Yes PVP is unfair.

[lenna]

- If a rich player wants to transfer money that way, this could be exploited.

There are currently legitimate and peaceful ways of effectively transferring credits in-game, abandoning cargo in space and having the recipient pick it up as legal salvage.
---
Overall, I like the principle of what you are proposing and it is not the first time that the overall concept or similar has been proposed. IMO though it would not prevent true griefers/psychos/whatever.

 

[OamodSias]

- If the offender does not have enough money to back up his bounty -> Sidewinder 100 Credits

Back to a sidey with only 100 credits? That's a little harsh.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

As I have said in so many threads before.

-Make police forces actually MEAN anything in civilized space

-Let there be impacts on reputation on all factions in a system where a crime is committed

-Enough negative reputation and the following happens:
--Higher costs of all items in stations
--Revoked docking rights (temporary and PERMANENT (the latter as long as reputation is at a very low level)
--NPC manhunt fleets go after said criminal (when reputation is at an all time low)

-Anarchy systems welcomes the criminal

-Reputation towards criminal factions go UP in Anarchy systems when civilized systems hates you

-Bounties are not for players but ONLY to indicate how much NPC's hates you (to prevent friendly farming of bounties)

-Players gets rewarded in +REP for killing player criminals instead of cash.

ETC...

 

[lenna]

Back to a sidey with only 100 credits? That's a little harsh.

How about no credits then, and no guns or shields for 100 respawns and have an instant wanted status for those spawns. Now that would be harsh
---
j/k of course for those that do not understand my sense of humour.

 

[PsychoFish]

... 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.

Sorry, I don't want to offend you, but that's a little harsh (if not to say a load of bull..).

From day one (even before I got invested in this game) Frontier has always been in contact with the playerbase and taking ideas and design concepts to please them/us. If Sandro is coming here asking us for our oppinion this is one thing only: Good!!

1. They get feedback on their ideas and can adjust them to what the players really want.
2. They might get other input they haven't thought about.
3. The players feel like they have a real influence in the game.

If FD just makes something everyone hates, players quit. If FD does that, everyone will complain that they don't care about the players and what we want. Suggestions will be made anyway (see powerplay) - why not ask for them BEFORE changing mechanics? What more can a community aks for if not being involved in a process of game development? Of course they won't put our input 1:1 into the game, because they have to consider a lot of oppinions and factors, but reaching out to the community can only benefit the game.

 

[rootsrat]

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. Thanks for posting. The developers' input and sharing of ideas is always welcomed and appreciated in the community! To the point:

I don't think this would reconcile the two sides of the dispute. I agree with the100thmonkey here:

Personally, I think the two factions won't be reconciled because of fundamental differences in what they perceive the purpose of the game to be (or, to put it another way, why they play the game.) The discourses surrounding the two outlooks are different at a basic level.

In general (VERY general) the PvE vs PvP discussion essentially comes to this: most of PvE-oriented players don't think that murdering others is a valid way of playing Elite and shouldn't be allowed. PvP players in general think it's perfectly fine. I do realise there are many aspects to this (and that the case is much more complex than that!) which have been discussed ad nauseum, so let's not go that road again. I also realise I am generalising here, but this is for the sake of this particular discussion with Sandro.

What you're proposing, Sandro, WOULD however address part of the problem, which is "end-game" players killing new/weak players for fun and with no challenge at all. Judging by the forum and other social media comments and discussions, I think this is one of the factors that discourages new players to go play in Open and have fun in the early stages of their journey in general. They get in their Sidewinder, hoping to lean the ropes and if they get destroyed by a player in a massive, armed to the teeth ship, it can be VERY demoralising for them.

What you are proposing could potentially discourage the "end-game" players from killing newbies and perhaps focus on more equal targets, so that they won't have the severe penalties for killing a much weaker ship.

Docking restrictions seem like a great idea and they make sense from lore (and logic) point of view. At the moment it's pretty much like that: I have just murdered someone. I am wanted in a particular jurisdiction. Ergo: the authorities there KNOW who is the criminal. I then go to a station under the jurisdiction of the same authorities and they let me dock and don't care that a murderer has just openly announced "I'm here! Can I come in? Cheers! I'll just have some fuel and I'll be on my way."

As for increased monetary penalties - I don't they will have the desired effect unless they're pro-rata'd. From what I've noticed - although it may be just my perception of things - the players who spend their time in Elite killing newbie players have a lot of money and another 1 or 10 million won't make a real difference to them. Now if the penalty was pro-rata'd (for example: 15% od Total Assets value) - that would potentially make them think twice.

As for prolonged time periods for the penalties - yes, this would also help.

All in all I think it's a great idea and a step in the right direction when it comes to penalising for not very honourable murders of new/weak players. It'd obviously need testing and tweaking, but it's a great start and I'm really happy to see a discussion on this started, Sandro. Thanks!

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.

Again, really good to see mention of making system security more meaningful. In addition to my above comments, would it be good idea to introduce a new, special security level exclusively for starter systems? This would mean extremely strong forces being dispatched extremely fast to hunt a murderer in these systems, giving them a very low rate of survival, unless they escape to another system. Remember we are still talking about high rank players killing low rank players, so the above would not apply to the levelled battles, but only to instances of newbie players being killed for fun by more experienced ones in starter systems only.

 

[wstephenson]

Here's an idea for the devs to consider that could help balance out the risks (or lack of currently) that pirates face. Best of all, it’s done by reintroducing something that has been present since the original 1984 version of Elite: the ‘FUGITIVE’ status.
..snip..
• While pirated Traders always have their cargo at risk, pirates would now have something significant at stake also: their ship

This is a very good balancing idea. Although I would not deny them insurance, but hold up their ship rebuy until their FUGITIVE status clears. They can get their expensive ship back, after they have come good.

A long time ago (During premium beta), I started the "It was supposed to be so easy" thread to make a criminal life more exciting by fleshing out the underworld economy. Eg only being able to outfit at criminal stations. I realise that it is hard to make those kinds of changes now that the game is live, but it might be a good source of ideas for how to tune the running game.

Other ideas:

• Inter-system NPC bounty hunters, that pursue large bounties over many jumps.
• Inter-system way of tracking other players, at some systems and subject to reputation with owning faction, or very large bribes.
• Separate 'Pilots Federations' bounty level for crimes vs players and crimes vs NPCs
• Separate 'Pilots Federations' combat rank for combat vs CMDRs

 

[Garbarrage]

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?

Good idea. I think high security systems should have a more effective security response also.

 

[Maffa]

As I have said in so many threads before.

-Make police forces actually MEAN anything in civilized space

-Let there be impacts on reputation on all factions in a system where a crime is committed

-Enough negative reputation and the following happens:
--Higher costs of all items in stations
--Revoked docking rights (temporary and PERMANENT (the latter as long as reputation is at a very low level)
--NPC manhunt fleets go after said criminal (when reputation is at an all time low)

-Anarchy systems welcomes the criminal

-Reputation towards criminal factions go UP in Anarchy systems when civilized systems hates you

-Bounties are not for players but ONLY to indicate how much NPC's hates you (to prevent friendly farming of bounties)

-Players gets rewarded in +REP for killing player criminals instead of cash.

ETC...

I am glad there's a progressive consensus about this kind of reasoning.

There are too many ships with bounties in the hundred thousands sitting in faction capitals mugging ships without a care in the world, and this is valid with both NPCs and PCs.

I would like NPC detective/hunting squads for heinous CMDR bandits, and/or bandit gangs that require wings to be taken down (as much as bosses in instanced MMOs). There are a lot of possibilities.

 

[dxm55]

Here's an idea for the devs to consider that could help balance out the risks (or lack of currently) that pirates face. Best of all, it’s done by reintroducing something that has been present since the original 1984 version of Elite: the ‘FUGITIVE’ status.

If you DESTROY a ‘Clean’ player ship:
• You become a ‘Fugitive’ in that jurisdiction (Federation, Imperial, etc)
• You remain in this ‘Fugitive’ state for X days, regardless of how many times you are killed
• If you destroy another ‘Clean’ player ship in the same jurisdiction then the timer resets
• You can be a ‘Fugitive’ in multiple jurisdictions, each with separate day counters

While WITHIN A JURISDICTION that you are classed as a ‘Fugitive’:
• You are offered no insurance on your ship. If destroyed, you will only be offered a starter Sidewinder
• If you are destroyed, the person who destroyed your ship is awarded what would have been the insurance cost of your ship on top of any bounties you may have accrued (so a single 'murder' would immediately create a temptingly large bounty for any hunters)
• Even if you are destroyed, the Fugitive status stays until the timer runs out

Benefits of this system:
• While pirated Traders always have their cargo at risk, pirates would now have something significant at stake also: their ship
• As the ‘Fugitive’ status remains for the full X days even after death, a pirate cannot downgrade to a smaller cheaper ship and get a friend to destroy them to clear their name
• As the 'base' bounty reward is what the insurance value would of been, it is by definition worth less than replacing the ship and so cannot be farmed profitably
• Picking a smaller, cheaper ship to pirate in could sometimes be deemed a preferred tactic as it is less costly to replace if destroyed (we may actually start seeing pirates in Cobras/Vipers/Eagles rather than just Pythons/Vultures/Clippers)
• Sometimes pirates may deem it worth letting their quarry go rather than upgrade to ‘Fugitive’ or reset their counter
• While a ‘Fugitive’ could hide in Solo, they of course would be unable to pirate players there
• It sort of makes sense: Why would an insurance company pay out for a ship destroyed while taking part in murder/piracy?

NOTE: Anarchy systems would remain lawless (so impossible to be labelled ‘Fugitive) and as such make a good logical place for pirates to dwell in and a more dangerous place for traders to visit.

Interesting....
Fugitive hunting... yum yum....

 

[OamodSias]

How about no credits then, and no guns or shields for 100 respawns and have an instant wanted status for those spawns. Now that would be harsh
---
j/k of course for those that do not understand my sense of humour.

Now we're getting somewhere! LOL!

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

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.
.

I believe going for mmo crowd was a mistake. had we have had optional MP like payday 2 or torchlight 2 where we invite players adhock into our game and when they leave they go back to their own with any rep and money gained, we could have had far more persistance of npcs, we could have had storage, left our ships on planets and even stuff like small factions and outposts which prosper or die based on our actions which need only exist in our own save as our save could be on our HDD and reach 100s of meg. the BGS could still have existed for economies aat major ports as they do now and CGs but by making an "MMO" and forcing FD to track everything in the game for consistency means that players get none of the "good stuff" imo.

but we have what we have.....

ED barely hit its kickstarter goal as it was, imo EDs playerbase who got it KSed are (for a large part) a different demographic that the standard mmo crowd. I know people who backed ED whos only other games since 1st encounters were games like the X serices and stratedgy games like civ etc......... these people have naff all interest in MMO. Without these fuddy duddies (I am 40 and know for a fact I am at the younger end of the spectrum of players that I know who backed ED at the KS) ED may not even exist now so imo there is no point pining frontier (initially at least) pandering to them. whether they should be hung out to dry now however now that ED has its money..... I think that would be wrong but many here disagree

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

some people like player interaction, some do not.

PErsonally I am not really a fan of PvP, when I am in the mood I like PwP (ie co-op play) but even then its very mood dependent often linked to work and other real world issues. This is why the modes are so great in ED.... I can tailor the game to how i am feeling. Whether you feel the same as Dalkwalker is kind of moot really, feelings are feelings and what is right for one is not always right for another.

I do play PvP sometimes but these are throw away PvP games where there is no loss, so BF4 or CQC or warthunder are good examples..... The thing is, I do not enjoy attacking other players in ED, therefore I will ALWAYS be on the back foot regarding PvP. The combat is already lobsided enough without having to have the vulture shooting my T9 even having the advantage of opening the assault.

yes, i could be on my toes, hi wake out as soon as i see another commander approaching me, but for me this is not enjoyable. if there is another human in my instance i personally would rather hail and greet them than be thinking about combat with them.

Gods honest truth.... had the sitting in stations firing dumbfire gank squads, or people with the attitudes like the numbskulls sitting blocking landing pads at hutton ramming other ships and exploiting mechanics as much as possible not made me decide to leave open, I probobly never would have left and still be there today.

HOWEVER....................... now that has happened, truth be told, even if the crime and punishment repercussions were put in place properly now, I am not sure that I would go back.

for me that horse may well have bolted, it needed to be there far sooner than upwards of 18 months after launch, I have already found a way which suits my play style perfectly. I know the PvPers are terrified of making mobius an official game mode with mechanics to do what mobius painstakingly goes through for fear it will leave them targetless ........ and some of them are right (I even have sympathy for the legitimate pirates on that one) but ultimately I think in terms of numbers if FD did offer that mode, it would probably make a huge number of players happy and be healthy for the game (i have no facts to back this up, its just my feeling, feel free to disagree after all it is all conjecture).

Chances are so long as mobius exists I am unlikely to go back to open unless my real life friends i wing with sometimes want to. A subsection of the PvPers are reaping what they sowed and sadly mucked in the sand pit spoiling it for other would be PvPers as well imo.

 

[Titus Balls]

Sorry, I don't want to offend you, but that's a little harsh (if not to say a load of bull..).

From day one (even before I got invested in this game) Frontier has always been in contact with the playerbase and taking ideas and design concepts to please them/us. If Sandro is coming here asking us for our oppinion this is one thing only: Good!!

1. They get feedback on their ideas and can adjust them to what the players really want.
2. They might get other input they haven't thought about.
3. The players feel like they have a real influence in the game.

If FD just makes something everyone hates, players quit. If FD does that, everyone will complain that they don't care about the players and what we want. Suggestions will be made anyway (see powerplay) - why not ask for them BEFORE changing mechanics? What more can a community aks for if not being involved in a process of game development? Of course they won't put our input 1:1 into the game, because they have to consider a lot of oppinions and factors, but reaching out to the community can only benefit the game.

I have a lot of respect for Sandro and the team, so I am by no means putting them down. But I am calling it as I see it, at the moment Frontier are painted into a corner and there is no easy way out. I've offered very little solutions because I don't know the answers either and won't claim to. I can proffer ideas but it comes down to a few things of time, resource and if the engine and BGS can support it.

The problem with something like this is everyone has different ideas. You have "hardcore" PvPers who want to kill everyone on sight, "mousy" players who run away at the first sight of a human (and so should stick to solo and don't feel the need to stick their oar in because I don't feel they offer anything). Then you have folks who just want to be able to RP proper roles like Pirates, Bounty Hunters, Mercenaries or even Police Forces.

I think the game needs to focus on these last people first and actual make security and crime & punishment mean something.

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

some people like player interaction, some do not.

PErsonally I am not really a fan of PvP, when I am in the mood I like PwP (ie co-op play) but even then its very mood dependent often linked to work and other real world issues. This is why the modes are so great in ED.... I can tailor the game to how i am feeling. Whether you feel the same as Dalkwalker is kind of moot really, feelings are feelings and what is right for one is not always right for another.

I do play PvP sometimes but these are throw away PvP games where there is no loss, so BF4 or CQC or warthunder are good examples..... The thing is, I do not enjoy attacking other players in ED, therefore I will ALWAYS be on the back foot regarding PvP. The combat is already lobsided enough without having to have the vulture shooting my T9 even having the advantage of opening the assault.

yes, i could be on my toes, hi wake out as soon as i see another commander approaching me, but for me this is not enjoyable. if there is another human in my instance i personally would rather hail and greet them than be thinking about combat with them.

Gods honest truth.... had the sitting in stations firing dumbfire gank squads, or people with the attitudes like the numbskulls sitting blocking landing pads at hutton ramming other ships and exploiting mechanics as much as possible not made me decide to leave open, I probobly never would have left and still be there today.

HOWEVER....................... now that has happened, truth be told, even if the crime and punishment repercussions were put in place properly now, I am not sure that I would go back.

for me that horse may well have bolted, it needed to be there far sooner than upwards of 18 months after launch, I have already found a way which suits my play style perfectly. I know the PvPers are terrified of making mobius an official game mode with mechanics to do what mobius painstakingly goes through for fear it will leave them targetless ........ and some of them are right (I even have sympathy for the legitimate pirates on that one) but ultimately I think in terms of numbers if FD did offer that mode, it would probably make a huge number of players happy and be healthy for the game (i have no facts to back this up, its just my feeling, feel free to disagree after all it is all conjecture).

Chances are so long as mobius exists I am unlikely to go back to open unless my real life friends i wing with sometimes want to. A subsection of the PvPers are reaping what they sowed and sadly mucked in the sand pit spoiling it for other would be PvPers as well imo.

In all honesty I've used Mobius and solo too when I've had to (mostly because I'm on the Distant Worlds expedition and because I'm filming). They have their uses for sure.

I don't think it's too late. Eve implemented C&P 2.0 many years in to the game, before that ganking was much easier to do. It's still possible, but it has consequences.

I don't think you'll ever stop ganking 100% though, there is always a small section of players who get off on it, to the detriment of genuine players who enjoy PvP, or who might not engage directly in it but do take risks in lower security systems (which is more about being aware of your surroundings).

I think because the game has a rather hotch-potch approach to it, and no support for any kind of RP, it'll take time to fix - but it can be done with the right attitude from Frontier - and players will accept it over time.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

i edited my above post to reply to another of your posts ...... (just incase you missed it) suffice to say for me FD mad a mistake in going for the MMO tag full stop. But you know what they say about opinions

 

[Jockey79]

.... "mousy" players who run away at the first sight of a human (and so should stick to solo and don't feel the need to stick their oar in because I don't feel they offer anything). .....

Excuse me, but this is a "multiplayer" game and a "co-op" game according to Frontiers own sales information.
If none-PvP type folks would like social play without a constant barrage of PvP, they should be able to - and also, it is a public game, so anyone can "stick their oar in" regardless of your opinion.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

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?

This is going to be a mild flame post so don your asbestos underwear and hold on to your tin hat and flak jacket...

With all due respect, Sandro, I can't believe I'm reading words like "Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment."

The subject of Crime & Punishment has been an ongoing discussion in this and other forums since before ED 1.0 came out.

Ideas like including an actual "Declare Piracy" button of some sort - been discussed many times and this one addition alone would enable your programmers to more easily deal with adding game mechanics related to the four official game 'careers' of Trader, Explorer, Pirate, and Bounty Hunter. Of all four, Piracy has been left out in terms of 'formal declaration';

Exploration : PRES BUTAN to explore (ADS & targetting for DSS),

Bounty Hunting : PRES BUTAN to scan target for crimes/warrants

Trading : PRES BUTAN for buying and selling commodities

Piracy : Well you can PRES BUTAN to interdict someone, but that mechanic has a crossover with Bounty-Hunters and those players who also interdict other players to impose 'PvP' on them. The game currently has no idea if a player wants to interdict another player for PvP, bounty-hunting, Piracy, or just downright murder.

This is why you're finding it so difficult to balance the game - there is nothing to tell the game client that Piracy is intended - yet Piracy has always been touted as one of the official careers within the game, and I find the lack of a formal "declare piracy" mechanic hard-coded into the game from the very start to be a massive oversight.

So let's look at what happens if there was a Declare Piracy button;

1) <Mr Pirate> "Yarrr!" *INTERDICTION OF PLAYER* *PRES PIRACY BUTAN* *VARIOUS PIRACY MESSAGES*

2) The game client immediately knows Mr Pirate wants to actually pirate someone

3) Various outcomes can occur;

a) Player accedes to demands, drops booty, gets out alive; Mr Pirate scoops booty up and either has to deal with system security or escapes unmolested - there may be a fine imposed for the illegal activity

b) Player tries to escape but Mr Pirate disables ship - then see (a)

c) Player tries to escape, Mr Pirate unintentionally pops victim's ship - massive fine/consequences (because a Pirate life should be hard yes?)

d) other stuff I haven't thought of here...

"But!", you say, "What if Mr Player-Killer uses the Declare Piracy button as an excuse for popping other player's ships!?"

The mechanics above already take that into account because the game client was told "piracy ahead" and (3 c) above takes that "exploding player ship" into account - massive fines/consequences.

And if a player-killer doesn't use the Declare Piracy mechanic and just goes around indiscriminately popping ships, then it makes it easier for the game to decide that none of the four basic "careers" are being played here, so you'd include even harsher consequences for those actions.

But no, here we are more than a year since 1.0 was released, and there's been nothing done other than discussion after discussion on the same topic of Crime & Punishment and some flailing around tinkering with fines and whatnot in the meantime.

And yet we're still at the laughable "design" where "murder" == a slap on the wrist, and "loitering" == a death penalty. Where the victim of a player-killer is punished more than the player-killer.

It's the same silly design "logic" as stubbornly keeping the SCB's in the game when it was obvious that removing them and improving the existing shield mechanics would have solved the whole SCB thing (which still hasn't been sorted out - read the various threads about the SCB's now here and on Reddit).

I'm not impressed by the "design" going on here. I think I know why it happened - it's a combination of rushing out ED 1.0, and either not having the time and/or neglecting to put in place a formal Declare Piracy mechanic, in your rush to keep adding more Stuff like CQC, get Horizons out, etc. It's understandable that you want to get these other things out, but the lack of formal Declaration Of Piracy is a serious design oversight in my opinion.

Your design, crime & punishment, AND coding life would be made immensely easier if you spent some Dev time into adding such a mechanic in. That just seems obvious to me.

It would make it easier to code decisions into the game on whether something is plain murder or not, rather than not adding it in and as for you, Sandro, saying you are "able to make decisions based on a player's rank and their ship loadout compared to the other player's" <--- see that? That's overcomplicating things and is absolutely silly logic right there. Rather than adding in Declare Piracy which would help kill a number of birds with one stone, would probably make life easier for pirate players to - y'know - actually feel like they're being a pirate, AND helping your coders to add crime & punish mechanics that make sense, you're considering using convoluted and difficult to implement "solutions" involving looking at ranks and loadouts.

The icing on the cake however is the "No ETA!" disclaimer. After more than a year of your playerbase discussing crime & punishment, gankers, how crappy piracy is and so on.

Quite flabbergasting, to be frank.

Regards

 

[Arubeto]

• Inter-system NPC bounty hunters, that pursue large bounties over many jumps.
• Inter-system way of tracking other players, at some systems and subject to reputation with owning faction, or very large bribes.
• Separate 'Pilots Federations' bounty level for crimes vs players and crimes vs NPCs
• Separate 'Pilots Federations' combat rank for combat vs CMDRs

Love the first three ideas, not so sure about the last one. I still think making rules for players and NPCs as similar as possible is more desirable than introducing new rules separating how they are treated even more.

But inter-system NPC bounty hunters would be great, would probably also improve the games feeling of consistence!

 

[dM.]

As a someone who has been playing elite since 1984..and elite dangerous since the beginning..this is the worst idea i have ever seen..open is open...i wouldn't bother playing elite if it wasn't DANGEROUS.

1.open player should never be punished for pvp..in OPEN...
2.solo is where you want to be.
3.for mates to play together without the nasty cold real life of anything can happen = PRIVATE GROUPS..

YOUR TRYING TO SHAPE OUR GALAXY! that is not the game i purchased.


all i can say as much as ive defended FD for some things they have done and decisions they make..you take this path, i will never play elite again..with so many competitors coming up...im not even going to stress this one..you choose this path as a designer your killing pretty much all the long term players..those of us who are left.

 

[Titus Balls]

i edited my above post to reply to another of your posts ...... (just incase you missed it) suffice to say for me FD mad a mistake in going for the MMO tag full stop. But you know what they say about opinions

I'm at the younger end of being an 84'er (being 34 I barely remember my first Elite experience on the BBC Micro, but I do - for me it's mostly on the Amiga I remember it, and of course Frontier)

I think by this point we've had Earth & Beyond, Freelancer, of course Eve as well. I think, to quote you, the horse had bolted at this point. I don't think Frontier had any other choice than to make it a wholly online experience. The complexity of the game, well most people's PC probably wouldn't be able to run it.

The galaxy alone, lets just say a system was no more than 64kb - that would mean you need to potentially store up to 2.56e+13kb of information, so the game alone would need multi-TB hard drives. You can only scale that game on the cloud.

Or are you suggesting Frontier should have been hamstrung by technology and not had a game they can grow?

 

[LaFleur]

10/10 could work!