Yes PVP is unfair.

[Snarfbuckle]

Is what we have at the moment soooo bad?

Simon

It's not about being blown up - it's about not being any consequences for ones actions when blowing people up in systems that SHOULD have a sense of security and LAWS.

A democracy system of 25 billion people should not just ignore the fact that CMDR Benny "The Beheader" blows up 50 traders in the system for and giggles and gladly allow him docking rights, a meager 6K credit bounty (per kill) and then ignore him.

There should be Law Enforcement or Navy manhunts for that until he is dead or fleeing to an Anarchy system where people like him belong.

EDIT:

There should also be reputation penalties for killing non-wanted ships in civilized space towards the faction those ships belong to.

 

[kofeyh]

I'm honestly surprised top ranking PVPers aren't added to the BB as assassination missions.

I would imagine they'd get a kick out of it as well. Dozens of CMDRs trying to hunt them down. You know, bounty hunters. Hunting bounties.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

I'm honestly surprised top ranking PVPers aren't added to the BB as assassination missions.

I would imagine they'd get a kick out of it as well. Dozens of CMDRs trying to hunt them down. You know, bounty hunters. Hunting bounties.

Too easily abused by friends for easy money.

 

[Comrade Napoleon]

Let me put it another way:

I paid FD to provide content in this game, not that I should be content for others consumption.



Cheers Cmdr's

 

[znôrt]

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

not rank. what's going to stop griefers with mostly harmless combat rank? this is not the only issue, combat rank just isn't really meaningful, thus should not be taken into consideration in these cases.

ship power maybe. unfair advantage could be seen as aggravating circumstance. but be careful, as this squarely affects pirates: a cobra will probably score higher in 'ship power' than an unarmed t9, but there's nothing wrong in a cobra trying to rob a t9.

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel.

this is a too simplistic scenario, and it already fails:
- take away the (meaningless) rank and this just leaves 'a combat capable ship boils a trade vessel'.
- you just defined a regular piracy act gone wrong. this means you are penalizing piracy itself.

In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

this makes much sense to me.

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

not quite sure. i see this issue very similar to judge ramming incidents: very hard to do algorithmically, if at all possible. seems like the wrong approach to me. what't needed is a simple mechanic that balances itself, not complex deliberations that will always fail somewhere, or even everywhere but the most simplistic case.

for instance what could work imo is having real security: in high security systems npc cops should arrive in time and pose a significant threat to the aggressor, proportional with some random variation but not totally overwhelming either. in low security systems there would not be such a response.

to make it even nicer, trading benefits on low sec systems should be greater. this again would be tricky and is not how trade currently works in the game. but decisive security intervention should make pirating funnier, and trading a bit safer.

sadly, the only deterrent for griefing is education and i'm not sure that's a game design consideration

 

[znôrt]

I don't see why FD couldn't add code that prevented player on player damage (or even inflicted damage on the attacker rather than the attacked) in an Open PvE mode. It wouldn't affect any other modes at all, so it's little or no administrative overhead for them. Mobius needs players to be banned or excluded because there is no way to code out the behavior that the members choose not to engage in.

this is actually a good idea. i would never play that mode but it would at least end the whining once and for all. except probably not!

 

[lenna]

Too easily abused by friends for easy money.

Not really, especially if such bounties are added to the respawn cost of the player AND are at least in part tied to specific ships that earned those bounties.
---
Mechanics similar to that used in games such as the original Need For Speed: Most Wanted where the vehicles in question also had a "heat"/notoriety level which would cool down over time when in the garage and IIRC also just driving around and not getting noticed.
---
Another option would be for ships to be able to be disabled (by PC/NPC pilots) and impounded (by the game) - the ships could be returned to the caught player if they repay the bounty with-in a certain time frame after which the ship in question is sold at auction.
---
As for the transfer of credits - this can already be done via abandoning cargo and having a friend pick it up. Then there is also the mining option which can be profitable for very little outlay by comparison.
---
Thankfully the cash for credits people that infect other MMOs probably find ED too hard a target to infiltrate.

 

[dxm55]

I think taking a T9 full of rares to a Hi RES would be something only an NPC would do...



I don't see why FD couldn't add code that prevented player on player damage (or even inflicted damage on the attacker rather than the attacked) in an Open PvE mode. It wouldn't affect any other modes at all, so it's little or no administrative overhead for them. Mobius needs players to be banned or excluded because there is no way to code out the behavior that the members choose not to engage in.

lolwut??

That's belongs on the list of ridiculous idea. Ridiculous and unrealistic. I shoot another player, and I take damage?
Sorry dude, that's so far on the rainbow side of the carebear scale that I don't even have a response for it.

Just improving the law and enforcement part of the game mechanics will do. Once penalties and cops response increase accordingly, ganking will be harder to do.
Won't eliminate the problem, but will at least reduce it by a fair amount.

 

[lenna]

this is actually a good idea. i would never play that mode but it would at least end the whining once and for all. except probably not!

It has been proposed several times, and at least some of the PvPers claim it would be the death of Open PvP.
---
If NPC police/security/naval forces reacted and patrolled in a way that is appropriate to the local security level and government then at least some of the PvP victimisation concerns might be averted. Also, where there are CG events, security could be heightened for the period of the event which would perhaps mitigate the blockades.

 

[Querty Out]

Too easily abused by friends for easy money.

I'm sure the smart people at FDev will find a solution. Concerns are, as I understand: Making too many credits per hour or transferring large sums to other commanders. So maybe the bounty could be "up to" a value and a payout is then determined as the minimum of:

1. The insurance cost of the wanted ship
2. The insurance cost of the ship used to destroy the wanted ship
3. The nominal value of the bounty

If there is any residual value after payout it can be deducted from the bounty and the wanted commander remains wanted.

Point 1 means killing a sidewinder doesn't get you much. Point 2 means a new player in a small ship cannot receive a large 'donation' by taking out a billionaire friend in a large ship. Limiting the maximum value of issued bounties and the frequency at which you can claim payouts are additional balancing options.

 

[znôrt]

for instance what could work imo is having real security: in high security systems npc cops should arrive in time and pose a significant threat to the aggressor, proportional with some random variation but not totally overwhelming either. in low security systems there would not be such a response.

to expand this a bit: pirate interdicts trader, hails and masslocks him and the poker game starts. some security would arrive but at a certain distance, just to show their presence and not intervene unless shots are fired, so both trader and pirate have time to consider their chances. should the trader risk refusing to the pirate's demands hoping the cops intervention will allow him escape? what is the security level, will it be enough to stop this pirate? will they have backup? has the pirate friends nearby? on the other hand, what are his demands? is the cargo worth the risk both for the trader and the pirate? can the situation be negotiated, or is it just best to run for life?

 

[Drakonluke]

Wouldn't that encourage people to gank sidewinders? I don't think rebuy of the victim should play a part in the bounty issued.

I do agree that murder bounties need to be higher though, probably 10x what they are now.

Let's add to the fine the full rebuy cost of the ATTACKER ship, instead.
The more you are powerful, the more you pay.

 

[shambles1980]

Let's add to the fine the full rebuy cost of the ATTACKER ship, instead.
The more you are powerful, the more you pay.

and then traders will tell pirates. just kill me, its going to cost me 1mill you will have to pay 10m

and thats not gonna help much.

the future of elite = Every one in an asp.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I have been thinking about this some more..... and basically what I want is very simple...... how to achieve it is really hard however

I want the game to be convincing. So, I would like the consequences for blowing up ships with people in it to be plausible as to what they would be if ED really was a keyhole into our future.

On the surface of it this is quite simple to achieve, however as many have pointed out a small subset of players will always try to exploit a rules based system (hence the ramming of defenceless ships, the dumb fire missiles in stations etc etc.

The above have been dealt with to some degree but these same players will find a way.

The start of the solution is major faction wide bounties, not wiping bounties on ship destruction (why should they be, the criminal is still alive). The only way to get rid of a bounty should be a time based cool down period where you go x amount of in game hrs without committing a crime.

crimes for ship destruction of a clean pilots federation member being super high.... (even in PP, if I am aligned with 1 power, they may not see it as a crime but in the areas covered in the victims power the agressor should get a bounty there).

on top of that for pirates, how about a new weapon. once a targets shields are down they fire the weapon which generates a lot of heat/uses weapon power so stops them fireing other weapons, it does no damage but it disrupts the "victims" frameshift drive from engaging after it has charged allowing the cargo hatch limpets to do their thing. This is not exactly the same but is along the lines of what is used in MB's book Elite Legacy

this would give the pirate more time to legitimately pirate a ship, and could stop both low waking and high waking. (I am sure wings of players would use it as well to grief so thought does need to go into it, but this is where increased bounty for ship destruction comes in - given to all wing members of course because again, my initial aim is to make this believable and again, if me and 3 others beat some guy up, we all commit a crime not just the one who throws the last hit)

most of this has been covered before. it still wont fix everything but it is a start, and maybe see what happens with that and then go from there.

 

[NeilF]

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*

Understood... But in this scenario... Red Beard can shoot the crud out of the victim to get their cargo, as long as he does not destroy them. And there's the difference surely?

Piracy although illegal, is a very different crime to murder/destruction. ie: It should be about "professionally" extracting cargo by force. Not a reason for mindless destruction? So we end up with...
- If the pirate can get the trader to give them cargo without a shot being fired. Great!
- If the pirate has to shoot the cargo out of the trader, fair enough, but that then means the traders can legally destroy the pirate in defense. If the pirate destroys the trader... murder it is!
- If the trader/bounty hunter opens fire first in an attempt to get the pirate's bounty, the pirate can now fight back and even destroy the attacker! It was self defense guv!


Now I can see two questions coming out of this:-
1) Does this reduce trollage? Would we not just end up with a revised troll simply doing as much damage to individuals as they can, short of killing them? Possibly... It's a concern!
2) Does this approach ruin a pirates gameplay? ie: Reducing the number of CMDRs they can blow up? If the anwer is yes, then surely we don't have to compromise the game crime and punishment mechanics to solve this, but add in the much needed structure and rewards it needs. Maybe, missions can even be dished out that make illegal murder legal. ie: A pirate, once they got a good enough reputation, can periodically get missions to assassinate another CMDR in a given area/time frame (eg: to create unrest in an area). This assassination does not incur the normal penalty as the people organising it are able to hack the system... *handwavium*. This means, a controlled, logical(?) menace is always lurking in the background of the game.

But maybe the bigger solution is what I suggested before. Offering numerous far more enjoyable and integrated PvP mechanics. So the game has missions/tasks/commnity goals that create/offer enjoyable PvP situations. I'd love to be able to undertake a convoy escort mission with a Wing. Trying to work out how we should best use our ships etc etc. And if we were to do this in OPEN, who's to say another Wing of CMDRs don't turn up as part of their mission to take out the convoy!

 

[shambles1980]

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.

just a quote of what i gathered should probably keep the highest amount of people happy "although strangely enough the most vocal ones will still only play in solo/group any way"

 

[Mephane]

It has been proposed several times, and at least some of the PvPers claim it would be the death of Open PvP.

I hereby claim that every single person who says that an official PvE-only Open Play mode were the death of open PvP wants to have at least some contingent of PvE players that should pose as their prey, even against their will. Oh you can now only attack players who actually want to engage in PvP, and are probably prepared for it? Tough luck.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

A better way for bounties to work is that any crime commited that provides a BOUNTY is added to your insurance screen.

Regardless of ship you choose you ALWAYS pay the price.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

just a quote of what i gathered should probably keep the highest amount of people happy "although strangely enough the most vocal ones will still only play in solo/group any way"

i think most of this makes sense.... and i think you will find stuff along these lines will appease many (not all). All a lot of people want are believable consequences and a believable game "world".

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

I hereby claim that every single person who says that an official PvE-only Open Play mode were the death of open PvP wants to have at least some contingent of PvE players that should pose as their prey, even against their will. Oh you can now only attack players who actually want to engage in PvP, and are probably prepared for it? Tough luck.

indeed I do not understand this logic. IF PvP is so popular then a PvE mode should not effect that many.

 

[Oaktree]

One thing is for sure. There needs to be more consequences for those who engage in criminal activities ingame, so that every playstyle can coexist in open or any other mode.

Loitering and stuff like straishooting a cop or a non-winged player - small fine
Pirating and illegal goods trading - medium fines and small increments in insurance (off course pirates and smugglers also would need adjustments to their game mechanics to make their playstyle viable and profitable)
Murdering both innocent NPCs and players - big fines and bigger increments to insurance
Anarchy systems wouldnt apply to these rules.

Off course it needs to be well thought off and balanced so PVP and PVE players can coexist in open.