Kill the PVP Rebuy

[Chaparral]

I've been active for a couple of years in the forum, and I have seen over and over threads arguing about the modes.

There has been an enormous commitment of resources by FDEV to try to hold "gankers" to account through C&P. It has been hypothesized that there will be many workarounds to avoid accountability, from using cheap assassination ships to structurally weakened expensive ships for ramming /blocking. Players are clever, they will circumvent C&P - or meet it head on and kill the ATR.

Take a step back and consider what the consequence is for someone "ganked" or "murdered" for RP or BGS reasons:

Rebuy - they must pay the insurance cost for their ship, and lose the value of cargo and any open missions. This translates into lost playing time - a very game-repulsive consequence.

Most players, when given an option to avoid this risk will take it (PG and Solo) - myself included.

In many other mmo's PVE player death results in damage to gear that must be repaired, and or a temporary death penalty to performance. In certain pvp centric instances in other games (player vs. player arenas or world vs. world combat) there is no death penalty consequence other than being teleported to a starter area. This design encourages players to get back in the action, and continue to play. This design enables improved learning and an enhanced chance that a player may try out pvp since there is no effective risk.

I recommend that FDEV consider dropping the rebuy for all PVP combat, and allow players to re-instance in the same location after a cool down period, or re-instance at the nearest nav beacon, or largest nearby gravity well if there is no nav beacon - with all open missions and gear intact.

There will be lost playing time, but it will not be punitively restrictive. In addition, the severe consequences for failing missions will be eliminated.

For BGS and PP purposes, the death will count toward the killer-player goals of course.

Is the Rebuy a positive element of the game right now? I don't think so.

 

[Miko]

Do you not see what's wrong with your suggestion? Although I agree some people are caught out and killed by powerful foes, they should be clued into what the insurance concept is all about and have surplus credits to ensure they can deal with the potential threat. Would you like the threat entirely removed? Wouldn't it seem odd to have your ship blown up and yet retain the cargo you were carrying consequence free?

Personally, I think FD need to wise up putting non horizons players in amongst the engineered horizons players. That in my opinion is unacceptable and unfair in terms of balance, effectively forcing players to adopt the DLC or face the consequences of Open Play foes they simply cannot compete with.

But your suggestion would just result in consequence free, care free play and PvP would become utterly stripped bare.

Do wing up with friends, make friends to do so if you haven't, or pay attention to when good samaritans offer a wing up when they see you being interdicted at a CG, as I have done and they ignore it and therefore get destroyed before I can drop into the wake. Shame. PG and Solo also come with risks, unless you admit to combat logging since nobody can witness you doing it...

 

[Sylveria]

Disagree.

"Surplus" credits will not last forever. Ultimately and eventually they'll feel the pinch as they're having to earn new credits.

They may not feel the sting initially... but they'll definitely feel it with the carefree FFA attitudes.

Then they'll be back to farming PvE exploits and demanding that Daddy Frontier provide more fish for their barrel, as usual.

 

[S3B4ST13N]

Don't play Albion Online if losing your stuff when you die bothers you; be grateful that it's just your cargo and not your ships modules.

 

[Almondclint]

I've said the same thing for awhile. The ganker should carry all financial consequences.

 

[Stealthie]

"Surplus" credits will not last forever. Ultimately and eventually they'll feel the pinch as they're having to earn new credits.

See, that's the thing that most people don't seem to understand.

"Balance" is not about hoofing everybody so they can't afford to use their flying death-machines.
It's simply about creating a state of near-equilibrium where a rebuy is a setback but it's not insurmountable.
Once you do that, people's bank-balance doesn't matter.

Sure, there'll be a period where those with heaps of credits will be able to carry on burning through ships but sooner or later everybody'll be in the same boat and everybody will have to think equally carefully about attacking other ships.

No idea whether or not the currently proposed system will achieve that but it's what FDev should be aiming for.

 

[DNA-Decay]

PvP with no rebuy?

CQC dude.

Off you go.

 

[Funny]

I’d like for rebuy to get changed at some point so you pay less in high security systems, for example, and more in anarchy. Obviously after there actually is more reward in anarchy systems and such.

 

[bladebss]

I've said the same thing for awhile. The ganker should carry all financial consequences.

Pirate interdicted a trader.. demands cargo... trader says no.
Pirate says give me cargo or die.. trader says no.. go ahead and kill me you will be the one paying for it.

And in the case of the op, the trader has nothing to loose and neather does the pirate but nore does he have anything to gain.

Also no more blockades as they will not work, no reason to have wepons on traders or explorers as you can run from npcs and just let gankers kill you and respawn with no loss.

The loss is the whole point, stay on your toes and out witt the enemy, think about the danger and the risk and make the call.
Mother nature is a cruel mistress she will show no mercy or remorse its up to you to sirvive and make your way in the galaxy.

 

[xondk]

I've been active for a couple of years in the forum, and I have seen over and over threads arguing about the modes.

There has been an enormous commitment of resources by FDEV to try to hold "gankers" to account through C&P. It has been hypothesized that there will be many workarounds to avoid accountability, from using cheap assassination ships to structurally weakened expensive ships for ramming /blocking. Players are clever, they will circumvent C&P - or meet it head on and kill the ATR.

Take a step back and consider what the consequence is for someone "ganked" or "murdered" for RP or BGS reasons:

Rebuy - they must pay the insurance cost for their ship, and lose the value of cargo and any open missions. This translates into lost playing time - a very game-repulsive consequence.

Most players, when given an option to avoid this risk will take it (PG and Solo) - myself included.

In many other mmo's PVE player death results in damage to gear that must be repaired, and or a temporary death penalty to performance. In certain pvp centric instances in other games (player vs. player arenas or world vs. world combat) there is no death penalty consequence other than being teleported to a starter area. This design encourages players to get back in the action, and continue to play. This design enables improved learning and an enhanced chance that a player may try out pvp since there is no effective risk.

I recommend that FDEV consider dropping the rebuy for all PVP combat, and allow players to re-instance in the same location after a cool down period, or re-instance at the nearest nav beacon, or largest nearby gravity well if there is no nav beacon - with all open missions and gear intact.

There will be lost playing time, but it will not be punitively restrictive. In addition, the severe consequences for failing missions will be eliminated.

For BGS and PP purposes, the death will count toward the killer-player goals of course.

Is the Rebuy a positive element of the game right now? I don't think so.

3.0 has adjustments to this mechanics that at least in my eyes are good, so yeah.

 

[nosleepdemon]

I think FD have taken a pretty good step in the right direction. Removing rebuy has its own consequences such as its inconsistency with existing pve mechanics.

What FD have done is to attempt to steer the danger away from high sec systems. This, coupled with solo and private group mode, intends to give all players what they want.

As you said OP, bank balance isn't an issue, but the ATR don't work to simply kill players, they are a deterrent. The idea is not always to murder a ganker, but to prevent them from ganking another player. This can be achieved by presenting a threat to their ship they are unable to ignore.

 

[Truesilver]

No.

OP, whilst I recognise that your opening post did tip its hat towards BGS and PP wars, when you said that kills would count as relevant points, it otherwise fails to recognise that the removal of the loss mechanic from PvP would make it into nothing more than a crude 1990's GameCube Deathmatch emulator.

ED PvP isn't - thank Braben - a struggle to get 10 or 100 kills within a given timeframe.

It's a struggle to stay alive whilst seeking the opportunity to inflict loss.

From this it derives its white-knuckle sense of meaning and threat, with the possibility of inflicting harm and loss upon one's enemies ... or suffering it oneself.

If you make it so that it's just 'respawn and get back to the fight as quick as you possibly can' PvP will be degraded.

I speak as someone who has participated in numerous paramilitary player group and Powerplay wars, who has treasured every single kill I have inflicted upon the foe, and who has grieved for every loss that I and my friends and wingmates have suffered. I have literally commiserated, online, with grown adults who were sad that they lost a ship. It seemed meaningful.

Your well meaning but, imho wrong, proposal would take all that away and replace it with nothing to treasure and nothing to grieve over - just a shallow race ... to rack up.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

No.

OP, whilst I recognise that your opening post did tip its hat towards BGS and PP wars, when you said that kills would count as relevant points, it otherwise fails to recognise that the removal of the loss mechanic from PvP would make it into nothing more than a crude 1990's GameCube Deathmatch emulator.

ED PvP isn't - thank Braben - a struggle to get 10 or 100 kills within a given timeframe.

It's a struggle to stay alive whilst seeking the opportunity to inflict loss.

From this it derives its white-knuckle sense of meaning and threat, with the possibility of inflicting harm and loss upon one's enemies ... or suffering it oneself.

If you make it so that it's just 'respawn and get back to the fight as quick as you possibly can' PvP will be degraded.

I speak as someone who has participated in numerous paramilitary player group and Powerplay wars, who has treasured every single kill I have inflicted upon the foe, and who has grieved for every loss that I and my friends and wingmates have suffered. I have literally commiserated, online, with grown adults who were sad that they lost a ship. It seemed meaningful.

Your well meaning but, imho wrong, proposal would take all that away and replace it with nothing to treasure and nothing to grieve over - just a shallow race ... to rack up.

+rep, Truesilver.

/thread too

 

[Chaparral]

I appreciate the thoughtful feedback. I also see that with a PG and solo option your white knuckle rides may become more and more lonely. Other games do have meaningful global consequences for single player deaths in world vs. world conflicts - but those consequences are not visited on the individual player, they are visited on the faction they represent. If a player can stab you from a place where they are never going to be vulnerable, they will do that. That is the situation we have now. Things feel broken to me in ED with respect to pvp / wvw. I enjoyed both pvp and wvw in other games, but here it feels clunky, flawed, exploitable. Oh well. GL everyone.

 

[Odan Brota]

Disagree.

"Surplus" credits will not last forever. Ultimately and eventually they'll feel the pinch as they're having to earn new credits.

They may not feel the sting initially... but they'll definitely feel it with the carefree FFA attitudes.

Then they'll be back to farming PvE exploits and demanding that Daddy Frontier provide more fish for their barrel, as usual.

Most folks in the "problem" groups abused the snot out of the long-range passenger stuff, and are now sitting on tens of billions of credits. Literal 10+ billion credit balances. The new C&P system won't touch them in the slightest, they will continue to do as they will. Forever.

 

[NW3]

PvP with no rebuy?

CQC dude.

Exactly. That's what CQC was made for. The problem is that few players are interested in CQC, so FD has been ignoring it.

 

[Adhock]

I have already identified a key flaw in your suggestion.

In certain pvp centric instances in other games (player vs. player arenas or world vs. world combat) there is no death penalty consequence other than being teleported to a starter area. This design encourages players to get back in the action, and continue to play. This design enables improved learning and an enhanced chance that a player may try out pvp since there is no effective risk.

I recommend that FDEV consider dropping the rebuy for all PVP combat, and allow players to re-instance in the same location after a cool down period, or re-instance at the nearest nav beacon, or largest nearby gravity well if there is no nav beacon - with all open missions and gear intact.

Right there.

The problem being is that you have referenced PVP CENTRIC INSTANCES.

Arenas. Battlefields. Battlegrounds. Coliseums. War Games. Call them whatever you want. They are separate areas designed for that specific purpose.

None of the modes in Elite Dangerous have any of these. (Yes, I am aware of CQC but for the purposes of this suggestion, I believe the OP is not talking about it ether.)

There is no assigned areas where the Devs can code in "No Rebuy required/instant safezone respawn".

So your suggestion to turn off rebuy in PvP combat is effectively worthless. Because there is no area where the system can go "Oh, rules change." and neutralize that.

"Well then add one."

You yourself just said that most players will avoid risks. Therefore most players will avoid these areas. Hence driving gankers back out into open territory seeking targets.

Thus rendering your suggestion and any attempts to implement it, moot.

Unfortunately the basic problem is something you can't fix and that's the human on the other end. As long as there are 'easy targets'. There will be those who seek to prey on them.

The only true and final fix is to start banning them. But then you're left with the problem of sorting out who is a ganker, and who is a pirate that may have shot off one too many missiles.

Rebuy was never meant to be a positive element. It was meant to punish people who bite off more then they could chew.

You're asking for a consequence free experience. To take away that chilling fear that drives people. If you could do anything in this game without the real consequence of losing it all, you'd get bored pretty quick wouldn't you?

As it stands now, there is no real consequence to ganking easy targets. Odds are you've overengineered your ship to overpower just about anything. To include the standard Police response.

There is now real and harsh consequences to these actions and Law Enforcement now finally has some teeth.

Of course there's exploits. The most prominant one I can and will share freely was the one that was INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED INTO THE GAME.

Anarchy space.

I see the new C&P not to punish Gankers. But to drive them into Anarchy Space where they should have been contained years ago. To limit their ability to fly their ships they spent those millions and months on freely in small pockets of dangerous systems while Lawful space is a place where pilots can fly freely without fear or risk.

You want to break the law and go on murder sprees? Then you'd best migrate to where you can freely do so and no one care or else meet your local Judge Dredd.

Anarchy space was designed for that kind of mindless, souless, scum. The fact there were no consequences for them to ply their nature in lawful space meant they could go freely.

No more.

I for one welcome to see them contained in Anarchy where they belong and will gleefully cheer on the ATR.

Let them lose those millions and engineering time they spent jailed in Anarchy space. Each crime costing them just a little bit more in modules and storage space until they run out of both cash and places to put their souped up death machines.

Then they have two choices. Die at the hands of ATR and start fresh in freewinders bankrupt, or stay in Anarchy forever. Ether way, it catches up to them in the end.

 

[Truesilver]

I appreciate the thoughtful feedback.

And I appreciate your cool response ... as I'm sure we're all aware it's extremely difficult to disagree online without coming across as dismissive. Re-reading my own post it seems (unintentionally) harsh ... um ... perhaps I'll admit due to the 'Saturday Night Factor' ... ahem ... but nevertheless as someone with a stake in this I do feel strongly about it.

If a player can stab you from a place where they are never going to be vulnerable, they will do that. That is the situation we have now. Things feel broken to me in ED with respect to pvp / wvw.

Cmdr Danicus, reading both of your posts together now, it's clear to me that you haven't personally ever waited at a star with an interdictor fitted and the infliction of player death in mind ... although perhaps you have been on the other end of that, or at least felt understandably anxious about it. I've many times been both (hunter and hunted, including many times being literally ID'd and hunted personally by name). Both seem to me meaningful and valuable. I hope that the recent C&P 3.0 revisions help your concerns about those who wish to fly in Open with greater chance of authority assistance. However, for those who actually want both to have the chance of inflicting, and suffering, player harm, I think this may be an area where one has to have experienced it, before being able to think about how to improve it.

Most folks in the "problem" groups abused the snot out of the long-range passenger stuff, and are now sitting on tens of billions of credits. Literal 10+ billion credit balances. The new C&P system won't touch them in the slightest, they will continue to do as they will. Forever.

This is a major issue, agreed, but at the moment we have a benign legacy of prior fear, in that almost all PvP-ers consider losing a ship to be an abject humiliation, hence will try not to let it happen irrespective of the meaningless rebuy.

(I am in this majority category, having had about 4.5 billion creds since early 2016 and yet still being paranoid about losses.)

I am aware of one prior instance when a group seemed not to care. It was in Eravate and then at CG's, in late 2015, when a group fuelled by (I presume) Robigo literally fought to the death like 20 times per night. The whole thing (for us, their enemies) was a bit manic and quite fun but overall was generally agreed to cheapen the experience.

This is really my point ... that the rebuy adds something.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

I feel like the OP has a point, but maybe takes it too far.

There is absolutely no reason for a trader to operate in Open (other than maybe the thrill).
There can be no balance between a trader fit and a PvP optimized combat fit, even outfitting defensively.
The only option is to run, and the cost of failure is relatively high.

I'm not convinced the price of failure should be zero, but maybe reducing it to loss of cargo and failing missions, would bring it low enough to make the risk of operating in Open worthwhile and create a richer environment.

I'd like to think C&P would fix this but I really don't see the 3.0 implementation achieving that.
So, yeah maybe it's worth taking a look at the costs to the victim, not just the punishment to the criminal.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

No.

OP, whilst I recognise that your opening post did tip its hat towards BGS and PP wars, when you said that kills would count as relevant points, it otherwise fails to recognise that the removal of the loss mechanic from PvP would make it into nothing more than a crude 1990's GameCube Deathmatch emulator.

ED PvP isn't - thank Braben - a struggle to get 10 or 100 kills within a given timeframe.

It's a struggle to stay alive whilst seeking the opportunity to inflict loss.

From this it derives its white-knuckle sense of meaning and threat, with the possibility of inflicting harm and loss upon one's enemies ... or suffering it oneself.

If you make it so that it's just 'respawn and get back to the fight as quick as you possibly can' PvP will be degraded.

I speak as someone who has participated in numerous paramilitary player group and Powerplay wars, who has treasured every single kill I have inflicted upon the foe, and who has grieved for every loss that I and my friends and wingmates have suffered. I have literally commiserated, online, with grown adults who were sad that they lost a ship. It seemed meaningful.

Your well meaning but, imho wrong, proposal would take all that away and replace it with nothing to treasure and nothing to grieve over - just a shallow race ... to rack up.

Dude, what an excellent post.

Repped.