Possible Griefer/PvP solution: Half suggestion/Half discussion

[Van R Flyheight]

The issue I'm looking to solve/discuss is one of the biggest and most heated in ED. When is it PvP and when is it griefing but most importantly how to finally separate the two.

At present ED does not offer a consistent PvP event for players that want to take part in it. The large environment/low population nature of the game makes the chances of organic and random PvP almost unheard of. Every week the community is brought together in one system to take part in a goal. Everything about the event is aimed at working as a team and the action of player vs player interaction only detracts from it. This sparks the debate of griefing as players that want to socialise with the community they are working with are foced into solo or private modes because of a community that seems to be working against it. This 'anti-community' however claims it is just playing the game how it wants and with no consistent PvP event for them to take part in, is this a legitimate reason?

This is the suggestion part then. 'Community Conflict'. The very opposite to a Community Goal.

Every week a system is chosen to 'host' a full scale war between elements of the superpowers. Each week could be a different set of superpowers and Federal vs. Imperial would probably have some capital ship interaction too. The aim would simply be to hand in combat bonds just like any other CG and both sides would move up a ladder with the winner being the one with the highest amount/finished first. Victory could result in a higher payout for the winning side or even no payout for the losing side. Ultimately though the conflict would be against the two navies in attendance and not minor factions within the system in order to least disrupt BGS. Also no assets would change hands at the end of the conflict, just money. Simple idea really as I believe any hollow red triangle in a conflict zone is a fair target.

Potential Advantages:

Warranted PvP interaction
Rewarding gameplay
Community spirit (for both CC and CG communities)

Potential Disadvantages:

Reducing playerbases in individual events
Extra salt on the part of losing teams

The discussion part then. Would this solve anything?

I'm not a player hungry for PvP at every corner but I do enjoy my combat with a side of purpose so I'd be up for taking part. The question then is are griefers actually PvPers that don't have an appropriate event to use or are they just griefers? Would players take part in an event that involved equally outfitted ships piloted by equally skilled pilots with the risk of losing everything hovering over them. Some I suspect would love the opportunity to test their skills but others I fear would still be happier blockading stations. I won't go further as I'm aiming to be the neutral voice but what do you think?

Is the suggestion sound enough to present exciting gameplay?
Do people have the mentality to take part in such game play?

Thank you for reading and I look forward to your thoughts and salt.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

A sort of CZ but covering the entire system (or systems)? You enter the system and pick a side.

Interesting.

 

[Van R Flyheight]

I was thinking smaller, like just normal CZ mechanics but a larger player population as a result of the event itself.

However I guess interdicting and shooting down a player fully laden with combat bonds would screw the other team pretty hard. I think you may have just implemented tactics for my yet-to-be-implemented idea.

 

[Roybe]

The only problem with this is it would work out like any other CG. People will kill whatever gets them the highest cr/hr.

Invariably the PVP people would just jump into a contested zone...and sweep out the players...and kill NPC's.

Been there, done it....

 

[Van R Flyheight]

The only problem with this is it would work out like any other CG. People will kill whatever gets them the highest cr/hr.

Invariably the PVP people would just jump into a contested zone...and sweep out the players...and kill NPC's.

Been there, done it....

Sorry I don't really understand what you mean. The whole idea is that people would be taking part in PvP so the highest cr/hr gain would be through PvP. If you mean that players would jump into a CZ and take out everything in sight then I don't understand how that would benefit them. Like any other CZ, both sides would turn hostile to that player and considering that half of each team would be flying engineered ships, I believe that player wouldn't last long.

 

[Roybe]

Sorry I don't really understand what you mean. The whole idea is that people would be taking part in PvP so the highest cr/hr gain would be through PvP. If you mean that players would jump into a CZ and take out everything in sight then I don't understand how that would benefit them. Like any other CZ, both sides would turn hostile to that player and considering that half of each team would be flying engineered ships, I believe that player wouldn't last long.

"The aim would simply be to hand in combat bonds just like any other CG and both sides would move up a ladder with the winner being the one with the highest amount/finished first. Victory could result in a higher payout for the winning side or even no payout for the losing side. Ultimately though the conflict would be against the two navies in attendance and not minor factions within the system in order to least disrupt BGS. Also no assets would change hands at the end of the conflict, just money. Simple idea really as I believe any hollow red triangle in a conflict zone is a fair target.

The problem is including NPC's in the count for combat bonds. Choosing once side or the other just means that players would be rewarded for killing NPC's in any type of situation in this game...particularly if you bring Capital ships into it. People will not bother shooting each other...they will just rack up all the NPC's...and move on to new instances. It would have to be proven that the devs can actually create wars without any NPC's being involved...or in some way curtail them from being counted in battle, as you have described.

Basically, the games DNA is based on one side outcollecting the other side....and in your example, NPC's will far outnumber PVP players and the only way to win this battle will be to outcollect kills...thus NPC's would be the real target of the session...rather than the PVP players.

Also, keep in mind, the problems with instancing within this game....it is pretty hard to get a decent number of players into an instance...so if there are no NPC's...there will be many players in instances with nothing to shoot.

 

[Van R Flyheight]

okay now I understand what you mean. Yes, you are quite correct that killing hundreds of NPCs would heavily contribute to the ladder and could even be done in solo play. I'm not suggesting this as a PvP only event that is designed only for PvP players. PvE players could get equally involved. My point was more that because PvP would have a purpose, players can't complain if another player attacks them.

In a CG, killing a player earns you nothing and that pointlessness is partly what makes it so frustrating. The player looking at a rebuy screen feels the other player just did it because they could and it's arguable that this statement is true (insert roleplay reasoning of being an escaped convict). This suggestion doesn't force players to take part in PvP but it does remove any complaint of it, as your very presence in that system is effectively consent and therefore not griefing.