Yes PVP is unfair.

[Faded Glory]

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.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from, and as I said, I would have no problem with better defined security levels, but one has to be careful about setting such precedents as dangerous areas having more profit, IMHO.

Such things can ultimately disadvantage people who want to play the game a certain way. The whole 'risk vs reward' argument is all good and well, but in the end, it's a game, and it simply needs to be fun to play, and higher challenges, again in my opinion, should be opt-in features that you take on when you feel you are ready for them and that give you more options for fun. For example, SSS and some Distress Calls are sometimes significant challenges, and sometimes a lot of 'fun', but no-one is forced to enter them, and they don't necessarily give you any greater reward than you can get by doing something else.

 

[DarkWalker]

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.

The big drawback of faction systems is that they cut down on the number of players you can interact with; a three factions system mean that you only have a third of the players to befriend and play together with.

Also, just about every single potential advantage of the faction system is nullified for players that are allowed to not engage in open PvP (which makes a faction-based PvP system be worse in all aspects for PvE players in games where PvP is optional).

Lastly, for those that do engage in PvP it feels completely different than a factionless PvP system, thus making it a large change in how players perceive the game. As such, this kind of change should be done while the game is in Alpha. Perhaps it could be done to a game in Beta, though that wouldn't be ideal. For a game that has already released, though, I consider such a drastic change to be close to a NGE-level mistake.

 

[dxm55]

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?

Actually, I would propose that after a canopy breach, the next hit to the cockpit should result insta-player death.

Seriously, an exposed pilot being hit by a laser beam or cannon/railgun/PA round... Shredded meat, I say...

 

[dxm55]

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.

From time to time, I'm still playing this old MMO, Darkspace. In the game, credits is used for ship upgrades, and prestige (similar to XP points) is used for ranking, which together with badges (for combat, support, transport, etc activities), qualifies you to access different classes and tiers of ships.

It has the effect of making players try all aspect of the game, and not solely just do combat, transport, or supply, in order to earn the badges to meet the requirements needed to fly a certain ship.

But yes, DS is a PvP focused MMO, so player combat becomes the focus. The others roles are actually necessary in fleet battles, but without the push factor (badges for ships), most player would simply do only one thing. It's only after trying the other roles out of necessity do they realize that A) some of the other roles can be fun too, and B) working together as a team in varying roles make for a more effective fleet.

But I digress. ED is a different game. But who knows, maybe such a system will make players know what's it like being a trader, an explorer, and also a combatant, while grinding for their ships. It might make them more sympathetic towards other players and maybe even reduce the number of gankers and murderers.

 

[Zieman]

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?

Too little, too late.

Nice try, Sandro.

 

[Weps]

Sorry if this has been posted / suggested so far. Related to PvP: I think a missed opportunity for meaningful PvP are combat zones, because combat zones are accessed voluntarily. There should be more incentives for players to join combat zones and hunt commanders there (for example, a different kind of combat bonds which reward commanders substantially for player kills - think something in the lines of kill-the-Red-Baron-reward - maybe even skull decals only for player kills inside combat zones, and removing skulls for unlawful kills).

 

[lenna]

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.

Currently there are ways to transfer credits, but it takes time and can sometimes result in a loss of credits in the transfer.
---
Adding the ability to transfer credits directly would probably just attract certain undesirables that have plagued some other MMOs - in short the RW cash for in-game credits bunch - as well as possibly exasperate certain other concerns with PvP and punishment in the Open World setting.

 

[Pluvialis]

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.

This is the case for me, too. I said similar earlier, I know, but I wanted to echo the point of view. I'm sure PVP is great fun for those who enjoy that kind of thing. I don't. I do enjoy some multiplayer games as I'm in guilds in some of the fantasy MMOs, but I enjoy them because the nature of guild play is generally co-operative. When we go out on raids or whatever, it's me and my group against the NPCs. We're not interfering with anyone else's game. We're not trying to spoil anyone's fun. Even then, I spend far more time just exploring the game worlds on my own, because real-life commitments mean I can't always be on regularly to join up with my guildmates.

Others have touched on the time question, but I want to spend my in-game time just doing my thing, flying round the universe being, as I said before, a space truck driver. I don't want to drive a tank or a fighter plane, I don't want to be an action hero. I'm not particularly concerned with my level of whatever the girl version of machismo is. I just want to have fun doing my thing. Also, as I said earlier, I don't want to affect someone else's galaxy simulation, for all the people complaining that I am. The only reason I do that is because ED makes me, by not giving me the option to play an entirely isolated, fully offline game.

Like DarkWater, I can think of no change that could be made to the game that would encourage me to embrace PVP specifically or Open in general.

 

[lenna]

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?

In short, if the shots were truly accidental then a little in-game communication should resolve the problem - and the accidental shooter would have to pay a fine. As the old saying goes, no harm no foul. Both sides putting weapons away could signify a cease fire with a cool down period. No system is likely to be perfect but most of the cases complained about accidental fire on the part of the killed party is most likely far from a normal situation. If you shoot and hit first, accidentally or not (clean or wanted) then you basically are asking for trouble. Effectively, this would be enforcing "Fire if fired upon" rules of engagement.
---
In general, having auto-deploy of weapons on firing is not a wise way to have your controls configured IME/IMO.

 

[Evil Flanker]

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?

Personally, I would like to see more security hunt down the killer also why not give the clean victim the opportunity to call the police who should arrive within a minute or two....

Also the bounty system against the perpetrator could be improved, when it reaches incremental preset amounts the bounty spreads from system to system, (This should not include killing NPC's or players doing powerplay objectives due to some of the powerplay requirements) for example...

10,000 bounty = 1 system
25,000 bounty = All systems within 10 ly distance from original bounty system
50,000 bounty = All systems within 15 ly distance from original bounty system
75,000 bounty = All systems within 20 ly distance from original bounty system
100,000 bounty = All systems within 25 ly distance from original bounty system

Etc, etc...

The idea of people not being able to dock for killing players in trade vessels is ambibuous, for example players using trade vessels to transport PP supplies should be legitimate targets.

Also it should be scaled, the amount of murders should affect the amount of stations, perhaps the same method as my bounty suggestion above.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

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 have suggested this before. Much like I can drive a car or a van I can't drive a class 2 lorry and drivers who can drive a class 2 lorry can't drive class one.
I certainly think there should be classes of ships and you improve your licence over time.

But my reasons are nothing to do with PvP I just think it's a cool mechanic for encouraging greater range of ships.

But before anyone shouts me down I wouldn't worry... It won't happen imo

 

[Lightspeed]

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?

Greetings Sandro,

I am glad you are thinking constructively about solving this problem. I think the problem with some murderers (your term, but I like it and it is appropriate) is that they get a buzz out of increasing their bounty, so that probably won't work alone. Crippling financial penalties extracted before permission to dock might help.

But the real problem that needs addressing now is Wings .... the issue of murderers teaming up against single pilots, regardless of rank or even ship differences. The penalties would need to be applied to all members of the Wing, regardless of who shot first or last. And the penalties need to affect their game play (the thrill they get out of meaningless killing for the sake of it), not just bounties, and to include the financial penalties I have just suggested.

Rapid response of NPC enforement to assist a single player attacked and overwhelmed by more than one player would help, but the response would have to be almost immediate and powerful.

Otherwise there remains less and less attraction for Commanders like myself to remain in Open. And I would prefer to maintain Open play if possible.

Edit - If NPCs could not assist the Commander in time, the persistent hounding of the murderers by NPC enforcement ships for a set period of time, regardless of where they went in the galaxy (and whether they logged out/in too), might provide some disincentive to grief other players continually.

 

[Faded Glory]

In short, if the shots were truly accidental then a little in-game communication should resolve the problem - and the accidental shooter would have to pay a fine. As the old saying goes, no harm no foul. Both sides putting weapons away could signify a cease fire with a cool down period. No system is likely to be perfect but most of the cases complained about accidental fire on the part of the killed party is most likely far from a normal situation. If you shoot and hit first, accidentally or not (clean or wanted) then you basically are asking for trouble. Effectively, this would be enforcing "Fire if fired upon" rules of engagement.
---
In general, having auto-deploy of weapons on firing is not a wise way to have your controls configured IME/IMO.

Fair enough, but I still don't really see how de-criminalizing an assault (of any level) on a clean target improves what we currently have. It certainly doesn't help less well armed ships if they are attacked by heavily armed combat ships.

It would on the other hand be wildly popular with those who cannot seem to be able to avoid friendly fire instances at nav beacons or RES...

 

[Dominatus01]

Dons asbestos suit.. (Note that I'm not actually against PVP, I quite enjoy it) but it's currently unbalanced.

We have crime but no punishment.

The victims of the crime are punished.. traders lose their whole inventory + insurance every time they are destroyed, however the attacker has a bare minimal slap on the wrist.

So the victims run or combat log. Reporting people that combat log does not help, because they will get told off once and then

• Go to Solo
• Go to Mobius

This means that there are less people for the PVP'ers to attack. So they go off and kill newbies in sidewinders or just get bored.

Wings made things worse because now a trade anaconda that *might* have had a chance to fight back against a single player, is instead being attacked by wings of 3 players.

The victims in the trade ships see this as griefing because they are being attacked and losing (up to) everything they own, while they know that the attacker is risking nothing.

I think that if PVP was made to be riskier it would actually be more fun for the attacker. If traders knew that the law was on their side it might bring more of them back to open. HOWEVER it would need big changes. Big fines for PVP, big bounties and immediate and escalating police response to ships being attacked. This results in more difficult fights, more risk, more reward. Make the police response relative to the system politics etc, so that core empire systems have more police than independent anarchy systems, completely empty systems have no police. Increase the trading reward for going into more dangerous systems.

As I'm writing this I'm realising that as you try to fix a single point it leads on to more points that are broken, that need more fixes to fix up the core gameplay that lead to dead ends in the core gameplay that cannot be fixed due to the way the game is written. If you increase the rewards in anarchy systems so more PVPers go into the system to catch the traders then the traders that are in solo have an unfair advantage, unless you have more NPC pirates. All of this is broken because the bigger ships can just submit, boost away and jump (especially from the npc's)

To be honest I dont think this can be fixed without a complete overhaul of everything from the ground up with input from the players. But for now, The PVP balance is so far on the attacker's side that there is no reason to participate in it.

Maybe some of this would help...

• Remove ship scans from supercruise so that players cant tell if they are attacking a combat-conda from a trade-conda.
• Increase the penalties for attacking other player ships
• Allow traders to insure their cargo?
• Quick (NPC Viper System Authority?) Response to attacked ships. (Variable. Sometimes quick, sometimes longer.. )
• Make insurance null and void on ships that attack in PVP. (and are reported.. say for 24 hours).

I know this *seems* like nerfs to PVP, but if the sides are balanced then more people might participate..

Some interesting points here tbh.

I quite agree, but I think the rewards for being a proper pirate also need to be looked at. I most certainly agree that the punishments for killing non-bountied ships need to be WAY more severe. It should be that you only go killing non bountied ships if you can steal their cargo and make a good reward off it to offset the fact that you'll be hunted down with a vengeance by better npc's than the current joke police force. Having "uber" cops chasing you around for killing "innocents" should be the norm - that would help reduce the idiot griefers.

However, that having been said, you should not forget that some people may want to be legitimate pirates, and that should be a viable career path. Killing innocents, being fully aware of the risks, but doing it to obtain loots!

Whatever is done, the current state of play with griefers being able to act with almost complete impunity simply means that I'm sure a large majority of us simply don't bother with playing Open. That in itself is pretty sad, because we're missing out on a large chunk of what the game "should be" simply due to griefers and combat loggers. Yes, I have played in open, and to be honest it's more of a pain in the butt than it's worth imho. I got ganked a couple of times by wings when I had no bounties on me and wasn't power play affiliated, by people who had no interest in getting cargo from me. They were simply being tards. Solution was quite simple, don't bother with open any more, but it's not the right or proper solution to the problem.

 

[CMDR Thon Mystra]

Hello Commander Mr_Blastman!

This idea is more focused on addressing the "random killer" issue that is a part of the PVP vs PVE debate.

So I think it's safe to assume that we want to allow piracy without killing the trader (we already have hatchbreaker limpets and module damage to drives and cargo hatch, but we'll continue to look at other ways to enable piracy without murder).

Hi Sandro,

Have a skim through this reply I gave, particularly the player bounty system that could be created. You are absolutely right that it is the random PK's that are the issue and is something that's kept me on a few boards the last day or two.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=222898&page=18&p=3470452#post3470452

And this

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=228715&page=13

I was thinking about fleshing out details of such a system but it seems a bit pointless yet as many folk have not yet fully realised that it is the unwarranted killing that goes on that puts them off PvP, rather than the PvP interaction created by career choices.

The only question I beg you to answer is this:

Can a system like this feasibly be implemented? (not *will* it be done, but *can* it be done?)

Thanks

 

[CMDR Thon Mystra]

Some interesting points here tbh.

I quite agree, but I think the rewards for being a proper pirate also need to be looked at. I most certainly agree that the punishments for killing non-bountied ships need to be WAY more severe. It should be that you only go killing non bountied ships if you can steal their cargo and make a good reward off it to offset the fact that you'll be hunted down with a vengeance by better npc's than the current joke police force. Having "uber" cops chasing you around for killing "innocents" should be the norm - that would help reduce the idiot griefers.

However, that having been said, you should not forget that some people may want to be legitimate pirates, and that should be a viable career path. Killing innocents, being fully aware of the risks, but doing it to obtain loots!

Whatever is done, the current state of play with griefers being able to act with almost complete impunity simply means that I'm sure a large majority of us simply don't bother with playing Open. That in itself is pretty sad, because we're missing out on a large chunk of what the game "should be" simply due to griefers and combat loggers. Yes, I have played in open, and to be honest it's more of a pain in the butt than it's worth imho. I got ganked a couple of times by wings when I had no bounties on me and wasn't power play affiliated, by people who had no interest in getting cargo from me. They were simply being tards. Solution was quite simple, don't bother with open any more, but it's not the right or proper solution to the problem.

Absolutely spot on. Have some rep sir!

Although I'm still a little lost as to why *any* pirate would see murder as part of their job description...I mean....why would you need to kill someone if you already have their stuff? It's not like they can go and tell the cops....

As I flit between 5 or so threads on these topics I spot lots of good little ideas that, if put together, would potentially form the basis for a galaxy in which group or solo play wouldn't even be needed.

If only I could be bothered collating them into a single, cohesive package.....

 

[Robert Maynard]

Although I'm still a little lost as to why *any* pirate would see murder as part of their job description...I mean....why would you need to kill someone if you already have their stuff? It's not like they can go and tell the cops....

I do wonder if a "proper" pirate demand could be based on a cargo scanner output - the pirate could make a demand based on the scan by selecting a number of each type of cargo - which would then be transmitted to the target. All in-game menus - no comms involved. It would allow the game to get involved in the interaction - and if the target clicked the "accept and drop" button then the demanded cargo would be dropped accordingly. A counter offer would be a natural part of the haggling process - again, using an in-game interface.

If the pirate then attacked the target then "the deal's off" and they would be in line for a greater punishment.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

As I flit between 5 or so threads on these topics I spot lots of good little ideas that, if put together, would potentially form the basis for a galaxy in which group or solo play wouldn't even be needed.

Solo and private will always be needed. Don't get me wrong am not pooh poohing some of the great ideas in this thread and I would certainly consider open again...... But SOME people just do not want to fight other players full stop.

Further more the game is rated for kids however whilst I would let my kid play in solo or in a private controlled group if he were old enough I would not necessarily want him in unrestricted online.

Finally for pc bandwidth issues and for Xbox the paid subs not everyone has solo will stay.

But a better open with realistic consequences for you actions can only be good for open and for the game imo

 

[CMDR Thon Mystra]

Solo and private will always be needed.

Apologies. I phrased that incorrectly. I actually meant it would be more desirable for PVE'ers to play in open rather than being made to avoid it because of PvP.

 

[lenna]

Fair enough, but I still don't really see how de-criminalizing an assault (of any level) on a clean target improves what we currently have. It certainly doesn't help less well armed ships if they are attacked by heavily armed combat ships.

It would on the other hand be wildly popular with those who cannot seem to be able to avoid friendly fire instances at nav beacons or RES...

Effectively it de-criminalises "slapping matches" (shield damage only) but more heavily penalises attacks that amount to ABH/GBH (Hull/Equipment Damage).
---
As you have pointed out that should also minimise (but not completely mitigate) the consequences of genuinely accidental friendly fire too.