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

[physical0]

Same could be said about those not wishing to engage in pvp. However PvPers have to be willing to accept the risk of forced labor for the reward of more targets in open. Otherwise they are just having their cake and eating to, no compromise

I dont actually think the same thing could be said about those not wishing to engage in pvp. Those people are in solo, and they will remain in solo, even if you promise to punish the bad guys. They aren't gonna change their minds over a promise of the bad guy getting his time wasted too.

We are talking about the people willing to put themselves in open, not the people still in solo.

Ganking is an edge case when it comes to pvp. Painting all pvp as ganking and punishing anyone who is interested in shooting down a clean ship is not productive.

 

[DemiserofD]

I'm gonna disagree for the reasons previously mentioned. I've gone to great effort to explain my reasoning and you seem to have ignored many of my other posts...
Powerplay should become more integrated into general gameplay, but basing C&P zoning on it would render those zones worthless.

There should be a powerplay between law and chaos, and it should exist alongside the struggle of the major factions. Chaos should be undermining all powers. It should seek to weaken everyone. It shouldn't be a separate power. It should be the default state, seeking to return all space to its influence.

It shouldn't matter whose bubble you are in, if you navigate into the bad part of town, you should be faced with a greater risk. Pirates should move freely in insecure systems. Encroaching lawlessness threatens all lawful space. Order should be pushing chaos to the fringe systems.

A pirate shouldn't be forgiven of their piracy just because they are friends with the superpower. Perhaps if they are very good friends of the superpower, the cops could be persuaded to look aside, but a serious criminal shouldn't be wandering around any high security area with impunity.

Creating the gradient between law and chaos will allow for a more dynamic market. If you can ignore that gradient just by being in your home territory, then you will be unable to balance risk/reward. Elements like Black Markets become much more interesting if the ones that pay the most are the ones most dangerous to the type of people who would use them. Allowing faction pirates to use faction black markets in high security areas freely would make the risk insignificant, thus the reward could not be great. High security black markets should desire forbidden goods and low security markets should desire stolen goods.
Dangerous markets should be attractive places for confident truckers that are capable of handling themselves. Safe places shouldn't offer the same kinds of rewards. Making that safety/danger contingent on your political leaning would eliminate the risk if you are among friends, thus eliminating the possibility for great reward.

For greater rewards, you need greater risks. To make crime pay, you need to create an environment where crime is risky. A criminal should be able to make more money than an honest pilot, because simply being a criminal and surviving should be more difficult than being a law abiding citizen. Playing it safe and only flying in safe places should keep you safe, but it shouldn't be as profitable as taking risks. Small time crooks should still be possible, but it should still be more difficult than a small time law abiding citizen.

We've discussed this in previous threads. The game lacks a difficulty ramp. Using the C&P system to create a range of safe and dangerous places would introduce a much needed mechanic into the game. More difficult gameplay should offer greater rewards. Such a change would have an impact on all game modes and provide various difficulties for everyone.
Your PVP goal is tangent to this broader issue. I'm not just trying to punish bad PVP. I'm not trying to punish ANY PVP. It is a happy coincidence that the proposed change to the C&P system would make space safer in places and more dangerous in others, thus making PVP more rewarding for everyone involved (except gankers, who will be forced to work for their kills, thus making them legitimate PVPers). Creating a system where there is a reasonable expectation that "safe" players are playing in "safe" spaces will encourage risk averse players to venture into open and meet other "safe" players, and together they may find the courage to explore more dangerous spaces seeking greater rewards and they might meet "dangerous" players. Solo would not make those dangerous spaces any safer, it would offer "dangerous" NPCs instead of "dangerous" players. The risk and the reward would be there regardless of how you play, Open would offer the opportunity to cooperate with others to overcome that risk.

To be clear, I think there should be both.

There should be the gradient you're talking about, between the lawful and lawless systems, but I also think there should be larger gradients between different powers that are hostile to one another. The reason for this is that I don't think it's possible to make a system with sufficient punishment for sufficient rewards, and yet have that system be universal. I'm envisioning high notoriety meaning constant pursuit, like 5 stars in GTA. But you can't have that happening in all lawful systems or players basically get completely locked out of half the universe.

Hence the different notorieties for different systems. If you want to go back to Archon Delaine space and play normally, I think you should be able to do that. But the instant you set foot back in Federal space, bam, here come the cops.

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

I dont actually think the same thing could be said about those not wishing to engage in pvp. Those people are in solo, and they will remain in solo, even if you promise to punish the bad guys. They aren't gonna change their minds over a promise of the bad guy getting his time wasted too.

We are talking about the people willing to put themselves in open, not the people still in solo.

Ganking is an edge case when it comes to pvp. Painting all pvp as ganking and punishing anyone who is interested in shooting down a clean ship is not productive.

Did you read the thread title? We're talking about encouraging more people into open. If those who want people in open aren't willing to compromise they don't deserve it in the first place. However I get the impression that you specifically are just arguing for the sake of it. I should know I'd it all the time.

P.S. criminals never want to serve their time, sucks for them but that's just how it is.

 

[physical0]

Did you read the thread title? We're talking about encouraging more people into open. If those who want people in open aren't willing to compromise they don't deserve it in the first place. However I get the impression that you specifically are just arguing for the sake of it. I should know I'd it all the time.

P.S. criminals never want to serve their time, sucks for them but that's just how it is.

I did read the thread, and I've been providing what thoughtful feedback I can.

We are all arguing for the sake of arguing. Such is the past time of a forum poster.
You don't need to feel attacked by this. I think you are wrong and i explained my reasoning.

Think of this from the perspective of the poor guy who got blowed up. Is the baddie crushing rocks for an hour gonna make you unblowed up? Is it gonna refund the rebuy? Is it gonna give you back the half hour that you lost because you got blowed up?

If the ganker ganks you, they already won. Full stop. No amount of justice delivered to the ganker is gonna mend your broken heart.

An actual workable solution involves preventing the ganker from ganking you in the first place.

It is extremely shortsighted to put tedious gsmeplay into what is supposed to be a legitimate game loop. Yes, there is a lot of tedious gsmeplay already. We shouldn't suggest they add more.

I understand the need for compromise. I dont think we need to force negativity on anyone though. I think we can keep our compromises in the positive. I dont think anyone needs to get a bad deal on this. Maybe I'm an idealist...

To be clear, I think there should be both.

There should be the gradient you're talking about, between the lawful and lawless systems, but I also think there should be larger gradients between different powers that are hostile to one another. The reason for this is that I don't think it's possible to make a system with sufficient punishment for sufficient rewards, and yet have that system be universal. I'm envisioning high notoriety meaning constant pursuit, like 5 stars in GTA. But you can't have that happening in all lawful systems or players basically get completely locked out of half the universe.

Hence the different notorieties for different systems. If you want to go back to Archon Delaine space and play normally, I think you should be able to do that. But the instant you set foot back in Federal space, bam, here come the cops.

I don't see the issue with locking a criminal out of half the galaxy. This proposal would lock the lawful folks out of the other half of the galaxy.
That I think would be a fair compromise. Everyone wins. PVP players are grouped together and can pvp each other, pve players are grouped together and can pve together. When they want increased difficulty, they would head to the opposite side of the gradient.

This would be true in all game modes. There would be no ezmode in solo. Open becomes more attractive because it becomes easier than solo because there are other people that you can work together with.

 

[[VR] James Constantine]

Painting a target on every criminal's back seems a bit like targeted harassment.

Isn't that what PvP does for non-PvP players?

This is ultimately why I think this discussion is a waste of time. You want to see more players in open, so you can blow them up, yet you don't want to make it harder to do so. Well, guess what? Unless you do, you won't get more players in open and you can navel-gaze all you want and it's not going to make any difference.

Unless it become very hard to engage in PvP in high security systems, progressively getting less hard as the security level decreases, all you're asking for is to have your cake and eat it. And you can do that all on your own.

The change I described was more addressing "after crime" gameplay, so that a victim can "dump steam" setting a bounty reward to the criminal and getting notification when he was punished (where and by whom) and providing more "rich" game experience to criminal - making his life more challenging after committing crime and adding ability to "atone for his guilt" by forcing him to solve some non-criminal quests.

What about a more "rich" game experience for the PvE player? I hate to mention it, but we don't particularly enjoy 'dumping steam', we'd prefer if we weren't blown up along with our mission cargo. Ultimately your suggestion really only benefits PvP players and would not interest people presently playing in solo.

 

[[VR] James Constantine]

I understand the need for compromise. I dont think we need to force negativity on anyone though. I think we can keep our compromises in the positive. I dont think anyone needs to get a bad deal on this. Maybe I'm an idealist...

I hate to mention it, but interrupting another player's play, destroying their ship, causing them to fail missions, waste time and costing them resources, is by it's nature negativity.

It mightn't be from the perspective of the person who wants to PvP and blows up someone else's ship, but being able to only see it from their own point of view wouldn't be idealism, as much as narcissism.

 

[physical0]

Isn't that what PvP does for non-PvP players?

This is ultimately why I think this discussion is a waste of time. You want to see more players in open, so you can blow them up, yet you don't want to make it harder to do so. Well, guess what? Unless you do, you won't get more players in open and you can navel-gaze all you want and it's not going to make any difference.

Unless it become very hard to engage in PvP in high security systems, progressively getting less hard as the security level decreases, all you're asking for is to have your cake and eat it. And you can do that all on your own.

I think it needs to get very hard to engage in pvp in high security systems. I think it should be very easy for a do-gooder to fly safe and secure in their high security bubble. Their gameplay isn't gonna be as profitable as the guy who trucks out to the boonies where they'll give you hazard pay.

Being in Open should not be consent to pvp. Leaving the safety of high sec and the desire for a challenge is when you open yourself to that.
This should be true in Solo as well. Dangerous space must be dangerous to fly.

 

[[VR] James Constantine]

I think it needs to get very hard to engage in pvp in high security systems. I think it should be very easy for a do-gooder to fly safe and secure in their high security bubble. Their gameplay isn't gonna be as profitable as the guy who trucks out to the boonies where they'll give you hazard pay.

That's not what you've been arguing though. You've repeatedly sought to water down anything that makes PvP harder to engage in, as 'negative', which doesn't really tally with this statement.

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

Meanwhile irl the lower the crime rate of an area the higher the property value and the more expensive the stores and lucrative the business typically is there and all crime ridden ghettos are poor, run down and typically have pretty crappy low paying jobs to offer

 

[physical0]

That's not what you've been arguing though. You've repeatedly sought to water down anything that makes PvP harder to engage in, as 'negative', which doesn't really tally with this statement.

Give it an ole re-read, because I assure you that is what I want. I don't think pvp players need punishment. That stuff is for petty whiners.

A better c&p system would push criminal players out of high sec and push do-gooders from low sec. Both types of player can engage in easy content at their edge of the gradient. They can wade into medium and up the difficulty a notch, meet each other, fight, trade, etc. When they get to the other side, they should be so challenged that they aren't gonna have any time to gank that fresh cobra with the e rated everything.

When sol's most wanted shows up, they get chased out of town before they can hassle the fragile pve players.
But that precious player can't show up in an anarchy and think they aren't gonna get chased out of town too.
C&p where you gave your time wasted is not productive and contributes to all the tedious gameplay we are already forced to wait through.
If they make anything new, I hope there is no tedious gameplay.

Crime needs real consequences. Not community service or a long wait for the heat to die down. These consequences aren't bad, it's not a punishment it creates a whole new life of challenging Crime relates gameplay where they can play with their criminal friends.
And if they want to come back later, they just gotta work in not doing crimes for a while.

 

[Bigmaec]

I just wish all those open heroes who log off the game the moment the bandwith meter moves upwards would stay in PG or solo from the start.
That is a ridiculous behaviour, "boo hoo I play in open until I see someone else"

 

[[VR] James Constantine]

Give it an ole re-read, because I assure you that is what I want. I don't think pvp players need punishment. That stuff is for petty whiners.

Really?

Apparently you don't want system security painting a target on the back of criminals. Neither do you want permit locks, unless the PvP player is destroyed. You don't really seem to support any measures against uncontrolled PvP from what I can see. So you can claim all you want, but you've not suggested anything other than watering down the suggestions of others.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I just wish all those open heroes who log off the game the moment the bandwith meter moves upwards would stay in PG or solo from the start.
That is a ridiculous behaviour, "boo hoo I play in open until I see someone else"

If Frontier were to Introduce a bonus for playing in Open or PvP-gate one or more existing game features to Open only then this would very likely become more rather than less frequent.

 

[Bigmaec]

If Frontier were to Introduce a bonus for playing in Open or PvP-gate one or more existing game features to Open only then this would very likely become more rather than less frequent.

I know. That's why any open-anything like powerplay needs a mode lock or similar mode-hopping prevention and a change of the block functionality.

The chances of FD implementing that are approximately 3720 to 1.

So all we can do is write thousands of pages about things that won't come anyways.
Alas, I have nothing better to do right now.

 

[physical0]

I hate to mention it, but interrupting another player's play, destroying their ship, causing them to fail missions, waste time and costing them resources, is by it's nature negativity.

It mightn't be from the perspective of the person who wants to PvP and blows up someone else's ship, but being able to only see it from their own point of view wouldn't be idealism, as much as narcissism.

For sure this is negativity. I'd like to prevent the encounter from happening in the first place. We don't need it. And we don't want it.
N9 need for more negativity if the first doesn't happen.

Really?

Apparently you don't want system security painting a target on the back of criminals. Neither do you want permit locks, unless the PvP player is destroyed. You don't really seem to support any measures against uncontrolled PvP from what I can see. So you can claim all you want, but you've not suggested anything other than watering down the suggestions of others.

Really, go reread. You listed some things I don't know how you found form the word I've typed.

I think targeted harassment is wrong. It is against forum rules to name and shame and 3rd party apps should follow those same rules. Unless a pilot publishes their location or friends you, you shouldn't have access to their whereabouts. This is true for every single player in the game.

Not sure where the permit lock thing came from. I think the moment a bad dude gets spotted in a secure environment, an appropriate response should occur to run them out of town. Outright blocking them from entry wouldn't allow for a smuggler to reach a lucrative black market interested in his cargo of illegal goods. Preventing their carriers from parking in system should def happen.
The challenge of running undetected through a system and nit triggering an authority response would be the sort of gameplay that should be rewarded and we can hope it isnt killing a rando beginner.

I'm against ham fisted approaches and slaps on the wrist. The changes I suggest would work to improve play in both solo and open.

 

[varonica]

The chances of FD implementing that are approximately 3720 to 1.

Never tell me the odds!

 

[Dragsham]

That's the problem. Law n order isn't even close to sufficient.
A new UI layer like karma is needed.
Whereby a cmdr guilty of multiple murders npc or player maxs out negativity meter and is " sent to Coventry". Essentially blacklisted can't land can't enter can't refuel rearm can't do squat. Not even on his own carrier.
Then when said ship is targeted and been destroyed by whomever, no rebuy. Cmdr gets a sidey or another of his fleet.
Bang goes one hobo fdl

 

[Robert Maynard]

I know. That's why any open-anything like powerplay needs a mode lock or similar mode-hopping prevention and a change of the block functionality.

What could be put in place to stop a player exiting the game? If the attacker decided to loiter in the area until they came back online they may wait a long time as the player behind the intended target could already have logged on to an altCMDR to continue.

 

[[VR] James Constantine]

Really, go reread. You listed some things I don't know how you found form the word I've typed.

No. It's your claim, so up to you to demonstrate it. I'm not interested in going on a wild goose chase to look for something you never wrote.

I think targeted harassment is wrong. It is against forum rules to name and shame and 3rd party apps should follow those same rules. Unless a pilot publishes their location or friends you, you shouldn't have access to their whereabouts. This is true for every single player in the game.

Are you suggesting that criminals should not be targeted? I take it bounties are wrong then?

Not sure where the permit lock thing came from. I think the moment a bad dude gets spotted in a secure environment, an appropriate response should occur to run them out of town. Outright blocking them from entry wouldn't allow for a smuggler to reach a lucrative black market interested in his cargo of illegal goods. Preventing their carriers from parking in system should def happen.
The challenge of running undetected through a system and nit triggering an authority response would be the sort of gameplay that should be rewarded and we can hope it isnt killing a rando beginner.

Without a temporary permit lock in place, you'd just get the same ganker repeatedly jumping in and camping in a system, making play impossible for anyone there. Bare in mind, I did say that any permit lock would be valid for entering the system. If already in te system, it is a moot point, but to date you seem averse to anything that would act as a consequence for illegal action and that simply won't fly.

I'm against ham fisted approaches and slaps on the wrist. The changes I suggest would work to improve play in both solo and open.

All you seem to accept is slaps on the wrist though.

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

Closet ganker?