I think "consent" is quite ambiguous in many ways, assuming just because someone is there, they must consent to any action
you want to do is a bit weird. I mean, I'd "consent" to being hunted by a player if I had a high bounty, as I would if I had a cargo someone wanted. Death in the first instance seems a reasonable conclusion to that interaction, being robbed (but surviving) a reasonable one in the second - a wise Pirate wants to rob you again someday, they can't if they've been blocked because you're dead to them now. Both players experience a role-play themed encounter in those instances based on their prior actions - be it gaining that Bounty in the first place (naughty naughty!) or carrying a valuable cargo in a dangerous area because the potential profits were too tempting. That's good, solid in-game role play appropriate to the game, hopefully enjoyed by
both parties. As is the strongly implied "consent" when people are on opposite sides in a CZ with
both in combat-oriented ships. A (perhaps) fair fight with allies on
both sides.
Assuming that just because someone is in Open that they
want to partake (as the victim) in another player's fetish for killing unchallenging targets, isn't right. Many clearly don't want
that sort of player interaction. No role play applies here
because in part because its so easy to exploit the Crime and Punishment system (or lack of) in the game
and the massive difference between a ship outfitted for trade and one
purely for killing. Add to that the lack of counter to a PvP ship's load out if a vessel equipped for anything else, there's no balance, no
joint player experience. One gets a buzz from easily killing you as part of their sociopathic role play, the other gets a rebuy screen. One party get their quick fix, the other likely frustration for a meaningless (role play) encounter.
It's a shame how balance has swung so wildly in favour of the aggressor in any encounter. My Anaconda, as an example, is
primarily about carrying cargo. Sure, it has guns but they're turrets (bar one MC) so struggle to hit a nimble ship as turret AI is a bit rubbish - actually, it's embarrassingly bad at times, regularly shooting where the target
was. Turrets are carp, but often the only practical option. The ship also has what I consider decent shields, with good resistances, decent recharge and a healthy pool of hit points, making your average combat encounter fairly survivable. However, that
main defence can be quickly negated by ONE weapon - 100% to no shields within seconds of the encounter starting. Next I have a fairly decent hull with some hull and module reinforcement, but those were negated very quickly when the ship's Power Plant was easily sniped. So, all those compromises I made, seeing the Anaconda able to carry
less cargo and be
less effective at its designated role counted for naught due to the excessive balance creep between defender and attacker.
I don't know how this can be handled so everyone can have fun. Sure, I could team up with three other players and role play that way, but I'm generally alone. Being able to hire Mercenaries to guard me would be a fairly decent option. To be clear, I'd envision these guys would be
law abiding so if I took an illegal action - say I was the aggressor - at best they'd abandon me (at they don't want to become wanted, their livelihoods depend on it) at worst they might see their (ex) boss as a bounty opportunity due to your actions.
To be clear someone saying "You can't attack me because I don't want it" is just the other side of "You must let me attack you because I want it" when in the open environment. One side of that equation has basically
all the exploits / game imbalances in their favour though. Sure, we all expect to have interactions with other players in open, we consent to that, it doesn't mean a Player just wants to be killed in moment with
zero counter option due to game balance choices. The fact that a PvPer can so easily kill a ship built for any other role feels very much like an exploit to me. The game balance is such that things are 100% in the aggressor's favour.
With a more robust system to make the killing of Clean players in (relatively) weak ships have at least
some consequences would go a long way to improving open for the majority. It'd no longer be a case of "Ha ha, I can do what I want because it's open and there are no consequences for me.". I'm sure there still would be the "murder hobos" (funny name lol) but
they would certainly gain the combat experiences they evidently desire if lots of high-end NPC Bounty Hunters jump them every time they arrive in a system with some degree of security. I can imagine dedicated Bounty Hunting NPC's hanging around around main stars waiting for these guys...that'd be epic.
It's a shame because I've had great
cooperative experiences with other players in past where we've
both enjoyed the narrative that's played out. Be it simple team bounty hunting, other co-op missions, or the more experienced player guiding another through certain aspects of the game. Being blown up by a sociopathic player during these would really have entirely ruined the experience, which is why most were done in PG.
@Reggit - you see, to me, that's a near perfect example of a solid role-play encounter. There are
reasons for you both to fight and you both appear to be in combat ships, though I don't know the individual load outs of course. I assume the guy didn't mind featuring in your video? I don't know how things work in that respect.
At the end of the day, we may encounter sociopaths in the game - we
hope it's just role-play!
That's never going to be a fun, rewarding encounter for
one of the players at least. The heavily exploitable nature of several aspects of the game is as much to blame as anything here. I'm exceedingly grateful that SOLO and Private Group exist, I just wish the likes of Mobius were more populated.
