Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Fulcs]

Surely after the game has been live for this long, everyone has chosen their preferred way to interact with other players?
Trying to remove that choice which has been made for a very long time doesn't seem like a great idea - it will impose someone else's idea of how the game "should be played" on those who have already chosen not to play it that way, for whatever their reasons are.
To those players, those reasons are perfectly valid and taking that option away might push them away from the game if they feel strongly enough to do so

 

[TiberiusDuval]

@Havvk Open is supposed to contain all kinds of players nice ones and jerks. You should only be able to block chat messages from players in open, not the actual player in my opinion. If you want to block players from your game that's what solo and private group are made for.

PG vs open with blocking works differently. One needs to have people joining PG, otherwise it just is solo mode. Where as in Open you start with full set of commanders, and then start removing those you do not want to play with.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Surely after the game has been live for this long, everyone has chosen their preferred way to interact with other players?
Trying to remove that choice which has been made for a very long time doesn't seem like a great idea - it will impose someone else's idea of how the game "should be played" on those who have already chosen not to play it that way, for whatever their reasons are.
To those players, those reasons are perfectly valid and taking that option away might push them away from the game if they feel strongly enough to do so

Exactly, so why not stop the PVE/PVP battle and get down to reasoned discussion assuming the current basic framework?
Can we at least discuss improvements to PvP gameplay in this thread without getting hikacked by the PVE only crowd and their agenda? They can always start another thread on PVE only if they so desire.
(I have nothing against people who don't want PvP, but I do have something against ruining the game, and a game where you can see other players but have no gameplay interaction would be a laughing stock in the eyes of the gaming community in general)

 

[MadSinUN]

Surely after the game has been live for this long, everyone has chosen their preferred way to interact with other players?
Trying to remove that choice which has been made for a very long time doesn't seem like a great idea - it will impose someone else's idea of how the game "should be played" on those who have already chosen not to play it that way, for whatever their reasons are.
To those players, those reasons are perfectly valid and taking that option away might push them away from the game if they feel strongly enough to do so

They don't want to impose anything on anyone here. Here want some changes in open mode for those who chose open mode. We can not 100% exclude that the choice of many players was forced because of the love of this game. It is possible that they do not like this type of open mode and they want to change something in it, but in addition to the open mode that we see there is no more and we have to choose it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

They don't want to impose anything on anyone here. Here want some changes in open mode for those who chose open mode. We can not 100% exclude that the choice of many players was forced because of the love of this game. It is possible that they do not like this type of open mode and they want to change something in it, but in addition to the open mode that we see there is no more and we have to choose it.

Proposed changes to Open are of potential interest to players of all play-styles - as it is the only game mode with an unlimited population - and it is a game mode that all players can choose to play in (subject to being able to play in the multi-player game modes).

 

[Morbad]

Then excuse me, because what i got from your post is you had a problem with people working the BGS when you could not oppose them directly.

While the mode setup we have is not how I'd have done things, I don't have a huge problem with it, I completely accept that it's a part of the game that's not going to change, and it's not at all what I was referring to.

I must have not understood what you meant by abusing game mechanisms.

Actually, i'm still not sure what you mean by abusing game mechanisms. How does one do that exactly? Surely you don't mean the block function, which is there to block people you do not want to play with.

The block function is easily abused precisely because it does much more than just keeping people you don't want to play with away from you. It's an arbitrary exclusion filter that applies to each and every instance you find yourself in. People can, unwittingly or intentionally, interfere with other players instancing with each other, not just with the blocker. If someone does this intentionally, and not to keep away players they don't want to play with, but to prevent players that want to encounter, or are not opposed to encountering, each other, that is clearly abuse. This is extremely hard to prove without an admission, but I'm convinced I've seen it on several occasions, and anyone can demonstrate how the function can be used in this manner.

The menu log/mode switching functionality can also be abused, offensively, to disrupt the legitimate gameplay of others. I just PMed you with links to a pair of videos where a hostile CMDR, who was fighting for the opposite side in a war repeatedly logged in and out of Open specifically to stall our victory in a CZ. I used to see this sort of thing all the time, essentially every CG.

Indeed, most of the cases of 'griefing' or harassment I see in Open have little to do with PvP combat, they either involve out-of-character slander via chat, or they have people picking fights and then using the mode/instancing tools the game provides to waste people's time or break people that want to play together apart. Ships and guns are not the primary tools of griefers and rarely have been...they're inefficient and unreliable for that purpose.

 

[MadSinUN]

Proposed changes to Open are of potential interest to players of all play-styles - as it is the only game mode with an unlimited population - and it is a game mode that all players can choose to play in (subject to being able to play in the multi-player game modes).

Well, I understand that the participants in this discussion just want to find some solutions that will suit all those who play "open mode". They do not impose something, but they are looking for a constructive solution. The undeniable fact is that in this form it does not suit all players. Am I getting this right?

 

[Fulcs]

They don't want to impose anything on anyone here. Here want some changes in open mode for those who chose open mode. We can not 100% exclude that the choice of many players was forced because of the love of this game. It is possible that they do not like this type of open mode and they want to change something in it, but in addition to the open mode that we see there is no more and we have to choose it.

Absolutely understand this, and if changes to open make the game better for you I'm genuinely happy for you as we all love the same game. If the changes don't impact upon the choice to go solo or PG then let's come up with some suggestions for Frontier

 

[Fulcs]

Exactly, so why not stop the PVE/PVP battle and get down to reasoned discussion assuming the current basic framework?
Can we at least discuss improvements to PvP gameplay in this thread without getting hikacked by the PVE only crowd and their agenda? They can always start another thread on PVE only if they so desire.
(I have nothing against people who don't want PvP, but I do have something against ruining the game, and a game where you can see other players but have no gameplay interaction would be a laughing stock in the eyes of the gaming community in general)

Sorry if it seemed like a hi-jacking (I thought that was what you PVPers enjoy? )
I just saw some discussion which if enacted in game would impinge upon my enjoyment of the game. If game changes were being discussed that affect me surely I have a voice in the discussion, which isn't really hi-jacking?
I do understand if changes are being discussed to open gameplay if it increases enjoyment for those that choose to play there, but I was loathe to see changes that basically would make easy targets of solo players or those in private groups. MadSinUN explained it well in their reply.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's a video game played for "fun" in the comfort and safety of our preferred gaming environment - with an immortal space pixie as an avatar and an unlimited supply of free ships - it's not "dangerous".

I think you are confusing meaningful outside and inside the game- the action has to be meaningful to achieve your goal to be 'fun'- if you chase someone for cargo and they vanish, thats not fun, thats annoyance because the other player is not really playing themselves and wasting time.

It'd be interesting to see.

It certainly will, especially since we will soon have feet and hold guns. People are going to love vanishing opponents. The words I'd use would be "casual gameplay" rather than "cut throat".

What is Open about, given its implementation?

.... and players who attack players don't seem to care whether they are wasting their target's time.

Open is a pool of random players together- that random nature leading to more complex and unpredictable outcomes. Some outcomes are good, while others are bad- but the main issue is that nothing can be bad if you can quit at any time. You can never lose a ship, cargo, merits, anything.

 

[MadSinUN]

It's a video game played for "fun" in the comfort and safety of our preferred gaming environment - with an immortal space pixie as an avatar and an unlimited supply of free ships - it's not "dangerous".

I don't think this is the right argument. This is a fact, but not an argument. I don't think it's Elite Dangerous. I think this is "Cosmic Paradise", "Good galaxy", "Star traveler", etc., but not " Dangerous"(
Can all -??? think on offer flag PvP (a kind of license on murder) how do I make it work for everyone?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think you are confusing meaningful outside and inside the game- the action has to be meaningful to achieve your goal to be 'fun'- if you chase someone for cargo and they vanish, thats not fun, thats annoyance because the other player is not really playing themselves and wasting time.

That's the difference between chasing NPCs and players - the NPCs are provided for ones enjoyment - interacting with other players is a privilege and the other players have a say in whether it happens.

It certainly will, especially since we will soon have feet and hold guns. People are going to love vanishing opponents. The words I'd use would be "casual gameplay" rather than "cut throat".

I expect that the losses from FPS "death" will be be trivial in comparison to losing a ship - however that's obviously just an opinion.

Open is a pool of random players together- that random nature leading to more complex and unpredictable outcomes. Some outcomes are good, while others are bad- but the main issue is that nothing can be bad if you can quit at any time. You can never lose a ship, cargo, merits, anything.

Whether menu exit is "the main issue" or simply part and parcel of playing in Open is a matter of opinion - noting Frontier's stance on player interaction being optional.

Another view would be that Open is simply one of three matchmaking modes that players can select if they choose - and the rules are the same in each.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That's the difference between chasing NPCs and players - the NPCs are provided for ones enjoyment - interacting with other players is a privilege and the other players have a say in whether it happens.

So why is someone in Open trading then? What do they expect will happen? What fun is there trading in Open if they treat it like solo and exclude others?

I expect that the losses from FPS "death" will be be trivial in comparison to losing a ship - however that's obviously just an opinion.

I mean, thats not going to be a firm basis for foot based combat if someone pulls the plug on you. Although we don't know whats being offered with EDO, if its anything like Open is now, its going to be rightly ridiculed.

Whether menu exit is "the main issue" or simply part and parcel of playing in Open is a matter of opinion - noting Frontier's stance on player interaction being optional.

FD need to really come clean and say what they want Open to be, because right now its the worst of both worlds. If a negative event makes you reach for the exit menu rather than play the game to escape that situation, I have to call into question the reasoning.

Another view would be that Open is simply one of three matchmaking modes that players can select if they choose - and the rules are the same in each.

But at a conceptual level, whats the point? Open is random, why pick random if you don't want random?

 

[Robert Maynard]

So why is someone in Open trading then? What do they expect will happen? What fun is there trading in Open if they treat it like solo and exclude others?

See last paragraph below.

I mean, thats not going to be a firm basis for foot based combat if someone pulls the plug on you. Although we don't know whats being offered with EDO, if its anything like Open is now, its going to be rightly ridiculed.

We'll see. Quite a few FPS games have little or no loss for avatar "death".

FD need to really come clean and say what they want Open to be, because right now its the worst of both worlds. If a negative event makes you reach for the exit menu rather than play the game to escape that situation, I have to call into question the reasoning.

That blocking and menu exit are possible in Open suggests that Open isn't the locked in experience that some want.

But at a conceptual level, whats the point? Open is random, why pick random if you don't want random?

.... because it's the only game mode that has an unlimited population and it's the only immediately available multi-player mode for new players (as PGs aren't advertised).

It's already a compromise for those seeking a co-op experience.

 

[Havvk]

Regarding increasing bounties on players and publishing a player bounty board - all bounties on players or just those gained from attacking players? Players gaining bounties for NPC activities may have no interest whatsoever in PvP. Also noting that some players oppose treating crimes against players and NPCs differently.

Any such system would need to indicate which platform the player was on, whether they were playing at the moment, if playing their current game mode and their current location (as finding a specific player not friended is "challenging" in this game). That's before considering the block feature and menu exit.

Player bounties only, shown on whatever billboard of your choice. Through the station services or even wanted or bounty posters via those holo-billboards at starions/outposts. Of course we shouldn't clog up the billboards with NPC bounties, that's a given.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Sorry if it seemed like a hi-jacking (I thought that was what you PVPers enjoy? )
I just saw some discussion which if enacted in game would impinge upon my enjoyment of the game. If game changes were being discussed that affect me surely I have a voice in the discussion, which isn't really hi-jacking?
I do understand if changes are being discussed to open gameplay if it increases enjoyment for those that choose to play there, but I was loathe to see changes that basically would make easy targets of solo players or those in private groups. MadSinUN explained it well in their reply.

Certainly not saying you don't have a voice, of course not. Not sure I get your quip about 'what you PVPers enjoy'. What is a PVP-er in your eyes???
Also how could solo players be easy targets if they are in solo? Please elaborate.

 

[Fulcs]

Certainly not saying you don't have a voice, of course not. Not sure I get your quip about 'what you PVPers enjoy'. What is a PVP-er in your eyes???
Also how could solo players be easy targets if they are in solo? Please elaborate.

Thanks for asking Captain, I see PVPers as those who place high value on the ability to affect other players' experience of the game. Whether the other player wishes to be so affected doesn't seem to be a big factor in that - I may be wrong, I'm happy to have my perception of that challenged.

My perception of solo players is those who perhaps aren't as experienced as those who engage frequently in PVP, so they would not be able to defend themselves to any great degree if forced into a PVP environment by changes to the game structure. There will be exceptions of course, and I certainly can't speak for every solo player.

I can give you my personal view of course, and that's that I don't spend long enough on the game to defend myself in PVP, and as I'm getting on a bit my reaction times aren't what they were. Getting old sucks, but at least with solo and PGs I can still enjoy the game that I grew up with in the 80s when PVP wasn't part of the Elite experience, and Captain Pugwash was just a program I watched after dinner (you're not The Captain Pugwash, I assume?)

 

[Rubbernuke]

That blocking and menu exit are possible in Open suggests that Open isn't the locked in experience that some want.

The problem is that directly interferes with objective based play. You can't set objectives based on other players if those other players cannot be relied on to do the same (such as with player driven features like Powerplay).

It's already a compromise for those seeking a co-op experience.

As a one size fits all it fails, since in player / player interaction depends on the other person just as much as you.

.... because it's the only game mode that has an unlimited population and it's the only immediately available multi-player mode for new players (as PGs aren't advertised).

Who start in a highly curated area anyway, more than enough time to learn about PG and solo, or to learn about actual escape and survival skills.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The problem is that directly interferes with objective based play. You can't set objectives based on other players if those other players cannot be relied on to do the same (such as with player driven features like Powerplay).

No objective based play requires PvP in the first place - it is entirely optional.

As a one size fits all it fails, since in player / player interaction depends on the other person just as much as you.

Indeed - and if either doesn't want it it doesn't need to happen.

Who start in a highly curated area anyway, more than enough time to learn about PG and solo, or to learn about actual escape and survival skills.

One can gain the first rank, losing the permit in the process, in less than a couple of hours - and that happens, by default, in Open - the player may have lost the permit before even logging out after their first session.

 

[MadSinUN]

I had a utopian idea. You can call one of the Fdev representatives and ask what the offer should look like, what sign will mean that it is really necessary. In General, ask them what and how to do, what would Fdev say "Yes, we see that most people need it, most people like it, it's a good concept and we will implement it" or "guys don't sweat it, we will do it like us"?