Yes PVP is unfair.

[Robert Maynard]

Meanwhile FD released one of the best PVP games in history. Let's see if they want to change this.

The fact that Sandro has been here in this very thread talking of increased consequences for PKing might tend to suggest that Frontier are about to do just that (to some degree).

 

[Toxic_Waster]

The fact that Sandro has been here in this very thread talking of increased consequences for PKing might tend to suggest that Frontier are about to do just that (to some degree).

This will be very interesting to observe and learn from. I witnessed a few drastic game changes driven by forums that were very damaging to the game itself. Let's take CQC for example. There was the big forum notion that PVP should happen only if both parties agree. As the result CQC was released. However, this mode does not seem to be very demanded and could be categorized as the waste of development resource driven by the forum pressure.

 

[Mohrgan]

This will be very interesting to observe and learn from. I witnessed a few drastic game changes driven by forums that were very damaging to the game itself. Let's take CQC for example. There was big forum notion that PVP should happen only if both parties agree. As the result CQC was released. However, this mode does seem to be very demanded and could be categorized as the waste of development resource driven by the forum pressure.

It is hard to say that a call for consensual PvP brought on CQC. The advent of the XB-One release seems a much more direct cause for CQC. Secondly, CQC has had no ill effect on E: D. I guess it isn't as popular as was hoped, but that is hardly a negative affect on general play or population. You argument does not hold water at all.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

It is hard to say that a call for consensual PvP brought on CQC. The advent of the XB-One release seems a much more direct cause for CQC. Secondly, CQC has had no ill effect on E: D. I guess it isn't as popular as was hoped, but that is hardly a negative affect on general play or population. You argument does not hold water at all.

Said who?

PS: the continuous waste of development resources has the negative effect.

 

[Tanith Low]

As I see it the issue with PvP crime and punishment is this.

As it stands the punishment is proportional to the profit to be made from crime, which seems reasonable till you realise that that's not how crime and punishment work. In a sensible system the punishment is based on the harm caused to the victim of the crime.

The solution to this is actually pretty straight forward. Increase the punishment for murder/piracy to reflect the damage to the victim, i.e. if the victim lost 2 mil in insurance and a further 1 mil in cargo the perpetrator would gain a 3 mil bounty.

You then, in the interest of balanced and interesting game play dramatically increase the potential profits to be made from piracy.

This is how I picture it working,

Player A interdicts player B and demands cargo. One of 2 things then happens (actually there are more possibilities but we are only interested in 2 of them)
1. B drops cargo which A then scoops. B gets to live and gets a portion (say 50%) of his cargo value returned through insurance. The insurance company then puts a bounty on the head of the pirate equal to the money they have paid out in insurance. However since this is less than the cargo value player A still makes a healthy profit.
2. B refuses and is destroyed. This is murder. A can try and get what cargo he can from the wreck but destruction of a ship is bad piracy. A can make some money but it will be less than the bounty now on his head.

Basically if the pirate messes up then they loose out, in the same way that a smuggler who gets scanned gets a fine (these too should be more substantial but that's a discussion for a different thread).

"But what of just plain old murder?" you say. Well for that you would just get a whopping great fine and no reward.

"But murder is a legitimate gameplay choice" you say. Yes it is but in no society is the punishment for murder a slap on the wrist. If you want to be a murderer that's fine but you need to accept the consequences. If you want to be a PvP murderer for "the challenge" (the main reason I see to justify it) then you should welcome the enormous bounty as it will attract people who make a living hunting wanted murders and who will provide you with a challenge. If you don't want that then what you actually want to do is pick on players who are weaker than yourself. That's fine too, I will defend to the death your right to be a prat, but there does need to be a punishment system in place for behaviour like that; and until there is many people will choose to play in Mobious or Solo.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Meanwhile FD released one of the best PVP games in history.

This.
I can't see anything competing with Kinectimals for a long time.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This will be very interesting to observe and learn from. I witnessed a few drastic game changes driven by forums that were very damaging to the game itself. Let's take CQC for example. There was the big forum notion that PVP should happen only if both parties agree. As the result CQC was released. However, this mode does not seem to be very demanded and could be categorized as the waste of development resource driven by the forum pressure.

I very much doubt that CQC was a result of a notion on the forums that PvP should be consensual - it seems targeted at a different audience - and was announced firstly for a new (to this game) game platform.

Whether increased (well, any) consequences for PKing are "very damaging to the game itself" very much depends on two things - the magnitude of the consequences and the point of view of the player making the subjective judgement as to whether the changes are for the better (or not as the case may be).

 

[Toxic_Waster]

As I see it the issue with PvP crime and punishment is this.

As it stands the punishment is proportional to the profit to be made from crime, which seems reasonable till you realise that that's not how crime and punishment work. In a sensible system the punishment is based on the harm caused to the victim of the crime.

The solution to this is actually pretty straight forward. Increase the punishment for murder/piracy to reflect the damage to the victim, i.e. if the victim lost 2 mil in insurance and a further 1 mil in cargo the perpetrator would gain a 3 mil bounty.

You then, in the interest of balanced and interesting game play dramatically increase the potential profits to be made from piracy.

This is how I picture it working,

Player A interdicts player B and demands cargo. One of 2 things then happens (actually there are more possibilities but we are only interested in 2 of them)
1. B drops cargo which A then scoops. B gets to live and gets a portion (say 50%) of his cargo value returned through insurance. The insurance company then puts a bounty on the head of the pirate equal to the money they have paid out in insurance. However since this is less than the cargo value player A still makes a healthy profit.
2. B refuses and is destroyed. This is murder. A can try and get what cargo he can from the wreck but destruction of a ship is bad piracy. A can make some money but it will be less than the bounty now on his head.

Basically if the pirate messes up then they loose out, in the same way that a smuggler who gets scanned gets a fine (these too should be more substantial but that's a discussion for a different thread).

"But what of just plain old murder?" you say. Well for that you would just get a whopping great fine and no reward.

"But murder is a legitimate gameplay choice" you say. Yes it is but in no society is the punishment for murder a slap on the wrist. If you want to be a murderer that's fine but you need to accept the consequences. If you want to be a PvP murderer for "the challenge" (the main reason I see to justify it) then you should welcome the enormous bounty as it will attract people who make a living hunting wanted murders and who will provide you with a challenge. If you don't want that then what you actually want to do is pick on players who are weaker than yourself. That's fine too, I will defend to the death your right to be a prat, but there does need to be a punishment system in place for behaviour like that; and until there is many people will choose to play in Mobious or Solo.

1. PvP should not be seen as a crime. Some PvP occurrences can be criminal, but not all of them. there could be plenty of scenarios that lead on pilots engaging each other.

2. Is piracy a crime? FD describes piracy as the valid career choice. In this case for some social structures piracy can be encouraged and seen as the major source of profit.

3. Bounty increase does not reduce PVP engagements and may be even creates the opposite effect.

 

[Mohrgan]

Said who?

PS: the continuous waste of development resources has the negative effect.

Said the timing of CQC's release. Said the entire web-o-sphere at the time, that CQC was linked to the coming of XB-1 to draw in the twitch minded console players. If you were there you'd recognize this. At the very least this connection makes much more sense than the attempt to connect CQC to players calling for consensual PvP.

I would ask you the same question. Who days CQC was a waste of dev time? Do you have some data to support that?

PvP is unfair, and so is the fact that E: D isn't a PvP game. It allows PvP certainly but, it hardly encourages or rewards PvP at all. What do you draw from that observation?

 

[Toxic_Waster]

I very much doubt that CQC was a result of a notion on the forums that PvP should be consensual - it seems targeted at a different audience - and was announced firstly for a new (to this game) game platform.

Whether increased (well, any) consequences for PKing are "very damaging to the game itself" very much depends on two things - the magnitude of the consequences and the point of view of the player making the subjective judgement as to whether the changes are for the better (or not as the case may be).

I'm not talking about the subjective judgement. What I meant is the revenue that the game generated. This should be the major concern when any drastic changes are about to be implemented. And the numbers never lie.

And again CQC is the very good example proving that the consensual PVP has the very limited market share within ED audience.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

This.
I can't see anything competing with Kinectimals for a long time.

Just picture FFIV open world PVP

 

[Robert Maynard]

1. PvP should not be seen as a crime. Some PvP occurrences can be criminal, but not all of them. there could be plenty of scenarios that lead on pilots engaging each other.

2. Is piracy a crime? FD describes piracy as the valid career choice. In this case for some social structures piracy can be encouraged and seen as the major source of profit.

3. Bounty increase does not reduce PVP engagements and may be even creates the opposite effect.

1) Yes.
2) Yes, piracy is a crime. Criminal activity is just as valid a game choice as other roles - just with different consequences. The profit relating to piracy is entirely driven by the cargo in the target's hold and the damage / bounties sustained by the pirate.
3) Increased consequences for PKing might include increased bounties.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

Said the timing of CQC's release. Said the entire web-o-sphere at the time, that CQC was linked to the coming of XB-1 to draw in the twitch minded console players. If you were there you'd recognize this. At the very least this connection makes much more sense than the attempt to connect CQC to players calling for consensual PvP.

I would ask you the same question. Who days CQC was a waste of dev time? Do you have some data to support that?

PvP is unfair, and so is the fact that E: D isn't a PvP game. It allows PvP certainly but, it hardly encourages or rewards PvP at all. What do you draw from that observation?

Sir, I found your statements very extreme and judgmental and I like this thread. i want to see few more pages before it gets shut down after the heated arguments. Therefore please excuse me...

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm not talking about the subjective judgement. What I meant is the revenue that the game generated. This should be the major concern when any drastic changes are about to be implemented. And the numbers never lie.

Frontier have access to the numbers - they are in a position to judge.

And again CQC is the very good example proving that the consensual PVP has the very limited market share within ED audience.

I doubt that the consensual aspect of CQC proves anything in this context - CQC is an out-of-game game-mode that sits along-side the main game. To play CQC, one cannot be playing the main game. That alone may be why CQC is anecdotally less popular.

 

[Mohrgan]

I'm not talking about the subjective judgement. What I meant is the revenue that the game generated. This should be the major concern when any drastic changes are about to be implemented. And the numbers never lie.

And again CQC is the very good example proving that the consensual PVP has the very limited market share within ED audience.

Huh.... That makes even less sense. What ever.

I think you may be right. Not with your connection to CQC but, to the fact that any PvP has a limited market share within the E: D audience. Plus most PK'ers aren't looking for a fight, they are looking for a victim. Any attempt to offer PK'ers an outlet, other than victimization, for their PvP fix just won;t cover it. It's true PvP is unfair, because the instigators aren't looking for a fight but, rather a kill.

 

[Tanith Low]

1. PvP should not be seen as a crime. Some PvP occurrences can be criminal, but not all of them. there could be plenty of scenarios that lead on pilots engaging each other.

2. Is piracy a crime? FD describes piracy as the valid career choice. In this case for some social structures piracy can be encouraged and seen as the major source of profit.

3. Bounty increase does not reduce PVP engagements and may be even creates the opposite effect.

1. That's why I said the issue with crime and punishment in PvP. You are right the not all Pvp is crime but that was not what I was talking about. If both parties want it then it isn't a crime.

2. Yes piracy is a crime. So is smuggling. Both are legitimate choices but carry a penalty as part of what makes those activities fun is the element of risk.

3. Who said anything about reducing PvP encounters? I was talking about changing the system to encourage good consensual PvP. I know that my proposals would have the opposite effect as it would encourage a genuine bounty hunter mechanic. That's the idea. As a benefit it would also reduce random acts of violence to giving a genuine disincentive for committing them, something which is currently severely lacking.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

1. That's why I said the issue with crime and punishment in PvP. You are right the not all Pvp is crime but that was not what I was talking about. If both parties want it then it isn't a crime.

2. Yes piracy is a crime. So is smuggling. Both are legitimate choices but carry a penalty as part of what makes those activities fun is the element of risk.

3. Who said anything about reducing PvP encounters? I was talking about changing the system to encourage good consensual PvP. I know that my proposals would have the opposite effect as it would encourage a genuine bounty hunter mechanic. That's the idea. As a benefit it would also reduce random acts of violence to giving a genuine disincentive for committing them, something which is currently severely lacking.

Rob, I think the desire of both parties to engage in PvP has nothing to do with falling into the crime category. What constitutes the crime is the breach of local law. When the imperial grand pope proclaims "Deus vult!" and the knight hordes start invading the federation space shredding everyone on their path can this be categorized as the crime?

 

[Toxic_Waster]

Frontier have access to the numbers - they are in a position to judge.



I doubt that the consensual aspect of CQC proves anything in this context - CQC is an out-of-game game-mode that sits along-side the main game. To play CQC, one cannot be playing the main game. That alone may be why CQC is anecdotally less popular.

This is where our viewpoints differ. I believe that the market for ED consensual PVP is close to non-existent and CQC proves it.

 

[Scoopy Doopy]

This thread makes me so grateful for solo mode. I hope they never nerf it.

What's not to like! Quicker and more consistent system jumps, nobody else taking your RES bounties, not interrupting whatever you are doing to have a conversation with some random person you'll never have a beer with, actually using the ships you like rather than grinding for the next big upgrade that will tank your hull better and not bothering anybody else who wants to play the game differently. Ahhh, thank you Frontier.

P.S. I would be happy to forgo my miniscule effect on the BGS if it weren't for the fact that X-box players and PC players also effect the BGS without being able to even see each other either.

 

[Pluvialis]

But there are consuquences. Do you want them to be more severe?

If you believe there are currently tangible consequences then, in that context, I'd have to say yes: I would want them to be more severe.

From my own viewpoint - bearing in mind I don't consider there to be any tangible consequences - I'd just ask for there to be some.

 

[Marra Morgan]

This is where our viewpoints differ. I believe that the market for ED consensual PVP is close to non-existent and CQC proves it.

The fellas here seemed to be consenting.
Looks like they all had a great time!

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

If you believe there are currently tangible consequences then, in that context, I'd have to say yes: I would want them to be more severe.

From my own viewpoint - bearing in mind I don't consider there to be any tangible consequences - I'd just ask for there to be some.

There are tangible consequences. Still room for improvement, which I would like to see, but it can get difficult when a controlling faction sees you as Hostile.