How could players be encouraged to put themselves into dangerous pvp scenarios, even when they don't have to?

[Robert Maynard]

You advocate the pillorying of emergent PvP Robert.

Not all of it by any means, no - it depends on what is covered by the catch-all term "emergent PvP".

For those that choose to engage it is a lot of fun and (imo) BGS conflict acted out in Open is the game at it's best. Intimidation and the willingness to stand up against it is a big part of that. You simply dismiss it out of hand as easily as those that advocate removing any other choice.

I'm sure that there are those who find it to be fun.

The topic of the thread (started by a self-described PvEer) is to discover what stops those that that would otherwise consider taking part, from not doing so, and to consider the merits of proposals to encourage them.

Indeed - and the taking part need not involve returning fire, from my reading of the OP, e.g. haulers and interdictors.

 

[Greasetrap42]

The topic of the thread (started by a self-described PvEer) is to discover what stops those that that would otherwise consider taking part, from not doing so, and to consider the merits of proposals to encourage them.

Yes. If their was a meaningful reason for me to Play in open I would be excited to arrmor-up my best ship and jump right in and do my best.

I believe there could be. But there isn't. [edit: maybe there is, see my note below]

Edit: As a standalone player that's how I feel. I play ED sporadically, unpredictably, in no player group. I suspect I fall into a fairly large percentage of players. Joining a group kinda tough with sporadic play schedule.).

You can make a difference if you want to.

Please expand on this. In current game how does a typical solo player make a difference by going into Open? A difference to what?

 

[Riverside]

Why bother? Pvpers enjoy being attacked, so there's no reason to hunt them down, and if I want to avoid them, I'll just play in solo.

Give real, integrated ways of meaningfully interacting on a pvp level and that might change, however, and create a more enjoyable and dynamic open experience for everyone, one that allows even solo players an opportunity to enjoy open.

You don't need to hunt them down, although certainly that something a goal one could aim for, you can use the friend icon to see where they are, to chat or ask for advice, and you can un-friend someone easily too if there is a concern they may hunt you.

A random 'Deciat Ganker' is not going to hunt you. They send and accept friend requests regularly & you are just one in a crowd - they use that 'heatmap' of friend icons to see where lots of players are, not to find an individual.

A Cmdr supporting an opposing faction may well hunt you (or send others after you), and certainly would be interested in tracking you no matter whether they intend to be in the same instance as you or not.

I explore in Open, and used to track friends (also in Open) on the galmap & chat with them. Sadly groups like Fleetcom became (understandably) popular after DW2/DG2, carriers have drastically reduced the likelihood of random encounters (although the carriers themselves make handy BGS trackers) and the Odd launch has divided those remaining between game versions.

I understand why people avoid open, it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy of 'here be dragons'.

 

[shevek]

Open is fine,

Typically? I don't. Because it's never worth the effort.

It's impossible to make any sort of difference in open, at the moment. I'd like to see that change, opening the door to a wider range of players.

Playing in open is pretty safe, but I don’t think you want to hear that.

I thought the topic was ‘how could players be encouraged to put themselves into dangerous pvp scenarios, even when they don’t have to’

But I get the impression that you don’t think it would be worth the effort, and wouldn’t make a difference.

 

[Yure]

Easiest thing was to make power play a PvP flag, marking a player attackable. Or at least attackable without reprecusions.

 

[shevek]

Easiest thing was to make power play a PvP flag, marking a player attackable. Or at least attackable without reprecusions.

It kinda is that.

 

[DemiserofD]

Playing in open is pretty safe, but I don’t think you want to hear that.

Sure, I've never denied it. In fact, I think Open is generally far more safe than even open-only advocates would like to think. People will often advocate for anywhere from 2x to 10x increased rewards, just for playing in open, but in reality, playing in open, you're not going to encounter a hostile player in 99.9% of systems in the bubble. If you really wanted to give a reward that accounts for risk, you'd fairly set it somewhere under 1%.

But, like anything, it's a matter of perspective, isn't it?

If you're competing at the world watermelon seed spitting competition, you kinda expect to get a little spit on your shoes and take the occasional seed to the face.

By contrast, if you're out enjoying a quiet evening, spitting the last thing on your mind, someone coming up to you and spitting in your face can be enough to spoil your whole night.

Which is how it is for many players. The actual death, the loss of resources and time, is more often that not quite minor. But the feelings it provokes, the emotional cost, can be far, far higher. It's essentially the same as bullying; calling someone fat or ugly doesn't have a physical cost, but it hurts far more deeply. Destroying someone's sand castle they're proud of only takes a little time to remake, but the emotional toll lasts far longer, and can permanently change your impression of a person or a place.

And a big part of what makes bullying so potent is a feeling of powerlessness. Which is why empowering the defensive players is such an important aspect of welcoming players into Open.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

I once got a simple idea that would give both some action in game for PVP minded people AND offer nice way of retaliation against criminal. It of course would be against Fdevs idea about player credit transferrs. It would work like this. When you are sent to rebuy screen by some player you are offered a chance to issue private bounty. Amount, and time for bounty to run. Credit amount is taken from bounty issuers account immediately. If no one manages to get target killed money would be paid back when bounty timer runs down. Ok bounty is issued, now other commanders can take such mission in nearby stations. Target does not know about duration or bounty sum, but gets alert of someone wanting his skin. Every time target becomes active game alerts people having that mission active about whereabouts of their target...

We all know that many players have really deep pockets, so bounty sums could get really lucrative, perhaps one could also offer mats from ones collection....

 

[Madrax573]

nah.
They cannot turn SanTu from an anarchy to a lawful faction and anger tens or even hundreds of pvpers
And they cannot lockdown a system mid CG and anger 10000 players.
Or lockdown Arque (and Palin's Shop) and force people to go all the way to Chloe

The MMO part of ED is the shared galaxy. Not the tens of thousands of small instances.

So the comparation with CS is not fit at all.
Those Counter-Strikers, they play the same game, but they dont affect each other.

Turning systems from controlled to anarchy can be done by a single player who never even encounters another player.

Systems CANNOT be locked down or blockaded at all as you simply relog and get a difference instance or swap game modes. Again removing the game away from any form of massive multiplayer in the game.

Having a shared galaxy does not an MMO make.

 

[DemiserofD]

I once got a simple idea that would give both some action in game for PVP minded people AND offer nice way of retaliation against criminal. It of course would be against Fdevs idea about player credit transferrs. It would work like this. When you are sent to rebuy screen by some player you are offered a chance to issue private bounty. Amount, and time for bounty to run. Credit amount is taken from bounty issuers account immediately. If no one manages to get target killed money would be paid back when bounty timer runs down. Ok bounty is issued, now other commanders can take such mission in nearby stations. Target does not know about duration or bounty sum, but gets alert of someone wanting his skin. Every time target becomes active game alerts people having that mission active about whereabouts of their target...

We all know that many players have really deep pockets, so bounty sums could get really lucrative, perhaps one could also offer mats from ones collection....

Wouldn't really work, unfortunately. The allies of the player would just kill them and claim the bounty.

You could maybe do some sort of faction-related bounty; if members of a Power or Faction kill the player in question, the Power somehow gets the bounty, and could perhaps use it to buy something or another. That would be the only way I could see it working.

 

[EdzUp]

Easiest way I see it would be:
1) A Galactic top 100 bounties board from the Pilots Federation

2) KWS being adjusted so you can select these pilots and get their last location from scans of Navbeacons.

3) Bounties and notoriety doesn't decay, the timeout is after they are paid or claimed.

4) Missions pay more in open to incentivise playing.

5) Escort missions be added so players and NPC escorts can be hired to fly with haulers.

6) Player kill ratios be available to all with Killeaths and a percentage of "innocent" deaths to stop pirates taking Escort missions (if you still take a known pirate on the mission ya on your own).

7) The NPC police get bigger ships to tackle these top100 ranging from the current to the military getting involved and shooting at them no matter where they are.

Yes these may not incentivise people to come into open but emergent gameplay mechanics might tempt a few more to play in open. As has been stated there is no difference for me playing Solo/PG/Open as I hardly see anyone and it's like playing in Solo anyway.

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

Turning systems from controlled to anarchy can be done by a single player who never even encounters another player.

Systems CANNOT be locked down or blockaded at all as you simply relog and get a difference instance or swap game modes. Again removing the game away from any form of massive multiplayer in the game.

Having a shared galaxy does not an MMO make.

You can definitely put a system in lockdown, you just have to be dedicated and willing to do what's necessary.

 

[Madrax573]

You can definitely put a system in lockdown, you just have to be dedicated and willing to do what's necessary.

Lockdown as in it's state you mean?

You cannot lock a system down by definition...

 

[[VR] James Constantine]

Simply increasing the response time would be inadequate, because a good gank is over before security would even have a chance to respond, even if it was near immediate. Noteritity would need to be a long-lasting statistic for a player, and it would have to have a meaningful impact on a player outside of being randomly interdicted by incompetent NPCs occasionally.

I never suggested that increasing the response time should be the only measure. I would add a number of features including:

• Add cool down periods to bounties when removed at an IF, according to the system security level. Presently it's too easy to break the law, jump out, clean the slate and jump back in.
• Increase local security response times and their patrolling of systems, according to the system security level.
• Temporary remove system permits to offenders, for periods commemorate to the system security level and player notoriety (perhaps limiting this to high security systems).

Ultimately, it is obvious that the crime and punishment model is broken. But I can see many gankers balking at any of the above, because they want to continue to gank all they want with impunity. But honestly, unless something like this is implemented, they're going to find few solo players giving them that option.

I think the conversation is getting derailed when we try to punish criminals by giving them fines. Fines are a laughable punishment in this game. Plus, the life of a criminal is supposed to be a viable route to play the game. the game requires a C&P system that involves more than wrist slaps. And, no I don't mean more stern wrist slaps.

The criminal life being a viable role isn't in reality though, in ED crime does not pay - literally. Piracy, for example, isn't a thing in ED. As with smuggling, the returns certainly don't make it a worthwhile occupation financially and I suspect many PvP players will make their money through trade and mining, so they can pay for their preferred occupation of blowing things up. They're not pirates, more the space equivalent of Alex DeLarge.

Smuggling and black market mechanics are part of this problem, in that there's little reward for engaging. Do you know how many black markets there are in my 'network'? Five; coincidentally just enough to unlock the Dweller. And that kind of illustrates smuggling as a profession in ED.

Ironically making it financially viable would improve the chances of the would-be ganked. Presently gankers don't even bother with cargo holds, concentrating on making perfect murder builds. If it was worth their while to equip cargo slots, that would even the odds a little bit more.

 

[Northpin]

Systems CANNOT be locked down or blockaded at all as you simply relog and get a difference instance or swap game modes. Again removing the game away from any form of massive multiplayer in the game.

You can definitely put a system in lockdown, you just have to be dedicated and willing to do what's necessary.

Lockdown as in it's state you mean?

You cannot lock a system down by definition...

Yes, i meant to put a system in lockdown. As a BGS state.
It will make inaccessible the services from that system. Including engineer access and whatever CG might be running in that system.

Getting back into mmo discussion - the point is people from all modes and all platforms can work together to achieve a common goal
repairing the stations in WHN for example.
any CG
the interstellar initiatives
the BGS
the Powerplay.

People do not need to be in the same instance to work on and achieve the same goals. Or compete against each other.
The ED scope is much bigger than a pew-pew instance or than a hooning instance.
It's as big as the Galaxy.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Wouldn't really work, unfortunately. The allies of the player would just kill them and claim the bounty.

You could maybe do some sort of faction-related bounty; if members of a Power or Faction kill the player in question, the Power somehow gets the bounty, and could perhaps use it to buy something or another. That would be the only way I could see it working.

Well from bounty issuers POV, thats not a problem. I would not care who does my bidding, target's allies, enemies, some totally unknown. Plus if target has normal bounties and so on, it would anyways cost to target a lot...

 

[zikolach]

• Add cool down periods to bounties when removed at an IF, according to the system security level. Presently it's too easy to break the law, jump out, clean the slate and jump back in.
• Increase local security response times and their patrolling of systems, according to the system security level.
• Temporary remove system permits to offenders, for periods commemorate to the system security level and player notoriety (perhaps limiting this to high security systems).

It seems like FDev is good at implementing boring game mechanics - so why not to punish a bad guy forcing him to do one of these, e..g. if a ganker having high notoriety level was killed (even by his friend) for a bounty given by all his victims - he will end up in detention center with restricted access to his fleet (e.g. having only access to base sidewinder + Apex) and limited by 20 ly radius to the detention center. The condition to remove notoriety would be the fact of collecting some rare materials and bringing them back to the contact at the detention center. Every attempt to go against the law would bring the notoriety level back.

Would this be still vulnerable to some sort of exploitation?

 

[[VR] James Constantine]

Would this be still vulnerable to some sort of exploitation?

What I suggested was pricipally something that implements some form of real crime & punishment system based on security system that is presently lacking and to avoid the present situation where nowhere, no matter what the security level, is even mildly safe. What you suggest would be overkill and would, in effect, be the mirror image of a PvP player who want's to see solo players in open, but is unwilling to compromise their ability to gank with impunity for it.

 

[zikolach]

What you suggest would be overkill and would, in effect, be the mirror image of a PvP player who want's to see solo players in open, but is unwilling to compromise their ability to gank with impunity for it.

Could you possibly elaborate more on this?
It could be I poorly described what I have in mind, but I don't see much difference in comparison with:

some form of real crime & punishment system

Step by step:

1. Good guy was killed by bad guy
2. Good guy files a complaint to the officials issuing the bounty for the head of bad guy
3. At some point police or others catch bad guy and receive bounties
4. Bad guy appears at the detention center
5. Good guy receives a massage that the punishment happened
6. Bad guy has to do some good stuff to prove he is not that bad (possibly engaging as well, meeting other bad guys etc)

Assuming that all of this went this way:

• bad gay forced to spend some time away of the his potential target system
• others have chance to get some pew-pew gameplay they are looking for
• the good gay can meanwhile do another attempt and not meet the same bad guy

I am not particularly aware of the nuances of gameplay for PvP player, so my suggestions may be one-sided. It is probably not solving all the issues, but I believe could potentially solve some of them, like inability to fly in open to Deciat/Shinrarta Dezhra/Cubeo etc without 100% guarantee to be ganked.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I never suggested that increasing the response time should be the only measure. I would add a number of features including:

• Add cool down periods to bounties when removed at an IF, according to the system security level. Presently it's too easy to break the law, jump out, clean the slate and jump back in.
• Increase local security response times and their patrolling of systems, according to the system security level.
• Temporary remove system permits to offenders, for periods commemorate to the system security level and player notoriety (perhaps limiting this to high security systems).

Ultimately, it is obvious that the crime and punishment model is broken. But I can see many gankers balking at any of the above, because they want to continue to gank all they want with impunity. But honestly, unless something like this is implemented, they're going to find few solo players giving them that option.

Make notoriety one way.

Once you get it, you've got it, and as it rises more and more of the honest side of the universe will be locked to you, permanently. Factions won't talk to you, markets won't sell to you, eventually stations won't even let you dock unless they're controlled by a criminal faction, maybe even scramble ATR to get rid of you as soon as you are detected in High Security systems. But the criminal side does the opposite, more black markets appear and you get more money from them, so you have to live on the edges of the galaxy like the low rent crim you are.