ED vs PvP

[1500]

It would work to an extent, any time you see a pirate put them on ignore, you are only then grouped with them if others (not ignoring them) are in your instance. As certainly now most players fly alone this would stop you meeting that player again. Also lists of known pirates will be published that could be pre-emptively added, but that is not my major concern.

I think the "hell ban" instance mechanic is going to lead to many innocent players being put in there. Any system like that where players decide when they have been wronged is going to lead to a huge amount of problems.

That is incorrect. If there are no other options the person on your ignore list is still matched with you.

A player also has the option to add players to an Ignore List which does the following:
Removes any friendship between the players automatically (players can’t be friends with players they ignore)
Ignores all communication from them in game
Ignores any friend requests from them
Is active across multiple gaming session until changed by the player (this is different from the options presented in the above sections as they only last as long as the current gaming session)
People on others ignore lists will not be favoured if a choice exists when match making players together
If all players in a session have the same player ignored then that player will never be able to join that session
If at least one player is neutral or friends with the ignored player above then they will be able to join that session providing there is no better suited players trying to get in at the same time when only one slot is available
If a person earns a bounty their ignore list and friend preferences won’t affect matchmaking, and bounty hunters will still be able to encounter the player, even if the bounty hunter is on the player’s ignore list
If a player is in a session with another player on their ignore list they will still receive messages relating to that players in game actions and pre-canned dialogue, such as declarations of piracy
If a player follows another player’s hyperspace trail, the ignore rules cannot be applied to them. The players will join their next session as a group
Players Ignore lists are based on player accounts, not player characters

 

[Commandr Sam]

That is incorrect. If there are no other options the person on your ignore list is still matched with you.

"If all players in a session have the same player ignored then that player will never be able to join that session"

So far 90% of the sessions I have been in only have me in, therefore if I have someone on ignore then they are not going to be instanced with me 90% of the time.

They can only be instanced with me if others without them on their ignore list are around. As I stated.

 

[Cosmo]

The old-school Elite players dominate the forums and are phobic to PVP or PAP (Player Assisting Player).

 

[Memnoch]

No you will kill people and than go into solo to hide simple

No, just block people that have a wanted status from choosing solo or private group. Simple!

 

[1500]

"If all players in a session have the same player ignored then that player will never be able to join that session"

So far 90% of the sessions I have been in only have me in, therefore if I have someone on ignore then they are not going to be instanced with me 90% of the time.

They can only be instanced with me if others without them on their ignore list are around. As I stated.

Even if your interpretation is correct, I don't think it is, as I believe that was applying to when there is more than a one person in an instance with the same person on ignore, the following is still true. And the following will still allow pirate to perform PVP.

If a player follows another player’s hyperspace trail, the ignore rules cannot be applied to them. The players will join their next session as a group

 

[Elrawkum]

Pirate: "Drop your cargo or I'll open fire."

Trader: "No."

Pirate: "B*gg*r!"

If the game is nerfed so that 'player-killing' is overly harshly punished, what's to stop the above scenario as the perfect anti-pirate strategy?

Piracy is part of the game and should hopefully be a somewhat viable profession for those who choose it, and part of the risk is that someone might put up a fight and one or both of you might die/lose their ship.

This is PvP, but it's an accepted part of the game design, not 'griefing' or anti-social psychopathy.

Conflating all "PvP" as psychopathic idiots wanting to spoil your fun really doesn't help the debate.

True 'griefing' will hopefully be dealt with as an entirely separate issue (if it even becomes one), but we really must stop using it as a synonym for PvP.

(NB: I do not intend being a pirate)

 

[Commandr Sam]

Even if your interpretation is correct, I don't think it is, as I believe that was applying to when there is more than a one person in an instance with the same person on ignore, the following is still true. And the following will still allow pirate to perform PVP.

I do a lot of computer programming so take all statements like that literally and 1 in a group of 1 is all.

You would also never be able to get onto some one elses hyper space trail if you were not in the same instance as them.

To be fair I think we need some real clarification on how this system will work. As I fear it is going to be pretty game breaking.

The system as proposed in the current DDA will need lots of moderation to work and I don't think this is a route FD want to go down. So we will end up with players with the ability to get other players hell banned and I don't think anyone can see that as a system that will work.

 

[1500]

Pirate: "Drop your cargo or I'll open fire."

Trader: "No."

Pirate: "B*gg*r!"

If the game is nerfed so that 'player-killing' is overly harshly punished, what's to stop the above scenario as the perfect anti-pirate strategy?

Piracy is part of the game and should hopefully be a somewhat viable profession for those who choose it, and part of the risk is that someone might put up a fight and one or both of you might die/lose their ship.

This is PvP, but it's an accepted part of the game design, not 'griefing' or anti-social psychopathy.

Conflating all "PvP" as psychopathic idiots wanting to spoil your fun really doesn't help the debate.

True 'griefing' will hopefully be dealt with as an entirely separate issue (if it even becomes one), but we really must stop using it as a synonym for PvP.

(NB: I do not intend being a pirate)

You don't need to destroy his ship to get cargo, simply target the cargo hatch and loot will drop.

It in no way is useful as an ani-pirate tactic. The hail option is there to save the trader from losing more credits, as if he just drops some cargo the trader will not have to pay a repair bill.

Edit: you are also confusing Pirate with PVP, they do not equal each other. Pirate is a supported play style, PVP is not. Pirates should get used to facing NPC's as that will end up being their main targets.

 

[1500]

I do a lot of computer programming so take all statements like that literally and 1 in a group of 1 is all.

You would also never be able to get onto some one elses hyper space trail if you were not in the same instance as them.

To be fair I think we need some real clarification on how this system will work. As I fear it is going to be pretty game breaking.

The system as proposed in the current DDA will need lots of moderation to work and I don't think this is a route FD want to go down. So we will end up with players with the ability to get other players hell banned and I don't think anyone can see that as a system that will work.

I also do a lot of programming and the fact that those two statements are on two different lines (and indented in) indicates that one is a sub-condition of the other, the fact that it is talking about groups indicates that it applies to groups. A single person might not be considered a group.

Even if its a group of 1 it is still not game breaking. ED was never about PVP, PVP is going to be rare at the best of times anyway. So if a few people use the ignore and it works this way then so what. Pirates should get used to fighting NPC's anyway as that is what they are going to do most of the time.

 

[Adept]

there is no murder ingame , lore says escape pod.

destroying ship hulls , vandalism at top

Aggravated assault and attempted murder.

I would prefer to have manual escape pods and cloning / brain taping btw. All e Elite federation members are of such wealthy elite, others may or may not be.

 

[Adept]

I also do a lot of programming and the fact that those two statements are on two different lines (and indented in) indicates that one is a sub-condition of the other, the fact that it is talking about groups indicates that it applies to groups. A single person might not be considered a group.

Even if its a group of 1 it is still not game breaking. ED was never about PVP, PVP is going to be rare at the best of times anyway. So if a few people use the ignore and it works this way then so what. Pirates should get used to fighting NPC's anyway as that is what they are going to do most of the time.

And for PvP, look to mercenary work.

 

[Antmax]

Most of us hope the game will be self regulating. It's already improved over the PB with less PvP. Especially less unwanted PvP in what should be civilised safe areas.

The game has been designed to allow for PvP in less well governed systems which you visit at your own risk. If you go to those places then you are fair game.

Hopefully as the game nears release. Security forces and players that side with them will start to keep the more feral psychotic PvP players under control and they will be more weary of causing trouble in safer systems where they are supposed to be the prey and be as intimidated by lawful forces just like the more pacifist players are of murdering pirate players.

Its still Beta and there is a fair bit more to be added to help keep order in the game.

 

[Toscaner]

I do a lot of computer programming so take all statements like that literally and 1 in a group of 1 is all.

You would also never be able to get onto some one elses hyper space trail if you were not in the same instance as them.

To be fair I think we need some real clarification on how this system will work. As I fear it is going to be pretty game breaking.

The system as proposed in the current DDA will need lots of moderation to work and I don't think this is a route FD want to go down. So we will end up with players with the ability to get other players hell banned and I don't think anyone can see that as a system that will work.

i hope the hellban system isn't to harsh

i could imagine something like limited reports per player per timeframe (you can report 3 players per month, for example)
and that it takes many reports to get hellbanned

 

[Riandor]

That's why there should be an additional All Group only mode to play with everyone.

Please people, READ!
If you kill anyone you incur a bounty.
If you have a bounty you CANNOT hide in some Single player Online mode, as the game will ignore the filter (and that's all it technically is a filter, not a mode).
If you have a bounty you WILL be fair game to everyone, AI or player.

We do not need a Always MP mode with any flags or what not at all, the system in place is absolutely perfect.

 

[stevie]

Allthough i support the OP, ive seen to many threads of this topic way to many times. The game isnt half way finished, we dont know what eventually the impact of the decisions will be.

You can try and pretend the game is whatever you think it is, but you won't change the fact that it's not. It's what players are going to make of it.

This is very true, but With the tools and methods provided by the devs to us

With the core gameplay - the trading - being so boring

buuzzz, wrong. Your opinion doesnt make it so.

... and the "PVP" areas being absolutely barren of players, what you're going to get are people "griefing" other players at the stations, because it's the only really entertaining thing TO do.

Is that entertaining or maybe just people who are bored?

The game is already fun. For fun sake i dont use the (great) thirdparty tools for trading, because for me that kills the fun in trading. Try finding a very profitable trade route manually. Thats makes fun in trading!

So alltough i compliment the developer(s) on their memorydump reading, for me it takes out the fun, but im sure others are having a blast trading what they are told to trade.

The current pvp engagements i had are pretty low to none, and i think many griefers (not to confuse with true pirates) will go away once something else more shiny comes along.

 

[Adrpot]

We are now a week into the Beta & as a result there has been an influx of new players who've joined in on the fun, but it does seem quite a few of them are also quite new to this forum, as such they are unawares of what has been discussed before. People seem to be of the impression that ED is a raw PvP game, a game with the same mentality of Call of Duty/Titanfall, where killing another player in the game just for the sake of it, this is not ED, the spirit of Elite, or what Frontier Developments have intended for ED, hence policing within the game WILL be put in place eventually.

Yet killing is part of ED, but for a REASON:

Pirate - Using comms to tell a trader to dump their cargo, failing that blast off cargo hatch. Last resort, as in pirating of old, destroy ship.

Bounty Hunter - Destroying a ship to profit for the bounty on it’s cmdr’s head.

Assassination - Employment to kill someone, payment upon success.

Factions Skirmish - Fighting on behalf of a faction, for either a navy or freelance, again for payment, or navel career advancement.

But for someone to graft their way up in the game, to the point where they are flying a Lakon 6, fully laden with a cargo worth over 90000 credits, just for some cmdr to sneak up behind them & blow the helpless trader to bits, not even bothered about the trader’s floating cargo. Costing the trading cmdr, 24000 credits (10% insurance, that’s if they’re fortunate to have it) + 90000 credits = 114000 credits & for what purpose, to kill some cannon fodder trader simply for kicks, for nothing else, certainly not for gain, then boasting as if taking down a cumbersome trader was a skilful act.

If you are a pure PvP who wishes to kill other players for no other reason than there is another human being on the other end, then Elite Dangerous is not for you, stick to your Call of Duty’s where you can call everybody a noob, if you like the idea of PvPing in space, try Eve, or even wait for Star Citizen/No Man’s Sky.

I hope the game will end up with players vs player pirating, bounty hunting etcetera. Not the type of PvP you're describing in the last paragraph. But I can't see Assassination being something good in the game. Unless you know all the names of all the NPCs in the game I doubt assassination would be a good career to go down considering if someone knew an assassin was after them they'd just phase into solo play.

 

[Elrawkum]

You don't need to destroy his ship to get cargo, simply target the cargo hatch and loot will drop.

I didn't say "need", I said "risk". I also doubt highly if it's simply a case of "target cargo, drop cargo" - otherwise piracy would be conversely way too easy.

It in no way is useful as an ani-pirate tactic. The hail option is there to save the trader from losing more credits, as if he just drops some cargo the trader will not have to pay a repair bill.

And if he doesn't drop his cargo and decides to fight?

If a the anti-player-killing punishment is overly harsh, it could make piracy - and the risk of killing your prey - way too risky to be viable and we could end up with a simple "No" being a very effective counter measure. I don't think FD will allow it to become that bad, but it is a danger.

Edit: you are also confusing Pirate with PVP, they do not equal each other. Pirate is a supported play style, PVP is not. Pirates should get used to facing NPC's as that will end up being their main targets.

I'm not confusing anything. If the pirate and the trader are both players, then it's PvP. Player vs Player. PvP is a supported play style evidenced by the fact that there are different factions and players can choose to support any one of them and may end up in opposition to other players. PvP.

Do you think it means something else?

 

[eleanorsbee]

I want to be a pirate ..... But don't want to get attacked by mercenarys or for my target to shoot back and kill me.

What are the devs putting in place to stop pvp grieving on pirates ? ... I want a system where I just demand cargo and get it

 

[1500]

I didn't say "need", I said "risk". I also doubt highly if it's simply a case of "target cargo, drop cargo" - otherwise piracy would be conversely way too easy.



And if he doesn't drop his cargo and decides to fight?

If a the anti-player-killing punishment is overly harsh, it could make piracy - and the risk of killing your prey - way too risky to be viable and we could end up with a simple "No" being a very effective counter measure. I don't think FD will allow it to become that bad, but it is a danger.



I'm not confusing anything. If the pirate and the trader are both players, then it's PvP. Player vs Player. PvP is a supported play style evidenced by the fact that there are different factions and players can choose to support any one of them and may end up in opposition to other players. PvP.

Do you think it means something else?

So in are just going to ignore the in game mechanics of how cargo is dropped? So what if the trader fights back, that is part of the game or are you afraid of having to fight in your PVP?

PVP is not a supported play style, sorry to burst your bubble. FD have said many times that PVP will be rare, if you expect to be able to play ED and be a PVP'er you are in for a disappointment.

Edit: Shooting people in those faction engagements will still put a bounty on the attackers head. That has not changed, the Pilots Federation does not care who you are fighting for, it puts that bounty on your head for attacking another player. So its still discouraged and will still face the same penalty.

 

[Spinel]

Most of us hope the game will be self regulating. It's already improved over the PB with less PvP. Especially less unwanted PvP in what should be civilised safe areas.

Well, that's because the anti-pvp circlejerk was so hard before. Now that you've got a bigger influx of players, I imagine there will be a more balance discussion on this.

Self-regulating? You can block people and prevent them from ever entering your instance. It's far from self-regulating.