Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Havvk]

if you ever played WoW, they recently introduced a concept called War Mode which can be turned on and off at capital cities. That system replaced the dedicated PVP servers as now people can simply activate war mode with a click of a button.
Anyhow, when it was introduced Blizzard knew nobody will EVER turn it on because of ganking. So what did they do? they added incentives and rewards to War Mode to encourage people to play in War Mode. You got more XP, better loot etc etc.

So to some degree I agree with the OP. not only ED has zero activities around PVP, but they provide ZERO incentives for players to play in open.

here are some example they can implement to incentivize people to play in open.

1) mining - 10% increased yield in fragments generations. that applies to core, sub-surface and laser
2) material gathering - 15% increased yield for all materials gathered from high graded emissions
3) mission rewards - 10% increase for all mission rewards (credits, mats etc)

That will never make me want to come into open.


Stop it.



The real fix is making the C&P system actually feel like criminals are appropriately "punished" for their "crimes". Like an actual bounty system where the bounty hunter can collect the FULL bounty upon success. Not just a tiny fraction of the target's current ship value, for example. Unsure how it is now since I gave up on combat a long while ago, not worth it, it's not even fun. AI is harder at harmless than Elite. what kind of scaling does FDev use for its AI?. That's B.S. and just makes Combat stay as the $h|ttiest paying in-game proffession, despite being the most dangerous

 

[soloe]

Ok, so if he’s struggling to find meaningful PvP, why is he making suggestions on getting people out of SOLO into open? Who is in SOLO looking for PvP.

See what I’m saying? It doesn’t make sense.

Maybe it's just too subtle for me to see it in the OP but where is he suggesting that solo or pg players should go to or even forced into open mode? Honest question cause after reading through itthe third time, I still don't find a similar statement.

 

[Rubbernuke]

What Rubbernuke has suggested has basically been "make people who don't want to do PvP do PvP".

Its making the mode actually something rather than a concept salad. Plus, this is my preferred option, which is really an embellished Sandro proposal:

Powerplay proposal: split tasks to suit each mode, elaborates on Sandros last ideas

Please be aware this suggestion has been superseded by more recent ones like this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal-strong-anti-5c-mode-specific-plus-other-tweaks.552045/ For reference: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal.426940/#post6696898...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Everyone gets a role, just better defined. Those who want PvE get it, those who want PvP get it- but both are required to work.

Which doesn't strike me as terribly meaningful to anyone except griefers.

Its structured teamplay via big wings- all activity is attenuated via PvP and then makes Powerplay an actual stand out alternative to the multi mode BGS.

And this seems to be based on a conflation between Powerplay and PvP, assuming that everyone doing Powerplay should automatically also be doing PvP. Which is not correct, Powerplay is not an inherently PvP mode. It's a competitive mode which can be affected by PvP but can also be purely PvE. So the requirement must remain for people who don't want to do PvP but do want to do Powerplay to be able to engage with that mode.

You never actually answered my reply where i explain your error either. Perhaps you need to go and read it. Powerplay comes in two halves, gathering and delivering. The former is PvE, but the latter is...well, nothing in solo and PG. You are free to deliver without danger. In Open that space is rather different, leading to more complex outcomes but why bother if you can block, log etc? This in turn leads to a narrowing of roles to simple faster gathering...not exactly riveting when CGs, IIs, missions do it in a way thats actually fun.

 

[Havvk]

You're assuming these other cmdrs will want to pvp. I play in open always and I'm not a ganker. I like the excitement and danger but most cmdrs apparently do not want it. They lose their ships (even though they have insurance) and they look at that as time invested. Now, I have a suggestion that may help. I think that a cmdr that has notoriety should not have insurance. What insurance company is gonna insure a murdering skanky pirate? None. Might make regular gankers think twice about flying into non anarchy systems killing folks if they feel they may lose their ships with no re buy. Notorious pirates wouldn't be insured. Players may come out in open more with this. At least the ones I suggested it said they would.

Solutions like this is desperately needed.

Is it harsh? Yes.

But come on man. You can't expect me to believe that making non-combat CMDRS(whether they're exploring/trading/hauling/flying their space cows for PP) have a hard time playing the game with PvPers getting in their way, but it's NOT okay if PvPers are being hit with in-game obstacles that makes their gameplay harder in a similar regard. It just makes a very unfair game that can wash into the community and make only more toxicity between PvE/PvP to the point of making Leage of Legends community look like a gaggle of carebears

 

[WeComeInPeace]

I hope for your sake that your PvP game is as strong as your sledging game is.

Well, the dissing is half the fun. I'm pretty sure he will be able to kill me, but I fight dirty and very irrational.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

Maybe it's just too subtle for me to see it in the OP but where is he suggesting that solo or pg players should go to or even forced into open mode? Honest question cause after reading through itthe third time, I still don't find a similar statement.

After a brief read back over the OP, I note that at least 3 times he writes ‘No incentive to play in open’, I took that to mean he felt there should be.

 

[Havvk]

Player A: I want PVP
Game: Too large to contain everyone into a single place plus single player/private groups
Player A: Change the game so I can play the way I want
Game: CQC?
Player A: it's poopoo, nobody is ever there
Game: cool story bruh

Conclusion: Majority does not want to PVP.

Personally i don't care, never had issues being ganked and i don't even own larger ships. But i seldom play anymore so what do i know

This. This is all everybody needs to know. Love it or hate it, CQC is a PVP mode. Period.

Nobody plays it?





Well what does that tell you, genius?! Maybe PvP isn't really popular because nobody gives a flying rat's behind about it!!!!!

 

[Rubbernuke]

This. This is all everybody needs to know. Love it or hate it, CQC is a PVP mode. Period.

Nobody plays it?





Well what does that tell you, genius?! Maybe PvP isn't really popular because nobody gives a flying rat's behind about it!!!!!

Or, that its not PvP with the ships you have worked on in the game maybe? CQC has its place as quick fun, but it pales compared to using the variety of ships, loadouts and tactics from the main game.

That, and being left to rot by the devs for almost the same time as Powerplay.

 

[GloatingSwine]

You never actually answered my reply where i explain your error either. Perhaps you need to go and read it. Powerplay comes in two halves, gathering and delivering. The former is PvE, but the latter is...well, nothing in solo and PG. You are free to deliver without danger. In Open that space is rather different, leading to more complex outcomes but why bother if you can block, log etc? This in turn leads to a narrowing of roles to simple faster gathering...not exactly riveting when CGs, IIs, missions do it in a way thats actually fun.

You haven't actually done anything but restate the same assumption that Powerplay is inherently PvP though.

Delivering powerplay cargo is intentionally possible in a purely PvE environment because you can do it in solo. That means that your assumption that PvP must be involved in that part of the activity is simply wrong.

Powerplay is not an inherently PvP activity, and so there should be no requirement on players engaging in Powerplay to accept PvP as part of that engagment, no matter which mode they play in.

Which your suggestion of locking people out of avoiding PvP if they are in powerplay in open would do.

The only people who actually benefit from that are griefers who want to engage in PvP specifically with people who don't want to engage in PvP.

 

[Havvk]

Or, that its not PvP with the ships you have worked on in the game maybe? CQC has its place as quick fun, but it pales compared to using the variety of ships, loadouts and tactics from the main game.

That's also the issue. Everybody wants to fight but the moment you take the toys away(in this case, the min-maxed purpose-built murderhobo ships) they cry foul. CQC is supposed to even that out by making you use preset ships to make it more of a possibilty to not get absolutely sh|t on with a lose streak of like 1500 losses to 0 wins in 400 hours of CQC.

For example, I like PvP on occasion. But I can't learn how to get better if I can't even be allowed to move from spawn before being insta spawn killed over and over again, for example.

Only thing I learned is just quit playing the damn game, cuz I'm no masochist thanks very much.

 

[NeilF]

Yes, Powerplay should have orchestrated interesting PvP (for those interested).

Yes, CQC should have been part of the core game, offering engaging and interesting PvE and PvP (for those interested).

Yes, Piracy should have been a solid thought out career with depth and progression.

Yes, a Crime and Punishment mechanic should have been introduced to offer a simple and meaningful way to prevent (repeat) mindless destruction.

Yes, Squadrons aligned to Powerplay Powers should have orchestrated PvP (for those interested).

Yes, Squadron Fleet Carriers should have orchestrated PvP (for those interested).

Yes, for 5-6yrs the games has repeatedly been subjected to development and design which has unbalanced it, and all too often shown repeatedly little/no ability to add involved, layered mechanics and gameplay.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That's also the issue. Everybody wants to fight but the moment you take the toys away(in this case, the min-maxed purpose-built murderhobo ships) they cry foul. CQC is supposed to even that out by making you use preset ships to make it more of a possibilty to not get absolutely sh|t on with a lose streak of like 1500 losses to 0 wins in 400 hours of CQC.

For example, I like PvP on occasion. But I can't learn how to get better if I can't even be allowed to move from spawn before being insta spawn killed over and over again, for example.

Only thing I learned is just quit playing the damn game, cuz I'm no masochist thanks very much.

What ED needs is a PvP heavy main mode, to compliment CQC 1:1 arenas.

I've never heard anyone cry foul about taking toys away (other than Packhounds and premium ammo)- people want to fight using wacky ships sometimes too, just as wanting to fight in a more wider, organised context. If that can be done in an isolated way then why not?

 

[Schmack]

But thats the driver of the problem, if people have a get out clause it will shape how they react- if you knew you had no other choice than to give in and drop cargo, or fight / flee you'd change how you play the game. As it stands in Open people can get out of any situation to the detriment of building a cohesive ecosystem. By having solo, logging etc people don't change habits (build better, fly better, learn, team up).

should be locked into your gametime as a consequence of making a mistake, otherwise whats the point? You don't learn or improve, or challenge yourself to overcome.

'Exploit' is probably not the word I'd use, but its close to it- logging is an ejection handle that is too indiscriminate, used by people who don't fully grasp what Open is, and are unwilling to be content for others (just as they are content for you). People play along until its "nope!", so the pirate gets nothing and the trader gets away destroying the building blocks of an Open ecosystem.

What risk does the ganker take? They are in a ship kitted completely out, likely not that expensive of a build most of the time, that can be completely replaced via a relative small rebuy... not hauling cargo. They gank a ship they know is built for cargo or mining or both. What risk do they have? Basically none. Did that pirate use relog to get their engineering materials? Did they use relog to get the money for their rebuys? Did they relog to refresh the mission screens at any time? If so they logged out of the game to get better circumstances and avoid grind.

I am against combat logging but mostly for people who choose combat and then CL when losing.

The game doesn't have the mechanics for proper pirating or PvP (as has been stated numerous times already). If it did, there would be a prompt for you to release x amount of cargo, instead of needing to do the math in your head and just dump stuff instead. Since griefers exist, every gank is primed to be a grief attempt just as every snake is primed to be poisonous.

Like many here, I would welcome actual piracy RPing and would either duke it out with them or give some cargo, but when dealing with real people, you get real people results.

So for PvPers who want more targets that won't CL, do stupid things win stupid prizes. This only applies to people who do stupid things.

This doesn't cover actually consensual PvP with teams and duels and such, those are completely cool, just not my thing.

 

[Rubbernuke]

You haven't actually done anything but restate the same assumption that Powerplay is inherently PvP though.

Currently Powerplay in Open allows PvP to drastically affect the game. The issue I've been talking about its that even after pledging (gate 1), selecting open (gate 2) you can still log out, and block players. This breaks Open as far as Powerplay because its herding cats trying to have gentlemans rules. You migth as well forget and grind, which is issue 2 and has made Powerplay an unappealing second rate cousin to the BGS.

Delivering powerplay cargo is intentionally possible in a purely PvE environment because you can do it in solo. That means that your assumption that PvP must be involved in that part of the activity is simply wrong.

And as I explained, if you are fortifying and I catch you in Open, is it right you can log without consequence to deliver, and then block me? That breaks Open even when you have other modes to do Powerplay in.

Powerplay is not an inherently PvP activity, and so there should be no requirement on players engaging in Powerplay to accept PvP as part of that engagment, no matter which mode they play in.

And as I explained above, when in Open PvP becomes very important because you can really mess up rival powers. What you are saying is because you can log in one mode, its acceptable in all of them despite it defeating the spirit of that mode.

Which your suggestion of locking people out of avoiding PvP if they are in powerplay in open would do.

If its done properly no-one is denied modules or helping a power. Currently Powerplay is a one dimensional grind race, the same as CGs, IIs- its two open ended massacre / cargo run missions. Without opens complexity it will never be anything more than that, and will always be in the shadow of the BGS. But if you keep Open as it is, it can't even reach its potential.

The only people who actually benefit from that are griefers who want to engage in PvP specifically with people who don't want to engage in PvP.

Powerplay is about pledging to someone, sticking your head above the parapet and saying "I am right" to the expense of others. Its not a sin to shoot rivals, and if you choose open today it should be the mode that have consequences, and not have the same clauses- otherwise, whats the point of playing in Open in a mode that is about conflict where people might attack you?

If you don't want that, choose another mode. But as I elaborate on my proposal, solo and PG should have dedicated roles rather than being cut out.

 

[Rubbernuke]

What risk does the ganker take? They are in a ship kitted completely out, likely not that expensive of a build most of the time, that can be completely replaced via a relative small rebuy... not hauling cargo. They gank a ship they know is built for cargo or mining or both. What risk do they have? Basically none.

Its on the person themselves to fly defensively, and go to places away from gankers and / or have someone to act as overwatch. The threat of the ganker is acting as a catalyst rather than complaining when a 100% mining build in a dodgy area gets hit.

Did that pirate use relog to get their engineering materials? Did they use relog to get the money for their rebuys? Did they relog to refresh the mission screens at any time? If so they logged out of the game to get better circumstances and avoid grind.

I am against combat logging but mostly for people who choose combat and then CL when losing.

So, whataboutery?

The game doesn't have the mechanics for proper pirating or PvP (as has been stated numerous times already). If it did, there would be a prompt for you to release x amount of cargo, instead of needing to do the math in your head and just dump stuff instead. Since griefers exist, every gank is primed to be a grief attempt just as every snake is primed to be poisonous.

Pirating: message Drop x cargo or die- thats all the RP you need.

Powerplay: has singular cargo / locations / roles that telegraph what you are doing, who you belong to. Its easy to know a Patreus pledge in a Hudson expansion is up to no good. It also has a separate C+P, and NPC rules.

Like many here, I would welcome actual piracy RPing and would either duke it out with them or give some cargo, but when dealing with real people, you get real people results.

So for PvPers who want more targets that won't CL, do stupid things win stupid prizes. This only applies to people who do stupid things.

This doesn't cover actually consensual PvP with teams and duels and such, those are completely cool, just not my thing.

Then you have to be wary where you are, what you fly and be careful, and accept sometimes things go wrong. That, or provide something for PvP in the main game.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Currently Powerplay in Open allows PvP to drastically affect the game. The issue I've been talking about its that even after pledging (gate 1), selecting open (gate 2) you can still log out, and block players. This breaks Open as far as Powerplay because its herding cats trying to have gentlemans rules. You migth as well forget and grind, which is issue 2 and has made Powerplay an unappealing second rate cousin to the BGS.

Right, but again that doesn't actually make it an inherently PvP activity. Just because PvP can affect it doesn't mean it's inherently PvP.

And as I explained, if you are fortifying and I catch you in Open, is it right you can log without consequence to deliver, and then block me? That breaks Open even when you have other modes to do Powerplay in.

Evidently so, because the whole process is designed so that it can be done in Solo. It doesn't "break Open" it means you can't force people to PvP you when they don't want to.

And as I explained above, when in Open PvP becomes very important because you can really mess up rival powers. What you are saying is because you can log in one mode its acceptable in all of them despite it defeating the spirit of that mode.

Yes, because it's not defeating the spirit of powerplay to do it in solo, if it was it wouldn't work in solo, and it's not defeating the spirit of open to avoid griefers, which is what the features you are complaining about allow people to do. Therefore allowing people to use anti-griefing tools to avoid being forced to do PvP just because they chose to engage in powerplay is completely acceptable.

If its done properly no-one is denied modules or helping a power. Currently Powerplay is a one dimensional grind race, the same as CGs, IIs- its two open ended massacre / cargo run missions. Without opens complexity it will never be anything more than that, and will always be in the shadow of the BGS. But if you keep Open as it is, it can't even reach its potential.

But that's what powerplay was designed as. It's a competitive PvE race that can be affected by PvP but does not require it. The fact that you personally would prefer it if it everyone was forced to engage with PvP doesn't mean that's the design intent of the mode.

Powerplay is about pledging to someone, sticking your head above the parapet and saying "I am right" to the expense of others. Its not a sin to shoot rivals, and if you choose open today it should be the mode that have consequences, and not have the same clauses- otherwise, whats the point of playing in Open in a mode that is about conflict where people might attack you?

If you don't want that, choose another mode. But as I elaborate on my proposal, solo and PG should have dedicated roles rather than being cut out.

Again, that doesn't mean that powerplay is an inherently PvP activity.

Your demand is that people who engage in powerplay be forced into PvP whether they wanted it or not. That's the outcome of the changes you have suggested. Your reasoning is that that's what powerplay is "supposed to be" but the fact that you can even do it in solo at all demonstrates conclusively that it is not supposed to be that. It is not "supposed to be" conflict with other players. It is supposed to be competition with the possibility of PvP conflict if you want it.

You want to be able to force PvP on people who don't want it. The only people who benefit from that are griefers.

 

[Havvk]

What ED needs is a PvP heavy main mode, to compliment CQC 1:1 arenas.

I've never heard anyone cry foul about taking toys away (other than Packhounds and premium ammo)- people want to fight using wacky ships sometimes too, just as wanting to fight in a more wider, organised context. If that can be done in an isolated way then why not?

The way around that is organized PvP shenanigan events or something. That alone is a result of the dev's overall sheer lack of bringing good gameplay balancing and mechanics to the table all this time

 

[Rubbernuke]

Right, but again that doesn't actually make it an inherently PvP activity. Just because PvP can affect it doesn't mean it's inherently PvP.

I never said it was- the proposals make it inherent (along with a new role of generator for solo and PG).

Evidently so, because the whole process is designed so that it can be done in Solo. It doesn't "break Open" it means you can't force people to PvP you when they don't want to.

Thats just silly. It breaks open because the attacker wastes time attacking when the cargo hauler can skip out, block and carry on again in Open. From then on Open is one less interaction.

Yes, because it's not defeating the spirit of powerplay to do it in solo, if it was it wouldn't work in solo, and it's not defeating the spirit of open to avoid griefers, which is what the features you are complaining about allow people to do. Therefore allowing people to use anti-griefing tools to avoid being forced to do PvP just because they chose to engage in powerplay is completely acceptable.

And I'm saying is, you play in solo for a reason, just as you play in open for a reason. Open is about interaction with others, Powerplay is interaction with rivals if in Open. By blocking and logging you negate the reason for being in Open in the first place- plus, its not griefing or ganking to attack a rival, in a game that allows killing anyway.

[quote[If its done properly no-one is denied modules or helping a power. Currently Powerplay is a one dimensional grind race, the same as CGs, IIs- its two open ended massacre / cargo run missions. Without opens complexity it will never be anything more than that, and will always be in the shadow of the BGS. But if you keep Open as it is, it can't even reach its potential.

But that's what powerplay was designed as. It's a competitive PvE race that can be affected by PvP but does not require it. The fact that you personally would prefer it if it everyone was forced to engage with PvP doesn't mean that's the design intent of the mode.[/QUOTE]

Originally it had strong PvP piracy elements, but as with all things PP were not fully thought out. and was nerfed to death.

There is a reason why it has such a low population, its because its been left behind in comparison to a proper multi mode feature, the BGS.

Plus, it has very strong PvP features- overt pledges, overt territory, two cargo types, two (2.5) roles, own C+P, real time (i.e. tick is per merit handed in) and is open ended.

Again, that doesn't mean that powerplay is an inherently PvP activity.

It has enough in Open to almost be that, if it did not have the baggage of block and logging (or had amended clauses).

Your demand is that people who engage in powerplay be forced into PvP whether they wanted it or not. That's the outcome of the changes you have suggested. Your reasoning is that that's what powerplay is "supposed to be" but the fact that you can even do it in solo at all demonstrates conclusively that it is not supposed to be that. It is not "supposed to be" conflict with other players. It is supposed to be competition with the possibility of PvP conflict if you want it.

You want to be able to force PvP on people who don't want it. The only people who benefit from that are griefers.

I suggest solo and PvE have a bias towards missions where NPCs are strong, you have a strong RP theme and you can grind in any mode as much as you like that geberates the merits moved in Open. You then also devolve UM, delivery to Open where the action of delivery benefits from opportunistic PvP, creating a need for real time team tactics.

 

[Havvk]

This is the interesting thing, I thought that @Sir Ganksalot had the right idea. He went straight to the heart of the issue. It wasn't a suggestion about an incentive to bring more fish to the barrel to shoot, he just flat out said, I'll teach you how to be better at PvP, even if that is in the first part, only learning how to evade. It was honest and helpful.

Being an abject coward myself, if I were to take boxing lessons, the first thing I want to learn is how to hold a guard up, with the confidence that I can evade violence when required, I might later have an interest in learning how to throw some punches out.

PvPers, offer combat lessons, you might get more interest. You organise it. Don't beg Frontier to put in some mechanic that just forces reluctant targets out in front of a rifle range who really aren't up for PvP but are trying to pick up 10% bonuses for playing in open.

The problem is that PvP as a whole is not worth many players' time. They don't think of Elite Dangerous and get reminded of how sick that noscope double-steam check 360 headshot while sneezing and coughing was. They don't, and to those who think Elite Dangerous needs to be another Eve Online, rethink yourself and quit playing this game if it doesn't force you to play in a way you don't feel like

 

[Rubbernuke]

The way around that is organized PvP shenanigan events or something. That alone is a result of the dev's overall sheer lack of bringing good gameplay balancing and mechanics to the table all this time

While that already exists, people want structure as well, an objective to give context. An amended Powerplay in whole or in part would achieve that.