Yes PVP is unfair.

[wstephenson]

Given the number of repeated ideas in this and the threads that have preceded it, would anyone else like to volunteer to work with me to identify the common tropes and put them into some sort of framework? This could help FD identify a feasible set of solutions to fix griefing and improve the depth of the gameplay for everyone (!!!1! - no harm in aiming high )

 

[Faybs]

Here's a thought: since the aim of Sandro's plan is to prevent high level players from ganking low level ones, why not bake that into the matchmaking system? Players will only get the same instance as other players within a couple "power levels" (ship+combat rank) and anyone on their wing or friends list. Boom, if you are Dangerous and want to gank noobs in Eravate you'd better be in a sidey yourself or you won't see any noobs. No need to add additional crime mechanics or potential loopholes for exploits.

 

[shambles1980]

im gonna say it 1 last time..

the only realistic way to fix it "to some degree" fairly. and give people some sort of justice is..

If a human kills a human who is not wanted, Not a opponent PP faction member, and does not have report crimes against me set to off.
then both parties pay the rebuy. (they dont split it between them. they both pay it)

this leaves the game play mechanics alone, and only punishes those that go out of their way to be a jerk.
it could even help pirates as traders would not be wondering "if i drop cargo he will probably kill me any way"
Soft targets. (noobs/explorers) are less likely to be targeted due to the cost of killing them being un avoidable.

that's that bit done..

the Worst thing that could happen is.
No loss pvp. that would give 0 punishment for "ganking and griefing" and destroy piracy, and id hate to be an explorer in a universe where some one in a cobra could chase me down and kill me just for giggles, knowing they have no risks.

the second worse thing is
PVP flags. (these cant be used in this game without killing piracy)

i am not a pirate, but they are allowed to play the game like that. so you cant stop them..

that is all.

 

[Chummy62]

I could not disagree more. Frontier is looking for a solution because there is a problem. The problem is unsolicited PVP. This includes piracy which is and always will be a crime. Something must change. Shambles1980, I hear you, but you are not being part of the solution. You are failing to recognize that other players are voting against you by playing solo or in Mobius. I was floored to discover how many people have joined Mobius. You must also recognize that there are countless PC Gamers out there who will not consider playing ED because of the PVP and serious pentalties faced if your ship is destroyed. I get the "thrill factor". But players value the efforts they invest when playing a game and are much more willing to play a game where the mechanics of the game play protect their investment. I respect that your heart is in he right place (for what you believe) but FD has a responsibility to cater to the majority, work towards getting more players to play in open and recruit more new players.

 

[eza]

I could not disagree more. Frontier is looking for a solution because there is a problem. The problem is unsolicited PVP. This includes piracy which is and always will be a crime. Something must change. Shambles1980, I hear you, but you are not being part of the solution. You are failing to recognize that other players are voting against you by playing solo or in Mobius. I was floored to discover how many people have joined Mobius. You must also recognize that there are countless PC Gamers out there who will not consider playing ED because of the PVP and serious pentalties faced if your ship is destroyed. I get the "thrill factor". But players value the efforts they invest when playing a game and are much more willing to play a game where the mechanics of the game play protect their investment. I respect that your heart is in he right place (for what you believe) but FD has a responsibility to cater to the majority, work towards getting more players to play in open and recruit more new players.

The problem is a small but highly vocal group of people who want to make Elite into a different type of game.
Mobius has about 10k out of 1 million total players: a miniscule proportion.

Please leave my space series alone.

FD has no responsibility to cater to the majority. They have a responsibility to cater to their vision.

System security levels need work in Elite, but not to the draconian extent that you and others are clamouring for (ie. "ooh! make the nasty player pay for my loss!". Why don't you pay for the NPCs' losses?)

Why don't you go and ask for Call of Duty to be a bit less shooty and about killing, and instead a city management game, while you're at it?

There are certain things that are core to Elite: space combat and trading in an unforgiving galaxy.

 

[mfc133]

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 don't think it would be a deterrent, and I like the concept of forcing you into the lawless corners of the galaxy as you commit more crime. Right now you could kill players indiscriminately and be only mildly inconvenienced by the bounty applied.

 

[Sixteen-String Jack]

The stupidly toothless crime system is responsible for some of what is wrong with the game. Why there are ranks for everything else and only 'wanted' for crime is astounding. If at higher criminal ranks non-criminal minor factions progressively refused to cooperate with the miscreant, and if criminals were detected when docking like hostility, rather than requiring a scan (for what?) then pirates might be able to feel like fugitives again. And why should hardened criminals get insurance?
--
Also, solo players should not be allowed to participate in Powerplay or community goals or affect minor faction influence. They are stealing from multiplay.
--
However, extra sanctions against criminals will not bring any players into open. Noone will be convinced that griefers will suffer. What is needed is a more sophisticated insurance system which allows players to feel in control because they can manage risks, and one that does not penalise traders, who have had to purchase their cargo. With a rank system for criminality you could have the Pilots Federation compensate 100% for the acts of any of its most aberrant members, plus a injury award to cover starter level cargo loads. And if recovering lost legal status is very expensive and/or time-consuming, it will be easier for players to distinguish griefers.

 

[DarkWalker]

Not sure if it has been proposed before, but how about letting volunteer players pilot some of the spawned law enforcement ships, in a scheme somewhat similar to CQC?

It could work by having the game, when law enforcement ships need to be spawned somewhere else, ask some players that have opted into the scheme and are out of combat if they want to take control over one of those ships. If they accept, their current ship vanishes while they are put in command of the law enforcement ship, with locked guns that refuse to fire if a non-wanted ship is in the line of fire (to make it harder for players to use this scheme to grief). They can leave at any time, causing them to be transported back to their actual ship while the law enforcement ship they were piloting reverts to AI control.

This should drastically increase the effectiveness of players that want to hunt outlaws by both getting them into more engagements and lowering their risks. Which, in turn, would make outlaw activities in Open more likely to result in PvP.

 

[Chummy62]

Call of duty is one of the games my friends would rather play. I attempted to google what the pentalties for death are in call of duty, but the firewall at work forbids opening the links presented. We also do not have access to the numbers of players playing solo. Frontier does, they see a problem and are seeking a solution. Frontier is obligated to be profitable or the game will not survive. Since the developers of Sim City over promised and under delivered on the last version of their game I'll be glad to point out that they would have fared better had the listened more to their player base as well. Wouldn't city building on remote planets be cool feature in ED? Space combat has plenty of places where we can go and play to our hearts content. I personally would love to see the CQC arena be a place we can go in game. Please remember that I love Elite Dangerous as much as you do. But clearly understand that I will never enguage in unsolicited PVP outside of a combat zone. I'm having way to much fun doing other things within the game. FYI, I'm playing solo.

 

[shambles1980]

I could not disagree more. Frontier is looking for a solution because there is a problem. The problem is unsolicited PVP. This includes piracy which is and always will be a crime. Something must change. Shambles1980, I hear you, but you are not being part of the solution. You are failing to recognize that other players are voting against you by playing solo or in Mobius. I was floored to discover how many people have joined Mobius. You must also recognize that there are countless PC Gamers out there who will not consider playing ED because of the PVP and serious pentalties faced if your ship is destroyed. I get the "thrill factor". But players value the efforts they invest when playing a game and are much more willing to play a game where the mechanics of the game play protect their investment. I respect that your heart is in he right place (for what you believe) but FD has a responsibility to cater to the majority, work towards getting more players to play in open and recruit more new players.

any one would think they didn't add solo or group options to the game to cater for these people.

Also they aren't seeking a solution.
they are trying to shut up the whiners by finding a happy ground they will not be upset with without changing pvp, because it is working as intended, the only issue is people attacking much weaker targets "noobs"

arguing for pvp flags in open because you don't like pvp is a bit like arguing to get rid of solo and group modes because you do like pvp.
You cant honestly expect any one to take the argument seriously because its a redundant debate that cannot be won.

the game was designed advertised and sold like this, There are plenty of non pvp players in open because they see that as the way the game is meant to be played. They accept the risks of trading with human pirates, and there are quite a few who come on the forum and vocalise the nice interactions they had..

the Big issue is.
Forums are always fuill of people complaining, the ones who are enjoying the game are to busy playing.
I only visit the forums to participate in these debates so i don't log on 1 day to find the game is ruined, because people let the squeaky wheels make the most noise.
I do find it rather shocking how many people who are mobius or solo players only that want 0 pvp interaction join in on these debates about open.
you already have your utopia. why would you want to ruin the game for the rest of us that play how it was intended?

 

[Jiro]

Life is also unfair.......

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

you already have your utopia. why would you want to ruin the game for the rest of us that play how it was intended?

I can only speak for myself but a number of reasons.
1) I was purely in open for the 1st 6 months it was where I wanted to be until I came across people sitting in stations exploiting the game firing dumb fires and exploiting the game to get the station to kill the innocent
These people went totally unpunished so I want to Mobius pending what I assumed would be the update to the game to give lasting consequences for crimes that I thought we were promised in development.

2) Mobius is brilliant but in all likelyhood it is only a matter of time before he gets tired of keeping on top of things and some pratts have already gone in there to grief. Mobius. I fear sooner or later Mobius will fall apart. Until a proper PvE mode is implemented which many on here are terrified of having the open may be the only long term way of having the mainly cooperative MP that DB outlined

I do agree that PvP flags is not the way to go but ED is meant to be believe able and the worse criminals need to be on the fringes of space

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Life is also unfair.......

This is a game

 

[Jockey79]

.... why would you want to ruin the game for the rest of us that play how it was intended?

You clearly do not know what was "intended". What people want, is what was promised - "rare and meaningful" PvP, not plentiful, mindless and pointless PvP.

There is a link in my Sig, "Wall of Information" - you want to go through it, with a fine comb and actually learn "what was intended".
Because PvP'ers ruining the game for everyone else, was not it. Hence FD asking how to fix it.

 

[shambles1980]

You clearly do not know what was "intended". What people want, is what was promised - "rare and meaningful" PvP, not plentiful, mindless and pointless PvP.

There is a link in my Sig, "Wall of Information" - you want to go through it, with a fine comb and actually learn "what was intended".
Because PvP'ers ruining the game for everyone else, was not it. Hence FD asking how to fix it.

im gonna say it 1 last time..

the only realistic way to fix it "to some degree" fairly. and give people some sort of justice is..

If a human kills a human who is not wanted, Not a opponent PP faction member, and does not have report crimes against me set to off.
then both parties pay the rebuy. (they dont split it between them. they both pay it)

this leaves the game play mechanics alone, and only punishes those that go out of their way to be a jerk.
it could even help pirates as traders would not be wondering "if i drop cargo he will probably kill me any way"
Soft targets. (noobs/explorers) are less likely to be targeted due to the cost of killing them being un avoidable.

that's that bit done..

the Worst thing that could happen is.
No loss pvp. that would give 0 punishment for "ganking and griefing" and destroy piracy, and id hate to be an explorer in a universe where some one in a cobra could chase me down and kill me just for giggles, knowing they have no risks.

the second worse thing is
PVP flags. (these cant be used in this game without killing piracy)

i am not a pirate, but they are allowed to play the game like that. so you cant stop them..

that is all.

/85/8577

 

[Jockey79]

/85/8577

Yes but "piracy" ≠ mindless killing of other players - which is what FD are on about fixing.
"pirates" can use hatch breakers and disable engines / shields, so they can steal without killing anyone.

Punishing murders is not punishing "pirates"

 

[Chummy62]

Now that I am home I can follow the links. Here is what you loose when dying while playing Call of Duty. You loose some pride. You also have your Kills vs Death ratio adjust appropriately towards more deaths.

I believe one of the motivators that feeds the Physcos is the knowledge that instead of just causing the victim player some inconvenience, they have the potential to cost the other player millions. Those millions go right back to the time a player must invests earning them while playing the game. You have read my previous posts.

Until Frontier releases the true numbers of players online and where they are playing, we are all making a SWAG as to what is truly going on.

I brought all this up months ago while I was still playing in open. Just like many who are now playing solo, I was the victim of multiple dumbfire at the station attacks along with other unbalanced psycho attacks.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

I told you so.

Neener, neener!

��

 

[s0laris]

I've been playing EVE since 2012 and have seen this exact conversation come up time and again. It was coming up for 9yr before I played EVE and will be coming up there long after I quit. Traders will not be happy with the feature you suggest. Frontier will devote hundreds of man hours to implement it and on release day this exact whine will come up again. It will come up a week after that, and a week after that. Implement the "PVP Flag", default it to OFF/No-PVP, and the carebears will be happy. The PVPers will only be slightly less happy than they are now (which is not particularly happy). Wanting Eliteangerous to be open world, anything goes, is not going to happen Frontier made that crystal clear from the beginning. Shoot PVP in the head and lets get on with enjoying what we can of ED until someone else takes up EVE's mantel and makes the PVP game we want.

This is not EvE, if it would be, i wouldnt play it. By the way, enjoying what?

 

[shambles1980]

Yes but "piracy" ≠ mindless killing of other players - which is what FD are on about fixing.
"pirates" can use hatch breakers and disable engines / shields, so they can steal without killing anyone.

Punishing murders is not punishing "pirates"

as you see in my reply im all for extra punishment for murder..

 

[dxm55]

Sifting thru the ideas in this thread, I can only say that there are good ideas, and some really ridiculous ones (mostly suggested by pure PvE'ers who're combat averse)

Feasible:
- Increasing bounty amounts, duration, and jurisdiction/area-of-coverage for major crimes like Murder, while retaining the current penalties for minor crimes like assault or reckless flying
- Giving crimes levels according to their severity
- Giving the option for minor criminals to peacefully settle their fines at the nearest station, within a stipulated time period, instead of being hounded like a rat for just 400cr
- Giving FUGITIVE level status to major criminals (murderers)
- Any type of criminal status on a pilot in port, and he will not be allowed to leave dock until he clears the fine. In the case of those who owe too much, they may have to sell their ships to clear the fines and start out in a smaller one. Or kill their character and reset. Tut-tut... decisions, decisions....
- Increase the strength, presence, and responsiveness of NPC cops, especially in Core systems.
- FUGITIVE status players have the rebuy option disabled completely until they clear it. No insurance company would do business with major criminals.
- Revoked docking rights for fugitives in all stations of affected faction


Unfeasible:
- Making the pirate/murderer pay your rebuy costs immediately
(Yeah, right. He's a criminal. How are you going to force him to pay you? Good luck with that, bub. So... NO. You have to catch him first... look below for option)

- No rebuy for being killed by another player. No risk.
(Another ridiculous demand. Everybody who dies for whatever reason should be charged the same, but fugitives have it worse because... look above)


Meh... maybe feasible, maybe not:
- Making the bounty = the cost of the rebuy that you caused your victim.
(Well, maybe yes, maybe no. It is murder after all, and it's a capital crime, so it could work)

- Making the killer compensate the victim the rebuy cost once he gets caught (or destroyed by cop)
(Pretty similar idea to the above. This could be painful to the pirate if he's killed 10 guys, and is a fugitive himself. He'd be out of cash and out of a ship. Pretty much back to Sidewinder. But it could be a representation of Real Life, where going to prison means losing literally everything)