PvP consequences mechanics and combat logging.
- Thread starter CMDR Mr S
- Start date
Honestly, I don't feel open is the main mode, especially since the advent of Mobius. I sincerely want everyone to enjoy the game so they support it and I can keep playing! Play styles are different though and I suppose FD are trying to accommodate them.
As a side note, I'd personally like an Ironman mode with no insurance except a new sidewinder if you had an escape pod and managed to use it, restrictions on factional allegiance, trading permits that had to be earned and a host of other eye watering gameplay elements to make the game as difficult as possible. I doubt this would be popular with the broader player base.
Let's hope the crime and punishment update goes some way to balancing the risks.
Yes, more than acceptable.
I assume there's supposed to be a question mark somewhere.
Why did I choose open when I first started playing? Because I paid for a cutthroat galaxy sim and I was going to overcome all the challenges it threw at me. And using my tiny little freeagle's DBS, I scrapped together enough credits to buy a VIII.
Consider the possibility that there are players who do not flee from challenge, but rather embrace it. Open is the ideal mode for them. For the pilots who want to race to elite in the most efficient way possible, and everyone else, there's solo and group.
For a start the game isn't based around PvP, it is a sandbox game and it is hardly "bizarre" to expect severe consequences for murder, clearly you don't understand basic real world commerce - ED can't "break even" as servers cost money on an ongoing basis and without an ongoing revenue stream, they will close (arguably, they can "break even" by setting a revenue point at which they choose to close, having extracted as much as they put in, but that leaves the players without a galaxy to play in) - having sold 1.3 million copies will carry them for a while, but the game has a lot of issues, so it requires programming staff and all the ancillary costs that brings, which costs more money, the question isn't "how many did they sell?" it is "how many of those purchasers will buy the next instalment?" because if they don't get a solid follow on purchase, it will close and the toxic rep is coming from the actions of those who believe a fun night is ruining the fun of the newbies.
re "No servers to run" yes there are, you might notice on the launcher they tell you what software version the ED servers are running (2.0.05) as I type this.
BTW It makes absolute sense that an insurance company won't cover you whilst you are committing illegal acts (you might want to read the fine print on your parents car insurance, as one example, few insurance companies will cover you if you are drink driving as it increases their risk and some won't cover you if you have a past conviction for DUI), simply put it gives them an easy out on a large payout, also you are choosing to increase the risk they face through your deliberate actions by drinking and driving (real world)/getting a bounty put on you (in game).
As a matter of interest, given your lack of understanding of basic insurance concepts, and basic business economics, and that you are blaming the victims for the problem, how far out would I be if I guessed you are 14 years old?
That implies that you believe that you're more important than the "traders". Do you really feel that way?
Again, let me remind you that the traders also fund the game. If anything, the "traders" are more likely to be the ones with worse reactions, and thus probably the older and generally better off financially.
FD really can't afford to offend a significant level of it's player base, and out of basic politeness, neither should the rest of us players.
Roll on some genuine laws and consequences in this game. My preferences would be:
- "Wanted" status is not enforced at system level, but major faction level (e.g. ALL across the imperium). If you're a genuine pirate, stick to the anarchy systems for safety
- Introduce a new "warning" status and fine, for damage, without killing another ship
- Have the bounty related to the cost of the ship destroyed, e.g. equal to the cost of the insurance +10%
- Death does NOT wipe the slate clean on bounties. You cough up the full cost to remove bounties
- When you're wanted, the info is available on the galaxy map, for use by police and bounty hunters
- When wanted, your insurance is invalid
Introduce the above, and I'd bet the spaceways would be a LOT safer. You'd certainly see more traders in Open mode.
PvP is very much a possibility with any CMDR you come across.
I expect they will expect people to purchase the game for the same reason I did: to play in a cutthroat galaxy full of consequence and loss.
Illegal in the federation is different than illegal in the empire. As I understand, we are all independent spacers of the pilot's federation, they are a rather independent organization themselves. So it could very possibly be that they let crime and punishment be handed down at the local level. Because you know, all crime is local anyway.
Accidentally murder a hauler in the air lock? Well, the station will blast you to bits, and you'll lose your ship because your insurance is invalid.
Can't respawn with a sidewinder, because your bounty is active. Station immediately blasts you to bits.
Can't jump out even if you did want to, because you're wanted in the nearest 10 systems and all you got is a stock sidewinder.
How many seconds did you actually spend to think this through? This is a terrible idea. Crime definitely needs to ramp up, but this is absolutely not the way to do it. Consider the possibility that open is not supposed to be safe. Open is where you go if you want to have interactions with other CMDRs, and as stated above, PvP is very much a possibility. So, as made clear by the quoted, educating players about this is the solution to the specific problem, not punishing crime more harshly.
However crime to stand to be punished more harshly too.
Last edited by a moderator:
You know, I take PERSONAL offence at people stating that suggestions are stupid. I'll let you consider how you respond to that element.
As for the rest:
- How on earth do you "accidentally" murder anything? I've never even been close to it. That's just a random excuse pulled from the air
- If you have a bounty, respawn in an anarchy system. Oooh, that took me...seconds to think of a solution. As mentioned, the bounty/wanted would only exist in the area controlled by the major power that you upset
Seriously, whilst you might think I've not thought this through, sorry, you're wrong.
How about trying to be a little more helpful in your responses as against personally insulting. That might be suitable in World of Tanks, but most certainly isn't here. Don't make it personal, people here don't like it.
Hi, Mr Sukebe.
I'll not defend PR's rudeness, but she is correct to say that accidental murders do happen - and more frequently than you might think.
It's easy to accidentally push one's ship briefly over the speed limits when approaching stations - and if a big ship doesn't spot a small one and hits it, the result can be terminal. The game holds the speeding player responsible. I've caused collisions in station by accidental nudging my HOTAS at the wrong moment - and I understand XBox players accidentally hit boost quite often because of the way their controllers are configured.
Friendly fire has been a topic of contention forever. All it takes is one ship to boost itself into the line of fire and die and there you go, instant murder charge. With big ships, hitting a small one can be a one hit kill - and even smaller ships can sometimes do this, if the victim's hull is already low enough from combat.
This doesn't consider the accuracy and responsiveness of Commanders flying around in an intoxicated or exhausted state, where mistakes and incidents become even easier.
We've also had a recent run of idiot NPCs boosting into the sides of players while scanning them. Sometimes they explode.
You can sit quietly in the Nav point, threatening no-one else at all - and still be found guilty of murder.
I find this unreasonable and absurd.
It's clear you've not much experience with the game, and I forgive you. I'll temper my interpretation of the rest of your post with this knowledge.
This is not how respawning mechanics work. You don't choose a system to respawn at. You respawn at the last shipyard you docked with.
Making personal attacks is against the forum rules. If you feel a post has broken the forum rules, hit the 'Report this post' button on the bottom left.
Last edited:
And I found your original response quite insulting. I did think that by being direct about my interpretation, that you'd respond in a polite manner, as against claiming it's absurd.
Just LOL at that. Sorry, I'm just too old and jaded to even think that's worthy of a response.
All you've done is quoted how it presently happens. Doesn't mean that it's either the perfect solution or the one that will always be used. After all, if a CMDR travels 16 jumps, then dies, is suddenly re-spawning 300LY away any more ludicrous than being obliged to respawn in say the nearest anarchy system?
Hey, I'm not the person who started throwing toys our of the pram. Remember that I'm the person who put forward a suggestion for discussion.
Of course I'm very happy to hear yours.
Sorry, I was being polite by indirectly suggesting that I wouldn't tolerate another similar insult. I assume I don't need to re-iterate.
Last edited:
All I've done is comment on your suggestion. It's not necessarily my job to make your suggestion work within the game.
Though I don't see amending it with being able to choose where you respawn any meaningful degree less absurd than the original suggestion.
Insulting is against the rules. If you feel a post has broken the forum rules, hit the 'Report this post' button on the bottom left.
With all due respect, I have responded to the counter-argument, please see above...
As for my style of response, it is very much about attempting to maintain what appears to be a very high standard of conduct in these forums. Something that I failed on myself once, was appropriately informed of, and will be conducting myself appropriately in the future.
Do you actually wish to discuss something directly related to the thread?
Last edited:
Hello, SPAS.
I've been here a long while, on and off. In that time, I've found a fair few things to complain about, particularly on the Crime & Punishment debate, just as you have. It took me a very long time - and some time and distance away from the game - to realise I was thinking and writing from the wrong perspective entirely. I probably would have understood this much sooner if the debate hadn't been so full of irrelevant wittering nonsense about cut-throat galaxies and terms & conditions, but that's by the by.
What matters most is this: we paid for this. From the very first Kickstarter backer to the latest New Commander, we gave Frontier our cash to provide a game that included each and every one of us, in all of our demented, anti-social, misanthropic glory.
Whether we knew what we were getting, whether we make use of our own opportunities to be misanthropic, whether we like the taste, or not, we paid for this.
Whatever our individual complaints are about other players, we paid for them. The traders paid for all the pirates. The Code paid for all the combat loggers. The PvP crowd paid for all the Open-dodgers. The Hutton Truckers paid for me to fall asleep on their docking pad. I paid for station-rammers and... oh my god, I paid for Psycho Romeo. Why didn't somebody stop me? Anyway, we're all the meal we all paid for, our own special tasty treat.
Morally - and perhaps legally - Frontier is obliged to deliver what we paid them for, as best they possibly can.
We cannot reasonably expect Frontier to punish or disenfranchise other players for giving behaviour we've paid to receive.
We can reasonably ask the restaurant to improve the food at our own table, but not remove food from somebody else's.
If we want a better game, we must ask for mechanics and changes that enable us and give us agency, in the face of contrary behaviour.
For traders, we should look to mechanics that enable traders to do better in combat situations - perhaps integrating certain defences into the shields (so we're not obliged to sacrifice quite so much to get decent cargo space), or improving manoeuvrability (so we're not such sitting ducks and can actually enjoy the fight, even if we lose), might both be good places to start.
I would also look at finding ways to allow traders' activities to have more of an impact on the players around them - at the moment, the relationship between traders and aggressors is one-sided in favour of aggression. Money exerts no power or influence here. There must be a good way to change that. A player group full of money - or at least full of trading activity - should be at least as worrisome to cross as a player group full of guns.
I look forward to hearing what everyone can come up with.
I've been here a long while, on and off. In that time, I've found a fair few things to complain about, particularly on the Crime & Punishment debate, just as you have. It took me a very long time - and some time and distance away from the game - to realise I was thinking and writing from the wrong perspective entirely. I probably would have understood this much sooner if the debate hadn't been so full of irrelevant wittering nonsense about cut-throat galaxies and terms & conditions, but that's by the by.
What matters most is this: we paid for this. From the very first Kickstarter backer to the latest New Commander, we gave Frontier our cash to provide a game that included each and every one of us, in all of our demented, anti-social, misanthropic glory.
Whether we knew what we were getting, whether we make use of our own opportunities to be misanthropic, whether we like the taste, or not, we paid for this.
Whatever our individual complaints are about other players, we paid for them. The traders paid for all the pirates. The Code paid for all the combat loggers. The PvP crowd paid for all the Open-dodgers. The Hutton Truckers paid for me to fall asleep on their docking pad. I paid for station-rammers and... oh my god, I paid for Psycho Romeo. Why didn't somebody stop me? Anyway, we're all the meal we all paid for, our own special tasty treat.
Morally - and perhaps legally - Frontier is obliged to deliver what we paid them for, as best they possibly can.
We cannot reasonably expect Frontier to punish or disenfranchise other players for giving behaviour we've paid to receive.
We can reasonably ask the restaurant to improve the food at our own table, but not remove food from somebody else's.
If we want a better game, we must ask for mechanics and changes that enable us and give us agency, in the face of contrary behaviour.
For traders, we should look to mechanics that enable traders to do better in combat situations - perhaps integrating certain defences into the shields (so we're not obliged to sacrifice quite so much to get decent cargo space), or improving manoeuvrability (so we're not such sitting ducks and can actually enjoy the fight, even if we lose), might both be good places to start.
I would also look at finding ways to allow traders' activities to have more of an impact on the players around them - at the moment, the relationship between traders and aggressors is one-sided in favour of aggression. Money exerts no power or influence here. There must be a good way to change that. A player group full of money - or at least full of trading activity - should be at least as worrisome to cross as a player group full of guns.
I look forward to hearing what everyone can come up with.
Hello, SPAS.
I've been here a long while, on and off. In that time, I've found a fair few things to complain about, particularly on the Crime & Punishment debate, just as you have. It took me a very long time - and some time and distance away from the game - to realise I was thinking and writing from the wrong perspective entirely. I probably would have understood this much sooner if the debate hadn't been so full of irrelevant wittering nonsense about cut-throat galaxies and terms & conditions, but that's by the by.
What matters most is this: we paid for this. From the very first Kickstarter backer to the latest New Commander, we gave Frontier our cash to provide a game that included each and every one of us, in all of our demented, anti-social, misanthropic glory.
Whether we knew what we were getting, whether we make use of our own opportunities to be misanthropic, whether we like the taste, or not, we paid for this.
Whatever our individual complaints are about other players, we paid for them. The traders paid for all the pirates. The Code paid for all the combat loggers. The PvP crowd paid for all the Open-dodgers. The Hutton Truckers paid for me to fall asleep on their docking pad. I paid for station-rammers and... oh my god, I paid for Psycho Romeo. Why didn't somebody stop me? Anyway, we're all the meal we all paid for, our own special tasty treat.
Morally - and perhaps legally - Frontier is obliged to deliver what we paid them for, as best they possibly can.
We cannot reasonably expect Frontier to punish or disenfranchise other players for giving behaviour we've paid to receive.
We can reasonably ask the restaurant to improve the food at our own table, but not remove food from somebody else's.
If we want a better game, we must ask for mechanics and changes that enable us and give us agency, in the face of contrary behaviour.
For traders, we should look to mechanics that enable traders to do better in combat situations - perhaps integrating certain defences into the shields (so we're not obliged to sacrifice quite so much to get decent cargo space), or improving manoeuvrability (so we're not such sitting ducks and can actually enjoy the fight, even if we lose), might both be good places to start.
I would also look at finding ways to allow traders' activities to have more of an impact on the players around them - at the moment, the relationship between traders and aggressors is one-sided in favour of aggression. Money exerts no power or influence here. There must be a good way to change that. A player group full of money - or at least full of trading activity - should be at least as worrisome to cross as a player group full of guns.
I look forward to hearing what everyone can come up with.
Good post, nice one. Your points are well made, and I agree that trade/money is what moves an economy forward.
The core point being that trade needs to be protected, and when it's not, people tend to get upset and pay the military people to do something about it. A few thoughts:
- As a starting point, and as mentioned in my posts in this thread, change the law in the systems that can enforce it. My opinion being that the status of a wanted should be across the whole of a major power, not in a single system. That still leaves the fully independent and anarchy systems as pirate havens. This is reasonably similar to how the British Royal Navy would defend it's naval routes for it's colonies
- Add to the existing system defence force a major power naval group with the authority to go anywhere within their boundaries of control to hunt for wanted criminals, set ambushes to interdict them with wings etc. For serious wanted criminals, employ independent contractors to go into other major power zones
- As suggested in at least one other thread by a fellow player, make the police a group that you can join, and have missions with
The implications are fairly simple:
- The status of systems will have some genuine meaning. Right now, does anyone pay any attention to whether a system is an anarchy one or not. Introduce the above, and controlled systems will be a good deal safer. Anarchy systems will be the home ports of real pirates and mercenaries. That will bring more life and genuine feel to the game
- The above generates some new and interesting mission opportunities, whether that's to work for the power navy, or to work against them for the pirates
- Traders get more safety, whilst pirates still get things to do
And it's delicious. Though, I've paid too. My infractions list looks more like a high score board.
Anyway, we're all the meal we all paid for, our own special tasty treat.
Now, you're once again describing an issue that doesn't necessarily reflect the issue indicated by title of the thread or the OP: PvP consequences and combat logging. And that brings me back to the premise of my point: Your suggestion, like the OP's, doesn't actually address the problem.
Yes, there are loads of parameters of systems that don't do squat.
Yes, crime is a joke.
Yes, traders have little incentive to play in open.
But it's absurd to leverage this into a 'solution' to getting killed in open. Open is ruthless, and should remain so. The problem is people not understanding that if they don't want a ruthless experience, they need to play in solo or group. This requires a solution through education, not a crackdown on crime.
It's as absurd as me joining a PvP minecraft server and being upset about there being PvP, trying to suggest a crime system to punish anyone's PvP experience.
Pushing up crime should be done in a way to enhance the current intended features. It would be absurd instead try to squash them.
PR>
Sorry, but I believe there to be a direct relationship between combat logging, PvP and the present status of the laws used within game.
Right now, there's virtually no disincentive to stop players deliberately engaging "soft" player targets, i.e. traders, miners and similar. Sure, they'll pick up a bounty, but it's local to the system, can be easily wiped using a sidewinder suicide, and virtually no police to stop it. Frankly, it's laughable.
The implications being that spaceways are ridiculously dangerous right now, particularly for a trader. Why risk millions of credits on insurance and cargo, such that you can avoid a PvP player in a much more suitable combat build wiping the floor with a trader setup ship.
So what we have are some traders who are being marginalised into playing solo, mobius and similar, and some that take a risk on Open as they like the interaction, but find themselves completely outclassed in combat, and CL as a result.
Create a system to add protection, and chances are that you'll get a lot more "traders" in Open mode as there would be far less "kill for fun".
Doesn't that make sense to you?
Now again, to re-iterate, what I've covered in this reply so far is only the side of the trader. Clearly, the other side are the players who WANT to be pirates. Having tightened laws in controlled systems would push them to anarchy systems, but surely that increases their sense of being. They setup a base and can try raiding parties and similar, knowing only too well that they'll be met with resistance on going anywhere near controlled systems and potentially getting chased even in the anarchy ones if they run up big enough bounties.
The above is a way of creating choices. Right now, anyone can do anything, almost whenever they like. This creates consequences, which are not unalterable, but encourage moral choices in the game. Surely that's a good thing?
Sorry, but I believe there to be a direct relationship between combat logging, PvP and the present status of the laws used within game.
Right now, there's virtually no disincentive to stop players deliberately engaging "soft" player targets, i.e. traders, miners and similar. Sure, they'll pick up a bounty, but it's local to the system, can be easily wiped using a sidewinder suicide, and virtually no police to stop it. Frankly, it's laughable.
The implications being that spaceways are ridiculously dangerous right now, particularly for a trader. Why risk millions of credits on insurance and cargo, such that you can avoid a PvP player in a much more suitable combat build wiping the floor with a trader setup ship.
So what we have are some traders who are being marginalised into playing solo, mobius and similar, and some that take a risk on Open as they like the interaction, but find themselves completely outclassed in combat, and CL as a result.
Create a system to add protection, and chances are that you'll get a lot more "traders" in Open mode as there would be far less "kill for fun".
Doesn't that make sense to you?
Now again, to re-iterate, what I've covered in this reply so far is only the side of the trader. Clearly, the other side are the players who WANT to be pirates. Having tightened laws in controlled systems would push them to anarchy systems, but surely that increases their sense of being. They setup a base and can try raiding parties and similar, knowing only too well that they'll be met with resistance on going anywhere near controlled systems and potentially getting chased even in the anarchy ones if they run up big enough bounties.
The above is a way of creating choices. Right now, anyone can do anything, almost whenever they like. This creates consequences, which are not unalterable, but encourage moral choices in the game. Surely that's a good thing?