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

While I don't disagree with you, those same traders DIDN'T choose to be specifically targetted simply BECAUSE they're a player - because, like, attacking most traders while in a gunned up viper or anaconda is such challenging PvP! If a pirate CHOOSES to ignore NPC targets simply so they can target human players exclusively, I don't have much sympathy for them either I'm afraid.

Of course they did. It is implicit when they choose "OPEN". Deny it all you want, but ask every player killer or pirate in Open if they would target a PC before an NPC, and I'd wager my ship they will all say PC. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just play in Solo?
.
As an aside, I would wholeheartedly support a design change to get rid of "CMDR". That way, players will never know if they are facing an NPC or a PC. Same goes for Pirates and Killers, they'd never know if they're interdicting/pirating/killing a PC or an NPC.
 
And the "loss there?" You get sent back to a waypoint on the map and have to do some potentially risky running to rejoin your commander's group. Or you just wait because they're about to all die in the same clash that wiped you out, or they need to shortcut to a different point on the map and that shortcut is through the waypoint in your spawn area. No money is lost. No progress is lost. There are no repair costs. Nada.
...
I'm not saying ED should be just like GW2. I'm just highlighting that "serious and harsh loss is required to make PvP meaningful" is not a universally true statement. And anecdotally, not a popular choice in the marketplace.
Funny you should bring up GW2.
I was a huge GW and GW2 fanboy. Loved the franchise.
I completely lost interest in GW2 about 9 months in, and haven't been back. Mainly for the same reasons you state make the PvP there successful. The victories stopped feeling like accomplishments, and the failures were inconsequential. WvW became a pendulum of take and re-take points on a map. There was just an overwhelming feeling of none of it matters.

I don't have any numbers to support or refute the claim that the "no loss" model is the right one to be successful. All I can say is I personally don't like it. I'm sure I can't be the only one that feels this way.
If for no other reason, it's nice to have another choice. If I want to play in a no-loss world, I can go play GW2 (or any number of PvP games with a similar model).
I'm thankful that ED is different.
 
have you tried pirating yet? Pirating other humans... that is, is the only way to try it as AI aren't worth it

I know that pirating players is going to be more difficult, but that does not nullify pirating NPCs as a line of reasoning.

The "consequences" statement you took out of context - I was referring to the act of murder, not piracy. FD's original vision was for pirates to steal cargo and sell it as that was how you advanced your rating not murdering people which has become the norm. As a consequence to this some players will not come into open which is a shame. As yet FD have not implemented the pirate role in any meaningful way.

I am fully aware of the short comings of piracy as I have plundered quite a few ships - I agree it's not easy. If you say hatch breakers need an overhaul then I will believe you - I don't use them after reading on the forum how ineffective they were so prefer to gimbal the cargo hatch instead. Raise a ticket rather than rant at another player ;)

Until then, don't even try suggesting anything negative against it.

Having played both sides of the law and self-imposed Ironman (I am on commander number 7 now) I am allowed to make suggestions good and bad, but I thank you for your opinion.
 
Never played GW2. I have played EVE. I'd say that the two are complete opposites, and EVE has HUGE coalitions that coordinate with the same level of organization as you described. I think if you went and made the assertion that GW2 is the "most long-term-successfully massive PvP game -ever- in the western market", you'd get laughed at by the entire player base. In EVE, loss is the complete opposite. You lose, you lost what you brought and you have to buy or gather to make up your losses. Now, don't get me wrong, those huge organized coalitions have rendered the losses almost negligible thru organization and 10 years worth of wealth accumulation, but the point stands that EVE is the complete opposite of the GW2 you describe, and I would argue the point that it is equally successful, if not more so.
.
That being said, there is a HUGE flaw with option 2 and 3: When all that is possible is forward progression, then ~eventually~ everyone will be flying the biggest ships. You'll never see Eagles, Vipers, Cobras, Asps and whatever other ships are not considered FOTM. You will have 30 ships to fly, and everyone will be flying fleets consisting of: the best trader, the best fighter, the best explorer, the best pirating ship. You might see 5 ships everywhere you go, and the other 25 will relegated to the dust bin because "backwards progression" hurts feelings.
.
Might as well just remove "declaring bankruptcy" from the game. That is too harsh for the new generation of gamers.


I think we're looking at the term "successful" from different perspectives. I agree to every point you make about EVE. CCP has a loyal core of committed players, and I'm sure CCP is making money.

However, EVE can boast a peak concurrency of only 65,000 players, and that was for a special anniversary. GW2's peak concurrency was running at 460,000 players before they ever launched into the Chinese market.
 
Last edited:
IMO top end ship/module costs are too high, probably double what they should be.

In addition to that we have (IMO) a broken trading system where people only ever trade in the top 3-4 most expensive commodities which generally have low relative profit margins (but high absolute ones). If trading was working properly you would not have people regularly moving high value high risk commodities in pure cargo ships - its the real life equivalent shoving a consignment of gold bullion into a arctic lorry and heading out on the M4 and not expecting trouble. The economy needs to be reworked so that trade is mostly around normal commodities that are cheap and have relatively high profit margins so a cargo loss represent 3 runs profit instead of 10 runs. Moving high value goods like gold and palladium should be a fringe specialist activity only undertaken by people suitably equipped to do it.

I like this idea, kind of a deciding line between the pros and the straight laced traders.
they would have to seriously bump the price of commodities up so that only those with the bankroll could even hope to carry a cargo hold full of gold but would see a maginally better profit margin. They would naturally be the targets of pirate players making that profession more lucrative and leaving the new players alone in places like lave since the gold runners would be in fringe space. They would need to buff turrets since every boat would become target number 1 and be able to scan cargo from supercruise so everyone in a type 9 doesn't get pulled over. Eliminate hull damage from interdictions and raise the fine to a crime with steeper implications. But they would also need to increase npc pirates difficulty. No more sidewinders pulling you out of supercruise but instead a python or conda. They would also have to impose a higher bounty for murder that can only be erased by being killed in combat either by an npc or a player.

then they could take it to a whole other level with actual smuggling. 180 the 50% cut on illegal goods if it's illigal make it 150% minimum. Eliminate the reduction on stolen goods unless it's scanned. If it's scanned in that jurisdiction then they need to offset the risk of buying it off you. As it stands now you can't make money running illegal cargo in any capacity that needs to change. I'm not sure why drugs are so cheap in the future if they're still illegal.

Then you have 3 professions in trading all with different levels of risk and reward.

Basic commodity trading
low buy in after still being made more expensive with profits expected in the honey pot runs we have now like the profits from palladium or gold.
add in cargo insurance for certain types of cargo. insurance would cover basic commodities.

top tier trading
multitudes higher in buy in only the high rollers can do it with slightly better profits 1.5X -2X
extensive risk interdictions by higher level npc's priority targets for human pirates
cargo insurance not applicable

smuggling
harder to find trade routes
interdictions by npc/human pirates and system authorities
reputation reducing these but harshly damaged of discovered.
Low to high buy in with significantly higher profits 3-5X contributes to smuggling rank
chance to break even or sell at a loss if scanned.
150-200% markup in the black market.
50% markdown if scanned with harsh fines and a rep hit if caught
no cargo insurance

Not only does this make trading more exciting and potentially more lucrative it also does the same for pirates whom now start to make a lot more with targets that are either covered by insurance or have accepted the risks from what they hold in their cargo bay. With gains and protective measures turrets being useful armor being purchased ect. To make the profession enticing. Human bounty hunter would also profit since there would be more targets with worthwhile murder bounties that don't just magically disappear.
 
Last edited:
While I don't disagree with you, those same traders DIDN'T choose to be specifically targetted simply BECAUSE they're a player - because, like, attacking most traders while in a gunned up viper or anaconda is such challenging PvP! If a pirate CHOOSES to ignore NPC targets simply so they can target human players exclusively, I don't have much sympathy for them either I'm afraid.

The trader did actually choose that very thing. By choosing open you accept that you may be killed by other players. If he was killed by an elite anaconda in solo would there still be a discussion? I mean he didn't choose to be killed by an NPC either right?

I don't understand why people are ok with npcs being mindless killers but not cmdrs. Is it strictly a level of difficulty thing? Npcs are a mild annoyance while players can be deadly. For me personally, When I'm staring at the insurance screen it doesn't matter if it was an npc or cmdr or my own stupidity, dead is dead. I can learn from each experience just the same.
 
Last edited:
Respectfully, I think you are missing the point. Think of the risk/reward ratio. No matter how low the reward is for the pirate, the ratio is still lower then that of a trader. There is little to no risk for the pirate and, especially, well heeled killer. Traders will continue to migrate out of the open until the ratio equalizes.

Look at some other threads we had on safety balance between systems and expected returns. Right now there is nothing in the game that dissuades mindless shooting of the traders. I fly a well defended Python and have never flown without shields. I can hold myself in combat, and contrary to the OPs statistical claims, rarely take damage to the hull in NPC interactions (usually when I fly my new ship in its first combat and still figuring out how it works best), I just do not like the idea of having to run into an idiot who is going to shoot me because he's bored. Piracy and killing should be made a choice with consequences - you cannot show your face outside of anarchy systems if you are a killer. Conversely, if I'm a trader, I should expect nothing less but a fight if I decide to show up in an anarchy section.

I'm not sure the risk/reward balance is that far off what it should be though. How I define risk in this game is how likely a given situation will result in me losing not what I have right now, but the threat of losing the ability to maintain what I have or gain anything further. This equates to dying often enough that insurance starts to become a concern pushing you towards immediate danger of bankruptcy, followed by the risk of bankruptcy itself.

Now if we look at the various careers from this point of view, we can back-of-the-envelope guesstimate their risk to reward ratios. Start with the obvious because I won't delve into them all:

Trading:
-Primary motivation is income.
-Secondary motivation is fun though roleplay and co-operation, competition or conflict with other players.
-Main threats to the primary motivation are pilot error, followed by wanton murder and piracy. Given the low probability of encountering a hostile ship on the average milk run, the profit margins here are the highest in the game. Given the size of the ships and value of cargo needed for this profit margin, the rate at which a string of bad luck will push you towards bankruptcy is also the highest in the game.
-Low entry fee, high income scale once you start.
-Actual risk of bankruptcy or threat thereof is low, given the infrequent nature of hostile attacks, how few of them are likely to result in death, and the amount of money gained in between successful attacks offsets any loss for all but the most unlucky, unskilled or inattentive.
Low risk, high reward

Piracy:
-Primary motivation is fun through RP and conflict with other players.
-Secondary motivation is income.
-High entry fee for a combat-worthy ship that can still hold cargo. No income scaling, limited by cargo scooping mechanic.
-Income is possibly the lowest in the game due to difficulty finding valuable targets that will meet your demands or be unable to escape without dying. Not to mention being unable to ever scoop enough booty to come close to what that trader will make in a single run.
-Every outing comes with the risk you won't return at all due to police, bounty hunters, and targets that can defend themselves.
-Risk of bankruptcy is very high without taking up a different career for supplementary income to cover munitions, repairs, ship upgrades and insurance.
High risk, low reward

Bounty hunting:
-Primary motivation is fun through combat with either players or NPCs.
-Secondary motivation is income.
-Probably the second best way to make money if you pick your targets.
-Low to middling entry fee, reasonable income scaling as you get equipment to take on bigger threats.
-Risk of bankruptcy is low with exceptions for new players and ships with high operational costs (anything above the Cobra).
Average risk, average reward

Murderous psychopathy:
-Primary motivation is fun through conflict with other players. This is different from griefing.
-No income.
-Threat of bankruptcy is nonexistant as this is either done with free sidewinders or a limitless bank account.
No risk, high reward

And so on and so forth for mining, exploration, etc.

So my conclusion is that every gameplay style has its own inherent risks and rewards as a result of interaction with the others, and that these are all roughly in line with the figures they should be for those actions, with a few more notable exceptions like wanton murder, which everyone agrees needs more risk to balance its reward. Persistent reputation hits and an increase in the difficulty of removing wanted status and its negative effects is the right way to go, and for every other career it's just a matter of fine tuning the numbers.

What I want to say in closing is that we should all just cool our heels and not propose any major rocking of the proverbative boat, major feature changes that vastly impact large parts of the playerbase for the benefit of the few are best avoided in favour of minor, measured responses to emergent problems. We're going in the right direction so let's not make any large course changes, we'll only end up overshooting and have to double back to the station. Can you dig it?
 
It's called Elite Dangerous due to the rating you need in order for the Elite Federation of Pilots to approach you to join their order.

It has nothing to do with risk.

LOL then you don't understand the series nor its original origin. Braben didn't arbitrarily pick the title "Elite" to mean the highest rank. He picked it to indicate how hard it was to attain and how dangerous and risky the challenge was.
 
I think we're looking at the term "successful" from different perspectives. I agree to every point you make about EVE. CCP has a loyal core of committed players, and I'm sure CCP is making money.

However, EVE can boast a peak concurrency of only 65,000 players, and that was for a special anniversary. GW2's peak concurrency was running at 460,000 players before they ever launched into the Chinese market.

You love obfuscation. EVE is a subscription based game model. GW2 is a one time purchase model. If EVE players that are no longer subscribed would suddenly be allowed to just log in and play for free, I'm pretty sure your 460,000 GW2 players wouldn't be such an "achievement".
 
I understand about the hackers. No one ever wants to meet a hacker in space or in any game per se. When it comes to losing a large amount of credits because you lost a fight in open play to a legitimate enemy then I see that as fine ! I think this because if, once wings is incorporated you could have friends protect you on a run between stations. You could hire people and maybe credit them to protect you. It opens up a whole new way to play. Also of course, it works the other way when it comes to pirates etc but what great battles this would create. If no one actually cared about the ship they had because the value of it was zero then for me it would make battles much more of a joyless experience. I'm really looking forward to wings and I really cannot wait to see how the PVP stuff moves forward once this is introduced.
 
LOL then you don't understand the series nor its original origin. Braben didn't arbitrarily pick the title "Elite" to mean the highest rank. He picked it to indicate how hard it was to attain and how dangerous and risky the challenge was.

Correct - but Dangerous has nothing to do with risk. ("Dangerous is... well, full of risk." :rolleyes:)

Likewise, our "friendly" discussion on the semantics of the name has nothing to do with the thread either.

/out.
 
It seems to me that most of the voices ringing out here fall squarely on one side of the fence, being not so much interested in PvP itself, but in protecting themselves from it.

This is all well and good, they have as much right to voice their opinions as I do, but I would like to speak for myself here. I am a pirate and part-time terrorist. Much has been said about the viability of my profession in terms of making money, and I am here to report that they have all been hilariously overstated.

Mister Yokai, in his original post, says that I, being the pilot of a fully A-rated Cobra (with Python trader in my garage, because of the reasons to be detailed), I should be making approximately 1.5million credits per hour. Umm, well, I'd quite like to know exactly where in the Milky Way that figure originates from. From experience, this could not be further from the truth. Much of the focus of this thread appears to be in bringing people back into Open Play, and I applaud Commander Yokai for wanting to do so, though some will say for my own selfish reasons - they're right on that one.

Even in ultra-populous systems such as the Lave area, or Altair, attempting to intercept players during rare-trade routes has yielded pathetic results. It would appear that in attacking these populous routes, I enter into a target-impoverished environment, in which the majority of players I run into are fellow pirates like myself, or bounty hunters after my head. Sure, I could spend hours of my time flying around to various economically-endowed worlds looking for unsuspecting trade targets running normal commodity routes, but I've found that the number of players doing this in Open is so few, or that they are so spread out (due to instancing and the sheer size of inhabited space) that it may be a couple hours at a time between spottings of juicy enough targets.. that I then have to successfully interdict and extort cargo from. In the time I've wasted doing this, I could've earned some 20 times more than the paltry 32 ton of stolen wares I've been cruising into Anarchic stations with, regardless of the cargo's actual value, as I'm only ever going to recoup 50% of its value. Assuming the guy hasn't alt-f4'd or managed to somehow escape otherwise. I think it goes without saying that my average return doesn't even amount to 1.5million credits, after several more hours of work than mister Yokai seems to let on.

Perhaps I should be pirating NPC targets? Perhaps they should carry cargo worth my time. If you want to view piracy as an economically-interested and viable profession, under the current state of the game, I don't think you're going to come up with an opinion that remotely reflects reality.

I suggest that more players attempt piracy before attempting to tell us that've been grinding our faces against the brick wall for weeks that we've got things too good.

Now, back to the OP. Yokai's numbers are in fact derived from the assumption that pirates will be trading in Solo or Group modes to make money to support their endeavors (and my above exercise in misunderstanding is intended to drive in the following points). For this much, he's caught me red-handed, but not by any choice of mine (though, I don't tend to use Solo mode for trading, except for when exploiting the Seeking Luxuries fiasco a couple weeks ago). My hand is forced, as my preferred mode of play is absolutely unviable (in terms of making money, let alone 'breaking even') due to the mechanics that Frontier thus far have set in place.

Actually, that's the better part of the reason I haven't logged in for 10 days now.

Overall, though, I agree with the gist of the thread - that the risk/reward mechanics for PvP are totally out-of-whack, but I'd say that this is true in all scenarios, not just for the trader that feels ambushed. There simply is not sufficient reward in terms of credits in order for me to want to continue as a player-versus-player pirate. At the end of the day, I'm really just getting my jollies from attacking other players, economic incentives having been roundly removed from the table before ever becoming an option. I wanted to be a pirate, not a griefer, but FDEV has set up a situation in which I can only truly be the latter, and has severely dealt a blow to my will to continue to allow this game to occupy precious hard drive space.
 
Last edited:
I just noticed this horrible post and i really hope elite doesmt take this on board. Lol and hearthstone as pvp games in comparison... and cod? Are you serious?

Take out the cost you take out the risk. The fact you play in solo shows the game is too scary for you but you still play in solo. The safe option. Dont ruin it for those of us who want a harder core game. Make battleships free for all n cheap you defeat the object.

I see pvp. N happily its not everyone and their dog throwing their ships at you.

Also this has to be the most arrogant post i have seen in a while telling the guys maming the game they are doing it wrong.... thank god this is the last in a series of three and i missed the first two... lol
 
I always hear "Solo" and "Open" in here, but it's about more than that. As a trader with a big fat juicy T9 full of usually rather expensive stuff (Gold, Beryllium, Resonating Separators...) I still play open mode myself. But I do play at the ass end of nowhere where your usual hacker/griefer will not be due to too low player density. I call that "semi-Open" aka player interaction is possible in theory, but is extremely unlikely.

The reason is as correctly stated by the OP the high death penalty. In GW2 I played PvP exclusively, and I do consider myself a fan of PvP-centric playstyle in general. But losing 2-3 hours of progress just because some griefer who is very likely making heavy use of exploits (aka isn't even actually playing the game) thinks it's funny? No thanks.
 
Mister Yokai, in his original post, says that I, being the pilot of a fully A-rated Cobra (with Python trader in my garage, because of the reasons to be detailed), I should be making approximately 1.5million credits per hour. Umm, well, I'd quite like to know exactly where in the Milky Way that figure originates from.

(snip)

Now, back to reality. Yokai's numbers are in fact derived from the assumption that pirates will be trading in Solo or Group modes to make money to support their endeavors.

(snip)

The figures in the OP are based on the current most profitable cash-flow activity: trading.

Every player has equal access to trading as a money-making activity. You can make the same exact money by trading in Open as you can in Solo or Group. You can make the same exact unit profit per ton--and therefore cr/ton/hour over time--in a viper or in a T9 or Anaconda.

"But wait!" You say (and many have said). "I don't want to trade! I want to make my money from pirating alone! (or BH alone!) (or exploring alone!) (or--lol--mining alone!). Therefore your numbers are worthless! Nay, they are hogwash! Utter obfuscation!"

No.

My numbers are normalized to trading. The could be normalized instead to typical income flow that all players in all sizes of ships could potentially earn from pirating alone. Or normalized to typical income for all ships based on mining. Or exploring. And the general proportion of the numbers--the slope of the cost curve--would remain essentially the same. Different datapoints; same curve.

See the difference? You cannot compare the earning potential of piracy alone against the earning potential of trading alone, because you're then comparing apples to oranges. Everyone _can_ trade. Everyone _can_ earn the exact same profit per ton as anyone else. These are easy numbers to quantify, so they're useful numbers to normalize against.

I'm the first person who would agree utterly and totally that income flow across the different professions is totally out of whack. But that's a separate issue entirely from the thrust of this thread's OP and the other two 101 and 102 thread's OPs as well.
 
Last edited:
Overall, though, I agree with the gist of the thread - that the risk/reward mechanics for PvP are totally out-of-whack, but I'd say that this is true in all scenarios, not just for the trader that feels ambushed. There simply is not sufficient reward in terms of credits in order for me to want to continue as a player-versus-player pirate. At the end of the day, I'm really just getting my jollies from attacking other players, economic incentives having been roundly removed from the table before ever becoming an option. I wanted to be a pirate, not a griefer, but FDEV has set up a situation in which I can only truly be the latter, and has severely dealt a blow to my will to continue to allow this game to occupy precious hard drive space.

And that is the only point - how do you get traders into the open to line YOUR pockets so EVERYONE benefits. As long as you as a pirate can trade on the side after shooting someone down, there will never be an incentive for a trader to be in the open.
 
And that is the only point - how do you get traders into the open to line YOUR pockets so EVERYONE benefits. As long as you as a pirate can trade on the side after shooting someone down, there will never be an incentive for a trader to be in the open.

In another of Yokai's threads, Sandro mentions that Frontier is considering retooling and toning-down the costs of some of the larger ships in order to make their costs-to-purchase and rebuy costs more sensible (and assumedly, repair costs, as part of this function), and less exponential in relation to ships that they may even be only a marginal upgrade to - for me, this is the first step in the right direction. Everything north of the T6 feels egregiously expensive compared to the relatively minor advances you get in real utility from that point onward (the Type-7 is nearly 18 times more expensive, doesn't provide anywhere near a proportional increase in either potential or real credit/hour income, for instance, and the problem only snowballs from here). I can't really fault players for not wanting to lose these absurdly expensive ships, as they are exactly that. I believe this change may be capable of tackling Yokai's concerns detailed in the bottom of the OP (concerns that are shared by myself and most of the community, it seems).
 
Last edited:
In another of Yokai's threads, Sandro mentions that Frontier is considering retooling and toning-down the costs of some of the larger ships in order to make their costs-to-purchase and rebuy costs more sensible (and assumedly, repair costs, as part of this function), and less exponential in relation to ships that they may even be only a marginal upgrade to - for me, this is the first step in the right direction. Everything north of the T6 feels egregiously expensive compared to the relatively minor advances you get in real utility from that point onward (the Type-7 is nearly 18 times more expensive, doesn't provide anywhere near a proportional increase in either potential or real credit/hour income, for instance, and the problem only snowballs from here). I can't really fault players for not wanting to lose these absurdly expensive ships, as they are exactly that. I believe this change may be capable of tackling Yokai's concerns detailed in the bottom of the OP (concerns that are shared by myself and most of the community, it seems).

I covered that point earlier - right now the cost of the ship grows exponentially. I'm not sure that is the only culprit. As long as a killer can roam "safe" systems with impunity (go to an outpost and repay the bounty) and then get into a trading ship and recover the losses in 10 minutes, traders will have no incentive to go in the open simply because in risk/reward ratio killer has no numerator. OTOH, you wanna take T9 into anarchy without escort, joke should be on you.
 
In another of Yokai's threads, Sandro mentions that Frontier is considering retooling and toning-down the costs of some of the larger ships in order to make their costs-to-purchase and rebuy costs more sensible (and assumedly, repair costs, as part of this function), and less exponential in relation to ships that they may even be only a marginal upgrade to - for me, this is the first step in the right direction. Everything north of the T6 feels egregiously expensive compared to the relatively minor advances you get in real utility from that point onward (the Type-7 is nearly 18 times more expensive, doesn't provide anywhere near a proportional increase in either potential or real credit/hour income, for instance, and the problem only snowballs from here). I can't really fault players for not wanting to lose these absurdly expensive ships, as they are exactly that. I believe this change may be capable of tackling Yokai's concerns detailed in the bottom of the OP (concerns that are shared by myself and most of the community, it seems).

I hadn't seen that he'd said that. Good to know that comments that were made during the Betas are finally being listened too.
 
Back
Top Bottom