Yes PVP is unfair.

[Lheim]

Personally, if there is going to be some sort of anti-gank detection system, I think 'disparity of elite level' is the wrong measure to use.

The whole elite rank thing is already ridiculous. I've been playing since launch and don't have any elite - I could have, I suppose, if I'd chosen to grind one profession, but I dabbled and played casually anyway - and so I'm already punished by lack of the most lucrative missions, despite flying a fully kitted python and other ships beside. Don't make me a gankable target on top of that. Or conversely, don't make me some kinda 'protected widdle noob' either.

It's not a useful measure for another reason - a weak ship is a weak ship, elite player or not. A 4-FDL wing vs a t9 is a gank, pure and simple. I realize it's hard to codify, but I know a gank when I see one - and it has nothing to do with elite rank.

But quite aside of that, any arbitrary definition of gank codified by the game will be gamed by the players with horrendous consequences. The long-unsatisfactory crime systems need to be re-thought out. I realize that's a longer project, but a big 'crime patch' would be awesome.

 

[PulsarShark]

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

No, it would only make the issue more complicated and make both sides more frustrated.

The example you mention would move Powerplay further toward a PVE-only activity. Most people already fortify and undermine in private/solo to eliminate the risk of running into hostile players. Your example would put pressure on an Imperial pledge out undermining who spotted a low ranked Federal pledged cargo ship, to let him go. The Powerplay boss figure does not want us to let them go; the boss wants us to take that ship out so the fortification cargo he's probably carrying will not make it to the station, and the undermining we've been doing is more effective. Now you're proposing that someone who shoots down those small fortifiers will be unable to dock in his own high-sec systems when he returns to friendly territory.

 

[kofeyh]

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?

At present PVP exists as a mechanic, however that mechanic has, quite literally, no rules of engagement. The problem isn't so much that people are being shot at, it's the circumstances it's occurring in, and the penalties obtained. In other words, rules of engagement. What is sanctioned, and what isn't (being wanted is a very simplistic, in this context).

For example:

At any time, I can hop into my Anaconda or Cutter, sail into a beginner system and while away an hour or so shooting fish in a barrel. Net result? A bounty that I can ask a kindly CMDR to claim for me, anywhere, at any time, via a KWS and an unfortunate, err, "weapons malfunction" (we're fine here, perfectly fine. how are you? it was a boring conversation anyway - chewie! we've got company!). Or I can pay a paltry sum for a sidewinder, crash into the station and then leave in my nice big ship. No-one will ever know my secret, because the KWS doesn't show hidden bounties (you really should fix that!).

Your suggested changes, here, would make that more complicated. Now I can't really go too many places. There's more of a penalty beyond a potentially moderate bounty that I can clear at any time I choose. But I can just move to an Anarchic system and make that home base. Now I can go send endless numbers of newbie CMDRs to valhalla and it won't really affect me at all (hint: this would be the outcome, nothing changes, newbies still die and there's no real penalty). If I am independently wealthy, then spending a few more credits isn't likely to dissuade me.

Note, I don't actually go into beginner systems like a chuckle head and shoot up the place. But there's no real reason I couldn't do that if I so desired. The entry barrier and cost for that, is virtually zero.

If I am in a powerplay faction, and shooting someone else in a different faction (which is technically sanctioned killing even though there's no rules of engagement) then this is actually impactful in ways that may not be intended; suddenly standing up for a Faction against an enemy is complicated. Never mind the 'enemy' flag that doesn't actually mean anything, combat wise.

Also half the CG's that involve inter-faction combat (that can included PVP) would be affected.

Then again, I could be invited into a wing with 3 others, and we face of against another wing. Multiple ships engaged in combat. Of potentially quite varying CMDR ranks. Suddenly all being slugged with rather large penalties for what may have potentially a planned event.

How does the game know, that these events may be staged? Aren't there a few 'fight club' type groups that engage in agreed PVP? They would face considerable impact to their choice of engagement.

Also how does this affect piracy. I know it's popular to hate on pirates, but their chosen employment model would be greatly affected? Right. Not really, no. As much as I hate being pulled over by a highway-man, I can foresee where a trader attempting to defend from a low-level pirate (being an elite trader) is going to find they are a little bit screwed in secure systems, if they elect to defend cargo; it is critical the 'wanted' flag works (which means enabling the 'report crimes' function, at all times; and this doesn't always work).

Given most (pirates) are going to operate from Anarchic locations (for fairly obvious reasons) they aren't really impacted, in ways I am sure a few would like to see that profession impacted. Meanwhile, the Trader is now having to pray the 'report crimes' function works, if the pirate is yet to be marked wanted.

I'd love to see crime and punishment overhauled. But that's one complex sucker, and probably needs some complex code, and thought, so it's relatively straight-forward for CMDRs to understand and doesn't really just exacerbate the existing problems. It seems to me (as a lay person and non-programmer) that some fundamental rules of engagement possibly need to be added first.

So a trader defending their cargo, doesn't become unable to sell anywhere but an Anarchic system, because they chose to defend their wares. Or so powerplay isn't rendered even more irrelevant than it already is. Or a few other basic outcomes that are highly likely purely because the game isn't being overly smart about combat.

So I think maybe a bit more than a rough stab might be warranted, If that doesn't sound too unreasonable.

Edit:

I mean there are some creative options, such as:

• broadcasting to all CMDRs in a sector when an unsanctioned death occurs (treat it like the ships that offer you jobs, make it a toggle though). Now bounty hunters can be advised that crimes are occurring, and can go have a polite conversation (which also partly adds the "I want to be a cop" mechanic).
• make the bounty galaxy wide for a period of time, then local, before expiring (this absolutely cannot be due to NPC death! those guys are suicidal and like ramming).
• give people the ability to send out a help request (this creates emergent play as you have no idea if a bounty hunter, another pirate, or a random psycho will turn up)
• add high bounties into the BB, as active missions (hello sanctioned bounty hunting).
• correct some logic issues, like make the KWS able to successfully scan for hidden bounties (now seppuku is no longer an i win button)

I'm not super creative so I am sure there are a bunch of things that could be done to not just address crime, but to make it something that's actually part of core game play.

 

[clinton]

Hello Commander Bumbles!

I'm interested in your opinion. Even though these penalties would only be applied in cases where there was a very clear mismatch of ability *and* a crime was committed, you think it would be a deterrent to player versus player activities.

Do you (or any other folk, feel free to respond), feel that there should be no additional penalties for lopsided encounters? That the world should remain uncaring and cold as is (don't worry folk, this isn't a trick question - there's no right or wrong answer!)?

I like uncaring and cold. It's Elite Dangerous, not Elite Fairypants.

However, the crime system at the moment is a bit silly. A 6000 credit crime (or alternatively, crashing a Sidewinder) is a joke of a punishment.

But, how to fix it is a tricky problem.

Firstly, I think most offences should be fines, like accidental assaults, docking violations etc. The only bounty offences should be murder or significant smuggling (for example, slaves, but also drugs in some systems), or lots of fineable offenses building up.

Let me introduce a new concept. Commanders can choose whether to "identify" or "not identify" when entering a system. If you "identify" and commit a crime you're going to get a severe bounty and hit to your reputation, which won't be wiped for a significant period of time. If you kill players the bounty on your head will include their insurance cost, which will be returned to them when the bounty is claimed or paid. You of course won't be able to land at faction stations. The crime system has to be fixed to ensure it's very hard to become a wanted criminal accidentally (not impossible, but a lot harder than currently).

But if you don't identity, then the system authority vessels will come after you and shoot on sight, also the system will place a bounty on your head. Naturally, faction stations won't accept you docking, they'll also shoot on sight. Thing is they don't know who you are, so you can commit murder and mayhem, jump out, and come back in without a scratch to your reputation.

However, they'll remember the ship that committed all this murder, even if they don't know who's in it. There therefore should be a way to "clean" a "dirty" ship, by paying some fee to a dodgy operator at a shipyard. This fee naturally should be no greater than the cost of rebuying the ship. This is a bit like the paint job on the GTA games that clears your stars.

 

[drholliday]

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel.

I think it's primed to create issues. If I reset my CMDR I'd be low ranked and could gank the crap out of new CMDRs. OTOH if I'm high ranked and it's a PP context the other guy is a perfectly legit target in his harmless T-6.

A natural solution to that problem would be to give BH something to do. But that requires some more massive changes. Notorious noob killers could get a high bounty issued by the Pilots Federation and this bounty does not expire easily in a week. If BH would have a rooster for these guys and the game would provide a mechanic for proper instancing in this case it wouldn't be an overly good idea to gank noobs on a more regular schedule or you'll end up with a 50,000,000 bounty on your head and half of the galaxy after you with no convenient protection from instancing. So you can either play in solo for weeks to get rid of the bounty or be prepared for some counter ganking by bounty hunters.

 

[DigiQuartz]

IF ED implemented more effective policing in core systems and scaled it according to system status it would probably help a lot. Fed, Alliance, and Empire systems would have the best security. Independent systems might have security, but maybe not as effective. And player rating with regard to a system should be considered too. So I'm allied to the federation, their cops would protect me, but maybe wouldn't worry too much about someone allied to the empire. It doesn't mean people can't still fly where they want.

This makes a lot of sense. A lot of people have been complaining that Sandro Sammarco's scheme negatively affects PC pirates, but I think this would actually help PC pirates, if done correctly. If two highsec systems are separated by a region of lowsec system, then trade between the highsec systems becomes difficult, since you need to risk transiting through the lowsec systems to move goods. This means that demand should increase at stations on either side of the gap, and trading between these stations should get more profitable. This not only encourages PCs to risk jumping through lowsec, but also increases the value of the cargo they are carrying for the pirate. You can have all of newbie space be relatively highsec (and have trading be relatively low profit in those systems, which is fine for newbies, for whom 100K credits seems like a lot). You can have the fringes be pretty lowsec. Places like Robigo become very dangerous but lucrative places to travel to.

 

[Jack Schitt]

It's Elite Dangerous, not Elite Fairypants.

I thought I'd reached the point where I could let this go but I was wrong, it still irritates me. The 'Dangerous' in the title is a rating, not an adjective. It's meaningless in this context.

Spoiler

Becoming Elite - Ratings

• Getting the Elite rating (in any of the four rankings) automatically gets you into the exclusive “Elite Federation of Pilots” – and being a member of the Elite federation confers many privileges. It is also possible for pilots without the “Elite” rating to gain admission to the EFP, but access to the organisation is extremely difficult: one must show extraordinary promise as a pilot to be admitted.
  [...]
• Once admitted the pilot will be awarded a badge including the “Elite” logo, but with their current rank below. It is expected the majority of these will be “Elite: Dangerous” and “Elite: Deadly”. Those with an “Elite” rating get the original, unadorned badge.

https://youtu.be/rOYhoFYIWmw?t=7m57s

(Unless there really is a faction out there granting pilots the rating of Fairypants, in which case I take it all back).

 

[DigiQuartz]

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

This is something I was thinking about the other day. Imagine if there was class 1 internal ship component in game (or maybe a utility hardpoint component) called a "Scanner Ghost". This would let you intentionally mis-represent your ship in super cruise. Then you could make, for example, your Type-7 Transporter appear to actually be a Federal Assault Ship (since these are similar tonnages.) Maybe it works well in SC, but outside of SC, or when you get really close, the scanner image "glitches" to let you know something is up. Maybe it works better if you're trying to fake out a ship that's close to yours in tonnage, but has a higher chance of betraying reality if you're trying to pretend to be something much larger or smaller than you are. This actually has interesting applications both ways; as a trader you can make yourself look more fierce than you really are, as a bounty hunter you can make your FAS look like a Type-7 and try to honeypot pirates.

 

[LaFleur]

What PvP needs is a "Higher Risk - Higher Reward" kind of system. Also a system that protects CMDRs from griefers. Disincentives for murders who gangbang in a wing one small defenceless ship. There is no economical basis on attacking and killing defenceless CMDRs. Unlike pirates, who attack CMDRs to gain profit, murders should be punished heavily from the game.

 

[Huros]

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?

Hi Sandro. I like but I feel this is less than a half measure and lacks balance. I so strongly believe that the whole crime and justice side of the game needs its own ranking system with consequences and benefits at each rank.

I have posted so much about this thinking. There is also so much to be added and fleshed out. I strongly believe a sensible reworked ranking from offender to pirate King with pirate system permits opening up and exclusions from high security systems as you mention would be a great *part* of a larger system to take in to account bounty hunters and more contacts based hunting. Ie. Emails from engineers and other contacts to give you clues to where your prey is

Also an option to creat a bounty in the rebuy screen if the circumstances permit. This would give the victim some sense of balance and make things hotter for the perp.

 

[Drakonluke]

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

Wow! That's creative!
One can agree or not with your idea, but is an idea indeed!
Get this rep, bro!

 

[Jack Schitt]

Just going to drop this here as a reminder, in case we get too buried in the minutiae of ship interactions or the complexity of potential solutions:

This is a game in which being a murderer^[1], PvP or PvE, warrants a bounty equivalent to the cost of crate of Consumer Technology while a traffic violation means instant death to everyone on board.

Whatever complex solutions and workarounds are invoked to try to reduce roflstomping or other undesirable behaviours, start with this. Unless the foundations of the crime and punishment system make sense, trying to build complex rules on top of them is an exercise in futility.

[SUB]^[1]We've heard all the counters about "there's an escape pod / it's not really death / can't murder an NPC / only a game" numerous times but they're irrelevant as long as the game continues to report "Bounty for murder" on the info screen. The word is right there.[/SUB]​

 

[lenna]

Ok, not read the whole thread but..

Maybe some of this would help...

1. Remove ship scans from supercruise so that players cant tell if they are attacking a combat-conda from a trade-conda.
2. Increase the penalties for attacking other player ships
3. Allow traders to insure their cargo?
4. Quick (NPC Viper System Authority?) Response to attacked ships. (Variable. Sometimes quick, sometimes longer.. )
5. 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..

1. Don't entirely agree with this but I see where you are coming from - I do not think it would solve anything in the long run
2. Been suggested on numerous occasions in other threads - several schemes have been proposed including increasing the death cost of a ship with which a player gains bounties - FD have done tweaks to crime and punishment but little more than that to date IMO
3. 100% in support of this idea - However, it could be exploited in theory depending on how it is implemented and what it covers
4. Recently in some systems I have had System Security turn up at some apparently random PvE incidents and it is reasonable to expect the same to happen in PvP cases
5. Not sure about this but it is an idea - you would have to limit it to attacking non-wanted pilots/ships though IMO.

Overall though, I think you may miss the point - if people WANT engage in PvP in a game they will regardless of the game mechanics. I don't think there is any change to the PvP status quo that would actually encourage more players to WANT to participate IMO. Removing respawn cost for PvP kill targets that are innocent (no bounties nor unpaid fines/legacy bounties) would be one option that may help address some cases of apparent PvP victimisation but I can see certain groups objecting to that. The death cost is not really that much of a problem really unless a given player is repeatedly targeted in a short space of time, it could be that a cooldown on death cost could be applied - say if a given player kills the same player with-in a certain time frame the target gets a free respawn and the attacker gets the death cost added to theirs.
---
Adding NPC escorts that can be hired and improving system security intervention/response mechanics might help to redress some of the cases but still overall I do not believe it would address the root concern - there are a significant number of pilots that have little or no interest in engaging in at least Random Open World PvP regardless of the game mechanics (c/f Mobius membership perhaps), and at least a subset of those are probably not interested in any form of PvP. Mitigating or increasing penalties on either side would not change that simple fact.
---
Nerfing certain PvP meta-builds would possibly help with addressing apparent imbalances in random open world PvP combat but I do not believe it would achieve the OP's apparent goals.

 

[Titus Balls]

The fact that Frontier is looking for a solution is clear evidence that the data available to them indicates there is a problem. The problem appears to be directly related to PVP.

If you engage in PVP, you will need to do some soul searching because it is your style of game play that appears to be causing the problem.

The solution is going to be very difficult to implement because the game must change and there are very strong opinions on both sides of the problem.

Do we end up with a game where more people play together in open? Or do we have a game where the majority of players are in Mobius or solo?

Do we have the courage to do what is best for the game?

That's a pretty big and insulting leap. There is nothing wrong with the concept of PVP and a game like this needs it. I'd say the problem is that Frontier relented and allowed private play, instead of going full MMO - it meant they could be lazy with any kind of crime and punishment and only need to implement the most basic (this is not a dig at private /solo itself - of people choose to play in those modes that is their choice, but I think they don't get to complain).

The problem is brought about by some of Frontier's rather flawed design for the game.

They tried fixing it with CQC, except no one wants an out-of-game arena combat. The moment they decided this game was online only is the moment they should have focused on a robust crime and punishment system to support any PVP activity.

Also by seperating NPCs from players on the sensors I think it's created a psychological barrier for many people.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Frontier did not "relent" and allow Solo play. The game was pitched from day one with Solo play and multiplayer.

 

[Titus Balls]

Hostile NPC encounters and hostile player encounters have nothing in common, at all, for me. NPC encounters are fun, entertaining, what I play games for; hostile player encounters, on the other hand, I rate as slightly more unpleasant than dealing with a rabid cat.

So, played all other Elite games. Loved them. Not only them, but I have literally played dozens of space sims, including every game in the X series, in the Wing Commander series, in the X-Wing series, and many others. Still, that doesn't make meeting other players in unwanted PvP any more enjoyable than scrubbing a toilet with a toothbrush.

Thats a rather unhealthy way of thinking about it, since it is only a video game. Do you think similarly of other video games?

 

[PsychoFish]

This could probably work against (player-) murderers:

- Bounties are set to the worth of the (player-) ship that was destroyed. (Or the rebuy cost.)
- The offender has to pay the bounty from his own pocket once he get's successfully hunted down.
- If the offender does not have enough money to back up his bounty -> Sidewinder 100 Credits

Pros:
- Bounty hunting players would become lucrative, if you consider how hard it is to make money compared to "farming" NPCs.
- Murder would be a REAL risk. Most griefers/psychos/whatever have enough money to back up their habit. Losing a significant amount of money for the crime would be a real penalty and if they are extreme, the risk of having to start over is a real risk.
- Clearing bounties via a friend wouldn't help the offender, because he still loses.
- Players could work and take revenge and by that means even get their money (or at least a part of it) back.

Cons:
- If a rich player wants to transfer money that way, this could be exploited.
- Sidewinders ramming others for the lulz won't be effected, but isn't really as effective as a big ship hunting you down.


Effects:
- Murderers are seriously punished in probably the best way this game can.
- Pirates are incentivised to "pirate" and not to just kill traders who don't play ball. The tools are there (target hatch, limpets).
- Clearing bounties easily is avoided.


Please discuss ...

 

[Titus Balls]

Frontier did not "relent" and allow Solo play. The game was pitched from day one with Solo play and multiplayer.

When I say relented I mean within the design. You are correct or was pitched as that and I believe it was a mistake. From day one or should have been pitched as a MMO.

We would not have had Offlinegate nor do I belive would the team be so constrained on game design. If they weren't then why is Sandro coming on here asking for solutions? Frontier have no clue how to solve this (or the guts to just go ahead with the big changes needed because the don't want to another forum storming) and that's worrying.

But we live with that decision and people are free to choose what style of games they want to play.

 

[Martind Forlon]

Hello Commanders!... 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?

Imo player's rank is not good measurement because it not say how "really" dangerous player is. Like when there come harmless guy in silent sidewinder with rails and fly all the time with FA-OFF shooting high-ranking traders. Already suggested use of local security (NPCs) to guard space accordingly with system status is much better (imo) way, because it do not rely on players stats at all (and therefore cannot be misused by some clever pilots).

Bounties usage can be interesting, but imo this should be made independent, and affect BH NPCs primarily, i.e. with bounty coming higher (or with more bounties), more often you will have BH NPCs on your six. Include players into this could be tricky a bit (especially if use "high" bounties) because it may open easy way how to misuse this system. If I could vote I will for "low" bounties and system where such "criminal" can be tracked by players - this will not be so easy misused, and target can deserve his fate.

It can be hard to decide how exactly should "local NPCs response" looks, but it will help make universe react better on players acting (= more immersion). Into "local NPCs response" should be also included PP aspects and players can have much more fun in result ... i.e. player coming into system with the "bad" intention for system ruled faction (or power), needs to be prepared for troubles no matter if he is in solo/private group or open. He will be then much less surprised if player will shot him, if before did it 100 times local NPC.

Btw.: imo there is not a way how to force or persuade players from solo/private groups come to open, you can only show them that open universe, where PvP in all forms have its place, can offer more fun for them. Some will stay in groups/solo no matter what will be done, but some may decide return and also for new players there will be bigger chance they may decide to stay in open and have fun.

 

[Surround]

I wish things worked like psycofish writes. I would rather see players disable each other than destroy. The boot up sequence is so cool but you never use it.