It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.

[Amargosa]

I'd be all in for cmdrs killed by other cmdrs not losing anything (so 0% insurance, data kept, npc minion staying alive, no respawning 1000's of Lys away etc) - as long as they finally fixed combat logging. So clog = automatic death, pretty explosion rendered where the ship disappeared, (zero cost) rebuy screen for the other side, regardless of whether it was deliberate unplugging or network error.

Why would anyone even bother to combatlog if they're not going to lose anything at all? If you want to bait people into combatlogging under such a scenario, you'd have to inflict some other punishment, something like for example listing their death count in target info screen.

 

[Ephraim Stone]

Why would anyone even bother to combatlog if they're not going to lose anything at all? If you want to bait people into combatlogging under such a scenario, you'd have to inflict some other punishment, something like for example listing their death count in target info screen.

That's a win-win right? People won't clog because they know they're not going to lose anything.

If anything would encourage them to try fighting back.

 

[Chaparral]

That's a win-win right? People won't clog because they know they're not going to lose anything.

If anything would encourage them to try fighting back.

I agree completely.

 

[mossfoot]

There is a marked difference between risk, and the illusion of it. If that electrical storm can't actually blow up your ship, then it's just some fancy lighting and sound, with maybe some turbulence. They say they want the former, but really, they want the latter. If Frontier implemented some good way to preserve most of an Explorer's time and progress, then I do believe most of them would totally get behind real risk, but we aren't there yet.

It's funny that you mention the opportunity to prepare for danger, and caution allowing you to prevail, and the current DW2 situation in the same post as if they were not applicable to each other prior to the launch date.

There are differences between environmental hazards that are part of the game and human players acting outside of it - for one thing, no NPCs tried to attack the explorers, or tracked them down just to shove their face in a toilet. When I prepare to survive the dangers of space exploring, I should be thinking about things like unexpected gravity and high heat... not drunken frat boys. I enjoy encountering PvPers in the bubble and evading or running away from them (and, on occasion, engaging), but Distant Ganks? It makes no sense, is mean spirited, and is just dumb.

And I while I can't say I speak for all explorers (perhaps not even many), I'm not interested in the illusion of risk. Neutron stars still fry unwary commanders, for example. You say "if that electrical storm can't actually blow up your ship" - but there's a difference between "can" and "will always."

Personally, I'd be thrilled if it became difficult to escape a black hole beyond a certain threshold, and even the idea of getting caught in the "exclusion zone" would equal instant death. But, you see, there's that buffer - you know getting too close is hazardous. You have a chance to turn back.

The idea of going into a storm and getting insta-killed only works if those storms are supposed to always be avoided - flashes in the horizon of that cloud? Turn back and run. As soon as you give people a reason to go inside (even if it's just pretty pictures), you need to be able to have a way to weather it, and weigh the risks vs the rewards.

A storm, for example, should do damage to your shields (or, maybe even, in Star Trek II fashion, make the shield drop), and the damage taken while in it should be such that you WILL die if you stay too long, but at the same time you should have the opportunity to know when to turn back.

Like I said earlier, accidentally running into that mollusk almost killed me. If I had been in a weaker ship, it would have. And if I had been thousands of light years away, I'd still have to get around in my damaged ship till I could get it repaired.

That's the good stuff, to me. But any mechanic that has you doomed before you even start isn't going to make anyone happy.

 

[voidwalker]

True, but the initial comment suggested compromising what they wanted to do. ie: Explorers might just want to explore in a ship tightly outfitted to exploration requirements, and not compromise their goal/fun/time/effort arming up.

And as for these explorers making the obvious mistake of daring to go into OPEN... Yes you're right. It was their mistake. It was their mistake to forget about a certain minority of individuals who garner grief from needlessly destroying them. It was their mistake to expect even just a modicum of good grace in the midst of such a community event. And it was their mistake to forget than even after 3-4yrs, FD still haven't put in any sort of sensible C&P mechanics in place for such behaviour.

It's not a mistake to go into open as an explorer, and I'm saying that as someone who's explored in open exclusively ever since there's been a game to exlore in, and you aren't compromising the exploration you want to do by giving yourself the ability to defend yourself. You are actually reinforcing what you want to do, by virtue of being capable of surviving the trip home to hand in all your data. It's always a matter of choice: not choices other people make for you, but choices you make yourself. And if you choose to make yourself defenceless, you shouldn't be surprised when the inevitable happens.

 

[H0BBS]

Yep, thats elite dangerous

The entire game should have been open only from the start.

Agreed 1000%. Fdev should remove private and solo.

 

[voidwalker]

There are differences between environmental hazards that are part of the game and human players acting outside of it - for one thing, no NPCs tried to attack the explorers, or tracked them down just to shove their face in a toilet. When I prepare to survive the dangers of space exploring, I should be thinking about things like unexpected gravity and high heat... not drunken frat boys. I enjoy encountering PvPers in the bubble and evading or running away from them (and, on occasion, engaging), but Distant Ganks? It makes no sense, is mean spirited, and is just dumb.

First of all, the NPCs used to be exactly like that. They got dumbed-down because people didn't think they should have a responsibility to defend themselves if they were 'just exploring' or 'just trading'. NPCs out in the middle of nowhere, no, that shouldn't happen (or should it? I'm undecided on this matter because there are arguments to be made for either/or). NPCs attacking you in the bubble on your way home? Yes, absolutely should happen. And I say that as an explorer. There's no threat from NPCs anymore, and the only danger I ever face as an explorer is from players. That's why I stick to open. Because no risk is boring. And no, there's no risk from 'unexpected gravity' and 'high heat' that aren't easy to mitigate, so don't go there.

Secondly, and on that note, prepping to face the 'dangers' of deep space is easy. Because there is no danger. I'm 20k ly away from the bubble in a Sidewinder right now. If you know what you're doing, it's impossible to overheat, impossible to run out of fuel, impossible to crash on high-g worlds, impossible to get surprised by high gravity (because it tells you straight up in the system map what gravity a planet has, duh), and there is no threat to me. None. The only prep I needed for all of that stuff is a coupla heat sinks and a fuel scoop. With heat sink synthesis, a good stock of mats, and conservative usage, heat is no issue. With a fuel scoop, and fuel-stars marked on my route filter, I'll never run out of fuel. As for high-g worlds - please, nothing that G5 dirty drive with drag drives on enhanced performance engines can't handle. Speaking of which, that's my defence, and the only one I need. Almost 800m/s, and most ships fit for PVP can't even get pointed at me to fire a shot before I'm already high-waking. Oh don't get me wrong, if they did get a shot, I'd be plastered all over space with little more than a sneeze, and with 20k of data, that's no small loss.

Do you know what, though? It wouldn't bother me. Because it's just a sidewinder, and it's not like I can't go exploring for more data to sell. I don't explore for the money. I explore for the novelty of it alone. The experience. Money in this game is easy, but if it's money I want, I don't go exploring.

As for distant ganks "making no sense" and "being mean spirited", you're attributing intention without actually knowing anything about anyone doing it. Just because you can't make sense of it, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I think it makes a lot of sense. I've had more than a few explorers already ask me for advice on how to avoid losing ships to such gameplay, because a threat has been identified, and rather than give up and abandon open, they want to keep on keeping on, with the ability to mitigate the risk they'll be taking on as they go. They have the right attitude, by virtue of not asking to have their hands held by the developers and are, instead, applying the tools already available to them in the game to make their experience more survivable. As for "being mean spirited"... well, der. Ever game needs its villains. In Elite, the only villains with any real threat value are players, because the NPCs are all generic cookie-cutter carbon-copies of each other with no spirit at all, mean or otherwise.

 

[Guest193293]

impossible to crash on high-g worlds, impossible to get surprised by high gravity

With no flight assist it can happen, that's why I play with flight assist off, I need to be careful all the time.
And some NPC's the other day did try to interdict me, happened two times, mostly not what you are talking about before they changed that, by the way, how the NPC's were before?

 

[space voyager]

Repped!
I fully agree with your post.

I'm playing DW2 in SOLO all the time because of this.

In my opinion a players that get killed by another player without responding to fire should be see a different rebuy scenario:

-rebuy fee applicable to ship only, modules should be restored for free
-no loss of data
-he/she should respawn in the previous visited system

With these 3 conditions I would return to play in OPEN.

Repped both OP and your post.

I'd add survival of SLF pilot. That bothers me more than in-game money. It means A LOT of my RL time.

 

[Chaparral]

First of all, the NPCs used to be exactly like that. They got dumbed-down because people didn't think they should have a responsibility to defend themselves if they were 'just exploring' or 'just trading'. NPCs out in the middle of nowhere, no, that shouldn't happen. NPCs attacking you in the bubble on your way home? Yes, absolutely should happen. And I say that as an explorer. There's no threat from NPCs anymore, and the only danger I ever face as an explorer is from players. That's why I stick to open. Because no risk is boring. And no, there's no risk from 'unexpected gravity' and 'high heat' that aren't easy to mitigate, so don't go there.

Secondly, and on that note, prepping to face the 'dangers' of deep space is easy. Because there is no danger. I'm 20k ly away from the bubble in a Sidewinder right now. If you know what you're doing, it's impossible to overheat, impossible to run out of fuel, impossible to crash on high-g worlds, impossible to get surprised by high gravity (because it tells you straight up in the system map what gravity a planet has, duh), and there is no threat to me. None. The only prep I needed for all of that stuff is a coupla heat sinks and a fuel scoop. With heat sink synthesis, a good stock of mats, and conservative usage, heat is no issue. With a fuel scoop, and fuel-stars marked on my route filter, I'll never run out of fuel. As for high-g worlds - please, nothing that G5 dirty drive with drag drives on enhanced performance engines can't handle. Speaking of which, that's my defence, and the only one I need. Almost 800m/s, and most ships fit for PVP can't even get pointed at me to fire a shot before I'm already high-waking. Oh don't get me wrong, if they did get a shot, I'd be plastered all over space with little more than a sneeze, and with 20k of data, that's no small loss.

Do you know what, though? It wouldn't bother me. Because it's just a sidewinder, and it's not like I can't go exploring for more data to sell. I don't explore for the money. I explore for the novelty of it alone. The experience. Money in this game is easy, but if it's money I want, I don't go exploring.

As for distant ganks "making no sense" and "being mean spirited", you're attributing intention without actually knowing anything about anyone doing it. Just because you can't make sense of it, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I think it makes a lot of sense. I've had more than a few explorers already ask me for advice on how to avoid losing ships to such gameplay, because a threat has been identified, and rather than give up and abandon open, they want to keep on keeping on, with the ability to mitigate the risk they'll be taking on as they go. They have the right attitude, by virtue of not asking to have their hands held by the developers and are, instead, applying the tools already available to them in the game to make their experience more survivable. As for "being mean spirited"... well, der. Ever game needs its villains. In Elite, the only villains with any real threat value are players, because the NPCs are all generic cookie-cutter carbon-copies of each other with no spirit at all, mean or otherwise.

Have you been in a CZ lately? How about a Pirate Threat 7? How about an Elite assassination mission? They are not what they used to be.

You're in a sidewinder 20kly from the bubble. You're kind of missing the point of the thread which is that many players want social interaction without instancing exclusions, and that the current model levies a rebuy asset loss tax on that interaction.

You're solution is to run from encounters.

You're perception of other players motivations centers on them wanting an "easy experience", where what they want is a social experience.

You're having an empathy breakdown. Your perception is that other players have a weak character or are soft in not taking advantage of the game mechanics to protect themselves. The other players look at you in a puzzled way and say, why would I want to be like you?

The other players just want to socialize, they don't want to run away or fight to be able to do it.

Yeah yeah the galaxy is dangerous. This is a game. Res zones, czs, thargoids, are all partitioned. Even interdictions can be beat (from npcs). PG and Solo can be used to mitigate danger as well.

However, PGs and Solo make socialization much more difficult. Instancing, and meeting new people is much harder in those modes. So the socialization portal of Open, has the built in weird tax.

You can say it's to preserve the realism of space being scary, but the rest of the mechanics scream partitioned choice in interaction. It is this one area where players are punished for trying to be social. Creepy bad design in my opinion.

 

[RagingxPenguin]

Don't fly tin cans in open. Crazy we still go over this years after launch.


and if you're going to insist on flying the tin can, you better make sure it goes like a raccoon after eating a bag of coffee out of the trash. Otherwise....

This is gonna be you...

 

[Guest193293]

Why the PVP rebuy need a 'revisit' ? you are talking about a social experience, you can talk through the chat to socialize and communicate, why anyone would start to attack if they really want a social experience?

 

[voidwalker]

Have you been in a CZ lately? How about a Pirate Threat 7? How about an Elite assassination mission? They are not what they used to be.

Of course they're 'not what they used to be'. Doesn't mean they're not easy. They are. And the NPCs remain dumb, predictable, and cookie-cutter.

You're in a sidewinder 20kly from the bubble. You're kind of missing the point of the thread which is that many players want social interaction without instancing exclusions, and that the current model levies a rebuy asset loss tax on that interaction.

I'm getting the point of the thread just fine. My post was a response to a specific point made by a specific post in this thread, not to the thread itself. Context is everything, darling.

You're solution is to run from encounters.

Where the encounter is a serious threat, and you are not armed, what other choice do you have?

Your perception of other players motivations centers on them wanting an "easy experience", where what they want is a social experience.

So.... you're just going to have a pleasant social chat with the marauders? Okay, if that's your choice....

You're having an empathy breakdown. Your perception is that other players have a weak character or are soft in not taking advantage of the game mechanics to protect themselves. The other players look at you in a puzzled way and say, why would I want to be like you?

Now this one here, this is judgemental. An empathy breakdown? Even if that were true, there is absolutely nothing in the game rules, or the law, nor any moral obligation, to give one seventeenth of a poop about anyone else's personal problems. So I'll thank you not to practice your armchair-analyses on me, if you don't mind. They aren't just irrelevant, they are purely pejorative by virtue of being uninformed. Also, I'm autistic, so if I lack empathy (which I don't, it's just reserved for people with real problems, not first-world video game problems), I have a good excuse. Deal with it.

Do you know what gives me the perception that players are weak? The fact that they are asking to have their hands held, instead of using the tools that are readily available to look after themselves. This has nothing to do with 'being like me'. I don't want people to be like me. I want them to learn how the game works, and use it to their advantage, rather than dumbing it down any further than it already has been for the sake of abstract personal problems.

This whole 'but muh social experience' is a red herring. The game already allows for a social experience. Whether or not you survive that social experience is based upon how you choose to function within the universe, that is to say, if you choose to be defenceless, you don't get to whine when the inevitable happens.

Yeah yeah the galaxy is dangerous. This is a game. Res zones, czs, thargoids, are all partitioned. Even interdictions can be beat (from npcs). PG and Solo can be used to mitigate danger as well.

EVE Online is a game. XCOM is a game. There are lots of dangerous, unforgiving games out there. What's your point? Again, though, no one is being punished for trying to be social. This is the intellectual equivalent of "taxes are theft!" and I get enough of that intellectually bankrupt nonsense from ancaps. It has no place in a reasonable point or conversation, so you can take your hyperbole and try it on someone else. It might work on a small child with under-developed cranial capacity. Or a dog. Who knows. But it won't work on me. Because at the end of the day, once again, your experience all comes down to YOUR CHOICES.

 

[Captain Willard]

Agreed 1000%. Fdev should remove private and solo.

Some serious anger issues here. I play in solo and pg solely. Open is just an annoyance for me and adds nothing to the game.
I would still never say get rid of open. Everyone gets to play their own game. All three modes have their worth.

 

[voidwalker]

Some serious anger issues here. I play in solo and pg solely. Open is just an annoyance for me and adds nothing to the game.
I would still never say get rid of open. Everyone gets to play their own game. All three modes have their worth.

That's quite the assumption. How do you know he's motivated by anger? Why are you attributing emotional motivation to words on a screen?

 

[C64Fan]

Some serious anger issues here. I play in solo and pg solely. Open is just an annoyance for me and adds nothing to the game.
I would still never say get rid of open. Everyone gets to play their own game. All three modes have their worth.

1000 +Rep to you if I could - but you’ll have to be okay with the one I gave you. Here’s 999 virtual +Rep then [up].

 

[Chaparral]

Why the PVP rebuy need a 'revisit' ? you are talking about a social experience, you can talk through the chat to socialize and communicate, why anyone would start to attack if they really want a social experience?

Clearly DW2 is a social experience within the context of exploration, mining and construction cgs. It's not just about typing in text chat. Did you really need to read this to understand this?

 

[Guest193293]

Clearly DW2 is a social experience within the context of exploration, mining and construction cgs. It's not just about typing in text chat. Did you really need to read this to understand this?

then why the rebuy need a 'revisit'?

 

[BinakAlgo]

If there was a checkbox for Private-Group owners to turn "player vs player damage: off" the problem would be solved. People could fly save from gankers in big private groups.

This sounds like the most simple solution. Maybe even add it to Open and that's it. Of course, it should not be possible to turn it on/off in the middle of a battle or an interdiction and "fast exits" would award the pursuer a kill or something.

Maybe it is because I don't know about programming but it seems like a feature very easy to implement.

 

[Captain Willard]

This sounds like the most simple solution. Maybe even add it to Open and that's it. Of course, it should not be possible to turn it on/off in the middle of a battle or an interdiction and "fast exits" would award the pursuer a kill or something.

Maybe it is because I don't know about programming but it seems like a feature very easy to implement.

Would never work. How many open players logging in to instances only to find all no pvp flags on