Yes PVP is unfair.

[DarkWalker]

so you presume to know me and judge me having never met me,

Yup. Because, as you said previously, and repeat again here:

there are people like me who will attack a hostile power play cmdr because they are in direct competition to me.

If you would initiate an attack on someone else without first making sure that player wants to fight, I don't want to play with you. Since I don't accept being attacked without the attacker first making sure I want to fight, it's only fair that I will never, ever, attack someone without being absolutely certain he wants to fight, and I prefer to only play with others that share the same behavior towards other players, thus I don't want to play with you.

state categorically that you will happily cheat.

If it's a choice between cheating or being forced into PvP then I will cheat. Without thinking twice. I don't engage in non-consensual PvP, and in any case I consider someone forcing others into a PvP situation to be far worse than abusing a game mechanic to avoid a PvP encounter.

I doubt that would ever happen, though. I will never knowingly put myself in a position PvP can happen to me (well, apart from when I'm playing just for the PvP).

Say without question or doubt that you will not re-join open.

For me to play any game, or game mode, where PvP is possible, I must be absolutely certain that every player there wants to engage in PvP (or, at least, is perfectly fine with getting caught in a PvP situation). Open, as it currently stands, can't guarantee that because it's both the default PvP mode and the only choice for larger scale socialization of any kind, so you will find in Open a large number of players that are there for the socialization but don't want to take part in any PvP.
(Though even if Open could guarantee that every target was willing, I would still only very rarely partake in its PvP. I very much prefer instanced, evenly matched PvP, where there are no negative consequences for the defeated.)

And think you can form a valid opinion on the matter?

You don't need to enjoy an activity to analyze it.

I also believe some people like to PvP, others like knowing they could be attacked by a human and raise the stakes *i am one of those* Some people like to role play as a pirate, And they should be allowed too. there are people like me who will attack a hostile power play cmdr because they are in direct competition to me. Others like to bounty hunt, and its more exiting if its a human because they may actually lose..
Hell i even understand that some people like to be asps and go around being jerks.
And do you know what?
They should be allowed to do that too. its their game as well as ours.

As long as everyone taking part is a willing participant, sure.

The moment they require unwilling victims for their activity to be possible, though, things become very different. The core idea of how Multiplayer works in ED is that players can choose who they allow to play with them and, just as important, who they don't allow; if players making use of this freedom would invalidate a given play style, well, I don't think said play style should have even been supported by the game in the first place.

So i understand all that so formed my opinion on what should be done by looking at EVERY ones enjoyment of the game.
And if the closest thing to keeping every one happy is my idea of make every one buy the re buy cost if it was a soft target, then at least its a start.

I sincerely find it worse from a potential exploit point of view than things like a PvP flag. There are already players aplenty that will self-destruct rather than deal with a player pirate; add your idea, and those players would instead provoke the pirate into first firing, to only then self-destruct. Or else find ways to have their ship destroyed by the pirate without spilling any cargo.

And I'm not sure how much of a deterrent it would even be. From my research and experience, removing the loses suffered by the target is better than adding penalties to the attacker when it comes to removing the incentive for griefers to grief. Thus, I believe having their target lose nothing would likely be a better deterrent than splitting the loses with the target.

 

[Faded Glory]

the thing is. if there is code in the game to do something. then its there to be exploited..

Lets say the running exe has a line of code in it that reads something like 008786577890000xxxxx "whatever its an example"
This code is for PvP off and makes you invulnerable to humans.
its a matter of hours at the most. to inject that line in to a running exe at the right place to make that mode turn on in open.

the only choice you have then is to update every few hours to stop it being exploited, or remove that ability. So why would you add it in the 1st place when every one knows what would happen.

Which is probably why FD doped the idea in the 1st place. they thought about it, understood what would happen and said We cant do that. so we will give them private groups as a happy medium.

p.s
FD can do shaddow bans (probably 3 days or so)
Uk consumer law means if they ban them they have to refund them.. If they refund them they can re buy any way.. so 3 day shaddow ban is about the best they can do i think..
Same with GTA V online. (short term ban is all they can get, and then they come back and do it again any way "have you tried to play gtaV online?)

At least with a private group the admins of that are not bound to refund them as they never bought anything from them, and fd dont have to refund them because it was nothing to do with them.

I'm certainly no programmer or developer, but if the code preventing player versus player damage is running server side, I don't really see how anyone can modify that to end up with it being exploited in other modes such as standard Open. It's certainly my understanding from other posters (in various threads) that other MMO's have PvP enabled areas (modes) and also PvP disabled areas.

It's probably a moot point, as FD don't seem inclined to go in that direction, but trying to 'persuade' players who have no interest in PvP that an Open mode where PvP is 'possible but severely punished when inappropriate' is very likely a huge waste of time and resources, because as others have pointed out, if a person wants co-op, but not antagonistic PvP, then the fact that someone who attacks them may suffer some in game consequences will not suddenly make that non-consensual PvP acceptable.

 

[DarkWalker]

the thing is. if there is code in the game to do something. then its there to be exploited..

Lets say the running exe has a line of code in it that reads something like 008786577890000xxxxx "whatever its an example"
This code is for PvP off and makes you invulnerable to humans.
its a matter of hours at the most. to inject that line in to a running exe at the right place to make that mode turn on in open.

It's not that easy. Not in multiplayer, at least, because to have it fully effective and undetectable you would need to change it in the computer of each and every player that is in the same instance.

BTW, there are already invulnerability cheats. AFAIK they don't work in multiplayer anymore exactly because the game checks the reported damage between different clients, so any client that reports a different amount of damage for the same attack is flagged.

 

[shambles1980]

Yup. Because, as you said previously, and repeat again here:

Snip

if you join a PP faction, you are trying to either help my faction or hinder/destroy it.
If you do that in open then yes you are there to have pvp encounters. i don't need to ask you.. hello there do you mind if i attack you now because you are destroying my power by undermining here?
that would be stupid, and what if you said no? i am supposed to say ok. have fun taking control of this system and pushing us back. have a nice day?
it is the objective of power play. You attack each other, you fortify your own systems, and you try and take over other ones. You dont get to say "hi sorry i just want to take this system over without any one stopping me thnx"
So that would be your issue, not something to do with my morral standings. you joined in to a war where fighting the opposition is the goal, and then want to be able to chose who you fight??
*(many people believe that power play should only be available in open, because it is so confrontational by nature)
If every one that played for one faction played 100% solo or group mode. the other factions would not be able to counter that. so i do agree with their opinion of it needing to be open only.

if they dont want to participate dont join a power play faction.. simple. if you do join a power play faction, then you do want to participate and i dont need to double check.

now no loss pvp cannot work. i already explained why, and you cant counter them with anything other than "i play no loss pvp games and i like them"
but i will reitterate them again.

Noobs currently have no loss pvp. They die they get the same ship back. do they enjoy it?? no they dont because there are people whop hang about in bigger ships to bow them up.
The ONLY deterant right now is that bigger boys will come allong and blow the griefers up.
If there is a no loss pvp then the griefers have 0 deterrant. the noobs gain nothing as they already had 0 loss pvp and now just get killed even more because some people werent doing it for fear of the deterrent but wanted to do it.

Pirating is a valid game play style. it is a career in ED (deal with it) Human pirates are nicer than NPC pirates because they will ask for cargo and usually let you go if you comply. Npc pirates will just start shooting at you.
Introduce no loss pvp, and piracy is gone. there is no reason a trader would not just turn and attack a pirate forcing them to retaliate. Trader loses nothing. piracy is no longer a game choice.

griefers can now wait at key locations for traders just to kill them, no other reason than to be a jerk. they know people do a long haul runs that go from A to B (B paying the most money) they sit at the out post just outside the no fire zone. wait for the trader and kill them. Trader goes all the way back to where they started from 160+ly away. griefers friend then kills him "0 loss" spawns at the same out post and flies back out to do the same thing again.

Explorers already have to contend with jerks who attack them for no reason. but even the best armed explorer would never make it back to dock with a 0 loss pvp system when grifers can just put all their money in to 1 ship just to kill explorers "for fun" knowing if the explorer some how does kill them its ok no loss at all.
Explorer loses weeks or more worth of data, and gets teleported back to the port he started from.

NONE of that is better.

It's not that easy. Not in multiplayer, at least, because to have it fully effective and undetectable you would need to change it in the computer of each and every player that is in the same instance.

BTW, there are already invulnerability cheats. AFAIK they don't work in multiplayer anymore exactly because the game checks the reported damage between different clients, so any client that reports a different amount of damage for the same attack is flagged.

you only edit your exe you dont have to change it for every one.
its a p2p system, its not a single server that controls everything, its just a database that just remembers the key stuff.
the cheats currently dont work because of the change form 32bit to 64bit giving a string twice the data making it more difficult to work out which one is the one that needs to be edited.. (hopefully difficult enough for them not to find what needs to be changed before the next update where they have to start again)

for instance lets say it was a really simple game.
you start your exe and look for "100" you find 7895 entries. you get some one to shoot you 1ce so your shields go down to 98..
you search your previous results for ones that changed to 98. (you get 2000 entries)
you get shot again, shields are now 96, so you search the 2000 entries for 96.. (this gives you 1389 entries)
and you keep doing that untill you have 1 entry.
That is the entry for your shield levels. and that is the one you set at 100 and make it unchangeable.

That is a VERY simple description. overly simple. but basically it.
With a 64 bit system its harder to find the value you need to change, BUT
if everything is equal in PVP off and normal open
you just start pvp open. then go to pvp off and see what changed. and thats it you found it.

 

[Lheim]

The ONLY deterant right now is that bigger boys will come allong and blow the griefers up.

I have never, ever, ever, heard a report of that sort of thing happening in this game. Ever.

A pink unicorn would serve just as adequately as a deterrent. The argument is bunk, dude.

No-loss pvp is enjoyed by vastly more people, despite the current crop of semi-and-barely-begun sandbox killing & looting pvp mmos polluting kickstarter. Look at LoL or any mmo with pvp battlegrounds. Heck, what else would you call battlefront 4? Rainbow Six Siege? Call of Duty. Star Craft. No loss PvP, man. The only thing you 'lose' when you die in any of those games is a few points you might have otherwise manage to have gotten. It's not a loss so much as a lowering of reward when you die.

 

[shambles1980]

I have never, ever, ever, heard a report of that sort of thing happening in this game. Ever.

A pink unicorn would serve just as adequately as a deterrent. The argument is bunk, dude.

No-loss pvp is enjoyed by vastly more people, despite the current crop of semi-and-barely-begun sandbox killing & looting pvp mmos polluting kickstarter. Look at LoL or any mmo with pvp battlegrounds. Heck, what else would you call battlefront 4? Rainbow Six Siege? Call of Duty. No loss PvP, man.

Im not really understanding how you think any of those have a game play style dependant on loss in pvp (piracy) or any centrall game play mechanic that is soley based around you losing stuff..

and if you were at all right about no loss pvp. then why are the noobs so upset when they get killed by some one in pvp when they just get the same ship back for free and lose nothing?

i understand that gamers arent like they used to be. and they usually start a game on easy these days. i mean quick saves and stuff mean you cant lose the games you would lose items in on death. but that does not mean those games are better like that.

 

[lenna]

Im not really understanding how you think any of those have a game play style dependant on loss in pvp (piracy) or any centrall game play mechanic that is soley based around you losing stuff..

and if you were at all right about no loss pvp. then why are the noobs so upset when they get killed by some one in pvp when they just get the same ship back for free and lose nothing?

Ahem... they do not lose nothing - the first ship may be free but each respawn costs cash or part of player income over a period of time after the respawn.

 

[Scoopy Doopy]

And I'm not sure how much of a deterrent it would even be. From my research and experience, removing the loses suffered by the target is better than adding penalties to the attacker when it comes to removing the incentive for griefers to grief. Thus, I believe having their target lose nothing would likely be a better deterrent than splitting the loses with the target.

This is an extremely astute observation though a slightly sad one.

 

[Faded Glory]

Im not really understanding how you think any of those have a game play style dependant on loss in pvp (piracy) or any centrall game play mechanic that is soley based around you losing stuff..

and if you were at all right about no loss pvp. then why are the noobs so upset when they get killed by some one in pvp when they just get the same ship back for free and lose nothing?

Because, if nothing else, they lose any cargo that they might have, and they (potentially) lose any time that they have invested in the game up to that point. It may not be a lot, but then a few million insurance for a bigger ship that a more experienced CMDR may lose is also not a lot credit wise, but can still feel like a significant loss due to loss of progress, and this game is nothing if not a game of progression...

 

[Lheim]

Im not really understanding how you think any of those have a game play style dependant on loss in pvp (piracy) or any centrall game play mechanic that is soley based around you losing stuff..

and if you were at all right about no loss pvp. then why are the noobs so upset when they get killed by some one in pvp when they just get the same ship back for free and lose nothing?

i understand that gamers arent like they used to be. and they usually start a game on easy these days. i mean quick saves and stuff mean you cant lose the games you would lose items in on death. but that does not mean those games are better like that.

Okay, one point at a time:

I'm talking about loss in general. There's a ton of games that 'punish' death .. or broadly, losing an encounter, whatever or however the game defines that.. not with actual loss, but with a lowering of reward. Rogue-likes are one popular genre that bucks the trend, but I'll point out that in Roguelikes it usually doesn't take hours of effort to 'get back on the horse' as it can in Elite. Nor in very very tough games like 'super meat boy', where you die all the time - you respawn in milliseconds. I'm saying there's a big mismatch between the tone of the death punishment in this game being severe, with the time commitment required also being large. Two elements that are very much at odds with each other. Most games are either one or the other.

For the record, I love rogue-lites and.. frankly, the check-point/quicksave&load game is less engaging to me, particularly when developers seem to design encounters for players to 'learn' them through multiple deaths. But the games I love - the death punishment is coherent within the other rules of the game, man. I've rarely met games where you could lose literally 10 hours of work in a quite casual and sudden manner without choosing something very, very specific, like an iron-man mode with big disclaimers on it. And yes it would take me a long while of hard slog to recover the rebuy on my current ship, should I lose it, unless I choose to do something extremely tedious and repetitive and unfun... or head out to Robigo and exploit the BB.

I'm willing to accept the loss if it's my fault. Not so much if it's somebody else having me for     s and giggles.

 

[shambles1980]

Because, if nothing else, they lose any cargo that they might have, and they (potentially) lose any time that they have invested in the game up to that point. It may not be a lot, but then a few million insurance for a bigger ship that a more experienced CMDR may lose is also not a lot credit wise, but can still feel like a significant loss due to loss of progress, and this game is nothing if not a game of progression...

with that argument you may aswell argue you should lose nothing on death to an npc either..
and id we are doing that why not just give you access to all ships and modules from the start for free..

I believe more people will leave the game over no loss pvp than it would gain.
all the pirates would leave.
more noobs would leave.
no point in exploring if you just get killed when you enter the bubble because its 0 risk for the others.
no point trading as griefers will just send you back to the start port you just left constantly.
the pvpers want natural conflict. they dont want to arrange a meeting. so there would be no reason for them to play.
that "as with all other dying games" only leaves the cheats and the griefers. and any new player that comes in to the middle of that is not staying long.

 

[Lheim]

To be fair, I've never suggested no-loss pvp in isolation. I want a whole criminality system, shambles. Low-sec and high sec and criminal empires and secret pirate bases and posses of law enforcement chasing pirates if they dare to enter secure federal territory..

 

[shambles1980]

Okay, one point at a time:

I'm talking about loss in general. There's a ton of games that 'punish' death .. or broadly, losing an encounter, whatever or however the game defines that.. not with actual loss, but with a lowering of reward. Rogue-likes are one popular genre that bucks the trend, but I'll point out that in Roguelikes it usually doesn't take hours of effort to 'get back on the horse' as it can in Elite. Nor in very very tough games like 'super meat boy', where you die all the time - you respawn in milliseconds. I'm saying there's a big mismatch between the tone of the death punishment in this game being severe, with the time commitment required also being large. Two elements that are very much at odds with each other. Most games are either one or the other.

For the record, I love rogue-lites and.. frankly, the check-point/quicksave&load game is less engaging to me, particularly when developers seem to design encounters for players to 'learn' them through multiple deaths. But the games I love - the death punishment is coherent within the other rules of the game, man. I've rarely met games where you could lose literally 10 hours of work in a quite casual and sudden manner without choosing something very, very specific, like an iron-man mode with big disclaimers on it. And yes it would take me a long while of hard slog to recover the rebuy on my current ship, should I lose it, unless I choose to do something extremely tedious and repetitive and unfun... or head out to Robigo and exploit the BB.

I'm willing to accept the loss if it's my fault. Not so much if it's somebody else having me for s and giggles.

See i do like the challenge and the risk. I like the fact if i end up in pvp and decide to fight rather than run (you can run btw) and i lose i will lose 10mill or so when i end up at the re buy screen..
But 10 mill is an hours work. you dont even have to exploit the BB at robigo. trun up with more than 200 tonnes of cargo space.
grab 2 missions that dont fail on scan should have enough space for it. and if you feel like it grab all the fail on scan missions too.. pretty much a guaranteed 8 mill trip with the 2 no fail missions.
So i dont get the argument that its not a fair time/loss basis..
if i die to a human it is my fault. I could have run. Personally i wont, i will fight it out untill i blow up or im dead in the water "so to speak" then i will congratulate them.
i dont expect them to ask me if i want to pvp 1st. But i do understand some people prefer not to be attacked so i only attack hostile PP people. (i dont have my kb close enough to be typing at people)

As for difficulty.
im one of a rare breed i think. I start a game i put it on the hardest setting. there is no other choice for me.
the resident evil games. (the 1st ones, 0 1 2 nemisis, cv) i play without saving. and i do understand that being 3-4 hours in and doing a stupid mistake and ending up dead is kind of annoying. i dot play resident evil games for a week after that happens to me. But i do play them again and i do play them without saving again. "i get more time in the game, i want my moneys worth"

so no loss pvp to me seems like a cowardly way to play. (that does not count as a point. that is just my oppinion, and thats why i havent mentioned it before)

But theres all the issues i pointed out about other game play aspects that would be worse with a no loss pvp system. It just cannot work in this game.
It could work in say GTAV which incidentally uses a similar system to what i proposed (the attacker pays the insurance) and that has the most players of any online game ever..
That system is however flawed and wouldn't work here either, and is exploited enough in GTAV for me not to need to explain why.

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

To be fair, I've never suggested no-loss pvp in isolation. I want a whole criminality system, shambles. Low-sec and high sec and criminal empires and secret pirate bases and posses of law enforcement chasing pirates if they dare to enter secure federal territory..

I have no issues with no police in lawless, more police in high sec systems, pirate bases could be fun. posses of npc's after you would be great. No issues with any of that at all.

but the no pvp loss or pvp flag things.. cant work.

thats why i sugested that both party's pay the rebuy if its a soft target (clean/not pp hostile)

but i dont think you can base which sectors people can fly in to dependent on the rank they are and the rank the opponent was.

but power wide / faction wide bountys are something i agree with. And i think that the player should have to pay the bounty them self on death too..

 

[Faded Glory]

and if you were at all right about no loss pvp. then why are the noobs so upset when they get killed by some one in pvp when they just get the same ship back for free and lose nothing?

with that argument you may aswell argue you should lose nothing on death to an npc either..
and id we are doing that why not just give you access to all ships and modules from the start for free..

I believe more people will leave the game over no loss pvp than it would gain.
all the pirates would leave.
more noobs would leave.
no point in exploring if you just get killed when you enter the bubble because its 0 risk for the others.
no point trading as griefers will just send you back to the start port you just left constantly.
the pvpers want natural conflict. they dont want to arrange a meeting. so there would be no reason for them to play.
that "as with all other dying games" only leaves the cheats and the griefers. and any new player that comes in to the middle of that is not staying long.

I'm not arguing for no loss destruction, or a consequence-less game, I'm answering your question above... I'm saying that loss in this game does have consequences, whether they be in-game credits / progress, or more likely the feeling of having had your time trying to earn those credits or that progress wasted.

Plenty of players do bemoan being destroyed by NPCs, especially early on in the game as it's much less likely to occur once you have progressed a bit. And some of them may already leave the game, as I am guessing have some of the PvP pirates, and I imagine that is what is prompting FD's input into this discussion.

Whatever, I will say again that in my opinion, FD will have a tough time making non-consensual PvP acceptable to players who don't wish to engage in that, short of forcing everybody into Open, and I suspect they may lose significantly more of their player base if they did that.

 

[dxm55]

No-loss pvp is enjoyed by vastly more people, despite the current crop of semi-and-barely-begun sandbox killing & looting pvp mmos polluting kickstarter. Look at LoL or any mmo with pvp battlegrounds. Heck, what else would you call battlefront 4? Rainbow Six Siege? Call of Duty. Star Craft. No loss PvP, man. The only thing you 'lose' when you die in any of those games is a few points you might have otherwise manage to have gotten. It's not a loss so much as a lowering of reward when you die.

You are comparing round-based or storyline-based scripted game against an MMO with RPG leanings?
You can't be serious right?

That's like comparing Counterstrike with Everquest. Heh.

Of course it would make sense that in an MMO with a persistent character, you would stand to lose something in PVP; whether it be in-game money or assets.
It's a zero-sum game.

 

[Lheim]

See i do like the challenge and the risk. I like the fact if i end up in pvp and decide to fight rather than run (you can run btw) and i lose i will lose 10mill or so when i end up at the re buy screen..
But 10 mill is an hours work. you dont even have to exploit the BB at robigo. trun up with more than 200 tonnes of cargo space.
grab 2 missions that dont fail on scan should have enough space for it. and if you feel like it grab all the fail on scan missions too.. pretty much a guaranteed 8 mill trip with the 2 no fail missions.
So i dont get the argument that its not a fair time/loss basis..
if i die to a human it is my fault. I could have run. Personally i wont, i will fight it out untill i blow up or im dead in the water "so to speak" then i will congratulate them.
i dont expect them to ask me if i want to pvp 1st. But i do understand some people prefer not to be attacked so i only attack hostile PP people. (i dont have my kb close enough to be typing at people)

As for difficulty.
im one of a rare breed i think. I start a game i put it on the hardest setting. there is no other choice for me.
the resident evil games. (the 1st ones, 0 1 2 nemisis, cv) i play without saving. and i do understand that being 3-4 hours in and doing a stupid mistake and ending up dead is kind of annoying. i dot play resident evil games for a week after that happens to me. But i do play them again and i do play them without saving again. "i get more time in the game, i want my moneys worth"

so no loss pvp to me seems like a cowardly way to play. (that does not count as a point. that is just my oppinion, and thats why i havent mentioned it before)

But theres all the issues i pointed out about other game play aspects that would be worse with a no loss pvp system. It just cannot work in this game.
It could work in say GTAV which incidentally uses a similar system to what i proposed (the attacker pays the insurance) and that has the most players of any online game ever..
That system is however flawed and wouldn't work here either, and is exploited enough in GTAV for me not to need to explain why.

Alright, fair enough. The speed at which you can make money has increased in this game.

But you're also a bit off point; we're talking more about ganking in this thread; not so much more fair encounters. Ganking is a deliberate application of completely unbalanced force; catching an opponent outnumbered or disadvantaged, by surprise, and killing as fast as possible. I don't think most people want to ruin straight off dueling or large fleet-on-fleet combat between willing participants; we're trying to find a way to force people who like very different things (social non-competitive, and competitive) play together inside the same space in open, and trying to work out ways that both sides can live with it. The idea of high-sec and low-sec is one thing that'd work; the 'carebears' could stick to high sec if they really were that averse to free pvp.

I'm averse to pvp, but please don't assume I'm averse to challenge in video games. I love challenge. I just find pvp more aggravating than fun.. trying to ask me to like pvp is a bit like trying to ask me to like fish. My mom always did ask and beg me to eat the fish she cooked, and she never did get that I actually, truly hate the stuff. It was quite, er.. condescending and disrespectful of her not to consider my viewpoint, in the end.

In any case, i'm a filthy north american and it's bed time. Sleep tight.

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

PVP

It's a zero-sum game.

Why should it have to be a zero sum game? In any case, Elite pvp is not a zero sum game - it's literally not, there's not somebody gaining and somebody losing. There's just loss. It's a net-loss game, right now.

 

[shambles1980]

Alright, fair enough. The speed at which you can make money has increased in this game.

But you're also a bit off point; we're talking more about ganking in this thread; not so much more fair encounters. Ganking is a deliberate application of completely unbalanced force; catching an opponent outnumbered or disadvantaged, by surprise, and killing as fast as possible. I don't think most people want to ruin straight off dueling or large fleet-on-fleet combat between willing participants; we're trying to find a way to force people who like very different things (social non-competitive, and competitive) play together inside the same space in open, and trying to work out ways that both sides can live with it. The idea of high-sec and low-sec is one thing that'd work; the 'carebears' could stick to high sec if they really were that averse to free pvp.

I'm averse to pvp, but please don't assume I'm averse to challenge in video games. I love challenge. I just find pvp more aggravating than fun.. trying to ask me to like pvp is a bit like trying to ask me to like fish. My mom always did ask and beg me to eat the fish she cooked, and she never did get that I actually, truly hate the stuff. It was quite, er.. condescending and disrespectful of her not to consider my viewpoint, in the end.

In any case, i'm a filthy north american and it's bed time. Sleep tight.

Well lets combine things here a bit then..

Bountys are payable by the criminal on death.

bontys are Power and faction based.. (you kill some one in li yong ruie controlled federal space, your bounty covers all li yong rui and federal terrotories)

if you kill a "soft target"* you and the victim have to pay the rebuy cost. "the victim as normal. you at next dock, death, or login"
*Soft targets "humans who are not wanted and are not a opponent power play faction member"

no police should enter a lawless system.

The higher the bounty on you the higher the npc response. (have them interdict you in wings of 3+ every other jump and start shooting instantly, no need for a scan they did that in sc.) "they do similar when you stack smuggling runs any way shouldn't be hard.

reduce response time of NPC police in high sec areas. (you get shot police should be there before you die in high security)

High security systems should have less possible profits on local runs.

high security systems should have highly profitable missions that go out in to dangerous space.

I personally think thats a very fair system to have if we could have it.

And as you aid you were off to bed.
i bid you good night.

 

[Jack Schitt]

Man, what happened to this thread? It was all so relatively civilised, then I stepped away for a few hours and...

Humans happened.

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

I would normally agree but it would be a shame to lose all that interaction with Sandro. Maybe a moderator can extract those posts and spawn a new topic with them before sending this one to armathreaddon?

You just gave me an idea.....

Back in beta we did it old-school...

Spoiler

Amazing how few of the words have changed though.

 

[smiths121]

Is what we have at the moment soooo bad?

For me unexpected PvP is rare. Up at CD-44 10336 where I am based, it is always exciting to see another player who is not one of the regulars supporting CD-44 10336 Industries. Its great to share trading tips, we have gained through local knowledge, to get players to trade somewhere else if we are trying to lower influence. That by the way is PvP as the trader's objectives compete with our objectives. I think when most people talk about PvP they are talking about unexpected player interaction with at least one set of turrets deployed. That is PvP too, and is a tool to meet objectives - just actually not that many places for my own objectives.

In terms of unsolicited player interaction with turrets out: I have been griefed once and pirated once in 15 months of play (over 2300 hours in game). I just paid the pirate off, cost me 40 minutes of play so a good course of action. My biggest loss was accidentally selling a multi-role Python when buying an Asp rather than buying the Asp out-right - cost about 15MCr that did, I would struggle to lose that much in a Type-9 fully loaded. That had nothing to do with another player!

I can see why some players moan the game is not dangerous enough. It is risk verses reward - where rewards is sometimes measured in money, sometimes in rank/rating progression, sometimes in systems permits etc. I quite often choose low risk paths. I have chosen to go to places such as Khaka during the Lugh CGs, and Anlave at the moment where the chances of unsolicited PvP are effectively 100%. This is my choice, and I am altering the risk I am taking to try and obtain the reward.

In Anlave I am trying to remove Contrail's control of their last outpost. Contrail are an Independent PvP focussed player group, and Anlave is a historic Federation system - that cannot be allowed to go independent in my roleplaying. My objectives probably seem alien to many others, but the objectives of people who want to roleplay psychos are completely alien to me, I have learnt not to judge, the whole point is to blaze your own trail. Players do need to factor PvP it into risk/reward when in open and choosing what to do, you cannot just boost away from PCs back in SC as you can with NPCs (the nashing of teeth over "cheating" NPCs interdicting more than once cracks me up). If the risk of unsolicited interaction tips the decision, or is completely abhorrent, then solo, Morbus or group mode is a good way to counter.

I think the open is quite balanced at the moment. It would be nicer if the wanted were forced to the backwaters rather than those looking for a quiet time, but there are places in the galaxy with good reward and low risk, which is all that is needed for different risk/reward in all modes.

Simon

 

[Pluvialis]

And this right here: this is why I'm staying in Solo until a fully offline version of this, or some similar game, comes along.