Yes PVP is unfair.

[CosmicBooty]

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?

The problem with this idea is what's to stop high level players switching to a low rank account and killing inexperienced players, even a viper can kill most ships is flown right. experienced players in sidewinders happens alot in eravate. Also the addition of this system might harm community who fight the grifers, why don't you introduce mechanics for the community to fight against it instead of npcs and insurance costs?

 

[Jockey79]

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.

Quite a few "long term" players are not PvP'ers - so you can quit with the drama / game will die nonsense.

The crime and punishment system is broken - due to the lack of said "punishment" for committing a crime.
Some PvP'ers keep moaning in various threads they have a lack of targets and something needs to be done - well that is the reason why, people do not want to be the seals for which you can mindlessly club.
As long as there is no consequences for random acts of aggression, people will continue to leave Open and join Mobius (now over 18,500 players and growing fast) or move to their own groups/ solo.
No one is saying you're not allowed to mindlessly attack anyone you want, but there should be consequences for your actions that apply directly to you for doing it - not just for your victim.

 

[Titus Balls]

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.

On these forums, for some people, it's only multiplayer when it suits them for their argument.

You can be a non-PvP type and play in open too - you should play as that though, with your wits about you.

I do agree that in open there isn't enough tools or gameplay mechanics for it. For example, a drive type that offers a better chance against interdicitions - potentially even having a chance of nullifying them. That would make life easier for traders (and offer more challenging scenarios for PvP players). But that the moment we only have ones that offer different ranges/weight options.

Elite has always been about a living, breathing galaxy that plays out without player interaction BUT players are an important part of the narrative otherwise there is no point of it existing. Some of the best stories to come out of ED have been player-based, in any mode - they are meta to the gameplay.

But the gameplay mechanics also let players down when it comes to "social play".

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

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

no not at all....... the galaxy could work as it does now, i mean using our pc to store stuff overlayed on that for our save.

this would not get to big if it did not have to sync with everyone’s game. it would not negate the BGS .. but i am drifting ot now so................

I don't like the idea of murder penalties taking into consideration rank difference between players.

neither do i actually..... There should be consequences for mindless violence, but not tied to rank.

 

[Weps]

I don't like the idea of murder penalties taking into consideration rank difference between players. Like others have said, rank is not an indication of player skill, merely an indication of time spent playing. Also, eventually, a lot of players will reach Dangerous, Deadly, Elite, how will the mechanic work then? Also, a trader who also happens to be Elite in combat might get targeted more (because of reduced penalties) than a trader who just did not bother to do combat, even though their ships, cargo etc. are identical.

The game has a ranking system - use it. If increased rebuy costs and denied docking permissions are a thing, then fine, but tie them up with with the major faction rank. Hostile players towards the Federation can slowing start getting denied docking permissions in those stations. Also, the ranking system ensures that the status can be reversed, for players who want to redeem themselves, without the need to an additional decay mechanic (players denied docking in Sol for example can work their way up to a better rank in the provinces to get docking rights again). Then, just tweak rank penalties based on the targets (killing players has a much larger impact on major faction rank, eg. 100% more thank killing an NPC).

Decreased insurance is fine, but what about the bounties? Players have to pay their legacy fines when they respawn, just increase the bounty value. Claimable bounty amounts are capped at 1mil, so there's no exploit danger there. Just change the respawn mechanic to bring you to the nearest station, so that active murderers near a starter station HAVE to respawn there and HAVE to pay their legacy fine. The idea you proposed last year was that the penalty for naughty commanders was to slowly restrict access to the galaxy or make them pay dearly, what happened to that concept?

 

[SentineI]

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.

If you are considering such drastic measures, then I think it would also be worth *considering* an entirely different kind of drastic measure:

Currently network match-making doesn't consider player combat skill/rank when deciding which instance a player will join. I've previously suggested that if the match-making code has several "good" instances to choose from, then it should try to keep players of similar combat skill/rank together. That would make your problem less likely to occur in the first place. (Please note that I am *not* talking about CQC!)

Note that this would actually benefit P2P players, since it would make it more likely that they meet someone of vaguely-similar skill, and thus their target is less likely to try to run away (or combat log).

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

. I've previously suggested that if the match-making code has several "good" instances to choose from, then it should try to keep players of similar combat skill/rank together. That would make your problem less likely to occur in the first place. (Please note that I am *not* talking about CQC!)

Note that this would actually benefit P2P players, since it would make it more likely that they meet someone of vaguely-similar skill, and thus their target is less likely to try to run away (or combat log).

you are making the assumption that a player with a dangerous combat rating is 1) interested in PvP and 2) good at PvP

as has already been noted, PvP and PvE offer different (tho overlapping) skills and builds.

I am....... around 10% off dangerous in combat (and indeed my CQC would hint that i am able to hold my own at PvP when in like for like ships)

that does not mean that i am remotely interested in PvP, or that i will have a PvP specced ship. your suggestion would actually make it worse for me as it would force me into more instances for pvp than it does now, and conversly worse for PvP players who really want pvp but have not played as many hrs as i have.

Dont get me wrong, i am not knocking you for trying to come up with ideas, but that particular dog wont bark imo

 

[Retrograde]

I love the idea of stations not giving docking access if player is hostile or has a large bounty. It should work that way. Actually, the station should just open fire.

If we want to punish players more for attacking innocents, I agree that it would be nicer to not distinguish too much between PC and NPCs.

Having not read most of this thread, here are my suggestions:
1) Increase bounties for attacks on traders or vastly weaker ships. Major influence drop.
2) Escalate bounties for repeat offenders. So once the local system bounties rise above some amount, it becomes a major faction bounty
3) NPC bounty hunters for major offenders. Generally overpowered, e.g. 2-3 elite Anacondas in wing, etc. (Give pirates something to brag about when/if they escape)
4) Stations deny docking and might open fire as above
5) Bounty brokers at some stations. Players can't be bothered to gather bounties far away. Let us sell bounties to a broker at 50% loss.
6) Inform victim at rebuy screen (or elsewhere) of increased bounty on attacker. It might help give the victim a slightly increased sense of justice.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

I love the idea of stations not giving docking access if player is hostile or has a large bounty. It should work that way. Actually, the station should just open fire.

If we want to punish players more for attacking innocents, I agree that it would be nicer to not distinguish too much between PC and NPCs.

Having not read most of this thread, here are my suggestions:
1) Increase bounties for attacks on traders or vastly weaker ships. Major influence drop.
2) Escalate bounties for repeat offenders. So once the local system bounties rise above some amount, it becomes a major faction bounty
3) NPC bounty hunters for major offenders. Generally overpowered, e.g. 2-3 elite Anacondas in wing, etc. (Give pirates something to brag about when/if they escape)
4) Stations deny docking and might open fire as above
5) Bounty brokers at some stations. Players can't be bothered to gather bounties far away. Let us sell bounties to a broker at 50% loss.
6) Inform victim at rebuy screen (or elsewhere) of increased bounty on attacker. It might help give the victim a slightly increased sense of justice.

Bounties are useless since it can be exploited. Let bounties be an indicator to how much the NPC's hates the CMDR and let players reap increased reputation instead for killing a wanted CMDR.

 

[metatheurgist]

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!)?

Nope. Crime is crime. Relative levels of the participants is irrelevant. Just actually implement working security and consequences for crime, that's all we've ever asked for, not this bizarre social experiment.

 

[Vingtetun]

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?

Sandro - certainly at the moment, there is a disparity between the "cost" of PvP actions to the recipient and the punishment.

The options available as I see them are as follows:

1. Boost the punishment, though with the huge wealth being accumulated by players, I'm not sure that this would be a deterrent
2. Generate non-financial consequences - for instance, could "murder" create bounty hunting events from NPC's wanting to hunt down the miscreant?
3. Actively reward the disabling/robbery of ships to make keeping them alive worth more than destroying them. Effectively "piracy" vouchers that can be cashed in with pirate factions
4. Boosting police presence and response as a result of interdictions/attacking players. Safe systems should come down like a tonne of bricks on pirates. With a response based upon how tough the pirate was. Potentially, being able to follow the miscreant through a high-wake or recognise them when they return. Similarly, in anarchy and low sec systems, anything goes.

Item 3 is interesting, as boosting "rep" with pirate factions etc could tie in nicely with the engineers/persistent NPC side of things. How one might create a mechanic that rewards robbery better - or scanning a ship and "hacking" the computer for data - that's the hard part. A "pirate" tool available to tag ships with a "stand and deliver" whereby subsequent target destruction would remove vouchers would be interesting. Could be tied to the interdictor - interdict a clean ship and it becomes a pirate target, interdict a wanted ship and it becomes a standard bounty target.

(thinking out loud, and all of the solutions have issues) - but the essence is that if the alternative to blowing player ships up for fun is more lucrative, or generates a substantial in game disadvantage if done in "safe" systems, would bring Elite back closer to the original in terms of safe "Corporate State" and unsafe "Anarchy/Feudal".

 

[Weps]

Bounties are useless since it can be exploited.

There is currently a cap on the amount of credits a player can claim from a bounty. If another player has 1522433cr bounty and gets killed, the bounty hunter can only claim 1000000cr in that jusrisdiction, the remaining 522433cr go lost. However the player who got killed gets a legacy fine of exactly 1522433cr.

 

[Jukelo]

Mobius is 18.5k and growing. PvP proponents appear to believe they own open and that open = pvp. No open means pvp may be possible. It doesnt mean, hey its open pew pew everything..

Actually it does. Open means "do everything you want short of cheating, and expect anything to happen".
That's not to say the punishment system isn't pants and there couldn't be more law and order and above all consequences, but at its heart the ED galaxy is the space far west and should stay that way, and that includes player interactions.

 

[NeilF]

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...

Indeed! And combat logging needs to be penalised... And Piracy needs better mechanics and indeed benefits (if obviously done correctly)!

 

[OamodSias]

Nope. Crime is crime. Relative levels of the participants is irrelevant. Just actually implement working security and consequences for crime, that's all we've ever asked for, not this bizarre social experiment.

Please expand, in detail, on what "working security" and (acceptably balanced) "consequences for crime" entail. You can't, can you? See my point?

In order to implement a working security and a set of rules surrounding the consequences for crime, one first needs to do the requisite research to find out what is acceptable and what isn't, what is balanced and what isn't, what is fair and what isn't. This social experiment of Sandro's is one way of doing that research: propose an idea, get customer feedback and ideas; do further research and ultimately come up with a solution to the problem ( one which the player-base will likely hate. )

 

[wstephenson]

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

This is slightly more mordant form of what I was writing with

And by the way: the crime system is the flight model of player interaction. It deserves investment.

As Lead Designer of the game, aren't these very basic mechanics Sandro's personal fiefdom, and should be resourced accordingly?

 

[Cosmos]

Hey btw.. I always get quite passionate about discussing this area of the game. I mean no offence to anyone, but if I did or do upset some - sorry about that

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
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?

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


Thoughts?

I think it’s good that there are no difference between crimes against AI and crimes against humans.

I think harsher punishment like the examples you gave would be a good addition to the game and should be applied to crimes against players and AI.

Knowing that justice will come to offenders is a good thing. Knowing that I could do something „bad“ but it would have really harsh consequences adds to the feeling of realism in the game. It would make the galaxy truly „cut-throat“.

I don’t think in-game reasons will prevent anybody form „random killing“ „for the lulz“. A player who does that doesn’t play the game for in-game reasons and as a result will probably ignore in-game punishment.

It could motivate some PvP players to play in a more in-game/role-play style.

I guess it would calm down the emotions on the „victim“ side a bit and would give more PvE oriented players the feeling that the galaxy is something „believable“.



The main issue, in my opinion, is that there are almost no in-game reasons for PvP.
As a result some players consider every PvP as a direct, personal attack and not as part of the gameplay.
The missing in-game reasons for PvP turns every PvP combat into random killing.

I think this game needs a system that gives players in-game reasons for PvP and crime, in-game reasons to be a „victim“ and a way to avoid being a valid PvP target. Harsh punishments could be added for PvP outside that system.


For example crime organizations (or secret service organizations or…) that offer special piracy (letter of marque“, protection and cargo missions and fight between each other (similar to PP, but PvP oriented).
Maybe even official Navy actions from the major factions. A CMDR could buy a letter of marque form the Empire that allows the CMDR to pirate special federation convoy ships.
The Federation would offer special convoy contracts that allows a CMDR to buy special goods.
A CMDR with an imperial letter of marque for federal convoys who pirates random traders would get punished by the Empire in addition to the normal punishment.


The tricky part is designing the system in a way that it doesn’t affect the BGS and isn’t of interest for PvE players and that can’t be influenced by PvE actions.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

The old school Offender and Fugitive worked well. If you club a seal in Fed space your Fed Navy rank is suspended. Until you do enough faction work to recover your rep, if you lose a faction locked ship (FAS for example), you cannot re-buy it on your insurance?

Think of things that make being anti-social a big enough inconvenience that it will have tangible negative effects on the offender.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Excellent posts by fellow commanders Genar-Hofoen and wstephenson. I think during DDF discussions there's lot of meat there, especially regarding driving sociopaths out of legal space. Of course there's lot of grey areas and balancing will take time, but I am very sure this will result with what majority of players want - more interesting PvP engagement with consequences.

So I suggest Sandro to take his idea as foundation and work upon that, taking all interesting cases into account.