Yes PVP is unfair.

[Muetdhiver]

If you think about it, a fast police response is quite credible :

• A player with a huge Bounty and wanted in a large juridiction gets into a system.
• Say the police does its job and see that said player is wanted with a large Bounty.

The logical follow up for the police would be to call for backup and tail the player. If he interdicts someone,
the tail drop in the Wake (like 5-10 secs, since they are tailing the CMDR). After say 60-90 seconds, the backup forces
arrive and go for interception (speaking of a nasty wing of FDL + vultures for example).

This would mean that players with very large bounties would start to be at serious risk in a high-med sec system if
they hang in there for any amount of time. And yeah, that means that terrorist missions would get seriously hard to do.
Want to play a bad guy (PvP or PvE), then deal with the consequences.

I just want to point out that if solo is as dangerous as open, and that there are serious consequences from wanton murder,
that will invectize people to go open as :

• Less people would go on ganking and shooting people for giggle (being unable to hang more that 2-3 in the whole federation/empire/alliance space would deter these people), so less people will have reason to hide in solo/groups.
• That would make the NPC's the prime threat, not CMDR's and thus solo/private would not be less dangerous. So you might as well play open.
• If there where fast and easy way's and invectives to group/cooperate against meaninfull PvE content*, that would also help.

*speaking of things along the line of : CMDR trader meet CMDR Bounty hunter. At the moment they have no invective to group up and do stuff together other that RP.
The only exception to this at the moment is miner+BHer in HiRez/HazRez. What about : for delivery missions, in addition to the main payout, you have an additional payout available for
anyone that would wing with you for escort, but upon having this guy, chance of getting attacked by a NPC pirates wing increases ?
That way, you would get : some amount of excitement for the trader,some fun for the escort and good payout for both.

 

[rootsrat]

What about Pilots Federation own security force? Effectively, a Cmdr attacking another Cmdr is a conflict between PF members. If one is attacking another for unlwafully, then PF should perhaps send their own security forces. As we know, PF is a very powerful organisation that could afford having a lethal secforce comprising of big ships like Cutters, Vettes, Condas etc.

I know they're neutral, but this would be to resolve internal unlawful attack.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

What about Pilots Federation own security force? Effectively, a Cmdr attacking another Cmdr is a conflict between PF members. If one is attacking another for unlwafully, then PF should perhaps send their own security forces. As we know, PF is a very powerful organisation that could afford having a lethal secforce comprising of big ships like Cutters, Vettes, Condas etc.

I know they're neutral, but this would be to resolve internal unlawful attack.

they are neutral but i believe they are meant to take a very dim view of the destruction of their law abiding members (if for no other reason than it must play hell with their insurance premiums - remember they pay our insurance, we just pay the excess)

so that would be a +1 from me

 

[Robert Maynard]

Unless you're telling me you want a mechanic to specifically cripple PVP?

This is exactly what is being requested in an Open-PvE mode (to exist alongside the existing Open mode, of course).

 

[StuF]

What about Pilots Federation own security force? Effectively, a Cmdr attacking another Cmdr is a conflict between PF members. If one is attacking another for unlwafully, then PF should perhaps send their own security forces. As we know, PF is a very powerful organisation that could afford having a lethal secforce comprising of big ships like Cutters, Vettes, Condas etc.

I know they're neutral, but this would be to resolve internal unlawful attack.

+1 from me too!

 

[dxm55]

What about Pilots Federation own security force? Effectively, a Cmdr attacking another Cmdr is a conflict between PF members. If one is attacking another for unlwafully, then PF should perhaps send their own security forces. As we know, PF is a very powerful organisation that could afford having a lethal secforce comprising of big ships like Cutters, Vettes, Condas etc.

I know they're neutral, but this would be to resolve internal unlawful attack.

Why yes, that could actually work similarly to EVE's CONCORD.
A bunch of special FBI type elite NPCs, flying high-end milspec HRP ships.

It would spoil PVP to some extent, I grant. But at least you came up with some credible backstory.

The balance is in the instancing. You can spawn a small wing of these ships to intercept a high-bounty ganker and disrupt his attack on another player.
But the ganker should also have a chance to try to survive to run away, albeit with serious damage.

+1 from me too.

 

[excalibus]

I personally do not think that PvP in open should be 'disabled' nor do I think there should be an open 'pve only' mode either (unless they make mobius group an official open server of course where pvp beyond the mobius rules in undoable...

What I do think is there needs to be enough granularity in the crimes and punishment system that random killing (aka PvP Sport) is disuaded through game mechanics but allowing for PvP (bounty hunting, piracy, CG blockading, Poqweplay PvP, Assasination missions, and still allow the possibility of random killing to occur...

The crime system needs to take into account the players 'history' and should also take into consideration system sec level, players wanted status, players rank, players relationship with the controlling minor faction in the jurisdiction etc

 

[dxm55]

This is exactly what is being requested in an Open-PvE mode (to exist alongside the existing Open mode, of course).

There would be no point for Open-PVE if a strong enough deterrent force was implemented in the game that would discourage all but the most hardcore of psychos.
After all, one attack in a thousand. I think we all can live with a bit of excitement in our lives.

 

[Phosphora]

There would be no point for Open-PVE if a strong enough deterrent force was implemented in the game that would discourage all but the most hardcore of psychos.
After all, one attack in a thousand. I think we all can live with a bit of excitement in our lives.

Personally I don't find this type of excitement exciting. I've tried PvP in the past and have found it dull and boring. What's fun to you may be dismal and dreary to others.

I've no problem with a visceral, dog-eat-dog mode existing, but it shouldn't be compulsory. I'll stay in Solo and Mobius.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There would be no point for Open-PVE if a strong enough deterrent force was implemented in the game that would discourage all but the most hardcore of psychos.
After all, one attack in a thousand. I think we all can live with a bit of excitement in our lives.

From the perspective of a PvP-inclined player, possibly. From a PvE player's perspective (who never wants to be attacked by other players) there is indeed a point to an Open-PvE mode.

What level of excitement we choose to experience in our lives is a personal choice - not one to be made by others necessarily.

 

[memers]

I find all of the so called solutions so concerned for the Greifers having a realistic response, when their goal is to prove that nothing is real. It's all bits and bytes to them, and their fun is rubbing this in the face of people trying to play out the game experience as if it were real. Trying to play some sort of scenario of game context to solve the greifing fiend is just another challenge to them to exploit the disruption of others. The best solution is to give them their own Greifing universe to play in. The first time they start shooting at other players, just transport their whole account to there. We already have solo and community universes. Just make a Greifing universe. If people insist on shooting up other players, then lock their accounts to that universe. The whole intent here is to create a cooperative place where civilized people can interact without hostility being the "excitement" that some others want.

A save button to stop the attack and let people wait until the greifer gets bored and leaves, or it can be set to re-spawn at some predetermined port. The idea is to attract people out of the solo universe, this would do a lot to accomplish this with minimal coding. No one wants to explore for a week and come home to get blasted out of existence by some moron intent on breaking your game to prove it is just a game to you.

An alternate "childish universe" just for the greifers and those who think that is just so much fun to play that way. The whole intent of this on-line game is to insure EVERYONE pays to play, shouldn't punish those who actually want to play, having to run away from everyone to do so. I fail to see the immersion in watching someone proving there is no immersion. The company can hunker up the few extra servers and copy/paste for one more universe. It is after all procedurally generated. That means it wouldn't take much in resources. This whole problem is the one they created to enforce payment for the game. Just punk the punks into the new universe and any volunteers wanting uncivilized entertainment/excitement to knock themselves out in. Just don't allow the greifers the option to opt back for at least 6 months. Set it to automatically put a player there when they start shooting another players shields. Don't let them back even if they reset their character, for the minimum time limit, to give them time to grow up. You could also make it an option for people to select to start out in that "other universe".

There are many ways to solve the "problem" of people migrating away from community playing. Of course the company will have to be convinced it is worth doing. I'm not so sure there is any corporate will to do so, unless there is some sort of monetary incentive to do so. There is no community ethos in this game, and no incentive to be civilized ever considered in its development. Just force everyone to waddle in the sewage together, or run away to solo. Again, not my idea of how humanity would behave if they reached the stars. Not my idea of immersion.

 

[Deadspin]

I just found out you can only collect up to 1 million on player bounties, no matter the size, per faction. While I understand Fdev trying to limit the amount of bounty bonds someone could collect and then turn in to a friend for easy profits of said friend, 1 mil seems pretty low if you're taking out someone with a 35 million local bounty.

Anyway, keep up the thread shenanigans. The far reaching left and right pve/pvp arguments are always fun to read.

 

[eza]

From a PvE player's perspective (who never wants to be attacked by other players) there is indeed a point to an Open-PvE mode.

What's the difference between being interdicted by a player who wants to kill you and an NPC who wants to kill you?

In this proposed open PvE mode, would attacks by NPCs also be turned off?
If not, then the only reason to play open PvE would be because the NPCs are easier to deal with than players.

(I've found the opposite experience: always played open, never been killed by a player, but been killed by NPC wings a few times)

 

[StuF]

What's the difference between being interdicted by a player who wants to kill you and an NPC who wants to kill you?

In this proposed open PvE mode, would attacks by NPCs also be turned off?
If not, then the only reason to play open PvE would be because the NPCs are easier to deal with than players.

(I've found the opposite experience: always played open, never been killed by a player, but been killed by NPC wings a few times)

Not yet been interdicted in Mobius or Solo by a wing of 4 PVP speccd FDL's/Corvettes/Pythons ect NPC's whilst flying in Safe space
Happens in Open often with no provocation - which is why I dont (didnt) play open

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

What's the difference between being interdicted by a player who wants to kill you and an NPC who wants to kill you?

In this proposed open PvE mode, would attacks by NPCs also be turned off?
If not, then the only reason to play open PvE would be because the NPCs are easier to deal with than players.

(I've found the opposite experience: always played open, never been killed by a player, but been killed by NPC wings a few times)

this is not the reason at all for many.... whether you "get" the reasons why or not is irrelevant you just need to trust me that some just do not like PvP in some games.

Dark souls is not an easy game by any stretch but i enjoy it... again tho... zero interest in the PvP side of things, so i just tend to stay hollow, and yet that game is FAR easier if you use some humanity and get some help, but it means risking pvp so i do not usually bother and just plough through soloing it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What's the difference between being interdicted by a player who wants to kill you and an NPC who wants to kill you?

NPCs don't react differently to different players for out-of-game reasons.

 

[Jack Schitt]

What's the difference between being interdicted by a player who wants to kill you and an NPC who wants to kill you?

So many old chestnuts in this thread we could host the world conker championships.

There are innumerate anecdotal examples of differences between the two but fundamentally the answer is in the question. One is a player and the other is an NPC. For the purposes of these discussions that is the only objective difference.

 

[memers]

I personally do not think that PvP in open should be 'disabled' nor do I think there should be an open 'pve only' mode either (unless they make mobius group an official open server of course where pvp beyond the mobius rules in undoable...

Interesting that you want the company to produce the game you want and you do want to prevent others from having what they might want. It brings to memory an old saying: "It's not enough that I succeed, but YOU must fail."

 

[Soon(TM)]

This is why I Don't play open, I have a conda with a 6 million rebuy cost and it can hold 6 million credits worth of slaves at a time. No way am I willing to lose 12 million credits to PvP.

There is literally no incentive for traders to play open when they have so much to lose and nothing to gain.

 

[Deadspin]

This is why I Don't play open, I have a conda with a 6 million rebuy cost and it can hold 6 million credits worth of slaves at a time. No way am I willing to lose 12 million credits to PvP.

There is literally no incentive for traders to play open when they have so much to lose and nothing to gain.

Only 6? Dang.. I'm doing something wrong.

My rebuy is 15 million and that's with beta insurance + the yongmart discount.