Player and is not necessarily Pledged themselves. i.e. Make Real Bounty Hunters Pay and calm unrewarding Murder.
Last edited:
Blackcompany
Banned
This is why EVE has CONCORD. I know no one wants to go there, but that mechanical punishment masquerading as a game Faction was created for a reason.
Likewise, this is why EVE has systems where CONCORD cannot or will not go. So PVP remains a thing.
A slightly adapted version of CONCORD would work for Elite:
-Check attacker Power Play affiliation.
-Response from Opposing PP ships or system authority, as appropriate.
-responding ships are all Elite, and use buffed shields, armor and weapons.
-Response ships are a group, not lone ships, all Elite, high tier vessels.
-response ships increase attacker bounty if destroyed.
-response ships keep coming in waves for 24 hours following attack.
-attacker cannot dock at stations owned by victim Faction for 24hrs.
-repair cost increased by 50% for attacker while they have a bounty.
-players with bounties from killing Commanders cannot rebuy ships with insurance. At all.
-None of this happens if the attack takes place either in Anarchy systems or systems owned by Archon Delaine if the attacker was a member of Delaine's Faction. (Cause, you know, Pirate King).
-None of this happens if players were members of opposing Power Play factions, or if the victim was not reporting crimes when the attack began.
-Obviously, this does not apply to Conflict Zone kills.
Likewise, this is why EVE has systems where CONCORD cannot or will not go. So PVP remains a thing.
A slightly adapted version of CONCORD would work for Elite:
-Check attacker Power Play affiliation.
-Response from Opposing PP ships or system authority, as appropriate.
-responding ships are all Elite, and use buffed shields, armor and weapons.
-Response ships are a group, not lone ships, all Elite, high tier vessels.
-response ships increase attacker bounty if destroyed.
-response ships keep coming in waves for 24 hours following attack.
-attacker cannot dock at stations owned by victim Faction for 24hrs.
-repair cost increased by 50% for attacker while they have a bounty.
-players with bounties from killing Commanders cannot rebuy ships with insurance. At all.
-None of this happens if the attack takes place either in Anarchy systems or systems owned by Archon Delaine if the attacker was a member of Delaine's Faction. (Cause, you know, Pirate King).
-None of this happens if players were members of opposing Power Play factions, or if the victim was not reporting crimes when the attack began.
-Obviously, this does not apply to Conflict Zone kills.
Last edited:
Yes, most definitely, unless that escape pod has a safe with credits that covers the innocent victim's rebuy cost.
I am talking about killing for poops and giggles, not mission-related, sanctioned targets. Regarding police resources, we are bound by the rules of the Elite universe so yes, there are an infinite amount of resources available. That said, you do not need an infinite amount. All you need are 6 Battle-Condas that spawn in every single instance the Fugitive inhabits.
I did not say that. Poop-and-giggle killers are more than welcome and indeed as safe as houses in Anarchy/Non-populated systems. In populated, security systems they are hunted down and exterminated in accordance with the kill warrant.
Last edited:
All well thought out points and while I don't 100% agree with all of them I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as this one is concerned.
Right now, as a BH you farm RES for NPCs. Or, as a part-time BH you stop off at nav beacons to do a little ratting to boost your profits on a trade run. Bluntly put, you're a killer of wanted NPCs. There is little incentive for a player desiring PvP to bounty hunt, player criminals know all the tricks to minimize the amount of bounty they collect on their own heads, are at least as skilled as the traders you hunt in pulling the Sir Robin maneuver etc.
A player who can run cool enough to string jumps will be gone by the time you've scanned his wake and followed it - you WON'T find the wake he left when you arrive following his trail.
Now, I fully understand this would be an arduous design process for FD - it's easy to say what we want, but translating that into code specs is much harder, I've done that for a living and even on much less complex software than a real-time game it can be a nightmare - but I think the BH profession needs some serious love. There needs to be mechanics in place that the player wanting a primarily PvP "career" has BH as a viable option. Right now they have the choice of being a pirate preying on traders (who often can't fight back or refuse to play along, not a very satisfying thing if its the fight you want) or a mercenary (which to all intents and purposes means either hunting players aligned with other powers or "blockading" one side or another of a CG, which is an exercise in frustration for all involved on both sides). PvP BH is totally non-viable, in fact it's in a similar state to where PvP piracy was around Gamma. Right now somebody who want an in-game career focused on PvP and doesn't really like either pirate or mercenary all too often resorts to just racking up the kills by blasting weaker ships. There are some players who will do that anyway. They will never go away. But making BH in general a more rewarding and satisfying career - especially PvP BH - would "capture" more dedicated PvP players away from "random PK" gameplay.
I also think you are 100% correct in that the place to start with this is the way the wake scanner works. If you want to catch a player you've got to be able to effectively chase him. Scanning and following a high wake should 100% reliably drop you into the same instance the guy you were following jumped to and automatically target him. If he's not in that SC instance any more you should 100% reliably see either his high or low wake the moment you drop in and automatically target that. Same rules should apply when you fallow the targeted wake. Now there has to be limit here, I wouldn't dream of asking FD to build an infrastructure that lets you follow him ad infinitum. That would be effectively asking them to keep a semipermanent record of everyone's movements. Just not going to happen. Something like if he makes it through 5 FSD transitions without you seeing him on your scanner you lose him. Once you, or anyone in your wing, does see him though, even for a second, the counter resets. Similarly, if you make a FSD transition that DIDN'T follow his wake, you lose him and even if you and he do end up in the same instance you won't automatically target him, and if you do resume the chase from that point, it's a new chase altogether.
This will make it possible to PvP bounty hunt, would also be a benefit for you scurvy types chasing down a target that high-wakes out - it would make "escape by high wake" a more tactical process too - If I'm a trader and you're chasing me through hyperspace do I run like the clappers for a system where I know some of my friends are waiting to wing up and give me some cover or do I try and play cat & mouse, alternating high and low wakes in the hope of getting enough "distance" between you and I (in terms of FSD transitions) that you lose my trail - or do I "buckyball it" and simply hope to outrun you? A criminal with a bounty on his head would have the same choices if a BH is after him, although if the BH is being particularly sneaky themselves the target may not know they are after them at all until the interdictor hits.
That would actually enable the profession but it couldn't end there. There would also have to be (yet another) look at the bounty system but to even get to that stage where FD can address the risks and rewards of a profession, it has to be at least viable in terms of the gameplay mechanics to FOLLOW that profession. Only then will FD be able to collect reliable data on exactly how to tweak the other stuff.
Last edited:
![[VR] Enexemander](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/119/119036.jpg?1621636716){kind=avatar}
I think many of Mr. Wolf's suggestions have merit. As it is in game now, playing open in a trading/mining/exploration vessel is stupid. This is because the different vessel types are far too highly specialized. If I'm in a trading vessel, then If I get interdicted, then turning around and killing a competent player in a fighting vessel is not an option.
My options are to either run away or get bullied. Where is the draw to that? There isn't one.
My options are to either run away or get bullied. Where is the draw to that? There isn't one.
There's plenty of reason. There's a reason because I say there is! I'm playing the environment in Open and I like it!
Players should be forced to deal with it because too much is spoonfed these days. It'll harden them. Make them tougher for the world. It'll build character and put hair on their chest.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
There's a BIG draw. It is called surviving the odds. Pushing the limits. Living on the edge. You can get away from anyone if you know what you're doing. The question is... are you tough enough to want to figure it out?
Then the answer is to GIVE that mechanic a draw, by making the "run away" part more interesting rather than just boost/boost/jump. Possibilities include mechanics like I described in my post above where the current means of escape acquires a more tactical dimension, and a host of others. Decoys, that when launched appear on others scanners as you until within visual range. (or until successfully interdicted if they were launched in SC - SC capable decoys would be more expensive though), better ways to hide. You don't expect a semi truck to be able to turn around and outfight a Bradley or a supertanker to be viable in combat against a frigate. In both cases the survivable option is to be where the combat vehicle is not, although in both cases if you can pull it off ramming might be an option, just as it is in ED
Nice. I'm glad that works for you, but it just doesn't carry much weight regarding other players. Open will support only the population that enjoys what it is. It shouldn't be expected to be anything different than that. A place to find some PvP when the mood strikes.
To facilitate the individual enjoyment of the game players only need to find the environment they would enjoy at any given moment. IF cleaning up open is your thing, I'm glad it's there for you. For those that look for something different in their Elite experience there are other environments to choose from. I'm glad for that.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Then the answer is to GIVE that mechanic a draw, by making the "run away" part more interesting rather than just boost/boost/jump. Possibilities include mechanics like I described in my post above where the current means of escape acquires a more tactical dimension, and a host of others. Decoys, that when launched appear on others scanners as you until within visual range. (or until successfully interdicted if they were launched in SC - SC capable decoys would be more expensive though), better ways to hide. You don't expect a semi truck to be able to turn around and outfight a Bradley or a supertanker to be viable in combat against a frigate. In both cases the survivable option is to be where the combat vehicle is not, although in both cases if you can pull it off ramming might be an option, just as it is in ED
Or, a player can find an environment where he doesn't have to run away.
Yep, and that's a perfectly valid gameplay choice to make. If that's how you want to play it then go for it. Nobody will stop you and those that say they should be able to are talking through their hats.
Its a Videogame, its there to have fun. If people have no fun with that kind of gameplay then there is no point in forcing them into it, it only makes people stop playing. I mean, would you spend time on a game that is not fun for you when there are so many games out there that can provide fun?
Giving players choice in what to do and how to do it so they can have as much fun as possible is the best they can do.
Crazy idea, what if the CODE charged 10T platinum (or more?) to offer pirate interaction boot camp sessions periodically? Educate traders and other non PvP players on the CODE and how to know a CODE vs PKing random jackass, the desired way for the piracy transaction to occur, and do a couple sparring-to Shields-down sessions for combat training purposes?
Could be good PR and a bit of fun for both groups although perhaps technically difficult to implement in game.
Could be good PR and a bit of fun for both groups although perhaps technically difficult to implement in game.
Yep, the setup is crap, and it's a crap game because of it.
Getting from a to b should be a battle, there is no need for cargo to vanish it should be split 10% being spilled in space and the rest reappearing.
The default stolen flag on free floating cargo is stupid, as is needing to find black markets. Getting to an anarchy to sell contraband was a perfectly good mechanic , and smuggling would still be possible in policed systems. The god awful balancing for PvP ruined PvE. Missions and factions were already in place there was no need for PowerFolly/PowerFail the core game should have been developed. Community goals are just grinding. No flight computer, no trading journal, no ai wingmates, no player to player trading, no rear view mirror. A stupid non Newtonian proprietary flight model. Idiotic rubber banding in super-cruise.
It's a crap game, because the design is crap and the designers are unwilling to revisit and review it.
Fail fail fail .. looking forward to alternatives
Getting from a to b should be a battle, there is no need for cargo to vanish it should be split 10% being spilled in space and the rest reappearing.
The default stolen flag on free floating cargo is stupid, as is needing to find black markets. Getting to an anarchy to sell contraband was a perfectly good mechanic , and smuggling would still be possible in policed systems. The god awful balancing for PvP ruined PvE. Missions and factions were already in place there was no need for PowerFolly/PowerFail the core game should have been developed. Community goals are just grinding. No flight computer, no trading journal, no ai wingmates, no player to player trading, no rear view mirror. A stupid non Newtonian proprietary flight model. Idiotic rubber banding in super-cruise.
It's a crap game, because the design is crap and the designers are unwilling to revisit and review it.
Fail fail fail .. looking forward to alternatives
Majinvash
Banned
A "Safe Space" if you will
Firstly Its The Code not CODE. But that aside, the best way to learn how to play in open is to play in open. Its what we did, and its what makes us so good at it.
There is no science to it, we all took our knocks, lost ships, learned and improved.
I would be happy to give PVP lessons for reward but I can only teach theory, the skill comes from experience.
Majinvash
The Voice of Open