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

[T200]

Frontier got it right when they placed gear behind gameplay, e.g. unlocking Engineers through actually playing the game; visiting Guardian sites, rather than arbitrarily limiting access to skilled players.

For me it just ruins any worldbuilding or sandboxy-type atmosphere they might've been attempting, and reeks of incredibly lazy design and writing, and make any claim of this being "simulator"-y even more laughable..

 

[enonymous]

That's true under current rules, but since we're looking at changes to make risk more palatable we're not constrained to those rules.

Or rather, it may be more accurate to say more positive that either current outcome.

The issue in this thread: everyone is trying to dance around the problem. The current design is worthless for one side.

"How can we encourage you to tolerate this worthless interaction?"

There is a single, logical objective for the target ship. Victory should have a reward worth the time spent. If you reward someone for a PvP interaction, the failure must be punished. Alternatively, completely remove all consequence from the target if he fails. Oops, I blew up. Re-spawn in the exact same spot, nothing lost, in supercruise, at speed.

 

[House0fDerp]

The issue in this thread: everyone is trying to dance around the problem. The current design is worthless for one side.

"How can we encourage you to tolerate this worthless interaction?"

There is a single, logical objective for the target ship. Victory should have a reward worth the time spent. If you reward someone for a PvP interaction, the failure must be punished. Alternatively, completely remove all consequence from the target if he fails. Oops, I blew up. Re-spawn in the exact same spot, nothing lost, in supercruise, at speed.

I missed the part where anyone suggested failure causes you to respawn without loss right where you died. Infact that wasn't even discussed because the idea was to create a better win state that might entice risking a fail state. Nothing was done about the destruction fail state itself.

 

[physical0]

Perhaps because you have endgame killing machine on hand. How hard is say Fallout 4 when you have meanest power armor and all the nasty weapons, and your player is at max level....Basically you just stomp your enemies.

That's the weird part..... I'm not in an endgame killing machine. I stopped upgrading my gear when I ran out of new challenging content. I moved onto other stuff. I got bored of it. Eventually, i stopped playing.

I'm definitely not really good at this game. Which is why this difficulty problem bothers me so much. Most games challenge me. I want to play this game. It's not challenging.

 

[physical0]

I missed the part where anyone suggested failure causes you to respawn without loss right where you died. Infact that wasn't even discussed because the idea was to create a better win state that might entice risking a fail state. Nothing was done about the destruction fail state itself.

I had suggested it at some point, as a thought experiment. Not seriously though.
It didn't get any traction, so let's give it some consideration.

What harm would it do if PVP didn't punish the victim, at all?

 

[House0fDerp]

I had suggested it at some point, as a thought experiment. Not seriously though.
It didn't get any traction, so let's give it some consideration.

What harm would it do if PVP didn't punish the victim, at all?

I can only assume this question is asked with the presumption that death penalties in this game generally serve no purpose?

 

[physical0]

I can only assume this question is asked with the presumption that death penalties in this game generally serve no purpose?

Kinda...

Does failing in this game serve a purpose? What drives the cost for a failure? Does a greater challenge punish the player more or less than a lesser challenge? Is there any relation to the content you are engaging in and the cost of failing?

There's lots of ways that you can fail at the game that don't include dying. You could make a trade which loses you money. You could not make the delivery in time. You could offend your first class passenger. Are those forms of failure more or less severe than dying? Are those losses more or less likely than dying?

Now, back to the previous point:
What purpose does it serve to punish the victim of a random serial murderer? What purpose does it serve to punish a player for failing at gameplay they didn't choose to participate in (let's set aside the implicit consent involved in logging into open and imagine the mythical "open only"). What purpose does it serve to punish a player for failing at gameplay they were physically incapable of completing due to game mechanics and no fault in their play?

 

[House0fDerp]

Kinda...

Does failing in this game serve a purpose?

Generally the idea behind failure states is to encourage learning and preventative action, or to seek means not yet available to counter whatever caused the fail state. If that applies here, and I think it does, yes.

What drives the cost for a failure?...

I'm going to consider that rhetorical because you already pointed out how it's variable depending on which failure state you triggered. And in most cases the cost is directly comparable to that fail criteria whether you believe them balanced or not.

Now, back to the previous point:
What purpose does it serve to punish the victim of a random serial murderer?

A more relevant question might be why does the game allow serial murder when it has a death penalty that makes no attempt at determining context. Our answers are either a) it wasn't considered or b) failing to avoid serial murder is a fail state no different than any other and the idea is to teach being more prepared to respond to serial murderers.

What purpose does it serve to punish a player for failing at gameplay they didn't choose to participate in (let's set aside the implicit consent involved in logging into open and imagine the mythical "open only").

This isn't something that can be ignored. It's like asking why objects with mass don't float away but saying we have to ignore gravity. It's still the obvious and correct answer.

What purpose does it serve to punish a player for failing at gameplay they were physically incapable of completing due to game mechanics and no fault in their play?

I'd imagine the vast majority of situations with a prepared ship a high wake is possible if the pilot was prepared. If not then the ship/outfitting choice was likely at fault and these were under the control of the victim. If not there is likely an upgrade path that would allow these issues to be corrected. If all of these have been accounted for and escape is still impossible, you're then left with an issue of failure in PvP design, but i'm not sure we're actually at that point so long as avoiding ship loss is our only metric.

 

[physical0]

Generally the idea behind failure states is to encourage learning and preventative action, or to seek means not yet available to counter whatever caused the fail state. If that applies here, and I think it does, yes.


I'm going to consider that rhetorical because you already pointed out how it's variable depending on which failure state you triggered. And in most cases the cost is directly comparable to that fail criteria whether you believe them balanced or not.


A more relevant question might be why does the game allow serial murder when it has a death penalty that makes no attempt at determining context. Our answers are either a) it wasn't considered or b) failing to avoid serial murder is a fail state no different than any other and the idea is to teach being more prepared to respond to serial murderers.


This isn't something that can be ignored. It's like asking why objects with mass don't float away but saying we have to ignore gravity. It's still the obvious and correct answer.


I'd imagine the vast majority of situations with a prepared ship a high wake is possible if the pilot was prepared. If not then the ship/outfitting choice was likely at fault and these were under the control of the victim. If not there is likely an upgrade path that would allow these issues to be corrected. If all of these have been accounted for and escape is still impossible, you're then left with an issue of failure in PvP design, but i'm not sure we're actually at that point so long as avoiding ship loss is our only metric.

So, what happens when a player succeeds at "not getting blown up" in a PVP encounter?

They are still punished with the loss of time. They don't have any credit loss. But, I think that most players would argue that the time loss is more valuable than the credit loss.

 

[House0fDerp]

So, what happens when a player succeeds at "not getting blown up" in a PVP encounter?

They are still punished with the loss of time. They don't have any credit loss. But, I think that most players would argue that the time loss is more valuable than the credit loss.

And thus the circle is complete and we're back to exactly what I was trying to address before this particular series of posts started.

I'm starting to understand the people who complain about this thread being endlessly cyclic.

But also I'd like to reiterate that those people who are subject to that loss of time have opted into being potentially subject to that loss of time.

 

[physical0]

And thus the circle is complete and we're back to exactly what I was trying to address before this particular series of posts started.

I'm starting to understand the people who complain about this thread being endlessly cyclic.

The constant return to these core points seems to indicate that they are the ones that need addressing.

 

[House0fDerp]

The constant return to these core points seems to indicate that they are the ones that need addressing.

Do they?

I'm not sure this aside really served a point beyond pointing out what was already being addressed. It seems more to stem from a lack of context and/or need to question basic functions while not actually stating they are an issue. What was the point?

 

[physical0]

Do they?

I'm not sure this aside really served a point beyond pointing out what was already being addressed. It seems more to stem from a lack of context and/or need to question basic functions while not actually stating they are an issue. What was the point?

The point is that the game lacks purpose to do anything that you don't invent for yourself.
Winning and losing are constructs of your own imagination, not defined parameters of the game.
The penalties and rewards are arbitrary, only tangentially related to the activity you are participating in.

 

[House0fDerp]

The point is that the game lacks purpose to do anything that you don't invent for yourself.

Agreed to a point.

Winning and losing are constructs of your own imagination, not defined parameters of the game.
The penalties and rewards are arbitrary, only tangentially related to the activity you are participating in.

This is where you lose me. The parameters of the game set the boundaries of possible actions you can use to indulge those imaginary constructs. When the 2 come in conflict those mechanics win. The states are arbitrary, as they cannot be any other way and thus criticizing that is meaningless. They are however directly related to the choices you've made and are not tangential in any way shape of form. It's direct cause and effect even if I chose to ignore that relationship.

Sounds like you want a tabletop game defined by a very flexible human driven setting rather than a computer game looking at it like this.

 

[physical0]

Agreed to a point.


This is where you lose me. The parameters of the game set the boundaries of possible actions you can use to indulge those imaginary constructs. When the 2 come in conflict those mechanics win. The states are arbitrary, as they cannot be any other way and thus criticizing that is meaningless. They are however directly related to the choices you've made and are not tangential in any way shape of form. It's direct cause and effect even if I chose to ignore that relationship.

Sounds like you want a tabletop game defined by a very flexible human driven setting rather than a computer game looking at it like this.

No, I want a game where I fly space ships.

 

[House0fDerp]

No, I want a game where I fly space ships.

Tabletop has those, and those can be as mechanically unrestricted as you want. But if you want this game or any computer game you are bound by arbitrary and very real rules independent of your imaginary constraints. Just because it's non-linear doesn't mean those restraints are tangential.

 

[physical0]

Tabletop has those, and those can be as mechanically unrestricted as you want. But if you want this game or any computer game you are bound by arbitrary and very real rules independent of your imaginary constraints. Just because it's non-linear doesn't mean those restraints are tangential.

I've never played a tabletop game that used twinsticks.

 

[Villers]

You want a way to encourage players to PvP more?

Its simple.

What do people hate the most about PvP? Time sink.

2.5 hrs to mine an asteroid for the cost of a rebuy? No way will they risk a ship. (Yes I know there are much faster ways to earn the amount needed for a conda, but unless you know the secret handshake a newbie will not know how to properly grind that cash.)

The answer is simple, buff monetary rewards for turn ins.

People will PvP when they don't think making money for a rebuy takes more than 5 minutes. I mean 5 minutes. Not 1 hour, not 15 or 30 minutes. Within 5 minutes, the cost of a rebuy for a Conda can be earned by any ship. I mean any ship. If you only have a sidewinder, you should be able to make somewhere the money within 5 minutes the amount to cover a rebuy of a Conda.

Again, people hate absolutely hate useless time sinks. PvP without a sufficient motivation to do it, via rewards, character progression, story ect. Does not offer enough up front enjoyment until you get gud, get a really grindy gud ship.

Atm, engineering basically makes pvp a horrible grind because everyone grinds their eyes out for a nice ship. By that time they know what works and what doesn't. There is simply too much useless grind in the game.

Grind is a disincentive to PvP.

Buff money rewards where you simply don't care when your ship blows or stop with the engineer grind completely.

 

[House0fDerp]

I've never played a tabletop game that used twinsticks.

Invent one. Or not. I leave that up to you.

Either way, within the confines of this game I'd ask again why there wouldn't be a death penalty for ship destruction regardless of the method? What makes PvP with an unknowable and unenforceable motivation different than any other reason for PvP destruction?

Actually, why limit it to PvP? Why not any other act that might destroy your ship since PvP is effectively opt in?

 

[physical0]

You want a way to encourage players to PvP more?

Its simple.

What do people hate the most about PvP? Time sink.

2.5 hrs to mine an asteroid for the cost of a rebuy? No way will they risk a ship. (Yes I know there are much faster ways to earn the amount needed for a conda, but unless you know the secret handshake a newbie will not know how to properly grind that cash.)

The answer is simple, buff monetary rewards for turn ins.

People will PvP when they don't think making money for a rebuy takes more than 5 minutes. I mean 5 minutes. Not 1 hour, not 15 or 30 minutes. Within 5 minutes, the cost of a rebuy for a Conda can be earned by any ship. I mean any ship. If you only have a sidewinder, you should be able to make somewhere the money within 5 minutes the amount to cover a rebuy of a Conda.

Again, people hate absolutely hate useless time sinks. PvP without a sufficient motivation to do it, via rewards, character progression, story ect. Does not offer enough up front enjoyment until you get gud, get a really grindy gud ship.

Atm, engineering basically makes pvp a horrible grind because everyone grinds their eyes out for a nice ship. By that time they know what works and what doesn't. There is simply too much useless grind in the game.

Grind is a disincentive to PvP.

Buff money rewards where you simply don't care when your ship blows or stop with the engineer grind completely.

Why buff rewards? Why not reduce the cost of rebuy?