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

[Bigmaec]

Back to the original question, I just tried asking my dog:

"how could you be encouraged to put yourself into learning linear algebra, even if you don't have to?"

He lifted an ear, said "woof", and finally farted.

Damn lazy scrounger if you ask me, but what can I do?

But did he fart in open or was it solo?
Important difference.

 

[Brrokk]

Nobody's saying that they're wrong or being against the rules, because clearly they're not, but I, too, find it a bit strange why people would even want to go into Open if they're just going to log the moment they see any sort of threat pop up.

I mean, why not just stick with PG/Solo, then? I do so myself when I just want to get a tedious job out of the way, such as slapping a special on an engi'ed component and I can't really be bothered. Nothing wrong with that, as far as I'm concerned.

But why jump into the shark tank only to log if you see something that might be an actual shark? That's what I don't get.

Like I just said, it's possible to want the social opportunities of Open but not the combat, in which case menu-logging when interdicted is a rational (but selfish) solution.

 

[MishaTX]

Open is the only game mode with more than one player in it that is advertised in the launcher (a player needs to find out about each Private Group that they may wish to join outside the game and then apply to join) - it's also the only game mode with an unlimited population.

There's Mobius, but your point still stands, I agree.

Personally, I've never had any fundamental disagreement when it comes to a PvE server, for that very reason. Sure, it would "split the player base", but I don't see how it isn't split already.

I just still don't get why people voluntarily join a mode that is openly advertised as dangerous and then log when danger rears its head. I fully understand why some players don't want that, I used to be that way myself completely, so I'm on both sides of the fence in that respect. No judgment here. It's just that bit of hey, I'll join a multiplayer instance where people might shoot at me, but if anybody actually shoots at me, I'll quit.

I do Open for the thrill. If I'm not feeling like it and just want to chill, I don't.

Both are perfectly fine.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There's Mobius, but your point still stands, I agree.

Personally, I've never had any fundamental disagreement when it comes to a PvE server, for that very reason. Sure, it would "split the player base", but I don't see how it isn't split already.

Given the three game modes have existed in the game design for the same length of time, the split in the player-base initiated when the first backers pledged to the Kickstarter.

I just still don't get why people voluntarily join a mode that is openly advertised as dangerous and then log when danger rears its head. I fully understand why some players don't want that, I used to be that way myself completely, so I'm on both sides of the fence in that respect. No judgment here. It's just that bit of hey, I'll join a multiplayer instance where people might shoot at me, but if anybody actually shoots at me, I'll quit.

For many it's the only way to encounter other players at all - going back to the fact that popular Private Groups aren't advertised in-game.

I do Open for the thrill. If I'm not feeling like it and just want to chill, I don't.

Some do, no doubt. Some are seeking players to play with rather than against and the possibility of PvP is an unwanted side-effect of playing among other players.

 

[MishaTX]

We're not disagreeing, Robert. It's a conundrum without an easy answer.

My only thing is to let new players know that Open, unlike what they may have been led to believe, isn't all that scary as long as you don't enter it in systems where there are bound to be a lot of players. And to teach them how to survive if they DO run into unpleasant situations. It's not all about making the other ship go "boom", managing to escape somebody trying to make YOUR ship go "boom" can be just as satisfying, if not more so.

And the skills and engineering needed to reach that level aren't really all that hard. As a matter of fact, you don't need any engineering at all.

If you're not interested in a fight (you might be an explorer or a hauler, I've done both), then don't fight. Run. There is no shame in that. We didn't see very many freighters trying to fight U-boats during WWII, did we?

And if you're not good at running, then there is no shortage of us "evil" people more than willing to teach you how to do so. The best tips I ever got about ship building and tactics came from people who were very, very good at blowing me up.

 

[Robert Maynard]

We're not disagreeing, Robert. It's a conundrum without an easy answer.

Indeed.

My only thing is to let new players know that Open, unlike what they may have been led to believe, isn't all that scary as long as you don't enter it in systems where there are bound to be a lot of players. And to teach them how to survive if they DO run into unpleasant situations. It's not all about making the other ship go "boom", managing to escape somebody trying to make YOUR ship go "boom" can be just as satisfying, if not more so.

And the skills and engineering needed to reach that level aren't really all that hard. As a matter of fact, you don't need any engineering at all.

Each player needs to find out for themselves - and their initial experiences will influence their future mode choice(s).

If you're not interested in a fight (you might be an explorer or a hauler, I've done both), then don't fight. Run. There is no shame in that. We didn't see very many freighters trying to fight U-boats during WWII, did we?

And if you're not good at running, then there is no shortage of us "evil" people more than willing to teach you how to do so. The best tips I ever got about ship building and tactics came from people who were very, very good at blowing me up.

Avoiding the attentions of those who like to attack players may appeal to some - however the best possible result for those disinclined to engage in combat is "not destroyed", there isn't a beneficial "win" condition there's only "didn't lose".

 

[ethelred]

Using 3rd party tools to track specific users without their consent is kinda targeted harassment... posting the output of your 3rd party app on the forums would lead to moderator action. It violates community guidelines.

There needs to be better in-game tools to notify you when bounties are nearby. And it should report both player and npc bounties..
In an earlier post I had suggested that when a criminal gets targeted in system, it is announced on the comm that a danger had arrived and any brave soul in system could track em and bring em to justice.
The key differences are In game and immediate. You would already see them on the contact pane, they just do the favor of mentioning the bounty.

I get that finding bounties can be tough. This is part of the grand scheme with c&p rewrite. Pushing criminals to the fringes and the pvers to the
Core, you will be more likely to find a like minded soul to play with.
In addition to the very fun and poorly paying human pilot, i would hope there are more challenging ai pilots as you venture out of your comfort zone,

Thanks for the reply.

I think targeted harassment is an over-reaction as the tool isn't real time - it shows you who is potentially in system and highlights those CMDRs when you jump in as a pop up. You still need to scan CMDRs and find them in system. It's similar to the Inara page https://inara.cz/reports-security/ rather than an always on tracker (like the annoucement you mention above)

C&P stuff I broadly agree with, as well as the AI being beefed up.

 

[Vengal]

I just still don't get why people voluntarily join a mode that is openly advertised as dangerous and then log when danger rears its head. I fully understand why some players don't want that, I used to be that way myself completely, so I'm on both sides of the fence in that respect. No judgment here. It's just that bit of hey, I'll join a multiplayer instance where people might shoot at me, but if anybody actually shoots at me, I'll quit.

If I wanted that....I'd go play Eve Online again.

My solution, with Elite, has been to play Solo since October last year. I really don't want the "asymmetric PvP" experience (and, as Eve taught me very well: PvP, like war, if done properly, is 100% asymmetric). The social - collaborative- aspects of a MMORPG would be nice. But the collaborative aspects are not worth enough upside to have to make myself a target for someone else's 'fun'.

 

[MishaTX]

If I wanted that....I'd go play Eve again.

And that's why ED has Solo and PG, and that's good. I heartily approve. I won't play EVE either because I like choices.

 

[[VR] James Constantine]

I've read what I've posted. I worry you misread somewhere. I don't need clumsy attempts to take words out of context, so I suggest you go back and try to understand what I mean and not worry about quoting me back to myself.

What did I misread? You're still trying to get someone else to prove your point. No, I've quoted you in my responses, if you said something different please quote the relevant text.

Bounties are bad? That's some wild hyperbole there. No, I think that targeted harassment is bad. I feel my explanation was concise.

You're the one claiming that targeting players is bad, and what do you think is used to target them? Or what exactly do you mean by targeting?

Permit locking isn't required if the security level had appropriate response. Camping in a high sec as a criminal should be virtually impossible. If permit locking is necessary, then the security response should be made greater instead.

How would you make it virtually impossible? Magically explode ships that initiate combat the moment they do?

Otherwise, it's still more than possible to attack, destroy your target and tank long enough to jump out or you'll still get people able happy to do suicide runs against other players. After all, what's the insurance on a well kitted out Vulture? 1 mil? Chump change.

Illegal actions are part of the game. They can happen in solo and they can happen to npcs. Treating it like it's behavior that deserves punishment is silly.
Proper protection in high security areas would be sufficient to keep pve players safe. I don't want slaps on the wrist either because it's all pointless meaningless that will not deter ganking. It just makes hassle for ppl who dock before asking permission or when a cop dives into your line of fire.

You've not suggested anything other than slaps on the wrist, anything more - such as a temporary permit lock - you've balked at. If you have, please show us where because it's beginning to look as if you never did and are trying to worm out of it.

Even the current prison ship crap is . It's silly how many people end up going to them for pointless stuff.

Irrelevant. Fixing where people get sent to a prison ship for trivial transgressions does not mean that real crimes cannot be dealt with appropriately.

Give the criminals tools to commit the crime and they will have things to do while they are living on the fringe,
I tried a life of crime once (in solo). It was boring and the pay sucked.

Again, irrelevant. The discussion is how to convince solo players to play in open, not open players not to play in solo, let alone what you want.

Let's try and keep it honest. You arent gonna deter ganking by threatening punishment. Stopping ganking happens by the game producing a reasonable security response and chasing the ganker away before he can gank.

It seems clear that it would. You don't seem to be too crazy at the idea of losing your permit to a system for an hour or a day if you end up committing a crime after all. Oddly that looks like a rather effective deterrent.

You don't need to punish a ganker who couldn't gank.

LOL. Perhaps we shouldn't arrest buglers or muggers unless they're competent at it.

 

[[VR] James Constantine]

And the skills and engineering needed to reach that level aren't really all that hard. As a matter of fact, you don't need any engineering at all.

That's not really true. Engineering aside, the asymmetry between a trading or mining build and a combat build is so great that it isn't funny. If you're ganked by the latter while in the former, you're not going to be able to win a fight and your only option will be too tank and flee - and if you built light for jump range or needed your higher slots for cargo, that may realistically not be an option. This notion that with skill you can fend off an attacker is a complete myth, that at best only happens when the defender is an experienced player in an engineered ship and the attacker is a noob.

And if you're not good at running, then there is no shortage of us "evil" people more than willing to teach you how to do so.

And here we are again, with the salvitic promise of converting the misguided solo players to the true Way of The Gank, because clearly we're playing the game wrong.

 

[physical0]

What did I misread? You're still trying to get someone else to prove your point. No, I've quoted you in my responses, if you said something different please quote the relevant text.

You're the one claiming that targeting players is bad, and what do you think is used to target them? Or what exactly do you mean by targeting?

How would you make it virtually impossible? Magically explode ships that initiate combat the moment they do?

Otherwise, it's still more than possible to attack, destroy your target and tank long enough to jump out or you'll still get people able happy to do suicide runs against other players. After all, what's the insurance on a well kitted out Vulture? 1 mil? Chump change.

You've not suggested anything other than slaps on the wrist, anything more - such as a temporary permit lock - you've balked at. If you have, please show us where because it's beginning to look as if you never did and are trying to worm out of it.

Irrelevant. Fixing where people get sent to a prison ship for trivial transgressions does not mean that real crimes cannot be dealt with appropriately.

Again, irrelevant. The discussion is how to convince solo players to play in open, not open players not to play in solo, let alone what you want.

It seems clear that it would. You don't seem to be too crazy at the idea of losing your permit to a system for an hour or a day if you end up committing a crime after all. Oddly that looks like a rather effective deterrent.

LOL. Perhaps we shouldn't arrest buglers or muggers unless they're competent at it.

I'm not asking you to prove my point. I'm telling you that what you are interpreting I said and what I meant are not the same thing. Go re-read my posts and try to understand better.

Targeted harassment is bad. Using 3rd party tools to track a player without their consent is targeted harassment.

Permit locks are the same slaps as everything else. You kick a pirate out of one system and he keeps doing it in the next system. Unless all the noobs hide in the same system it isn't gonna protect them. It'd just a minor inconvenience for a ganker.

I am not a ganker, so you shouldn't judge my reaction to your suggested mechanic as the quality of the deterrent.
I'm a game designer trying to understand how best to solve a problem.
Have you tried asking any gankers if the hassle would be big enough to deter them from their lulz?

You have a real poor grasp at the English language, don't you? You are constantly misinterpreting and jumping to wild conclusions whenever you read things...

 

[CMDR Flavius Funk]

What I got from the title.. OP is bored and doesn't have as much fodder in Open as they used to.

Didn't read anything else.

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

And now the thread has become...

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

You have a real poor grasp at the English language, don't you? You are constantly misinterpreting and jumping to wild conclusions whenever you read things...

Sounds like a perfect description of English speakers on the internet/forums to me

 

[physical0]

Thanks for the reply.

I think targeted harassment is an over-reaction as the tool isn't real time - it shows you who is potentially in system and highlights those CMDRs when you jump in as a pop up. You still need to scan CMDRs and find them in system. It's similar to the Inara page https://inara.cz/reports-security/ rather than an always on tracker (like the annoucement you mention above)

C&P stuff I broadly agree with, as well as the AI being beefed up.

With regards to harassment and privacy, I think it's best to err on the side of caution. There are 3rd party sites out there where a commander can opt in to publishing their location. I have no issue if those commanders are aggregated based on their bounty. But, a commander who hasn't chosen to share their location shouldn't have their location logged and published by 3rd party sites. It doesn't matter if it's real time or not.

It is a tricky problem. I understand why the tool exists, and how it is useful. I don't have a good answer as to what could be done in lieu of it.
The utility of the tool doesn't override the privacy implications though.

 

[ethelred]

I think if you used ED Recon you'd see how light touch it is but perhaps @LeKeno can address any concerns you have as the author.

I have a hard time seeing harassment for CMDRs who have:-

1. Chose Open
2. Chose to murder clean CMDR ships
3. Don't use any of the tools available to them in game to leave the scene of the crime.

Am I missing something?

 

[physical0]

I think if you used ED Recon you'd see how light touch it is but perhaps @LeKeno can address any concerns you have as the author.

I have a hard time seeing harassment for CMDRs who have:-

1. Chose Open
2. Chose to murder clean CMDR ships
3. Don't use any of the tools available to them in game to leave the scene of the crime.

Am I missing something?

The thing you are missing is that a player must consent to be tracked via 3rd party software.
Being a jerk in public isn't implied consent. Even if it was, you can't use implied consent in this way.

 

[ethelred]

They are already tracked by the game so they have already consented as part of the standard EULA.

Tracking is not real time - it just says where they have been spotted.

3dit 3 - any bounty board already does this

 

[physical0]

They are already tracked by the game so they have already consented as part of the standard EULA

That is between Frontier and the player.

This is between the player and a 3rd party piece of software which does not collect consent data.