PvPers are more than welcome to have at it - in anarchy/losec/midsec space, but try attacking others in hisec areas and see the authorities take a very dim view of it.
Same would go for anyone attacking clean npcs
Last edited:
Yes PVP is unfair.
- Thread starter _Dastardly_
- Start date
PvPers are more than welcome to have at it - in anarchy/losec/midsec space, but try attacking others in hisec areas and see the authorities take a very dim view of it.
Same would go for anyone attacking clean npcs
Completely agree - goes back to the post you are responding to, in which I said there is a game design problem, which FDEV really do need to fix.
Again - completely agree. The key phrase there is "the PVP community should be allowed to shoot each other." - see that's fine.
The problem starts when players who consider themselves part of the "PvP community" then treat players who do not consider themselves as "part of the PvP community" as "legit targets". Example: an Explorer flying in Open, they've been out in the Unknown for months and are making their way back home, playing their game their own way. Then "part of the PvP community" sees them, interdicts them with a wing of 4 FdL's, and blasts them and their 2-300M worth of exploration data they've collected over 8 months, out of the skies, for no other reason than PvP-for-sport.
Now okay - you could argue that said unfortunate Explorer was an idiot to be coming back to the Bubble in Open, and that's true - but only because at the moment the game "design" is letting out-of-context activity do this. Nevertheless, you'd be right in saying that said Explorer really was a fool to be doing such.
The point being made is that perhaps in an ideal situation, the PvP-for-sport guys would be deterred from ganking said Explorer in a wing of four FdL's, either due to some kind of security response, and/or the game being set up in such a way that said Explorer could play in Open, as after all he is playing the game in-context.
Now don't misunderstand me here - Explorers should have as much danger in Open, Group, or Solo as any other player - same goes for Traders, Bounty Hunters, and Pirates. There should still be a danger of said Explorer being ganked by a PvP-for-sport player! But this is where the current game "design" is lacking; there is no incentive for PvP-for-sport players to keep their PvP-for-sport context in amongst themselves.
And it's FDEV's fault. Only recently, David Braben was saying "come play in Open, really it's fun!". DB wants everyone to play in Open due to it being fun, but he appears to fail to realise that the game design as it currently stands isn't making sure that the context that any individual player is in, isn't being infringed upon by out-of-context gameplay.
And the overall result is it's pretty terrible for the players who don't consider themselves PvP-for-sport players.
Again - FDEV's fault. Does anyone have a completely clear picture of what FDEV wants this game to be yet? I know I don't. I'm very confused right now. They send out very confusing messages. On the one hand, they're recreating the gameplay of the original Elite and adding to it. On the other hand, they send conflicting messages about what this game actually is - is it really just boiling down to a shooty-shooty game, like some people say? Or did David Braben really mean it when he said PvP should be "rare and meaningful"? The latter statement currently does not bear any resemblance to this game as it currently stands.
I can only conclude that the intention to make PvP "rare and meaningful" has failed utterly so far. And that's the fault of the game designer(s) - FDEV.
The thing is, PvE players would LOVE IT if the PvP-for-sport players would keep PvP-for-sport in amongst themselves! How can DB expect PvE players to play in Open if FDEV aren't policing their game such that out-of-context PvP-for-sport doesn't impinge on people actually trying to play the game in-context?
Agreed. Respectful co-existence of both type should be possible. Currently though, the game's lack of decent design destroys the possibility of that.
Again, in total agreement.
Regards o7
I am afraid this would be a bandage for a fracture. Problem is in the other matter - in a poor security services.
Punish for a murder should be larger at all. No matter it is a player or NPC. Murder is murder.
However, there should be also possibility for pirates - this is easy way o resolve - a safe trade routes and unsafe, more profitable, secure and non secure systems.
In high secuiry system a punish for a murder should be very large and a possibility to murder hard - for example:
If in a high security and safe system a player interdict a player then police react very very fast and 3-4 Winged Elite Pythons/Vettes/FDL appears. If player will shoot to a player, then police also react quicly with high punch and a player whoo shoot have hard possibility to escape and big fine.
There are different cultures in a world. In our civilisation a murder is something bad, but in other regions of space it could be something neutral, natural, and not punishable. This also You should consider. It could be in some low-security anarchy systems for example.
Yes - even for shoot. If he kill other player then he should get also high (counted in mlns) fine.
In one sentence - there should be very secure trade routes and systems where a killing of other player will just be very hard or not possible becuse of very hard and fast security services response.
Nobody is shooting to Death Star Coriolis. Why? Because it will respond
Like in a real world - in some countries you even have weapons forbidden (Poland) and if You hit someone, then police will hit You very fast (USA), and in other countries is free for all (Africa). But in all cases you 'can' try.
In my proposition a players who not feel good in a fight will be flying on more secure systems (space is big, so there could be a lot of them) and if they fly to low-security systems then he should take a look on increased risk.
So, solution is simple - give more punch and speed to Police and problem will be definately solved.
Last edited:
It's why what I want is an extra Open mode, dedicated to PvE players, rather than extra restrictions to the current Open mode. If you remove from Open the players that are there just for the friendly social interaction, but with no interest in taking part in the PvP, then the remaining players get to cut loose without PvE players complaining about it.
My take on it is that Frontier had no actual idea how the players would behave after launch. That they expected players that would attack others without getting credits out of it would be nearly nonexistent, players that would turn to piracy (or otherwise prey on other players) would be both rare and happy to mostly prey on NPCs, that in the core worlds enough players would be interested in helping others to prevent anyone that stepped out of the line from causing actual damage, and so on.
It's the same mistake Richard Garriott and his team made with UO. They thought it would create an orderly, working virtual society, where you might rarely have to deal with an outlaw player, where most of your challenge would come from facing NPCs. And also that PvE players wouldn't mind sometimes being the target of a PvPer. Reality was so different from what they expected, the devs were forced to create the PvE-only Trammel to prevent EA from closing down the game over the loss of players caused by PK activity.
BTW, I do believe Sandro's post is because they are seeing far more players opting to play in Solo and Groups (or even leaving the game early) than they ever expected before launch.
i belive his post is to try and stop the whiners whining on the forum, blowing everything out of proportion and making open sound like a horrible place when it isnt at all.
Well, I imagine some of those players who PK for fun might have some pretty questionable morals, and would be only too happy to destroy the sidey, then pull the plug before they are destroyed by the avenging NPCs...
And of course, there'd be no-one around to report them, NPCs aren't quite that sentient.
That is actually something I'd agree with! I do believe player aggression is worse than it actually is, because myself I tend to experience social interactions that are detrimental to me as more exhausting and unnerving than what one could consider "mild". Considering the size of the ED galaxy and the number of players, it is a matter of chance to get repeated aggression in multiple systems, and when that happens it is easy to label Open Play as hostile and spread the fear. To me the problem is big because one occurrence can ruin my day, and I personally believe it is very unimmersive to see players act like fearless children with maxed out armament. But I do not have consideration for the many hours nothing bad happens.
Now I'm no longer trading nowadays, and trading is economy, rare loss is still loss for traders. I will try out exploration in a sidey, in open, although I've played Solo ever since "docking request denied".
That is relative. And in this game more than usual, because who, and even how many people, you meet depends on things like where you live and which is your ISP is. Thus, not only you can't be sure if an experience you consider reasonable might be even close to reasonable for someone else, you can't even be sure other players will get the same experience at all.
I am afraid this would be a bandage for a fracture. Problem is in the other matter - in a poor security services.
Punish for a murder should be larger at all. No matter it is a player or NPC. Murder is murder.
However, there should be also possibility for pirates - this is easy way o resolve - a safe trade routes and unsafe, more profitable, secure and non secure systems.
In high secuiry system a punish for a murder should be very large and a possibility to murder hard - for example:
If in a high security and safe system a player interdict a player then police react very very fast and 3-4 Winged Elite Pythons/Vettes/FDL appears. If player will shoot to a player, then police also react quicly with high punch and a player whoo shoot have hard possibility to escape and big fine.
There are different cultures in a world. In our civilisation a murder is something bad, but in other regions of space it could be something neutral, natural, and not punishable. This also You should consider. It could be in some low-security anarchy systems for example.
Yes - even for shoot. If he kill other player then he should get also high (counted in mlns) fine.
In one sentence - there should be very secure trade routes and systems where a killing of other player will just be very hard or not possible becuse of very hard and fast security services response.
Nobody is shooting to Death Star Coriolis. Why? Because it will respond
Like in a real world - in some countries you even have weapons forbidden (Poland) and if You hit someone, then police will hit You very fast (USA), and in other countries is free for all (Africa). But in all cases you 'can' try.
In my proposition a players who not feel good in a fight will be flying on more secure systems (space is big, so there could be a lot of them) and if they fly to low-security systems then he should take a look on increased risk.
So, solution is simple - give more punch and speed to Police and problem will be definately solved.
This is all good ideas in theory, but how fast should the police response be to a crime? This has huge re-percussions to so many actions in the game, as to be effective, from the time the first shot is fired to the police turning up and starting to attack the aggressors would have to be a matter of seconds if they were to have a chance to stop the murder. A wing of relatively well specced players would (I imagine) be able to destroy most small / medium ships in a very short space of time, and if the goal is piracy, then they'd certainly have no time to collect loot if they've had to use any force at all such as hatch breaker limpets which require shields to be down before the overwhelming police response turned up.
If the result were just to punish the aggressor after the player has been destroyed, I doubt it will make the slightest difference to the 'victim'. They were still destroyed, their game was still (potentially) ruined.
And if you extend it to PvE, then that would probably make a good percentage of the murderous BB missions unplayable, and for those that feature a wanted target, you'd end up with the police turning up and doing the work for you. Cue more calls that the game is simply too easy. I'm not sure how precise the RNG system is to be able to make sure that missions only happen in 'appropriate' space, although if they could do it, then I think it would add quite a bit of realism to the game.
Yes PvP is unfair because open play is supposed to be governed by the rules of a jungle where the stronger prevails and the weaker perishes. If you are a newbie or you dont like being blown up by stronger/better ships/players (who may be pirates, psycopathes, griefers or whatever - that doesn't matter) go solo or private pve group. That's what I have done and my problems were solved once and for all.
If you want a fair PvP fight go CQC - again problem solved.
I don't understand all this fuss. I mean even Lead designer Mr S.Sammarco is spending his precious time on threads like this when there are other more ipmortant gameplay issues like bugged missions, graphic glitches, etc.. that are immersion breakers and hundreds of other things (just pay a visit to the buggs section threads). Honestly Mr Sammarco the legal system in Elite is already complex enough that trying to make it more ''fair'' for the weaker will probably unbalance it even more as Mr_Blastman very felicitously described.
And finally if you come up with the lame excuse that open play is too empty of commanders because PvP is unfair and drives people to solo & Pve groups, be aware that others (me included) have suggested a solution which is impossible to implement because of the networking P2P instancing nature of Elite: Dangerous. This solution proposed only one group (i.e. only open play) where all players are visible to each other but only PvP flagged ones can shoot and be shooted by others.
Basically this whole thread is a subthread of The Open v Solo v Groups thread and shouldn't exist in the 1st place.
If you want a fair PvP fight go CQC - again problem solved.
I don't understand all this fuss. I mean even Lead designer Mr S.Sammarco is spending his precious time on threads like this when there are other more ipmortant gameplay issues like bugged missions, graphic glitches, etc.. that are immersion breakers and hundreds of other things (just pay a visit to the buggs section threads). Honestly Mr Sammarco the legal system in Elite is already complex enough that trying to make it more ''fair'' for the weaker will probably unbalance it even more as Mr_Blastman very felicitously described.
And finally if you come up with the lame excuse that open play is too empty of commanders because PvP is unfair and drives people to solo & Pve groups, be aware that others (me included) have suggested a solution which is impossible to implement because of the networking P2P instancing nature of Elite: Dangerous. This solution proposed only one group (i.e. only open play) where all players are visible to each other but only PvP flagged ones can shoot and be shooted by others.
Basically this whole thread is a subthread of The Open v Solo v Groups thread and shouldn't exist in the 1st place.
Last edited:
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
this sounds like how anarchy space may be expected to work, but not hi sec space... and not without really getting on the bad side of the pilots federation, of whom only we, the meat suit players are lucky enough to be members of.
lets be honest... if a player really wants to blow someone up, and they are in a combat vehicle and the victim is in a tin can, if the game is to maintain a semblence of realism unless I get lucky and a security sweep was happening a few LS from where the attempt happened there is not a lot the police can do, much like if i decided to get my dads shotgun and go on a spree.
fast police responses can help against piracy and bounty hunting where the mark is not wanted in that particular system, but against a (person role playing a) psycho...... .... .no chance really.
BUT where the police need to come in is what happens next, AFTER the player has blown me up, and knowing what we know lore wise about the federation of elite pilots, and how they look down upon the wanton pointless destruction of their members and this is where the game fails like a paper condom.
A slight aside..... i wonder if it would be better if "illegal interdiction attempt" showed up like a POI would make any difference.
this would mean the crime is already commited, and police, as well as both player and npc bounty hunters can jump to it. this would mean it is in the "victims" interest to hold on as long as possible in the interdiction mini game (and may make the throttle back and submit mechanic less favourable) and on the other hand, makes the aggressor motivated to win the game asap, as the clock is ticking the moment the interdiction begins.
in CGs where there are lots of pirates, BHers, killers and trader players all together in the mix, this could really drag everyone into the melting pots and get the people who want to be fighting, actually fighting.
Last edited:
If that's true, this whole discussion is pointless, because everybody is happy! How nice
Once that "keep PVP amongst PVPers" is fixed the only other thing I'd be hoping for is that PVP becomes frequent and meaningful, not just for sport.
Some guidance from FDev would be useful. Instancing issues aside, FDev made PVP a great experience if you are so inclined. I hope FDev builds on it.
Yes, that too. But because encounters there are rare, PVPers should also have the opportunity to kill each other "in a meaningful way" at CGs, if that makes sense. What "meaningful" is is yet to be determined.
No PVPer should argue against that; inofficially we already have that mode. Its not about getting more easy targets into Open for PVPers but making it a lively place with PVE oriented players pretty much off-limits for PVPers through some new game mechanics.
How about a player based reserve police force? 'Lawful' PVPers could join the System Authority Reserve, be instantly advised of an 'out of context PVP aggressor' (I guess that means someone shooting a carebear), provide the Reservist PVPer cop with the aggressor's system information (1 advisement per ship attacked) and provide a nice bounty claim upon their destruction. Groups of Player Pirates and Player Cops might have showdowns this way. Lawbreaker Players could group up and ambush Cops. Player Cops could group together and take out Criminal Players. This in Open Mode only.
Like any game mechanic though, anything you implement someone else will find a way to exploit. Like Hulkageddon carebear ganking in high security space in that other game. I guess we could ban gankers to nullsec like that other game, but then Elite would have lame space security levels like that other game. Not sure how you can role-play explain the possibility of banning a player from certain systems anyway (or permit-only systems for that matter). People are not magically prevented from going places in real life. But, I digress.
If I get PVP killed and dont' wanna deal with the player again, off to Solo I go. If I wanna come back out in a Winder and play cat-n-mouse, I do that.
Ok, rage on, thread!)))))))
Like any game mechanic though, anything you implement someone else will find a way to exploit. Like Hulkageddon carebear ganking in high security space in that other game. I guess we could ban gankers to nullsec like that other game, but then Elite would have lame space security levels like that other game. Not sure how you can role-play explain the possibility of banning a player from certain systems anyway (or permit-only systems for that matter). People are not magically prevented from going places in real life. But, I digress.
If I get PVP killed and dont' wanna deal with the player again, off to Solo I go. If I wanna come back out in a Winder and play cat-n-mouse, I do that.
Ok, rage on, thread!
)))))))
Last edited:
Nope. I don't like this idea for the following reasons;
1. It is extremely unimmersive and inorganic. It's just way too "gamey" and feels like some sort of mathematical arbitrary metric of punishment, rather than an actual consequence of taking a specific action in this universe.
2. Ratings don't really mean a whole lot. Some people are good at the game already and are "Novice", some people are not good at combat at all and have, through nothing more than time, achieved "Elite". That's fine, I'm not complaining, but punitive measures based on rankings just punishes people on account of their playtime.
The solution has been posted ad nauseum. Make "safe" systems really safe, with fast and robust police responses. Have clusters of such systems, particularly around the Fed and Empire core worlds, so that people who don't want to engage in this activity have a bigger playing area.
Also consider having other, more logical, consequences to piracy and murder. People who regularly commit piracy in Empire space should gradually lose all standing, including ranks, within the Empire. Same for the Federation. They should lose their permits to systems within that faction as well. If they are flying a Clipper or some other ship they don't have the rank for then that ship should be treated as an illicit ship in that territory, with a heavy fine for using it there.
As a pirate I agree on all counts
If that's true, this whole discussion is pointless, because everybody is happy! How nice
every one in open is happy..
the people in solo or mobius however want to change open in to mobius becuse they cant play the game on anything but "very easy"
Possible incentive for non-PVPers to use Open Mode:
If you, a clean pilot, fly within interdiction range of a wanted Player in Supercruise or within 5 km in normal space , while carrying cargo or on a non-combat mission or carrying cartographics, you would get 5% hazard pay bonus on selling that cargo, finishing the mission, selling your cartographics. The bonus would expire when the mission expired. Most pilots probably dont want to drive around with a load of cargo or maps looking for a PVPer to engage, but what do I know?
The hazard pay would take the form of a voucher to cash in at a station. If you get destroyed, goodbye voucher.
But that's not all!
1. 5% hazard pay for just being within interdiction range or 5km of a wanted Player.
2. But add another 5% if the clean pilot is successfully interdicted by a wanted Player.
3. But add another 5% if the clean pilot suffers over 50% damage to his hull from a wanted player. Satisfying #3 would satisfy #1. (At least in non-anarchy systemss I think).
So 15% total bonus, provided he survives long enough to cash in the hazard pay voucher.
If you, a clean pilot, fly within interdiction range of a wanted Player in Supercruise or within 5 km in normal space , while carrying cargo or on a non-combat mission or carrying cartographics, you would get 5% hazard pay bonus on selling that cargo, finishing the mission, selling your cartographics. The bonus would expire when the mission expired. Most pilots probably dont want to drive around with a load of cargo or maps looking for a PVPer to engage, but what do I know?
The hazard pay would take the form of a voucher to cash in at a station. If you get destroyed, goodbye voucher.
But that's not all!
1. 5% hazard pay for just being within interdiction range or 5km of a wanted Player.
2. But add another 5% if the clean pilot is successfully interdicted by a wanted Player.
3. But add another 5% if the clean pilot suffers over 50% damage to his hull from a wanted player. Satisfying #3 would satisfy #1. (At least in non-anarchy systemss I think).
So 15% total bonus, provided he survives long enough to cash in the hazard pay voucher.
Last edited:
What a load of complete Taurus. There are myriad reasons for folks to pick one mode over another, whether that be for a particular play session or for their entire playing career. In my case the reasons are purely social - I play solo when I don;t want to deal with anyone, private group when I am only in the mood to cope with certain people or open at other times. Whether the people I am prepared to deal withe include PvPers, PvEers or any combination thereof is irrelevant to me. It's the people I am choosing to interact with or not, not the manner of the interaction.
You may not see it, but your attitude of "I play open and I pvp, so I 'm better than you and therefore don't have to listen to your arguments" does nothing but devalue your own points of view in any rational debate. Quite frankly, I'd have more respect for a cmdr who honestly said "I stay out of open because I'm not good enough to survive the PvP" than I do for folks with attitudes like that.
As for folks "wanting to change open into mobius" that's so full of hyperbole and straw men that it's a wonder it hasn't imploded under the weight of it.
I must have made a wrong turn. I though this was the "PVP is unfair" thread, but it seems I have blundered into "Solo vs Open mk.IV"
.
Merge coming soon?
.
Merge coming soon?