General Not to accrue payment for insurance in the PVP

[SergMx]

If a person with a fame greater than 1 kills another person, the victim does not have to pay when restoring the ship, the Crime Tracking Commission will pay for it.

I think this suggestion will help ALL without fear of flying in the OPEN game and bring more variety to people in PvP battles.

 

[varonica]

I think this suggestion will help ALL without fear of flying in the OPEN game and bring more variety to people in PvP battles.

So, people don't fly in open because they are afraid? Got some stats to back that up?

 

[SergMx]

So, people don't fly in open because they are afraid? Got some stats to back that up?

I base this on my thinking. If I don't lose anything, I will fly more in the Open World.
I might even try a 50 million insurance Imp Cutter to help the newbies.
Then at the end of the day a lot of negotiated PvP battles don't go to total destruction of the ship.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

An explorer, miner, or a trader with even moderately-expensive cargo is going to lose considerably more in cargo/data/time than they do in rebuy anyway. Most non-combat ships have rebuys under ten million anyway, which is not a major issue with today's earning rates.

(Also, there's already a discount on rebuy based on the notoriety of the person attacking you. Has it helped?)

 

[SergMx]

An explorer, miner, or a trader with even moderately-expensive cargo is going to lose considerably more in cargo/data/time than they do in rebuy anyway. Most non-combat ships have rebuys under ten million anyway, which is not a major issue with today's earning rates.

(Also, there's already a discount on rebuy based on the notoriety of the person attacking you. Has it helped?)

To catch the explorer it means to tell everyone when and where he arrives.
After introducing aircraft carriers into the game this is very difficult.
Could you give me some figures, realistically how much a sphinter or merchant can lose per voyage?
I don't want to make Elite safe, it doesn't work that way. I just want to increase the proportion of people fighting

 

[DARGAN]

the PVP in this game is not successful, lack of balance (the engineers do not help) and indeed a problem of fully assumed cost of insurance.

you want the real PVP battle ? the CQC is made for that. in Open there is also the problem of reappearances, often far from the place of the battle.

it also seems to me that work has been done to enable PVP by playing with a superpower, the powerplay.

 

[JoeyTheMooch]

Credits aren't an issue at this point.

 

[DARGAN]

It depends, a ship with an insurance cost of 30 million, when you only have 5 million, you quickly find it in sidewinder, it's a brake on PVP, but it's voluntary.

It's been a long time since I gave up, Frontier will never change its insurance cost system, it's part of the game now and always for that matter.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

To catch the explorer it means to tell everyone when and where he arrives.

Sure, and that applies to traders and miners and bounty hunters and mission runners too. The last time anyone shot at me in Open, despite that being the place I spend almost all my in-game time, was I think almost two years ago ... haven't even had someone try to interdict me for over a year. It's not a very likely thing to happen - it's just potentially catastrophic if it does.

Could you give me some figures, realistically how much a sphinter or merchant can lose per voyage?
I don't want to make Elite safe, it doesn't work that way. I just want to increase the proportion of people fighting

A laser miner could have bulk mined Platinum, say 500t in a big ship, sale value around 300k/tonne, so that's 150 million in potential profit gone if destroyed compared with a ship rebuy probably in the 10-20 million range. Core gems can be around 1 million/tonne in ideal circumstances so a ship full of those might be giving up over half a billion of potential profit (even at 100% rebuy, the cargo is more valuable than the ship!)

A bulk trader shipping Palladium or Tritium could have bought at around 40k/tonne and be carrying 750t - they'd actually lose 30 million credits if destroyed (rebuy maybe 10 million credits) - and also miss out on another 15 million credits of potential profit.

In any case, neither is going to stick around and fight if attacked by a player - a mining ship has to give up too many hardpoints to mining equipment to be able to fire back effectively against anything but a weak NPC, while the trade ship might have a full weapon set (though on the T-x series, that's still not very much) but is going to have relatively low shielding and armour.

Even my multirole Krait II - which is perfectly capable of blowing up most NPCs and where the rebuy would generally be the most expensive part of losing it [1] - if you interdict with any sort of combat ship I'm just going to high-wake out because while I've got decent firepower and enough shields that you can't stop me leaving, I have nowhere near enough defense to endure several minutes of PvP, so I may as well skip to straight to the part where you "win" by getting me to flee.

(Rebalancing combat ships way downwards so that the gap in performance between a freighter with basic shields and weapons and a fully-armed Corvette packed with defensive modules was minimal is firstly highly unlikely - why bother fully engineering a Corvette if it only gives you 10% extra firepower and defense over a trade T-9 - and secondly wouldn't help: I can assume anyone choosing to interdict me outside of an arranged duel thinks that they can beat me in a fight, so why bother taking a chance that I've met someone overconfident - running immediately is still the best option for most defenders)


[1] The rebuy is under 5 million and I have around 5 billion in spare cash. Do I actually care about having to pay a rebuy? No. Still not going to stick around for two minutes to be shot down without seriously denting some Cutter/FDL/Mamba's shields, though.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

Credits aren't an issue at this point.

Can't put a credit value on someone's ego.

 

[gorankar]

People don't play in open for a number of reasons. Aversion to rebuy is only one of them. Aversion to much larger financial or reputation losses due to loss of exploration data, bounties, cargo, or suffering a mission failure, are some others.

The primary one for me, is that most of the time, I just don't want to be inconvenienced by dealing with other players. At all. Like, I don't want to interact with any of them in any way. I don't need them to be my content, and I certainly don't want to be their content. I just want to do what ever it is I am doing without other players. Solo is the easiest way to manage that.

Yes, the threat of gankers is largely over blown, but, in open, I pretty much need to assume every hollow square is a ganker. It only takes one gank attempt, successful or not, in ten or twenty player interactions to make me want to avoid open unless I am actively looking to be around other players.

Can't put a credit value on someone's ego.

Can't put a credit value on someone's salt addiction either.

 

[SergMx]

Sure, and that applies to traders and miners and bounty hunters and mission runners too. The last time anyone shot at me in Open, despite that being the place I spend almost all my in-game time, was I think almost two years ago ... haven't even had someone try to interdict me for over a year. It's not a very likely thing to happen - it's just potentially catastrophic if it does.


A laser miner could have bulk mined Platinum, say 500t in a big ship, sale value around 300k/tonne, so that's 150 million in potential profit gone if destroyed compared with a ship rebuy probably in the 10-20 million range. Core gems can be around 1 million/tonne in ideal circumstances so a ship full of those might be giving up over half a billion of potential profit (even at 100% rebuy, the cargo is more valuable than the ship!)

A bulk trader shipping Palladium or Tritium could have bought at around 40k/tonne and be carrying 750t - they'd actually lose 30 million credits if destroyed (rebuy maybe 10 million credits) - and also miss out on another 15 million credits of potential profit.

In any case, neither is going to stick around and fight if attacked by a player - a mining ship has to give up too many hardpoints to mining equipment to be able to fire back effectively against anything but a weak NPC, while the trade ship might have a full weapon set (though on the T-x series, that's still not very much) but is going to have relatively low shielding and armour.

Even my multirole Krait II - which is perfectly capable of blowing up most NPCs and where the rebuy would generally be the most expensive part of losing it [1] - if you interdict with any sort of combat ship I'm just going to high-wake out because while I've got decent firepower and enough shields that you can't stop me leaving, I have nowhere near enough defense to endure several minutes of PvP, so I may as well skip to straight to the part where you "win" by getting me to flee.

(Rebalancing combat ships way downwards so that the gap in performance between a freighter with basic shields and weapons and a fully-armed Corvette packed with defensive modules was minimal is firstly highly unlikely - why bother fully engineering a Corvette if it only gives you 10% extra firepower and defense over a trade T-9 - and secondly wouldn't help: I can assume anyone choosing to interdict me outside of an arranged duel thinks that they can beat me in a fight, so why bother taking a chance that I've met someone overconfident - running immediately is still the best option for most defenders)


[1] The rebuy is under 5 million and I have around 5 billion in spare cash. Do I actually care about having to pay a rebuy? No. Still not going to stick around for two minutes to be shot down without seriously denting some Cutter/FDL/Mamba's shields, though.

In general, if the miner at a time mines 150 million, doing it on a leaky ship and without weapons is a problem of game design.
Maybe then the word dangerous can be removed from the name of the game?
On the other hand if I'm digging in a remote and secret location do not think that the gankers and pirates will be a nuisance.
Once again, you do not need to remove random encounters, it is necessary to prevent izayestnye all places gankers.

 

[SergMx]

Credits aren't an issue at this point.

If you think so, let me tell you the name of my aircraft carrier and as soon as I am killed I will tell you and you will bring me to the aircraft carrier tritium for 50 million or platinum.
I will fly and try to kill the gankers and since they are better than me before I can beat them I will get on the insurance many times.

 

[SergMx]

People don't play in open for a number of reasons. Aversion to rebuy is only one of them. Aversion to much larger financial or reputation losses due to loss of exploration data, bounties, cargo, or suffering a mission failure, are some others.

The primary one for me, is that most of the time, I just don't want to be inconvenienced by dealing with other players. At all. Like, I don't want to interact with any of them in any way. I don't need them to be my content, and I certainly don't want to be their content. I just want to do what ever it is I am doing without other players. Solo is the easiest way to manage that.

Yes, the threat of gankers is largely over blown, but, in open, I pretty much need to assume every hollow square is a ganker. It only takes one gank attempt, successful or not, in ten or twenty player interactions to make me want to avoid open unless I am actively looking to be around other players.


Can't put a credit value on someone's salt addiction either.

On the contrary, I like to help random people. Not on the team, but just random people.
I once saw a friend of mine play Fallout76 and a player ran up to him at a much higher level than him, threw stuff at him and ran away. I was shocked, why didn't he kill him? The friend said he didn't benefit from it.
That's awesome.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

In general, if the miner at a time mines 150 million, doing it on a leaky ship and without weapons is a problem of game design.

500t leaves plenty of space for shields and defences on a mining Cutter, though. Possibly even enough hardpoints spare to fight off mid-range NPC pirates.

It's not necessary a soft target - should certainly be able to run away from a PvP interdiction if one occurs - but it's not going to be set up to fight back effectively.

On the other hand if I'm digging in a remote and secret location do not think that the gankers and pirates will be a nuisance.

If someone is playing in Open and you never see them because they're in an out of the way system, does it really matter what mode they're in? I thought your idea was to incentivise people to play in systems where there might be hostile players about.

 

[Morbad]

I'm of the opinion that everything should make sense within the context of the setting it exists. Lose your ship and survive (which is currently a given) and it should be expensive. Ideally, it should be progressively more expensive the more often you lose ships as you become known as a high-risk client. If the insurer doesn't take in significantly more than they pay out, they can't turn a profit and wouldn't exist. Of course, if you can prove someone else is responsible, they should be hit with penalties that they may or may not eventually be forced to pay...but that won't change an insurer's risk assessment of a habitual victim.

Of course, it's hard to talk about credits in any meaningful way in a game that has negligible economic simulation, fixed prices, and a highly erratic, but usually massive, credit over-supply. For a few, credit or ship losses can be devastating, but this is rare, even for those of relatively modest assets. Changing the game to be even more consequence free to cater to those for whom any risk is unacceptable is not going to improve the game, IMO.

As for playing in Open, there is no good way to incentivize this beyond what is already intrinsic to Open. The ability to engage in unplanned encounters with player characters who haven't had to be specifically whitelisted is the reason to play in Open. If this does not appeal to someone, and they have any alternative, there is no other viable incentive that will not be perverted, resulting in people who don't want to be in the mode in the mode for some perceived advantage. And there is no one more tiresome to be around than someone who doesn't want to be doing what they are doing.

 

[SergMx]

I'm of the opinion that everything should make sense within the context of the setting it exists. Lose your ship and survive (which is currently a given) and it should be expensive. Ideally, it should be progressively more expensive the more often you lose ships as you become known as a high-risk client. If the insurer doesn't take in significantly more than they pay out, they can't turn a profit and wouldn't exist. Of course, if you can prove someone else is responsible, they should be hit with penalties that they may or may not eventually be forced to pay...but that won't change an insurer's risk assessment of a habitual victim.

Of course, it's hard to talk about credits in any meaningful way in a game that has negligible economic simulation, fixed prices, and a highly erratic, but usually massive, credit over-supply. For a few, credit or ship losses can be devastating, but this is rare, even for those of relatively modest assets. Changing the game to be even more consequence free to cater to those for whom any risk is unacceptable is not going to improve the game, IMO.

As for playing in Open, there is no good way to incentivize this beyond what is already intrinsic to Open. The ability to engage in unplanned encounters with player characters who haven't had to be specifically whitelisted is the reason to play in Open. If this does not appeal to someone, and they have any alternative, there is no other viable incentive that will not be perverted, resulting in people who don't want to be in the mode in the mode for some perceived advantage. And there is no one more tiresome to be around than someone who doesn't want to be doing what they are doing.

We're getting off topic.
The point is that when I want to kill Targoid, it is a special assembly of the ship and I myself fly there.
If I want to participate in the conflict zone, it is a different ship assembly and I fly there myself.
But regular pirates are very weak and easy to get away from them and that's why traders and miners prefer to play on hole ships and without weapons.
If you build for PvP you will play only in PvP as this build is not needed in solo.

The game has too many defense-destroying weapons but no weapons worthy of this.

I made a suggestion a long time ago to make a module jamming interception ...
I made a suggestion in the weapons to insert the directional shields ...
And the ECM module? Why not just make it destroy missiles?

 

[gorankar]

On the contrary, I like to help random people. Not on the team, but just random people.
I once saw a friend of mine play Fallout76 and a player ran up to him at a much higher level than him, threw stuff at him and ran away. I was shocked, why didn't he kill him? The friend said he didn't benefit from it.
That's awesome.

What you do, is what you do. Even if it was indicative of the majority, it would not be enough to offset the reasons other people avoid open play. Only takes one annoying or unpleasant interaction in 10 or 20 or a hundred for some to want to avoid other players.

FO76 is a completely different game. I can't just throw better ships and weapons at you in ED, Best I can do is give you cargo, or arrange lopsided trades at a carrier to transfer credits, or, offer to wing or multi crew with you, (if we can even get that to work reliably). I can't just toss a bag on the ground full of weapon/armor/scrap/caps in front of you. The game also has a PvP flag, and unless you pay a sub, you can't play solo or private group. So people you can interact with is increased. That is without mentioning, that cooperation is easier, and far more beneficial than in ED. Cooperation is actually required to clear some content.

 

[Morbad]

But regular pirates are very weak and easy to get away from them and that's why traders and miners prefer to play on hole ships and without weapons.
If you build for PvP you will play only in PvP as this build is not needed in solo.

I have my CMDR build his ships for worst case scenarios. Since I play in Open exclusively, the most dangerous (using the term loosely) scenario I can face is a fight with a wing of skilled CMDRs in pure combat vessels. So, even when I'm trading, mining, or exploring, the ship my CMDR is flying is built to have a fair shot at surviving these encounters long enough to escape.

If someone wants to squeeze 10% more cargo or 5ly greater jump range on their ship at the cost of not being able to keep the ship together for an FSD cooldown, or sprint out of masslock, if they encounter an actual threat that's an option they have. However, the game doesn't need to soften the consequences of taking that option.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

The place where this could matter is at CGs, where it could incentivise player bounty hunting and overwatch (make it a cost zero activity). One problem with cargo CGs is that if you see a combat ship, you can be confident it's not friendly - you have no friends except any you brought with you, just lots of hazards.

In team combat MMOs, on discovering an imbalance, you switch roles to even it and make your team's collective efforts not futile. If rebuys for clean CMDRs were subsidised in CGs then the bar for entry into PvP on the freighters' side would be much lower. And if their activity that assisted other clean CMDRs (e.g. completing interdicition minigame with player criminals, removing them temporarily from SC) were rewarded, and especially if this counted towards CG progress, then similar role switching would be incentivised here too.

It'd also be somewhat self-explanatory in-universe.