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

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Ganker wants to gank. Trader wants to trade. To make trade ship gank proof one needs to sacrifice a lot of ships carrying capacity directly affecting ships usability. To make gank ship gank capable what does ganker sacrifice? Nothing. That imbalance ires pretty many people.

Last night at the CG I was being attacked from SC in my fully g5 conda by people in FDLs. Each time I was either 1v1 in a weakened state or 1v2 of them. I escaped each time, my (meaningless, sure) combat rank is deadly, but had no chance of fighting. They were likely not deluded that they'd get an easy kill, but they wanted an attainable challenge (they might, with skill, get me, and would certainly get to test their ability). They've made their sacrifices up front on the skill and engineering grind, all I've done is get one or two PvE ships to g5. The grind they've done, I'm not prepared to do. They teamed up, I didn't organise with other players. Why should I expect an equal footing?

I'm not saying I wasn't dismayed and a little frustrated that I couldn't get my bonds dropped, but I'm not angry. What was missing for me was an overwatch that could have been interdicting them and keeping SC clear enough for me to be able to slip through at some point. NPCs and players themselves could be doing that. The added challenge for the attackers needn't be a fun kill for them either (since it would mean more combat, and not just a simple "interdict and attack PvEer" loop).

 

[Amanojaku]

As we know it, maybe. It would probably become more popular though

That's debatable. Fortnite (as much as I hate that game) was originally designed to be coop. They decided to go with competitive BR and it skyrocketed in popularity. ED already has a mode for everyone. If Fdev takes PvP as we know it out of Open, we'll only see more players hang up their space boots imo. I don't think Solo players care about interacting with other players, even if they're all friendly and peaceful.

 

[enonymous]

But progressing a goal in closed modes is utterly tedious, because of the trash gameplay. Other players and their unpredictability are the only thing that make it interesting.

We wouldn't have this discussion if more agreed with you. In fact, we wouldn't have people creating threads complaining that powerplay isn't open only. We wouldn't have people crying because no one wants 'wasps'.

This thread seems to get derailed because some are so biased in thinking "group play" = "better game" that they completely ignore the fact that the current design is just stupid. You're not pulling everyone in just based on the carrot of group play. Not everyone is so needy that they require others to enjoy their time in the game. We have some that need other players. Those people are already in open.

The interaction with a criminal player is still worthless. Make all the nightmare mode NPCs you want. The interaction is still worthless. Create co-op nirvana. The interaction is still worthless. Give everyone a trillion credits. Now you can just build a ship on coriolis.io and import it. No need to collect mats or unlock anything. Criminals are still worthless. None of it changes because the very fundamental design is just stupid.

This isn't easy vs difficult or safe vs dangerous. It's logical vs illogical. The solution is simple. Align the reward mechanics with the design of the interaction. Players are the end game boss. You don't need to make it safe. Create game mechanics that aren't stupid.

Cmdr Richard wants to kill me. This is now a competition. We have a wager. Money is worthless. I decide we're risking mats. My mats. If he wins; he gets all of my mats. I get a logical objective as a path to victory. I'm not asking for it to be easy. I'm not asking that I always win. I'm asking for an objective that's not stupid. If I win; he's on the hook to double my mats. We have the same risk (ignoring my rebuy, cargo, missions, data, bounties, combat vouchers, etc). He now has value and this interaction is worth my time.

He kills me. I drop a black box with all of my mats. He takes it to search and rescue and receives vouchers for the value of half. If I have 1 g1 mat, he gets half of a voucher. If I have 10 g1 mats, he gets 5 vouchers. He can go to a mat trader and buy 5 g1 mats. Scale up from there.

If I win, he gets a bounty that's in mats instead of credits. This bounty is on the account. If he resets his Cmdr; the new Cmdr has the bounty. He has 1 week to go turn in the mats. After 1 week, he gets a point of notoriety that doesn't decay. Another point every week after that. 4 weeks and the vouchers are awarded to my account. If he dies and doesn't have the mats; he's put in a sidewinder with a mining laser. Go shoot rocks until you have the mats to pay the debt.

We have the same risk. I'm risking time from the past. He's risking time in the future. He doesn't know I have 100 of most g5 manufactured mats and data. I don't mind losing them. I didn't grind for them; it's just a side effect of how I play. He now offers a way for me to get raw mats without the slow, boring travel out to hip 36601. I offer him content he can't get from NPCs. This is win, win.

 

[DemiserofD]

This thread seems to get derailed because some are so biased in thinking "group play" = "better game" that they completely ignore the fact that the current design is just stupid. You're not pulling everyone in just based on the carrot of group play.

This is absolutely untrue. In fact, events like Finance Fridays draw in huge numbers of players, to the point the instance begins to fail. People WANT to do these things, they just don't have the opportunity.

The biggest problem with coop events is that there are virtually no ingame tools to actually make them happen. Finance Fridays, for example, are almost completely organized out-of-game, generally by streamers on on discord. The same goes for Powerplay; there's virtually nothing ingame to coordinate it, and players were forced to relocate almost all planning to external services like reddit or discord. Then, when new players try to join, they have no idea what's going on and no way to learn, their efforts feel pointless, and they quit.

The other side of the coin is the fact that there just aren't that many things ingame that WORK with coop gameplay. Mining works, and Thargoid Combat works, but almost everything else doesn't. Standard combat, for example, basically caps out at 4 players. Trade does get a 15% bonus, but that's nowhere near enough to really encourage teamwork, even ignoring the problems of quickly running stations out of inventory. Not much point bringing along friends to get a 15% bonus if it means cutting your total amount hauled per player to a quarter. Exploration actively works against cooperative gameplay. Why does a nominally multiplayer game go to such lengths to make cooperative gameplay difficult?

That's basically what I'm proposing here. Ways to enhance and introduce more cooperative gameplay. The pvp aspect will improve almost entirely by proxy.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

That's debatable. Fortnite (as much as I hate that game) was originally designed to be coop. They decided to go with competitive BR and it skyrocketed in popularity. ED already has a mode for everyone. If Fdev takes PvP as we know it out of Open, we'll only see more players hang up their space boots imo. I don't think Solo players care about interacting with other players, even if they're all friendly and peaceful.

FD added CQC and that didn't turn out to be popular.

Pure PvP games though can be popular. I like pure PvP games. (Although in the case of Fortnite i actually preferred Save the World to Battle Royale)

 

[Brrokk]

How is this thread derailed? We haven't come up with the solution to the title question, but after 145 pages we're still debating the merits of playing in various modes and what different playstyles need.

It's all relevant. It's just utterly repetitive because everything that's being said has been said on just about every page.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

We wouldn't have this discussion if more agreed with you. In fact, we wouldn't have people creating threads complaining that powerplay isn't open only. We wouldn't have people crying because no one wants 'wasps'.

This thread seems to get derailed because some are so biased in thinking "group play" = "better game" that they completely ignore the fact that the current design is just stupid. You're not pulling everyone in just based on the carrot of group play. Not everyone is so needy that they require others to enjoy their time in the game. We have some that need other players. Those people are already in open.

The interaction with a criminal player is still worthless. Make all the nightmare mode NPCs you want. The interaction is still worthless. Create co-op nirvana. The interaction is still worthless. Give everyone a trillion credits. Now you can just build a ship on coriolis.io and import it. No need to collect mats or unlock anything. Criminals are still worthless. None of it changes because the very fundamental design is just stupid.

This isn't easy vs difficult or safe vs dangerous. It's logical vs illogical. The solution is simple. Align the reward mechanics with the design of the interaction. Players are the end game boss. You don't need to make it safe. Create game mechanics that aren't stupid.

Cmdr Richard wants to kill me. This is now a competition. We have a wager. Money is worthless. I decide we're risking mats. My mats. If he wins; he gets all of my mats. I get a logical objective as a path to victory. I'm not asking for it to be easy. I'm not asking that I always win. I'm asking for an objective that's not stupid. If I win; he's on the hook to double my mats. We have the same risk (ignoring my rebuy, cargo, missions, data, bounties, combat vouchers, etc). He now has value and this interaction is worth my time.

He kills me. I drop a black box with all of my mats. He takes it to search and rescue and receives vouchers for the value of half. If I have 1 g1 mat, he gets half of a voucher. If I have 10 g1 mats, he gets 5 vouchers. He can go to a mat trader and buy 5 g1 mats. Scale up from there.

If I win, he gets a bounty that's in mats instead of credits. This bounty is on the account. If he resets his Cmdr; the new Cmdr has the bounty. He has 1 week to go turn in the mats. After 1 week, he gets a point of notoriety that doesn't decay. Another point every week after that. 4 weeks and the vouchers are awarded to my account. If he dies and doesn't have the mats; he's put in a sidewinder with a mining laser. Go shoot rocks until you have the mats to pay the debt.

We have the same risk. I'm risking time from the past. He's risking time in the future. He doesn't know I have 100 of most g5 manufactured mats and data. I don't mind losing them. I didn't grind for them; it's just a side effect of how I play. He now offers a way for me to get raw mats without the slow, boring travel out to hip 36601. I offer him content he can't get from NPCs. This is win, win.

Well I was kind of making a rhetorical point, but I do think it takes effort to get past the deficiencies of the game's mission and NPC mechanics, and multiplayer is one effective way of distracting from it.

On your idea, yes, I think that's the kind of concept we've been aiming for. Except, for me, trying to stay within constraints of the game being a simulation game with as much straight-faced realism as possible and avoiding too-obvious gamification, and of exploitability. Both of these your specific suggestion afaict seems to walk through a little.

Examples from the thread - interdiction with or scanning of the criminal creates a reward. Rebuys reduced for clean CMDRs where murder rate is high. Dividend for players escorting freight if the freighter successfully delivers their cargo. All made available from the authorities as a plausible measure to protect trade (including CGs). These are a bit bland, and I prefer your idea of the rewards at stake potentially being much shinier, but squaring that with the above constraints is the challenge then. And inserting some imaginative new gameplay would probably be necessary (dev time constraint).


EDIT: rereading in more detail I think it's not as bad as I thought. But I'd be for dialing down the stakes a bit - mats are not trivial to lose all of (to everyone except you I think!). Also it is a bit gamified to me (but that could be mitigated and might be a price worth paying).

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Ok, here's a "solution" to incentivse PvEers to play in Open.

Any deaths from PvP don't cause any loss. No loss of credits, cargo, bounties, does not upset any passengers you might be carrying. You just get respawned in a new instance not too far from where you were when you were attacked.

The PvPer still gets their jollies of seeing pixels go boom and the target loses nothing except a little bit of time.

Of course, i can imagine some PvPers hating this "Where's the risk?" they might cry, but its not the PvPers facing risks when blowing up PvEers, and the question is how could players be incentivized to put themselves into dangerous PvP scenarios when they don't have to, not how to placate those who already do it.

It would be more or less like playing GTA when you are not in the middle of a mission. Die, respawn, continue.

In GTA i've found some fun ways to wind up "tryhards" and K/D warriors" as they are called. I just stand there not moving while they kill me over and over again.

One variant is I let them know i'm fine with it and tell them i'll just alt-tab to read reddit while they are enjoying themselves. They can just let me know when they are bored of killing a non-moving target. (one guy, after killing me 10 times said "too easy" then quit the lobby)

Another is to sit there chatting, offering them encouragement. "Oooh, almost" and "How about using the bazooka?"

Last week i spent the time trying to elicit their opinion on which car i should buy next. Discussing the relative merits of them. They killed me 40 times while i was doing this. I think i upset them a lot because they kept swearing at me telling me to move. Told him i was fine, he should just keep killing me, but it would be great to know which car he thought was better for street races.

The next one i'm planning on doing is writing out the lyrics to Lada Gaga's Applause (its one of the tracks on Non-Stop Pop FM) in chat until they quit the lobby or they have been killed by someone. (most KD warriors hate being killed, it hurt's their KD, most will suicide or quit the lobby if they think someone might kill them). I'll tell the rest of the lobby I'll keep singing Lada Gaga until they are gone. That should do the trick.

And another way of not fighting directly, which someone recently posted is quite funny. Sit in your Facility and repeatedly call in strike teams, muggers, and Merryweather against the aggressor until they quit. It makes sense. You're the CEO of multiple criminal busnesses. Why would you bother going head to head with someone when you can sit back and pay for someone else to do it. Its not PvP or PvE its... erm.. EvP. I think i'll give that a go. I can imagine it will infuriate them no end.

Lots of ways of winding up gankers/griefers in GTA. Being able to do the same in ED without worry would be a great way to incentivize people to play in Open.

You can't give me back the time I've wasted having to endure something I didn't want to endure in the first place. PvE and PvP is fundamentally different. When I play a PvP game I commit to that. I play a PvE game and I don't want to be bothered with any PvP shenanigans unless I explicitly choose to and that doesn't mean someone else choosing when I'm having PvP.
Sound entitled? Maybe, but that's what it is and it's not like I need to beg for it - I just play what I want and if it doesn't satisfy then I play something else.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You can't give me back the time I've wasted having to endure something I didn't want to endure in the first place. PvE and PvP is fundamentally different. When I play a PvP game I commit to that. I play a PvE game and I don't want to be bothered with any PvP shenanigans unless I explicitly choose to and that doesn't mean someone else choosing when I'm having PvP.
Sound entitled? Maybe, but that's what it is and it's not like I need to beg for it - I just play what I want and if it doesn't satisfy then I play something else.

I don't mind losing a small bit of time in the way i propose. It would be little different to getting successfully interdicted by an NPC (remember when that could actually happen?) and having to boost away and then jump. Just in this case there would be an explosion and then ta-da, you're in a new instance away from the other person, so just charge your FSD.

Having thought about it further though, and thinking about how the minds of gankers and griefers work, i could actually see them, knowing what happens, is they don't kill you. They just keep you tied down with grom bombs and disabled modules.

Yeah, the idea wouldn't fix anything. It would just cause them to change tactics.

Wow... game dev is hard!

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

It's hard but not rocket science either.

I don't mind losing a small bit of time in the way i propose. It would be little different to getting successfully interdicted by an NPC (remember when that could actually happen?) and having to boost away and then jump. ...

Happened all the time. The minigame was unwinnable and everyone and their mother just submitted and waked. And then again. And again. And again. Some high waked and tried anew. And then again. And again. And again. But this time will be different....

 

[smiths121]

Last night at the CG I was being attacked from SC in my fully g5 conda by people in FDLs. Each time I was either 1v1 in a weakened state or 1v2 of them. I escaped each time, my (meaningless, sure) combat rank is deadly, but had no chance of fighting. They were likely not deluded that they'd get an easy kill, but they wanted an attainable challenge (they might, with skill, get me, and would certainly get to test their ability). They've made their sacrifices up front on the skill and engineering grind, all I've done is get one or two PvE ships to g5. The grind they've done, I'm not prepared to do. They teamed up, I didn't organise with other players. Why should I expect an equal footing?

I'm not saying I wasn't dismayed and a little frustrated that I couldn't get my bonds dropped, but I'm not angry. What was missing for me was an overwatch that could have been interdicting them and keeping SC clear enough for me to be able to slip through at some point. NPCs and players themselves could be doing that. The added challenge for the attackers needn't be a fun kill for them either (since it would mean more combat, and not just a simple "interdict and attack PvEer" loop).

Excellent post. That sums the problem up for me pretty well in my opinion.

Before you can fix the pirate/trader interaction (the interesting one) or the ganker/trader interaction (not so interesting), need to fix the Player Criminal/Bounty Hunter loop. At the moment with the bounty cap because someone was greed and sold bounties as credit in the real world, there in no insentive to play escort/overwatch role, let alone have a go at taking on a seasoned PvPer, risk/reward is too broken, just farm a few of Anacondas in a Res Site nets you the same.

Back in the days of Lough, both trade CGs had traders trying to deliver, blockaders (trying to stop the delivery), and overwatch on both sides interdicting the blockaders on the other side. It was fun, but even then the vast majority of goods were delivered in solo or private group.

On the Fed's site in particular a couple of challenges.

1) No obvious way to organise, as a bunch of mercenaries working in different ways to a common goal, verses an established player group (who had an excellent forum topic in their day),

2) Lack of overwatch. The Player Group had tools for (1) and other player group support, so did not suffer this.

This was pre BH nerf, pre engineering, and credits were still of value, that 5MCR bonty on player X was tempting.

So somehow you have to fix the social tools needed to allow co-op and opposing adhoc group play, and the risk/reward of Player Bounty Hunting, to fix the pirate/trader loop. I think it has been broken since 2014, so longer than it worked.

Simon

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

Open where you know gankers might be present, you're basically asking to be blown up.

lol Why am I supposed to simply accept this as true? I dont think merely piloting a trade vessel is consent to being blown up.

All you are losing is time

(psssssttttt.... this is the problem)

Some people just like sticking their hand on the red hot burner, then blame the burner and sue the oven manufacturer for burning their hand. The problem can never be that you were just too stupid not to put your hand on the burner when you knew the risks. I'm sorry, but I have very little sympathy for that kind of attitude.

This would only be an apt comparison if trade vessels were going out with the intent to fight gankers, which is not the case.

The main issue is there is a group of people that for whatever reason will try to gank weaker ships for no discernible reason. Perhaps some sort of change to add context to these encounters would work (such as piracy, warring factions, etc). But from a trader's perspective, murder hobos add nothing, and cost a tremendous amount of time/ Cr/ frustration

 

[Riverside]

But from a trader's perspective, murder hobos add nothing,

They add challenge, and the potential for more varied interaction than NPCs alone. That challenge can be too great of course, but I would miss it if it were completely absent & I think each Cmdr having the opportunity of finding the right level of challenge for them is an important part of the game, particularly for those who feel that the game is shallow or too easy.

 

[Brrokk]

lol Why am I supposed to simply accept this as true? I dont think merely piloting a trade vessel is consent to being blown up.

(psssssttttt.... this is the problem)

This would only be an apt comparison if trade vessels were going out with the intent to fight gankers, which is not the case.

The main issue is there is a group of people that for whatever reason will try to gank weaker ships for no discernible reason. Perhaps some sort of change to add context to these encounters would work (such as piracy, warring factions, etc). But from a trader's perspective, murder hobos add nothing, and cost a tremendous amount of time/ Cr/ frustration

I'll underline that. Time is the thing: loss of possibly limited gaming time. That's not a game penalty. It's loss of a RL resource - some of my leisure time. I don't let anyone physically come into my house and switch off my computer when I want to play a game, so why would I let them do it using the game itself, when that game has features enabling me to make sure they don't?

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

They add challenge, and the potential for more varied interaction than NPCs alone. That challenge can be too great of course, but I would miss it if it were completely absent & I think each Cmdr having the opportunity of finding the right level of challenge for them is an important part of the game, particularly for those who complain that the game is shallow or too easy.

In a game where travel times are super long, the added "challenge" simply isnt worth the punishment of being set back 45 min of travel and however many credits it may cost. I see your point, but where is the challenge on the gankers end? I never get interdicted when im in the Corvette. Only when Im in something small or a build in progress that has tiny shields. In my experience gankers just look for easy prey and arent the uber combat experts some claim to be on the forums.

That said, I dont see any reason why they couldnt change it from Solo/ PG/ Open to something like Open (PvP)/ PG / Open (PvE). That way everyone would get what they want for the most part

 

[Riverside]

In a game where travel times are super long, the added "challenge" simply isnt worth the punishment of being set back 45 min of travel and however many credits it may cost. I see your point, but where is the challenge on the gankers end? I never get interdicted when im in the Corvette. Only when Im in something small or a build in progress that has tiny shields. In my experience gankers just look for easy prey and arent the uber combat experts some claim to be on the forums.

That said, I dont see any reason why they couldnt change it from Solo/ PG/ Open to something like Open (PvP)/ PG / Open (PvE). That way everyone would get what they want for the most part

The players you describe as gankers looking for easy prey fight each other & are at risk of attack by other players (including white hat groups like SPEAR etc). There's a whole ecosystem going on, one any player can choose to discover & find their part in if they are so inclined.

 

[DemiserofD]

They add challenge, and the potential for more varied interaction than NPCs alone. That challenge can be too great of course, but I would miss it if it were completely absent & I think each Cmdr having the opportunity of finding the right level of challenge for them is an important part of the game, particularly for those who feel that the game is shallow or too easy.

The problem with PVP is, by Nature it excludes all but the best of the best. It's just not fun playing against someone vastly better than you, which is why most games these days include ranking systems that allow you to consistently play against players of similar skill.

Such a ranking system is about the only way I could foresee PVP being successfully integrated into power play.

Ultimately, for most people, the reward of additional challenge is not what drives them; it's the reward of additional reward that drives them. And unless PVP inherently offers better rewards, most people don't bother. Of course, if PVP does offer better rewards, then people will exploit the ens out of it. Hence the compromise of increased PVE challenge and reward. Not exploitable but with the side effects of making PVP more tolerable.

 

[Riverside]

The problem with PVP is, by Nature it excludes all but the best of the best. It's just not fun playing against someone vastly better than you, which is why most games these days include ranking systems that allow you to consistently play against players of similar skill.

Such a ranking system is about the only way I could foresee PVP being successfully integrated into power play.

Ultimately, for most people, the reward of additional challenge is not what drives them; it's the reward of additional reward that drives them. And unless PVP inherently offers better rewards, most people don't bother. Of course, if PVP does offer better rewards, then people will exploit the ens out of it. Hence the compromise of increased PVE challenge and reward. Not exploitable but with the side effects of making PVP more tolerable.

Clearly it doesn't DemiserofD, it only looks that way from an outside perspective. Join the PvP Hub Discord & you can get training if you want to join in & find out.

All it takes is a willingness to get involved, loads of self described PvP players are happy to concede they are terrible at it & just enjoy the dance.

Emergent PvP, where one is jumping into the unknown with the intention not to win but to survive & complete one's objective (reach the station etc) has a minimum level of situational awareness & some experience, that experience can be gained by just trying it & seeing how you get on (how I did/do it).

Only if your objective is to kill an experienced player in a dedicated combat ship does it become a situation where you need to make as few mistakes as possible and if you get to that level delivering cargo to a CG will not be much of a challenge to you.

There are ways the game could be tweaked to reduce the PvP/PvE loadout gap but fundamentally all you have to do it just be prepared to join in

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

The players you describe as gankers looking for easy prey fight each other & are at risk of attack by other players (including white hat groups like SPEAR etc). There's a whole ecosystem going on, one any player can choose to discover & find their part in if they are so inclined.

Assuming this is the case, the the mechanics of the game are not very helpful. There are vastly more gankers than pilots of the other kind, and almost no in game support for the white hats. The "ecosystem" is extremely lopsided and there is nothing in place to encourage a different result

 

[Riverside]

Assuming this is the case, the the mechanics of the game are not very helpful. There are vastly more gankers than pilots of the other kind, and almost no in game support for the white hats. The "ecosystem" is extremely lopsided and there is nothing in place to encourage a different result

Yeah. but if more people did it....

It isn't really lopsided it just seems that way from the perspective of the individual, new to the experience. PvP players tend to go where it's busy, where there are lots of other players at peak playing times. That's not really all that hard a risk to mitigate, just go when it's a busy & hide in the crowd, or go when it's quieter & hope any blockaders are busy with someone else.

Feels like I'm selling the basic concept of multiplayer games here to people who are only interested in single player games.

If you don't want to do it, don't see the point then don't do it. I don't want anyone to have a bad time or feel they are forced to do something they don't want to do.

But if it's something a reader of this thread is considering, or wants to try but hasn't, just give it a go. Come up with what you think is a safe ship build & strategy, and test it. If it works try a slightly weaker build that can carry more cargo, if it doesn't try to think about why (the Cmdr that killed you will probably be happy to offer advice) and try again.

Losing over & over again can be frustrating but never will the simple act of finally setting your ship down on the pad to dock be so satisfying as when you know how much planning & preparation was required to get to that point, even if the trip was uneventful

It can be done. But can it be done by you? Find out