Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[quelcertoleo]

False, you are opposing a NPC faction that some players have chosen to align with.

You are playing a semantics game swapping player goals with combat when the vast majority are talking combat.



By this definition all activities in the game that exchange credits or materials with NPC are "PVP" because they all effect the BGS.

try harder.

 

[Fulcs]

try harder.

So how would you fix the current situation? Just curious

 

[Stelar 7]

try harder.

I don't need to, you have clearly been dumbfounded.

 

[quelcertoleo]

I don't need to, you have clearly been dumbfounded.

oh, we get into pvp here.
you need to try harder also on this one.
intensify your effort.

 

[Fulcs]

I'm off to sample the outside world.
Thanks for the discussion this afternoon Commanders, I genuinely wish you well with finding some good ideas to improve the Open gameplay for you all. o7

 

[Robert Maynard]

"It's not necessarily", "Play do not have", "optional", "the game Modes are not mandatory, Pvp\PvE is not required" What is it then? The word "Game" is already becoming irrelevant in relation to this product.

Not really - the game is there for those who wish to engage in it - they just can't force anyone else to engage in particular features in particular ways - only the game can do that and that does not include PvP (apart from CQC).

Is this a demonstration of the Cobra game engine? Is this a simulation of the milky way galaxy? In games there are rules, there are restrictions and there are obligations, it is quite normal when there is a loser and a winner in the game. But in ED, it's all "optional"? Let's continue to make suggestions for changing the "open mode" for all players?

By all means make suggestions - but recognise that all players can consider that they have a stake in Open - which is why proposals to change Open in favour of this or that play-style often meet with opposition.

 

[Stelar 7]

oh, we get into pvp here.
you need to try harder also on this one.
intensify your effort.

Nah,

Its obvious I made a mistake in taking you seriously.

Go on about your day.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Regarding the use of CMDR bounties as an incentive or a tool for enforcing consequence...advertising wanted CMDRs more prominently, without a fairly significant reworking of networking, instancing, tracking, pursuit, logistics, blocking, and mode swapping mechanisms is largely meaningless. Wanted CMDRs are rarely shot down unless they want to be, CMDR bounty hunting isn't really viable in the game we have, so what their bounties are or where they are shown is largely moot.

The use of higher cmdr bounties was really something intended to give the bounty hunter some kind of meaning in a PvP context, and it assumes that wanted commanders would actually like to be hunted (if they hide in solo that's their loss of kudos i guess). The bounty board would have to be updated 'real-time' (less then 1 minute?) with the perpetrator's position of course. So, thinking on the fly, it could maybe play out like this:
1) Crime is committed
2) Within reasonable server time, bounty board is updated
3) Bounty hunter views bounty board, which will show last known system of perpetrator, and whether he is currently in game.
4) Bounty hunter scans nav beacon at system and gets more precise position (planet, station). Perpetrator does not know yet that a bounty hunter is near.
5) Bounty hunter approaches perpetrators posn and hopes to get the same instance. When (and if) they get the same instance, the perpetrator gets a message that he is being hunted.
6) Pew pew happens (hopefully)

I agree the main problem is instancing, but not necessarily a game breaker. What have I missed??

 

[CaptainPugwash]

I think what we're saying is that the current split of PVE and PVP works because the two player bases want different things from the game - that doesn't need fixing.
What needs to be better, if I understand it correctly, is
1) The ability for players who choose open to interact more easily/frequently with others in Open, and
2) For the influence of those in Solo or PGs on the BGS to not be as effective because it's harder to affect the BGS without interference in Open?

For me number (2) isn't an issue, and how the hell would you quantify how much 'advantage' a solo player has anyway? Just leave it be.

 

[Stelar 7]

The use of higher cmdr bounties was really something intended to give the bounty hunter some kind of meaning in a PvP context, and it assumes that wanted commanders would actually like to be hunted (if they hide in solo that's their loss of kudos i guess). The bounty board would have to be updated 'real-time' (less then 1 minute?) with the perpetrator's position of course. So, thinking on the fly, it could maybe play out like this:
1) Crime is committed
2) Within reasonable server time, bounty board is updated
3) Bounty hunter views bounty board, which will show last known system of perpetrator, and whether he is currently in game.
4) Bounty hunter scans nav beacon at system and gets more precise position (planet, station). Perpetrator does not know yet that a bounty hunter is near.
5) Bounty hunter approaches perpetrators posn and hopes to get the same instance. When (and if) they get the same instance, the perpetrator gets a message that he is being hunted.
6) Pew pew happens (hopefully)

I agree the main problem is instancing, but not necessarily a game breaker. What have I missed??

I regularly carry a bounty, a disagreement between me and some law enforcement officers who made the bad choice to blast my only SRV..

Anyway my point was the bounties I rack up are in a ship optimized for missions. If regular attention from players was likely I either have to swap my build, or expect a pvp ship to be an opponent of my not fresh pve one.

I'll admit it's fun to put some risk up while doing stuff, but my time on game forums suggests I'm odd in that view.

I think the system you proposed would just drive more people out of Open.

There is also the issue of a hunter having to get to me before I clear the bounty at an interstellar factor, though that could be offset by offering only bounties with notoriety.

Still vast universe. Small playerbase by comparison.

I think the best tool is to get people to cluster, so something ingame, maybe, but ingame has PG and Solo player content.

That leads me back to CQC and improvements there so folks can advertise.

Or advertise a carrier with say discount LTD or buying some commodity high, then set it friends only and tell folks buy or sell if you dare... that could be fun.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

I regularly carry a bounty, a disagreement between me and some law enforcement officers who made the bad choice to blast my only SRV..

Anyway my point was the bounties I rack up are in a ship optimized for missions. If regular attention from players was likely I either have to swap my build, or expect a pvp ship to be an opponent of my not fresh pve one.

This should probably be limited to bounties due to killing players.

I think the system you proposed would just drive more people out of Open.

It may drive some gankers out of open but other may relish the challenge so it works both ways
It could also attract the more 'timid' players to open as they would know that gankers now have more consequences.

There is also the issue of a hunter having to get to me before I clear the bounty at an interstellar factor, though that could be offset by offering only bounties with notoriety.

It assumes the perpetrator is notorious

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indeed. Add another Open mode (either PvE or PvP flagged) with an unlimited population and many of the issues due to unsatisfactory encounters (from the protagonist's PoV) in Open might disappear.

Make Powerplay Open PvP only and that would be fine by me.

Reading about them in the instructions isn't finding one with a large population - only Open enjoys the luxury of an unlimited population.

Well you only need one name beginning with M. And when I started playing they came to me

 

[Thepirateorc]

Make bgs open only

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Here we go again ...

 

[MadSinUN]

Not really - the game is there for those who wish to engage in it - they just can't force anyone else to engage in particular features in particular ways - only the game can do that and that does not include PvP (apart from CQC).

By all means make suggestions - but recognise that all players can consider that they have a stake in Open - which is why proposals to change Open in favour of this or that play-style often meet with opposition.

You've been here all day and made a good offer yourself. You know very well that the idea is to change the "open game" so that everyone is satisfied with both the Pvp and Pve players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You've been here all day and made a good offer yourself. You know very well that the idea is to change the "open game" so that everyone is satisfied with both the Pvp and Pve players.

Indeed - and not all who responded liked the development of a proposal made previously.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

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.



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.

Sounds like a prime case for blocking someone then.

 

[Hooplah]

Give me the ability to run my own server, with my own BGS, and set the rules I choose.

Ah, Freelancer that came with the server software. Those were the days...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Make Powerplay Open PvP only and that would be fine by me.

Not in Open as its current rule set is setup though.

Well you only need one name beginning with M. And when I started playing they came to me

Not really - at least one of those PGs is "full" with very nearly 20,000 members - which means that another one needs to be found. That's the main issue with Private Groups - the membership limit.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You know very well that the idea is to change the "open game" so that everyone is satisfied with both the Pvp and Pve players.

Isn't that actually impossible?