Have you tried it?It isn't that hard at all, you read , research reddit pages and get your intel on commanders activity, It's not brain science~( then again for some it must be )
Yes PVP is unfair.
- Thread starter _Dastardly_
- Start date
Quote possibly... I still can't quite balance the idea hitting any "illegal" destruction hard, with meaning Pirates simlpy can't blow anyone up... I'm still baalncing that one in my head!
Maybe as you say there's a time aspect to it (one "murder" per X period permitted)... ENough to put trolls off, but enough to cater for "accidents"
I hear what you're saying... But I still fear for the "troll glory" to be had blowing up X ships sitting there at the final destination, it may be very appealling to some trolls! And of course... it's completely OK by the game to do this!
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
They wisely created a private group undoubtably because of the easy trolling in OPEN...
My concern is of the 1000+ CMDRs in that group, there's a troll or two in there waiting for their ultimate lolz of blowing up half a dozen ships sitting at the final location...
Anyway, sort of another discussion...
Last edited:
I have with others and it works when you force them to run out of fuel .
I asked, because I told a friend which planet I was, and around which geological feature and he still had a hell of a time finding me.
Powerplay had this issue from the start, there will always be some within your group who will work against you.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Well it isn't that hard to locate, try it your self on some one.
Last edited:
lol good luck with that... I doubt you could keep up if some of us started using our jumponium...
Another thing we could add for WINGS would be the following:
Culpability - Any crime commited by ONE member of a wing applies to EVERYONE in the wing.
After all, if we share PROFITS in a wing we should also share responsibility.
Culpability - Any crime commited by ONE member of a wing applies to EVERYONE in the wing.
After all, if we share PROFITS in a wing we should also share responsibility.
Or perhaps...
Open world PvP may be what suits you but the problem there is you think it should be all that other players need as well. Some of us no longer have any care for the open world style pvp games and find them tedious.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
By all means, take it and go.
Look at you two being all cute and supportive of each other.
Arena PvP may be what suits you but the problem there is you think it should be all that other players need as well. Some of us no longer have any care for the arena style pvp games and find them tedious. .
reel your kneck in.... at no point did i say PvP should be removed from open, if as the PvPers claim PvP in ED is so popular then a PvE mode will not hurt open, and if it does, and if open can not support isself properly because not enough want it, then, that proves the PvPers are basing their claims on incorrect assumptions.
but that is by the by, the simple issue is at the moment, PvP offers all stick for the trader and no carrot, where as for the ganker there is no stick at all....... open really is a cowards paradise for blowing ships up with no recourse right now, and the entire way the multiplayer is built means that, as a potential ganker, I can attack any ship i want, where as as a potential enforcer where i have to trek and find my potential criminal, I am at the mercy of the matchmaking.
ED is built such that players cant police the game themselves, so it is essential the AI act more realistically. Anyone who thinks what happens right on the doorstep of a space station, or in high sec space in busy trade lanes right now is remotely believable is......... wrong!. (imo)
AS has already been said, PvErs do not need PvPers at all, if PvPers want PvP to work properly it is down to them to make it work amongst themselves, it is not now to the PvE players to spread cheeks and let you give it to us......
The kickstarter and dev diaries detailed how PvP on clean players would be dealt with harshly, and they also said groups could be made with filters on to set up exactly the game type we want.
all i am asking for is what was advertised way back in 2012/2013
IF open was to become a wasteland, that is down to a subsection of the PvPers spoiling it for all... be mad at them, not at the PvEers,. clean up open and MAYBE some will come back to open and tolerate your playstyle. until then..... no thanks.
Last edited:
Is there a problem with two people agreeing, and disagreeing with you?
Please show me where I said or implied that it was all ANYONE needed? Stop putting words in my mouth. I am NOT trying to remove PvP from open, only get some realistic consequences for it.
I'm sure if you really wanted to find such a route you'd have no problem, but since all you want is to justify your position I won't bother. Fact, trading on the whole is more lucrative than combat, it's a long standing complaint of PvPers.
Again, where did I say they weren't available? I said if it were designed as a PvP they wouldn't be in there.
Uhh what? Sando's one of the LEAD DESIGNERS. Sorry, I will take what YOU say with a grain of salt, and I will take what Sandro, Michael, David etc say about the game as fact.
Really? I'd say it's the opposite. You can clear hundreds of thousands as a newb easily at a rez by picking off the remains of what security forces have already dealt with. To do that trading in one of the starter ships would take an age. Trading only beats combat in profit/hour if you have a big ship with lots of tonnage, or you engage in the shadier side of things.
Or are you talking PvP specific combat? There's not really such a thing as PvP trading so it's hard to compare prices...
Hey guys, I'm at work so bear with me and my crazy ideas. Also, sorry if it has been mentioned already, I couldn't read all 110 pages
When it comes to adding more risk to pirating: Why not a player-driven bounty system? (Not the measly in-game thing).
Example: Trader Bob is doing his usual routes when a pirate attacks and kills him.
>Bob decides to post a bounty on the player's head, payable the moment such player is killed by another CMDR. (Emphasis, being killed by an NPC wouldn't count or remove a player-isued bounty)
>Few days later, Bob receives an in-game mail informing him that "CMDR such and such has found and killed CMDR such and such." The bounty amount is deducted from Bob's balance. True, this is an additional loss for Bob asides from having been killed, but at least in my case... I'd gladly spend a couple million to know that the pirate got what he deserved.
>This would need the ability for players to somehow announce that they have placed such a bounty, so bounty hunters can look up these pirates and hunt them down.
As someone mentioned already, pirates locations should be broadcasted and reported by Nav Points, NPC ships in the vicinity, and anybody that spots them. Players should have an option to broadcast a wanted player's location.
Now, how to handle instancing? Currently, even if bounty hunters are in the same system as the pirate in question, there is a chance they won't meet at all. Possible way to solve this?
Let's call it "instance-lock".
>Bounty Hunters pick up mission to hunt pirate Peter (player-induced-bounty-hunting-mission) (Triggers "instance-lock")
>Based on reports from NPC ships, Nav Points, and other sources (mentioned above), bounty hunters pinpoint a probable current location for the pirate's whereabouts.
>Bounty Hunters jump into the system they think the pirate is in.
>IF the system the bounty hunters jumped into is where the pirate actually is, the bounty hunters are automatically put inside the pirate's instance. Cat and Mouse game begins!
>If the pirate jumps to a different instance before being found, as soon as the bounty hunters leave the system, normal instancing resumes until the bounty hunters are once again in the same system as the pirate.
>If pirate Peter gets hunted and killed, the bounty hunters get paid, justice is served, and the bounties on Peter's head are cleared off. Until he pirates someone else.
>Bounties can be cumulative. Every time Peter pirates and kills a player, they can add to their bounty, exponentially increasing the reward for the hunters (and motivating people to do so).
Why player-induced bounties? Because the bounties in-game are ridiculously low. 400CR for shooting someone sounds like it'll take a long time before the bounty is even decent enough for other players to be interested in the hunt.
Lastly, and I think this would add a lot to the game... INCREASE the reward for guarding a trading ship. The current 5% is ridiculously low and a combat pilot like myself wouldn't even bother with it. Currently I can net 4-6m / h bounty hunting at Haz RES. While I understand a trader can't afford to pay that much, a 5% dividend is way too low. A trader that makes 10mil credits in profit nets the escort a measly 500k.
My suggestion is... Increase the dividend a bit, and add the bonus of reputation/rank increases for the escort protecting the system's trade routes.
This is slightly off-tangent, but what if military rank could be taken into account when the "reports" of a pirates whereabouts are given? For example, higher ranking players within a factions military could receive more fine details, such as "Pirate Peter docked at this station at 22:00, left at 23:00" things like that. Hunting these players could also provide a boost to a players rank/reputation depending on how high the player's bounty is.
Once again, I apologize if my ideas are disorganized.
When it comes to adding more risk to pirating: Why not a player-driven bounty system? (Not the measly in-game thing).
Example: Trader Bob is doing his usual routes when a pirate attacks and kills him.
>Bob decides to post a bounty on the player's head, payable the moment such player is killed by another CMDR. (Emphasis, being killed by an NPC wouldn't count or remove a player-isued bounty)
>Few days later, Bob receives an in-game mail informing him that "CMDR such and such has found and killed CMDR such and such." The bounty amount is deducted from Bob's balance. True, this is an additional loss for Bob asides from having been killed, but at least in my case... I'd gladly spend a couple million to know that the pirate got what he deserved.
>This would need the ability for players to somehow announce that they have placed such a bounty, so bounty hunters can look up these pirates and hunt them down.
As someone mentioned already, pirates locations should be broadcasted and reported by Nav Points, NPC ships in the vicinity, and anybody that spots them. Players should have an option to broadcast a wanted player's location.
Now, how to handle instancing? Currently, even if bounty hunters are in the same system as the pirate in question, there is a chance they won't meet at all. Possible way to solve this?
Let's call it "instance-lock".
>Bounty Hunters pick up mission to hunt pirate Peter (player-induced-bounty-hunting-mission) (Triggers "instance-lock")
>Based on reports from NPC ships, Nav Points, and other sources (mentioned above), bounty hunters pinpoint a probable current location for the pirate's whereabouts.
>Bounty Hunters jump into the system they think the pirate is in.
>IF the system the bounty hunters jumped into is where the pirate actually is, the bounty hunters are automatically put inside the pirate's instance. Cat and Mouse game begins!
>If the pirate jumps to a different instance before being found, as soon as the bounty hunters leave the system, normal instancing resumes until the bounty hunters are once again in the same system as the pirate.
>If pirate Peter gets hunted and killed, the bounty hunters get paid, justice is served, and the bounties on Peter's head are cleared off. Until he pirates someone else.
>Bounties can be cumulative. Every time Peter pirates and kills a player, they can add to their bounty, exponentially increasing the reward for the hunters (and motivating people to do so).
Why player-induced bounties? Because the bounties in-game are ridiculously low. 400CR for shooting someone sounds like it'll take a long time before the bounty is even decent enough for other players to be interested in the hunt.
Lastly, and I think this would add a lot to the game... INCREASE the reward for guarding a trading ship. The current 5% is ridiculously low and a combat pilot like myself wouldn't even bother with it. Currently I can net 4-6m / h bounty hunting at Haz RES. While I understand a trader can't afford to pay that much, a 5% dividend is way too low. A trader that makes 10mil credits in profit nets the escort a measly 500k.
My suggestion is... Increase the dividend a bit, and add the bonus of reputation/rank increases for the escort protecting the system's trade routes.
This is slightly off-tangent, but what if military rank could be taken into account when the "reports" of a pirates whereabouts are given? For example, higher ranking players within a factions military could receive more fine details, such as "Pirate Peter docked at this station at 22:00, left at 23:00" things like that. Hunting these players could also provide a boost to a players rank/reputation depending on how high the player's bounty is.
Once again, I apologize if my ideas are disorganized.
Last edited:
Yah PvP specific combat vs trading... that's the one that's always complained about by the PvPers. Since I was giving evidence as to why this ISN'T intended to be a primarily PvP game that's what I was talking about. They use RES farming as a combat alternative to trading, but even then still complain that they can't make as much money from PvP as from that. Well gee, why can't you make as much from PvP as from trading, RES hunts etc? Because it wasn't intended to be a mostly PvP game, of course.
Last edited:
Hello Commanders!
At the risk of adding more fuel to the fire
I'd like to make a few things clear about our standpoint:
Any changes we might make would not be to punish PVP players or PVE players.
They would be to improve consequence for player choices, which I think sometimes gets a little lost in the heat of the debate.
In Open play, any sort of behaviour is technically allowed (bar hacking or using known exploits). What is potentially missing is appropriate consequence for some actions. For example, pirating a ship and stealing some amount of cargo in a policed jurisdiction is reasonable - you are committing crimes which you might have to pay for. Pirating in anarchy is also fine, including destroying the target ship in the process - the victim should understand the risk of flying outside of legal jurisdictions.
Frankly, none of the above is particularly about player versus player or lack thereof. It's about plausible and consistent game rules.
Now let's take another example: the hypothetical Commander "greifconda" slaughtering the hypothetical Commander "newbwinder" with maniacal glee. The first thing to note is: as an event, it's acceptable within the rules of the game. The rub is that some folk (myself included, for what it's worth) feel that the consequences of such actions are not commensurate with the act committed. So whilst I want to defend the right of "griefconda" to exist, I want to make sure that there are meaningful responses in the game world to their actions.
This is why we're looking at some kind of Pilot's Federation reputation, with some bite (locking off access to starports, increasing insurance costs). It's why we're also looking to enhance the differential between low and high security systems, reducing response times significantly and increasing the strength of authority ships significantly in high security systems (hopefully this should also reduce the cases of lone Eagle authority vessels interdicting powerful player criminals) and looking to get interstellar bounties in (hey, no confirmed guarantee or ETA!)
On a slight tangent, I wonder what folk make of this idea: When committing the murder crime, the insurance re-buy insurance premium of the murderer's vessel is added onto the eventual fine, the idea being to remove the benefits of changing to a cheap vessel then allowing the bounty to be claimed?
At the risk of adding more fuel to the fire
I'd like to make a few things clear about our standpoint:
Any changes we might make would not be to punish PVP players or PVE players.
They would be to improve consequence for player choices, which I think sometimes gets a little lost in the heat of the debate.
In Open play, any sort of behaviour is technically allowed (bar hacking or using known exploits). What is potentially missing is appropriate consequence for some actions. For example, pirating a ship and stealing some amount of cargo in a policed jurisdiction is reasonable - you are committing crimes which you might have to pay for. Pirating in anarchy is also fine, including destroying the target ship in the process - the victim should understand the risk of flying outside of legal jurisdictions.
Frankly, none of the above is particularly about player versus player or lack thereof. It's about plausible and consistent game rules.
Now let's take another example: the hypothetical Commander "greifconda" slaughtering the hypothetical Commander "newbwinder" with maniacal glee. The first thing to note is: as an event, it's acceptable within the rules of the game. The rub is that some folk (myself included, for what it's worth) feel that the consequences of such actions are not commensurate with the act committed. So whilst I want to defend the right of "griefconda" to exist, I want to make sure that there are meaningful responses in the game world to their actions.
This is why we're looking at some kind of Pilot's Federation reputation, with some bite (locking off access to starports, increasing insurance costs). It's why we're also looking to enhance the differential between low and high security systems, reducing response times significantly and increasing the strength of authority ships significantly in high security systems (hopefully this should also reduce the cases of lone Eagle authority vessels interdicting powerful player criminals) and looking to get interstellar bounties in (hey, no confirmed guarantee or ETA!)
On a slight tangent, I wonder what folk make of this idea: When committing the murder crime, the insurance re-buy insurance premium of the murderer's vessel is added onto the eventual fine, the idea being to remove the benefits of changing to a cheap vessel then allowing the bounty to be claimed?
Last edited:
Hello Commanders!
At the risk of adding more fuel to the fire
I'd like to make a few things clear about our standpoint:
Any changes we might make would not be to punish PVP players or PVE players.
They would be to improve consequence for player choices, which I think sometimes gets a little lost in the heat of the debate.
In Open play, any sort of behaviour is technically allowed (bar hacking or using known exploits). What is potentially missing is appropriate consequence for some actions. For example, pirating a ship and stealing some amount of cargo in a policed jurisdiction is reasonable - you are committing crimes which you might have to pay for. Pirating in anarchy is also fine, including destroying the target ship in the process - the victim should understand the risk of flying outside of legal jurisdictions.
Frankly, none of the above is particularly about player versus player or lack thereof. It's about plausible and consistent game rules.
Now let's take another example: the hypothetical Commander "greifconda" slaughtering the hypothetical Commander "newbwinder" with maniacal glee. The first thing to note is: as an event, it's acceptable within the rules of the game. The rub is that some folk (myself included, for what it's worth) feel that the consequences of such actions are not commensurate with the act committed. So whilst I want to defend the right of "griefconda" to exist, I want to make sure that there are meaningful responses in the game world to their actions.
This is why we're looking at some kind of Pilot's Federation reputation, with some bite (locking off access to starports, increasing insurance costs). It's why we're also looking to enhance the differential between low and high security systems, reducing response times significantly and increasing the strength of authority ships significantly in high security systems (hopefully this should also reduce the cases of lone Eagle authority vessels interdicting powerful player criminals) and looking to get interstellar bounties in (hey, no confirmed guarantee or ETA!)
Reading this and Michael's Dev Update from today gives me a lot of confidence - this is the kind of game I want to play in
As one who role-plays a criminal, I would be happy with this. Although, bounty values aren't much of a deterrent to me - it's the faster and harsher police response times in High security that will make think twice
Hello Commanders!
At the risk of adding more fuel to the fire
Sandro, regarding this discussion, is declaration of piracy is evaluated as gameplay mechanic or it is something you have put aside for tackling griefing issue differently?
Thanks.
Thanks for the response and ideas, Sandro ......
I've abbreviated my response to these two key issues, in my opinion -
Yes, the response times need to be very fast to react against murderers;
Yes, increasing the penalties will help - but not for a one-off murder (even in Elite, murder can be forgiven !) but for repeated murder, the so-called seal clubbing that goes on, the fines should increase greatly per murder. Otherwise you will find murdering pilots with huge bank balances will just laugh at even these "punishments." Step the punishment up if it repeats within a given time scale, say a few days, to inhibit that kind of gameplay.
You do appreciate that allowing murder of innocent newbies in starter areas is detrimental to the game? You get fewer pilots wishing to take part in open, more pilots getting discouraged too early, and word gets around and sales are diminished as a result. This is not just about allowing all types of play, regardless - it affects the quantity and quality of incoming players and their attitude to the game at an early stage. I do hope you appreciate this point.
This is fine, it's basically what the majority is asking for.
Ok, that is bad, really, really bad. Simplay due to the fact that two griefers can essentially TRADE MONEY by blowing each other up.
Instead - add the VICTIMS insurance on top of the ATTACKERS insurance cost to the NEXT insurance cost.
Also, LOCK the insurance cost to THAT ship.
So they cannot switch to a sidey to AVOID the insurance by taking a starter ship to avoid the cost - they WILL have to pay the cost once their expensive ship blows up.
To MITIGATE this we should also LOWER said add-on to the insurance for the attacker the lower the rating is on the system it happens to.
High-Sec: +100% insurance
Med-Sec: +50% insurance
Low-Sec: +25% insurance
Anarchy: +00% insurance
Hello Commanders!
At the risk of adding more fuel to the fire
I'd like to make a few things clear about our standpoint:
Any changes we might make would not be to punish PVP players or PVE players.
They would be to improve consequence for player choices, which I think sometimes gets a little lost in the heat of the debate.
In Open play, any sort of behaviour is technically allowed (bar hacking or using known exploits). What is potentially missing is appropriate consequence for some actions. For example, pirating a ship and stealing some amount of cargo in a policed jurisdiction is reasonable - you are committing crimes which you might have to pay for. Pirating in anarchy is also fine, including destroying the target ship in the process - the victim should understand the risk of flying outside of legal jurisdictions.
Frankly, none of the above is particularly about player versus player or lack thereof. It's about plausible and consistent game rules.
Now let's take another example: the hypothetical Commander "greifconda" slaughtering the hypothetical Commander "newbwinder" with maniacal glee. The first thing to note is: as an event, it's acceptable within the rules of the game. The rub is that some folk (myself included, for what it's worth) feel that the consequences of such actions are not commensurate with the act committed. So whilst I want to defend the right of "griefconda" to exist, I want to make sure that there are meaningful responses in the game world to their actions.
This is why we're looking at some kind of Pilot's Federation reputation, with some bite (locking off access to starports, increasing insurance costs). It's why we're also looking to enhance the differential between low and high security systems, reducing response times significantly and increasing the strength of authority ships significantly in high security systems (hopefully this should also reduce the cases of lone Eagle authority vessels interdicting powerful player criminals) and looking to get interstellar bounties in (hey, no confirmed guarantee or ETA!)
On a slight tangent, I wonder what folk make of this idea: When committing the murder crime, the insurance re-buy insurance premium of the murderer's vessel is added onto the eventual fine, the idea being to remove the benefits of changing to a cheap vessel then allowing the bounty to be claimed?
everything you list above I fully get behind. The only thing i would say, imo it should be consistent for the griefconda taking out any "clean" ship in hi sec space (or under the nose of the station - even in anacharcy one would thing an "independent" base would not want to get a rep for not looking after the folk looking to visit, when right on their doorstep.
I would hate to see rules just on attacking a ship >2 pilots federation ranks apart, just because game..... for instance, I am a master, but i still have zero interest in being attacked by a decked out griefing ship when i am trucking my type 9..... pirate me, sure, and i will even drop some goods.