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

[excalibus]

Consider this...

If "illegal" destruction of a Pilots Federation member was harshly dealt with - And I mean harsh! And if the game proactively promoted and offered legal PvP mechanics (see #76 above), then what is the point of SOLO and GROUP?

If OPEN is basically constructed such that it is basically (nearly) as safe as SOLO and GROUP then why even have those other modes? If PvP is more easily accessible to people who williingly want to take part, how is this not an improvement?

IMHO, SOLO and GROUP are an acknowledgement that OPEN isn't working as well as it could/should.


Come down super harsh on the illegal destruction of Pilots Federation members, offer interesting and easy to access PvP missions/tasks for those interested in it..... If it's done right, ultimately lose SOLO and GROUP which IMHO would only strengthen all the game mechanics!

there are a number of very valid reasons why both solo and group play should continue to exist even if they do manage to reduce the mindless / pointless PKing in open... so i would totally disagree that there would be no need for those modes... as I am sure many others would too... PVP missions and CG's on the other hand add a nice spice to the game and will give some valid PVP interactions

 

[Comrade Napoleon]

This subject must be most discussed on the forums.
AND consensus is still: We will not be content in your game
Can't change that. Will not change. Ever.

Cheers Cmdr's

 

[Cosmos]

Blaming the victim - nice one!

Yeah I don't know much about this, I'm neither a victim in game or real life. I think it depends upon peoples attitude and outlook. I've had countless battles in game with players, some I started others I didn't. I never once felt that I was being 'ganked' or 'griefed'. I tend to roll with what the game and other players throw at me and accept it all as part of the experience.

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 do agree its probably a little discouraging. I have stated I think system security status should mean something provided it also feeds back into a risk reward system for the whole game.

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

Yeah I know, I've been here from the very early days but I think some have an issue with the combat element of the game in general avoiding it at all costs.

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

I think those people you refer to are likely blazing their own trail, I suspect they want a bit more from the game than the NPCs and BGS presently offer.

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).

Well FD have moved on from their original vision which you can have a look at in the DDA archives. Btw.. one of the main goals of ED was in fact multiplayer, DB even confirmed so back during the KS campaign - it was intended to be an integral part of the game, although 1.0 release didn't deliver on it particuarly well.

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

I gotta say through all your posts you keep using perjorative terms to malign and label anyone who does something in game you don't agree with. I'm happy to discuss the issue but can we stop with the name calling please?

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.

Yeah I think its a first bash at player groups or clans. We don't know where this will lead or end up as the game continues to develop but I suspect we'll see more group focused stuff like this not less.

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.

Actually if you read the DDA you'll discover that ratings were also initially planned for other roles, in particular piracy.

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

Yeah fits in with the lore of CQC..

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!

Again you keep slinging mud and using name calling to run down other people, using terms like this in the pejorative only gets peoples backs up. Would you like me to refer to you as a carebear?

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.

I'm happy for you to play the game as you wish. You don't seem happy for others to do the same.

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.

I've already stated I think the present crimnial system is a bit pants.. But again, you negatively characterise players using offensive analogies.

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.

Yeah perhaps a little bit of scorn. ED offers alsorts of things to do, taking pictures of the galaxy is one of them, but its Elite DANGEROUS not Space Engine. I don't see why people freak out when another space ship shoots at them; a game where we can pilot increasingly heavily armed space ships. I don't really care what other people get up to game I just wish they'd stop maligning any sort of adversarial play as you continue to do.

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

Actually Clipper's are one of the most effective combat ships around in my experience, suits my piloting style. I doubt anyone inspects each and every ship they attack or interdict. I also find the comments such as, 'he just opened fire without even saying anything' to be a bit ridiculous. There is no time to type out a role playing essay everytime we interdict or attack another player.

 

[rckstr]

If and when you see another CMDR and you immediately think 'attack', it should ring alarm bells in your bonce. In a civilised society, if anyone went around randomly killing strangers, the police and society would hunt you down as a matter of priority. What attacking everyone means is anarchy, no law and order. But we have high security systems and thus these random killings should also ring alarm bells and have the feds chasing you relentlessly. Killers should only feel relatively safe in an anarchy system. Once theyre in a secure system, they should be attracting the immediate and lethal attention of the feds for their duration in that system.

When I see another CMDR, I think 'hello, how are you? or o7 CMDR ', I do not think "die!". Granted the mechanism for psychos exist, it exists in real life too. But how many of you ingame psychos are like that in reality? How long do you think you'd last in reality behaving like that? But it appears you can exist like that in ED forever and continue to without recourse to law and order. Its this disparity that keeps players from playing open. Now If I was in an unarmed trader and I was trading in an anarchy, pvp by a psycho is fair enough. However I do not expect to be murdered in a high security system with feds everywhere.

Wanted players should attract the feds in a secure system like flies round a cow pat. But currently they are as free to wander as everyone else. There are no consequences whatsoever for their actions. None. There are, however, huge consequences for the trader.

I believe open may become an anarchy and a no-go zone for the general game populace.

Please keep in mind that ED is a game, a simulation. Games give people the freedom to do whatever they like within the game mechanics. You can exceed the speed limit or crash others in racing games, you can be an assassin, a ballerina, a football star. This is not real life. Additionally a system is huge and has a massive population with (behind the scenes and across instances) lots of things going on, the whole galaxy is even bigger. Just because a system has high security, law can not be everywhere in the matter of seconds and they also can not react to every crime committed. Maybe "they don't even care about someone" destroying a handful of ships or have more important things to do, bounty hunters will take care of the little madman.

Edit: To jump on to the comparison with real life events i'd like to throw in the incidents that happened at new years eve in cologne/ germany. There has been a relative "high security" and still lots of bad things happened without punishment for the criminals.

 

[NeilF]

First problem would be to actually have enough participants- but that's not the exploit.

I've spent hours looking for PvP combat in the past, coming up empty - as I ignore CMDRs clearly not interested in it. I could have attacked those Sidewinders of course, but I personally don't get kicks out of mindless destruction

And as regards "enough participants", I've been asking for one or two dedicated PvP areas for a long time. I recall the one conflict zone in Alpha/Beta. It was a joy to turn up almost guaranteed there would be other CMDRs there... Where in the game can you find PvP with anything approaching certainty now? Create one or two dedicated areas with rebuy partially subsidised... Done!

Create a few missions for PvP on the go at any one time, again to mean a strong likelyhood of encountering other CMDRs.

The exploit would be that me and my friends would accept the mission to kill each other and claim the reward. Once i would loose the fight/ missions, once another friend and so on. Since the reward has to be truly rewarding or else such missions would be ignored, people could abuse them to their benefit. Also the fact that the galaxy is too big to be bothered by a stranger while doing this only makes it easier to abuse/exploit.

Huh? OK, the reward is to protect as many ships as possible flying between Nav Beacon A and Nav Beacon B, over an X hour period. You turn up, and for each ship in the convoy that makes it, you get a credit note. Now if you and your friends want to blow each other up during this, instead of all taking up the mission and all working togethor to defend the ships for example, that's fine. But personally I'd assume achieving the missions goals would be more fun and more profitable!?

And I'd assume more missions would follow this sort of suit!? Again, feel free to blow each other up at the cost of millions of CR rebuys if that's your bag

While participating in PP it is obvious who is the enemy. If i see trading ships inside a control system of my enemy i am very certain that they are fortifying which gives me a reason to attack them. I know that it sounds far fetched to transfer this on a clean trader in a random system not involved in PP, but fact is that the trader affects the BGS and adds, although very little, support to the controlling faction. If my goal is to weaken the controlling faction, it is reasonable to hurt their supporters (even if they don't have the intention to support). I am very well aware that the effect on the BGS with such an act is little to none- but there are people that stop at nothing to achieve their goal.

Ahh! I see! You're talking about a trader for an enemy faction etc. Understood. Yes, I understand your point, and I'd like to see these sort of tasks made more effective for PvP! TBH, when Powerplay was announced I was really looking forward to all the PvP related missions/tasks it would inject into the game... but ultimately this just didnd't happen. Instead we have fleets of invisible (SOLO) ships working away...

 

[rckstr]

Huh? OK, the reward is to protect as many ships as possible flying between Nav Beacon A and Nav Beacon B, over an X hour period. You turn up, and for each ship in the convoy that makes it, you get a credit note. Now if you and your friends want to blow each other up during this, instead of all taking up the mission and all working togethor to defend the ships for example, that's fine. But personally I'd assume achieving the missions goals would be more fun and more profitable!?

But that's a "new" type of pve mission then and not pvp mission. From my pov a pvp mission would be to blow each other up for various reasons to claim the reward. Enough participants and obviously opposition would be needed or else it wouldn't be pvp?! This is where it becomes easily exploitable.

 

[mistohise]

I care and i can only guess that many others would care too. Such a mission type would be the next Robigo which already gets abused to the max. It adds an artificial inflation. Those who abuse the mechanic become ultra rich in no time, others that don't abuse stay "poor". This would create a "financial imbalance", followed by even more "i don't care because i'm rich" behavior.

This behaviour exists in any event and is unlikely to change. People will always be richer than others, because some people can play for more hours than others and game hours increases assets. The fact that some game activities increase assets more quickly than others is fairly irrelevant. If you and your friend would get your kicks and credits from blowing each other up in order to complete a PvP mission, then that's "playing the game your way", and who is to say that it's not a legitimate play?

 

[rckstr]

This behaviour exists in any event and is unlikely to change. People will always be richer than others, because some people can play for more hours than others and game hours increases assets. The fact that some game activities increase assets more quickly than others is fairly irrelevant. If you and your friend would get your kicks and credits from blowing each other up in order to complete a PvP mission, then that's "playing the game your way", and who is to say that it's not a legitimate play?

I am very fine with differences in rewards, also that others spend more time ingame and earn more credits that way. But i am not cool with easy to abuse/ exploitable things that let other rewards look like a grain of sand compared to the whole beach.

 

[NeilF]

But that's a "new" type of pve mission then and not pvp mission. From my pov a pvp mission would be to blow each other up for various reasons to claim the reward. Enough participants and obviously opposition would be needed or else it wouldn't be pvp?! This is where it becomes easily exploitable.

How (in OPEN) is you (& other CMDRs) accepting a mission to protect ships arriving at Nav Beacon A and departing from Nav Beacon B, and other CMDRs accepting a missions to destroy these ships (and anyone protecting them), PvE

It may well end up PvE if no other CMDRs turn up, but the game could easily promote these small number of "missions". ie: You flag yourself as interested in them, and when the game kicks one off nearby, you receive a message asking for help. Likewise dozens of other CMDRs too!


Direct PvP would be tricky as - as you pointed out - there is the issue of CMDRs simply being there at the same time/instance.

For direct PvP I still think the best option is to create a couple of dedicated zones with subsidised rebuy costs, possibly small rewards destroying another CMDR, and off you go. But the CR reward for destroying another ship would never approach the rebuy your friend incurs, if you're trying to scam things

These zones could offer a couple of interesting backdrops. eg: In an asteroid field. Or around one of CQCs platforms...

 

[bootsam]

SNIP

A simulation. In your words. Thus it should reflect a simulation and act accordingly. If it was just 'a game' which it currently is, I do tend to agree with you. But its proposing to be a sim. Thus it should behave like a sim and simulate what happens in a civil and ordered society. Inside a game environment.

I agree with you that the law cant be everywhere. But after the event, analysis is made and blame apportioned. Thus your CMDR reputation is one of a wanted murderer and you should be apprehended at all costs by the authorities. Ie man hunts. This might even give murderers more content, other than us poor innocent schmucks.

Currently nothing pretty much happens at all. Now thats plain silly. Giving the murderer a bad rep and a wanted status should mean this player is pursued by all and sundry. But it doesnt and they arent. So bounty hunters have little incentive and murderers are free to be about their murderous business. Then someone pipes up about losing immersion if they cant kill people they see. How can one be immersed in a totally unbelievable environment. It total clap trap this talk of immersion loss.

If FD dont do anything about this imbalance and unreality, then all talk of simulation is utter fantasy. Immersion? Joe Royles often said quote springs to mind.

In Mobius we have no PvP by the common consent of all 18k players. It polices itself and it works. So how about it FD, give us the tools to police and make murder the heinous crime it is. Maybe we can, by common consent, create the civil society youve failed to simulate so far. Make open a real place, full and vibrant with the occasional murderous rapscallion getting chased by the righteous lynch mobs. Make secure systems seriously dangerous to them and anarchies seriously dangerous to us.

 

[rckstr]

How (in OPEN) is you (& other CMDRs) accepting a mission to protect ships arriving at Nav Beacon A and departing from Nav Beacon B, and other CMDRs accepting a missions to destroy these ships (and anyone protecting them), PvE

If you have to protect/ destroy NPC ships it is a pve mission. It is similar to collecting merits vie undermining and killing hostile NPC's. This is a pve activity too, with chances of encountering an enemy cmdr.

From my point of view a pvp mission would look more like this:

PvP mission flag (or whatever mechanic) enabled. By chance you become prey or hunter for someone else who has enabled his flag too. 5 systems later you encounter someone with enabled status and you both become marked for each other with a small briefing in your lower left notifications window that explains why you are prey/ hunter. Kill the opposing participant or defend yourself against him, head back to station and claim your reward. But as mentioned before it would be easy to exploit with friends to your benefit and would probably suffer the lack of participants.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

The anti PvP Idea come to existence because people go attack people who have no interest in PvP. Stop doing that and just shoot other people who want PvP and it will stop and everybody is happy.

"But meh meh, open menas Pvp meh meh Go Mobius meh meh!!"

Okay, it won't stop then.

 

[CMDR HomerNarr]

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.

And otherwise it would be like in EvE Online: Zzzzzzz...
Why are players upset when they are targeted by another player but not when its an NPC?
Thats not your buisiness!

Why do you want to attack other players that do not want to fight other players?
But it gets even funnier:

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.

Thats a big pile of bovine doodoo!
If someone does not want to fight you, what other intention could there be then self-gratification? What else could be in the players mind? Might he dream of Jimmy313/2?

Again: leave for EvE, there you can gank at your hearts desire.
In a multiplayer game, uncontrolled ganking is pure poison to the playerbase. Done by players who would not be missed by other players. (no your ganking buddies would not miss you either, they are as self absorbed like any other ganker.)

 

[rckstr]

Make open a real place, full and vibrant with the occasional murderous rapscallion getting chased by the righteous lynch mobs.

Did you check my OP? I think i made some suggestions that you could like (reputation, punishment and perks).

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

fold

On the "using pejoratives" comments you make - actually, I'm only using the exact terms that the "murderhobos" are calling themselves! If you read the Reddit forums they take great pride in calling themselves the exact names you think I'm trying to be insulting by using.

Call me a carebear all you want btw - sticks and stones (and bullets and laserbeams) can hurt me - but names? Nah.

Besides which, all I've been saying all along is that there should be consequences for being a... murderer. Apparently Sandro is (finally) agreeing with that sentiment in another thread.

I've had it with the forum PvP for today, so I wish you a good day o7

 

[mmike]

The anti PvP Idea come to existence because people go attack people who have no interest in PvP. Stop doing that and just shoot other people who want PvP and it will stop and everybody is happy.
"But meh meh, open menas Pvp meh meh Go Mobius meh meh!!"
Okay, it won't stop then.

just go to solo. it won't stop.

 

[NeilF]

If you have to protect/ destroy NPC ships it is a pve mission. It is similar to collecting merits vie undermining and killing hostile NPC's. This is a pve activity too, with chances of encountering an enemy cmdr.

Don't quite follow?

You're there protecting some NPC Haulers from from A-->B... I fly in and start attacking the Haulers. You don't appreciate this, so attack me. We fight and you blow me up. That feels pretty PvP to me.

Yes it's PvP on a backdrop of some sort (eg: protect X, defend Y, escort Z) but that's a necessary evil in order to create the instance for use to fight within surely?

From my point of view a pvp mission would look more like this:

PvP mission flag (or whatever mechanic) enabled. By chance you become prey or hunter for someone else who has enabled his flag too. 5 systems later you encounter someone with enabled status and you both become marked for each other with a small briefing in your lower left notifications window that explains why you are prey/ hunter. Kill the opposing participant or defend yourself against him, head back to station and claim your reward. But as mentioned before it would be easy to exploit with friends to your benefit and would probably suffer the lack of participants.

So individuals want to participate in PvP, and fly around in the hope they bump into someone else who also is?

And if there were 2-3 dedicated zones somewhere towards the center of the bubble absolutely for PvP type combat, with subsidised rebuys? Personally I'd like these same zones accessible from all over the bubble by some Witch Space hand wavium, but I suspect too many people would frown at that, so instead folks would have to fly 100LY to them

 

[bootsam]

just go to solo. it won't stop.

Then one day you will be all alone in open and wondering why everyone has gone to solo.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Sorry my bad - I completely misinterpreted what you said. Just re-read it now, and on reflection yes I agree with it. Again. That's twice in one night, gotta be a record.

I guess I better leave this topic, I am scared us agreeing three times in one night will trigger a full-blown Thargoid invasion...

 

[Sandmann]

I guess I better leave this topic, I am scared us agreeing three times in one night will trigger a full-blown Thargoid invasion...

hehe... Betelguese, Betelguese....