It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.
- Thread starter Chaparral
- Start date
-
- Tags
- kingziggy pvc_community
That would solve a lot of issues.
but… then we need random uber-engineered NPC gank squads ?
The dopamine shot from escaping or turning the tables on your attacker. You are only on the losing side if you decide to ill equip your ship or fly drunk. I enjoy the fact that someone can destroy me if I don't pay attention.
i don't get what the big issue is.
If you kill another commander (not including NPC's) outside of anarchy or combat zones, that is not wanted then you pay their rebuy it's that simple, easy to implement everyone knows where they stand. gankers will suddenly cry, and everyone else will laugh, win win win.
If you kill another commander (not including NPC's) outside of anarchy or combat zones, that is not wanted then you pay their rebuy it's that simple, easy to implement everyone knows where they stand. gankers will suddenly cry, and everyone else will laugh, win win win.
Huh, I think I was supposed to post something here, about how Fdev should do something since it's such a huge complaint, and then envisioning an upgraded, horrible and complicated reputation based new C&P system.
Really they should just make ATR chase bounty like pirates are chasing tasty cargo. Pirates don't have timers, and they drop into instances. At highest infamy things should get like that. And that would be enough.
Really they should just make ATR chase bounty like pirates are chasing tasty cargo. Pirates don't have timers, and they drop into instances. At highest infamy things should get like that. And that would be enough.
Yeah, escaping is fun. I admit I had a few thrilling interactions back in the rare trade days. It was even real pirates ! Such a rare sight nowadays...
Though the interaction cost is still 100% on the potential victim.
I guess it's a bit like gambling where the two outcomes are : Lose, or keep you money. But never gain anything XD
Sort of like restitution. The biggest setbacks come from the loss of data, missions, bounties etc. though...
Sure, let's discuss state law when FDev is a British company. Having spent most of my adult working life either inside a courtroom or preparing for court/settlement (in the UK I might add) for Employment issues (with a substantial number of these being harassment suits), you will not find any single example of harassment for an individual act, unless it is explicitly serious in nature (which I don't think PKing is). You see, judges have to assess whether its reasonable for a particular act to have caused harm or distress to any reasonable person in order for it to be deemed harassment and, indeed, unlawful. Therefore, unless a singular act is particularly serious, it isn't ever considered harassment in a UK court. Not ever.
Now, are you done with your obsession over my legal background yet? Because I could educate you all evening but its becoming less and less directly relevant to the OP, and its never nice to embarrass an ex-serviceman.
Last edited:
Well, to me a couple of smallish steps could give logical effective results.
1) A reputation value (call it Pilots Federation Reputation if you will) is incremented with any illegal destruction you carry out. This value takes considerable time to decay. eg: Weeks... And it only reduces with time...
2) Once this reputation value gets to a reasonable level punishments are applied. So a few illegal destructions over a given period are ignored. But once you start acting like a habitual psycho, you get noticed. The more you continue the more punishments are applied to you.
3) Punishments could vary from more and more stations and indeed whole systems denying you access. To you being highlighted to other Pilots Federation members (on their scanner) immediately as a threat (known psycho). To the ATR turning up more and more often in your instance. To a Pilots Federation Bounty being applied to you to make you a legal target everywhere.
4) Non-government/No Population systems should default to "Security: None" not "Security: Anarchy". Only systems with an anarchy government can enforce an anarchy system. Thus at Beagle Point, "illegally" destroying a CMDR will be noticed rather than ignored.
There...
Last edited:
1) It is possible to have conflict without loss. You have not denied that. Elite's expectations and mechanics have shifted since launch. The point of this thread is to encourage a shift.
2) You and I will have to respectfully disagree on this point. We have different perspectives on what constitutes punishment.
3)No player chooses to have a progress reset. A player, within the context of ED Open accepts the risk of progress reset to socialize with others. That risk is not consistent with other game mechanics.
I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this. I think we both care about giving the best possible experience to players.
Scaling challenges with rewards is always the toughest part of game design. In this instance, I think there is something off about FDEVs motivations and implementation.
If I understand you correctly, your perception is that the risk is appropriate for the reward. (Flying in open - whatever the motivation - has greater risks than not flying in open - suck it up and don't be a baby about it).
07
1. It is possible to have conflict without loss, I never denied that. However, you don't get to conflate that as 'when there is loss, there should be no consequence'.
2. it's not about perspective, it's about definition. Definitions don't require your agreement, they exist with or without it.
3. At this point, I suspect you are wilfully obfuscating. The choices you make lead to consequences. If you go into a warzone without body armour, and you get shot, and die, you have only yourself to blame. Think of open as a warzone. You haven't argued against this at all. I'm not saying people CHOOSE to get killed, I'm saying it's the choices they make that get them killed. Big difference, so I suggest you start paying attention to it.
I'm not saying 'don't be a baby about it'. I'm saying, take responsibility for your choices. I'm currently 20kly from the bubble in a Sidewinder with no armour, and no shields. If something sneezes at me, I'm dead. I also fly entirely in open. When I get to back to the bubble with all my data (and I have a lot), I'm going to have to tread carefully. Fortunately, my 'winder isn't entirely defenceless, what with its enhanced performance drives with grade 5 dirty drive tuning with drag drives, and a top-notch pilot at the helm able to thread needles with a blindfold on and FA off, I have a pretty good chance of surviving an encounter, as I've done with multiple gank attempts on me with similar builds for a few years now. And that's only if they manage to interdict me. I'm pretty good at evading those, too, and not just after they've begun, but long before it, when I see players in the same system as me, I'm already making preparations as if they're an imminent threat to my progress. But IF I do die, if someone does get me, then I am at least in part responsible for that loss because of choices I've made. Maybe even mistakes that I've made. Now don't get me wrong, the ganker is responsible too. He's firing the guns. But that's why he gets a bounty on him, gets notoriety so he can't pay it off right away, amongst other PUNISHMENTS for his behaviour. Those are punishments, handed down to him by in-game automated legal proceedings.
Would it be frustrating? Yes. Of course it is. Would it make me mad if it happened? I suspect it would. Am I going to jump on the forums and complain and demand things change to make the game easier for me? No. I'm going to learn from it, figure out exactly what went wrong, what mistakes I made, what tricks my ganker used to beat me, and take steps to make sure I'm prepared for such eventualities in the future. Human progress is entirely the result of struggle, pain, and suffering through trial and error, as is any real learning experience. Hell, just ask anyone that's been, or is going, to school. Learning is torturous. But knowledge is power.
Deleted member 115407
D
I just want to blow up other people's spaceships.
The thing is.. You are allocating RL Justice to a gaming environment. A gaming environment while mentioning harassment, does not necessarily equate to a RL harassment, while tentative, the punishment will never amount to much more than can be handled in-game. FDev can do no more than at worst ban a player for whatever the in-game crime is.
The real question is; Does Frontier equate what I am calling in-game harassment as their idea of in-game harassment. Additionally, it is up to FDev to determine whether the severity of the harassment warrants a full ban, a shadow ban or nothing at all.
I'm not in any way informed on UK law surrounding Harassment. In Ireland both Civilian & Military, Harassment only has to happen once for it to be considered Harassment. If a person feels aggrieved by some action, then it is through mediation and HR practises to determine the outcome. The problem facing most HR companies here is that the employee may go to a civilian court and make a claim against the company, which is usually upheld in favour of the claimant.
Anyways, back to Elite;
I still claim (opinionated), a player knowingly joining a PvE only group with the express intention to join so they can kill players is harassment, malicious and indeed, against the EULA. And should be treated and handled as such. That's my opinion and not necessarily the opinion of others.
have good weekend,
o7
Grand Theft Auto did this well, you could go on a crazy rampage and blow up stuff, and the game would consequently try to get your character killed too. It's great. The Elder Scrolls games did this also. In Elite, it's like nothing happens really.
We're already paying your rebuys.
Why do you even bother to play the game?
Maybe a farming sim would be appropriate.
Not our fault the AI can't kill us.
It wasn't us who complained that it was too difficult.
That question has already been, by and large, answered by Fdev (which has been copied into this thread already.
In Lehman's terms, unless a player does something serious or persists in targeting one group or individual, Fdev won't get involved.
So when Fdev themselves have stated, albeit diplomatically, that initial instances of PG rule-breaking will not be punished, its difficult to see the argument of it breaking the EULA and being ban worthy.
Have a grand weekend too. 07
Indeed.
Inaccurate.
Player choice of ship design has established these conditions.
I encountered Mr Potter and his gank squad on DW2 as well, and shrugged off their attacks because I had a basic engineered low weight small-class reinforced shield that was designed for it and cost me very little in terms of jump range or module space. I lived. From what I could see HP himself was killed by the station in the attempt. So I must contest your notion that the game is "designed" to support gankers. I didn't even fight back and he still died.
Here is a link to the kind of shields you can get that will ignore PVP attacks without impacting your current build. The total engineering time is maybe 1hr. Time well spent. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...amity-through-lightweight-solid-shield-builds The shield I used to shrug off the notorious gankers attacks were 1/5 the strength in the above build, so the build in the link is over kill, yet costs almost nothing in terms of jump range or module space.
Last edited:
The AI is fine. And no, it's not your fault. The thing about crazy rampages in GTA is that your character will die, if you choose stay in the same spot, for too long.
Huh. We actually kind of have that with ATR.
They're a bit on the stupid side though.
They actually gave them station guns to compensate for their lack of intelligence.
It's been both hilarious and sad watching the descent into madness this game has undergone.
We never were the enemy.
We're just players.
But we've been treated like second class citizens.
Most of us don't even smack talk other players until the other guy starts in on us.
It's pathetic.
Deleted member 115407
D
Pearls... hopefully this helps some of the folks who are more interested in learning than they are blaming everything and everyone else for their own stubbornness and lack of understanding.