Elite Dangerous was intentionally not geared toward PvP. PvP is possible, but unless you are fighting a Cmdr with a bounty on his/her head, it's not meant to be financially rewarding. If it was, we'd have griefers all over the place attacking without warning just to get the loot that was dropped. So you're correct. It's not an efficient use of your time unless you're hunting bounties and only attack those with bounties on them. And that's the way it was meant to be.
Yes PVP is unfair.
- Thread starter _Dastardly_
- Start date
Elite Dangerous was intentionally not geared toward PvP. PvP is possible, but unless you are fighting a Cmdr with a bounty on his/her head, it's not meant to be financially rewarding. If it was, we'd have griefers all over the place attacking without warning just to get the loot that was dropped. So you're correct. It's not an efficient use of your time unless you're hunting bounties and only attack those with bounties on them. And that's the way it was meant to be.
There are 3 general viewpoints.
- From the PVP player who is basically looking for a free for all without much consequences
- From the player who wants to be left alone and not bothered by other players looking for a fight
- From the player who is looking for a more balanced gameplay with realistic consequences
Both you and the gankers are similar in that you are placed far left or right of the spectrum. Like extremists.
Gankers want to murder of sport, for fun and are afraid of changes that would otherwise impede their activities. While players of your type want to play in a pocket of relative safety where no one crosses each other.
And the rest? They accept that it's an open world game that should come with threats from other players, but also that there must be sufficient and realistic law enforcement and punishment mechanics in the game to prevent some antisocial from being too prevalent. And if it does happen, should bear consequences for the perp.
That is a balanced view.
For you, the best option is to simply play solo, or with a group of like minded individuals. Because I don't think your opinions are balanced at all. At best, your suggestions, IMO, screams 'Me! Me! Me!' when it comes down to game mechanics. You're concerned about 'if I'm attacked', or 'I don't want' and 'I do want'.
Maybe try to look at the game from a holistic view rather than from a single player perspective?
In my experience Developers either let PvP rule, or become the only content. I.e. Mechwarrior, WoX and so on. Or, they make PvP optional by flag or zone. I.e. from Wow to STO. I can think of no game that controls a World-PvP based envirinment with a crime and punishment system. I've been a mainstream gamer, PvP involved, for many years.
I would be very interested in seeing the attempt. But, that won;t bring the non PvP oriented players into view. It would just make a more interesting world for the criminal minded (gaming wise). If it can be done, it may help to ease the way into the galaxy for the new-comer. That is a worthy reason enough to hope that the Dev;s give it a try.
Last edited:
indeed this is true... I do personally feel that attacks against another player (read this as Pv Weaker Victim (player in a vastly weaker ship config in comparison to the agressor) should come with a higher consequence than attacking NPC's or players with a bit weaker ship configuration... But there is more to be done than just insert that bit of code or it will break the piracy profession...
IMHO there should be checks to help balance things, such as,
There needs to be a mechanism for checking that you are pirating which will not cause harsher consequences and will disregard weaker victim checks.
If the weaker ship is a trade specialist then check the following,
if the weaker ship has no shield module fitted then all bets are off, it will teach the player who is killed to get shields and make it more risky for those who wish to run without shields
if the weaker ship has no weapons but has shields and defenses fitted then they will qualify as vastly weaker
If the weaker ship is destroyed then the rebuy value should be added as a pilots federation non expiring fine for the agressor that can be paid off but also have a flag on the agressor commander that highlights his ship on the radar as a PvWVer in a different colour to the rest.
Have limits in place on the level of PF fine that can be earned before PF Enforcers begin to seek out the commander.
Have a secondary limit of the fine before PF begins to confiscate the commanders ships stored in non anarchy space docks, starting with the lowest value ship first, until the fine is reduced back to the first limit.
Have a final level set that once reached, should the commander dock anywhere except an unsanctioned outpost that their bank balance is reduced by the amount of the fine payable and if they do not have enough credits then their ships are confiscated (no matter where they are docked) until the fine is back to level 1 or if still not enough to cover the fine, they are bankrupted and the fine wiped down by the value of their total assets and they are given a loaner sidewinder and 1000 CR...
In the event an enforcer kills them, the fine is reduced by the asset value of the ship they were in when killed and they get no rebuy option on that ship, they keep their stored ships unless they have already been confiscated...
Also as an aside, to avoid the potential for a small man problem to occur, (small ship taking on bigger ship and small ship gets killed) the game should check who 'fired' first not necesarily who 'hit first' but who fired a shot first... if the little ship fires first... well all bets are off ....
Personally thought I think the easiest approach is to fix the crimes and punishment and the security response system so it is more granular and have a specific consequence for killing another clean commander that has greater impact on the killer through in game security responses etc while not making it unreasonable to kill another player, but making it riskier to the killer to kill clean players in systems where security response could mean their quick and sudden demise..
would it be worth seeking out a "PvP" system? something sponsored by FD? or are PvPers mostly into seal clubbing.
Assuming crime/punishment increases, would it make sense for a PvP system to be in an Anarchy system? Maybe Archon Delaine system? Something equa-distant from Empire and Federation for the occasional Seal Clubbing Raid?
Hudson/ALD both declaring the system a blackout "no fly zone" for citizen in galnet.
Nearby system local news always saying "another ship went missing"
Nearby system authority PSA "Don't got to X system"
FSD into System, first thing they see is a destroyed space station or capital ship.
Preferably a system with a HazRes so ppl can earn insurance when not PvPing
with a series of CGs like this:
Assuming crime/punishment increases, would it make sense for a PvP system to be in an Anarchy system? Maybe Archon Delaine system? Something equa-distant from Empire and Federation for the occasional Seal Clubbing Raid?
Hudson/ALD both declaring the system a blackout "no fly zone" for citizen in galnet.
Nearby system local news always saying "another ship went missing"
Nearby system authority PSA "Don't got to X system"
FSD into System, first thing they see is a destroyed space station or capital ship.
Preferably a system with a HazRes so ppl can earn insurance when not PvPing
with a series of CGs like this:
any increase in crime and punishement should not apply in anarchy systems anyway... with the exception of anarchies that have a controlling faction that are aligned with a major faction... Independant Anarchies should be exactly that. Aligned anarchies that is a different matter... they would still have the same laws and punishments as the major faction but would be low security systems so chances of a police response should be somewhat low and slow to come...
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While faction based penalties should probably work in that manner, if the Pilots' Federation start issuing penalties then they would apply everywhere....
I agree. Faction bounties would be valid in their own controlled systems.
PF bounties would be valid everywhere.
That's why I suggested a 2 tier bounty system.
Police bounties for killing NPCs.
Both police and PF bounties stacked for killing players.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I don't think that you were alone in proposing that....
Thinking about the fact that all players are shown on the scanner as a hollow shape, that implies that the Pilots' Federation fits a transponder to our ships that allows us to determine that the pilot is also a member instantly - without any form of scan (or even pointing in the general direction of the ship).
Taking this a stage further, the ident of the Pilots' Federation transponder could be used to identify members on a Pilots' Federation watch-list - marked for consequences and/or destruction as appropriate. System authorities could use this list and react accordingly (depending on the lawful state of the system, of course).
Maybe player bounty hunters could be "issued with the list" so that targets would be auto identified on their scanners immediately....
Man all that sounds too complicated. I have a very simple solution, bring back the Energy Bomb..... problem solved. Back in the good old days when those grieving Thargoids tried to interdict you... BOOM you just energy bombed their ass back to witch-space.
Now you may say "wont work for PvP interdiction mate, a griever will just drop an energy bomb first and you're done for." But I'd say "No..... Not true" when interdicted the interdictee (just made up that word) always drops out of super-cruise first, so has the jump on the interdictor (also made up word I think). This will also stop combat logging so a lot of grievers will be happy and it should stop all the "I just got grieved" posts I see. Because come on everyone wants to energy bomb a griever back to wherever they came from....
So FD if you're listening bring back the Energy Bomb.....
p.s. If you do bring back the Energy Bomb please put a safety device in to it to stop CMDR's accidentally dropping it in a station.... you know the ones I'm taking about.... its the ones that accidentally drop all their cargo in the post box and then go "mmmm not the undercarriage button then." Yes those ones...
Thanks
Now you may say "wont work for PvP interdiction mate, a griever will just drop an energy bomb first and you're done for." But I'd say "No..... Not true" when interdicted the interdictee (just made up that word) always drops out of super-cruise first, so has the jump on the interdictor (also made up word I think). This will also stop combat logging so a lot of grievers will be happy and it should stop all the "I just got grieved" posts I see. Because come on everyone wants to energy bomb a griever back to wherever they came from....
So FD if you're listening bring back the Energy Bomb.....
p.s. If you do bring back the Energy Bomb please put a safety device in to it to stop CMDR's accidentally dropping it in a station.... you know the ones I'm taking about.... its the ones that accidentally drop all their cargo in the post box and then go "mmmm not the undercarriage button then." Yes those ones...
Thanks
I don't think that you were alone in proposing that....
Thinking about the fact that all players are shown on the scanner as a hollow shape, that implies that the Pilots' Federation fits a transponder to our ships that allows us to determine that the pilot is also a member instantly - without any form of scan (or even pointing in the general direction of the ship).
Taking this a stage further, the ident of the Pilots' Federation transponder could be used to identify members on a Pilots' Federation watch-list - marked for consequences and/or destruction as appropriate. System authorities could use this list and react accordingly (depending on the lawful state of the system, of course).
Maybe player bounty hunters could be "issued with the list" so that targets would be auto identified on their scanners immediately....
Yeah. I guess by now, any plausible idea would have been simultaneously thought of by several people. They would, of course, be the most logical thing.
I just hope that they make things workable in game. Enough to satisfy some of the PVE players.
this cracked me up, I almost ejected bourbon out my nose... I love the way you think
the good ol energy bomb ... but... what about pirates??? those poor fellows need more love and an energy bomb would send them all to hell as well :/Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed.
I hope so too - it will be a difficult task to attempt to improve the lot of the PvE players without adversely affecting PvP players too much - a working compromise where neither group gets exactly what they want but most can accept the solution (as opposed to a perfect compromise where both groups were get exactly what they want - which, I expect, is impossible in this case).
Fixing crime and punishment - making crime a career choice instead of "let's go seal clubbing for half an hour" would bring me back to open.
I'm not against PVP I just hate dealing with trolls. If crime is *difficult* your casual juvenile delinquent kind of crim will become a rare bird.
Alternatively, if ship loss wasn't such a pain in the rear people would care less. But personally I think that would detract from the game.
So would I, especially as FDEV already engaged with the community and spent the best part of 12 months talking about and refining the initial outline of how it should work before implementing almost none of it. A few ineffectual band-aids designed to mitigate very specific forms of antisocial behaviour (cargo spamming, dumbfire PDT triggering, no-fire zone sniping, station ramming) are a poor substitute for any attempt to implement Crime and Punishment as outlined in the DDF/DDA.
Given how vocal David Braben was on this subject in 2013 and early 2014, and given how little development effort seems to have been devoted to an actual implementation, I almost suspect that FDEV have concluded that it's an impossible task given the game's infrastructure. Or, even worse, they fear that a genuinely effective implementation will move the tear harvesting out of the game and into the meta, leading to a surge of network shenanigans aimed at disrupting other players.
That is, actually, close to how the pilot's federation behavior was described from the start of the Kickstart. Unfortunately Frontier never bothered to implement that.I don't think that you were alone in proposing that....
One of my old, Beta-era suggestions was for allowing players to simulate combat. Willing players would turn off their real weapons, link ship computers, and then play with simulated weapons, including having their ships degrade performance to simulate damage; that would allow players to set friendly duels with no consequences (and would allow the involved players to turn off the simulation and hammer any newcomer that attempted to attack the "damaged" ships).
That could be supplemented by a wager system. If all players taking part in the simulated fight so desired each could spend an amount equal to their rebuy cost (without Beta/Alpha discounts); the winner would get the pot.
UO tried to use a crime and punishment system to keep griefing in check, and failed; nothing they did, from overpowered guards prowling the streets to stat loss when PKers got killed (roughly equivalent to murderers losing random modules on death), managed to keep griefing low enough to prevent new players from leaving in droves over it. In the end Origin/EA implemented a PvE-only world for the players that didn't want PvP to enjoy (and the game is alive even now, over a decade and half after the PvE world was added).
EVE tries to use a crime and punishment system to keep the order in high-sec, and is insisting on it despite most new subscribers leaving before the first month is up, but it's a game that advertises PvP in an unforgiving galaxy as the core of its gameplay. Many of its players also consider its crime and punishment system so ineffective it's more like a bad joke, despite the fact it uses psychic overpowered teleporting police that detect crimes instantly, will be over any criminal in a matter of seconds, and will destroy about anyone in a few more seconds.
There are other smaller games that try to use a crime and punishment system to keep griefing in check, but sincerely I don't know of a single one that succeeded in that; those games tend to see their player base shrink, until only players that don't mind being griefed remain.
The issue, IMHO, is that you can't truly do a system to keep PK activity (or griefing) in check without also trying to stamp it out. There are more players that want to attack others than would be acceptable in a virtual society, and those that are in it just to collect tears are harder to drive away than those that legitimately enjoy the challenge of the outlaw life, so anything that still allows the non-griefer predators to be active will do nothing to deter the griefers, while anything capable of stopping the griefers would have driven away the legitimate predators long before.
I kind of think this is the heart of the issue. Using in game punishments to dissuade some kind of activity seems counter to the spirit of it being a game, supposedly fun to play and engage in. If FD decide that a type of behavior is unacceptable, then the answer would be to ban players engaging in such activities. I can't really think of any kind of leisure / recreational activity that I would want to do if I was punished for taking part (assuming I'm not breaking any rules).
It's why the crime / punishment set up in ED is so weak, because FD actively encourage criminal and illicit behavior, and punishing players for playing the game in any way that was more than a minor inconvenience would IMO be counterproductive. Unfortunately, differentiating some of those activities from straight up PK'ing is not easy.
I'd still like to see a better, more rational crime and punishment setup, including high security areas where crime was very difficult to engage in and anarchy systems that were dangerous, as it would make the game seem more realistic (at least it would to me). However, I doubt that they will be able to stamp out certain types of behavior using this approach.
Wings of Elite NPC Bounty hunters (or cops). Anaconda = 2 vulture ones.
I don't see why you couldn't have a criminal rep function either linked to or beside the bounty function, that escalates, so if you were public enemy number one, you'd really know about it. Would make sense....
Maybe there could be a single capital ship with tractor beams, that goes after whoever is actually at the top, then when it gets them, sucks them in, and reprogrammes their brains...?
Tricky thing is, I'm not against PvP piracy, it seems like it "should" be part of the game. However, I met a pirate so bad ass in the main rares loop it kind of put me off doing rares in Open (and honestly, who *trades* in Solo?! ;-)
Kind of made me think, if he's so hard and in such a big tough ship (FDL) what financial incentive is their for piracy? Not sure what to say other than I like the idea that if you get too bad ass you get serious fed/bounty hunter action on your ass, and I mean serious. I don't think it should be banned, though, just new gameplay to enrich the whole thing
I don't see why you couldn't have a criminal rep function either linked to or beside the bounty function, that escalates, so if you were public enemy number one, you'd really know about it. Would make sense....
Maybe there could be a single capital ship with tractor beams, that goes after whoever is actually at the top, then when it gets them, sucks them in, and reprogrammes their brains...?
Tricky thing is, I'm not against PvP piracy, it seems like it "should" be part of the game. However, I met a pirate so bad ass in the main rares loop it kind of put me off doing rares in Open (and honestly, who *trades* in Solo?! ;-)
Kind of made me think, if he's so hard and in such a big tough ship (FDL) what financial incentive is their for piracy? Not sure what to say other than I like the idea that if you get too bad ass you get serious fed/bounty hunter action on your ass, and I mean serious. I don't think it should be banned, though, just new gameplay to enrich the whole thing