Yes PVP is unfair.

[Jockey79]

You assume that PVPers do not want to affect the BGS. You're wrong.

There are many reasons for PVP. War and control is one of them.
Ganking and murder are a minority.

Most fights in MMOs take place because of power, territory and control.
If a group wanted to flip a station, they would destabilize it by blockading it. That would mean destroying not only sys authority ships, but also any and all trading ships, NPC or Players who attempted to dock there.

Look at the game universe, look at the lore. It's Fed vs Empire vs Alliance. It's war out there.
What do you PVE guys contribute to the lore of the 3 factions other than carrying cargo and smuggling? Exploring is a personal activity and does not affect the story.

The other major activity is WAR.
NPCs are a walkover. I could take out an NPC Fed Corvette in my Vulture, and then knock out his wing of 2 Eagles with no shield loss. But I won't be able to survive a single player Python or Anaconda, much less a Corvette. In PVE, you guys would make turkeys of the "opposition". Only in PVP can war be meaningful.

So PVP gets a static universe? Uh no.
But what if the reverse were true?

I'm not saying PvPers dont want to influence the BGS - I'm saying they don't influence it, as no PvP action alone will do anything.
So if PvPers have a problem with PvE'ers - then it's the PvP'ers that should get the static server, as they have no impact on the current one anyway.

So, I'm not wrong. It is PvE that drives and pushes the BGS / PP and CGs. Not PvP.

it is rareley you see open players complain about solo or group.

LMAO, Comedian of the week.

I give you the Solo / Open / Groups series of threads, and this one - where Open PvP players do nothing but whine that everyone can play without them.
So far, Open / PvPers have whine the most about everything people in Solo / Groups and PvE'ers do without them. They even go as far as to lie their way in to Mobius to PvP / Grief the players there.

 

[Jockey79]

It's not just about PVP, as in player combat, or for someone to kill another person.
As I mentioned, as long as the player has an impact on the BGS, it simply makes for very inconsistent gameplay.

If you had a stake an interest in a particular star system, and a rival group showed up in a separate instance. How would you effectively defend your stake there if you couldn't even see the other group?

By pushing more PvE tokens about than they do.

As that is the only way to attack / defend using the BGS or PP.

You take missions to push influence, they take missions to push influence - whoever does the most, wins.
To do this, you do not need to see each other. Any interaction between each other is meaningless and does nothing to push influence to win the system.

 

[DarkWalker]

I played STO a little back then. It's still not like ED.

Because they don't really have a real generated open universe like ED. They treat them like rooms instead. Those rooms are the sectors you mentioned, and all players will see each other in the rooms.

Nope, you don't see all players that are in each "room", and in STO it's actually easy to prove. Just get into any well populated space sector, or even shared ground zone (like the Starfleet Academy), and click on the zone name in the top right corner of the screen; that will give you the list of instances available, and how many players are in each. You can even switch between instances that way.



It's a very common trick that MMOs use, and unless the devs bare its inner workings to the players (like STO does) it can be difficult for a normal player to detect.

 

[Rampant]

Absolute hogwash.

Just hogwash. And what is more - you *know* this is utter hogwash. You are just being economical with the truth.

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[Jockey79]

Absolute hogwash.

Just hogwash. And what is more - you *know* this is utter hogwash. You are just being economical with the truth.

Cheerz

Mark H

erm.....

who?

OP?
A recent post?
The tooth fairy?

 

[DarkWalker]

As it is defined from 1 source......... the whole notion of MMO is not set in stone imo. warthunder *** is marketed as an MMO. ED is FAR more of an MMO than warthunder.

Food for thought, go into Steam and do a search for games tagged as MMOs. You will find a lot of things that don't fit the usual definition of MMO, such as Audition Online and The Might Quest for Epic Loot.

---

the only mmo i ever knew t actually have every one always in the same instance was the realm online.

The prime example might be EVE Online. It's the only game I know that allows thousands of players in the same instance and even then remains (kinda) playable.

(Kinda because it uses time dilation. The more players that are in an instance, the slower time passes, so as to allow the servers to keep up with the demand. Though admittedly time dilation is far better than lag that could reach minutes, as happened in big battles before the time dilation system was added.)

Most MMOs, though, don't bother to try. They put more emphasis in keeping things playable, lag free, than in allowing all players to see each other.

 

[Jockey79]

Food for thought, go into Steam and do a search for games tagged as MMOs. You will find a lot of things that don't fit the usual definition of MMO, such as Audition Online and The Might Quest for Epic Loot......

I did just that a few months ago for the SOG3 thread;

I really cannot remember the last time I played a good chess MMO.

/facepalm

[Edit: At least it has a PvP mode lol ]

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Absolute hogwash.

Just hogwash. And what is more - you *know* this is utter hogwash. You are just being economical with the truth.

Cheerz

Mark H

? did you forget to stick a quote in there?

 

[Rampant]

If it's a single player game for you, play in Solo. What are you even doing in this thread, if you're not interested in the multiplayer aspect of the game?

Just because he isn't invested in multi-player, this does not prevent one from seeing right from wrong, and commenting on it.

"The standard you walk past is the standard you accept"

It restores my faith in human nature that someone is willing to not take the easy route of walking on past this thread.
Thanks DarkWalker - rep coming your way.

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[Rampant]

? did you forget to stick a quote in there?

Yes I did. (Sorry for being a biff)

It was from *Voice of Open* saying that "PvP is absolutely fair". It clearly is not fair and well he knows it.

I watched from a distance today as an Elite player in a FAS interdicted every single player he could in a CG system. Even other players from the same major faction that he has pledged towards (the irony being that this particular faction is the liberal faction. AND - he even opened comms to some victims saying that being same faction won't help them!)

Didn't matter what vessel or what rating the target was or whether they were Clean or Wanted. All the ones I witnessed were Clean.

Now this is exactly the reason that PvP is unbalanced. Elite player in *combat optimised* FAS taking on mostly harmless Haulers and Adders. Give me a break...


Someone else said - and I para-phrase - that players should man-up, and equip their ship better. Yet another voice stating that Credits are no object. Hold on a minute: Players in Haulers and Adders are clearly not in a position to "equip their ship better". They clearly haven't invested the same amount of time doing the same stuff in-game as the PvP hard-core players. They clearly haven't had the exposure to get themselves even a few Million, never mind the hundreds of millions that most of the hard-core PvP crowd seem to have tucked away in their accounts. As such, you should actually give them a break.

Cheerz

Mark H

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

erm.....

who?

OP?
A recent post?
The tooth fairy?

I am a biff for pressing the wrong quote button with my massive digit on a small phone screen and then not noticing until it was too late.

Here is the missing attachment:

PVP is perfectly fair, in absolutely every way.

What is different is peoples skill, planning and organisation.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[DaveB]

...If you had a stake an interest in a particular star system, and a rival group showed up in a separate instance. How would you effectively defend your stake there if you couldn't even see the other group?...

By being better PvE players than they are. If you're not, in the short term you may win some fights but in the long term you'll lose.

We keep seeing folks on here talking about defending territory or protecting (something) from others.

Well, if you are thinking to go about doing that purely by fighting those other players or blockading their efforts, you're not going to be effective. People talk about the instancing mechanic and the various groups as if they were an "unfortunate" side effect of the games architecture but they've got the chicken and the egg the wrong way around. ED was designed from day one to have no choke points like jump gates that would permit one group of players to deny access to others, to EXPLICITLY have no effective way to blockade any area. DB himself said so in interviews well before the game was released. The architecture that prevents area denial being an effective tactic in ED is, in part, because DB and FD WANTED area denial to be ineffective. Area denial is the only possible way PvP could touch the BGS in Elite and that was explicitly designed out of the game right from the start.

PvP is fine, I enjoy it myself from time to time. Just don't expect it to move the BGS any, because it doesn't.

 

[dxm55]

By pushing more PvE tokens about than they do.

As that is the only way to attack / defend using the BGS or PP.

You take missions to push influence, they take missions to push influence - whoever does the most, wins.
To do this, you do not need to see each other. Any interaction between each other is meaningless and does nothing to push influence to win the system.

Because of instancing. But if everybody was in the same instance, then PVP would have the same weight as PVE in terms of influencing a particular place.
You can smuggle. But you'd have to beat the blockade first.

 

[Mephane]

I watched from a distance today as an Elite player in a FAS interdicted every single player he could in a CG system. Even other players from the same major faction that he has pledged towards (the irony being that this particular faction is the liberal faction. AND - he even opened comms to some victims saying that being same faction won't help them!)

Heh. You know what you call this type of player in a PvP game? A teamkiller; this is totally unacceptable behaviour even in games where PvP is the entire game.

 

[shambles1980]

1/2 the people seem to think pvp needs a bit of a tweek in terms of punishment.
I have collected the ones that seem to be the best ideas that wont ruin the game and they were:

Spoiler

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.

Then the other 1/2 seems to be ooccupied by some people who have a VERY strange argument indeed. which involves no loss pvp, pvp flags, and or a fd run mobius.
when the subject of Power play was introduced something seemed amiss..
they are arguing pvp is unfair and open is a horrible place to be (reasons);
and then the same people saying pvp will never effect power play because instancing will mean that you will be unable to do the things they say people are doing to make open a horrible place..

im trying work out how these people are doing the things they are doing to make open so horrible, when they would never be able to do it with power play.

Not saying any one is clearly crazy or anything. but perhaps the men with white suits should be put on stand by.

 

[dxm55]

"which involves no loss"

The thought process for people like this is always: "This is supposed to be a game. I should not be stressed out or worried about losing anything at all, like in RL. Even though logically, such activity entails risk."

Cue Candy Crush....

 

[Robert Maynard]

1/2 the people seem to think pvp needs a bit of a tweek in terms of punishment.

Not sure that it is a few as half who would like to see some meaningful consequences to PvP.

I have collected the ones that seem to be the best ideas that wont ruin the game

.... and, in my opinion, missed a few, although "best" is highly subjective.

1) Pilots' Federation Bounties: placed by the player targeted by another player;
2) Docking restrictions for wanted players;
3) Different levels of "wanted", i.e. offender, wanted, fugitive, etc. - which are slow to fade once "earned";

Then the other 1/2 seems to be ooccupied by some people who have a VERY strange argument indeed. which involves no loss pvp, pvp flags, and or a fd run mobius.

In your opinion, of course. There seems to be a desire, from a proportion of the player-base, for an Open-PvE mode where players can play with rather than against other players. Other games have PvP and PvE servers - Elite: Dangerous, I believe, sought to break that mould - time will tell if it sticks to that philosophy.

when the subject of Power play was introduced something seemed amiss..
they are arguing pvp is unfair and open is a horrible place to be (reasons);
and then the same people saying pvp will never effect power play because instancing will mean that you will be unable to do the things they say people are doing to make open a horrible place..

im trying work out how these people are doing the things they are doing to make open so horrible, when they would never be able to do it with power play.

Powerplay, given that it is designed and implemented to be played by all players in all modes, does not require PvP - indeed, it does not reward PvP.

Players' perceptions of Open play are formed as a result of their experiences. The fact that some players have had subjectively bad experiences due to other players changes their perception. No-one can be told how to play the game not what is "acceptable" - and the choices are there for players who seek no player interaction at all, should they so wish.

Not saying any one is clearly crazy or anything. but perhaps the men with white suits should be put on stand by.

For whom?

 

[Wolf]

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?

I would not distinguish between different kinds of ship or rank.
A rather simple way of making killing players more riscy and being killed less painfull would be to let the "insurance" claim back the full damages from the offending player upon his destruction. Additionally 50% of the buyback would be payed back to the originally destroyed player.

This insurance claim should timeout to reward pirates and other "legit criminals (in-game)" who are good at avoiding their own destruction, but the timeout should be long.

Maybe let the pilots federation put an additional bounty on player destructions, but that should not be excessive. This bounty then would be cashable everywhere, because they would have small offices everywhere not matter the factions in the system.

The real change would be the insurance demanding back the money they lost on a players ship destruction.
So if you destroy three 100,000,000 you would be facing a payback of 300,000,000 on your own destruction. Nobody else profits from that, it acts only as a money sink. The 50% reembursement still leaves the originlly destroyed player at a potentially big loss, so nobody can say it would be unfair towards the pirate. It just creates a comparable risc to the pirate, who can avoid punishment if he is good at it.

The claim would kick in at any destruction by the way, no matter what or who destroyed the "criminal". It's like the insurance "found" you when you face the rebuy screen.

 

[shambles1980]

for the people who say:

"PvPers" hang about and attack people for no reason and you cannot avoid them,
But also say..
you cant stop some one delivering reinforcement packages by blockading because of instancing so it is impossible to stop them doing what they want..

the latter directly contradicts the former and vice versa. so you cant say both.

 

[Robert Maynard]

for the people who say:

"PvPers" hang about and attack people for no reason and you cannot avoid them,
But also say..
you cant stop some one delivering reinforcement packages by blockading because of instancing so it is impossible to stop them doing what they want..

the latter directly contradicts the former and vice versa. so you cant say both.

Each is true at least some of the time - not both all of the time. Not a contradiction in that case.

 

[shambles1980]

Each is true at least some of the time - not both all of the time. Not a contradiction in that case.

where in lies the main issue most dont seem to get.
open is not a horrible place full of people that will kill you the instant you try to leave dock (well barring a few places they have basically blockaded, which apparently isn't possible)
but there is so many fallacies floating about people are on a witch hunt and quite a few seem to want to ruin the game by pushing for no loss pvp.


p.s

the points you added earlier.

player issues bounties..
this will never happen as it is basically creating a witch hunt which is not allowed.

docking restrictions would be difficult if not impossible to implement
(but is pretty much covered in the faction wide bounty system any way)

the wanted level thing could be interesting though. depending on implementation and what it actually did.