Yes PVP is unfair.

[Mohrgan]

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.

For some reason FD should bribe players to play with you? Because that's what it amounts to. You suggest open mode should be encouraged above someones preferred environment? There are many who don't see it that way. Check out the Solo/Group/Open Mega-Thread for all of the relevant details.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

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"

If that were remotely true there would not be people trying to force players into open either by mechanics or by being prats calling players not in open care bears and suchlike only wanting an easy game

Very few want to turn open into Mobius. I know I don't. I would like sensible consequences from our actions and I would like a stable official mode like Mobius to take the work off him and promise a long lasting mode free of the small group of players currently polluting the open sandpit who get away Scot free

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

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"

In the last month I meet 2 CMDRs in Open. TWO. One jumped away the moment I entered the system, the other was docked in a station in an Eagle.

I'm a mighty Open Mode player. I have to check from time to time that I'm indeed in Open Mode, but I am not a coward hiding in Solo. I can feel the difference between Open Mode and Solo Mode. It's the same but I feel very powerful and superior to the Solo or private group players.

Here, for you, my tears of laughter.


Disclaimer: I really like to play in Solo Mode. It's fun. It's entertaining. It's cool. Currently I have fun playing in Open Mode.

OT: Yes, PvP is unfair, but sometimes that's part of the fun and sometimes it's really annoying or boring.

 

[Faded Glory]

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"

Not true at all.

Some people are suggesting an Open PvE mode in addition to existing modes, and it's nothing to do with easy or difficult.

Everyone in Open is happy? Haha, that's funny.

 

[Roybe]

Sorry bro. This type of mechanic is the kind of carebear (yes, that word) policy that would kill piracy and powerplay PVP conflicts. It only serves the shieldless cargo-monger that want to stay safe despite all logic.

Even DBOBE has said himself on an interview that griefing is a valid form of play, and that he will find something within the game rules to mitigate it.

You could add additional measures like denying insurance for anyone marked "WANTED". And in fact, I think that would be enough.
Let's say you're a ganker in your shiny FDL. You try to attack a T9, and suddenly had a wing of 5 NPC Vipers jump in.

Would you stick around knowing that if you die, you'd lose the ship? No insurance for "Wanted", remember?

Maybe. Some guys may try their luck. But then again you just remember that in 30secs or a minute, another wing of 10 Battlecondas and Vultures will be jumping in. That's guaranteed death, and the loss of your nicely fitted ship, unless you disengage and jump out.... NAO!


I think that's incentive enough.

Glad you saw my point. There marginal changes coming to the justice system...and that is all/

 

[Jockey79]

Even DBOBE has said himself on an interview that griefing is a valid form of play, and that he will find something within the game rules to mitigate it.

The time DBOBE talked about "griefing" the question was not constructed properly and lumped PvP in with "griefing" - which are not the same thing.
When he actually talks about proper "griefing" (not normal PvP interactions) he clearly states they can move people off into their own sessions so they can "grief each other".

So actual "griefing" is not valid game play at all, but PvP is.


[video=youtube;Kb5hqjxmf4M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5hqjxmf4M[/video]

Now we just need to teach people the difference between PvP and "griefing" and folks would see that ED does not have a "griefing" problem.
It has players with ego problems, who have to bolster their egos by shooting up sidewinders or unarmed traders

(And for those who missed it, that last line is not to be taken seriously - just a friendly ribbing from a PvE player to PvP players... keep your knickers on and untwisted)

 

[dxm55]

I'm guessing you might just see an increase in the amount of combat logging that goes on. Of course, the NPC cops probably won't bother to try and report it...

Let's put it this way. You can't satisfy everyone.

The PVE crowd who wants to play in a safe Open universe are complaining about how ganking is rife because there are not enough realistic mechanics to discourage that kind of behavior, especially in civilized space. And yes, they are right. Doing crime in Core Systems should come with a heavy price.

On the other hand, the PVP crowd are poo-pooing the PVE crowd about their attitude towards PVP, and how they expect everyone to play nice in what was supposed to be a realistic universe (social experiment, really...)

And yes they complain about some PVErs doing the CL thing, whilst forgetting that PVPers also combat log. It's not exclusive to PVE players.


Let's put it this way. If a ganker tries to attack a cargo runner in a high-sec system and gets ganked himself by NPCs forcing him to CL, then it's already a victory for the cargo runner. He survived, for one. And if he hasn't high waked out yet when the ganker CLs... he can also make a report.

It's a win-win either way.

 

[Faded Glory]

Let's put it this way. You can't satisfy everyone.

The PVE crowd who wants to play in a safe Open universe are complaining about how ganking is rife because there are not enough realistic mechanics to discourage that kind of behavior, especially in civilized space. And yes, they are right. Doing crime in Core Systems should come with a heavy price.

On the other hand, the PVP crowd are poo-pooing the PVE crowd about their attitude towards PVP, and how they expect everyone to play nice in what was supposed to be a realistic universe (social experiment, really...)

And yes they complain about some PVErs doing the CL thing, whilst forgetting that PVPers also combat log. It's not exclusive to PVE players.


Let's put it this way. If a ganker tries to attack a cargo runner in a high-sec system and gets ganked himself by NPCs forcing him to CL, then it's already a victory for the cargo runner. He survived, for one. And if he hasn't high waked out yet when the ganker CLs... he can also make a report.

It's a win-win either way.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to see proper system security levels in the game, but I'm not convinced it's the magic bullet that will solve the PvP vs PvE, Open vs Solo discussions, and has the potential to skew all sorts of other valid gameplay.

FD have designed it so that mayhem, murder and many other types of illicit activity are integral parts of the game (content), and a change to try and prevent one particular type of such activity, albeit for good reason, may well throw other things out. Let's see what they do.

 

[dxm55]

Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to see proper system security levels in the game, but I'm not convinced it's the magic bullet that will solve the PvP vs PvE, Open vs Solo discussions, and has the potential to skew all sorts of other valid gameplay.

FD have designed it so that mayhem, murder and many other types of illicit activity are integral parts of the game (content), and a change to try and prevent one particular type of such activity, albeit for good reason, may well throw other things out. Let's see what they do.

Yes. It'll never be perfect. In any open world MMO, there'll always be a portion of the population who're anti-social. But if the world allows it, then they have their place in the game too. And that place would be the anarchy systems. Like you said, we can only hope that proper system security levels are adjusted to the game.

Personally, I would want to see it only because it would finally resemble a real life galaxy. Not for any carebear or griefer/psycho reason. But because it would make sense to be completely safe in some places, while being in peril in another.

 

[shambles1980]

Not true at all.

Some people are suggesting an Open PvE mode in addition to existing modes, and it's nothing to do with easy or difficult.

Everyone in Open is happy? Haha, that's funny.

if people arent happy in open they leave.. so by extention it must be true that every one in open is happy.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

if people arent happy in open they leave.. so by extention it must be true that every one in open is happy.

...all five of them...complaining that they dont see anyone in open...

 

[Crimson Kaim]

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?

Partly it does punish ganking but doesn't reward PvP. I previously suggested to add a second kind of bounty that can be repayed but is permanent and adds restrictions (example docking request denied) at certain levels (500k, 1m etc.). The bounty only adds up upon killing players and will be claimed all at once by the bounty hunter but is capped by the insurance cost of the wanted ship (to prevent sidewinder suicide cleans). So killing alot of clean targets may add up to a bounty of millions of credits and repay this or get killed in a high tech ship.

 

[vulkman]

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"

I don't want to change Open, but as I understand it, this whole thread was by PvPers for PvEers because they want more fresh meat for the grinder and are thinking about what they have to do to get it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

if people arent happy in open they leave.. so by extention it must be true that every one in open is happy.

... not exactly - they may just not have quite reached their threshold of annoyance / disillusionment / boredom with the behaviour of some players in Open and have not left - yet.

 

[Mohrgan]

... not exactly - they may just not have quite reached their threshold of annoyance / disillusionment / boredom with the behaviour of some players in Open and have not left - yet.

Or, they may not know of all the options available to them. The Private Group implementation is pretty cryptic. It took me months to gronk the whole scheme and how it works.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

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.

It would to me.

Not from a sense of vengeance but that the supposedly "living universe" we are supposed to inhabit have a sense of realism where laws matter where there are SUPPOSED to be high security.

It would also cement an actual "Criminal Gameplay" so that you CAN be a wanted pirate hiding out in Tortuga systems.

-An APB is now out on the perpetrator

-Law enforcement is on the lookout

-Stations in civilized systems (not outposts) refuse landing permits

-Bounty on perpetrator is added to his insurance OR insurance is voided for the wanted ship (no escape by using a sidewinder)

 

[Kyokushin]

This is all good ideas in theory, but how fast should the police response be to a crime?

Will be so fast as be needed. FD may program it whatever they want.
This is the matter of adoption this solution.

They can also introduce some Frigate class patrol police/military ships with higher punch than vette, non playable of course.
However they can do that without bending the rules. If a wing of 6-8 ships - a police response group - vettes/cutters/condas/pytons will open fire to a single player the shields of most powerful ships (vette,conda,cutter) will collapse quickly.
And even if in a some way he kill other player, then he will be punished in a millions. Finally,a griefing will not have a sense and there will not be possibility to successfull griefing (however, the griefed should have a possibility to try).

Area of secure systems is a naturall and logic solution, much better than breaking the fundamental game rules. If players leave this secured non-pvp area or system then he will be exposed to be griefed/ganked (however it only may happen, but it does not men it will happen, he will just not be protected by a police), however it will be his choice. Elite is Dangerous, and should be.

 

[dxm55]

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.

The answer is, fast, but not instantaneous.

It could be as quick as 15 secs after the first shield hit, the game will spawn NPC police directly into the battlezone. And not have them launch from the nearest orbital to traverse. You are after all in an instance.
And you won't be aware of what's going on in SC while you're busy fighting for your virtual life against another player.

Instantaneous spawns would not be realistic. You have to cater for some semblance of verisimilitude.

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.

Ah, so you see.
Everything comes with a drawback. Can't have your cake and eat it too...

Unless you're telling me you want a mechanic to specifically cripple PVP? That would be a carebear's dream wouldn't it? To be able to attack NPCs with little consequence, but not to be attacked themselves.
The fact is that such a mechanism should apply to ALL attacks on ship. Both Player and NPC.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

This is all good ideas in theory, but how fast should the police response be to a crime? .

ok so some thoughts..

the "murderous" missions should only be available in anarchy stations - I have said it before, but the BB is open to all, and having a murder mission on it in high sec space would be like having a killer wanted notice in the asda notice window. once taken on, it should say, "target X Y Z should be in (anarchy) system X around this time.

the kill trader / civvy missions again would be better if we intercepted them en route to their hi sec destination, but if not then they should be VERY well paid, but taken on only with the acceptance that if it is federation space, you are not going to be welcome in fed space any time soon afterwards - so a player would then decide to be an enemy of the federation a friend to the empire or alliance (or enemy to all and just commit to only independent space).

imo defence forces should not magic into the area to save you, but hi sec space should have more patrols on the obvious route from nav beakon to stations (so smugglers need to go around the houses........ (which would be fine if FD are going to keep the highly paid smuggling missions... and illegal items in high sec space should fetch a real premium)

The "crime" should be committed the second the interdiction starts, and then this shows as a POI for all surrounding players in the area, allowing human and npc bounty hunters to react. the police would also react and get to the poi as fast as mechanically possible. This has so many upsides... its realistic, and it gives the trader a reason to drag out the mini game as long as possible as it means the police will get to them faster rather than submit and run.

we could have improved weapons for pirates which sacrifice damage for interfering with FSD charge time allowing he hatch limpets to work better (how about programmable limptets, we decide how much cargo they try to take but the more they take the longer they take to hack the hatch. shooting the hatch would work but only give a lower max number of pods.

ultimately tho piracy should be far easier in low sec and anarchy space

sometimes a player killer will get their kill, there is nothing which can be done about that, but so long as a believable consequence happened to the aggressor, imo most players who play in open will accept that. Those that cant accept that imo there should be an official PvE mode, but failing that should join mobius if they really want NO chance of any PvP

 

[excalibus]

the police response times and police response strenght should be tied to the activity of the commander committing the crime, we need to have a lawfulness stat on our commanders and the more unlawful acts you commit the more lawless that stat shows, obviously committing 'good deeds' such as bounty hunting, rescuing pilots in distress etc should counter that and raise your lawfulness as should being scanned with no current crimes committed or illegal cargo on board by authority ships increase your lawfulness stat marginally...

This way the more you go on murdurous rampages / assassinate clean ships (NPC and PC) the more likely a fast and heavy police response will occur, of course it also needs to be tied to the local systems sec level too

A rich high population high security system. you break wind wrong and the police should be all over you like white on rice