PvP Why PvP is not popular in Elite Dangerous?

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

I disagree due to the unique game changing kit locked behind power play.

Besides which I disagree with ANY move "effectively" forcing players to have to deal with the Open environment. That is for a variety of reasons, not just because of certain PvPers and their associated behaviours.

Then tell me: what are the incentives to play in Open at the moment? "None and it is fine" is a bad answer, I am afraid. Then look at disincentives.



And, I think, I was too hasty about "pp only". 5% markup for doing your stuff in Open more than justifiable.
It is unnatural for profit to increase cause of mode choise though, and i hate that stuff present in ED. But thing is, when you have unnatural bull like PG godmodding, you have to counterbalance it with more unnatural bull.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Believe it or not, personally I would appreciate such a change.
But isn't it crystal clear by now that and why this simply can't work?

What exactly cannot work? I had thought we went over that upnp stuff.
And however instancing works, it would never negate all the risk.

 

[Riverside]

Then tell me: what are the incentives to play in Open at the moment? "None and it is fine" is a bad answer, I am afraid.



And, I think, I was too hasty about "pp only". 5% markup for doing your stuff in Open more than justifiable.
It is unnatural, and i hate that stuff present in ED. But thing is, when you have unnatural bull like PG godmodding, you have to counterbalance it with more unnatural bull.

Why is 'none and it is fine' a bad answer?

You have an empty field, you can do what you like. There doesn't need to be any incentive to play football on the field if you want to play football. There doesn't need to be a sign that tells dogwalkers to stay off the bit you are playing football one either, they should just walk round you.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Why is 'none and it is fine' a bad answer?

You have an empty field, you can do what you like. There doesn't need to be any incentive to play football on the field if you want to play football. There doesn't need to be a sign that tells dogwalkers to stay off the bit you are playing football one either, they should just walk round you.

While there is no incentives, there is too much disincentives about it. So I do not know how not balancing out this issue is fine.

 

[Riverside]

Believe it or not, personally I would appreciate such a change.
But isn't it crystal clear by now that and why this simply can't work?

We are not just talking about unhatched eggs, we are talking about eggs that will never be hatched.

I don't think it's going to happen. But I don't think it's unworkable, there just aren't enough players that seem to want it and even fewer expressing their ideas well enough to overcome the 'PvP is bad, m'kay' mantra caused by the rotten apples in the PvP basket. There is very little momentum for change, with the average effect of everyone interested in PvP taken into the red by the extreme hostility of (apparently) a small minority.

 

[Riverside]

What exactly cannot work? I had thought we went over that upnp stuff.
And however instancing works, it would never negate all the risk.

Who are you trying to convince?

Just present all the evidence, good and bad and put it somewhere FDev are likely to read it. You don't have to convince anyone but them.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

How so? That UPnP stuff and the requirement of at least one host in the instance *is* exactly why it never will work! You don't seem to realize that a huge number of players would come to the fruits of playing in Open while just not being aware that their settings at least seriously limit the probability of ever meet some people.

Sorry I must have missed the part where we went over it. [where is it]

Any pirate would have all needed stuff prepared.

And, thing is, you are notified when your router is not set up properly. And you can chec your network settings as well. It might go as far as simply making people unqualified, but it is not even needed.

 

[Riverside]

While there is no incentives, there is too much disincentives about it. So I do not know how not balancing out this issue is fine.

What are the dis-incentives? Just other players, because there is no other difference.

I get along with strangers I meet, possibly because I use body language to signal my intentions (eg don't leave your hardpoints deployed in SC, don't point your ship straight at them or make a bee-line for their ship).

Open is only as good or bad, as safe or dangerous as the players you instance with. The overwhelming majority of instances are as safe as or safer than solo, because you can receive help from other players.

Adversarial interaction with another player, that's the dangerous bit

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Who are you trying to convince?

Just present all the evidence, good and bad and put it somewhere FDev are likely to read it. You don't have to convince anyone but them.

I am trying to get more arguments out of people ahead of posting it to suggestions.

Disregard that, how can I go to sleep when random people on the internet dare to to question my opinion...

 

[Riverside]

I am trying to get more arguments out of people ahead of posting it to suggestions.

Disregard that, how can I go to sleep when random people on the internet dare to to question my opinion...

Post it to suggestions, the feedback will come. It doesn't have to be perfect.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

What are the dis-incentives? Just other players, because there is no other difference.

I get along with strangers I meet, possibly because I use body language to signal my intentions (eg don't leave your hardpoints deployed in SC, don't point your ship straight at them or make a bee-line for their ship).

Open is only as good or bad, as safe or dangerous as the players you instance with. The overwhelming majority of instances are as safe as or safer than solo, because you can receive help from other players.

Adversarial interaction with another player, that's the dangerous bit

This is not.so valid for PP when you see when people do wreck your stuff. And this is not true for trading as well, as pirates as well can check out most profitable trade routes. ATM, it is just meaningless to do.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

That's simply not true. I'm currently playing in Open with what you call a "not properly set router" and have not received any notification. Do you even read what I post? The bottom line was to get your router into a state that you would call "properly" actually requires fiddling with your router settings. The non/restricted-functional setting is in most cases the default and can *never* *ever* be demanded to be changed by Frontier.

I mean, you can check your router settings in the Network settings tab in-game. That means, games knows your setup. Futhermore, I belive it checks your P2P readiness by some means.

And I am sure I had saw that notification when I had Open highlighted each time I entered the game untill I fiddled with my router.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Hmm. I can only tell what I see and that's telling me a different story. I mean, we are still calling facts and not believing, right?

To clarify. I don't say the game can't see my router state since this is obviously the case. I only say that Frontier can't demand changing these setting, especially in the light of UPnP being considered a dangerous security gap. Did you read that page I've linked (2 times) a few posts above?

The way I see it the reason why Open works at all right now is basically thanks to enough people simply don't care much about their system security. This can change anytime soon though and makes Open look like being build on sand.

I will do some actual research of ED network on holidays.

And was not notion that it is impossible to passively disable all of p2p interactions in Open stated? Correct me if I am wrong.
And I belive that 99% of people which represent risk of Open mode would make sure to increase their chances of meeting people.
Right now I am certain I know at least one exploit, which I would not list and it is pretty easy with basic knowledge. But it is not passive.

 

[jasonbarron]

Correct me if I am wrong

Oh, don't worry. These guys will be more than happy to correct you even if you aren't wrong. Especially if you aren't wrong.

 

[Prole 217]

Fact is, we just have one player, EUS who stated to see humans despite UPnP off and no port forwarding. One single example, that's all we got so far. The interesting part is where he said... but read his post again:

Spoiler

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...te-Dangerous?p=6653507&viewfull=1#post6653507

Last sentence.

If this single example is actually representative for the whole situation, then it should be clear that the whole system would fall apart if not enough players would be willing to compromise their security anymore. But even if not it's most likely that players with these (again: pretty standard!) settings will always face a lower probability of seeing other players, unless they play exclusively with always the same guys where incidentally one or more "hosts" are always present.

And now come up with a clever incentives system that circumvents these handicaps for certain players.

The thing is the only incentive that has been put forth by a particularly vocal group is give a bonus to open. I fly in open but most of the time never see anyone of course i got the heck out of dodge as soon as i could getting credits for that asp exp that I am told I need for the engineers but I dont see hardly anyone, so although i would be easy pickings I really do not see the extra danger that open guarantees to give.
I do not see the reason it cant be changed to a bonus for pvp combat instead, that way it would also work in the private groups, its not only open that provides the ability to pvp right?
If the whole idea is to bring sheep er traders into open a bonus is not likely to accomplish that goal.
Anyone have some more ideas, maybe something like a war declaration between factions that triggers some kind of mechanic but leaves the rest as is? I know that may be to eve like but it wouldn't work unless both sides agree to a knock down drag out war or something.

I just do not see rewarding a mode where the majority of the time there is no extra risk.

 

[frostypaw]

Then tell me: what are the incentives to play in Open at the moment? "None and it is fine" is a bad answer, I am afraid. Then look at disincentives.

It's more fun to play with other people - including pirates and pvpers.

This balances against there being people whose sole intent is to spoil other people's fun.

It's a pretty simple balance, and pretty clear where the problem is. As has been said many times people don't have a problem with PvP - just how some people go about it.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

It's more fun to play with other people - including pirates and pvpers.

This balances against there being people whose sole intent is to spoil other people's fun.

It's a pretty simple balance, and pretty clear where the problem is. As has been said many times people don't have a problem with PvP - just how some people go about it.

You talk alot, 1 v 1?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You talk alot, 1 v 1?

LOL... when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[jasonbarron]

This sub should be renamed the "Hammer, meet nail" forum. Too bad all the nails hang out in solo/group.

 

[Mohrgan]

This sub should be renamed the "Hammer, meet nail" forum. Too bad all the nails hang out in solo/group.

It's not like you can tell the difference. Pew Pew. Bang Bang. It's all the same.