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

[Goilveig]

Oh man, you haven't seen real PvP penalties.

The game my nickname & avatar comes from is Lineage II. Very, very grindy game, very harsh PvP penalties (XP loss for death). High level characters would lose well over 10 hours of grinding for a single PvP death (the PvE death was four times worse), although there were some ways to reduce or eliminate this loss (recovering all lost XP could only be achieved by items that could be produced in small numbers by player-owned castles). In spite of that, PvP actually thrived. Due to the harsh losses, people banded together, and there were regular wars between the major "sides" as small confrontations would escalate into large conflagrations.

I think it was my favorite PvP game of all time. Not because there was as much PvP as other games, but because of the interesting social/political dynamics that arose around PvP. It was quite entertaining to PK someone and stir up a major storm. It was basically like the warfare between organized crime.

Heck, reality has the harshest death penalty of all, and there is "PvP" going on every day.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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

<snip>

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

You're only speaking for yourself, obviously. And you're welcome to avoid Open Play, for whatever reason you wish.

But don't presume that "normally PvP-centric players ... actively avoid Open play" or "players stay away from Open" is anything but an assumption on your part... and patently, gloriously, hilariously incorrect when I look at my own play style, motivations, enjoyment and decision making.


Your assertions and conclusions are just fundamentally foreign to the way I approach playing ED. Especially the "3 days... not happening, not ever" bit. Why not, I wonder to myself.

 

[Sayne]

The other side to this coin is meaningful consequence to psychotic murderers. Not only do traders lose hours and hours of work, the killer continues on his merry way with a trivial bounty. Even with the bounty, the police, even in the highest security systems, are next to useless.

If FD wants Elite to be a simulator of a real Galaxy with risk and consequence, there needs to be risk of some kind of persistent outlaw status and security forces worth their salt who can defend "civilized" space from sociopathic killers. FD have said that it is a valid playstyle, but without some kind of consequences for that sort of antisocial behavior, those people will take over (or have already taken over) Open and will turn it into a deathmatch -- which I'm pretty sure was not the vision or intent of the developers.

What we have now is the worst of both worlds: lots to lose for some people, mostly the weaker trader ships, wih nothing to gain... And no risk at all for the stronger combat ships that can blow up traders at will.

 

[Yokai]

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"?

Simple. I spent the time and energy to progress myself into a Python. A metric crap-ton of time and energy. Therefore, I deserve to fly it. Would I use it in a "pure combat role". No, probably not; because its not designed for that. Would I use it as a "heavy armed trader" or as a "gun platform"? Sure, because it was designed for that. Both of those roles involve combat, especially since FD has a clear design intent of making pirate interdiction of traders more effective than it is now. Why on earth would I want to risk losing 3 days of progress to fly the Python as a "heavy trader" in Open? That's egregious. It's bad math.

Sure, I _could_ simply use my Python in Solo to bankroll as many combat vipers as I like in Open (and some players do exactly this), but why would I want to run around with a BB gun when I've spent the time and effort to acquire a howitzer (that can still ironically be caused an expensive amout of hull damage by a BB gun)?

 

[Rubbernuke]

In that case, should the bounty reflect the value of the victim? Pop a huge T9 full of gold and instantly get a million credit death sentence.

 

[Gogster]

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.

Right, for the hard of thinking.

It's not PvP it's arbitrary ganking. The T6/7/8 against the Cobra/Anaconda/Asp is the 10th level v the 50th level. It's the noob on the coast and the guy in the hills with the 50 cal.

Now do you see the difference?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

In that case, should the bounty reflect the value of the victim? Pop a huge T9 full of gold and instantly get a million credit death sentence.

That's another option, alongside other suggestions people have made, notoriety factor alongside wanted status etc...

 

[Titus Balls]

The other side to this coin is meaningful consequence to psychotic murderers. Not only do traders lose hours and hours of work, the killer continues on his merry way with a trivial bounty. Even with the bounty, the police, even in the highest security systems, are next to useless.

If FD wants Elite to be a simulator of a real Galaxy with risk and consequence, there needs to be risk of some kind of persistent outlaw status and security forces worth their salt who can defend "civilized" space from sociopathic killers. FD have said that it is a valid playstyle, but without some kind of consequences for that sort of antisocial behavior, those people will take over (or have already taken over) Open and will turn it into a deathmatch.

What we have now is the worst of both worlds: lots to lose for some people, mostly the weaker trader ships, wih nothing to gain... And no risk at all for the stronger combat ships that can blow up traders at will.

Indeed - who *wouldn't* want to be known as the baddest murder psychopath in the galaxy - feared in every system and chased down by law enforcement every where there go - if that is of course their play style. It should be completely valid.

Sadly at the moment it's not with the lack of a global crime system. Instead it's just one style of player picking off easy targets and getting away with it.

 

[DarkWalker]

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.

What's more, games that have a penalty for death in PvE and have the potential for PvP, such as World of Warcraft, often will reduce or remove the death penalty when that death happens in PvP. Taking WoW as the example, a death in WoW can set the player back some 15-30 minutes regarding the gold required for the repairs, but dying to a player will remove the durability hit on death, removing those extra repair costs. And it's not alone, with few exceptions devs of games that have both PvP and PvE will intentionally make deaths in PvP far more forgiving than in PvE, unless the PvE death is already forgiving enough to be barely a slap on the wrist.

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.

A game like DayZ is a completely different beast; there is little to no progression, so being sent to square one isn't punishing. Akin to the "harsh" games of old that made the player start over if he lost all lives; as a full runthrough of the game typically lasted a few dozen minutes, being sent to the beginning was actually a light punishment in reality.

(Besides, in DayZ, I believe the average life expectancy of a character is a bit above an hour, according to stats the devs made public.)

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.

It's not a matter of fear, it's a matter of fun, or lack of. ED is a game, so I will not do anything that isn't fun, or that has a reasonable risk of bringing me frustration. As such, I will not play in any way that can set me back more than a few minutes if I die.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

If death doesn't have a significant penalty then there's no point to combat every fight will become a fight to the death. Traders won't fear pirates, pirates won't fear bounty hunters and bounty hunters won't fear their prey.

As for big ships, they offer increased defensive capability for increased cost of death. In a larger ship you should be dying a lot less to make up for the increased cost over a viper or cobra. You should not be dying enough in a python that 2.5 hours is a significant portion of your time.

Ifhthe death cost for your trading ship iss too high imagine how the pirates feel since pure pirates make less than 1/4 as much.

 

[Titus Balls]

Right, for the hard of thinking.

It's not PvP it's arbitrary ganking. The T6/7/8 against the Cobra/Anaconda/Asp is the 10th level v the 50th level. It's the noob on the coast and the guy in the hills with the 50 cal.

Now do you see the difference?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



That's another option, alongside other suggestions people have made, notoriety factor alongside wanted status etc...

A game like DayZ is a completely different beast; there is little to no progression, so being sent to square one isn't punishing. Akin to the "harsh" games of old that made the player start over if he lost all lives; as a full runthrough of the game typically lasted a few dozen minutes, being sent to the beginning was actually a light punishment in reality.

(Besides, in DayZ, I believe the average life expectancy of a character is a bit above an hour, according to stats the devs made public.)

Like I said it is a different beast but with the above point this is also true in this game - I've seen on more than one occasion threads of people just starting out in Sidewinders, being picked off and deciding open mode is not for them because of "that guy on the hill".

Trust that I am pro PvP and pro open mode in this game, but it's also balanced so badly in favour of people who have time to get a bigger ship and learn the mechanics and valid exploits, and has very few consequences for us or NPCs to deal with them.

In essence it's another lever Frontier have to pull.

 

[Kubicide]

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?

I know right? Entitlement, afraid if losing, etc., - wait, what? Clearly folks haven't read what was written.

Point here is about the cost of losing, as in how much game time it takes to buy or rebuy your lost gear, is too high. And if the rebuy costs were lower there would be more people playing in open, and this makes absolute sense without any drama or emotional baggage attached to it.

I totally agree with the OP on this.

If your rebuy cost (time) is not that much then you probably won't agree as you haven't experienced the problem. (Yet I would challenge those to work hard at grinding up to say a T9, load it full, and then stay in open where there is real PVP contact). But there's nothing written here about an entitlement issue or fear of losing.

 

[Fian]

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.

I applaud the post and the effort and thought you have put into it (as well as the previous ones), but I do disagree with this small portion of it.

Ok minimum risk and maximum reward will clearly result in the greatest numbers of players engaging in PVP, that is how incentives work. That doesn't mean this is desirable. I agree that the current balance absolutely discourages pvp, I have zero interest in bringing a large ship into a pvp encounter and will do whatever necessary to actively avoid this. the cost of loss is too high for that to be worthwhile.

This doesn't mean that the right design reaction is to maximise pvp reward and minimise risk. It needs to be balanced - in order for me to want to participate in pvp I must believe that I stand to gain as much (or slightly more) than I stand to lose on a risk weighted basis. As matters stand I face potentially large losses and no realistic prospect of gains.

I don't think I or players generally will refuse to engage in pvp where there are large risks if they were balanced with large gains. it is a game, not real life, I am happy to take risks in game that I might not in the real world.

So if I were offered a 50/50 chance to treble my net worth or lose everything in the real world I would probably refuse - because the downside risk is too severe, I have dependants relying on me and I suppose trebling my net worth would probably be less life changing than losing all of it.

In a game though - I would probably take the chance.

The current balance though is absurd, the idea that my "gain" might be to escape with only 10% hull damage (millions in repair on an anaconda) and my loss is catastrophic means any rational person will seek to avoid pvp in that scenario. And guess what - there is a virtually zero cost mechanism built into the game to allow me to.

When I am in a combat ship thought my "gain" is a bit of fun and my cost is pretty negligible too. So in those circumstances why not.

So you don't see pirates operating in Anaconda's and certainly not trade specced Anacondas because they would go broke pretty quick. Bringing a cobra/viper into PVP though - why not?

So if the risk weighted costs of pvp are increased when i am trading (by increasing the likelihood of destruction and hull damage) more traders will chose to stick to solo or group when trading and use open only in cheaper ships like viper/cobra/asp/vulture/whatever.

 

[Mephane]

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.



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.

I agree 100%. The only thing that would need adding here is that repair and wear&tear are similarly an issue. Even if you survive an encounter in your Python, the cost to repair the hull and w&t can easily exceed the rebuy cost of an fully A-rated Cobra.

 

[DarkWalker]

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.

If flying in a group of trader ships, they still are weak against proper combat ships. Still easy pickings.

If flying with a few combat-ready escorts, then the profits per trip need to be split among all players. Either trading needs a hefty increase in profitability, or else its profit levels when "hiring" escorts will fall enough that players will revert to going alone or, if the added risk from groups of pirates makes it too risky, to playing other professions.

Besides, flying escort when you are not guaranteed to fight is the pinnacle of boredom. And assembling groups has a time overhead that will further reduce profits.

So, no. I don't think wings will fix anything. In fact, I think it will make things worse.

 

[Loskene]

Sure, I _could_ simply use my Python in Solo to bankroll as many combat vipers as I like in Open (and some players do exactly this), but why would I want to run around with a BB gun when I've spent the time and effort to acquire a howitzer (that can still ironically be caused an expensive amout of hull damage by a BB gun)?

Because you can afford to risk it and the guy with the BB gun (more often than not) can't. It may have a higher rebuy and repair cost but that's the price you pay for having that kind of advantage. You could easily go around in that Python sending Cobra pilots that scrape up credits a few thousand at a time back to sidewinders before you even start to notice your bankroll going down, do you think that's fair? Apparently not, because you want to make it even easier on yourself. What you seem to want is favourable conditions for the subset of players who want to have their cake and eat it too, ie risk nothing more in open play than they do in solo, which is presumably next to nothing.

There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to push your own agenda but don't do it under the guise of "fixing" the game. We know it's broken and unbalanced but your changes will not resolve anything to the benefit of anyone but yourself. Consider that before you give your next patronising "lesson" on game design.

 

[Gogster]

If flying in a group of trader ships, they still are weak against proper combat ships. Still easy pickings.

If flying with a few combat-ready escorts, then the profits per trip need to be split among all players. Either trading needs a hefty increase in profitability, or else its profit levels when "hiring" escorts will fall enough that players will revert to going alone or, if the added risk from groups of pirates makes it too risky, to playing other professions.

Besides, flying escort when you are not guaranteed to fight is the pinnacle of boredom. And assembling groups has a time overhead that will further reduce profits.

So, no. I don't think wings will fix anything. In fact, I think it will make things worse.

Indeed, pirates/murderers in groups of 4...

 

[CMDR M Kozak]

...snip... the only thing worth anything in ED is simply time. ...snip....

Im not sure I get this one, because every games commodity is time. We "spend" time playing the game we choose. Be it ED or Monopoly.

The thing about losses is - to me - a part of the game that you must master. Just like the rest. There can be no progress if there are no possible setback.
Also, in ED you can actually escape combat. Its not that hard and its for the most part about hitting the "Charge FSD" button and boosting.
Compare that to combat in EVE where you are mostly 100% committing to a deadly fight.

I know, there are people who panic and forget to run.
There are also people who tries to do super fancy things with FA off and forget about the flight vector.
But escaping combat, explosive losses (of time) is very easy in ED.

I have always believed that it would encourage combat if you have the option to leave. Because you can "give it a go" and then run if things go south.

Finally, the loss you take on ship destruction is at most 5%. You respawn back in the ship with the same modules, ready to go. Compare that to EVE again.

Saying that something is "broken" here is something that I outright cannot agree with.

Edit: What "could" be broken is the options for large shipowners to make money with thier vessels, but I guess you dont want to talk about that in this thread.

 

[jgm]

Right now if I win a PvP fight I'm elated. If I lose a PvP fight I'm (at the least) annoyed with myself. If your suggestions were implemented my reaction to losing a fight would be 'meh' and my reaction to winning a fight would be 'meh'.

Risk and reward. Choice and consequence. So few games have these in any meaningful sense. Does this make ED a great game? Not by itself, but they're the reason that I stick around while waiting for the rest of the game to come along. Remove them and you remove the chance that ED has to really carve its own niche.

 

[Hell Razor5543]

I agree with the OP that the risk/benefits curve does seem to get extremely steep the better the vessel gets. While there should be a risk issue, it should not be so great as to put people off. Remember, ED is a game (although it also seems to be becoming a way of life!).

 

[tagos]

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.

I don't mind PvP. I object to having no consequences on one side because it harms gameplay. Specifically piracy because there's no guarantee traders won't be killed they have to run. Or play solo.

The proposal to reduce consequences on all sides would work but it just doesn't feel right for a game like this. There needs to be a correct balance of consequences to incentivise some gameplay and disincentivise others.