Yes PVP is unfair.

[Doc Slow]

I am glad the Devs finally think about acting and I think something needs to happen.

I do play several PVP titles and I really cannot follow the definition of PVP here. I don't know any titles in which I can attack e.g. a biplane with a jet fighter and call this PVP. For gaining such an advantage in almost any other PVP game I outright need to cheat and risk being banned entirely from a game - not just lose my insurance for a day or two or buy a freewinder to get rid of that problem.

That being said it's hard not to punish the fair PVP guys like e.g. Cillit Bang. I do respect them very much.

Even Griefers could add something to the game, if there was just a chance to fight back. I am all for everyone having a role and place in this game - but it needs to have a balance of power and a balance or risk and reward - which currently is missing.

Kudos to the OP.

 

[Gédéon_Lecanard]

Yes, pvp is unfair, the person attacking naturally gains an advantage, Even In chess white wins 55% of the time. In this case you're allowing the person to choose when and who they attack, the advantage will naturally be huge. Imagine a game of chess where you can pick your opponent, see the level before the match, and see if you're allowed a handicap.

You'll see that many people here agree that there is no such thing as unfair PvP. If your ship and/or skills are superior, then obviously you'll win and that's the way it's supposed to be. All is well.

What is a problem is the way punishment is handled. It makes the risks very unbalanced as right now, victims lose everything and attackers risk nothing, really.

 

[eza]

I don't know any titles in which I can attack e.g. a biplane with a jet fighter and call this PVP.

DCS: World allows that.

I was flying an A-10C and had a guy in a P-51 attack me. His superior manoeuvrability meant his propellor plane could stick right behind my jet.
I couldn't believe it worked, it never normally does, but I pulled off a Top Gun "I'll hit the brakes and he'll fly right by" and managed to down him with cannons

(Oh and DCS is worth revisiting now they've upgraded the graphics engine to DX11 btw)

 

[Lightspeed]

Personally, I believe WINGS has killed my interest in PVP in Open. As soon as I am interdicted by a player, along comes another, and another .... and it's a very unequal fight. Makes the whole experience unpleasant and unfair, costly in credits and time spent, and drives me to do some CGs in solo because of it, which is contrary to how I would like to play them.

 

[rootsrat]

Personally, I believe WINGS has killed my interest in PVP in Open. As soon as I am interdicted by a player, along comes another, and another .... and it's a very unequal fight. Makes the whole experience unpleasant and unfair, costly in credits and time spent, and drives me to do some CGs in solo because of it, which is contrary to how I would like to play them.

Why don'tyou wing up yourself?

 

[Drunk Si]

Allow player to player credit exchange
Make player bounties for killing much higher and have them increase exponentially with frequency of kills
Provide us with tools to hunt down wanted cmdrs
Make high security systems have a genuinely high and intimidating security presence; lower security systems have much less and anarchy have none but increase trading profit potential in these places.

These changes would make the game much better and would help with "unfair" side of pvp. They would also add much depth and gameplay. If you want to take your defenceless trading ship into dangerous areas of space to chase the greatest profit, wing up with a fighter escort and pay them for their services. If you don't want that then stay in safe space and settle for whatever profit you can make there.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why don'tyou wing up yourself?

Not everyone has the luxury of a group of friends that they can call on to play the game their way when they want to....

 

[Robert Maynard]

Allow player to player credit exchange

.... which would facilitate twinking of newly created commanders (not necessarily new players, of course) who would, under Sandro's rank based punishment proposal, benefit greatly from reduced penalties against them.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Why don't you wing up yourself?

Unfortunately, I work rotating 12 hour shifts. Hard to find consistent wingmen.

Also, instancing.

 

[DarkWalker]

Submit - get masslocked by a wing of CMDR killers in PVP speccd ships, be forced to highwake to a system you dont want to be in to jump back into the original system to get interdicted again???
Or just play in Mobius or solo doing exactly what you want to do in the game?

And this is the true kernel of the question. Do all players involved find the addition of PvP events the game (including the chance of it happening, the chase, the confrontation, and so on), when taken as a whole, to make the game more enjoyable? What can be done to make them enjoyable (or at least prevent them from making the game less enjoyable) for those that currently don't enjoy them?

Personally, I believe that for a large part of the player base this kind of random PvP can never be made enjoyable, no matter how rare it becomes or how much the perpetrator is punished. You can never please the players that don't want to have anything to do with non-consensual PvP if the PvP is anywhere close to being meaningful*. Hence why I believe that, if the intent of Sandro's proposal is to attract more players into Open, it will fail.

I, for one, only stayed with the game after offlinegate because, the way it was described, I would be able to completely avoid, ignore even, all PvP without much of a downside (as I don't exactly require social contact, and I had purchased ED for the offline game anyway). There is absolutely nothing that could make me enjoy non-consensual PvP.

(*Caveat: truly meaningless non-consensual PvP, of the kind you can just suicide yourself to make it end sooner and continue playing as if nothing had happened, is something I could perhaps tolerate. Exactly because I would simply suicide myself and resume playing as if nothing had happened. It's what I used to do in WoW, when some "friends" convinced me to play in a PvP realm.)

---

Why don'tyou wing up yourself?

Speaking for myself: first because I will never, ever, ask for help in a game; I would rather uninstall and move to the next game in my queue than ever ask for help. Second because, even if I were to ask for a wing, playing together in a game where travel time matters is a big inconvenience, forcing us into boring waits as the players get into position, as players have to take some time off to handle some real world issue, and so on.

There is a reason why I do almost no multiplayer gaming in MMOs, or even in games that try to incorporate traditional MMO mechanics. Playing with others in games that allow us to instantly come together and start having fun is far better, for me at least.

 

[Drunk Si]

.... which would facilitate twinking of newly created commanders (not necessarily new players, of course) who would, under Sandro's rank based punishment proposal, benefit greatly from reduced penalties against them.

Yeah, but I think those proposed changes aren't very good and I think player to player credit transfer stands to bring far more good to the table than bad.

 

[Kubicide]

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

Remember, this is just speculation at the moment.

But yes, the concept would probably revolve around the Pilot's Federation disapproving of infighting.

So members that victimise weaker members (important to remember - it would not affect players going after equally matched targets or going after legal targets) would suffer both financial risk (imagine rebuy excess fees rising to a double digit percentages on the more expensive ships) as the Federation upped their premiums, and outcast status from systems receiving warning communiqués from the Federation (starting with the most secure systems, but eventually preventing docking access everywhere except anarchies).

Sorry if this was answered but I didn't see it in the pages that followed this reply...

But can you define "weaker member"? Is it based on combat rank or how the ship is equipped? It needs to be based on the ship loadout/type/capability since that is the issue where things are out of balance: a loaded combat ship simply overpowers a trade ship. If this proposal is somehow based on the player skills then it's not solving the problem, or solves a different problem of skilled overwhelming unskilled players.

 

[Lightspeed]

Why don'tyou wing up yourself?

As soon as I join a wing, I have to adopt a common consensus of where to go, what to do, and at an appropriate time. All three are counter to my playing style and time available.

I'd rather blaze my own trail, but I would prefer to do it in Open - sometimes meet and greet other players, sometimes be challenged by other players, yes, but above all feel part of a living universe.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yeah, but I think those proposed changes aren't very good and I think player to player credit transfer stands to bring far more good to the table than bad.

Player-to-player direct credit transfers have been requested many times, in many threads - with an amount of opposition to the proposal - still no indication that Frontier are prepared to go down that route.

 

[Kubicide]

Personally, I believe WINGS has killed my interest in PVP in Open. As soon as I am interdicted by a player, along comes another, and another .... and it's a very unequal fight. Makes the whole experience unpleasant and unfair, costly in credits and time spent, and drives me to do some CGs in solo because of it, which is contrary to how I would like to play them.

Agree and I also stopped playing open when the 1 vs many attacks started because there was no effective way to counter the problem. The PvP concerns flared up around the time Wings was introduced. And sadly this imbalance was expected (!) by FDev as they themselves stated they would release NPCs for solo players that could be hired and winged-up to help protect lone players from what Wings would introduce (teams ganking solo players). Folks can defend Wings as not being a factor all they like but it is a fact it has created imbalance for PvP and the answer isn't for solo players to be forced to group up with strangers - forced to change their preferred game style.

Frankly, I think one of the big problems with Elite has been the lack of coop play with teams. I expected the three major factions to be "the teams" where you had to select one when you started to play, and members of your team would work together; they wouldn't be able to hurt or destroy you. Members would battle against opposing teams with aspirations to expand their empires, and here is where the die-hard PVP players would get their entertainment by venturing out into the other team's space and attacking their targets. And hopefully, team members would come to help protect those invading "their space". Teams would also bring a sense of being, a sense of purpose for all players which is sorely missing in this game. Players would feel protected and also likely willing to randomly help others in their "collective". Sadly this did not happen.

Imagine how much fun the game would be today if this simple change was introduced? What would the drawbacks be? I can't think of any negative consequences and only very important positive ones.

 

[Faded Glory]

Probably more like the following:-

1. FINE (low - e.g. 100cr): Initiate combat on a non-WANTED target
2. FINE (medium - e.g. 1000cr): First time that you down the shields when you were the one to initiate the combat on a non-WANTED target
3. BOUNTY (medium - e.g. 1000cr): First time that you damage more than say 5% of the hull when you were the one to initiate the combat on a non-WANTED target
4. BOUNTY (high - e.g. 10000cr): Kill a target when you were the one to initiate the combat on a non-WANTED target

---
Regardless of the crime reporting settings on your ship, if you are not currently WANTED then the target has the right to defend themselves and should not be reported if they shoot back nor should they gain a bounty if they kill you when you were the aggressor. If the target is known to be WANTED before firing then they are fair game.

I'm not sure opening the door to being able to fire on a clean CMDR would be a constructive thing in the long term. And what happens when said CMDR who 'attacked' you without becoming wanted and whom you then 'attacked' in return claims that their shots were simply friendly fire, a mistake?

These changes would make the game much better and would help with "unfair" side of pvp. They would also add much depth and gameplay. If you want to take your defenceless trading ship into dangerous areas of space to chase the greatest profit, wing up with a fighter escort and pay them for their services. If you don't want that then stay in safe space and settle for whatever profit you can make there.

While I never fly in a defenseless ship, I'd still rather not have areas of the game 'off limits' to me simply because I choose not to rely on others for help. That said, I don't have a problem with having areas of space better defined as safe or dangerous, but I don't believe that that should dictate how much profit one should be able to make.

 

[dxm55]

.... which would facilitate twinking of newly created commanders (not necessarily new players, of course) who would, under Sandro's rank based punishment proposal, benefit greatly from reduced penalties against them.

I've always wondered why ships don't require ranks to be obtainable. Some games make this mandatory, in addition to the creds required for purchase. Combat ships will require a certain combat rating, cargo ships trader ratings, explorer ships explorer ranking. Multipurpose ships may require a combination of ratings on a reduced scale each.

It'll prevent credits padding and allow for credits transfer to be viable. And it'll also make players more rounded, as they'll have to try all aspects of the game to get certain ships.

The only downside is more grinding.

 

[Faded Glory]

Personally, I believe that for a large part of the player base this kind of random PvP can never be made enjoyable, no matter how rare it becomes or how much the perpetrator is punished. You can never please the players that don't want to have anything to do with non-consensual PvP if the PvP is anywhere close to being meaningful*. Hence why I believe that, if the intent of Sandro's proposal is to attract more players into Open, it will fail.

Speaking for myself: first because I will never, ever, ask for help in a game; I would rather uninstall and move to the next game in my queue than ever ask for help. Second because, even if I were to ask for a wing, playing together in a game where travel time matters is a big inconvenience, forcing us into boring waits as the players get into position, as players have to take some time off to handle some real world issue, and so on.

Agreed. Entirely.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I've always wondered why ships don't require ranks to be obtainable. Some games make this mandatory, in addition to the creds required for purchase. Combat ships will require a certain combat rating, cargo ships trader ratings, explorer ships explorer ranking. Multipurpose ships may require a combination of ratings on a reduced scale each.

It'll prevent credits padding and allow for credits transfer to be viable. And it'll also make players more rounded, as they'll have to try all aspects of the game to get certain ships.

The only downside is more grinding.

I think that it is quite refreshing that few ships are locked behind attainment walls. I dislike the "got to get to this level to be able to equip <insert item here>" trope.

 

[Drunk Si]

While I never fly in a defenseless ship, I'd still rather not have areas of the game 'off limits' to me simply because I choose not to rely on others for help. That said, I don't have a problem with having areas of space better defined as safe or dangerous, but I don't believe that that should dictate how much profit one should be able to make.

It wouldn't be off limits to you, you'd just be taking a much larger risk going by yourself but you'd also stand to make more money and have no one to share it with. The changes I proposed would really just be making some systems safe with reduced profit and outside of these safe high security systems you'd be running the same sort of risks you do now any time you play in open.