Design 103 - To entice PvP interaction, the primary rule is "negligible cost for a loss"

[Yokai]

This is the last of my "Design XYZ" posts. I have always intended these three, and in this order, and spread out by a day or more each. I knew full well before starting that I would:

A. Probably rub the ED devs (especially Sandro) the wrong way, and
B. Incite a lot of debate over Open PvP (primarily "pirate" playstyle) and allowing players to escape or be driven to Solo/Group mode.

The FD staff are pro devs. No pro likes to be told by their audience that "you're doing it wrong" or "here's a better approach". I know this. I've been on the receiving end of this. My apologies to you as a human being and a pro, and ultimately, thank you for a very cool game so far, despite the rough edges at present. I know exactly how hard and thankless your job can be. I can only hope you'll look past my haughty and pedantic tone (it's not intended that way, it's just precise and matter of fact so I understand that it comes off that way to some people) and just at least _consider_ what I'm saying.

With that up front apology out of the way, on to the topic of this "103" assertion....

Humans are unfortunately designed by evolution to have a very narrow and short risk horizon. Both literally, in what we focus on in our visual field and other stimuli, and cognitively, in how far out we can plan and predict. We tend to focus on immediate and obvious threats and have trouble focusing on more complex and non-immediate threats.

As applied to ED as it stands today, this translates to a very simple and basic reason that many people actively avoid Open play. Even normally PvP-centric players (such as myself) actively avoid Open play. Quite simply:

The cost of _losing_ a PvP encounter is simply too large at present.

This is the overwhelming and obvious fact that everyone grasps quickly, and they act according to human nature. Perhaps more important, even though my previous two 101 and 102 tried to stress the notion of "balanced risk versus reward", there's an important nuance to that equation if you are talking specifically about PvP. Here's the refined, and more exact, formula as it applies to PvP:

The greatest number of players are enticed to willingly engage in PvP when there is tangible and equal reward for winning AND a "negligible" cost for losing.

In other words, PvP encounter mechanics and PvP design drivers are not nearly as successful when players are asked to balance "potentially large rewards against potentially large losses". Instead, the risk portion of that balance equation must be minimal to non-existent.

The examples of the superiority of this design concept--if PvP interaction is a large goal for your game--are everywhere. I challenge you to look at the fractiousness and divisiveness of ED community conversation at present, and also of a game that shares many PvP design driver elements in common with ED (ArcheAge). I challenge you to look at how many players you currently have in Solo/Group versus Open. I challenge you to look at the relative movement of players who start in Open and migrate to Solo/Group versus starting in Solo/Group, moving to Open, and staying there in Open.

Now, contrast that with any of the following commercially successful titles that feature PvP as the core gameplay or a large majority of the gameplay. What do _all_ of these have in common?

League of Legends
Defense of the Ancients
Hearthstone
Call of Duty/Battlefield
Guild Wars 2

I'll stop there because these are the current juggernauts. What do they all have in common? Simple: by engaging in PvP, the worst that can happen is you won't advance. There is no lost effort; no backward progression.

Here's the heart of the problem in ED right now. If you want the specifics behind these numbers, go read post #59 in my "102" thread. These numbers are accurate and meaningful. And they tell a simple story. I'll just quote the relevant chunk.

Pirate: A-class Viper: 1,500,000 cr/hour income divided by 137K insurance rebuy = 5 minutes of trading activity
Pirate: A-class Cobra: 1,500,000 cr/hour income divided by 360K insurance rebuy = 14 minutes of trading activity
Trader: A-class Asp: 1,500,000 cr/hour income divided by 1459K insurance rebuy PLUS (96*5000) cargo rebuy = 77 minutes of trading activity
Trader: A-class T7: 168 tons > 2,016,000 cr/hour income divided by 2296K insurance rebuy PLUS (168*5000) cargo rebuy = 93 minutes of trading activity
Trader: A-class Clipper: 184 tons > 2,208,000 cr/hour income divided by 4099K insurance rebuy PLUS (184*5000) cargo rebuy = 136 minutes of trading activity
Trader: A-class Python: 228 tons > 2,736,000 cr/hour income divided by 7977K insurance rebuy PLUS (228*5000) cargo rebuy = 199 minutes of trading activity

... and I'm going to stop here because it's a lot of number crunching and typing. You can see the slope clearly with these datapoints, and the slope gets even steeper as you move into T9 and Anaconda range.

As you can see, the COST is much higher for the typical "trader" prey versus the "pirate" predator. The typical pirate will need only 5 to 14 minutes of trading activity to recoup a _total loss_. Meanwhile, the typical ships that traders are flying will range from 77 minutes to 199 minutes to recoup a total loss. And the spread is even worse for T9s and Anacondas.

I currently pilot a nearly fully A-classed Python, so I fall squarely in the category of effectively losing 3 HOURS AND 19 MINUTES worth of progress on every potential PvP engagement in Open. I love me some PvP, and I'd dearly love to play solely in Open and scrap it up with anyone who tries to interdict me, but I'm not _stupid_, and I'm not a _masochist_. I'm a casual player, and 3 hours typically means 3 real world days of progress. Potentially lost in one knife fight. In an environment that isn't really protected from hacking/cheating. And which contains griefers who won't even bother trying to roleplay an "honorable pirate" and let you go for a small road agent tax on your cargo.

This is your elephant in the middle of the room. This is why players stay away from Open.

If I lost at most 10 minutes of progress for losing a fight in Open? Totally different story. Then, I don't care about the griefers. I don't care about the hackers. I'd be in Open anyway, providing a fun and potentially lucrative target for the legit "pirates". If a griefer nails me in station exploit--who cares? I'll just avoid that station for a while. If a cheater using hax cannot be killed and crushes me like a bug? Who cares? I'll report them, avoid that system for a bit and go look for fun/trouble elsewhere. And when legit players best me in fair combat or convince me to drop cargo for them with entertaining "pirate roleplay", then I could care less whether I'm "prey in the food chain" Here ya go; you earned it.

But when I stand to lose what to me is typically 3 entire DAYS of progress. Nope. Not happening. Not ever.

 

[Sim Maker]

Cargo Insurance is the "easy" fix.......
..
OK, you get your hat handed to you, and end up back at last space port...........but if you could carry on, but with say a 25% loss of cargo............one could bite lip and probably plod on............When some noob in his hauler, looses a day of Rares, it can end in the blind rage we have been seeing........quit posts, bored pirates.....etc............
...
The hit, to the trader, if he loses, is just too great right now, and he WILL lose, if forced in to combat by a Anaconda ........especially the noob........so maybe also make killing or attacking empty ships a "serious crime".........somehow.....

 

[Titus Balls]

<stuff>

I applaud the effort you've made, especially on the sums here. It also shows the only REAL currency in ED is time. The games you list, for the most part are the same but you can never LOOSE time only waste it. Another game that comes up a lot here is Eve - time is also a commodity there, but it can easily be replaced with real money.

The closest game I can actually think of is Day Z - basically it again is time, and if you get headshot in that you loose all that time. But as you can easily hop servers, or play with friend from the offset the style of play is completely different and with even less of an endgame than ED again there is no real loss.

 

[Loskene]

No offence mate but from my point of view people who ditch open play because they're afraid of losing just come off as wimpy to me. I trade my life savings in open and have no fear of PVP engagement, get on my level. Big ships absolutely need to cost you an arm and a leg if you lose them, how else is there supposed to be any threat to the rich players if the only thing they risk in open space is a bit of time.
If you've been operating a combat ship for your whole career and don't make any money trading or just don't have the patience for it (like a lot of us) then you are risking just as much in every engagement because your bank balance is never much more than your rebuy cost. The fella in the A-rated Viper may not have to work as hard in your theoretical maximised income scenario, but he's also at higher risk of losing his ship completely if he has a run of bad luck and dies more than once or twice. The way you go on anyone would swear trying to do any light trading in open is tantamount to guaranteed suicide. "Griefers" and hackers are not a problem to the degree you imply, directly or indirectly. Trade routes aren't risky, there are a hundred ways to avoid combat if you don't like it, and portraying open play as some sort of lawless hell is only going to do more damage than encourage anyone to "fix" it.

So, forgive me if this series of posts of yours comes off more as an arrogant "I know this game inside out, listen to me for perfection" line of thinking rather than anything based in the reality of it. Stop trying to push for consequence-free deaths, those of us who are actually playing the game on its terms don't appreciate it.

 

[tagos]

No offence mate but from my point of view people who ditch open play because they're afraid of losing just come off as wimpy to me. I trade my life savings in open and have no fear of PVP engagement, get on my level.

Shockingly - you aren't everyone else so you don't get a say in the value they put on their time or in how they choose to play the game.

 

[Loskene]

Shockingly - you aren't everyone else so you don't get a say in the value they put on their time or in how they choose to play the game.

Shockingly, that's pretty much my point if you'd bothered to read past the first line.

 

[Titus Balls]

No offence mate but from my point of view people who ditch open play because they're afraid of losing just come off as wimpy to me. I trade my life savings in open and have no fear of PVP engagement, get on my level. Big ships absolutely need to cost you an arm and a leg if you lose them, how else is there supposed to be any threat to the rich players if the only thing they risk in open space is a bit of time.
If you've been operating a combat ship for your whole career and don't make any money trading or just don't have the patience for it (like a lot of us) then you are risking just as much in every engagement because your bank balance is never much more than your rebuy cost. The fella in the A-rated Viper may not have to work as hard in your theoretical maximised income scenario, but he's also at higher risk of losing his ship completely if he has a run of bad luck and dies more than once or twice. The way you go on anyone would swear trying to do any light trading in open is tantamount to guaranteed suicide. "Griefers" and hackers are not a problem to the degree you imply, directly or indirectly. Trade routes aren't risky, there are a hundred ways to avoid combat if you don't like it, and portraying open play as some sort of lawless hell is only going to do more damage than encourage anyone to "fix" it.

So, forgive me if this series of posts of yours comes off more as an arrogant "I know this game inside out, listen to me for perfection" line of thinking rather than anything based in the reality of it. Stop trying to push for consequence-free deaths, those of us who are actually playing the game on its terms don't appreciate it.

Calm down dear.

It might not be the way you or I play, and you may also have a point but what OP has shown is that Yet Another Thing In This Game Is Broken which pushes more people away from open play.

OP might not be on the money, but they are damn close and they have exposed that the only thing worth anything in ED is simply time.

For people who have busy jobs and families, time is a luxury they cannot afford. For others who are unemployed/retired/lazy then they are time rich and can afford the risk.

So for group 1, open play is simply not worth it. For group 2 it comes down to personal preference and as many have indicated on the forums there is nothing in open the currently persuade them it's worth spending that time there.

 

[Gogster]

said things whilst missing the point

Your average Cobra or ASP doesn't even come close to the cost of a Python/Type 7 (8 or 9) or Anaconda. You're comparing apples with oranges.

OP

It's a nice suggestion, perhaps the suggestion is a compensation scheme for when you respawn after an attack, which can put you 80-90% back on the road. Sounds strange? Google the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

 

[Rearden]

Completely disagree with the premise of the post.

First rule of PvP is to be meaningful, if it is meaningful no one cares about the cost (look at the trillions of ISK being lost on EvE battles). Problem with ED is that PvP has no meaning and done "for the kicks".

But nothing else in the game has (long term) meaning so there is nothing surprising there, the design is actually consistent in that (weird) sort of way.

 

[Rubbernuke]

But is the whole point of ED about risk?

Pirates risk very little and get very little back. Traders risk a lot and get a large return. If you cushion the losses then it takes the sting out and death becomes nothing. Really other structures need to be in place so that the people who need protection can buy it. Once that happens things will even out as you can put a price on risk and sell it to others.

 

[Yokai]

So, forgive me if this series of posts of yours comes off more as an arrogant "I know this game inside out, listen to me for perfection" line of thinking rather than anything based in the reality of it. Stop trying to push for consequence-free deaths, those of us who are actually playing the game on its terms don't appreciate it.

Forums are in large part for player input, player opinion, and player suggestion. Mine are mine; yours are yours. FD does what they do with the input. Ad hominem attacks serve no purpose in this, nor do calls to silence some voices because one personally disagrees with that voice.

 

[Kerrec Snowmane]

I'm sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree. The problem is the feeling of entitlement that a generation of "no consequences for failure" has generated.
.
Why do you feel entitled to fly your Python into combat instead of a Viper, if losing "progress" is an issue for you? Why is "losing progress" even an issue, in a game that is meant to be "fun"? The problem is people play the game to rank themselves on some imaginary ladder, where they can say "I fly the biggest baddest ship, and have a 10:1 kill/death ratio!" instead of, "I attacked a Python with my Viper and forced him to run away! Whew, that was FUN!".
.
I love FPS games. I have played them for years. I spent several hundred hours in BF2, BF3, PS2 and others. In all of those games, they have devolved into a "run and gun/spray and pray" twitch fest where you run willy-nilly trying to kill more than you die. Your team loses a ticket for your death, then you rinse and repeat. Over and Over. Those games are fun, in their own way, but they do not have any endurance. Those gaming companies have to re-iterate the games, adding new gameplay or shinier graphics, to get people to come back. Because when death means nothing, players look for meaning elsewhere (kill death ratios, matches win/loss, achievements). The thing with those, is when you 10 deaths and 1 kill, it's easy to change your ratio. But when you have 10000 deaths and 1000 kills, changing your ratio stagnates. People plateau. And when they can't progress, and death means nothing, THEY STOP PLAYING.
...
And there's the crux. Do you want to please 100,000 players that will play for 2 months and never touch the game again, or do you want to please 10,000 players that will play and keep buying your expansions? EVE online is a shining example of this. It is a difficult game, with concrete choices and consequences. They are not WoW popular in numbers, but they have a VERY LOYAL player base that spend hundreds of dollars per month to play. Plenty to keep their business going, even with huge SNAFU's like their World of Darkness IP.
...
In ED terms, removing consequences for death makes choices like "Cargo vs Shields" or "Guns and defense vs. Jump range" non issues. Those choices NEED TO MATTER, or else people will find the "optimal, min/maxed" route to their goal and nothing else will be relevant. And they will get bored because there's nothing else.
...
The current generation of "entitled" players are for the most part, a lost cause. You can cater to them with yearly releases of big flashy games with achievements and "dings" with a huge development team generating endless "never enough" content, or you can start to recondition the next generation of gamers, and those that are able to "convert" to a gaming philosophy where your decisions make a difference and your success isn't a given, while having FUN figuring it all out.

 

[tagos]

Completely disagree with the premise of the post.

First rule of PvP is to be meaningful, if it is meaningful no one cares about the cost (look at the trillions of ISK being lost on EvE battles). Problem with ED is that PvP has no meaning and done "for the kicks".

That's the problem. Huge impact on the trader, none on the killer. The results are eminently predictable to anyone who has played an MMO with PvP elements. FD should think of hiring one or two.

 

[Titus Balls]

Forums are in large part for player input, player opinion, and player suggestion. Mine are mine; yours are yours. FD does what they do with the input. Ad hominem attacks serve no purpose in this, nor do calls to silence some voices because one personally disagrees with that voice.

I might not agree with you, but I get what you were going for and I defend your right to say it. Don't worry a lot of people around here don't think that. Simply weather it.

 

[remosito]

if ever cost of loss is way to low in ED!

 

[Gogster]

Oh god, the last 4 posts I've read disagreeing with this proposal have completely missed the damn point. Can't people read, comprehend, and then post for goodness sake?

 

[Skip Intro]

What happens when a trader ship, full of shiny, gets interdicted and killed by an NPC Clipper, that they can't boost away from, nor fight as they have no shields or weapons?

They can't blame a player, so no Hacking / Cheating?

They can't blame the game, surely? It is by design that there's interdictions, even in Group and Solo.

Who can they blame for losing their ship?

Also, please stop using 1.5MCr / hour as a reference. I have been playing since Dec 16th and I have yet to have 1.5MCr in the bank at all.

I chuckle at your "5 to 14 minutes to have an A-Spec Viper / Cobra"! That's if you have a big fat trading boat, specc'ed up ready to trade grind your 1.5Mcr/hr, surely? Which defeats your object, dosen't it? If the PvP Pirate can trade up so quickly, probably more quickly now that death has no cost in time or credits, he's back in the game ready to kill you all over again?

 

[Rubbernuke]

That's the problem. Huge impact on the trader, none on the killer. The results are eminently predictable to anyone who has played an MMO with PvP elements. FD should think of hiring one or two.

But with allied pilots /wingmen this should sort itself out. It would be like a WW2 Arctic convoy, with defined roles and plans. If you fly alone, expect to be hit.

 

[Loskene]

Forums are in large part for player input, player opinion, and player suggestion. Mine are mine; yours are yours. FD does what they do with the input. Ad hominem attacks serve no purpose in this, nor do calls to silence some voices because one personally disagrees with that voice.

You are just as entitled to publicly state your opinion as I am to post an opinion in disagreement with it, and if the basis of that disagreement is "I think you're a wimp who just can't deal with death having consequence" then I'm going to say as such. What can I tell ya besides "deal with it"? Sorry?

PVP in a game like this absolutely needs harsh consequences, it's not battlefield or anything where quick action gameplay followed by a reset to neutral is the norm. People should have to consider the value of the assets they risk by getting into a fight, and have some mechanism that makes them consider turning tail and running when it gets too hot. I understand if you just want a trading sim, that's fine, but it's not Elite, so please understand why I'd be bothered seeing someone make such a concerted effort to change that.

 

[Titus Balls]

What happens when a trader ship, full of shiny, gets interdicted and killed by an NPC Clipper, that they can't boost away from, nor fight as they have no shields or weapons?

They can't blame a player, so no Hacking / Cheating?

They can't blame the game, surely? It is by design that there's interdictions, even in Group and Solo.

Who can they blame for losing their ship?

Also, please stop using 1.5MCr / hour as a reference. I have been playing since Dec 16th and I have yet to have 1.5MCr in the bank at all.

I chuckle at your "5 to 14 minutes to have an A-Spec Viper / Cobra"! That's if you have a big fat trading boat, specc'ed up ready to trade grind your 1.5Mcr/hr, surely? Which defeats your object, dosen't it? If the PvP Pirate can trade up so quickly, probably more quickly now that death has no cost in time or credits, he's back in the game ready to kill you all over again?

This is of course the other side of the D20 that is missed in these conversations.

Seriously, I'd like Frontier to release the numbers of how many players have been killed by NPCs vs Other Players.

I suspect the numbers might shock a few people who think the game is full of psychopaths and griefers.