Hahaha, I love this so much. I'm going to lodge complains about people just trading and not shooting back at me. That way, when they realize they should have done a strictly space combat game they can punish them!
Frontier confirmed - Murder/PKing is a valid gameplay choice, can we all move on now?
- Thread starter Titus Balls
- Start date
- Status
Hahaha, I love this so much. I'm going to lodge complains about people just trading and not shooting back at me. That way, when they realize they should have done a strictly space combat game they can punish them!
I purchased the game too. And although its not my usual style, i think it would enrich MY gameplay experience greatly to kill you.
Brilliant +1
There is no effective blanket way to determine whether those are legitimate kills. As a result, they would quite literally be griefing (AND USED THE CORRECT WAY!
) because they'd be trying to ruin the experience of someone who doesn't play like you. It's obvious that this is only to deter gameplay that scrapes the lube out of a few very squeaky wheels.
Last edited:
I notice you conveniently side stepped my reply.
Anyway I agree with you - murder SHOULD mean more to the murderer too and force them to basically use cunning, guile and skill to move across the galaxy and avoid the authorities and other players looking for that bounty.
A clever murderer might allow himself to be killed and make the authorities think he's dead for a while.
It's a fundamental disconnect between what the PvP averse crowd wants, and what FD wants. The PvP averse crowd wants the elimination of PvP. It can either be done by hard code, of my making the penalties so harsh that even considering PvP is out the window.
FD is looking at it as "How can we encourage interesting player interactions with game mechanics", and not "How do we stop PvP with mechanics." The cycle of noncombatant being attacked by bad guy styled PvPer who si chased by good styled PvPer is a solid one. It's a good framework to build further from, and I'm thankful FD isn't giving in and will continue work on it.
Yes, it needs balance. It needs tweaking. It needs content on all sides. It doesn't need wholesale nerfs for some nebulous "the game will die" reasons. Stagnant content will kill Elite. Stagnant content comes from relying on a dev time to provide everything. Player content can remain fresh and new, because there are thousands of players for every one dev, and each of those players have a story to tell.
If you absolutely don't wish to participate within the framework of player content, Frontier has you covered too. SOLO Mode! You can enjoy all the dev created content you could ever desire, along with having some small influence on the player world, and you don't even have to see another player! It's the perfect game mode for the PvP averse.
Yet still, even with that, they aren't happy. "Butbutbut I *WANT* to play Open mode on my terms, change it!" "I PAID for this game I demand everything be changed to suit me" "Mine mine, now now now!" See, me, I like building bases in RTS games. I love climing all the way up the tech tree, seeing what ever unit does. I'll waste time setting up my base juuust the way I like it. I play those games in single player, so I can tune the AI to Easy mode and play how I like. I don't go on my chosen game's forum, demanding that they change core aspects of the game just so I can get my psuedo Sim-city on.
Huh, maybe something like, the bounty goes "dormant", until our hapless murder gets "scanned" by a PC. We could call such a device the "Violence Permission Scanner", and set up a whole sort of minigame around it, where the murderer tried to avoid being scanned. Maybe make the scanner take up a utility slot, so the hunter has to make fitting decisions.
Man, I wonder if we can convince Frontier to implement such an idea.....
Last edited:
Cargo insurance strikes me as a ridiculous concept. This would remove any risk, and there is little of it presently, from trading in the game.
The question is not, whether murder and PKing is a valid gameplay mechanic. The question for longevity of E: D is, whether people like it. And like i show in this thread about Open PvE Mode (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=69757) most players prefer PvE over PvP (roughly 90%:10%). The game will loose a lot of players and be maybe history sooner than expected when they continue this path of ignoring the vast majority of players. It will be another epic fail like EVE.
Or the universe could have large coalitions of smaller governments and jurisdictions. Systems that belong to that coalition could honor each others bounties, as an alternative to something like extradition in the real world. Then there could be independent systems that don't honor the laws of their neighbors where you could find safe haven. Now we just have to come up with names for them... I bet three of them is a good number. What do you guys think of "Empire", "Federation" and "Alliance"?
Last edited:
There is no effective blanket way to determine whether those are legitimate kills. As a result, they would quite literally be griefing (AND USED THE CORRECT WAY!
point taken, but If you attack a player, you get a bounty at the moment, unless they are wanted. If you kill a wanted player then you do not get fine or bounty so no murder against you. If you kill player and receive bounty then you get a point against you. these points are not removed upon death, just like Reputation points. If you have good rep you get rewards, bad reps you get attacked. Kill 10 players and get murder you should come up as red on view screens and seen as hostile
Made up bunch of numbers and incase you hadn't noticed EvE is one of the most successful space based games out there. So er.. you might wanna get your facts straight.
it will also remove the pain of being griefed and thus there will be less point to griefing (more cost = more griefing its that simple)
if u want risk, the cost of dying is the worst mechanic to do it
why not make npcs more difficult?
why not think of some positive rewards for staying alive instead of making not dying an achievement?
Hey, I got an idea to make it even cooler! We can set up small factions here and there, that only own one or two systems, who have their own rules, goals, and jurisdiction. "We'll call those the "Independents". We can also have chunks of space that aren't claimed by anyone, or are claimed by lawless pirate/terrorist organizations. Lets call those "Anarchy" systems, and make them dangerous as all get-out to step foot into!
Another idea that we'll have to convince FD to implement...
Again, I actually agree with the essence of what you have to say. Speaking as someone who is PvP averse, you make some good points. I think, right now, there still needs to be a great deal of work before I feel comfortable venturing into open--as I said earlier, I don't like bullies--even though I know that the great majority of players (including PvPers) in open are good people--it's more a psychological thing than anything else and maybe after FD does some balancing and tweaking, I'll feel comfortable enough to stick my toe into open waters. Until then, you're right--solo (and private group--there's an EXCELLENT PvE private group for people) mode provides a fun alternative--and isn't that what most of us want--to have fun?
Anyone who believes PvP is going to ruin or end the game is deluding themselves. With appropriate in game consequences to discourage psychopathic behavior PvP will actually boost this game and help it be hugely popular.
For example if high-security systems have strong NPC opposition to unlawful assaults then everything is pretty much fine.
For example if high-security systems have strong NPC opposition to unlawful assaults then everything is pretty much fine.
Yes. Epic fail EVE... My god do the Elite fanboys reveal themself easily.
Elite has more griefing and ganking than EVE
I spent just over 2 years playing EVE online, mostly PvE and Mining and never once got ganked.... But then I've never been ganked in ED either.
Last edited:
- Status