Yes PVP is unfair.

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

We have ways of measuring ship power well enough for such a system to work, I think.

It's not incompatible with the concept of Pilot's Federation bounties. However, I feel that bounties, which are an incentive to other players, are "softer" than punitive measures applied directly to the offender without the possibility of avoidance.

Worth considering though, obviously.

 

[ATrifleMiffed]

That sounds like a very good concept. I think you will find a great deal of support for this. How would high rated Trade/Exploration vessels fit into this? There is a disparity in fighting ability between combat focused ships, and those that are not. Pirates that rob players shouldn't be too troubled by this, as long as they leave the Trader in their ships.

I assume it would be measured by combat rating, some measure of a ship's combat ability and a few other stats (total time played?).

Edit: Sandro beat me to it.

 

[HUSKER222]

why doesnt frontier just get rid of all the insurance costs for pvp kills? yeah youd lose your data and      but wouldnt have to pay millions on top of it. or whatever happened to cargo insurance? what about buying into data insurance? or add an existing rating for powers which include the power takes on a percentage of insurance costs until you hit that final rating and they take all of your insurance costs. maybe add in data insurance for those explorers. Make them have to pay dues into insurance? something if you guys want people to play in PVP make it more look better because i see open play as a waste of credits and aggravation.

 

[shambles1980]

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

Thoughts?

personally i think that people who attack CMDRS who are Not wanted. or are not a hostile power play faction. should have higher insurance or no insurance.
This may need to factor in things like "report crimes on/off"
but i do find it strange that the professional criminals have access to insurance.

I think removing loss on pvp would be a terrible idea and would cause no end of hell for new players, and only serve to fracture the player base further. (i have outlined this an numerous occasions)
A 30 min trip back to the bubble to be killed by some one who has no risks or punishment for doing it due to no pvp loss is 1 example also the new players being killed for giggles with the killer having no risk is a nother,.

the reall issue is there is low risk for people who kill the weak. no one complains when its within reason. (fdl vs python or fas etc)
also no one complains about consentuall pvp.
the squeeky wheels are the new players traders and explorers.
And the only logical way to make them less of an attractive target is the insurance thing IMO.
This also lets the pirates pirate, and the jerks be jerks. the risks of doing so however is greater.

Perhaps also tie the no insurance to the Value of the current ship (i.e inusrance is not coverd untill that value is exeeded. rather than for 1 ship. or the ship the crime was committed in, "stops people selling the ship for 10% loss rather than possible 100%)

 

[DefiledDragon]

Give us FSD scramblers but have a module that takes up an internal slot that protects your FSD from being scrambled but gimps your targeting system so it can't be abused by pirates. That's how EVE does it and it works really well.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Not a PvPer, but I think harsher penalties for crimes should come in, especially with the craziness with being able to dock at a station where you are wanted. On top of that, I think if someone is wanted, and the size of the bounty grows:

1) (Medium) They should attract a suitable NPC response from the authorities. Get the person hunted down, at first by weaker police, and if they kill those, bigger and higher ranked ones. Keep it going with more and more until they are forced to leave the system or die.

2) (Major) Please! Close the exploit with jump into a sidewinder, get killed, go back to old ship. Its a serious loophole that effective removes the meaning of bounties. One way is simple, do not allow bounties simply to expire due to death. Because you don't die, you escape, in your escape pod, and then go file your insurance claim and get a replacement sidewinder, and then hop back in your old ship, and magically the cops have magically forgotten about all those murders you commited. Ok, they do that anyway with the bounty expiration thing... but suppose the cops have lots of cases on their desks, too many criminals, not enough cops

3) (Minor) If possible, some sort of police scanner module for PvPers that will alert them to players commiting crimes in the same system. If report crimes are on, then the police are hearing about this, and transmitting it across space... let the bounty hunters get in on the act. Maybe make it illegal to own one though, and if scanned by the SA they will give you a fine (not bounty!).

HOWEVER!

I would say a number of things would need to be addressed first, because making PvP and PvP piracy more punishing, without something in return is probably too much.

Some suggestions:

1) (Medium) Bounties for accidental and non-lethal shots that do not kill. Its rather unforgiving. I'm a big proponent of the old "Check your target, control your fire", but the single hit against someone causing a bounty is a little much. Also means a PvP pirate wanting to send a message (warning shot) to target cannot fire even a single shot at them without the bounty. Make it hull damage and it would be much better (doesn't help with shieldless traders of course). Make it a fine perhaps?

2) (Minor) Kind of not required, but do we really need "on h-jump" when a bounty expires? What function does it serve? Very annoying for those 5 minute bounties.

3) (Major) For the PvP pirates, make hatch breakers work better, quicker, and higher quality drop more cargo quicker. Give the PvP pirates a chance to actually earn some money even as the target is running.

4) (Minor) In game macros for sending preset text messages. Can be achieved with third party tools, but not everyone knows about them or uses them. Useful for pirates to have an in-game option for sending "Stand and deliver! Prepare for a cargo scan" or whatever.

As for...

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

No, i don't think it will much. Dedicated PvEers simply have no interest in PvP no matter what punishment is given to the other player. What it might help with is stop gankers sitting in a system noob killing, and get some of those moderate PvEers back into open or retain some of those who might be pushed away by random kills.

Just my thoughts, as i was recently told on reddit, i have no rights making suggestions for improving PvP in the game being a Mobius carebear.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

We have ways of measuring ship power well enough for such a system to work, I think.

It's not incompatible with the concept of Pilot's Federation bounties. However, I feel that bounties, which are an incentive to other players, are "softer" than punitive measures applied directly to the offender without the possibility of avoidance.

Worth considering though, obviously.

I'm sure you do! It will provide quite the conundrum for players seeking to maximise their firepower while minimising their game determined ship power....

I raised the PF Bounties because that would be one way for the less combative players (who may have no interest in PvP and therefore will not seek redress personally) to encourage others to do so on their behalf. It could provide a source of marks for the Bounty Hunters among the player-base.

To go back to the timed "possibly double digit" insurance deductible, how would that be handled with respect to the ship that the player was piloting when the bounty was gained against the ship that they may choose to pilot when seeking to be "freed" from their bounty? As an example, there's a huge difference in value between 20% of a fully equipped battle vessel when compared to a bare Sidewinder.

 

[Theodrid]

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

We have ways of measuring ship power well enough for such a system to work, I think.

It's not incompatible with the concept of Pilot's Federation bounties. However, I feel that bounties, which are an incentive to other players, are "softer" than punitive measures applied directly to the offender without the possibility of avoidance.

Worth considering though, obviously.

It definitely is worth considering Sandro, and I am a great believer in 'something is better than nothing' but the suggestion only fixes part of the problem, in decorating terms there is a bloody big hole in the wall and this suggestion is the equivalent of painting the skirting boards.

 

[Dirk D]

Hello Sandro,

do you have any kind of redemption for these killers in mind?

Have you also considered the option for players to send distress signals that

a) results in a quicker security intervention (depending on the security level).
b) could draw the attention of other Player CMDRs to help the trader (with the added possibility to set a trap ;-)

 

[Uri]

Give us FSD scramblers but have a module that takes up an internal slot that protects your FSD from being scrambled but gimps your targeting system so it can't be abused by pirates. That's how EVE does it and it works really well.

I know that mechanic, and if they implement it like is in Eve Online, it will destroy all PVP ingame, it already did on Eve.

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

Hello Sandro,

do you have any kind of redemption for these killers in mind?

Have you also considered the option for players to send distress signals that

a) results in a quicker security intervention (depending on the security level).
b) could draw the attention of other Player CMDRs to help the trader (with the added possibility to set a trap ;-)

I really like this idea, like a Wing Beacon but called Distress Signal, or something different to know if its a NPC or a CMDR.

 

[nrage]

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

Thoughts?

If the goal here is to get/keep more players in Open, making for more fun for everyone then this might help.

However, I would much rather see this sort of thing solved by making certain systems actually "High" security. Such that, an attack on another ship (NPC or Player) in such a system would result in a very quick and powerful system security response. The sort of response that would have a chance of saving the target and would make attacking ships in High security systems a real danger/challenge to/for the attacker.

In addition, I do think that players with local bounties in High security systems should not be able to dock at stations controlled by the controlling faction at the very least.

Further, I think you should bring back Empire, Federation and Alliance bounties on player ships. Perhaps these are only acquired for killing players, perhaps only in High security systems, perhaps they take the value of a percentage of your local bounties in matching controlled systems, or perhaps they only kick in once you go over a certain local bounty threshold. It would mean that you could become wanted in larger areas of space.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!
So members that victimise weaker members (important to remember - it would not affect players going after equally matched targets or going after legal targets) would suffer both financial risk (imagine rebuy excess fees rising to a double digit percentages on the more expensive ships) as the Federation upped their premiums, and outcast status from systems receiving warning communiqués from the Federation (starting with the most secure systems, but eventually preventing docking access everywhere except anarchies).

I really appreciate you taking time out of your busy day to respond in this thread. Thanks.

This is kind of a neat concept. How about a way for us to bribe the station owner or system government to allow access or preferential treatment from the authorities and have that amount tied to how dastardly we are in the local system with of course limits--i.e. a player that murders sidewinders in a Fer De Lance would not be afforded any such benefits whereas the pirate who kills an occasional trader might be able to "grease the wheels."

I think the inclusion of an official player sponsored bounty system would help, too along with a galnet-esque bounty hunter bulletin board where it reports wanted players last known sighted location (by system authority scans, player scans or simple sightings and in high security systems, by nav buoy recognition from jumping in). This way player bounty hunters can have an up to date, semi-realtime way to figure out where to go looking for these heinous folks.

 

[Junky Juke]

Hello Commanders!

Thoughts?

In my opinion the actual security system of ED is too simplistic to tackle such a delicate matter.

-The predator is aware that he can kill players with an almost total freedom and at most he will be fined and he will have to wait for a cooldown, pay the fine, rinse, repeat.
-The prey is aware that he will be killed everywhere by players with no real conseguences. He will lose all his cargo and be the real aggrieved part with no real conseguences.

The problem is there's no safe areas of the galaxy to play the role of a honest citizen. There's no security, no law, no police. There's no safety feeling in the ED universe. And it is by design choice.

Combat/trade rank can not to be taken in consideration as basis of comparison. Because we all know it is linked to how much farming a player did and it is not skill based.

I think it is time for FD to consider a seriuous and in depth LAW&CRIME system to handle all this.

Give PVP addicted more challenge and more choices. Give PVE addicted more challenge and more choices. Do not limit all to an universal fine/bounty system.

This forums are full of great ideas about security system.

 

[shambles1980]

i would just like to point out that for most pvp players the NPC's pose no threat at all.
A higer NPC presence would make little difference without giving the system authorities 1 shot kill powers that would inevitably explode in an uproar when the solo/mobius players accidentaly shoot a clean npc and get anihalated.

I really do think that the insurance thing i mentioned is the only viable way of making weak targets less attractive.
The traders will know that if a pirate kills them they lose insurance and so are very likely to let them go PROVIDED they do as asked *which is all the pirates want*
New players will not be an attractive target at all. neither will explorers.
but the jerks can still be jerks if they REALLY want to, its just a high risk gaming style after that.

Edit i forgot to mention:
consentuall pvp would be fine if they had report crimes set to off.
And would only lose insurance privilages on a kill.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander nrage!

No ETA or guarantees but:

Hopefully at some point we will get interstellar bounties back!

We are also looking at making system security more important in terms of ship population breakdown, especially in super cruise (the goal to make the extremes of the scale well, more extreme ). This could also include response times.

 

[Splodey Dope]

REDACTED

 

[Nazdakka]

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

I really like that you've stuck to this principle. The fact that NPCs and CMDRs obey the same rules does a lot of good work for you on the game's immersion, but if you have to break the principle to prevent antisocial play, then it's something that has to happen,

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

Thoughts?

So long as you are punishing murder, not just assault, I would approve of a system something like this. You could also make the ban on docking in high-sec stations dependent on some combination of what major/minor factions are around and a given distance. I love the idea of some Anarchic systems turning into pirate haunts from which raiders sally forth to cause chaos in the surrounding area, while other players can try to get rid of the pirates by increasing the security level of their local areas.

What about toughening up the NPC police response in high-sec systems?

 

[edd]

Hello Commanders!
<snip>
Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

Not rank. Makes highly ranked players who happen to be flying relatively combat-poor ships too big a target, and you'll also only get people getting second accounts for giggles and giving them lots of money, giving you harmless ranked gankers who can continue without punishment.

 

[Thaliesin]

The problem is not newbies being harassed too much in open play, but veteran players not enjoyng being attacked by pirates.
It's the old problem of most online games, making so that Player Killing is accepted by the community.

Personally, I think a risk vs benefit schema might work, mixed with some RPG elements.
Whining about being destroyed in the heart of Federation space is one thing, but can you really blame anyone but yourself for being attacked by pirates in Archon Delaine's space?
On the other side shipping gold to a dangerous place could be great fun, proveded there is a reward for it.

Think of Shadow Deliveries from Robigo: they're fun, because overcoming a great risk (one scan = lots of time and effort wasted) can give great reward.

Merchants would outfit their ship to be armed traders and would gladly walk into the pirate's den, risking to loose valuable cargo? Yes, they would. Just give them a reasonable reward for success.
We'd see wings of combat ships escorting freighters, rather than i-do-everything-better-than-anyone-else solo ASPs flying alone into danger.

 

[Nazdakka]

Hello Commander nrage!

No ETA or guarantees but:

Hopefully at some point we will get interstellar bounties back!

We are also looking at making system security more important in terms of ship population breakdown, especially in super cruise (the goal to make the extremes of the scale well, more extreme ). This could also include response times.

Big thumbs up to both!