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

[DemiserofD]

The game shouldn't encourage you to get better.

In that case, why does the game pay you more for killing a Hydra than a Cyclops?

 

[Martind Forlon]

Do you actually "Like" the engineering system? Or do you recognize it as inadequate and possibly contributing further to whatever ganking problem there may be?

I personally do not have any problem with engineering, PvP or ganking, it simply is not something what disturbs my way of playing ... in case of engineering I use system of it to have more fun and allows me do things more efficitently. Imo there are many, many things which makes all of direct PvP unbalanced in ED and engineering is just part of it ... Next to this is nonconsensual PvP in this game full of toxicity, hate and rude behaviour, ... and this all are exactly opposite reasons for why I like playing games. I use all game modes, depends about ship which I like to use, where I want to fly, what I want to do and what mood I have ...

 

[EdzUp]

In that case, why does the game pay you more for killing a Hydra than a Cyclops?

Technically it doesn't as it takes longer to kill one than the other

 

[Brrokk]

In that case, why does the game pay you more for killing a Hydra than a Cyclops?

It's true that "Thargoids" is supposed to be the answer to people wanting more challenge, but unfortunately I think fighting them means following a fixed sequence of actions, and FD have allowed one weapon to become the clear meta. Also, it's not as well paid as it ought to be.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Sure, but you've gotta consider why things are unequal. A big part of it is that the ideal way to play is in a shieldless cargo-optimized hauling ship, unless you're specifically doing combat.

IF entering low-sec were dangerous enough to warrant a defensive build even on cargo haulers, and
IF low-sec were rewarding enough to make up the difference, so people would still be willing to do it even with the reduced cargo capacity
AND if hostile players were generally shepherded towards low-sec systems
THEN the inequality would be much reduced, because most times players would encounter hostile players, they'd be prepared for combat anyway.

The "shieldless cargo-optimised hauling ship" is because cargo runs used to be very unlucrative with very little opportunities to earn good money. So the meta evolved to max out the puny opportunities for maximum return. It is a direct player reaction - some would call it emergent - to FD's overarching design philosophy of nickel and diming all the content against work, or "grind" in-game.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Sure, but you've gotta consider why things are unequal. A big part of it is that the ideal way to play is in a shieldless cargo-optimized hauling ship, unless you're specifically doing combat.

IF entering low-sec were dangerous enough to warrant a defensive build even on cargo haulers, and
IF low-sec were rewarding enough to make up the difference, so people would still be willing to do it even with the reduced cargo capacity
AND if hostile players were generally shepherded towards low-sec systems
THEN the inequality would be much reduced, because most times players would encounter hostile players, they'd be prepared for combat anyway.

Fly in ointment is that whatever you do to your tradeship, does not make it able to repel even single player-ran proper combat ship. Turrets are so nerfed that bah, and your flying cow does not have manouverability to use any other types of weapons. Best you can do is make ship tough enough to be able to high wake or menu log.

Reason why I liked my Panther Clipper in FFE was that it WAS able to blast single or double pirates to oblivion. 4-5 at same time was a problem....

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Nobody should be pushed to be better, but the game should encourage it.

Pvp is not hard mode. It is a different kind of gameplay entirely than pve. There is easy pvp against inexperienced pilots and there is hard pvp against veteran pilots. This game lacks any means to differentiate the two, so it's basically hard. But, it is a completely different gameplay mechanic than pve, which can have its own difficulty ranging from easy to hard.

I have no issue with low skill requirements, but there isn't much game for folks who want anything more and I think it should give both sides an opportunity to experience all content at the difficulty they feel is appropriate.

Hmm.. we are probably getting into semantics here, but i don't see why it needs to encourage it either. Options exist. Take them or leave them.

So, if PvP isn't hard mode, why do people need to git gud?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

In that case, why does the game pay you more for killing a Hydra than a Cyclops?

More risk, more reward. But no need to go after harder targets. And "thanks" to FD enabling people to make money hand over fist, then there is no incentive to kill any sort of Thargoid for credit reasons. You can make more money quicker and easier doing non-combat related stuff.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

In that case, why does the game pay you more for killing a Hydra than a Cyclops?

More what? Credits per minute? Or credits per mission?

 

[DemiserofD]

The "shieldless cargo-optimised hauling ship" is because cargo runs used to be very unlucrative with very little opportunities to earn good money. So the meta evolved to max out the puny opportunities for maximum return. It is a direct player reaction - some would call it emergent - to FD's overarching design philosophy of nickel and diming all the content against work, or "grind" in-game.

Well, it's a combination. People fly shieldless because they can. And why wouldn't you, if you can with no real consequences?

More what? Credits per minute? Or credits per mission?

Credits per kill is the aspect that most clearly demonstrates dev intention. The amount of time it takes to get the kill is largely dependent on player skill. Aranioros Stormrage killed a Medusa in 3 minutes in a beluga, so the principle is very much intact that by killing more difficult targets you can make more credits per hour.

More risk, more reward. But no need to go after harder targets.

I guess it depends on how you define 'need'. Like, if a player wants to go into a thargoid scout POI, they 'need' to have more skill to survive. But that's only if they want to go there in the first place. If they want to get access to synthesis of certain weapons, they need engineering materials you can only get from killing thargoids. If you want access to certain tech broker items, same thing.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Well, it's a combination. People fly shieldless because they can. And why wouldn't you, if you can with no real consequences?

People run shieldless or lets say capacity optimised things because they must. Try little trading run, and see what kind of profit marginals you get. In fact without big enough cargo space you could run on loss. Especially if you buy your fuel and so on.

Btw. Why don't we criticize people flying lets say combat optimised FDL's? After all such ships suck on anything but combat. No cargo cap, riduculously poor jump range, depend upon buying fuel. And so on.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Well, it's a combination. People fly shieldless because they can. And why wouldn't you, if you can with no real consequences?


Credits per kill is the aspect that most clearly demonstrates dev intention. The amount of time it takes to get the kill is largely dependent on player skill. Aranioros Stormrage killed a Medusa in 3 minutes in a beluga, so the principle is very much intact that by killing more difficult targets you can make more credits per hour.


I guess it depends on how you define 'need'. Like, if a player wants to go into a thargoid scout POI, they 'need' to have more skill to survive. But that's only if they want to go there in the first place. If they want to get access to synthesis of certain weapons, they need engineering materials you can only get from killing thargoids. If you want access to certain tech broker items, same thing.

I'm pretty sure Stormrage can do it because they have an arsenal of engineered and unlocked stuff. Pebble Fartless, a mere peasant in the eyes of the average elitist player, has but beginner gear and it takes them a lot longer and it is a lot more challenging and more tedious.

Who should earn more? Pebble Fartless the peasant - or Stormrage Metabuilder?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I guess it depends on how you define 'need'. Like, if a player wants to go into a thargoid scout POI, they 'need' to have more skill to survive. But that's only if they want to go there in the first place. If they want to get access to synthesis of certain weapons, they need engineering materials you can only get from killing thargoids. If you want access to certain tech broker items, same thing.

Like i said, its probably semantics of what we are really talking about between need/encourage.

I'm saying having stuff there that requires improved skill that is optional, that's fine and dandy with me. When something is "encouraged" to the point it becomes mandatory or highly desirable, then i have issues. Its one reason i wasn't that happy that Engineers is all about upgrades rather than customizations with ups and downs (the negatives of engineering are a joke unless you do silly things).

 

[physical0]

Hmm.. we are probably getting into semantics here, but i don't see why it needs to encourage it either. Options exist. Take them or leave them.

So, if PvP isn't hard mode, why do people need to git gud?

I don't think it's quite in a semantic area yet.

I think that there should be some in-game encouragement pushing you to get better. You think that people will chose to get better without any help from the game.

I'm not asking for the game to be hard and for everyone to need to git gud to play the game. I'm saying that there needs to be more difficult options and the game should provide some mechanism which would encourage you to pick harder content.
We should not be expected to do hard content solely for the satisfaction of a job well done. That's not how it works.

Let's say you're a trucker shipping high value goods, it should be harder than shipping low value goods. You should get interdicted more often, the enemies you face should be stronger, etc. You're delivering goods to a dangerous place, it should be harder than delivering goods to a safe place. Time != Difficulty. Simply making it more time consuming does not make it harder.

Functionally speaking, there's no real difference in the gameplay. You load up cargo, jump to your destination, cruise in for a landing and land. Fine, great. Easy content should be just that. Harder content should include something unexpected that requires more of you than just doing the exact same thing and getting paid more for it.

The existence of harder content is not harmful to low skill players. They aren't missing out on any content. The only difference is the ones and zeroes packed in their cargo hold is different and the pixels on the map are in a different spot. It's still the same gameplay, just harder.

We hold up AX combat as proof that the game offers that, but it has it's own pile of issues. It requires significant grind doing completely unrelated gameplay before you are even capable of participating. The parameters of play have reduced the loadout options to very few options. The reward for winning (for a reasonable player capable of winning) is lower than the reward for much simpler activities, and completing the content doesn't really contribute to anything. At the point you're capable of conducting the activity successfully, you've already gotten everything.
For AX to be a reasonable activity with a difficulty curve, there would need to be easier versions of it. It shouldn't demand a massive grind before you can even begin.

No other gameplay requires that a player jump through so many hoops and waste so many hours shooting rocks and scooping widgets.
And, doing that for every other gameplay just makes it easier and easier and easier to the point where you can AFK your way through most content.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I think that there should be some in-game encouragement pushing you to get better. You think that people will chose to get better without any help from the game.

No i do not. Some people are fine with not getting better, have no desire to get better, and some people are not capable of getting better.

 

[physical0]

No i do not. Some people are fine with not getting better, have no desire to get better, and some people are not capable of getting better.

The people who don't wanna get better and the people who can't get better are not harmed by encouragement to get better.

It might change the minds of the folk who don't wanna get better. It's not gonna hurt the folks who aren't gonna get better, unless the mere existence of harder difficulty levels is seen as harmful to them.

The game should encourage players to do better. There should be in-game mechanisms to do this.

 

[wrmiller]

I am able to 'get better' at things that interest me, which doesn't include the majority of the game loops present in this game. So I enjoy those aspects of the game I like, and ignore the rest. For example, I've not even bothered to go see one of those alien thingies.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

I think that there should be some in-game encouragement pushing you to get better. You think that people will chose to get better without any help from the game.

I agree

Let's say you're a trucker shipping high value goods, it should be harder than shipping low value goods. You should get interdicted more often, the enemies you face should be stronger, etc. You're delivering goods to a dangerous place, it should be harder than delivering goods to a safe place. Time != Difficulty. Simply making it more time consuming does not make it harder.

I think you already get interdicted more if you have high value stuff, and of course the pirate will be graded according to your combat rating, so there is that ..

Functionally speaking, there's no real difference in the gameplay. You load up cargo, jump to your destination, cruise in for a landing and land. Fine, great. Easy content should be just that. Harder content should include something unexpected that requires more of you than just doing the exact same thing and getting paid more for it.

Yep!

The existence of harder content is not harmful to low skill players. They aren't missing out on any content. The only difference is the ones and zeroes packed in their cargo hold is different and the pixels on the map are in a different spot. It's still the same gameplay, just harder.

I think fdev tries to do this to some extent, as I said above

We hold up AX combat as proof that the game offers that, but it has it's own pile of issues. It requires significant grind doing completely unrelated gameplay before you are even capable of participating. The parameters of play have reduced the loadout options to very few options. The reward for winning (for a reasonable player capable of winning) is lower than the reward for much simpler activities, and completing the content doesn't really contribute to anything. At the point you're capable of conducting the activity successfully, you've already gotten everything.
For AX to be a reasonable activity with a difficulty curve, there would need to be easier versions of it. It shouldn't demand a massive grind before you can even begin.

This is the main reason I never got into AX combat

No other gameplay requires that a player jump through so many hoops and waste so many hours shooting rocks and scooping widgets.
And, doing that for every other gameplay just makes it easier and easier and easier to the point where you can AFK your way through most content.

Totally agree: an elite cmdr should have to pass a few difficult tests, not hundreds of easy ones.

 

[physical0]

I am able to 'get better' at things that interest me, which doesn't include the majority of the game loops present in this game. So I enjoy those aspects of the game I like, and ignore the rest. For example, I've not even bothered to go see one of those alien thingies.

Then the question is, what would make those sorts of game loops more interesting for you?

I think you already get interdicted more if you have high value stuff, and of course the pirate will be graded according to your combat rating, so there is that ..

Being attacked based on your combat rating is a thing, but it is balanced based on unengineered ships. Engineering has totally destroyed that challenge. Additionally, the rate at which the difficulty increases is extremely slow. For the elite pilots, how long did you play before you got elite? For not elite pilots, how long have you been playing and you're not elite yet? (No need to answer out loud, just take that into consideration)
From what I understood, interdiction chances were based on being in an anarchy system, and the tonnage of cargo. NPC interdiction is a joke and it doesn't take much skill to escape an NPC interdiction unexploded. It isn't a challenge for any player that would actively desire a challenge, and it mostly just a waste of time.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Why would I want to have NPC's capable of exploding my ship? I have had enough of that at start game, thank you. If I want to pick blood from my nose, I get into CZ's....I paid about billion credits, and lots of time in engineering it to get that flying fortress that CAN get cargo where it needs to be.