And in Open you can play "with" other players "versus" other players.
If you want to restrict the game possibilities and yourself, then PG or another game that fits your expectation is the way to go.
PvP Does Frontier need to Re-Think PVP rules of Engagement
- Thread starter Red Rocket
- Start date
And in Open you can play "with" other players "versus" other players.
If you want to restrict the game possibilities and yourself, then PG or another game that fits your expectation is the way to go.
I think people just like flying spaceships. I think that landing at an alien site and meeting explorers and chatting about a shared experience is a great gaming session. I also think that a blockade and battle between players at a CG in open is thrilling. As soon as we started making Elite PvP vs PvE, things got heated and just not so fun. I feel that the devs original vision was just a simple PvElite with filters on who flys the ships you meet. I don’t think that vision matches the way players play games.
Here’s a scenario. I don’t have many online friends. I’d love to go to a new alien site in OPEN and run into new people who are excited about the discovery. It’s social and friendly. What I don’t want is to go there and be destroyed by someone who went there just to blow up players for nothing but the knowledge that they are frustrating people in the real world. Elite hasn’t got that part right.
I’d also love to go to hot conflict zones and battle other players in a competitive environment with tactical win conditions and a spirit of competition.
I think he disconnect is that Elite hasn’t got any player matching system. Over to you devs, let’s see that squadron system.
Last edited:
I'm moving more and more to the notion that it's up to the players to fix this problem. Tired of folks blowing us all away? Mount up, get your guns, and take it to 'em.
...or pick a more appropriate mode of play. LFGs might be a great way to find folks for PG too.
...or pick a more appropriate mode of play. LFGs might be a great way to find folks for PG too.
That's probably at the core of most player related problems in the game. If there was some kind of smart instancing where you only meet players who are evenly matched with you, that for starters would get rid of pretty much all ganking - it's not a gank when everyone involved is in a similar ship and has similar rank, or it's a 3v1 where the 3 are in cobras and the 1 is in a cutter. One could say that sort of instancing is unrealistic, but we already have that sort of thing happening - it's just controlled by other factors like friends list and network latency. Why not just add combat ability to the matchmaking criteria?
It’s the root of all multi-player development. How do we put people together so that everyone has a good time?
When players meet, do they ALL seperate from the experience with a feeling of entertainment and fun and a desire to return or repeat the experience? If that answer is no, then the designer of the game has failed in the fundamental task of game design. Did your players have fun?
The forum is riddled with no’s.
You know wilph the thing about opinions? Everyone has them and that doesn’t imply that one is somehow factual or not just because a developer who: and this is a fact, never designed a multiplayer game using the fallout franchise before; makes a statement about the way some play a game. You see the sad truth is I didnt make any argument as an argument would mean I would provide reasons and examples in an effort to persuade you to agree with me, similarly to how I did in my first post on this thread.
Also, harmless? That’s again some random guys perspective and your opinion. While I could make an argument for the opposite. By playing the BGS you could argue it’s a form of pvp and griefing in its own right. Example: those that go around flipping anarchy to imp controlled systems or fed controlled systems, this griefs those that worked hard to get their faction in the game doesn’t it? Or how about the nasty messages that people send to pirates for interdicting them and demanding some cargo? Hard to believe those that get so upset over a GAME and send nasty messages aren’t in their own right a-holes.
All you have demonstrated is that you are vindictive and grasping at straws.
Deleted member 115407
D
You people should just learn how to defend yourselves.
One inconsistency doesn't excuse another.
I think he's saying that you're over generalizing.
There is very little overlap in the PvPers that agree with the statements you mentioned.
Quite a few of them I'd imagine.
I doubt this forum, for example, would police what members do to each other outside of the purview of the forum.
An insult to wizards.
Even my high fantasy AD&D game setting has internal consistency and laws of nature that cannot be broken, that aren't sacrificed on a whim for story or gameplay...which makes the plots and gameplay better in the long run.
I completely understand why someone wouldn't want it and in the sort of setting I'd prefer, most people would want to avoid it, for exactly the same reason I fight people as sparingly as practical in real life...fights are dangerous and one misjudgment could see me dead, maimed, or in prison.
That said, I'd never want to play a version of Elite where there were any arbitrary hurdles to violence between player characters...even if I was dead set on playing a pacifist.
This should become the gold standard for all future "Open" gameplay environments, and I would love to see it implemented in Elite: Dangerous.
Unless of course you have "report crimes against me" turned off.
Honest question: can't this be trivially avoided by making the amount of bounty you collect a fixed fraction of the amount the wanted player has to pay? 70% of a billion credit bounty would still be a tasty motivator to bounty hunters, and the prospect of losing 30% of that money would remove any incentive to do a swap like you describe.
Still doesn't address the issue of bounty collection being a way to sell credits between players, since the fractional payment can just be regarded as a transaction fee. But you can already shift a lot of money by swapping T-9 loads of palladium or such like, so it's not like you can't already sell credits if you're really determined to do so. So I do find it a bit odd that Elite just hard caps the amount of bounty you can claim from another player, rather than using some sort of sliding scale that actually rewards taking down a highly wanted player.
ED's Rules of Engagement (ROE) are fine. The C&P system is a bit mismatched but that simply stems from the ability to turn crimes off.
The C&P system is worked around the idea that crimes WILL be reported. The simple solution is to not allow people to turn them off...
This simple change in itself would put most of the whining and e-peen waving that I've seen an increase of over the last few weeks.
If Crimes reporting was a constant thing then this whole e-bushido around having it turned on etc just wouldn't be a thing.
The whole crime on/off toggle leads itself to the 'I'm better than thou' crowd waving their tackle around rather than actually participating in the spirit of the game and it's system of rules....
If people wanted to have rule free fights then they would simply move to an anarchy system. If they wanted to be the 'bad guy' then they would accept the ramifications of attacking 'lawful' people etc.
Then also you wouldn't have the people who claim to be the 'honourable' pvp player with crimes off suddenly switching and getting there opponent in trouble (But to be perfectly truthful here, thats their daft mistake if they get caught by such action)
If in doubt simply look at that other HUGE space MMO that's been around longer than some of the players of ED to see how having permanent crimes would feel. They simply have areas where if you commit a crime you will lose something. How much value you put in that loss is up to you but you WILL lose. Then there are the areas where you can commit crimes but not have immediate penalties. And areas where it's a free for all. See everyone gets what they want.
The C&P system is worked around the idea that crimes WILL be reported. The simple solution is to not allow people to turn them off...
This simple change in itself would put most of the whining and e-peen waving that I've seen an increase of over the last few weeks.
If Crimes reporting was a constant thing then this whole e-bushido around having it turned on etc just wouldn't be a thing.
The whole crime on/off toggle leads itself to the 'I'm better than thou' crowd waving their tackle around rather than actually participating in the spirit of the game and it's system of rules....
If people wanted to have rule free fights then they would simply move to an anarchy system. If they wanted to be the 'bad guy' then they would accept the ramifications of attacking 'lawful' people etc.
Then also you wouldn't have the people who claim to be the 'honourable' pvp player with crimes off suddenly switching and getting there opponent in trouble (But to be perfectly truthful here, thats their daft mistake if they get caught by such action)
If in doubt simply look at that other HUGE space MMO that's been around longer than some of the players of ED to see how having permanent crimes would feel. They simply have areas where if you commit a crime you will lose something. How much value you put in that loss is up to you but you WILL lose. Then there are the areas where you can commit crimes but not have immediate penalties. And areas where it's a free for all. See everyone gets what they want.
It's possible that depending on the bounty amounts you can make it work for both sides - though clearing your bounty for only 30% of the on-paper cost is still an incentive to do the bounty swap with a fellow criminal than to wait for a honest bounty hunter to claim it at 100%.
Because >99.9% of the players I meet in Open aren't trying to kill me, and I'm not trying to kill them, so combat ability is a complete irrelevance to instancing.
If you make it a "soft instancing" so if there's three instances it tries to add players to the one with the most similar capability of ships then in practice no-one will notice it. Quite possibly there already is one, in among all the other criteria, but the only systems regularly that busy in the first place are CGs.
If you make it a "hard instancing" so you basically can't instance a Cobra with a Cutter unless they're in a wing or already friends then I (generally flying a Cobra if I don't have a specific reason to fly something bigger) might as well play Solo for the number of players I'll see.
Also, combat ability of a ship is really hard to assess - the FAS outclasses a lot of much bigger and more expensive ships, a Frag Vulture can make a mess of some very expensive big ships if they've neglected defence, a Sidewinder with enhanced drives and long-range weapons can bore almost any medium or large ship into departing, and a combat Anaconda can lose to something like an Asp if the Anaconda pilot doesn't know what they're doing and got their Elite rank by AFK-farming a High RES or something.
I'm pretty sure that no-one with crimes off is on the side of "I got attacked by a PvPer and killed and its unfair", so I don't see the relevance of this at all.
The arguments over whether it should be on or off "for honour" are silly - outside of an arranged duel, that's a matter of personal preference, especially since the changes in 3.0 closed some loopholes. But there are perfectly valid PvE reasons to have it turned off.
1) You're smuggling but locally Clean, and you don't want your fight with a local wanted pirate NPC to attract police who will probably scan you too
2) You're carrying famous explorers or other no-scan passengers and don't want to have police scanning nearby
3) You like fighting the NPC pirates who try to take your cargo and don't want the cops to show up 30 seconds in and scare them off. (That's my reason for almost always having crimes off)
4) You have terrible trigger discipline and really don't want to attract a bunch of temporarily friendly cops to your position that you can mess up and hit in the crossfire.
Your listed reasons are perfectly valid for having the ability to switch them off if you want. But they are all PvE reasons. As soon as you put people into the equation it breaks down.
The phrase shouldn't be "I got attacked by a PvPer and killed and its unfair" it should be "I attacked a trader/explorer/random clean person and they got the police onto me and gave me a bounty.... it's so unfair!" by a lot of the so called gud PvP'ers out there.
Also don't forget the amount of whine that happens when the white knights in the game draw in the murder hobo's with calls to duels with crimes off etc then switch them on in the middle of the duel etc. Man you should hear the wailing and whining about it.
Honestly there is so much salt around the 'honour' of duels/PvP etc it crazy. It's like some desalinated the entire planets oceans and dumped the concentrated salt on the ED PvP'ers...
If Crimes were permanently on then people would figure out a way around them for PvE without the amount of whine you get from the PvP'er etc (I've not heard much from PvE'er about crimes being too much etc). Come to think of it I often do criminal activity in game with crimes on and it hasn't affected my game in any way that I can recall.
In the game world player pilot doesn't get killed. I think he's not even there.
Firstly, there's HoloMe - your holographic projection, and you can switch between mothership and fighter f.ex. when fighter is deployed - rather unprobable thing to do if you have a body.
If you add strangely low rebuy cost (I mean sometimes those are really valuable ships being blown to pieces) and the fact that you begin your carrier just as everybody else, by being presented with this "golden opportunity", ship and some credits in exactly the same system, I believe Pilots Federation is an organization that bands tohether people who sit home and mine bitcoin while flying remotely controlled ships.
Thats' also why we have "hollow" squares on radar. Because those ships are empty shells.
It all makes sense. Even griefers.
As for the topic,
I decided to give Open a chance. People are attacking me occasionally (I'm usually flying unarmed trader in the bubble), but I'm trying to enjoy that as part of the universe. If I happen to encounter a-hole (which hasn't happened yet in-game), I'll try to think that he's just roleplaying a-hole really well and will try this "Block player" option if someone becomes nuisance.
I really place a lot of fate in this option, because from what I saw so far most of the ED players are intelligent people I want to play this game with, even if they're bloody pirates.
So I decided that removing myself as a target from their game is little unfair, and also it adds certain amount of excitement that reasonable NPC's can't provide.
I also understand people who don't like being attacked without reason and enjoy more relaxing pace of play while still enjoying social interactions. It might be hard to do in Open, and even with ideas like that one from Fallout76 they'll still be attacked and harrased, so not that much of help for them.
Last edited:
Powderpanic
Banned
I can already see a way to Grief with this anti Grief nanny mechanic.
I shall report back on its results
Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing
As easy as it is to escape in this game, I think things are fine the way they are.
You dont need to take reduced damage, or have stronger shields when your guns are away. All that would allow you to do is sit there like a potato longer lol.
Submit, high wake, don't fly a garbage ship. It's pretty straightforward.
I wouldn't be opposed to a more rewarding PvP experience overall, though. It's an expensive activity, with fun being the only real reward.
You dont need to take reduced damage, or have stronger shields when your guns are away. All that would allow you to do is sit there like a potato longer lol.
Submit, high wake, don't fly a garbage ship. It's pretty straightforward.
I wouldn't be opposed to a more rewarding PvP experience overall, though. It's an expensive activity, with fun being the only real reward.
I'm all for some kind of trade-off between good offence and good defense. i'm not sure if this is the way to do it.
I have been thinking about the effects of having shield boosters as hard points, instead of utilities. This is a very basic trade-off mechanism. It might work, but it also may just lead to more ramming.
It's a tricky balance.
The main issue in ED is that top end defense is way over powered. How to weaken the top end without harming lower specs, is a challenge for the devs.
I have been thinking about the effects of having shield boosters as hard points, instead of utilities. This is a very basic trade-off mechanism. It might work, but it also may just lead to more ramming.
It's a tricky balance.
The main issue in ED is that top end defense is way over powered. How to weaken the top end without harming lower specs, is a challenge for the devs.
No.
But there should be a strong distinction between anarchy-low-medium-high security Systems,
with PvP forbidden or next-to-impossible in high sec systems
(the NAV-comp disallows travel to restricted systems, it should be possible to disallow shooting on CMDRs in high sec for example).
ATR should be persistent and have way quicker response times.
Bounties should be higher and the claims for CMDRs should be 100% and not capped at 2 mio, credits are useless anyways.
Starport no-fire zones should be bigger (way outside of the mass-lock).
Ramming should be made impossible by traffic control override (at least in medium/high sec systems)
On the other hand there should be incentives to do stuff in anarchy, and one should be mode-locked if leaving in danger.
But there should be a strong distinction between anarchy-low-medium-high security Systems,
with PvP forbidden or next-to-impossible in high sec systems
(the NAV-comp disallows travel to restricted systems, it should be possible to disallow shooting on CMDRs in high sec for example).
ATR should be persistent and have way quicker response times.
Bounties should be higher and the claims for CMDRs should be 100% and not capped at 2 mio, credits are useless anyways.
Starport no-fire zones should be bigger (way outside of the mass-lock).
Ramming should be made impossible by traffic control override (at least in medium/high sec systems)
On the other hand there should be incentives to do stuff in anarchy, and one should be mode-locked if leaving in danger.