Yes PVP is unfair.

[NeilF]

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.

Good points...

But maybe there's an obvious way out?

But first, let's address Powerplay. When I first heard about it, I envisage it offering - at long last - a bunch of PvP related missions and tasks. At long last we'd have nice mechanics to throw players at each other to determine outcomes/events in the games. Alas that hasn't really happened. Instead - as you mention - it simply "promoted" it in a very half cocked fashion...


Right, back onto my main point at addressing your very valid points (hopefully):-
1) Let's first remember Mindless Destruction is when one CMDR opens fire on another CMDR illegally, and destroys them. The suggestion is the game will then try to kick their butt!
2) Piracy - If you are a pirate with a bounty on your head, and another CMDR opens fire on you, and you return fire, and potentially even destroy your attacker? Is that actually the same as (1)? You were attacked first so are defending yourself!
3) Piracy again - If you as a Pirate interdict someone, and then they open fire on you (first), and then you blow them up, is that actually the same as (1)? You were attacked first so are defending yourself!
4) I'm sure the same "difference" could apply elsewhere? eg: If you are performing some activity in another Powers area, and one of their CMDRs opens fire on you (first)... Is that the same as (1)?

Your concerns are very valid... So do you see any merit in trying to distinquish between mindless violence, and what is sort of self defense?

 

[Ezren]

Your analogy of crimes & punishments in Open is all wrong on so many levels. As long as players have the choice to play in non-pvp modes i.e Solo, Mobius or other private networks then what happens in Open mode is irrelevant.

Hello, you are wrong.

The fact that you focus your entire understanding on "Open = PvP" is telling (and only proves my point).

 

[Jockey79]

Direct from David Braben OBE himself in an interview with Arstechnica
Please note the "I don't want there to be a 'right' way to play".

So those who keep on Open is for PvP, no it is not.
Open is supposed to be for everyone, and currently it is not - as it rewards mindless murder through no punishments and punishes the victims with massive re-buy and loss of time/hard work.

The balance needs to be found so everyone can play Open PvPvE if they want to and no one is forced out of it.

 

[DaveB]

Good points...

But maybe there's an obvious way out?

But first, let's address Powerplay. When I first heard about it, I envisage it offering - at long last - a bunch of PvP related missions and tasks. At long last we'd have nice mechanics to throw players at each other to determine outcomes/events in the games. Alas that hasn't really happened. Instead - as you mention - it simply "promoted" it in a very half cocked fashion...


Right, back onto my main point at addressing your very valid points (hopefully):-
1) Let's first remember Mindless Destruction is when one CMDR opens fire on another CMDR illegally, and destroys them. The suggestion is the game will then try to kick their butt!
2) Piracy - If you are a pirate with a bounty on your head, and another CMDR opens fire on you, and you return fire, and potentially even destroy your attacker? Is that actually the same as (1)? You were attacked first so are defending yourself!
3) Piracy again - If you as a Pirate interdict someone, and then they open fire on you (first), and then you blow them up, is that actually the same as (1)? You were attacked first so are defending yourself!
4) I'm sure the same "difference" could apply elsewhere? eg: If you are performing some activity in another Powers area, and one of their CMDRs opens fire on you (first)... Is that the same as (1)?

Your concerns are very valid... So do you see any merit in trying to distinquish between mindless violence, and what is sort of self defense?

Agreed 100%, but there's another piracy scenario you didn't address that doesn't have the self-defense component but is absolutely essential for piracy to actually work.

PIrate interdicts trader, "Yarr, yer cargo or your life!"
Trader: "Pound sand, You scurvy rat, I'm leaving."
Pirate: "I warned you..." *PEW*PEW*

If the penalty designed to discourage jerks falls on that pirate then piracy is dead. Effectively, so long as you don't fire on the pirate first, they pose no effective threat. I do see a great deal of merit in distinguishing between mindless violence and violence that ISN'T mindless. However, the point I was making is that you can't use legality as your yardstick.

Also suppose I'm a trader and am interdicted by a pirate. He's just back in a new ship after an unfortunate encounter with a bounty hunter and therefore we're both clean.... If the first to fire gets the "jerk penalty" what are we going to do, resolve the matter by exchange of creatively obscene gestures through our cockpit canopies?

This is what I mean by collateral damage from discouraging jerks - whatever it is, if the penalty is severe enough to discourage somebody who is just there to be a jerk and make them change their behavior or leave, then it's certainly going to be severe enough to make a pirate who is actually seriously invested in the game either choose another profession or just leave. Self-defense when fired upon is already legal so what you can say is that legal destruction is never mindless. Illegal destruction CAN be but might not be. How do you distinguish between "valid" and "mindless" illegal destruction?

My pessimism is that I do not see a workable mechanic that FD can use for that which will be both effective on jerks and permit non-jerk criminals to ply their trade.

 

[Lheim]

I can see the argument for players being able to damage each other's ships.

I can see the argument for rebuy costs being significant enough to be punitive.

I can NOT see the argument for allowing the 'cost' of PVP to be borne entirely by the victim. It's literally the worst of all possible solutions; it's a solution that emerges from the two simple and plausible design decisions above but without thought given to how they mesh. PvP cost should be either nothing (which wouldn't entice everybody into open), or punitive for both sides (which wouldn't entice everybody into open). Gotta pick one or the other, but to have the thing be so lopsided in a 'victim pays' sorta way is .. it's just bad.

I mean, to summarize my thoughts:

- PvP cost being borne by the victim only is bad
- There's no way to code in a 'gank detection system' that can differentiate between ganks and willing pvp engagements; anything made would be gamed by players with lots of unintended consequences.
- The options, broadly, are two: disincentivizing pvp, or make it 'free'

Making it free is easy, so let's talk about disincentivizing. It comes in two camps:

Increase cost for 'perpetrators' to somewhat match victim's cost already, and,
Provide some rationalle for a player to be more careful in target selection

I think providing reasons for a player to be more careful in target selection - all of the methods that have been suggested such as system security, faction bounties, criminal and fugitive status and ranking for criminal activities, whatever - are the more 'meaty' choice from a gameplay design perspective, and they're exactly the sorts of systems people want when they're asking for so-called 'content'.

It doesn't preclude, however, doing both that and making pvp be less costly for the victim. And frankly, I'm not convinced making pvp deaths cost less is a bad idea at ALL, despite the dev intention to keep npcs and players treated the same way. I mean, let's face it: NPCs already 'cheat' in tons of ways. Let's have something be in a player's favor.

 

[Ezren]

I think the insurance cost should be different when it comes to a player death (and cargo insurance should apply in that case, it's listed right there..)

A better bounty system could just be exploited, unfortunately - two guys just pick on little ships, build a big bounty, then switch to cheap ships and collect for profit.

Me, I wish player traders could just have their legit cargo tagged to have pirates properly hounded, make them very visible and easy to find.

 

[Querty Out]

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.
...

CQC is too arcade-style for my taste.

Quick story played out in Open: I was in a wing once as a mercenary, lets say its wing A. Wings B and C show up in the system and we circle each other for a while. My wing members tell me they have some allegiances with wing B but wing C is a target. We attack wing C and "chase them out of the system". After my wing members left I find myself as a lone mercenary in the system with wing B. There is no allegiance between myself and wing B and after a while wing B attacks me. - This is some galactic politics played out on a micro-scale within a couple of hours (I have condensed it a bit). The circling, waiting, guessing who is going to attack if at all, was fun for all I believe. You don't have that with CQC or battle zones without consequences or fear of loss.

Now it just needs some meaning beyond "we are going to have a fun wing fight", hence the suggestion to counter "unfair PVP" with PVP. NPC counter measures are fine, but given some tools (i.e. escort wings, bounty board / map) players will be more inventive. Oh, and being a bad guy should pay enough so that we don't run out of bad guys.

 

[Lheim]

I think the insurance cost should be different when it comes to a player death (and cargo insurance should apply in that case, it's listed right there..)

A better bounty system could just be exploited, unfortunately - two guys just pick on little ships, build a big bounty, then switch to cheap ships and collect for profit.

Me, I wish player traders could just have their legit cargo tagged to have pirates properly hounded, make them very visible and easy to find.

Yeah, bounties the way they are now can be exploited.

But what if bounty money collected by a hunter were taken out of a bounty target's wallet or they were otherwise made to owe it somehow? Wouldn't change anything with NPCs, but would severely impact players with high bounties - and it would stop bounties from generating free money; the money would have to come from somewhere and nothing would be added to the pool of creds in player's pockets. It would amount to a severely complicated way to trade credits.

 

[Memoocan]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=98946&d=1454004756

Direct from David Braben OBE himself in an interview with Arstechnica
Please note the "I don't want there to be a 'right' way to play".

So those who keep on Open is for PvP, no it is not.
Open is supposed to be for everyone, and currently it is not - as it rewards mindless murder through no punishments and punishes the victims with massive re-buy and loss of time/hard work.

The balance needs to be found so everyone can play Open PvPvE if they want to and no one is forced out of it.

You stating that as if it is the only truth is just as fallacious. Cuts both ways, dude. If there is no right way, then we can pvp in Open and we aren't ruining anything. But guess what, it's our ONLY option bc places like Mobius exist for hardcore carebears and those who think "nonconsensual" pvp is some sort of cancer and we cannot find targets in closed groups. Is Open ONLY for pvp? No. But don't surprised if it happens to occur near you even if you dont like the idea of that

Nobody is forced out. You CHOOSE to leave bc you can't handle that sometimes ppl prey upon you. You think your choice is forced bc "waah i didnt want this to happen?" #sorrynotsorry. By your own post, it is intended by Braben himself bc there is no right way to play Open. So my excitement comes from killing other players in Open. My prey just happens to be pirates and griefers.

Hence my post 20 pages ago that Elite literally just needs to copy/paste Eve's sec status system. It will make eeeeveryone happy bc it WORKS. So let's not be allergic to mechanics that have already been pioneered and proven by others.

 

[Theodrid]

You stating that as if it is the only truth is just as fallacious. Cuts both ways, dude. If there is no right way, then we can pvp in Open and we aren't ruining anything. But guess what, it's our ONLY option bc places like Mobius exist for hardcore carebears and those who think "nonconsensual" pvp is some sort of cancer and we cannot find targets in closed groups.

Nobody is forced out. You CHOOSE to leave bc you can't handle that sometimes ppl prey upon you. You think your choice is forced bc "waah i didnt want this to happen?" #sorrynotsorry. By your own post, it is intended by Braben himself bc there is no right way to play Open. So my excitement comes from killing other players in Open. My prey just happens to be pirates and griefers.

Blimey, you really ought to proof read nonsense like that before you post it.......

 

[Jockey79]

You stating that as if it is the only truth is just as fallacious. Cuts both ways, dude. If there is no right way, then we can pvp in Open and we aren't ruining anything.

For a start, I never said you were "ruining" anything - so please don't try to twist what I've said.

I said Open is for everyone, not just PvP'ers.

But guess what, it's our ONLY option bc places like Mobius exist for hardcore carebears and those who think "nonconsensual" pvp is some sort of cancer and we cannot find targets in closed groups.

Open is not your only option for PvP at all, that is an out right lie.
You can create your own private group like hardcore PvE'ers have done, you have CQC as well (no PvE version of that).

Nobody is forced out.

Yes they are, by those who want to mindlessly kill unarmed ships/ weak trade ships with no repercussions / consequences to themselves.

You CHOOSE to leave bc you can't handle that sometimes ppl prey upon you. You think your choice is forced bc "waah i didnt want this to happen?" #sorrynotsorry.

Also this attitude makes people leave. I'd like to play alongside grown ups thanks.

By your own post, it is intended by Braben himself bc there is no right way to play Open. So my excitement comes from killing other players in Open. My prey just happens to be pirates and griefers.

Good for you, so fighting criminals wouldn't incur any penalties on yourself then.
Nothing for you to worry about.

Hence my post 20 pages ago that Elite literally just needs to copy/paste Eve's sec status system. It will make eeeeveryone happy bc it WORKS.

No it does not work, which is why we don't want it - you're not the only EVE player here, so those lies won't wash.
Seen many a person newbie gank in 1.0 - 0.8 systems and get away with by out running concord or able to fight back.

 

[Backelaer]

Blimey, you really ought to proof read nonsense like that before you post it.......

The fact you happen to disagree with this gentleman, doesn't make his post nonsense. A fallacy that can often be observed in this topic. On both sides of the argument by the way.
Also, shouldn't this be merged with the monsterthread? And subsequently burned and destroyed? We've seen the same arguments from both sides over and over and over and over again.
It all boils down to two groups of people on opposite and extreme sides of the spectrum telling eachother they aren't playing the game right. It is getting so.. damn.. tiresome.

I think there's a very large group inbetween that just don't care and have fun. Open has it's risks, but it's not by any means filled with the hoard of marauding psychopaths some people make it out to be.
It's pretty good the way it is.

 

[Jockey79]

...Open has it's risks, but it's not by any means filled with the hoard of marauding psychopaths some people make it out to be....

That's because they are on the forums moaning they cannot find targets lol.

 

[snadge]

For a start, I never said you were "ruining" anything - so please don't try to twist what I've said.

I said Open is for everyone, not just PvP'ers.




Open is not your only option for PvP at all, that is an out right lie.
You can create your own private group like hardcore PvE'ers have done, you have CQC as well (no PvE version of that).



Yes they are, by those who want to mindlessly kill unarmed ships/ weak trade ships with no repercussions / consequences to themselves.



Also this attitude makes people leave. I'd like to play alongside grown ups thanks.



Good for you, so fighting criminals wouldn't incur any penalties on yourself then.
Nothing for you to worry about.



No it does not work, which is why we don't want it - you're not the only EVE player here, so those lies won't wash.
Seen many a person newbie gank in 1.0 - 0.8 systems and get away with by out running concord or able to fight back.

Maybe Eve system is not perfect but it is about 300%. Better than ED's.

 

[Theodrid]

The fact you happen to disagree with this gentleman, doesn't make his post nonsense. A fallacy that can often be observed in this topic. On both sides of the argument by the way.
Also, shouldn't this be merged with the monsterthread? And subsequently burned and destroyed? We've seen the same arguments from both sides over and over and over and over again.
It all boils down to two groups of people on opposite and extreme sides of the spectrum telling eachother they aren't playing the game right. It is getting so.. damn.. tiresome.

I think there's a very large group inbetween that just don't care and have fun. Open has it's risks, but it's not by any means filled with the hoard of marauding psychopaths some people make it out to be.
It's pretty good the way it is.

I stand by it, terms like 'hardcore carebear' and terms that start 'waaaah' is nonsense, it is immature, uncalled for nonsense. The only, and i mean ONLY reason to type that crud is to provoke a response, well guess what, he provoked one, let him live by it.

 

[snadge]

Another thing,escaping Concorde in Eve is an exploit and is bannable.

 

[Jockey79]

Maybe Eve system is not perfect but it is about 300%. Better than ED's.

Only because ED doesn't actually have a system yet - it has something pretending to be a crime/punishment system.

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

Another thing,escaping Concorde in Eve is an exploit and is bannable.

Only if someone knows you've done it and reports you. Otherwise, you kill someone in "safe space" where there are no other witnesses and you're off with no backlash.

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

Also, shouldn't this be merged with the monsterthread?

Yes, but I'm enjoying the change of scenery

 

[snadge]

Only because ED doesn't actually have a system yet - it has something pretending to be a crime/punishment system.

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



Only if someone knows you've done it and reports you. Otherwise, you kill someone in "safe space" where there are no other witnesses and you're off with no backlash.

Well guess what, maybe they should work on that before they add more empty expansions.

It is extremely hard to escape Concorde in Eve, even freighter bumping in hisec has consequences for one of the gang, usually more as it takes multiple people to take down one in the time needed before Concorde arrive, but it is profitable.

Time taken to bump a freighter to rhe destruction and scooping is quite a while, time enough for friends to come and save it and its cargo, most freighter pilots are afk and using warp to zero hack and are lying in the bath.


ED should have implemented a risk reward system for pirating BEFORE this game even left beta, just far too lazy, lovely looking game, just broken content.

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

Don't blame the players, blame the broken mechanics.

 

[EDbubba]

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans...

Sorry for the late reply, but that's the crux of the issue!

Don't have the game try to control player behavior, give the players the tools to do that themselves, and open up huge new areas of emergent gameplay (just like how fuel limpets spawned the Fuel Rats).

Basically, stop treating Cdr. murders as the same as utterly irrelevant NPCs. Murdering a Cdr. gets galaxy-wide bounties, wanted status for at least a week and a readily visible bright-red hollow square in the scanner. No scan-delay needed for engagement would be good too (they are already wanted, shooting right away would be a significant advantage, and it also reduces the chances to high-wake out easily)!

This may sound a bit draconian, but the reality is that a lot of "criminals" of this type would probably welcome the attention it brings and have a "Come at me bro..." attitude, others may skulk away to Solo, but that too would be mission accomplished!


From a lore perspective, the Pilots Federation should have absolutely zero tolerance for the murder of a fellow commander, so one would think that it would be something that they themselves "police" no matter where you are, not something just left to the local security forces.

 

[Jockey79]

Don't blame the players, blame the broken mechanics.

To be fair, FD expected people to actually spread out a lot more than they have.
Which if that was the case, a lot of the things people complain about would not happen - if seeing another player was "rare and meaningful".

Also, some of the perceptions are off.
I once went AFK outside Lave (in open) for a shower and do other stuff.... got back about 35 - 40 minutes later, I was over 100Ls from the station but I was fine.
I have a video of me doing the common rare run in open on my YT channel, no issues at all.

With some PvE'ers complaining "too many griefers" and some PvP'ers claiming "I get loads of kills per hour" - it gives the impression open is just one mass version of CQC