Yes PVP is unfair.

[NeilF]

If someone murders someone in the Pilot's Federation the individual should be scared. Not only should sizable bounties be put on their head, but they should find a security services far more prevalent in their instance. Hell, let's have Capital ships turning up with fighter escorts to track this murderer down!

They should be force to adjust their gameplay to such a degree it deters them from ever doing it again, and also inflict a financial or status penalty too as necessary.


BUT, Sandro's suggestion of adjusting things IMHO simply will not help. It needs to be part of a bigger plan to:-
1) Add mechanics and rewards to piracy such that it become a viable interesting profession that is about steeling cargo and improving your status (eg: access to new pirate platforms/bases) and better paid black markets and missions, than instead an excuse to kill other CMDRs.
2) Offer better orchestrated legal PvP gameplay. Even if it's just some TV sponsered zones that actuall cover some of your rebuy costs, and even reward for kills etc. But ideally a slew of missions/task that actively pit CMDRs against CMDRs in shape of convoy attack/defense missions. Platform attack/defense missions. Capital ship attack/defense missions. New station blockade/running mechanic. Etc etc... ie: Give CMDRs viable interesting legal PvP gameplay, as opposed to desperately trying to find someone, anyone, to pick a fight with!


But I fear we're simply going to get another half-cocked modification to a modificition, that will ultimately just leave us in another half-baked outcome! We''re a year+ into this game, so let's get a fully formed solution (improvement) please!

 

[Querty Out]

Yes, some tools to counter "unfair PVP" are needed. Some people may not venture into Open because there is a lack of such tools. Having separate saves for Open/PVE would definitely help forcing things along a bit but that's a different thread.

Regarding the aforementioned bounties on players.... Starting with player issued bounties on other players, players paying players for security services (escort wing) and somewhat tougher penalties for killing clean ships (all in that balanced and non-exploitable way, thank you), that would be a neat. The 10 (20? 50?) most wanted players that are ONLINE should be shown on the galaxy map (like friends), anything else only really results in chance encounters, not a chase.

I'd like to see PVP progressing further and maybe one day have PVP paying enough to be self-sustaining, with loads of people in Open and challenges around every corner.

 

[Martin Schou]

Wouldn't that encourage people to gank sidewinders?

People already gank sidewinders, so there's no reason this would stop. And I did say rebuy PLUS the regular fine. In other words, even if you kill a ship with a 1,000 credit rebuy, your fine is still going to be higher than it currently is.

 

[lenna]

...

If you want incentivised PvP, then there is CQC - As I understand it, Open is not meant to be (and should never become IMO) the frag-fest that some may have come to expect from some Open World MMOs.
---
Adding BZs (Battle Zones) might be one idea to better support a CQC type gameplay that may be integrated into the Open/Group game. People could turn up at BZs to watch the free-for-all combat and to participate they have to sign up with the BZ's manager (who could refuse entry if there are major balance concerns perhaps - too high or too low a level for the BZ). In BZ's, the rebuy cost would be nullified (100% coverage) and conflict between signed up parties would not result in fines. It could be managed through the mission system as well perhaps with special mission duration permits. Lot's of potential possibilities there.
---
As for random open world PvP, I agree that murderers should be handled better than they are currently. Pirates should probably be given more NPC piracy opportunities if some of what I have been hearing is to be believed (i.e. that NPC targets generally do not carry as valuable cargo as PCs).
---
Also, perhaps PC/NPC Pirates/Police should be able to initiate demands to drop relevant cargo (illicit and/or stolen in the case of Police) to NPCs in a way they can respond to and PC's can recognise and quickly respond to either way) regardless of their native language.

 

[lysan]

If someone murders someone in the Pilot's Federation the individual should be scared. Not only should sizable bounties be put on their head, but they should find a security services far more prevalent in their instance. Hell, let's have Capital ships turning up with fighter escorts to track this murderer down!

They should be force to adjust their gameplay to such a degree it deters them from ever doing it again, and also inflict a financial or status penalty too as necessary.


BUT, Sandro's suggestion of adjusting things IMHO simply will not help. It needs to be part of a bigger plan to:-
1) Add mechanics and rewards to piracy such that it become a viable interesting profession that is about steeling cargo and improving your status (eg: access to new pirate platforms/bases) and better paid black markets and missions, than instead an excuse to kill other CMDRs.
2) Offer better orchestrated legal PvP gameplay. Even if it's just some TV sponsered zones that actuall cover some of your rebuy costs, and even reward for kills etc. But ideally a slew of missions/task that actively pit CMDRs against CMDRs in shape of convoy attack/defense missions. Platform attack/defense missions. Capital ship attack/defense missions. New station blockade/running mechanic. Etc etc... ie: Give CMDRs viable interesting legal PvP gameplay, as opposed to desperately trying to find someone, anyone, to pick a fight with!


But I fear we're simply going to get another half-cocked modification to a modificition, that will ultimately just leave us in another half-baked outcome! We''re a year+ into this game, so let's get a fully formed solution (improvement) please!

I 100% agree with this.

 

[Lateralus]

If you want incentivised PvP, then there is CQC - As I understand it, Open is not meant to be (and should never become IMO) the frag-fest that some may have come to expect from some Open World MMOs.

Open should be unpredictable, and I wouldn't call it a frag-fest - as even for those seeking PvP, such encounters can be difficult to find. I've always played in open since standard beta where I've traded, explored, mined, PvP'd, pirated and the only places I've really felt under threat have been in starter systems (Eravate, Kremainn etc), the Lave region, CG systems and Powerplay capital systems.

Adding BZs (Battle Zones) might be one idea to better support a CQC type gameplay that may be integrated into the Open/Group game. People could turn up at BZs to watch the free-for-all combat and to participate they have to sign up with the BZ's manager (who could refuse entry if there are major balance concerns perhaps - too high or too low a level for the BZ). In BZ's, the rebuy cost would be nullified (100% coverage) and conflict between signed up parties would not result in fines. It could be managed through the mission system as well perhaps with special mission duration permits. Lot's of potential possibilities there.

Isn't that exactly how a conflict zone works (except for the rebuy bit)? Finding one with other players in is difficult unless it is a well-publicized war.

As for random open world PvP, I agree that murderers should be handled better than they are currently. Pirates should probably be given more NPC piracy opportunities if some of what I have been hearing is to be believed (i.e. that NPC targets generally do not carry as valuable cargo as PCs).

Agreed. T7s and T9s hardly ever have over 30 tonnes of cargo. This seemed to get fixed in 1.4, then broken again in 1.5/2.0.

Also, perhaps PC/NPC Pirates/Police should be able to initiate demands to drop relevant cargo (illicit and/or stolen in the case of Police) to NPCs in a way they can respond to and PC's can recognise and quickly respond to either way) regardless of their native language.

Yes they should, sort of a 'raising the colours' type of thing - that way an NPC can understand your intentions easier. Being able to communicate with NPCs in some way would be a game changer for a lot of people.

 

[lenna]

Open should be unpredictable, and I wouldn't call it a frag-fest - as even for those seeking PvP, such encounters can be difficult to find. I've always played in open since standard beta where I've traded, explored, mined, PvP'd, pirated and the only places I've really felt under threat have been in starter systems (Eravate, Kremainn etc), the Lave region, CG systems and Powerplay capital systems.

I am not really concerned with the game currently being a frag fest as such but there are at least some CMDRs who seem to want it to be (either through action or balance changes) - Kill on sight at CG events for example.

Isn't that exactly how a conflict zone works (except for the rebuy bit)? Finding one with other players in is difficult unless it is a well-publicized war.

I have not engaged in CZs personally, but as I understand it from what I have been told CZs do not reward (as much?) for player targets. Also, the BZs I have proposed would be a true free for all - no sides, everyone against everyone else.

 

[lenna]

On the other hand there are far too many Mobius members in this thread trying to kill PvP all together in open and want to turn it into Mobius.
---
I hope when the devs read this thread - they are able to discern the difference between people who genuinely want a balanced crime system in open and the people trying to create Mobius 2.

Not entirely so sure about that, while some of the suggestions are kind of partially in-line with the Mobius rules on PvP the overarching issue is that some CMDRs are allegedly making Open unpleasant even for those that are happy to PvP.
---
Overall, PvP needs the consequences for both sides to be balanced appropriately - currently it favours the aggressor and penalises the target (perhaps excessively - although it is the same consequences as if an NPC killed them).

 

[DarkWalker]

And yet, due to constant requests for nerfs of PVP by the players, UO eventually implemented Trammel anyway (thus doubling their playerbase btw). I'm guessing Frontier will eventually implement Trammel too. In fact, even as a PVPer, I encourage it. Lets move on with our lives. ED isn't a PVP game. Those of us who want such a thing will just have to wait until someone else makes the game we want.

Actually, according to dev posts and interviews, it was because some 70% of new subscribers (i.e., those that paid for at least a month of extra play time after purchasing the game) left UO before the first month of subscription was over, and PK (AKA PvP and griefing) was the most commonly pointed reason in the exit surveys. That sends a far stronger message to the devs (and, more importantly, to the managers) than any amount of forum noise can, and AFAIK got to the point where either the devs fixed it or the game would be shut down. That was when they stopped trying stopgag solutions aimed at shaping PK player behavior (such as extra punishment for PKing "blue" players) and introduced Trammel as a place where PvE players should be able to interact while being safe from PvP.

---

interesting... I popped in accidentally on monday. I quickly popped out again, however I am still there now. i may check out open again tonight the baby allows it and actually sleeps!.

I wonder if there is a geography or ISP bias for player grouping in ED? (just a thought)

As far as I can tell, something of the kind. The game try to not put together players whose mutual lag would hinder the experience for everyone involved, so where you are in the real world, as well as the quality of your ISP (and whether there are other players with the same ISP), should influence who (and how many players) you see.

(And it also offers a way for knowledgeable players to scale down, or even eliminate, player contact in Open, but that is another discussion entirely.)

---

The present crime system has much to be desired and I'll agree with that but we should also seek for ways where we as players have a great choice.. pirating and being an all round at should be a fair way to play.

As long as I never see those players, and the game never gives them the tools to interfere in my gameplay experience other than through the BGS, fine.

I imagine situations where there is no get out cluase of solo or pg.. and we require a much greater connection. You might need my services one day.. and I you.. imagine you calling upon me to escort you through dangerous space or me requiring a vast quanitity of cargo delivered somehwere.. There might be other players and groups who decide what we are doing and what we are carrying might not be in their interests.. There is lots gameplay potential to be had under these circumstances.

I'm not going to ask other players for help. Not now, not ever. If I ever feel like I need someone else to help me, I will immediately leave and uninstall the game instead.

Or, to put it another way: I find asking for help to be extremely frustrating, stressful. That is not a feeling I'm willing to accept when playing a game, so if a game tries to force that on me, I leave the game instead.

ED is a game that is sold as a single-player game too. And, when I did purchase it, the devs were even promising an offline mode. So, it clearly is a game that was advertised, and sold, to players that want to be able to avoid any and all social contact without negative consequences. Changing that over a year after launch would be a very bad idea.

---

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.

Over 600K copies sold through Steam (according to an analist, I need to find the link again). The current weekly peak is a bit shy of 9K players simultaneously logged though Steam (easily found through SteamCharts, don't forget to add together Horizons and ED). If this game has a similar relationship as other MMOs between active players and peak logged players, it should have about 100K active Steam players.

Or, in other words, the vast majority of people that purchased the game on Steam either never played or don't play it anymore, and that less than a year after it was released on Steam. Which would be quite normal for an offline game, but is worrying in a game that depends on having many players simultaneously logged for it to be enjoyable.

(And, just to irk those that keep calling the PvE players "space truckers", Euro Truck Simulator 2 has more than twice the number of Steam players than ED+Horizons; surely there is a demand for that kind of gameplay )

---

a simple idea is fly in ares where there are no cmdrs, I never see any one from one week to the next , or just watch your scanners any sign of trouble jump and run

Better to just play Solo then. And in any case it doesn't help in any way the players that want social contact without the currently associated PvP.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

So what I am missing is a way call for help - I mean help that's coming fast enough to really help. Call other players can work only if someone is around, this will not be the case most times. So a way to help players against PIRATS, and other threats would be to implement really responsive security forces.
I know crimes are reported already automatically, but the response is just to SLOW.

Help should not be free. Help should cost you a chunk of your profits. If you wish to trade in a wing, escorts should make their dividends off your own profits.

When pirates raid in a wing, they have to split what they find amongst themselves and their margins suffer immensely. It should work the same way for traders, too.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Help should not be free. Help should cost you a chunk of your profits. If you wish to trade in a wing, escorts should make their dividends off your own profits.

When pirates raid in a wing, they have to split what they find amongst themselves and their margins suffer immensely. It should work the same way for traders, too.

A trader being able to profit share with Wing members would be a great addition to the game, in my opinion.

A variable share percentage (between 0% and ((100 - 5 * Wing Members) / Wing Members)%) could be set for the Wing as a whole with each member requiring to agree for it to be set in the first place and also for any change. This would be in addition to the 5% Wing Trade Dividend already available to Wing members (other than the player selling cargo, of course).

 

[Mr_Blastman]

A trader being able to profit share with Wing members would be a great addition to the game, in my opinion.

A variable share percentage (between 0% and ((100 - 5 * Wing Members) / Wing Members)%) could be set for the Wing as a whole with each member requiring to agree for it to be set in the first place and also for any change. This would be in addition to the 5% Wing Trade Dividend already available to Wing members (other than the player selling cargo, of course).

Not a bad idea. I think by sharing profits the way you describe, it would really encourage folks to want to work together to make dangerous trade runs. It'd be a fun element, for sure.

I've defended traders from murderers in Open many times and I'd of loved to make credits directly from their runs versus them stopping (on their own accord, like, "Hey, Blastman, 'cmere, got some more stuff for you! And thanks.") and handing me over a cut of their cargo, periodically.

 

[shambles1980]

I have not engaged in CZs personally, but as I understand it from what I have been told CZs do not reward (as much?) for player targets. Also, the BZs I have proposed would be a true free for all - no sides, everyone against everyone else.

Combat zones pay depending on the ship. it is lawless so a python for instance is i think 52k..
a bounty on a python could often be a lot higher than that though. but as it is lawless that does not enter in to it. when in a CZ i dont attack humans if possible. if they steal my bounty i will chase them out of the area.
but CZ have a lot of targets to attack so you spend a lot less time searching for a target. but they are better equipped. Personally i think they should py off more simply because they take longer to kill (npc) but then again because its not % damage delt gets the bond, then you can let the npcs do most of the work.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

A trader being able to profit share with Wing members would be a great addition to the game, in my opinion.

A variable share percentage (between 0% and ((100 - 5 * Wing Members) / Wing Members)%) could be set for the Wing as a whole with each member requiring to agree for it to be set in the first place and also for any change. This would be in addition to the 5% Wing Trade Dividend already available to Wing members (other than the player selling cargo, of course).

I like this too. It adds player interaction with the ability to haggle for the best %. This is something that could be set up here on the forums with out to much hassle - if it becomes popular then the Devs would have more of a reason to put it in game...

 

[DarkWalker]

I like this too. It adds player interaction with the ability to haggle for the best %. This is something that could be set up here on the forums with out to much hassle - if it becomes popular then the Devs would have more of a reason to put it in game...

While I don't have anything against the idea, I kinda doubt it would gain traction. Making players play together is already an uphill battle when it's unequivocally more rewarding; adding something that could be perceived as reducing the individual gains in group play would make it even harder to convince players to group up.

LotRO is an example where the devs had to change things to get players to actually play non-instanced content together. The old system was set in such a way that playing in a somewhat coordinated group was more effective than playing alone, but playing together without coordination reduced rewards a bit (due to having to share the mobs); end result, players typically moved away from everyone else, and that in a game where PvP was never a concern. That only changed when Turbine tweaked the system so playing together without any coordination became a bit more rewarding than playing alone, so there was never any efficiency-based reasons to avoid other players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

While I don't have anything against the idea, I kinda doubt it would gain traction. Making players play together is already an uphill battle when it's unequivocally more rewarding; adding something that could be perceived as reducing the individual gains in group play would make it even harder to convince players to group up.

While the individual gains of an escorted trader would be lower per trip, the risk of destruction would also be reduced. Less loss is a form of net gain in this context - it can take a lone trader c.20 trips to recoup a total loss.

 

[DaveB]

Recalling all the discussions back in PB, all the reading I did of the DDF archives and everything I've heard from FD, from DB's earliest online comments right through to Sandro's comments on this thread, one thing is obvious.

What FD are clearly trying to achieve is to permit PvP play for pirates, mercenaries and bounty hunters and keep the game viable and fun for them but to create an environment where things like n00b-ganking and random PK-ing for the lulz are beyond pointless, they are actually counterproductive. Their aim in messing with the crime/punishment system or messing with the penalties for killing players rather than NPCs is to make the consequences of being a jerk in the game so high that people won't, because being a jerk will cease to be fun. Other than the bottom-feeding seal-clubbers, IMHO the scum at the bottom of the PvP barrel, I don't think there's any players who would object to them succeeding in that aim.

Unfortunately I think they are not going to succeed, not because they are indifferent to player needs but because they simply can't. I do not think there is any penalty that can be applied in-game to make the game not fun for the jerks that will not negatively impact those other players who may be combat oriented, even dedicated PvPers, but aren't being jerks. The jerks get their reward from being jerks. They don't care. Make the consequences severe enough that they start to care and pirates, mercenaries and bounty hunters will collect too much collateral damage - it takes a lot less to destroy the fun of a player actually invested in the game than it does to get the attention of a jerk.

 

[NeilF]

Unfortunately I think they are not going to succeed, not because they are indifferent to player needs but because they simply can't. I do not think there is any penalty that can be applied in-game to make the game not fun for the jerks that will not negatively impact those other players who may be combat oriented, even dedicated PvPers, but aren't being jerks. The jerks get their reward from being jerks. They don't care. Make the consequences severe enough that they start to care and pirates, mercenaries and bounty hunters will collect too much collateral damage - it takes a lot less to destroy the fun of a player actually invested in the game than it does to get the attention of a jerk.

Even if mindless murder is harshly dealt with, and they also offers a number of "legal" PvP mechanics? Missions/tasks offering legal means of PvP? And at the very least, a couple of zones put aside by TV companies to allow coverage of fights? The TV companies would even cover a good lump of rebuys and offer cash rewards for kills...

In short, penalise mindless destruction. Promote/offer legal destruction.

 

[DaveB]

Even if mindless murder is harshly dealt with, and they also offers a number of "legal" PvP mechanics? Missions/tasks offering legal means of PvP? And at the very least, a couple of zones put aside by TV companies to allow coverage of fights? The TV companies would even cover a good lump of rebuys and offer cash rewards for kills...

In short, penalise mindless destruction. Promote/offer legal destruction.

I see where you are going and yes, that would help. However, "legal" destruction of another player - they are wanted, they are on the opposite side of a CZ, they are aligned with an enemy power in your patrons territory etc - already is promoted. What about pirates? If they cannot use the THREAT of destruction to enforce compliance with their demands - and it's no threat if they can't actually follow through - that profession fizzles. When I'm in a more social mood, getting pulled over by a player "real pirate" (for want of a better description) is much more fun than getting interdicted by an NPC with whom I cannot negotiate and it's just a matter of choosing "boil him or escape"

To make the divide on simply whether it's "legal" or "illegal" to destroy that ship says nothing about whether the person behind the trigger is doing it just to be a jerk or for another more valid reason.

 

[Martind Forlon]

... 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..
...

+rep, this and also rest of post something i fully agree with.