Yes PVP is unfair.

[Comrade Napoleon]

No matter haow you turn this subject, the will always be a part of the pvp scene that rejoices in pounding on those that are easy to defeat, it has always been so in all MMORG's
You can have unwritten rules ans bla,bla but the idiots and grifers WILL still be there causing tears if they can, Why ?
Because they thrive on knowing they PAWNED you, thats why. I played open and met a few real pirates, fair enough it cost some tonnes, but I have met far more murderers or idiots that just shoot.
As long as the game has got no serious repercussions for these acts, you will keep on to see the worst in people shine through. Elite as it is , is in reality ANARCHY..
You can do what you want , even cheat , no repercussions !
Thats why I have given up and play in Mobius, the interaction I get from other live people is friendly, hate free, trollfree and engaging and FUN.
I play to have fun. Period.

Cheers Cmdr's

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
because the cargo would be legal gifts between friends or strangers would still be possible.

That's why I wrote that dropping legal cargo should be possible in relative safety of the no fire zone of a station. Would probably be problematic because of the fines for dropping stuff and the limited amount of cargo that can be dropped close to a station (both things results of things players did to annoy other players).
The other idea would be, as I wrote, to put a timer on the cargo that would show the legal status of the cargo after x minutes (or on sale).


I agree it is a problem.

if black market prices are buffed, scale with your trade rank, and the limpets / hatch breaker are buffed the pirate would still be incentivised to use those tools over diplomacy but the option for negotiation would still be possible. A lot of pirates enjoy player interaction so that should still be an option.

For negotiations and diplomacy both sides have to be able to offer something and both sides have to need something from the other side.
„Drop cargo or die“ is not exactly bilateral diplomacy or negotiations.


A pirate would want to negotiate with the trader since dropping cargo would be much faster than using hatch breaker limpets.
The trader would have something to offer for the pirate - time, time the pirate needs to get out and avoid system security.

If dropped cargo is always legal the trader has noting to negotiate. It’s just the pirate making demands and threatening with the destruction of the trader ship.


In my scenario the pirate can use force if the trader isn’t cooperating. The pirate would get legal cargo with this method and maybe even more cargo. But it takes precious time, time that the pirate doesn’t have because the system security could show up to soon.




If pirate and trader negotiate the pirate gets stolen cargo, but the pirate gets the cargo fast. It’s saver for the pirate. The trader can negotiate how much the pirate gets and getting the advantage of losing less cargo.
If the trader isn’t cooperating the pirate can use force - still trying to keep the trader alive - or kill the trader to make a point.
If the pirate kills the trader the steep bounty would apply and with it all the bad consequences like no docking at station as things like that.
In that case the best method for the pirate would be to deal heavy damage the trader ship without blowing it up*.

Going back to risk and reward along with consistency, illegal cargo should be worth more if successfully stolen and sold.

I agree with you from a game mechanic point of view.


I disagree with you form a simulation point of view.
Stolen cargo is less valuable as it can’t be sold easily and everywhere.


This is where the economic simulation of this game fails. The difference between prices should be much bigger depending on the market.


A tiny outpost in a system with no water and no outdoor world would have a very high demand for food and water. Food should be more valuable than gold in this system - maybe a mining colony that mines gold.
In a high security system stolen cargo should be almost worthless as it’s much easier to get the commodities legally.


In a small anarchy system nobody cares about with maybe a single pirate outpost everything would be very valuable. They need everything as they don’t produce anything. Maybe only pirates are allowed to dock and sell stuff there - normal traders would get instantly robbed after docking.
That way stolen cargo could be of high value for a pirate.


(Sorry for going into dream mode )

an interdiction would not constitute a police response, but an assault would and depending on the pirates "heat level" the scaled responce both in arrival time and strength would coincide with that. In what I'm proposing a bounty is a big deal and a pirate would want to avoid them in a policed system. However in anarchy, where the profits would be higher so would the risk and a trader could not count on the law or diplomacy to protect them.

Police should show up as soon as somebody opens fire.


Not sure about the police response after interdiction. Maybe not always adding risk for trader (police not showing up) and pirate (police showing up). How often the police shows up would depend on the security rating of the system.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Police should show up as soon as somebody opens fire.

Nope.

Not really.

The moment a shot HITS the target and a "Report Crimes Against Me" is logged THEN there should be a response timer depending on the security of the system.

So there might be 10-60 seconds before someone arrives.

Arrival of police forces should home in on the emergency signal and count as a low wake so they arrive in vincinity of the attacked ship.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Nope.

Not really.

The moment a shot HITS the target and a "Report Crimes Against Me" is logged THEN there should be a response timer depending on the security of the system.

So there might be 10-60 seconds before someone arrives.

Arrival of police forces should home in on the emergency signal and count as a low wake so they arrive in vincinity of the attacked ship.

That's what I meant. Not immediately after the first shot is fired.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

That's what I meant. Not immediately after the first shot is fired.

Ah, my bad, I though you literally meant when someone opened fire.

 

[Ezren]

Just to add to the discussion of the problem, mainly that the attacked are the punished in this game.

For many, just reducing the cost of rebuy substantially, if clean and attacked first, would fix the problem. What we currently have is a substantial/painful fine for dying, that gets paid by PvE players, who donot desire PvP, in Open. This is similar to having your insurance company have to pay for your repairs if the other driver is at fault. That's broken. Particularly if it is the intention of the attacked to not be in the PvP situation. Insult and injury.

Fix this issue and it would appear a lot of salt would be removed....of course, that means that PvP players do not get as much enjoyment out of the pain they dished out either...so maybe not.

I think I said this earlier in the thread - reduced rebuy cost, and cargo insurance active for PvP kills.

The issue would be that they could just be left stranded - Pirates or griefers taking out the power plant and leaving them drifting.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think I said this earlier in the thread - reduced rebuy cost, and cargo insurance active for PvP kills.

The issue would be that they could just be left stranded - Pirates or griefers taking out the power plant and leaving them drifting.

We can reboot the Power Plant....

 

[Ezren]

We can reboot the Power Plant....

Well, you get the idea, though. I suppose trashing the Canopy would be a better example.

 

[Badben]

I really believe that the insurance system as it is, is the biggest problem in this game when it comes to PvP and combat logging. I really want to PvP, but it is simply too expensive to do so on a regular basis. I basically have to work several hours just to be able to fight someone else, and it really cuts down on the type of ships able to be used in PvP. I would never for example use a Corvette in a PvP battle, which is kind of silly considering a corvette is made for combat. I also believe that combat logging would be drastically reduced if having your ship destroyed didn't cost so much each time. I understand that Frontier wants losing a ship to have real consequences, but the fact of the matter is, for me, it just reduces fun. I don't play video games to experience real consequences, I have a real life for that.

If it were up to me, I'd lose the insurance system all together, and make the consequences of dying in a battle simply to reduce combat rank. In a way this makes more sense, considering at the moment your combat rank is meaningless as it only moves up, it actually says nothing about your ability as a combat pilot. I could lose half the battles I'm in, but as long as I stick with it long enough, I'll eventually be elite. If instead my combat rank moved up and down depending on my win loss ratio, being elite would mean more than just "I've been playing for a long time".

I understand that there are many people who will disagree with me, including the devs, but the truth is, I simply don't take ED as seriously as some of you. For me it's something I do in my free time to relax and have fun with, but getting ganked by 4 cmdrs and losing 12 mil is not fun for me. When that happens I usually stop playing for a week or 2 out of frustration. not losing all that money would really change the game for me.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, you get the idea, though. I suppose trashing the Canopy would be a better example.

Indeed - although even with the minimum 5 minute life support for an E-Grade module (and 25 minutes for an A-Grade module) it may be possible for the ship to get to a station in time.

Your point regarding breaching the canopy is interesting - should the player who caused another player's "death" by asphyxiation (by breaching the canopy) be charged with murder?

 

[Ezren]

Indeed - although even with the minimum 5 minute life support for an E-Grade module (and 25 minutes for an A-Grade module) it may be possible for the ship to get to a station in time.

Your point regarding breaching the canopy is interesting - should the player who caused another player's "death" by asphyxiation (by breaching the canopy) be charged with murder?

Well the larger point is that if we reduce the penalty for ship destruction, people will find new ways to grief.

A higher bounty wouldn't really be that effective - pairs of players could just stack bounties and collect on each other in cheaper ships. So incentives in the other direction could be a bit better. Maybe increasing the rebuy cost for griefers, paired with increasing "infamy" that draws bigger and bigger security forces.

To be honest I'm kind of stealing the idea from the "sanity" meter from GTA Online. That game does it pretty well - clearly marks more player-killing people with darker red indicators, and vehicle destruction costs are well-managed (attackers pay for vehicle insurance costs, unless the owner was in combat with them)

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Well the larger point is that if we reduce the penalty for ship destruction, people will find new ways to grief.

A higher bounty wouldn't really be that effective - pairs of players could just stack bounties and collect on each other in cheaper ships.

Just link bounties to a CMDR's insurance.

WHEN he dies he would have to pay the bounty.

If he chooses a Sidey the bounty will simply be moved until he CAN pay the bounty and insurance.

Instead WE, the players get +REP for blowing up wanted people.

 

[Ezren]

Just link bounties to a CMDR's insurance.

WHEN he dies he would have to pay the bounty.

If he chooses a Sidey the bounty will simply be moved until he CAN pay the bounty and insurance.

Instead WE, the players get +REP for blowing up wanted people.

Actually with that example switching to a Sidey should still mean he needs to pay off the bounty on himself, as well.

I like PvP, and was an old "Global Defense" hound in WoW. But this game really does punish the victim, which can discourage Open play and stifle the universe.

 

[Robert Maynard]

To be honest I'm kind of stealing the idea from the "sanity" meter from GTA Online. That game does it pretty well - clearly marks more player-killing people with darker red indicators, and vehicle destruction costs are well-managed (attackers pay for vehicle insurance costs, unless the owner was in combat with them)

This is an interesting one - if the targeted ship did not fire a shot at the attacker then it would qualify for full reimbursement for the ship loss (not necessarily cargo) if this were to be introduced.

 

[Ezren]

This is an interesting one - if the targeted ship did not fire a shot at the attacker then it would qualify for full reimbursement for the ship loss (not necessarily cargo) if this were to be introduced.

It bothers me that Cargo insurance is listed right there in the game, but never used.

And I don't even trade or carry cargo.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

It bothers me that Cargo insurance is listed right there in the game, but never used.

And I don't even trade or carry cargo.

Most likely it will be enabled soon enough (I will guess 2.1).

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Actually with that example switching to a Sidey should still mean he needs to pay off the bounty on himself, as well.

yes, if the agressor switch to a sidey to "loose" the bounty in order to save his larger ship the bounty will merely move to the sidey.

 

[cyberus]

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

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

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?

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

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

Thoughts?

Hello Sandro.

There is plenty commanders out here been playing Eve online ( including me).

Out there piracy /murder were immediately respond of Concord ( security vessels in ED ) and dropping security status of such player. If the security status dropped low enough the player become basicly excluded from save traveling in high security space because once such player enters the space in high security zones the stargate defences and security vessels immediately warps in and jamming propulsion systems with weapon systems and effectively destroy the vessel.

In matter of fact.... This system works pretty good... Why?
Well simply because it's the choice of the player..... Everyone knows that murder in know space will actualy exclude you from the high security space because you will be hunted basicly by everyone..... And by this actions you know that the only space were you could live then is the anarchy (low/null security )system only! So it's the choice of the player!
Though if the player do the murder in anarchy his security standing has no impact because it is completely allowed to kill other players in outlaw systems.

I recommend you to take a look at wiki page of eve online.... There is good explanation about how such and were penalty works....... And maeby you could implement some kind of similar system in ED.

Edit: here is the one of the links.

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/...es_the_security_status_affect_the_gameplay.3F

 

[DarkWalker]

So I fly around SC successfully avoiding interdiction and suddenly I'm in a wing with somebody who got interdicted. Maybe even nav-locked and directly pulled into the instance?
And what happens if a group of 7 killers fly in SC. 4 of them formed a wing. 3 are "solo". The wing interdicts a trader. The 3 others wing up with the trader. Hurray all 7 killers can get easily and quickly into the instance to kill the trader.

Gankers paradise.

In less trafficked it is as likely that 3 more pirates would answer the call as it would be for 3 random players actually seeking to help.

It's why the version I suggested would, instead, move volunteer players into spawned law enforcement ships regardless of where the volunteers are, and they would be returned to their true ship afterwards. The "police" gets real players to hunt griefers, and the volunteers both don't risk their own ships (which sharply reduces the incentive to lure them as a griefing tactic) and aren't able to take cargo out of the encounter (which makes using it as a pirate less enticing). As a bonus, it should work even if the volunteer is in another part of the galaxy entirely; an explorer could volunteer as law enforcement to get a bit of Open mode PvP action without having to interrupt their journey to do it.

 

[DarkWalker]

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.

I'm not sure you are aware of that, but ED is the first Elite game where there is loss on death. In all previous Elite games you could just load your previous save and resume playing as if nothing had happened.

Besides, you need to look at the whole picture. In a game you can beat in ten minutes, being sent to the beginning of the game on death is a mere 10 minutes penalty. I've seen corpse runs longer than that in modern games that supposedly don't have a death penalty. In other words, thanks to how short games of old were, they were by nature very forgiving. And if you do look at longer games of old they either allowed players to save and load or had some other scheme to start from close to where you died, and thus allowed players to avoid all consequences for death.

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"

Playing on hard, and handicapping yourself while playing, are about difficulty, increasing the chances of failure. And yep, it's something I often do; my favorite handicap is to play as if I had no life bar, giving up my current life if I take any damage at all.

Playing without saving is about punishment. Increasing the negative consequences after you have already failed. It has little to do with the actual game difficulty, apart from how punishment and difficulty interact to multiply any frustration felt about the game.

Different concepts. ED is easy (perhaps too easy), but punishing; a game like Super Meat Boy (where you respawn seconds away from where you died) is deviously difficult, but without punishment; Dark Souls I find to be somewhere in the middle (some punishment, in a game that isn't really hard); and so on.

Incidentally, punishing games tend to be easy. The frustration caused by punishment and by difficulty interact in a nasty way, each amplifying the other, so to keep the amount of frustration a game causes in check (and below the threshold where it would start to hinder the fun) the devs will usually reduce the difficulty if they increase punishment.

---

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.

That suggestion is not for the current Open. It is, instead, for a potential new PvE Open mode, to exist alongside Open for those players that want social interaction without the PvP.

So, yep, it's intended to be on the far side of the "rainbow side of the carebear scale". And something players that opt to engage in PvP should never have to experience.

And why could it help in this situation? Because it would provide a place where the players that are currently in Open for the social interaction but that don't want the PvP could play, so the players that remain in the current Open mode would be the ones more willing to engage (or be caught) in PvP. The modes were, after all, part of the anti-griefing measures Frontier planned, so it makes sense to look into tweaking them to improve their utility in escaping griefing if griefing did become a concern.