Yes PVP is unfair.

[Faded Glory]

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.

Well, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

If someone were to start a 'slapping match' with me, I would want them to become wanted so I can defend myself in a completely above board and unambiguous way. As to friendly fire, which I do indeed fall victim to from time to time, I'm Ok with getting a bounty for it and the subsequent 'cool off' time. They are my guns, my finger is on the trigger, and it's my responsibility to make sure I only hit valid targets.

 

[DarkWalker]

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.

I doubt it. Unless it becomes possible to completely ignore PvP in Open without any downsides, but if that were to happen the PvPers would be up in arms.

It's not about rewards, efficiency, fear, or anything of the kind; it's about simply not finding it worth playing the game, at all, if other players can take potshots at me.

It's why, for me, there is no compromise. If I might be attacked by another player once in a blue moon, I'm not playing the game at all, regardless of how much I like the game otherwise. If I have to accept any handicap in order to opt out of PvP, then I would feel like a second-class player in that game, so I wouldn't play either. Thus, I'm never going to accept being subjected to PvP, nor will I ever accept any penalty due to opting out of PvP (or any bonus for those that choose to accept PvP), because if any of those were to happen I would leave the game instead.

 

[dxm55]

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.

I doubt it. Unless it becomes possible to completely ignore PvP in Open without any downsides, but if that were to happen the PvPers would be up in arms.

It's not about rewards, efficiency, fear, or anything of the kind; it's about simply not finding it worth playing the game, at all, if other players can take potshots at me.

It's why, for me, there is no compromise. If I might be attacked by another player once in a blue moon, I'm not playing the game at all, regardless of how much I like the game otherwise. If I have to accept any handicap in order to opt out of PvP, then I would feel like a second-class player in that game, so I wouldn't play either. Thus, I'm never going to accept being subjected to PvP, nor will I ever accept any penalty due to opting out of PvP (or any bonus for those that choose to accept PvP), because if any of those were to happen I would leave the game instead.

It's the same on both sides.

PVE players complaining about being murdered in Open.
Hardcore PVP players complaining about combat loggers and expecting other players to accept their fate in the game.

All the arguments are pointless actually.


PVE'ers should just stick to Solo and Mobius, or make their own private groups. Stop whining about how psychos are ganking them in Open.
Don't expect other players to care about your precious cargo, your rebuys, your hours spent.... and least of all, your hurt feelings.
You simply don't belong in Open. Period.

Because really, nobody's interested in hearing you threaten to quit the game if God forbid, you ever get ganked or robbed one day.
If you want to quit, go ahead, there's no loss to the game or other players. No one really cares.



PVP'ers, just stay in Open and kill whoever you see. But stop whining about PVE players staying in Solo or Group. It's their choice. It's cause and effect.
And stop whining about combat logging from the odd PVE player who's trying to avoid your crazy no-holds-bar ganking spree. It's cause and effect.

If all the PVE players run to Solo or Group, then whoop de doo.... so what? You still have each other to kill. You just have no more soft targets. Again, cause and effect.



Just play the game how you want it, and deal with the situation as it comes. Until FD actually does something about it, it's all up to you.
Want to do a trade run in relative "safety"? Just go Solo or Group.
Want to Bounty hunt without interference? Solo.

Only if you can accept player interaction that could go south at anytime do you belong in Open. Otherwise, may I put it bluntly... go play with yourself.

 

[lenna]

You simply don't belong in Open. Period.

This is the typical antagonistic comment that most PvE players probably have come to expect from at least some PvP players (regardless of their precise stance on PvP)...
---
To put things bluntly, that kind of attitude has no place in ANY game IMO, and especially so with ED.
---
There is a reasonable level of PvP that ANY Open player should expect but based on some reports there are some players (probably only a small minority in reality) that ruin the experience because they do not seem willing to engage in balanced PvP.
---
It is the imbalanced PvP issues that really need to be addressed IMO and probably the most obvious way is through tweaks to crime and punishment handling so that those that engage in the more extreme behaviours are discouraged from doing so while letting the rest enjoy the game.
---
The only people that should be fearing such changes are those that can typically be put into the ganker/griefer melting pot. If you are RPing a psycho/socio-path then you would naturally expect to be hunted by law enforcement and players supporting law enforcement. In addition, the associated financial penalties should not be a true concern either really because it is a reasonable expectation that such individuals would get caught and/or killed eventually OR be forced to go underground for a time (c/f real world serial killers).

 

[dxm55]

This is the typical antagonistic comment that most PvE players probably have come to expect from at least some PvP players (regardless of their precise stance on PvP)...
---
To put things bluntly, that kind of attitude has no place in ANY game IMO, and especially so with ED.
---
There is a reasonable level of PvP that ANY Open player should expect but based on some reports there are some players (probably only a small minority in reality) that ruin the experience because they do not seem willing to engage in balanced PvP.
---
It is the imbalanced PvP issues that really need to be addressed IMO and probably the most obvious way is through tweaks to crime and punishment handling so that those that engage in the more extreme behaviours are discouraged from doing so while letting the rest enjoy the game.
---
The only people that should be fearing such changes are those that can typically be put into the ganker/griefer melting pot. If you are RPing a psycho/socio-path then you would naturally expect to be hunted by law enforcement and players supporting law enforcement. In addition, the associated financial penalties should not be a true concern either really because it is a reasonable expectation that such individuals would get caught and/or killed eventually OR be forced to go underground for a time (c/f real world serial killers).

That's for whenever it is that FD does implement better crime and punishment mechanics.

But for now, these people are better off in Solo and Groups. No point coming to Open and then whining about it.

 

[Soopyyy]

I would like to see a bounty put on any player that kills another player, then bounty hunters then go after you. Depending on how big the bounty is, is how long and what type of ships hunt you down!!

Already happens.

 

[CMDR Saunders]

Already happens.

No, it really doesn't.

 

[Drakonluke]

Why don'tyou wing up yourself?

Not everyone has hordes of friends who play ED, or have the time to socialize well enough in online groups.
I think I will soon switch to solo because of this.

 

[excalibus]

Sandro,

Firstly I have not read the entire thread...

I feel that definite punitive measures should take place for random PC killing...
With heightened authority responses and the inability to dock at stations increasing with each weaker kill... as you say to the point of them only being able to dock at anarchies... In my opinion the 'rebuy' value increase on their ship should be directly linked to the rebuy value of the ships they killed as a running total that goes on top of their normal rebuy with perhaps an increasing modifier on that as well for the more ships they kill...

This way if some bored rich player decides to go mental for a while and kills every suitable PC 'target' they encounter, there will exist a real possibility of them becoming bankrupted after enough kills have been performed... As long as this running total comes without a cooldown period where it is reset to zero... or if it does have a cooldown period for resetting, then make it a long cooldown timer (read that as weeks not days) and make it so that any recurrance of said behaviour will re-instate the 'old' values with the addition of the new kill...

 

[lenna]

But for now, these people are better off in Solo and Groups. No point coming to Open and then whining about it.

Why not just let them vent if they feel a need to? They have a right to be in Open and not be treated as target practice for certain types of PvPers.
---
There is actually a point to such venting at times though, it can highlight hot spots for CMDRs that are willing and able to respond to the cases of victimisation that are not reportable to FD as shadow ban offences.
---
There is however, no point in PvPers whining about combat logging in the forums - they should just report the relevant CMDRs to FD using the in-game tools.

 

[Soopyyy]

No, it really doesn't.

Yeah, it does. If you kill someone who isn't wanted you get a bounty. Bounty hunters will chase you.

 

[lenna]

Yeah, it does. If you kill someone who isn't wanted you get a bounty. Bounty hunters will chase you.

Through certain missions I have inadvertently gained bounties on occasion (not high levels but bounties none the less) and have not noted any out of jurisdiction NPC bounty hunting going on.

 

[dxm55]

Why not just let them vent if they feel a need to? They have a right to be in Open and not be treated as target practice for certain types of PvPers.
---
There is actually a point to such venting at times though, it can highlight hot spots for CMDRs that are willing and able to respond to the cases of victimisation that are not reportable to FD as shadow ban offences.
---
There is however, no point in PvPers whining about combat logging in the forums - they should just report the relevant CMDRs to FD using the in-game tools.

Oh, I detest PvPers whining about CLing too. Trust me on that.
I believe in cause and effect.

And I also take it as a victory whether I've killed another Cmdr, or caused him to CL.

 

[Juffa]

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.

Yeah, there could be this 'declare piracy' -option in the cargo scanner/interdictor (also why not declare law enforcement if you got enough rep/rank? with the system's main faction?) which would force a set of rules on both parties. These rules could be set by the insurance company. Break them, lose insurance. Follow them, get benefits. Of course the pirate side should then have insurance from some pirate union or such. Be a mindless killer, lose insurance altogether. Get pirate rep doing the proper pirate thing.


Also the system government type and population (among other factors, like civil wars? community goals? power play reasons?) probably should affect how wanted are treated in the system. (Also, wanted for what reason? could be introduced). 'Anarchy' and 'none' probably should be relatively safe for pirates, and unsafe for others. (Right now I feel that anarchy is no more dangerous than any other space).

Now going a bit further... In some community goals where you need to transport commodities, opposing party should make the commodity illegal in the system and people could do these law enforcement checks as an embargo instead of just killing the trader (smuggler). Except if the system is anarchy.
(And solo/private group should not be an easymode, spawn npc pirates / killers / more police force for law enforcement where players have been detected doing that in the open.


Ah well, the ideas you get while in the toilet...

 

[Drakonluke]

If you ppl want to be so honest, then we all should ask to pay insurance BEFORE you lose your ship.
No insurance company could be so stupid to accept a payment after your ship is destroyed.

 

[Juffa]

If you ppl want to be so honest, then we all should ask to pay insurance BEFORE you lose your ship.
No insurance company could be so stupid to accept a payment after your ship is destroyed.

Yes. Of course.

Edit: We could think this a bit further too, how about different types of insurances? A basic one wouldn't cover if you die in anarchy, one that covers would cost more? Etc etc

 

[Troa Barton]

Yes. Of course.

Edit: We could think this a bit further too, how about different types of insurances? A basic one wouldn't cover if you die in anarchy, one that covers would cost more? Etc etc

People in Orcas would only want basic collision
badum tiss....

 

[Pluvialis]

Until FD actually does something about it, it's all up to you.

The problem is there's very little FD can do about it at this point.

The game simply isn't one thing or the other. It was built that way, and it's not going to resolve now. It wants to cater to (among others, but on a spectrum between) PVP player-killers and solo-minded players like me ('carebears', if you insist) who don't enjoy or want player-combat interactions.

And it wants them, ideally, all in the same, open game. But that won't work, as we've seen right from the start: the two play styles are incompatible if you want both camps to enjoy the game.

To make what we have now work, the only thing we - the entire playerbase - can do is just accept how things work. That means PVP fans accept that people can drop into and out of Solo/Group when they please and that people in Solo/Group can affect the Open mode background simulation. And it means that carebears (again, like me) accept that going into Open mode means people can blast you for laughs with no consequences. Acceptance of these things, and all the other little mode-related quibbles the forums are full of, means the forums should empty of these complaints. We've all heard them before, there's nothing to see here, move along. Just play the game, warts and all, and enjoy it the best way you can. Sure, Frontier can try to implement more crime-and-punishment mechanics, and people will subvert or exploit them because gamers, and somebody somewhere will always complain about how the mechanics don't do one thing or another properly.

Which isn't to say Frontier shouldn't try, or that Sandro is wrong to ask (although I do wonder how we've got this far in before this question's being asked). Just that my hopes aren't high for a perfect solution. But lacking that hypothetical perfect solution, if we can't simply agree to accept what we've got, I only see three permanent answers:

1) Isolate. Let the PVE players play in a solo or group mode that doesn't influence and isn't influenced by open at all.
2) Extreme Isolation. Rewrite ED, and release the offline version Frontier said they'd release if they ever had to take the servers down. (Balance the price: enough to pay for the extra work; little enough to account for the lack of developing, hand-crafted content.)
2) Frontier Choose a Mode. Pick one or the other play style to support and support it exclusively.

I can't see that any of these would be ideal: they're either going to upset some players or cost Frontier more work. But ED has attracted incompatible player bases by trying to be all things to all people, and these are the only ways I can see a resolution. Anything else will just be sticking plaster.

 

[lenna]

If you ppl want to be so honest, then we all should ask to pay insurance BEFORE you lose your ship.
No insurance company could be so stupid to accept a payment after your ship is destroyed.

Actually, what we are paying is just the excess (5% unless you are one of the original backers/founders as I understand it - then it is lower)

 

[Lestenio]

1) Isolate. Let the PVE players play in a solo or group mode that doesn't influence and isn't influenced by open at all.
2) Extreme Isolation. Rewrite ED, and release the offline version Frontier said they'd release if they ever had to take the servers down. (Balance the price: enough to pay for the extra work; little enough to account for the lack of developing, hand-crafted content.)
2) Frontier Choose a Mode. Pick one or the other play style to support and support it exclusively.

None of these are viable really.
After spending £40 on the game and happily playing solo, group or whatever, how would you feel if suddenly you are told your actions no longer matter? Or if you were an open player and FD decided to focus on group exclusively.

All modes are valid and equal, it just needs players to accept that. Or make the game choices

Open PvP - no restrictions on player on player activity
Open PvE - restricted pvp
Group
Solo

As you say, there is never going to be 100% happiness. It just depends if FD get to the point where they are tired of hearing people complaining. I'm sure they have other things they'd rather focus on.

Personally I don't care. I don't play open because of fear of players, or because the crime system, or because the insurance cost.
I don't play open becasue I don't want to play open.