Modes These arguments are tedious.

[ALGOMATIC]

Poppycock.

The game has freedom of choice. If you choose to spend your time trying to make others miserable (aka "griefing") then that decision is purely down to you.

Elite: Dangerous is set up so we can all make a personal choice on how to play and whom to play with.
Don't try and hide behind that rubbish blaming the game for what you decided to do.

Where did you see that I blamed the game for what I do in it.
It was a response to "pvp has no content because griefers", and by "griefer" all this means is an unbalanced PvP encounter, which is fully supported and arguably encouraged by the game due to its nature. I mean killing players for fun is the easiest thing you can do and the game does not even try to stop you.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Can you take the hollier than thou attitude to the PvP section please?

Your last sentence... You had successfuly detected that I am not a native English speaker.

(It means I didn't understand a thing here)

 

[Robert Maynard]

Of course, it is about freedom of choice.

Indeed it is - there are those who choose to play in a mode where direct PvP is possible, those who choose to play in a mode where direct PvP is less likely and those who choose to play in a mode where direct PvP is not possible.

That's the fundamental choice offered by the game modes.

That some players who obviously prefer direct PvP choose to play in modes other than Open to min/max is also their choice.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Indeed it is - there are those who choose to play in a mode where direct PvP is possible, those who choose to play in a mode where direct PvP is less likely and those who choose to play in a mode where direct PvP is not possible.

That's the fundamental choice offered by the game modes.

That some players who obviously prefer direct PvP choose to play in modes other than Open to min/max is also their choice.

Then why you do not recognise increased effort? Why game does not do it? This is not just aboup PvP and PvE, this is about Goids giving you less Cr/h than terrorist lords as well.
It cannot be called a good game design when you have no reasons to improve at all.

As long as effort increase will be totally balanced by increase in returns, this choise will be fair. ATM, it is just not.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Your last sentence... You had successfully detected that I am not a native English speaker.

(It means I didn't understand a thing here)

That's ok! I didn't mean to confuse.

I was merely having a bit of a laugh. I wouldn't dream of telling anyone where they should post what.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Then why you do not recognise increased effort? Why game does not do it? This is not just aboup PvP and PvE, this is about Goids giving you less Cr/h than terrorist lords as well.
It cannot be called a good game design when you have no reasons to improve at all.

Choosing one game mode over another does not guarantee that increased effort is required - just that it might be required in the case where a multi-player mode is chosen and a CMDR is encountered whose skill, ship, loadout and inclination lead to a hazardous encounter.

Increased reward for encountering hazards is quite reasonable. Quantifying the risk associated in the encounter with a hazard is non-trivial - and can be gamed, i.e. players can collude to gain rewards aimed at confrontational encounters by staging encounters with no confrontation.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Choosing one game mode over another does not guarantee that increased effort is required - just that it might be required in the case where a multi-player mode is chosen and a CMDR is encountered whose skill, ship, loadout and inclination lead to a hazardous encounter.

Increased reward for encountering hazards is quite reasonable. Quantifying the risk associated in the encounter with a hazard is non-trivial - and can be gamed, i.e. players can collude to gain rewards aimed at confrontational encounters by staging encounters with no confrontation.

At least you need knowledge to minimize your effort, as well as your investments in better trade ship.

Technical difficulties do not invalidate principal disparity.

 

[ThePunisher]

If you can be in two places at once, then please teach me this trick senpai!

And no, i don't do the cop killing thing. Not my thing. I do pirate from time to time, but only in Anarchies. Under the old system i do go on an NPC killing rampage and while it was fun having the bounty, it also restricted me too much. So i'd just stick to the legal activities, or slightly naughty stuff like smuggling, which id do in a small fast ship to avoid scans.

So, i'd still not be likely to have a bounty, so you'd still have no way of killing me without copping a bounty yourself.

I think your problem is assuming i will have a bounty so you get to shoot me without problem. I won't

As for the escaping part, i'd be willing to practice with you at some point. I'll be back in the bubble soon-ish, but need to get my new fleet engineered up. Once ready, we can give it a go. As long as i can evade you once, then i can assume a win for PvE over PvP. If i can't escape at all, well, that would be a shame, but in that case, there is always the block feature for future runs

Heck That90skid just let me know what systems your gonna be in would love to show you true pvp, heck im in the cg right now at the first ringed planet in a haz site, come find me and ask for a duel.

 

[Robert Maynard]

At least you need knowledge to minimize your effort, as well as your investments in better trade ship.

This holds regardless of game mode.

Technical difficulties do not invalidate principal disparity.

Technical difficulties can lead to the inadvertent introduction of exploits.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Choosing one game mode over another does not guarantee that increased effort is required - just that it might be required in the case where a multi-player mode is chosen and a CMDR is encountered whose skill, ship, loadout and inclination lead to a hazardous encounter.

Increased reward for encountering hazards is quite reasonable. Quantifying the risk associated in the encounter with a hazard is non-trivial - and can be gamed, i.e. players can collude to gain rewards aimed at confrontational encounters by staging encounters with no confrontation.

Its not like there are no credits farms right now. This whole "players will abuse the system to get rich" doesnt hold any water.
Credits dont mean anything for a long time.

If you encounter a goid vs res site npc you shouldnt get the same reward, same as if you encounter a player vs encountering NPCs.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

This holds regardless of game mode.



Technical difficulties can lead to the inadvertent introduction of exploits.

Not really, you need additional knowledge to dodge players. I have flexible system in mind which would translanslate it.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...t-is-naive-and-completely-false-at-the-moment

• Block functionality disabled.
• Arbitrary layer of PvP criminal activity on the galaxy map, with higher threat yelding higher reward (up to 300%). Those levels should not decrease too fast.
• Moderate increase for selling rare goods to stations which have rare goods of their own, multiplicative or additive with layer of pirate activity.
• If turned off, it would reduce rebuys from PvP causes into nothing. But, I feel some sort of karma system is needed. Also, additional no-PvP flag can be added.

And, the more I think about, any exploits which such system would spawn are not exploits whatsoever. They would just translate real-world "exploits" of criminal elements to ED. Thus, would just add more depth.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If you encounter a goid vs res site npc you shouldnt get the same reward, same as if you encounter a player vs encountering NPCs.

.... just as a player in a fully Engineered meta-combat vessel should not get the same risk based reward that they would would get for destroying a combat vessel when destroying a non-combat vessel.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Not really, you need additional knowledge to dodge players. I have flexible system in mind which would translanslate it.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...t-is-naive-and-completely-false-at-the-moment

• Block functionality disabled.
• Arbitrary layer of PvP criminal activity on the galaxy map, with higher threat yelding higher reward (up to 300%). Those levels should not decrease too fast.
• Moderate increase for selling rare goods to stations which have rare goods of their own, multiplicative or additive with layer of pirate activity.
• If turned off, it would reduce rebuys from PvP causes into nothing. But, I feel some sort of karma system is needed. Also, additional no-PvP flag can be added.

And, the more I think about, any exploits which such system would spawn are not exploits whatsoever. They would just translate real-world "exploits" of criminal elements to ED. Thus, would just add more depth.

The block function exists for a reason - Sandro has posted on it previously - so I doubt that it's going anywhere.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

The block function exists for a reason - Sandro has posted on it previously - so I doubt that it's going anywhere.

I forgot to add first line. It would be a togglable option, with parental control if needed.

For influence, it can be similar. If there would be players in Open present in some systems, which are related to PP/BGS faction, effect from the other modes would be reduced.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If there would be players in Open present in some systems, which are related to PP/BGS faction, effect from the other modes would be reduced.

This would lead to a situation where a player, at dead stop in normal space, undetectable in Open, would influence the effect of Solo / Private Group players on a system - while providing no hazard whatsoever to any players in Open on the same platform.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

.... just as a player in a fully Engineered meta-combat vessel should not get the same risk based reward that they would would get for destroying a combat vessel when destroying a non-combat vessel.

You make yourself availble to other meta combat ships so I dont see why not.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

This would lead to a situation where a player, at dead stop in normal space, undetectable in Open, would influence the effect of Solo / Private Group players on a system - while providing no hazard whatsoever to any players in Open on the same platform.

But, as long as they are in instance with a station/outpost, or in SC not too far from them (but at least allowed to USS hunt in nearby Deep Space, or their life will be miserable), it would be fine.
If they are inside no-fire zone, or not too far from it, they can be excluded. No, station instance does not work. But SC does.
Or it is, as long they are far enough from station lasers.

And they can be made always visible as long as they opt to defend in Open.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

This would lead to a situation where a player, at dead stop in normal space, undetectable in Open, would influence the effect of Solo / Private Group players on a system - while providing no hazard whatsoever to any players in Open on the same platform.

How is he will be influencing the bgs from being in dead space?

 

[Robert Maynard]

How is he will be influencing the bgs from being in dead space?

He wouldn't be - even though his presence in Open would seem to be able to modify the effect of Solo / Private Group players in that system, for no effort, reading the proposal.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

How is he will be influencing the bgs from being in dead space?

No, it was a valid concern. I was talking about diminishing influence changes from other modes, as long as some players patrol there in the Open.