How could players be encouraged to put themselves into dangerous pvp scenarios, even when they don't have to?

[[VR] James Constantine]

Clearly the risk has to be met with reward to encourage participation.

It's more tricky than that. How much additional reward before you break the game mechanics? 10%? 20%? That wouldn't tempt many PvE'ers. 300% might, but then you could considerably shorten the grind for some. And given the limitations of AI opponents, taking an Elite mission in solo would still probably pay out better than a Harmless one in open with a bonus and still require less risk.

I suspect the only practical way would be to make non-consensual PvP difficult to impossible in higher security systems, but then the PvP'ers would start to cry foul.

So I don't think there are any easy answers, or perhaps answers that would gain sufficient support from all.

 

[physical0]

Is there even a hard, objective definition of what makes an MMO game? Some I've seen are vague enough that ED could apply. But if we don't have a concrete test it's just going to boil down to opinions.

So maybe that's not the best place to pin an argument.

Even if there was a hard, objective definition of an MMO, it would not constrain Frontier in their game design even when they advertised their product as an MMO.

You are absolutely correct that PG/solo bgs activities are risk mitigation behaviors.

If a player is solely hauling the mail to influence the BGS and has no interest in a credit reward, then a credit incentive to take on more risk would not be adequate to move them into Open.

If a Point to Point Open Only mission could include 5x to 10x influence as well, you might see a willingness to take on the risk...

The "time" aspect in the risk/reward dynamic carries great weight. If a player could conduct 5x to 10x as many trips unobstructed in solo, then they would still pick solo. You could increase the reward further to offset this. Still, this strategy will not work because players can easily exploit this by playing in open and preventing other players from interacting with them. No throttling or firewalls required. Simply blocking anyone they see on the contact list would be sufficient to exploit it.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Clearly the risk has to be met with reward to encourage participation.

The reward has to be intrinsic.

If you want more people to play PvP, make PvP fun for its own sake.

Not many people find PvP fun for its own sake in Elite. So they aren't doing it.

 

[DemiserofD]

The real issue is that pvp encounters aren't consistent. In PVE, you can more or less precisely predict what sort of encounters a player's going to have, and reward accordingly, but pvp is much less predictable. Why should the guy in the Cayman Islands, who plays at a time nobody else plays, get the same bonus as the guy who plays in Los Angeles when there are loads of pvpers online? The risk they face is dramatically different.

That's why I think any 'rewards' for open play need to be gated around actually encountering other players. But doing that in such a way as to not heavily encourage collusion may not be possible. After all, how do you tell a real attacker from a fake one?

This all is why I lean towards dedicated pvp rankings and rewards. It works for other games, why not here? Sure, it wont fix ALL the problems, but at least it will give a real niche for pvpers to fill, for the first time in the game's history.

 

[House0fDerp]

Clearly the risk has to be met with reward to encourage participation.

Eve online has had an effective population capp on it for designing with this very reasoning. You effectively can't push players to play a game they don't want. They just end up leaving. And ED doesn't even have Eve's benefit of a single server and module drops to better ensure risk and prey.

 

[physical0]

The reward has to be intrinsic.

If you want more people to play PvP, make PvP fun for its own sake.

Not many people find PvP fun for its own sake in Elite. So they aren't doing it.

I don't think the answer is to make PVP fun. A lot of players don't find PVP fun and won't find PVP fun. The answer is to make PVP fair.

I feel, the best answer is not look at this problem from the PVP perspective, but from the PVE perspective. Create an environment where PVE players can play together and it is mutually beneficial and rewarding for them to do so. That will bring more PVE players in open (or at least out of solo). That environment would require some protection from PVP players. PVE players do not have any incentive to protect each other from PVP players, and PVP players have no incentive to protect PVE players from other PVP players. If the players won't protect each other, then the game system must do it.

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

You are absolutely correct that PG/solo bgs activities are risk mitigation behaviors.

If a player is solely hauling the mail to influence the BGS and has no interest in a credit reward, then a credit incentive to take on more risk would not be adequate to move them into Open.

If a Point to Point Open Only mission could include 5x to 10x influence as well, you might see a willingness to take on the risk...

Risk doesn't need to be PvP. In ED terms that is very close minded. You could put my BGS at risk no sweat by doing missions against my faction, blowing up clean ships in my systems and delivering biowaste in bulk to my stations. You can do this in open/pg/solo and even cross platform. The fact that even in open PC players can't pvp me on console but can still tank the bgs of my MF speaks volumes to me imo

 

[DemiserofD]

I don't think the answer is to make PVP fun. A lot of players don't find PVP fun and won't find PVP fun. The answer is to make PVP fair.

I feel, the best answer is not look at this problem from the PVP perspective, but from the PVE perspective. Create an environment where PVE players can play together and it is mutually beneficial and rewarding for them to do so. That will bring more PVE players in open (or at least out of solo). That environment would require some protection from PVP players. PVE players do not have any incentive to protect each other from PVP players, and PVP players have no incentive to protect PVE players from other PVP players. If the players won't protect each other, then the game system must do it.

Another way to make it functional is to make death in pvp actually meaningful. At the moment, there's very little incentive to attempt to kill an attacking player, because doing so only costs them a small amount of credits and a few minutes to jump back to the fight. You buy yourself a short reprieve at best. This discourages pvp in general, because the reward for victory is so small, relative to the difficulty of achieving it. Why fight for 15 minutes for a 5 minute break?

Other games, such as Runescape, have created very enjoyable pvp areas by making you lose your gear when you die; I don't think this would be a good solution for Elite, (because it doesn't have the same pvp restrictions as Runescape, where almost all pvp is limited to very specific zones outside of duels), but we might use that as a guideline for the sort of thing that makes pvp more enjoyable.

For example, maybe have players with more than 1 notoriety have their ship impounded at a prison ship that refuses docking access or ship transfers for anyone with notoriety. The player would need to wait for their notoriety to fade before being allowed to regain their ship again. Players could have multiple ships to attack in, of course, but doing so would continue to increase their notoriety, and eventually, they'd need to wait for it to go away before being able to reclaim their confiscated ships. (the 'more than 1 notoriety' bit is to prevent abuse of suiciding into players to give them notoriety).

They essentially 'lose' their gear when they lose the fight, driving up the risk(and, by proxy, enjoyment) of engaging in criminal pvp. And while this might seem to be only a punishment for nonconsensual pvp, I think that on the contrary, it would actually get people a lot more good fights. Right now, people have no reason to do anything but run; with some stakes, people will be much more likely to actually give it a shot.

 

[[VR] James Constantine]

Another way to make it functional is to make death in pvp actually meaningful. At the moment, there's very little incentive to attempt to kill an attacking player, because doing so only costs them a small amount of credits and a few minutes to jump back to the fight. You buy yourself a short reprieve at best. This discourages pvp in general, because the reward for victory is so small, relative to the difficulty of achieving it. Why fight for 15 minutes for a 5 minute break?

Other games, such as Runescape, have created very enjoyable pvp areas by making you lose your gear when you die; I don't think this would be a good solution for Elite, (because it doesn't have the same pvp restrictions as Runescape, where almost all pvp is limited to very specific zones outside of duels), but we might use that as a guideline for the sort of thing that makes pvp more enjoyable.

For example, maybe have players with more than 1 notoriety have their ship impounded at a prison ship that refuses docking access or ship transfers for anyone with notoriety. The player would need to wait for their notoriety to fade before being allowed to regain their ship again. Players could have multiple ships to attack in, of course, but doing so would continue to increase their notoriety, and eventually, they'd need to wait for it to go away before being able to reclaim their confiscated ships. (the 'more than 1 notoriety' bit is to prevent abuse of suiciding into players to give them notoriety).

They essentially 'lose' their gear when they lose the fight, driving up the risk(and, by proxy, enjoyment) of engaging in criminal pvp. And while this might seem to be only a punishment for nonconsensual pvp, I think that on the contrary, it would actually get people a lot more good fights. Right now, people have no reason to do anything but run; with some stakes, people will be much more likely to actually give it a shot.

Yeah, and this would be attractive to solo players because..?

 

[physical0]

Another way to make it functional is to make death in pvp actually meaningful. At the moment, there's very little incentive to attempt to kill an attacking player, because doing so only costs them a small amount of credits and a few minutes to jump back to the fight. You buy yourself a short reprieve at best. This discourages pvp in general, because the reward for victory is so small, relative to the difficulty of achieving it. Why fight for 15 minutes for a 5 minute break?

Other games, such as Runescape, have created very enjoyable pvp areas by making you lose your gear when you die; I don't think this would be a good solution for Elite, (because it doesn't have the same pvp restrictions as Runescape, where almost all pvp is limited to very specific zones outside of duels), but we might use that as a guideline for the sort of thing that makes pvp more enjoyable.

For example, maybe have players with more than 1 notoriety have their ship impounded at a prison ship that refuses docking access or ship transfers for anyone with notoriety. The player would need to wait for their notoriety to fade before being allowed to regain their ship again. Players could have multiple ships to attack in, of course, but doing so would continue to increase their notoriety, and eventually, they'd need to wait for it to go away before being able to reclaim their confiscated ships. (the 'more than 1 notoriety' bit is to prevent abuse of suiciding into players to give them notoriety).

They essentially 'lose' their gear when they lose the fight, driving up the risk(and, by proxy, enjoyment) of engaging in criminal pvp. And while this might seem to be only a punishment for nonconsensual pvp, I think that on the contrary, it would actually get people a lot more good fights. Right now, people have no reason to do anything but run; with some stakes, people will be much more likely to actually give it a shot.

It doesn't seem like good game design to punish players for losing by making them wait to play again. When a player logs off to play something else, everyone loses.

 

[[VR] James Constantine]

It doesn't seem like good game design to punish players for losing by making them wait to play again. When a player logs off to play something else, everyone loses.

It was a daft idea. How are you going to attempt to kill an attacking player if you were minding your own business flying a cargo mission with no more than two small pulse lazers and they're kitted out in an engineered FDL? Some of these suggestions frankly make me want to reevaluate my views on eugenics.

 

[Dragsham]

I'd go a stage further.
If a notorious cmdr loses his ship.
He loses his ship.... its gone.
Forever!

 

[physical0]

I'd go a stage further.
If a notorious cmdr loses his ship.
He loses his ship.... its gone.
Forever!

Such an approach would lead PVPers to never engage in a risky fight and only attack low hanging fruit, exacerbating the existing problem.

 

[Dragsham]

Rubbish! They would have to be extremely careful about their targets. Could be an ambush.
Cmdr might be alot better than them even in a lesser ship.
Losing a fully engineered fdl pvp specced would hurt

 

[[VR] James Constantine]

Rubbish! They would have to be extremely careful about their targets. Could be an ambush.
Cmdr might be alot better than them even in a lesser ship.
Losing a fully engineered fdl pvp specced would hurt

So someone who's build is kitted out for a cargo run, thus isn't using the slots for defense, what builds of that type could bring down a fully engineered FDL? Because from what I can see, you're not suggesting a very balanced game play.

Edit: Wait, maybe a mining build could bring a fully engineered FDL down with their all powerful mining lances!

 

[CMDR Jayce MacLeod]

Reward. Offer a good reward equal to risk and maybe this will happen.

 

[Chaparral]

Risk doesn't need to be PvP. In ED terms that is very close minded. You could put my BGS at risk no sweat by doing missions against my faction, blowing up clean ships in my systems and delivering biowaste in bulk to my stations. You can do this in open/pg/solo and even cross platform. The fact that even in open PC players can't pvp me on console but can still tank the bgs of my MF speaks volumes to me imo

I completely agree with this evaluation.

 

[House0fDerp]

I completely agree with this evaluation.

Agreement here should mean conceding that risk already exists regardless of mode selection. In which case rewards aren't justified being extremely disparate between modes.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Reward. Offer a good reward equal to risk and maybe this will happen.

Which means that those in G5 murderboats would get less than pretty much everyone else when completing a particular task....

 

[Chaparral]

Agreement here means conceding that risk already exists regardless of mode selection. In which case rewards aren't justified being extremely disparate between modes.

We have a completely broken BGS and PP pvp mechanic given the modes.

My recommendation is not to fix the mechanic, it is to incentivize bringing players into Open for doing trade runs. Pay extra cash and or influence. Not all traders are BGSers or PPers.