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

[rckstr]

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.

I see what your point is, but actually exactly this is what we already have with CG's and powerplay. This would even extend with a proper reputation system where you could spot alignemt of others if they have build up a certain reputation and would be visible as some kind of supporter or even member of minor faction XY.
But this, without a proper and balanced reputation system that includes perks and penalties leads us to threads like this or worse.

 

[shadragon]

I see what your point is, but actually exactly this is what we already have with CG's and powerplay. This would even extend with a proper reputation system where you could spot alignemt of others if they have build up a certain reputation and would be visible as some kind of supporter or even member of minor faction XY.
But this, without a proper and balanced reputation system that includes perks and penalties leads us to threads like this or worse.

Yup, there's been a few runs at that already. Nothing caught on yet.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=228557

 

[Cosmos]

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

Hasn't happened yet

 

[bootsam]

Hasn't happened yet

I too hope this never happens. I love this game.

Currently I see little point to open, other than when I fancy some pvp myself. But I'd pick on the big boys in big ships. Its much better to lose as you learn much much more. You learn nothing fighting harmless newcomers or unarmed T9's. I'd pvp to learn how to pvp and become good at it. If groups like SDC realised this it may improve their skills. But alas a group of 4 took 25 of them on and gave them a lesson. Maybe that what prompted them into infiltrating Mobius to gank some unsuspecting victims. Easy kills as its quite obvious they can't fight for the proverbial despite all their pontificating. If SDC is what pvp is all about, I have @£$%& all to fear.

 

[Cosmos]

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:

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.)

See how by simply discussing the issue I receieve personal insults like this? I could respond in kind but I'd no doubt get a warning or infraction..

 

[Deadspin]

It takes too long to get to gank-able levels in EvE. We're talking 6-9 months just to be able to start going after newbs with relative impunity. God forbid you come across someone who's account has been training for 10+ years.

Sounds like we've got some serious salt going over here though.

Cosmos: As someone who's received suspensions over responding in kind to thinly veiled insults, I commend you.

 

[Ddraig]

I play solo because of this.

The problem can be solved with a solid Police response and dire consequences for the wanted commanders on clean commanders (and even NPCs). Something that make them question if the effort is worth it.
Also, better definition of the professions, yeah be a pirate if you want, make it so is profitable and a valid way of progression, but with severe risks if you are a lose cannon.

 

[goemon]

That's all well and good. However, there's a complete imbalance in the consequences for perpetrator and victim;

Consequences for perpetrator == "being chased by NPCs" and a fine.

Consequences for victim == "OMG I just lost X hundred million worth of <exploration data/cargo/whatever>, let alone X Cr of ship! Also my time generating all this stuff I just lost has been robbed!". The time element is an important one, this is especially true for Explorers. On a side-note, can we have Exploration Insurance, FDEV?

tl;dr : perp gets off lightly compared to the utter devastation that can be caused to the victim.

Regards o7

i'm totally with you, that both the risk and consequence of this situation is very uneven.

i just don't think "there are no consequences" meets the facts, and it is helpfull to take on "the other position". there are no lasting consequences. that's a fact. whether this is good (game and/or simulation) design, needs to be discussed. and how that should be changed.

 

[VTpiper316]

Thanks for posting this. It certainly is warranted. The "griefer" stories of new XB1 players over the weekend (people flying around Starports in non-shielded Sidewinders with 20% integrity were flying directly into new players) motivated me to take my A-rated Conda to one of the Starports to stand sentry where I noticed that one wing had actually wiped out all the authority patrols and were hunting Sidewinders flying in and out of the Starport. I put an end to that crap real quick. I'm willing to do it again. If new players need help with this, look me up immediately. My tag is "VTpiper316" and I can be found around Nanomam in my Conda. I'll help you anyway I can.

 

[Ian Skippy]

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?

That reminds me of the previous pope, who, years ago, described homosexual activity as 'bad' because it was 'mutual self-gratification'. My response to you would be the same as to him: yes, but the same goes for other activities as well. Space trucking doesn't really bring peace in the Middle East either. ED is a game, with the premier goal being self-gratification. Lets not pretend one activity is any more mature or noble than any other: we're all just little boys and girls doing silly things in make-believe-space for our own personal enjoyment. And in Open, we're all each others content, whether we like it or not.

 

[Bill Clement]

LOL @ people thinking Arena/CQC is a viable alternative to what has become the norm for PvP in this game.

That's like saying, "Hey, you like fast cars right? Well your fast driving scares me and I don't like it. Could you go drive that Mustang on that circle(jerk) track to get your speed thrills and leave your Lamborghini Aventador in the garage from now on please?"

Do you see how asinine that sounds?

Actually it's more like "You like pink slip racing, right? how about trying out that purpose built racetrack over there with equal machinery to the other guys- those formula three cars can really shift'. 'No, I'd rather my buddies force people at gunpoint to risk their family salons against my Lambo in a drag race..."

 

[Bill Clement]

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.

With you on all of that, which is why I favour a co-op option rather than massive changes to open. Seperate the people who want to co-operate with their fellow players from bullying oiks getting their jollies kicking the excrement out of players with absolutely no chance of effectively defending themselves...

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?



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

The problem/non-problem is that you're attaching role playing values to the current state of ED open, where the main criticism is that a small minority of griefers and gankers are having a massively disruptive influence by playing without any role playing value at all. Even Code, for all their slick PR, stomp all over CGs for reasons that have no real in game justification. Cf the Hutton CG...

The sudden appearance of a huge NPC fleet to spank the bottom of a wing of seal clubbers would indeed be immersion breaking and unrealistic. It would also go pretty much unnoticed by the vast majority of the player base, affecting their immersion not a jot. It would cost the gankers a hefty insurance rebuy, though. Big lulz the first couple of times, but when their bank balance starts to free fall...

The added bonus would be the 'wow' factor for any pup, miner or trader watching all this going down.

 

[Bill Clement]

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.

If the guys interdicting and PKing traders turned up solo in Adders and Freeagles, if the numpties seal clubbing were going after Sideys in bog stock Haulers, then yes, there would be no real differance between the AI and gankers. But that isn't the case... clubbers tend to turn up gang handed and in heavy fighters (at least in my limited experience, taking the last of my Sideys out for a spin around the starter systems last year), traders, even small, barely armed traders, have to contend with wings of combat heavies at CGs. The AI isn't that much of a Richard, mate. It might not be very good at dogfighting, but it tends to put you up against 'doable' opposition. I don't think I've ever seen an Anaconda with her shields up flying my Freeagle!

 

[rckstr]

The problem/non-problem is that you're attaching role playing values to the current state of ED open

Ok, let's remove the RP element for this example and think about the size of each galaxy and count together the instances that may coexist. I agree that there is no real difference between high or low security system yet though.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And in Open, we're all each others content, whether we like it or not.

But .... that means I'm a mile wide and an inch deep

 

[ever]

IDEA$:


- PowerPlay gives good reason for PvP. You have groups of players, who don't want to be pledged to a Power. You could have some "Killer" PvP Power, with no system and no Power Play function. If a player attacks another player for no reason, be it because he is pledged to a Power, has a bounty, other than just to destroy him, than he automatically joins that Power/Group. Since he will be tagged, next time you'll see him coming.

- Make Power Play more PvP oriented. There are so many barriers for PvP, it's a miracle it works: you have instancing, infinite galaxy, timing, solo, combat logging. Before Power Play I felt quite alone in the galaxy. If you meet another Cmdr once a week, you are not going to start shooting... immediately.

- Add a Power Play community goal for creating personal nav beacons. Every rank 5 has access to them, they cost credits. Once deployed your wing can jump into your system in one jump. There is a cool down period of 2-3 hours for them. Can only pray for the same instance and just a few combat loggers.

If you play in open you should expect to meet enemies. The big problem is identifying them. My first suggestion should help in this direction. If you get ganged once, it is their fault, the second time it's your fault. If a player does the same actions the NPCs do, why shouldn't it be ok? I have been interdicted by wings of hostile NPCs, some want to destroy me, some want my cargo. Make the NPCs better! You might escape an hostile Cmdr but not an hostile NPC. That should end this discussion.

 

[rckstr]

PowerPlay gives good reason for PvP. You have groups of players, who don't want to be pledged to a Power. You could have some "Killer" PvP Power, with no system and no Power Play function. If a player attacks another player for no reason, be it because he is pledged to a Power, has a bounty, other than just to destroy him, than he automatically joins that Power/Group. Since he will be tagged, next time you'll see him coming.

- Make Power Play more PvP oriented. There are so many barriers for PvP, it's a miracle it works: you have instancing, infinite galaxy, timing, solo, combat logging. Before Power Play I felt quite alone in the galaxy. If you meet another Cmdr once a week, you are not going to start shooting... immediately.

- Add a Power Play community goal for creating personal nav beacons. Every rank 5 has access to them, they cost credits. Once deployed your wing can jump into your system in one jump. There is a cool down period of 2-3 hours for them. Can only pray for the same instance and just a few combat loggers.

Powerplay already opened pvp without punishment. Kill hostile cmdrs inside your powers influence. Doing this outside of your powers influence is a good thing too since combat is part of PP and it should not separate NPC's and real people. But doing so should change your reputation within the system the attack happened. Making powerplay even more pvp oriented or add exclusive pvp tasks would put those that stick to pve whether solo or in a group into a disadvantage. It would exclude them from content. Although i would be perfectly fine with just one mode i respect that others are not and. Adding exclusive pvp mechanics that take an effect on the BGS or PP would exclude them.

If you play in open you should expect to meet enemies. The big problem is identifying them. My first suggestion should help in this direction.

Your first rule is already a used mechanic. PP participants are already identified. Those that don't are not identified as an enemy/ friend as long as they have no bounty. Even with a bounty they sometimes might be on the same side as you are- attacking a minor faction for example. This currently can not be identified but should not result in a PP identification, for example: Someone destroying a federal ship inside federal space or outside would be marked as hostile to the federation by your logic (as far as i understand). This would be flawed.

That should end this discussion.

I think it is obvious that i disagree.

 

[Zelos1983]

Adding a PVE flag for open where a cmdr can no longer be shot after enabling it would be irritating for others and an immersion breaker. Also it probably would be abused by the ganker. With the pvp flag enabled he still can ram you. If ramming won't deal damage he still could try to make you crash into other ships, rocks, stations, etc. Even if he just stays in your line of fire and catches your shots or blocks your view to prevent you from doing your stuff would be enough to make you hate him pretty quick.

Better solution: Have a PvP/PvE switch. Include a holddown timer and use the mode difference for instancing.

Another result of a proper reputation system would be that you can no longer have a good reputation with all major factions.

That's a deal breaker. I'm against that.

Fix the interdiction mini game and make use of it. Starting an interdiction already "triggers" system authorities if available. The longer an interdiction takes, the shorter the time span until they arrive. This would give people that might need help a reason to actually fight the interdiction. The reputation of both "participants" has an effect on the rank/number/ship types of the arriving authorities. Interdicting in a wing has a bigger impact on the authorities, scaling with wing size.

That's actually a good idea.

To prevent a little the abuse the "speed limit penalty" i suggest to add vectors for incoming and outgoing traffic matching the lights of the mailslot. They could be visible on your hud or inside the game as some kind of projection. Flying against the correct direction has an increased risk and different rules apply.

That's a bad idea as it would add further tedium. Better: Roll back the detrimental changes in the bounty system and get rid of "speeding". Players that want to be rammed only by NPCs and not players can turn off PvP while docking.

However, it must be kept in mind that there are issues far more important than balancing the game for open players only.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Better solution: Have a PvP/PvE switch. Include a holddown timer and use the mode difference for instancing.



That's a deal breaker. I'm against that.



That's actually a good idea.



That's a bad idea as it would add further tedium. Better: Roll back the detrimental changes in the bounty system and get rid of "speeding". Players that want to be rammed only by NPCs and not players can turn off PvP while docking.

However, it must be kept in mind that there are issues far more important than balancing the game for open players only.

There will not be a 'switch', so any idea based on that can be disposed of instantly. You seem to like to be able to toggle of challenges abd get max rewards without consequences (such as max rep with everyone). To each his own ofcourse, but that is not what Elite ultimately aspires to be, and its best if we're honest about that.

 

[ever]

if you have npcs that show more skill than human Commanders, the Solo players may flock to Open to get some help from other players. The bang bang gang club is hard to identify. Some no faction with no bounties cmdrs start shooting at you, some victims might freeze as a deer in headlights. If they have bounties you have been warned. Removing danger from the game makes it lame. I remember I got destroyed after an exploration trip and it was very frustrating. Quit the game for some months, but got back with interest and I pay attention now.

The developers could also introduce beside Open/Solo/Group the Lame mode. Where you are invincible. That should solve all the problems.