Okay, ganking survival game. Does not sound like Elite i used to play. If you give the players the ability to PVP at will you get the community you deserve.
Okay, ganking survival game. Does not sound like Elite i used to play. If you give the players the ability to PVP at will you get the community you deserve.
I remember, back in 1984, being jumped by gangs of pirates hell bent on blowing me up. Sometimes they did sometimes they didn't, but I didn't snivel about it.
I am a 200 hour noob who came across a group of 4 nice CMDRS in a TS, so I was doing the help build an Imperial ship CG with even removing my shields for more cargo space in my Asp Explorer, doing a little round trip.
While I was not online one of my colleagues was rammed then torpedoed to death and according to him as he was speeding the offender went unpunished, I'm not winging I'm just not doing any more CGs unless our we can get a few to go together. I am trying to stick with Elite in Open but trolling will just push me and possibly others out.
Highway robbery style cargo seizures are fine and might even be fun but being destroyed at a CG drop point when bountyless is just trolling.
While I was not online one of my colleagues was rammed then torpedoed to death and according to him as he was speeding the offender went unpunished, I'm not winging I'm just not doing any more CGs unless our we can get a few to go together. I am trying to stick with Elite in Open but trolling will just push me and possibly others out.
Highway robbery style cargo seizures are fine and might even be fun but being destroyed at a CG drop point when bountyless is just trolling.
Meh, I say 200 hours is more than enough for you to learn how to escape from potential psycho killers.
But then there's 2.1 to look forward to so you might not have to.
Lack of consequences in this game is what allows so-called "Oh, but I am a sociopath" behaviour.
There should be penalties in place and they should scale according to crime committed.
Pirating shouldn't be a huge penalty, and it should be a viable risk. Pirating doesn't require killing someone though. It simply requires an interdiction, then either talking them into dropping cargo, or simply disable their drives, pop their cargo hatch (or use limpets) and take what you want.
HOWEVER,
Murder is obviously the biggest crime possible and should not be punished by a flat 6000 credit bounty.
Murder should be scaled in a percentage of the offenders total assets + percentage value of the victims total loss (ship + cargo). In addition a high bounty should also cause the frequency of interdictions in safe and relatively safe areas to scale exponentially as well.
As an example, lets say the percentage is set to 10%.
End result:
Victim: 20 million value ship, 30 million value cargo.
Offender: 50 million value ship, 25 million value cash and second ship worth 25 million in another system.
Murdering that victim in a controlled system:
Offender total assets : 50+25+25 = 100 million.
Victim loss: 20+30 = 50 million
100 + 50 = 150 million total x 0.10 = 15 million bounty for murdering the victim.
15 million bounty would trigger groups (3-5 ships) of bounty hunter, security / police ships of a higher combat rating (Vultures, Pythons, Anacondas) that often and frequently interdict the offender whenever they are flying in a controlled system where the bounty is active.
Key word: Consequences!
6000 bounty for someone who flies in a fully upgraded Anaconda with 500 million in cash is nothing. Who cares? It doesn't affect them whatsoever.
However, if you have to pay 10% of your Anaconda's total value + 10% of your 500 million, AND you keep getting interdicted 3-4 times over a 1000-2000Ls supercruise in a controlled system by groups of 3-5 high skill, fully upgraded NPC bounty hunters and police/security ships... then yeah, you will think twice before you simply blow up that Type-6 you just interdicted for no reason other than wanting to kill them.
On the flip side... if you are in an anarchy system then feel free to kill whoever you want. Noone cares because the system is not controlled by any faction. Any player venturing out into the anarcy areas should be prepared to face death. That is the whole point of a system being an anarchy, ergo not controlled, system.
There should be penalties in place and they should scale according to crime committed.
Pirating shouldn't be a huge penalty, and it should be a viable risk. Pirating doesn't require killing someone though. It simply requires an interdiction, then either talking them into dropping cargo, or simply disable their drives, pop their cargo hatch (or use limpets) and take what you want.
HOWEVER,
Murder is obviously the biggest crime possible and should not be punished by a flat 6000 credit bounty.
Murder should be scaled in a percentage of the offenders total assets + percentage value of the victims total loss (ship + cargo). In addition a high bounty should also cause the frequency of interdictions in safe and relatively safe areas to scale exponentially as well.
As an example, lets say the percentage is set to 10%.
End result:
Victim: 20 million value ship, 30 million value cargo.
Offender: 50 million value ship, 25 million value cash and second ship worth 25 million in another system.
Murdering that victim in a controlled system:
Offender total assets : 50+25+25 = 100 million.
Victim loss: 20+30 = 50 million
100 + 50 = 150 million total x 0.10 = 15 million bounty for murdering the victim.
15 million bounty would trigger groups (3-5 ships) of bounty hunter, security / police ships of a higher combat rating (Vultures, Pythons, Anacondas) that often and frequently interdict the offender whenever they are flying in a controlled system where the bounty is active.
Key word: Consequences!
6000 bounty for someone who flies in a fully upgraded Anaconda with 500 million in cash is nothing. Who cares? It doesn't affect them whatsoever.
However, if you have to pay 10% of your Anaconda's total value + 10% of your 500 million, AND you keep getting interdicted 3-4 times over a 1000-2000Ls supercruise in a controlled system by groups of 3-5 high skill, fully upgraded NPC bounty hunters and police/security ships... then yeah, you will think twice before you simply blow up that Type-6 you just interdicted for no reason other than wanting to kill them.
On the flip side... if you are in an anarchy system then feel free to kill whoever you want. Noone cares because the system is not controlled by any faction. Any player venturing out into the anarcy areas should be prepared to face death. That is the whole point of a system being an anarchy, ergo not controlled, system.
Money is not the Answer as all they need todo is ask a friend to kill them.
The Punishment must be rank within the Pilots Federation and the Faction of the victim.
Also KoS in that systems and access to systems resource ( stations ) denied.
Sure, that works too.
I am adamant in my statement though that the way to reduce murder in controlled systems is to introduce harsh consequences in the form of penalties.
Whether those consequences are financial, reputation, standing or ranks is less important. The only thing that matters is that the consequences are so severe that NOONE, regardless of what they are flying, will resorting to murder without there being some significant reasons in doing so.
It doesn't matter which way you try to look at it, the simple fact remains: Murders are NOT penalized enough, which is proven in the frequency of which they happen inside of controlled systems.
Frontier needs to stop turning a blind eye to this and review the current situation. Do we want a game that encourages murdering other pilots for no reason, or should there be significant consequences in play for committing such a crime?
And NOTE: OUTSIDE of controlled system there are no consequences. INSIDE of controlled systems the consequences should be significant, NOMATTER how rich you are, what your standing is or how many ranks you got.
--->Consequences <---
That's regular PVE, we had no PVP in 1984.
Doesn't matter. Fact is that packs of murderous pirates are all part of the game. If you can take death from NPC then why not from other cmdrs? Is this all to do with noncompetitive sports in schools?
because pirates in game who do just attack you can escape from. because those are just desperate pirates 'i dont have a scanner i will just kill you and scoop whats left'. because when you escape into supercruise or to another system that pirate almost never follows you, is never in a wing, only sometimes has an overpowered ship and crucially IS NOT DOING IT TO RUIN OTHER PEOPLES GAME JUST BECAUSE THEY ENJOY HURTING OTHERS. the 'player' idiot and his pals just want to ruin your game make your life hell and why should i play something where someone else can do that for no reason other than they can and think its funny - if they even think of you as other than an emotionless npc whos a bit better than normal at trying to get away.
so YES it DOES matter. you can see they arent doing it for piracy. they dont have any cargo space so they arent after cargo. they arent after a challenge, or they wouldnt be in a wing and picking on people in ships much less powerful than their own let alone the other wing members as well. and why do they whinge about solo mode when they are solely responsible for driving people there who are not interested in being cannon fodder for losers? they have other groups of like minded imbeciles to go try the same thing with but those people are all running the same overpowered or rail stealth ships and god forbid they should take someone on in an even fight!
if it doesnt matter then why cant some people just go on the pitch during a football game and destroy all balls with a knife? why cant they enter the dressing room and destroy both teams kit? or interrupt a tennis match and cut the net down? i mean if rain can stop a tennis match and you can take that why not accept someone stabbing one of the players? (since we are trying to stifle the discussion with insults like noncompetitive sports in schools etc...)
speaking of whether people who dont want to do pvp are noncompetitive, how do you explain those who climb mountains or do other sports where they are not competing against other people? they obviously are non competitive in your view, but in my view they are challenging themselves and the mountain - they are pve.
so YES it DOES matter. you can see they arent doing it for piracy. they dont have any cargo space so they arent after cargo. they arent after a challenge, or they wouldnt be in a wing and picking on people in ships much less powerful than their own let alone the other wing members as well. and why do they whinge about solo mode when they are solely responsible for driving people there who are not interested in being cannon fodder for losers? they have other groups of like minded imbeciles to go try the same thing with but those people are all running the same overpowered or rail stealth ships and god forbid they should take someone on in an even fight!
if it doesnt matter then why cant some people just go on the pitch during a football game and destroy all balls with a knife? why cant they enter the dressing room and destroy both teams kit? or interrupt a tennis match and cut the net down? i mean if rain can stop a tennis match and you can take that why not accept someone stabbing one of the players? (since we are trying to stifle the discussion with insults like noncompetitive sports in schools etc...)
speaking of whether people who dont want to do pvp are noncompetitive, how do you explain those who climb mountains or do other sports where they are not competing against other people? they obviously are non competitive in your view, but in my view they are challenging themselves and the mountain - they are pve.
Last edited:
Either way, criminality has always been a legitimate gaming pathway in Elite, just like rugby football is a game involving physical assaults. If open didn't have unpredictable behaviour it would be exciting. You need to distinguish between Galactic Law and gaming behaviour. It's the sniper debate all other again.
I get what you're saying, and while I don't necessarily entirely agree with it in so far as FD have a responsibility to make the game how they want it to be taking viability, et cetera into account, I don't think they're done refining it to what they want yet, but the "sniper debate" analogy just doesn't jive with me. Are there people in typical "FPS" games who seriously don't want snipers? You'd basically have to take away all the guns. If the debate where actually about 180-one-shot-no-scoping, it might make more sense.
At any rate, I don't mind there being PVP in the game, "psycho killers" and all. However, I do think there needs be an appropriate and measured response. KOS and refusing docking until scanned in certain systems and factions (not all) makes sense to me, maybe with a way to slowly earn the trust of local authorities back after an appropriate cool down time. But then, I'd also prefer if the game had a hardcore mode anyway that you had to roll a new character for and couldn't mode change from afterword that wiped your character if your ship popped – start over from scratch. Obviously you couldn't trade credits and ships between your characters and could only play with other people that were playing in the same mode.
Last edited:
If you want other players interactivity, there is always the Mobius group, which has over 11k members and is strictly a PvE group. Or you still have solo for the time you get away from Eravate.
i agree. you could be a pirate in the original game. what i disagree with is that going around destroying without reason, not for piracy, not for revenge but purely for the real life pleasure that you have ruined another real life persons day who wasnt interested in pvp with you but you forced the issue with overpowering strength - thats trolling and they just made harassment like that a real life crime here. those people arent interested in pvp they do it because it upsets and ruins others. they either dont understand, or understand but dont care that their selfishness drives players either to solo or quit playing and find another game. they ultimately can kill games.
if i played open and a pirate interdicts me i throttle down. oif he comes at me guns blazing and i think i can take him i have a go. if i think im about to lose i try to escape back to supercruise. a commander pirate might come after me again and try to get me first - they want some cargo and they know if i have some i now have no choice but to drop some for them. or they may let me go if i did enough damage back. the scumbags probably havent taken any damage. they will always follow, and always kill. over and over until you only have the starter winder and i would have quit playing for good long before that and taken my money elsewhere.
now if i take on a legit pirate and i miscalculate and die, fine i can accept that, be they a commander or npc. but the scumbags wont. if they see me again very soon, before i had a chance to recoup my loss from the cargo and survey data and buying a new ship they just zap me again. they think its funny unless it happens to them. i bet they would scream ten times worse if someone wiped them out time after time. a legit pirate will scan see i have no cargo and let me go - no profit in risking their ship for nothing. or they might remember the fight wasnt long ago - if they want revenge because i won thats fine, the fight might go different this time. i can live with that so long as it doesnt become a vendetta. thats entirely within the game universe and concept.
but going around with a wing of powerful ships purposely destroying large numbers of ONLY inferior ships that cant fight back isnt getting them any combat ratings, its not within the game universe for them to continue doing that without a major power response. by that i mean interdiction by overwhelming force and their destruction and capture from their escape pods. thats what has to happen; not they go around ruining others game over and over with impunity, until so few play the game is closed by frontier. call it griefing or trolling, yes its part of human nature but when it drives people off open they then want to force them back to open by closing solo? that goes beyond game universe into real life trolling and griefing and harassment.
you are not distinguishing between people who are playing a role in the game and people who are using a gameplay mechanic to victimise other players. the intent of one is to make a living in the game. the intent of the other is to annoy, hurt, ruin the enjoyment of others for their own sick pleasure, and to hell with the game. if not here they do it in second life, if they feel brave enough and have numbers they do it in real life (bullying) and social media (trolling). it shouldnt be legitimised and encouraged.
El Dragoon!
Banned
Blame AA, there "suposed" to gaurd the noobs
Last edited:
Yeah, well you don't write the rules. If this issue upsets you so much then do something about it IN GAME.
You can't really do anything about it in game. Again, no meaningful consequences. Sure, maybe you can pop a ship or something, assuming people don't just combat log, but who cares? Insurance is cheap.
Besides, not everyone wants to play as a vigilante. Maybe this is the wrong game for them and they should just stay in solo? Well, that's what many people are doing, isn't it?
Last edited:
I get what you're saying, and while I don't necessarily entirely agree with it in so far as FD have a responsibility to make the game how they want it to be taking viability, et cetera into account, I don't think they're done refining it to what they want yet, but the "sniper debate" analogy just doesn't jive with me. Are there people in typical "FPS" games who seriously don't want snipers? You'd basically have to take away all the guns. If the debate where actually about 180-one-shot-no-scoping, it might make more sense.
Yep, there have been a few FPS that have had the sniper classes nerfed because of community whinging. Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising and Strikeforce are a couple that I remember.
Here a debate about sniping and camping in FPS: http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/174695/why-is-camping-considered-bad-gameplay
Last edited:
OK, thanks. If the sniper isn't at least somewhat vulnerable, that does seem like a pretty cheap game mechanic to me. I'm perfectly fine with them being in a game, if you can sneak up and stab them in the back.
Sniper vs. sniper is also pretty cool in its own way. But anyway, we digress. There aren't really pure sniper roles in this game anyway.
Last edited: