Yes PVP is unfair.

[Toxic_Waster]

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 2 types of consequences currently:

1. sticky bounties
2. police response

Let's say if FD makes consequences more severe, multiplies bounties 10x times and sends a fleet of 30 ships after the assaulter. Would you say this will have any impact and how PVP will be conducted?

 

[Deathwatch]

There are 2 types of consequences currently:

1. sticky bounties
2. police response

Let's say if FD makes consequences more severe, multiplies bounties 10x times and sends a fleet of 30 ships after the assaulter. Would you say this will have any impact and how PVP will be conducted?

But we would need to also add consequences for supporting a single faction for example because where you make friends you also make enemies.

Likely with the current way NPC's are sending even more ships won't do anything as the majority of PvPers know how to avoid them.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

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

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



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.

consenting PVP certainly happens, but the door must be knocked. This is why they're in the community goal system, which is great and resembles the reality imho.

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

But we would need to also add consequences for supporting a single faction for example because where you make friends you also make enemies.

Likely with the current way NPC's are sending even more ships won't do anything as the majority of PvPers know how to avoid them.

I'm just trying to find out what is the receiving party has in mind by calling for more consequences. Is it the Thor Hammer splitting the ship in half as soon as the shots are fired?

 

[AKoM]

I have a few cents to contribute to this discussion.
I am a solo/group player myself, basically because of griefers. That said, I would love to play in open on fair terms. Here is my thoughts on how to pull that off, and my reasoning for those thoughts:

Increased penalties for purposfully comitting crimes to players or NPCs.
This is because today, it basically is non-existent. Sure you get a fine/bounty for a crime but wait long enough and the authorities forgets you.
The way to fix this is having using your reputation in addition to your wanted/clean status. Sure the local authorities stop actively looking for you, but they still remember you. Do enough crimes and you'll have a permanent wanted status there unless you pay off your bounty. However, that will not fix your reputation, and they will keep an eye on you and punish further crimes accordingly.

Being scanned with contraband obviously flags you, but unless the port-authorities scan you directly you'll still be authorized to land.

How to spot the unintentional crime:
During a fight you might cause friendly fire, one hit would get only a warning. Two a small fine. And so on. Here also a reputation-loss on recurring infractions.

Possible to pay out much higher player-bounties. (self explanatory)

Present security/police-force that jump in on intertictions.
More present the closer to the core of that faction you get. Would even allow for logical npc vs npc battles going on between waring factions, this also makes for a more alive universe.

Very, very hard to interdict pve players.
Should be simple enough to do. You don't want to pvp: While docked at a station (or entered the game yet) you can set a flag in your settings. This makes your ship near-impossible to be interdicted by players. I say near-impossible, as that would actually make more sense realistically in a sense. The pve player will in that way have ample opportunity to evade, jump or even submit to the interdiction.

"Don't ruin the assasination-missions!"
Also simple enough through realistic ingame mechanics. You take an assasination-mission, that mission grants you a (limited duration) ID-spoof. That way you are in danger from the authorities as long as you are on that mission. But as soon as you deliver the mission, you remove the spoof and the pilot-id that did the killing is no longer you.


I'll probably think of more, but right now this is what I have.
I could enjoy playing there, and I'd probably not even check the flag for pve.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Aren't we talking about pirates here?

You were talking about the lawlessness of the vast uncontrolled wastelands, I countered that there should be areas which are not lawless and which are controlled.

According to your theory I'd assume the universe consists from the multiple societies that often collide with each other. It's not only the disputed territories, but also the vast uncontrolled wastelands. So most of the space would be with the social vacuum with no governing system in place. What natural laws should be applicable there?

At the moment, the consequence for your actions is a Bounty which is hardly a deterrent since you can go to a neighbouring system to negate it.

In order to create actual consequence, there needs to be more profound consequences for your actions. The most obvious one in my point of view is that civilised stations would not give docking permission to just anyone. The level would be determined by the security level. A high security system has quick response to crimes within the system and wouldn't allow criminals docking permissions. Anarchy stations, anything goes. And all levels in between, where a Pirate for instance would be allowed, but someone with an unlawful kill would not.

So, Pirates. Pirates will be able to operate in most systems, even the high security ones. But they could not dock there and will have a quicker security response to deal with. If you want to talk reward, you cannot control what Players are hauling, but you can control what NPCs are hauling. So for the Pirate the risk of pirating in a high security system, would be better loot.

Those who kill for the fun of it, have their reward already, the fun of it. As it is, at the moment there are no real downsides. But when you limit station access, and I'm talking federation/empire/alliance/independence wide here, that will be an actual hindrance. Not even close to the consequence that should be attached for killing anyone (player or NPC) for no reason, but at least it's better than the token penalty we have now.

edit: for reference

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=232744

As you can read, the bounty is of no consequence. You can talk vigilante action all day long, but it's easily avoidable. Not allow him to dock in the area is at least an annoyance.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

And what is the structure of the universe?

FD tries to simulate a human civilization in space with multiple factions, laws, governments and political infighting.

The current iteration of this is that ALL systems regardless of security rating, political standing or system STATUS (civil war etc) all feel like completely uncontrolled Anarchy systems.

The structure of said universe should be that Attacker and Defender BOTH take the same risk.

-Attacker takes a SOCIAL risk by breaking the law and being hunted, banned from docking and shunned by the civilized space society.
-The defender takes the COMBAT risk of being destroyed.

As of this moment there IS no risk for attackers due to there not being a good functioning legal system of crime and punishment in civilized systems.

This also reduces the chance for roleplayers who WANT to play as wanted fugitives and criminals since the AI cant give two farts if you are wanted or not.

Oddly enough we, the PILOT get a fined or bounty the MOMENT we commit a crime but there is no APB on the SHIP?

Should not the license plate/CMDR name be the FIRST thing that goes out to be hunted? I mean, it's THE FIRST THING WE SEE when we target someone, not IF they are wanted.

So if an APB is out on CMDR X he should be in trouble the moment a station or AI TARGET him, not scanning him.

I have no problem being a victim from griefers or pirates as long as there is a logical IN-GAME consequence for them, long term, just as there is for the victim to pick up the pieces.

 

[Sandmann]

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?

Hello Commander Mr_Blastman!

This idea is more focused on addressing the "random killer" issue that is a part of the PVP vs PVE debate.

So I think it's safe to assume that we want to allow piracy without killing the trader (we already have hatchbreaker limpets and module damage to drives and cargo hatch, but we'll continue to look at other ways to enable piracy without murder).

I seem to recall suggesting exactly this (though with a bunch more detail) when last you tried to address crime & consequence roughly 18 months ago. Yes, it'd be a small step (hopefully only the first) in the right direction.

 

[Bub]

Have to say that I mostly agree with the OP.
The key point is that the existing "meta", allows pirates (including players) to pretty much roam freely. How there is meant to be any level of effective business I have no idea.

Potential solutions:
- Sort out the Nav points. Mentioned elsewhere. These should be choke points into a system, such that a player drops into normal space on arrival in system. Have these policed and with a BIG mass lock on arrival, to enable the police to do there job. If a player wishes to go "in system" without using the Nav point, let them do it, but NOT as a wing and dropped in a random location, say 10-300LS from the primary star. This would enable easier policing and will also have military implications at a later date
- As suggested elsewhere, let PLAYERS be police. I see now reason why there couldn't be a local police group, and then say a Federation, or Imperial Police, who can roam elsewhere. Take is a stage further and introduce ranks, so that a player has to rank up to get free reign throughout manned space and thus allowed to roam anywhere. For the police, give them better access to locations on high bounty players, e.g. have the Nav points log player locations and broadcast it to the police.
- Personal opinion, but also maintain bounties on a player, regardless of whether they self destruct in a Sidewinder until they've actually PAID the bounty. For that, I'm conscious that the bounties really aren't enough. Increase them such that they're say the insurance cost of a destroyed vessel (that wasn't wanted) + 10% for handling fees.

Do the above, and the space lanes would be substantially cleaner and safer.
Would also help enable some of the ability that we should have against the aliens.

Something that Eve tried (but failed) to do was provide a way to track players with bounties in the game. The problem with their list was that it would only show the top 10 bounties. So dumb in a game world with 300k (so called) players.
Also, a mission agent that you had high standings with could do a search, that would take a bit of time, that would tell you the last known location of the player (kind of like using your back room connections to find info on a player). I really liked this concept, but like many things in Eve, failed to deliver properly ( I mean the whole bounty system).
I really would like FD to implement a list that shows players with bounties: a long list. Then a way to search to find their vicinity. Maybe then we could get a game that REALLY makes bounty hunting (players) and revenge a real viable possibility.
MAKE bounty hunting (players) a REAL career path.

Also, why fly open play if you are trading or mining????

 

[Robert Maynard]

Also, why fly open play if you are trading or mining????

.... because it is the only game mode with an unlimited population.

 

[Bub]

.... because it is the only game mode with an unlimited population.

Isn't the number of pilots in the instance a fixed number? (32?)

 

[Ian Phillips]

The number of pilots isn't fixed. 32 is a cap, so up to 32.

 

[Bub]

The number of pilots isn't fixed. 32 is a cap, so up to 32.

Does that include NPC pilots?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Isn't the number of pilots in the instance a fixed number? (32?)

That depends on what is meant by "instance", specifically, fixed population or transient population. Instances in Elite: Dangerous are transient population "bubbles" which can merge and split as necessary - dependent on the matchmaking system. A player, subject to a good quality P2P connection with the other player, could be instanced with any other player who was playing in Open in the same place.

The 32-player instance limit is simply the maximum possible number of players in a single instance at any one time. Players can be placed in or leave an instance as determined by the game, i.e. enter by hyper-jump or dropping from SC, leave by jumping out of normal space by either method - or simply fly far enough away from other players in the instance to spawn another instance with a population of one.

Does that include NPC pilots?

No. NPCs do not count towards the 32-player instance limit.

 

[telperion]

The PvP in main game ED isn't a balanced arena. Those willing to take up the challenge will play in Open, those who do not won't. The difference in attitude is basically this:

PvP:

Hm, I didn't do so well, I should research and learn about how to be competitive in this environment and study my opponent's build and take time to reflect on my own build.

PvE:

Unfair, unfair, I'm so done with this, I'm out. I don't want to put in the hours those people that beat me did to become informed of the current meta and counter methods.

This mentality difference is usually immutable.

Except you're missing the point. Open isn't PVP. It's not that simple. If it were, no one would fly a trade or exploration ship in open. Everyone would just fly pure pvp fit ships and just do pvp.

Open is about flying about with other people with the threat of pvp.

As the OP said, at the moment pvp is so far in the favour of the aggressor it's utterly unbalanced. There simply aren't any reasons NOT to shoot someone so those that just want to kill others have absolutely no reason not to which means that for the most part anyone trying to play in open and not constantly get killed (ie those who are flying trade ships or exploration ships) might as well not be playing in open because if they come across someone in a combat ship there simply isn't any reason for them to not open fire.

Now, I like the heart pumping moment a player attacks me as much as the next man but it just seems like it's every time I meet another player these days. Really, there does need to be more effective punishment for transgressions. The whole bounty thing simply doesn't work, especially because it's only system wide. With so many systems, even if you don't want to play with a bounty on your head you just go to another system and the police leave you alone, as far as I can tell.

There is no simple answer though. If there was, Frontier would be getting involved in the conversation and something would have been done. Frontier's silence on the subject is rather telling.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

PvE:

Unfair, unfair, I'm so done with this, I'm out. I don't want to put in the hours those people that beat me did to become informed of the current meta and counter methods..

rude, condescending poppycock.

Tell me then, how many hrs does one put in to be able to defend when in a T7 and up against a (potental wing of) clipper or a python that just wants to see you burn?

hi wake wont save you and you could be maverik or iceman and you still would not outfly me in your ship... and i would be safe in the knowedge that tehre is nothign in the game to punish me for it either.
I wonder how many pure bred traders feel as you do and are fine with the legal consequences? Because frankly the "wolf" saying to the sheep its all fine dont worry about it just try harder seems bobbins to me.

Yes the game can be unfair I am fine with that, I can live with being blown up, but stop it with the traders who want consequences for the gankers are cowards rubbish... if anything the coward is the one in the combat vessel shooting on the traders knowing there is no downside for them.

bear in mind the game was marketed as being completely playable in all the content as a lone wolf, ED was not a game where we have to play MP to compete, the options were promised to be there to play the full game with npcs in open if we chose. On this the gaem is currently broken.

 

[Arubeto]

Yes the game can be unfair I am fine with that, I can live with being blown up, but stop it with the traders who want consequences for the gankers are cowards rubbish... if anything the coward is the one in the combat vessel shooting on the traders knowing there is no downside for them.

Pretty much this!

 

[Sandmann]

Yes the game can be unfair I am fine with that, I can live with being blown up, but stop it with the traders who want consequences for the gankers are cowards rubbish... if anything the coward is the one in the combat vessel shooting on the traders knowing there is no downside for them.

Pretty much this!

Yep, agreed.

 

[Karunamon]

but stop it with the traders who want consequences for the gankers are cowards rubbish... if anything the coward is the one in the combat vessel shooting on the traders knowing there is no downside for them.

This is what it comes down to, I think. There's a small minority of CMDRs that want pirates banned from the game, the answer to which is "shaddap and go to mobius". But, like I said, small minority.

The in universe consequences for the equivalent of being a serial killer (not even a pirate -that implies making profit) are nonexistent. ~10KCR is one trade hop in a sidewinder. Not even worth a newbie's time to try collecting on that bounty.

It's a balance problem here, pure and simple. There is literally no downside to going around and shooting everybody all the time.

 

[eza]

rude, condescending poppycock.

Tell me then, how many hrs does one put in to be able to defend when in a T7 and up against a (potental wing of) clipper or a python that just wants to see you burn?

I agree the comment you quoted was quite an unfair generalisation.


My approach to ship defense when trading:
Preparation is key:
1 - don't fly your trade ship in busy areas
2 - don't fly your trade ship with minimal shields - sacrifice 16 tons of cargo for a decent sized shield gen.
3 - don't fly a T7 ever: the Imperial Clipper is slightly more expensive and several times more survivable. Go Hauler -> Cobra -> T6 -> Clipper -> Python -> T9


I was trading at the weekend - taking a break from shooting things for a few days - I have recently bought a basic Python and fitted it full of D grade modules and cargo racks.
Put a basic A3 shield generator and three A0 shield boosters and a chaff launcher on it. Got interdicted by an NPC Python with railguns who took my shields down too quickly for my liking, so now run an A5 generator.
Now I feel pretty confident in my ability to just run away from any interdiction without losing my shields.

A wing of four FDL players fitted with railguns would still probably be able to kill me before I managed to jump out, but I trade out on the edges of populated space where these people don't bother to go, so I'm safe.

(Disclaimer: none of the above is intended to suggest that we don't need an overhauled security system, a galaxy heatmap overlay, or other improvements - just that, given the tools we already have, it's perfectly possible to play as a trader in open mode and never be killed doing it)

Before combat income was buffed, to afford my combat ships I made all my money trading in a Cobra, then Type 6, and then Imperial Clipper.

 

[Pluvialis]

I'm just trying to find out what is the receiving party has in mind by calling for more consequences. Is it the Thor Hammer splitting the ship in half as soon as the shots are fired?

'The receiving party'? You charmer, you.

But no, I'm not asking for Thor, nor any particularly divine approach.

In an ideal world we wouldn't need a judicial system, because we'd all naturally respect the rights of others and take care for their happiness as we do our own. That'd be our default, and we wouldn't be having this year-long discussion because it wouldn't *occur* to any of us to attack other players - even if the game said it was okay - unless they actually arranged it with us for sporting purposes.

Unfortunately we don't live in that world. In this world, we deal with people who view others as nothing more than resources to be exploited for fun or profit. People who'll use any excuse they can convince themselves sounds plausible to justify stealing people's stuff or abusing them.

So we have a legal system. Part of the function of the legal system is to punish offenders; those who've already proven they can't be trusted to respect others' rights 'Just Because'.

The other element of the system is deterrence. If you can't see a simple moral reason to respect others' rights and persons and property 'Just Because', then the law has to hold something over you. You might want to steal, or abuse, or kill, but if you do, such-a-thing will happen to you. Is it still worth it?

Your point is reasonable about a lot of space being uncontrolled - but much of the least impressive, least challenging killing in this game goes on in starter systems or other places where game lore suggests control should be high.

The legal system in these areas should make these behaviours unappealing. Where the law's presence is low - and the odds of being caught are similarly low - then the threat of punishment needs to be higher.

"It's not likely you'll be caught because this is low-security space. But if you *are* caught..."

That's the test: as it stands, do the threatened sanctions for wrongdoers have a substantial deterrent effect? Do they at the very least give prospective criminals pause? Do those choosing to 'roleplay pirates' need to think carefully about whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential penalties?

If not - and at the moment it doesn't sound as though they do - then the judicial system in the game doesn't hold up against the lore we're being presented with.