The recent anti pvp ideas concern me. Reasons and "better" suggestions inside

[NeilF]

i am not playing dumb.

the problem is that you already have what you want, and now you are eager to change other thing in games. things that other players want. is that ok? is that really ok?

Are you able to clarify "things that other players want"?

Is this for example the ability to participate in consensual PvP? Or the ability to troll/gank/destroy other players for no reason other than the perpetrators lolz? Because these are two very different matters, of which basically only the latter makes many CMDRs stay clear of OPEN.


I see little/no reason for the game to permit CMDR destruction for no reason without a severe outcome! Instead, if the game offered viable missions and tasks where consensual PvP took place, great! Even just open up a couple of dedicated zones for "anything goes"... I have trouble seeing what PvP fans would dislike about this? More PvP more easily accessible? While trolls/gankers are less able to go about their trolling/ganking!?

The only issues I can see are the mechanics of Piracy need some attention, and trolls/gankers not being very happy...

 

[rckstr]

Initially i wanted to quote some people here when i come back from work but it would be too much so i'll try to summarize it a bit.

Adding pvp missions and kind of rewards would be exploited by players
Added or increased rewards for traders after encountering pvp would be exploited by players.
This also applies for high risk/reward locations.

As suggested, immediate and deadly punish by huge amounts of system authorities or even capital class ships is (imho) a very bad idea. First, it is exploitable. Second, it is not reasonable that a massive fleet or even capital ship arrives just because a single trading vessel has been destroyed. Remember that if you put a small amount of RP into it- you are one of an uncountable amount of characters per system. How many system authority ships would exist if they would react in such a way to every murder commited?

Yes, CQC (Arena) is a pure pvp environment. But also it is a different "universe". It does not affect the Elite galaxy (BGS) or has in impact on your real cmdr. Also it is restricted to a tiny amount of all the available ships and loadouts.

Yes, ED is not created or designed around pvp. But it is designed around 3 different "playstyles". Combat, trading and exploring. Adjusting or creating a better "balance" in open should (imho) affect the act with or against cmdr's/NPC's in the same way (reputation with perks/ penalties). There should not be a difference if i commit a crime against a cmdr or a NPC. It would be unreasonable that i can get a bulletin mission where i have to kill XX amount of trading ships but would be left to NPC's only because the punishment for killing a cmdr trader would be different or incredibly high. This also applies to powerplay. Either participants would not be protected by such an implementation, or you would be left with only fighting NPC's although you could originally stop someone from handing in PP cargo.

The next thing i have seen again quite a few times was PVE flag in open. Let me give you some examples why this would be a bad idea and/or easy to exploit.
If implemented and enabled you either would be invisible for others and vice versa, or you would simply be invincible to the shots of other cmdrs.
Next thing that would be complicated is instancing. If you are still visible you would occupy an instance slot although little to no interaction can be made with you. If you get invincible people would gank others im RES sites for example. You can not hit damage them but they could block your view and line of fire on targets. Also They would keep on ramming you or try to make you crash into another ship or asteroid.
What about wings with mixed flag status. Do they become invisible for each other? If just invincible to pvp damage it would be exploited. Imagine a wing of four people, only one has the pve flag disabled, the others enabled. He interdicts someone else and his mates follow. They maybe can not shoot you but still block your view, shots, create distraction, ram you, etc. This also applies to powerplay. Additionally it would break the immersion if there is someone killing NPC's for merits in your powers area. Originally you may try to destroy him or at least make him flee but would be impossible because he enabled his pve flag.

Edit:
I also would like to add that some player kills that seem to appear as random or ganking, actually are not. The main reason why it appears as random ganking without a (RP) reason is the lack of proper quick communication.

CG's are a good and quick example. Some just want to oppose it for various (some made up) reasons.

Even the random death of a trader might be not so random. I for example would like to hurt the controlling faction of a system. Of course i have to destroy anything that supports the controlling faction to get closer to my goal. Unfortunately a trader is a supporter in that case

 

[willowfan]

Yeah I think you make a fair point. The present criminal system is a bit pants but what some are suggesting is to effectively bar people from certain areas of space because they have a criminal record. A crime system should apply to all commanders regardless of being human or NPC. Btw.. surely EvE has a good solution to this with their implant tech?

But criminals should, while not being barred as such, be extremely unwelcome in supposedly highly secure systems and yes it should apply equally to CMDRs and NPCs. There is no way anyone should be interdicted in Achenar, the heart of the Empires seat of govt, by a psychotic looney. How the heck did this guy get past both civil and naval security forces?

 

[MVP_Bluntman]

Are you able to clarify "things that other players want"?

Is this for example the ability to participate in consensual PvP? Or the ability to troll/gank/destroy other players for no reason other than the perpetrators lolz? Because these are two very different matters, of which basically only the latter makes many CMDRs stay clear of OPEN.


I see little/no reason for the game to permit CMDR destruction for no reason without a severe outcome! Instead, if the game offered viable missions and tasks where consensual PvP took place, great! Even just open up a couple of dedicated zones for "anything goes"... I have trouble seeing what PvP fans would dislike about this? More PvP more easily accessible? Trolls/gankers less able to go about their trolling/ganking!?

couldn't just one person stroll into a hostile powers expansion zone and have some fun where people are farming merits? Same being said with conflict zones. I just don't think PVP is promoted properly.

 

[Sandmann]

Why is it so difficult for you guys to understand why people want to play in open but have an issue with risk free ganking? What is the problem with harsh consequences for pointless killing?

As for having everything they want in solo you're clearly missing the point. People want to play in open but they also want meaningful consequences for murder (or ship murder if you want to split hairs).

Oh they understand it just fine, and they're not actually missing the point. They're AVOIDING the point because they don't want it to change coz they like it the way it is.

 

[Lianachan]

Solo caters all the people that want to be left alone and don't want to socialize in any way at all.

Well, not really. We can play a multiplayer game where we don't see any other players. We have no proper single player game. Limitations in the game because of multiplayer (for "balance" or whathaveyou) affect us too.

 

[Deadspin]

... or just maybe, they MEANT what they said when they described what they wanted the game to be in all the videos etc and it was never intended as a primarilly PvP oriented MMORG (which is WHY it's such a terribly designed PvP game)?

Which is why there is virtually no punishment killing another player aside from a meager 6000 credit bounty and a "wanted" status. Uh-huh. Your dreams are fascinating.

 

[Sandmann]

well, it would be logical that there are protected trade routes where a serious police wing (anakonda, maybe vulture, few vipers and eagles) comes 10 secs after interdiction. but it wouldn't protect you if someone really wants to flush you away.

You're talking about logic... ok then.

If you were a member in the government of a major civilisation like the federation or the empire, and you have a station to conduct business, trade, exploration etc from, and you knew that everyone had to jump into that system from a certain place, wouldn't it make sense to station a significant number of competent security ships at strategic locations along the route between the entry point and the station to protect your business interests from pirates etc? At the same token, if you were an independent system you probably couldn't afford such thorough security measures and would have to satisfy yourself with security ships near the station and maybe the nav beacon and rely on something expensive (high prices, valuable ores, etc) to attract business to your station and offset the increased danger there. Make sense?

 

[Cosmos]

Are you able to clarify "things that other players want"?

Is this for example the ability to participate in consensual PvP? Or the ability to troll/gank/destroy other players for no reason other than the perpetrators lolz? Because these are two very different matters, of which basically only the latter makes many CMDRs stay clear of OPEN.


I see little/no reason for the game to permit CMDR destruction for no reason without a severe outcome! Instead, if the game offered viable missions and tasks where consensual PvP took place, great! Even just open up a couple of dedicated zones for "anything goes"... I have trouble seeing what PvP fans would dislike about this? More PvP more easily accessible? While trolls/gankers are less able to go about their trolling/ganking!?

The only issues I can see are the mechanics of Piracy need some attention, and trolls/gankers not being very happy...

Its all about perception, yours apparently is that people are just shooting at other players for their own gratification and to upset others. You can't know the intent of whats going on in each players mind, so perhaps you are projecting what you think others are doing and feeling. I always ask this and it never recieves a rational response:

Why do some get upset about being attacked by a player but not an NPC? I see little difference myself other than player encounters are far more interesting and dynamic than the rather stale and predicable NPCs.

As for consensual pvp.. The game would be even more stale and rigid if we had freedom to act as we want removed and replaced with particular zones or areas where it was okay. Or even worse, 'hello cmdr x', 'I'd like to engage in some pvp with you today, is that okay?' Zzzz.. come on.

 

[mistohise]

The fact is that clean commander destruction should be much more heavily punished by security forces than it currently is.
Heck, at the moment, as a "clean" commander, if I take a BBS mission I get constant interdictions from random NPCs, including security forces, so there should be something similar involved in a (highly) wanted status.

Let's look at Grand Theft Auto. Not a realistic game by any means, but, even there, they have proportional security response. 1 star, you maybe get the odd cop on the look out. 5 stars, you've got SWAT teams, tanks, helicopters, whatever after you. There should be similar sorts of escalation. It's absurd to think that there would be environments with the sort of technology that the Elite Universe has in the future where supposedly secure systems are in fact places where criminals can pass through relatively unheeded. Blasting away a clean CMDR should be like a 5 star activity.

It's equally ridiculous in a scenario where bounties are somehow tagged to ship death, that a system would allow a highly wanted offender to buy a cheap new ship at the legitimate shipyard, in full knowledge that the offender can use it to dodge a bounty.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Nah, thats just how you want to see it. Its an open world sandbox as DB would describe it, we can and should be able to play how we want. If you do find it so objectionable you can hop into solo or pg if you want to opt out of say an area thats got some hit squads operating in it.

Two can play at that game

Your interpretation of DBOBE's/FDEV's mixed signals (and yes I'm specifically blaming FDEV for this - they've singularly failed to define EXACTLY what they're intending this game to be) is just how you want to see it. That's an easy one

I don't think so if people want to play the game as a bunch of pschotic murderers thats their choice. I've been serially inderdicted by wings before too, I thought it was exciting particularly as I was out matched and numbered.. I escaped of course but it was fun.

This might come as a surprise to you; in my opinion, if people want to play CMDR Psychotic Murderhobo - that's fine! It's just that - y'know... let there be actual penalties for playing that way. Actual penalties for the murderhobo, rather than the game seemingly designed to specifically punish the victims!

I don't condone that, its counter productive and unfair on noobs.

And at the moment the game has nothing in it to punish or dissuade the miscreants.

That said when you die in a starter sidey you don't lose much do you? But if new players can't be bothered to understand the game modes or read the manual thats not really anyone elses fault but their own.

Blaming the victim - nice one!

The noob may just be losing their sidewinder as you say, but it's not a good start for them, nor will it give them the positive impression of the game that FDEV would naturally desire.

I never liked the segregation. Just as much as I can't shoot at people I can't see or encounter, I also can't befriend them, come to their rescue, or offer an escort and so on. Lots of gameplay lost. However, I'm happy for solo and pg to stay provided you stop moaning about percieved 'gankers' and 'griefers'. Fair enough?

Absolutely - if you can also understand that there are a lot of players out there who just want to play a modern version of Elite in piece and quiet - who aren't as social as you or I might be, and they are catered for by Solo mode. Also there are at least 20,000 players who want the social side of Elite without the out of context LULZ-Arena random Smiling Dog Crew "emergent content". So Private groups cater for that.

Not everyone has the same outlook on the game as yourself y'know

I've said this before but the game can't be like Arena. The distribution of players throughout the galaxy means thats impossible. And frankly I rarely see players even when I am in populated space. So its not like Arena, and nor will it ever be.

You say that, nevertheless there are player groups out there who treat Open exactly like Arena - and you well know it.

Well during early development the focus was mostly on a single player experience, but they dropped the solo offline game and have moved with the times.

I loved the inclusion of "moved with the times", as if that was FDEV's reason for dropping Offline (which it wasn't - FDEV wanted dynamic injected content for everyone and they dropped Offline for exactly that reason. It was nothing to do with "moving with the times" - whatever that hyperbole means).

As it stands with Wings and the way FD have allowed for player minor factions I would argue the game can't be described the way you chose to anymore.

Beg to differ. For one, Wings was just another attempt at attracting Open co-op play - which indeed it has done. There are wings of Pirates, and wings of gankers
For another, the player minor factions are NPC factions, in the name of the player groups choice only. Player groups are still having to play the Background Simulation to keep their virtual NPC faction happy.

So since its an open world game, a sandbox, its how anyone chooses to play it.

Okay let's examine the sandbox. It's a PvE sandbox with multiplayer glued onto it. It has multiple in-sandbox roles advertised; Trader, Explorer, Pirate, Bounty-Hunter. There are ranks in this sandbox for Combat (PvE and PvP-influenced with certain rules and ways of calculating based on the combat rank of your defeated opponent).
There are ranks in this sandbox for Traders.
There are ranks in this sandbox for Explorers.

There's even a rank for the PvP-Arena virtual-game-within-the-sandbox.

I don't see a Murderhobo rank. Why it's... it's almost as if everything else but being a murderhobo is considered positive in this sandbox!

I also think you completely miss the sentiment of "choose how you play". Or "Blaze your own trail". Choose how you play within the context of the game content provided is the unstated end of that sentence. So if I were to choose to be a Trader and played in Open, I'd be on the lookout for Pirates. If I was interdicted, I'd either be cooperating with said pirate or trying to hi-wake out of there. If my engines were disabled then I'd probably be cooperating with said pirate and they'd be getting my cargo. If subsequently my ship was blown up by said pirate I'd still accept that as part of trading in Open.

Context is important.

If you want PvE only there are choices for you, if not then there is Open where people have the freedom to do whatever they want.

I've covered the PvE/Solo/Group aspect above.

And again I reiterate - sure - play however the heck you want - if that's the case, then surely it's good sandbox design for there to be suitable consequences for your actions within the sandbox. If there are people laying poo in the sand, they should also suffer consequences, not just the victims encountering the poo. Currently - and again this is entirely down to FDEV's fault - there are zero negative consequences for the poo-layers in the sandbox.

Not sure what you mean by that. I presume you are trying to malign or categorise how I play.

No, I just saw a disdain for other player's way of blazing their own trail - taking pictures of a PG galaxy, for example. I just detected a hint of scorn there.

I haven't had a battle with a player in the main game for ages, I went exploring. Seems to me you are upset because someone attacked you and destroyed your ship. Its a dangerous galaxy of course, one set against a backdrop of raw anarchy and powerplays. Btw you can fit the Clipper so it can outrun almost any other ship, bar the Cobra Mk III. Your bad I guess.

Nah. My Clipper being blown up at Shinrarta was almost entirely my fault, as I was "blazing my own trail" after a very short 800LY jaunt out of the bubble to revisit one or two systems I'd not completely scanned before, and I was caught unaware and very tired late at night as I was trying to fly back to Jameson Memorial to dock there before going to bed. I was flailing around and made many noob mistakes - the main one being I didn't try to hi-wake out. Combine that with the other player being in a battle-fitted Clipper against my Exploration-fitted Clipper, and well you can guess the rest. Boom. I was 90% upset at myself for mucking up so much, and 10% upset at the (certain player who I found out is notorious for interdicting and and murdering anything with a heartbeat), because of the utter pointlessness of interdicting me, knowing full well my paper Clipper was no match for them. Nothing was said, it wasn't piracy, and was an unwelcome intrusion into my little corner of the sandbox

Regards o7

 

[Martian Successor]

Yeah I think you make a fair point. The present criminal system is a bit pants but what some are suggesting is to effectively bar people from certain areas of space because they have a criminal record. A crime system should apply to all commanders regardless of being human or NPC. Btw.. surely EvE has a good solution to this with their implant tech?

But players are constantly denied access to certain areas of space by other players. Just yesterday I entered the High Res at Okinura and within seconds I was shot at by a wing of 2 and told to jog on because this is their turf. Both of them were wanted and it mattered little to them to shoot and try to kill me: a "clean" player. There's no way I can take 2 FDLs in my Cobra so I'm left with no choice but to leave. If a random wing of players can already chase other players out of an area just because they feel like it then I don't see why they shouldn't then pay for their actions by being unable to dock in that system's (non-pirate owned) stations and outposts. I would see it as a proper representation of cause and effect. They shouldn't have it both ways like they currently do - wanted and yet bizarrely still able to dock at the station whose faction allies they've just been shooting and murdering.

Like Ziggy said earlier, currently there is no consequences for them - the aggressors. All of the consequences are thrown at the feet of the "clean"/attacked player. I don'tsee that as right. The clean player cannot call on the system authorities and neither will they show up to protect the law abiding pilot - the "report crimes against me" function is pointless when it doesn't work in this regard and FD need to address this problem at some point in my opinion. Right now the only thing we have that is even remotely close to a "consequence" for attacking a clean player is the wanted status mechanic. Why not use it to its full extent? If players don't want to get "locked out" of a station then either don't get wanted or wait to pay off your fines.

 

[Sandmann]

Which is why there is virtually no punishment killing another player aside from a meager 6000 credit bounty and a "wanted" status. Uh-huh. Your dreams are fascinating.

Actually that was added about 18 months ago to addres the ganking problem. And in the "PVP is unfair" thread Sandro Samarco (you know, one of the lead designers) was asking for thoughts about increasing the penalties for unfair ganking, suggesting denying gankers access to stations belonging to major factions etc. Sounds like it's YOU who's dreaming... or at least trying not to see what is very very obvious, that this was NEVER designed to be a primarilly PvP game, and that all the videos, interviews etc with the designers before it was released that SAID it was a primarilly PvE game were actually true.

 

[rckstr]

The fact is that clean commander destruction should be much more heavily punished by security forces than it currently is.
Heck, at the moment, as a "clean" commander, if I take a BBS mission I get constant interdictions from random NPCs, including security forces, so there should be something similar involved in a (highly) wanted status.

Let's look at Grand Theft Auto. Not a realistic game by any means, but, even there, they have proportional security response. 1 star, you maybe get the odd cop on the look out. 5 stars, you've got SWAT teams, tanks, helicopters, whatever after you. There should be similar sorts of escalation. It's absurd to think that there would be environments with the sort of technology that the Elite Universe has in the future where supposedly secure systems are in fact places where criminals can pass through relatively unheeded. Blasting away a clean CMDR should be like a 5 star activity.

It's equally ridiculous in a scenario where bounties are somehow tagged to ship death, that a system would allow a highly wanted offender to buy a cheap new ship at the legitimate shipyard, in full knowledge that the offender can use it to dodge a bounty.

I honestly don't think that crime against NPC's and cmdr's should be handled different. And then it becomes very unrealistic that every time when murder happens a huge SWAT team arrives if you take into account the population and traffic (including NPC'S) per system. Elite sticks a bit more to realism than GTA, except some mechanics for gameplay reasons.

 

[mistohise]

And in the "PVP is unfair" thread Sandro Samarco (you know, one of the lead designers) was asking for thoughts about increasing the penalties for unfair ganking, suggesting denying gankers access to stations belonging to major factions.. .

That's getting there. But hold on, here we have a universe where entire systems are permit locked? Surely the more secure systems would "wanted-lock". It should be down to the criminal to source a widget to get around that, if they can.

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

I honestly don't think that crime against NPC's and cmdr's should be handled different. And then it becomes very unrealistic that every time when murder happens a huge SWAT team arrives if you take into account the population and traffic (including NPC'S) per system. Elite sticks a bit more to realism than GTA, except some mechanics for gameplay reasons.

Yes, I wasn't suggesting that a SWAT wing magically appears each time there's a murder. What I'm saying is that there should be a more proportionate response overall. It should include, but probably not be limited to -
Refusal of services,
Lockout of stations,
Freezing assets (maybe things can still be bought on black markets),
Lockout of systems,
Increased interdiction chance in secure systems,
Increased police level when interdictions do take place

And so on. None of that is necessarily unrealistic.

All this depth and stuff that people are constantly clamouring about. That's it, right there, reflected in the police system. Actually have police and systems that react to murderers.

 

[mmike]

Oh they understand it just fine, and they're not actually missing the point. They're AVOIDING the point because they don't want it to change coz they like it the way it is.

that just isn't true. i agree about almost all of the things you want: MUCH greater bounties - perfect! faster police response - cool! pvp strict missions - excellent!
BUT i don't want to see people in open that i can't attack. it is immersion killer.

i have no problems with consequences, just with your proposed laserproof umbrella, that some of you guys want to install all over your ships.

 

[Ian Skippy]

This discussion is dishonest. FD always been open that players have the right to be pirates, murderers or whatever. They also stated that the criminal system is currently not punishing enough. Everyone who argues pvp-toggles belong to Open, or random murders should be almost consequence-free are wrong.

 

[NeilF]

Adding pvp missions and kind of rewards would be exploited by players

As I seem to be the one promoting this idea - offer more consensual PvP missions and tasks - I'd like to know your thinking behind your conclusion?

eg: I see a mission on the boards (in OPEN) to go and protect a convoy or damaged ship in a nearby system. I understand it's "OPEN" so PvP is a possibility. I fly to the other system and there on my sytsem list is the location of the mission in question. I jump in and there, and there is the ship(s) in question with a few NPC ships also defending/attacking.

Five minutes later another CMDR turns up, but he's there under a mission to destroy the ship, and any/all defending ships. As we're both there under "legitimate reasons", we can happily blast away at each other and even blow the other CMDR up...

What evenues do you see for "exploitation"?

note: I see no reason why a similar mission would not be avilable in SOLO / GROUP with just NPCs/Wingmen turning up. Or a system preference option distates if you take up such missions they are "your instance only" so there will be no PvP even if your in OPEN?

Even the random death of a trader might be not so random. I for example would like to hurt the controlling faction of a system. Of course i have to destroy anything that supports the controlling faction to get closer to my goal. Unfortunately a trader is a supporter in that case

Now, this is where we unfortunately cross from "actual game mechanics" to "make believe gameplay". How would you destroying some poor trader carrying tea into a system achieve any change in the game for your desired goal?

Would it not instead be better if factions gave out missions to actually have an effect, and if some of those missions were PvP? And if maybe even some missions (not many) were even to kill (any) Pilot Federation members in a system to distabilise it (with the mission giver covering up the event)? In this way PvP is being offered with at least some attempt of cause and effect, is hopefulyl more accessible, and potentially even some mindless murder too, but all under the control of the game to be done under the right circumstances in the right places under the right conditions... instead of Mr Troll just blowing someone up for the lolz...

 

[Sandmann]

That's getting there. But hold on, here we have a universe where entire systems are permit locked? Surely the more secure systems would "wanted-lock". It should be down to the criminal to source a widget to get around that, if they can.

Yeah, technically they SHOULD be able to do that, since they can already lock systems out, require permits, and tell if ships have warrants. I wouldn't want to see if go that far though... there should ALWAYS be a danger of running into a bad guy even when you're in "well lit street on the good side of town"... it should just be a whole lot less likely and they should be a whole lot more nervous when they're there than when they're in a "dark alley in the boondocks"

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

that just isn't true. i agree about almost all of the things you want: MUCH greater bounties - perfect! faster police response - cool! pvp strict missions - excellent!
BUT i don't want to see people in open that i can't attack. it is immersion killer.

i have no problems with consequences, just with your proposed laserproof umbrella, that some of you guys want to install all over your ships.

Hey no... I never said that. PvP switches and immunity in open are things I -don't- want. I want relatively safer and more dangerous areas, well lit streets and dark alleys, and commensurately higher or lower profits... but you should NEVER be 100% safe in space. There should ALWAYS be a risk

This discussion is dishonest. FD always been open that players have the right to be pirates, murderers or whatever. They also stated that the criminal system is currently not punishing enough. Everyone who argues pvp-toggles belong to Open, or random murders should be almost consequence-free are wrong.

OK well you want to be 100% honest you also have to admit that they also talked about "primarily PvE" and "cooperative play" and "consequences to stop antisocial gaming" and "rare & meaningful PvP". You're as guilty of cherry picking as any other.

 

[Derath]

Gonna chip in with the standard response for this discussion.

The issue with PvP and player consequences is that the entire universe is seen as an easily controllable AI farm, there isn't any difference between how a psycho NPC or a psycho player behave, just one of them is competent and the other one is extremely incompetent.

The lack of risk associated with every action means that players become a huge focus point because their risk is disproportionately large compared to the regular game.

This isn't to say that they shouldn't address criminality I think they should, the entire criminal area needs an overhaul with substantial new mechanics to penalize murders and promote legitimate piracy but even with changes like that nothing will change in open because chances are if you fly anywhere populated players will have an enormous impact on your game compared to the rest of the game.