Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Robert Maynard]

The OP took it off track in Post #3 - and "improving PvP" in Open in ways that can be inferred from the OP may affect PvE players who play in Open who have no great interest in PvP (although accept that it is possible - and escapable given the features currently available in both multi-player game modes). Hence the interest in such a thread from players who prefer PvE.

Already posted regarding the player bounty suggestion on the previous page.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

If you like being alone, like feeling like the only pioneer in the galaxy, then you probably play a solo game, right?

Yes, absolutely. Before you say anything else, I'm fully aware that what is being asked for here is a more meaningful OPEN world play, a more populated world and that really, I'm ok Jack. I do feel for people in open who want interaction, I was just trying to make the distinction however, that some, me for example, will not be encouraged in any way to leave the solitude we like so much. Admittedly, it was an aside.

 

[MadSinUN]

This thread has gone off track some time ago: it was about how to improve PvP content in the game, so I don''t see why it interests PVE players (NO OFFENCE INTENDED).

Any useful suggestione for PvP content?

I'll put something in the ring: increase bounties on players and publish a galaxy-wide bounty board for PvP bounty hunting.

What kind of rewards for the head can we talk about? The player for whom the reward is assigned will simply go into solo mode and escape from all pursuers or calmly block them. None of the ideas for improving the player versus player combat interaction will work as long as open mode is focused on Pve mode and the whole game to be honest is also focused on this.




Why did you have to do "open" mode? In this situation, it would be enough for solo and PG with a common galaxy and everyone would be calm. Open mode looks like a candy that is teased by a child, but they are not going to give it away. Why was it teasing? For the sake of profit? And Fdev definitely made a profit from the introduction of "open mode". And many of those who are now disappointed with this "open mode" brought Fdev this profit.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

What kind of rewards for the head can we talk about? The player for whom the reward is assigned will simply go into solo mode and escape from all pursuers or calmly block them. None of the ideas for improving the player versus player combat interaction will work as long as open mode is focused on Pve mode and the whole game to be honest is also focused on this. Why did you have to do "open" mode? In this situation, it would be enough for solo and PG with a common galaxy and everyone would be calm. Open mode looks like a candy that is teased by a child, but they are not going to give it away.

It may be that players with a bounty on their heads will resort to solo mode, but that would be a big penalty for them as they like PvP., and many other players would love to have a meaningful roleplay reason to do what they do anyway: pew pew against other players. Lastly, e dangerous player in solo mode is no longer a threat to other players in open

 

[MadSinUN]

It may be that players with a bounty on their heads will resort to solo mode, but that would be a big penalty for them as they like PvP., and many other players would love to have a meaningful roleplay reason to do what they do anyway: pew pew against other players. Lastly, e dangerous player in solo mode is no longer a threat to other players in open

Not all gunkers want to be honest. Some people just want to win. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that they will consider it a big fine to switch to solo mode, just to escape from their pursuers and safely enter their station or their FC. Again, in connection with the situation in mining, the fine in the form of loans scares few people.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Not all gunkers want to be honest. Some people just want to win. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that they will consider it a big fine to switch to solo mode, just to escape from their pursuers and safely enter their station or their FC. Again, in connection with the situation in mining, the fine in the form of loans scares few people.

Really? If they go to solo they can't gank anymore, that seems a pretty big penalty to me.
Regarding loans I don't follow you ..

 

[soloe]

.... so are demands to give bonuses to Open play - or restrict existing pan-modal content to Open only.

Speaking for me only of course but I don't demand anything.

What I'm getting at when stating the obvious is that it matters little what a few players want, noting that not all players want the same things, we are not in a position to change anything.

I get that Robert. We all do.

If we take this argument to the extreme, you could close the topics in which ideas for game design are exchanged directly, since it makes no sense talking about something you're likely not in a position to change.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Playing in Open at all is a choice made by each player (that can play in multi-player) - and, while players may choose to interact in Open, any player may retract their consent regarding the interaction at any time. Any player / player conflict in Open occurs because each "side" consents to it.

If "meaning" is only given to player / player conflict when participants are forced to see it through to a conclusion (and may not have wanted it in the first place) then I'd suggest that this game does not satisfy that requirement nor, given Frontier's stance on menu exit being acceptable at any time, is it designed to.

For some, not for all. Frontier set the challenge posed by the game - players may provide an optional extra level of challenge for those who want it.

Any time spent by a player working up to an encounter with another player is their own choice to potentially waste - as the other player does not require to play along.

So how can an encounter be meaningful if the other party can say 'no' at any time? It can't. If there was no other game mechanics depending on that interaction it would be fine, but its not in this case.The consequence is, that hostile player / player interactions are pointless, making what FD make Open to be pointless too.

players may provide an optional extra level of challenge for those who want it.

And when they do and decide 'no' when they lose, thats not providing anything.

Any time spent by a player working up to an encounter with another player is their own choice to potentially waste - as the other player does not require to play along.

Which is nonsensical in a shared galaxy- it means that for griefers or loggers nothing changes, but wrecks consistent, meaningful interaction for those who want it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Taking @Screemonster 's proposal for a PvP-flag that would disable the ability for an attacker to destroy a ship duly flagged - then running with it - I propose the following to further the discussion:

That a flag indicating ones preference for PvP is implemented (preference only, it doesn't stop PvP);
1) If flagged for PvP:

a) the player loses the ability to use menu exit while undocked and instanced with another player;​

b) tracking "lost connection" count and frequency while in-danger due to player combat and instanced with players with a view to inflicting the player with a rebuy if the lost connection count exceeds a threshold in a time period;​

c) possible change to the block feature to only block communications for players that the player has blocked. Would not affect blocks by other players themselves flagged;​

2) If not flagged for PvP:

a) the player's ship can still be interdicted and attacked, but not destroyed, by another player;​

b) the player loses the ability to interdict other players (to stop "annoyance interdictions" of players by unflagged players who can't be destroyed);.​

The flag status of each player could be displayed on the HUD scanner using a hollow marker other than square or triangle or possibly by placing a dot in the centre of the hollow marker.

The Wing feature would reasonably be changed to only permit wing members with the same flag setting with auto-booting for players who change their flag while winged.

Changing flag state would reasonably require the player to log out of the game entirely.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If we take this argument to the extreme, you could close the topics in which ideas for game design are exchanged directly, since it makes no sense talking about something you're likely not in a position to change.

Quite - however there'd likely be no fun in that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So how can an encounter be meaningful if the other party can say 'no' at any time? It can't. If there was no other game mechanics depending on that interaction it would be fine, but its not in this case.The consequence is, that hostile player / player interactions are pointless, making what FD make Open to be pointless too.

And when they do and decide 'no' when they lose, thats not providing anything.

Which is nonsensical in a shared galaxy- it means that for griefers or loggers nothing changes, but wrecks consistent, meaningful interaction for those who want it.

As I suspected - meaningful = forced.

This isn't that game.

 

[Rubbernuke]

As I suspected - meaningful = forced.

This isn't that game.

? Suspected?

You have a warped sense of a game if you play and the other person tips the board over, because thats what this is. If they can't hack it, don't play to begin with- use solo or PG where they can play without disrupting player / player interactions to a full conclusion.

Its not forced if you consent to being in Open- otherwise interaction is simply optional and everyone should see Open and pointless.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Its not forced if you consent to being in Open- otherwise interaction is simply optional and everyone should see Open and pointless.

As implemented, consent, even in Open, can be removed at any time and the player may leave. Hence all player interactions are ultimately optional - which is not that surprising given that players themselves are an optional extra in this game.

If not being able to force an unwilling player to remain in an interaction to its conclusion means that it is pointless then pointless it is - noting that it's Frontier's choice not to force interactions and also that some players are willing to continue interactions to a conclusion, offering them presumably meaningful encounters with likeminded players.

Mind you, playing games can be considered to be a waste of ones time - and can therefore be argued to be pointless.

 

[MadSinUN]

Really? If they go to solo they can't gank anymore, that seems a pretty big penalty to me.
Regarding loans I don't follow you ..

You do not understand) the Gunker can switch to single mode to escape from the pursuer at a particular moment. It will go into solo mode just to escape, it will just fly to the right place in solo and go back into open mode. It will simply run away from the pursuer at a particular moment, rather than run away from "open mode" in General.

Taking @Screemonster 's proposal for a PvP-flag that would disable the ability for an attacker to destroy a ship duly flagged - then running with it - I propose the following to further the discussion:

That a flag indicating ones preference for PvP is implemented (preference only, it doesn't stop PvP);
1) If flagged for PvP:
a) the player loses the ability to use menu exit while undocked and instanced with another player;
b) tracking "lost connection" count and frequency while in-danger due to player combat and instanced with players with a view to inflicting the player with a rebuy if the lost connection count exceeds a threshold in a time period;
c) possible change to the block feature to only block communications for players that the player has blocked. Would not affect blocks by other players themselves flagged;
2) If not flagged for PvP:
a) the player's ship can still be interdicted and attacked, but not destroyed, by another player;
b) the player loses the ability to interdict other players (to stop "annoyance interdictions" of players by unflagged players who can't be destroyed);.

The flag status of each player could be displayed on the HUD scanner using a hollow marker other than square or triangle or possibly by placing a dot in the centre of the hollow marker.

1. Robert offered a very good solution.
2. I hope no one is against that such mechanics in the future can be more finely tuned?
3. the Problem of Internet connection loss I propose to solve in the following way: When the connection is broken, the ship of the player who lost the connection remains in the same place and is fully visible to the rest, but gets immortality until the player restores the connection. As well as the player who has lost the Internet connection will not be able to re-enter another mode until it comes out of the last mode in which the connection was lost.

Can then assign the Pvp flag to players who have attacked other players a certain number of times and destroyed them? It is also possible to assign the flag "pirate", "military" m "a police officer". All these badges will add different mechanics for Pvp combat. It turns out a kind of " license to kill")

 

[MadSinUN]

deleted

 

[Morbad]

Unless I pay attention to who I add to my friend's list

Doesn't really matter much who is on your friends list in this scenario, unless you have so many friends in the same instance as the person you blocked that it can overrule the block, and I'm not even certain this is possible any more.

Neither friending nor blocking can force anyone else to reinstance, it can only control what instance they appear in when they do.

Its been stated many times in this thread how FD have provided options for people who do not wish to play alongside those people, specifically modes, block, and thanks to the large galaxy size, location (stay away from busy systems, you'll probably never see a ganker or other negative type).

Some of these options are tools that enable negative quite a bit of negative behavior/encounters.

Every time I encounter a different instance than I otherwise would because of a block (especially if it does not target my CMDR), even if I'm not aware of the problem or it's source, it's an encounter with a 'negative type'. Everytime someone interferes with what my CMDR is doing, and then uses their ability to switch modes at will to avoid retaliation or detection while repositioning for another attack, it's an encounter with a 'negative type'.

Why does someone wishing to exclude an encounter with a specific individual get to impose that exclusion on others? And I'm not talking about interfering with the ability to play with specific other individuals one knows, which could be done via PG or the like, but the ability to encounter those one may not yet know of, or not specifically wish to encounter, which is one of the main attractions of Open.

Is there anyone who has experienced this? Someone was effectively blocked while already in the same instance?

Not with the game's block function. However, the distance at which CMDRs are instanced together can vary dynamically and depending on exactly what was going on, a momentary interruption could have allowed block to prevent re-instancing.

I'm not fuelling anything. I'm asking for a level playing field...1 field not 3 where poopoos done without recourse.
One world not 3. And the PvP is not why I ask. I ask purely for immersion. I want to feel other players around me. Not solo cold on my own or just wingmates.
Open atm is deserted. Everyone is in solo or pvt to avoid PvP. And l get that. Because the whole system is fooked.
I don't advocate PvP or wotever I advocate multiplay. That's what this game is Inherantly designed for.
Not 13000 sandboxs just 1

Some of your desires are mutually exclusive. You cannot have an immersive, organic, setting that also prevents asymmetric encounters.

Playing in Open at all is a choice made by each player (that can play in multi-player) - and, while players may choose to interact in Open, any player may retract their consent regarding the interaction at any time. Any player / player conflict in Open occurs because each "side" consents to it.

If this were intended to be case, there wouldn't be a prohibition against combat logging and the block function would be both stronger and immediate...it wouldn't wait for a reinstance, it would move either the blocker or blockee to a new instance.

This thread has gone off track some time ago: it was about how to improve PvP content in the game, so I don''t see why it interests PVE players (NO OFFENCE INTENDED).

Probably because PvE and PvP aren't mutually exclusive things (and I've gone so far as to state the distinction is a false one).

Taking @Screemonster 's proposal for a PvP-flag that would disable the ability for an attacker to destroy a ship duly flagged - then running with it - I propose the following to further the discussion:

That a flag indicating ones preference for PvP is implemented (preference only, it doesn't stop PvP);
1) If flagged for PvP:

a) the player loses the ability to use menu exit while instanced with another player;​

b) tracking "lost connection" count and frequency while in-danger due to player combat and instanced with players with a view to inflicting the player with a rebuy if the lost connection count exceeds a threshold in a time period;​

c) possible change to the block feature to only block communications for players that the player has blocked. Would not affect blocks by other players themselves flagged;​

2) If not flagged for PvP:

a) the player's ship can still be interdicted and attacked, but not destroyed, by another player;​

b) the player loses the ability to interdict other players (to stop "annoyance interdictions" of players by unflagged players who can't be destroyed);​

This is no different from giving the non-PvP flagged players the ability to play by a blatantly-superior set of rules, and not having to use another mode to do it.

My CMDR hasn't interdicted another in more than five years. If I weren't a stickler for fair play (from a rules perspective, not from an in-character perspective) why would I ever flag for PvP, no matter how intent I was on fighting other CMDRs?

I don't see anything about the non-PvP flag that would change the way my CMDR engages in direct hostilities with other CMDRs except that he could not be shot down by most of them, which would give him an enormous edge. Perhaps fewer CMDR would interdict mine, but since nothing listed would prevent my CMDR from entering normal space instances via any other means (dropping into a station or RES, using a low-wake, or winging with someone and using their beacon), nor do I see any prohibition on firing on and damaging any other CMDRs, there is near zero incentive to even use the PvP flag, when not using it allows one to engage others with near impunity.

If something like this proposal came to be, it would annihilate organic PvP. Since the PvP flag would be a serious liability, all we'd have would be groups of non-PvP flagged people that each had one PvP flagged one for interdictions, and a series of convoluted workarounds to finish off badly damaged vessels without direct contact (getting them to collide with something, baiting them into getting shot by an NPC, getting them to overheat themselves for that last percent of hull damage, etc). It would be completely absurd and would kill most of the PvP the game has.

 

[galahad2069]

"The OP, Robert Maynard replied with 6x10^23 words to the thread [the title of which containing 'PvP']"

This notification 10+ times every time.
Wow. Nice flood.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If this were intended to be case, there wouldn't be a prohibition against combat logging and the block function would be both stronger and immediate...it wouldn't wait for a reinstance, it would move either the blocker or blockee to a new instance.

Combat logging is leaving the game without exiting - that is what is prohibited. That Frontier place a 15-second delay on exit when "in danger" infers that one can't leave immediately but one can leave. Same with the block feature - it is enforced at the next instance change, not instantly.

This is no different from giving the non-PvP flagged players the ability to play by a blatantly-superior set of rules, and not having to use another mode to do it.

Arguably being able to be attacked by a player (even if it would not permit the attacker to destroy the target) is a significant change from the target playing in Solo. As noted, playing in the other modes exists where in-the-same-instance PvP can be excised completely from ones gameplay already.

If something like this proposal came to be, it would annihilate organic PvP. Since the PvP flag would be a serious liability, all we'd have would be groups of non-PvP flagged people that each had one PvP flagged one for interdictions, and a series of convoluted workarounds to finish off badly damaged vessels without direct contact (getting them to collide with something, baiting them into getting shot by an NPC, getting them to overheat themselves for that last percent of hull damage, etc). It would be completely absurd and would kill most of the PvP the game has.

The Wing feature could be changed to only permit wing members with the same flag setting with auto-booting for players who change their flag while winged.

Changing flag state might reasonably require the player to log out of the game entirely.

 

[Robert Maynard]

"The OP, Robert Maynard replied with 6x10^23 words to the thread [the title of which containing 'PvP']"

This notification 10+ times every time.
Wow. Nice flood.

Apologies - it's not even T.j's fault - it's a forum bug.

 

[Morbad]

Combat logging is leaving the game without exiting - that is what it prohibited. That Frontier place a 15-second delay on exit when "in danger" infers that one can't leave immediately but one can leave. Same with the block feature - it is enforced at the next instance change, not instantly.

If the intent was being able to rescind one's consent at any time, then combat logging wouldn't be prohibited, there would be no point to such a prohibition. At anytime strongly implies instantly, not after 15 seconds, and not until someone re-instances. The game is sending very mixed signals here.

Arguably being able to be attacked by a player (even if it would not permit the attacker to destroy the target) is a significant change from the target playing in Solo. As noted, playing in the other modes exists where in-the-same-instance PvP can be excised completely from ones gameplay already.

None of that is in dispute or of any relevance to what I wrote.

I'm saying that your proposed PvP flag, if implemented in Open, would remove essentially all PvP, even the overwhelming bulk of consensual PvP, by making use of a PvP flag a liability for anyone not engaged in a carefully curated match, or the interdiction ship of a troll wing.