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

[Amanojaku]

I feel like this fits right into bad counterplay. Where your options are reset the activity to escape or block to prevent instancing.

This is one of those paradoxes where fairness unintentionally promotes bad counterplay. We need the different modes of play to be fair, and we need the block function. Personally I almost never use the block function to block gankers, but there are harassment issues that make it a necessity. Unsolicited advances in PMs, racist or sexist chat in comms, being a pad hog, etc.

The only way to solve bad counterplay with these implementations of fairness is to have Open only play and to remove the block function. That's never going to happen in ED, and I'll go back to that pastel nightmare NMS if it does.

 

[Amanojaku]

The game would certainly make a bit more sense if pirates in Vultures etc. didn't hurl themselves at my Cutter claiming that they were going to boil me up and then saying they hadn't expected this.

Every game needs dumb mooks and "goblins".

 

[physical0]

Plus there is the thing, that Elite is not pure combat game, so what is that challenging thing for a trader, or explorer that does not involve combat? Or some god tier gear.

Great point? Where are the challenges for non-combat content?

 

[physical0]

Every game needs dumb mooks and "goblins".

If the entire game world is filled with nothing but low level mobs tho?

 

[Amanojaku]

If the entire game world is filled with nothing but low level mobs tho?

Needs more Tarrasques.

 

[House0fDerp]

This is one of those paradoxes where fairness unintentionally promotes bad counterplay. We need the different modes of play to be fair, and we need the block function. Personally I almost never use the block function to block gankers, but there are harassment issues that make it a necessity. Unsolicited advances in PMs, racist or sexist chat in comms, being a pad hog, etc.

The only way to solve bad counterplay with these implementations of fairness is to have Open only play and to remove the block function. That's never going to happen in ED, and I'll go back to that pastel nightmare NMS if it does.

"Fairness" between Open and Solo seems like a nonsensical cause to begin with given that PvP has no equal in other modes.

Beyond that using block lists to make open more mechanically like solo just emphasizes the design problems that necessitate it. There are valid uses for it that you point out but negating the whole point of the mode you chose shouldn't be one of them.

Edit: That said since there is mechanically no difference between modes it doesn't matter so i guess the solution in the end is to do nothing or fix everything.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Why can't I do other things that are hard? What about that whole own path stuff?
Why is my only option to have a challenge to get into a weaker ship and pretend I don't have something better in the dock.

Perhaps because you have endgame killing machine on hand. How hard is say Fallout 4 when you have meanest power armor and all the nasty weapons, and your player is at max level....Basically you just stomp your enemies.

 

[Amanojaku]

"Fairness" between Open and Solo seems like a nonsensical cause to begin with given that PvP has no equal in other modes.

Beyond that using block lists to make open more mechanically like solo just emphasizes the design problems that necessitate it. There are valid uses for it that you point out but negating the whole point of the mode you chose shouldn't be one of them.

I just don't think it's possible to make a virtual environment fair for everyone. There has to be some magical mandate everyone agrees with. Edit: In multiplayer

 

[Achtung-Goomba]

Needs more Tarrasques.

At relativistic speeds an immovable rod would make one helluva mine!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Edit: That said since there is mechanically no difference between modes it doesn't matter so i guess the solution in the end is to do nothing or fix everything.

The only difference between the modes is the settings applied to the matchmaker in terms of which players one may possibly encounter - with the friends list and block list also affecting it in the multi-player game modes.

 

[House0fDerp]

The only difference between the modes is the settings applied to the matchmaker in terms of which players one may possibly encounter - with the friends list and block list also affecting it in the multi-player game modes.

I understand what modes do. The point is that how the game plays, it's mechanics, are the same. Thus it's mechanically no different. As a result aside from interactions with people everything can be done in any mode so any selection related issue, pad hogs, persistent gankers, etc, apparently doesn't need a good gameplay solution as things stand. They can just be turned off.

I just don't think it's possible to make a virtual environment fair for everyone. There has to be some magical mandate everyone agrees with. Edit: In multiplayer

That mindset seems defeatist to me, or at least more accepting of what I at least think are poor mechanics than we probably should be.

As was said above:

You mean you don't like a challenge where winning is worse than not taking the challenge?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I understand what modes do. The point is that how the game plays, it's mechanics, are the same. Thus it's mechanically no different. As a result aside from interactions with people everything can be done in any mode so any selection related issue, pad hogs, persistent gankers, etc, apparently doesn't need a good gameplay solution as things stand. They can just be turned off.

Indeed they can "just be turned off" - as the fact that we all bought a game where other players are an optional extra means that we don't need to play among those who aren't fun to play among. Some players take delight in being annoying, or worse. For some that's a challenge to overcome - for others that's a reason to excise those players from ones gameplay.

 

[House0fDerp]

Indeed they can "just be turned off" - as the fact that we all bought a game where other players are an optional extra means that we don't need to play among those who aren't fun to play among. Some players take delight in being annoying, or worse. For some that's a challenge to overcome - for others that's a reason to excise those players from ones gameplay.

There should be a difference between "wanting to play alone" and "needing to turn other people off" IMO, so that both exist and serve unique purposes to a greater degree than they do now. Making hostile encounters not work like a rubber wall that bounces you back as your only means of escape might help towards that. Pad hogging is a lost cause because the game was designed in a way that allowed for that, but that's not the thing most often brought up around these discussions.

For this specific question of what can be done to encourage more risks, maybe there is an answer in making these encounters with interdiction have real and obtainable win states rather than just lose/restart.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

There should be a difference between "wanting to play alone" and "needing to turn other people off" IMO, so that both exist and serve unique purposes to a greater degree than they do now. Making hostile encounters not work like a rubber wall that bounces you back as your only means of escape might help towards that. Pad hogging is a lost cause because the game was designed in a way that allowed for that, but that's not the thing most often brought up around these discussions.

For this specific question of what can be done to encourage more risks, maybe there is an answer in making these encounters with interdiction have real and obtainable win states rather than just lose/restart.

There is winstate, blast your attacker to smithereens. Or drive your attacker away. But that needs special engineered combat ship, and flying skills. On other hand many would be ganker leave you be when you fly gankship. Tested that with my FDL in Shinrarta some time ago. It was nice like in sunday school. In fact me scanning people made them jump away.

 

[House0fDerp]

There is winstate, blast your attacker to smithereens. Or drive your attacker away. But that needs special engineered combat ship, and flying skills. On other hand many would be ganker leave you be when you fly gankship. Tested that with my FDL in Shinrarta some time ago. It was nice like in sunday school. In fact me scanning people made them jump away.

That's not a reasonably obtainable win state for a non-combat ship. Thus it may as well not exist in this scenario that it needs something in order to be more dynamic.

 

[Robert Maynard]

For this specific question of what can be done to encourage more risks, maybe there is an answer in making these encounters with interdiction have real and obtainable win states rather than just lose/restart.

The player has to decide to play the same game as those who would attack them, i.e. fly a ship that is sub-optimal for its primary role (if that role is not combat) to have been sufficiently hardened to stand at least a chance of survival against a single attacker. If a wing attacks, there's less likelihood of survival. Noting that those who choose to attack select their targets - and may choose to attack those ships that are likely to offer no challenge / risk to themselves.

 

[House0fDerp]

The player has to decide to play the same game as those who would attack them, i.e. fly a ship that is sub-optimal for its primary role to have been sufficiently hardened to stand at least a chance of survival against a single attacker.

If you're a hauler flying with a shield above the bare minimum you are already doing this and all it buys you is a chance at a reset. Unless you're thinking of a win state as defeating the attacker in combat. But that's not a haulers win state. Their win state is achieving their destination. Being routed away is a delay and prevention of loss but not really a win.

I think we can do better. I think there can be ways to give the defender a win. Maybe FSD chaff that makes the interdiction game significantly easier or some kind of ECM that temporarily makes the target unable to be interdicted. Maybe increase failed interdiction cooldown as well to make those tools actually able to help haulers win at hauling rather than looking at everything as a shooting solution.

If a wing attacks, there's less likelihood of survival. Noting that those who choose to attack select their targets - and may choose to attack those ships that are likely to offer no challenge / risk to themselves.

Then the obvious point is again that you don't try to match firepower or pose a fight, you escape in a forward direction, not backwards. Your win state is to dock and sell/trade, lets have mechanics that work towards that rather than settle at just resetting the scenario. Then maybe we won't need blocks and solo for that specific reason and more people try.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

If you're a hauler flying with a shield above the bare minimum you are already doing this and all it buys you is a chance at a reset. Unless you're thinking of a win state as defeating the attacker in combat. But that's not a haulers win state. Their win state is achieving their destination. Being routed away is a delay and prevention of loss but not really a win.

I think we can do better. I think there can be ways to give the defender a win. Maybe FSD chaff that makes the interdiction game significantly easier or some kind of ECM that temporarily makes the target unable to be interdicted. Maybe increase failed interdiction cooldown as well to make those tools actually able to help haulers win at hauling rather than looking at everything as a shooting solution.

Then the obvious point is again that you don't try to match firepower or pose a fight, you escape in a forward direction, not backwards.

Well having interdicters fsd to have longish cool down period (I said something like five minutes) would allow low jump escape and continuing towards your destination...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Their win state is achieving their destination. Being routed away is a delay and prevention of loss but not really a win.

There is no positive outcome to being attacked if not in a position to fight back, only a non-negative one, i.e. "not facing a rebuy".

 

[House0fDerp]

There is no positive outcome to being attacked if not in a position to fight back, only a non-negative one, i.e. "not facing a rebuy".

That's true under current rules, but since we're looking at changes to make risk more palatable we're not constrained to those rules.

Or rather, it may be more accurate to say more positive that either current outcome.