Modes How to maybe solve one of the problems of pvp in open...

[Cmdr Tel]

Why would that be a bad thing?

To me, somebody who's involved in PvE combat (RES hunting, BHing or assassination missions etc) is involved in something as different to PvP and an explorer, miner or trader is.
If your ship isn't designed for PvP and you get dragged into it, why is running away a bad idea?

I DO accept the point that violence IS currently always the ultimate arbiter of success in ED and I don't think that should, necessarily, continue to always be the case and there should be something to moderate it but I don't think arbitrary module restrictions will achieve that.
Forcing somebody to fit a fuel scoop, a scanner and a cargo rack to their PvP ship isn't going to make a lot of difference and it's certainly not going to be enough to help a PvE ship win a fight against a PvP ship.
And, in doing so, you're also forcing a heap of people (like me) to compromise the ships that they've built for purposes other than PvP.
And then, when PvP ships are still able to smoke PvE ships, what then?
Continue further down the same road and force people to add even more non-combat junk to their ships in the hop we will eventually reach a "lowest common denominator" point, where all ships are able to compete with each other?

Basically, if you nerf combat ships, so they're forced to fit basic non-combat items such as an ADS, fuel scoop and a cargo rack, the difference is going to be negligible.
And then, if you nerf them further, in a bid to reach some kind of balance, the changes will have to be SO dramatic that they'll ruin almost every ship people currently use in the game.

PvP is more often imposed upon you rather than being dragged in.
Why running is bad thing....it reduces the opportunity to have meaningful/enjoyable/educational PVP encounters whilst doing literally anything else in the game. I've already made friends with the jump screen.
The idea was to encourage more PVP combat opportunities we have exploring if you like the jump screen.
I like maxed out ships too which is why I suggested allowing them in a anarchies. if we went with diminishing returns it wouldn't provide the extra danger/challenge of an anarchy.
It's an idea to improve the game buy hey maybe there is a better solution out there but it is still worth discussing.

 

[Han_Zen]

Could someone that likes the current limitless defence,s explain why they are afraid to lose a few defensive modules on their combat builds?

I don't get it.

Is it the NPCs that freakes you out?

 

[Cmdr Tel]

Why would that be a bad thing?

To me, somebody who's involved in PvE combat (RES hunting, BHing or assassination missions etc) is involved in something as different to PvP and an explorer, miner or trader is.
If your ship isn't designed for PvP and you get dragged into it, why is running away a bad idea?

I DO accept the point that violence IS currently always the ultimate arbiter of success in ED and I don't think that should, necessarily, continue to always be the case and there should be something to moderate it but I don't think arbitrary module restrictions will achieve that.
Forcing somebody to fit a fuel scoop, a scanner and a cargo rack to their PvP ship isn't going to make a lot of difference and it's certainly not going to be enough to help a PvE ship win a fight against a PvP ship.
And, in doing so, you're also forcing a heap of people (like me) to compromise the ships that they've built for purposes other than PvP.
And then, when PvP ships are still able to smoke PvE ships, what then?
Continue further down the same road and force people to add even more non-combat junk to their ships in the hop we will eventually reach a "lowest common denominator" point, where all ships are able to compete with each other?

Basically, if you nerf combat ships, so they're forced to fit basic non-combat items such as an ADS, fuel scoop and a cargo rack, the difference is going to be negligible.
And then, if you nerf them further, in a bid to reach some kind of balance, the changes will have to be SO dramatic that they'll ruin almost every ship people currently use in the game.

How would it affect any other build other than combat surely you have something else equipped?

 

[Cmdr Tel]

Could someone that likes the current limitless defence,s explain why they are afraid to lose a few defensive modules on their combat builds?

I don't get it.

Is it the NPCs that freakes you out?

They've spent a lot of time rolling those modules and don't want to lose them and/or don't see the benefit in doing so.

PS Oh! And don't think anyone likes the nerf bat swinging in their direction.

 

[The Replicated Man]

It has nothing to do with 'fair'. When you click Open, you chose to go to the mode where you can encounter other people, who can do as they please within the rules of the game. If you think that is unfair, and everyone can have their own opinion, then dont click the button. Beyond that, flying shieldless is just dumb and people should blame themselves for whatever happens next.

"It would have worked if only..." isnt an argument. Your job is to prepare your ship for what does happen, not what you wish would happen. The primary reason people die against their wish in PvP is not how 'unfair' it is, but how poorly people prepare, how little attention they pay, the total absence of any planning and the inability to take any kind of responsibility for once actions. Cmdrs who deal with these issues will find that it doesnt matter that other people are 'unfair', you'll survive. Unlike the people complaining about fairness.

Exactly what I was expecting coming from you sir. The issue is not in being prepared. It is the reasoning behind why people choose to kill others for no valid reason. Is it power? Is having the ability to ruin someone else's day fun and make you feel powerful? Its a psychological condition referred to being psychotic.

 

[Cmdr Roma]

For me the simple fix is a way of in settings to turn off PvP, it would have to be a one time choice only. If you want to change your mind start a new save, otherwise people could turn off and on at will and it would be pointless. If someone tinkers around with PvP well then they would need to leave it on however for someone like me who will never be interested in PvP it would allow me into Open.


More people would join the Open game world, griefing would be history. The way I see it working would be after the update that it was added you would be taken to settings and asked whether to leave it on (default) or turn it off for good. Once done your weapons would be harmless to other human commanders and theirs harmless to you. It wouldn't affect those who like PvP but would mean everyone has a choice of how they want to play the game.

It would mean I could be in Open meet more players and I'd would enjoy the game far more and after all isn't that the point? That we all enjoy playing our way?

 

[Cmdr Tel]

For me the simple fix is a way of in settings to turn off PvP, it would have to be a one time choice only. If you want to change your mind start a new save, otherwise people could turn off and on at will and it would be pointless. If someone tinkers around with PvP well then they would need to leave it on however for someone like me who will never be interested in PvP it would allow me into Open.


More people would join the Open game world, griefing would be history. The way I see it working would be after the update that it was added you would be taken to settings and asked whether to leave it on (default) or turn it off for good. Once done your weapons would be harmless to other human commanders and theirs harmless to you. It wouldn't affect those who like PvP but would mean everyone has a choice of how they want to play the game.

It would mean I could be in Open meet more players and I'd would enjoy the game far more and after all isn't that the point? That we all enjoy playing our way?

That's a bit OTT, piracy and bounty hunting are part of elite. That is a sledgehammer to knock in a nail.

 

[Cmdr Roma]

That's a bit OTT, piracy and bounty hunting are part of elite. That is a sledgehammer to knock in a nail.

Not for me it isn't , if you want to do bounty hunting against players or piracy at any point then keep the option turned on, if like me you will never do PvP it would be nice to be able to switch it off and play in Open.

 

[Stealthie]

How would it affect any other build other than combat surely you have something else equipped?

Try outfitting a DBX for exploration with a cargo bay.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

PvP is more often imposed upon you rather than being dragged in.
Why running is bad thing....it reduces the opportunity to have meaningful/enjoyable/educational PVP encounters whilst doing literally anything else in the game. I've already made friends with the jump screen.
The idea was to encourage more PVP combat opportunities we have exploring if you like the jump screen.
I like maxed out ships too which is why I suggested allowing them in a anarchies. if we went with diminishing returns it wouldn't provide the extra danger/challenge of an anarchy.
It's an idea to improve the game buy hey maybe there is a better solution out there but it is still worth discussing.

Well then you are draging the PvE player to do PvP instead of just escaping and continue with his bussiness.

They've spent a lot of time rolling those modules and don't want to lose them and/or don't see the benefit in doing so.

PS Oh! And don't think anyone likes the nerf bat swinging in their direction.

No need to say that. Virtually everybody is like that. Remember when they were planning to nerf the booster?

 

[Cmdr Tel]

Maybe I missed something but I thought this was restriction on military modules not that you were forced to carry something. Doubt you were going to fill that DBX with HRP's

 

[Cmdr Tel]

Umm! Not stopping them from running just giving an opportunity to fight, quite the opposite.
On the second point...I thought that was what I said "nobody likes the nerf bat heading in their direction"

 

[Weylandt]

The explorer has my absolute sympathy and the FdL jockeys have my contempt but that doesn't mean it's "unfair" and it shouldn't mean they should be compelled to be "fair" either.

As an extreme example, it serves to highlight to flaw in this idea though.
Would you want to try and find a way to "nerf" the FdLs so the explorer had any kind of chance against them?
Cos, I'm thinking that the only way to do that successfully would be fit them with moped engines and replace the weapons with pea-shooters.

No subtle "nerf" is ever going to improve this. The sort of restrictions you'd need would have to be draconian.

Alternatively, you leave the ships alone but create a C&P system which means that IF those FdLs to something unlawful, there are going to be meaningful consequences.
That would mean they'll either be too busy to gank any more defenceless ships or they'll be deterred from doing it in the first place.
If that doesn't happen, dial up the consequences until it does.

He has a point... no custom-built explorer is ever going to be able to survive against a combat ship... it might survive a few seconds longer if some of the more extreme engineering effects are reduced, but the end results will be the same. It's similar with trading vessels. In the context of a game with different career paths and a large degree of customization, this absolutely makes sense.
IMO, the real problem is that such an attack has no consequences for the attacker. So, if such an attack were to occur and authorities would put a hefty bounty on the griefers, block them from high security systems or send police ships after them, things would be different and actually more realistic.

 

[Aashenfox]

Maybe I missed something but I thought this was restriction on military modules not that you were forced to carry something. Doubt you were going to fill that DBX with HRP's

Funny you should say that, it's a very viable tactic in the DBX, it has a lot of slots for its size and is another perfect example of why this is broken, I can 45% resists on a SR hull build, it's quite mad.

He has a point... no custom-built explorer is ever going to be able to survive against a combat ship... it might survive a few seconds longer if some of the more extreme engineering effects are reduced, but the end results will be the same. It's similar with trading vessels. In the context of a game with different career paths and a large degree of customization, this absolutely makes sense.
IMO, the real problem is that such an attack has no consequences for the attacker. So, if such an attack were to occur and authorities would put a hefty bounty on the griefers, block them from high security systems or send police ships after them, things would be different and actually more realistic.

I'm not sure what assertion he was referring to, but nobody who supports this idea ever said that traders should be able to stand toe to toe with combat FDLs, and that is not the goal here.

 

[Han_Zen]

No need to say that. Virtually everybody is like that. Remember when they were planning to nerf the booster?

I remember that one.

Most people will rather have the good stuff in a poor outfitting system, than give it up to get a better game.

People also seem to be under the impression that the base stat for ships are cut in stone and that ships that rely on boosters for adequate defense will become useless.

It makes it difficult to look at things objectively when people fail to look a the problems from outside and put their own agenda ahead of the game.

The fact that PvP and PvE builds for combat are two different things, is evidence that the design is flawed. It not easy for FD to implement a design where they merge, but players clinging to their goodies makes it even worse.

 

[Darkfyre99]

He has a point... no custom-built explorer is ever going to be able to survive against a combat ship... it might survive a few seconds longer if some of the more extreme engineering effects are reduced, but the end results will be the same. It's similar with trading vessels. In the context of a game with different career paths and a large degree of customization, this absolutely makes sense.
IMO, the real problem is that such an attack has no consequences for the attacker. So, if such an attack were to occur and authorities would put a hefty bounty on the griefers, block them from high security systems or send police ships after them, things would be different and actually more realistic.

Call me crazy, but when I head out into the black for an extended duration, I make sure I have a fast courier type ship, heavy on the shields, waiting for me at the last inhabited system I pass. Before ship transfer, this took a bit of planning. After ship transfer, it's trivial.

I do agree that there are no consequences for player-killing in this game, and I find this extremely frustrating. It's been over 20 years since "Players Who Suit MUDS" was published, and I find it incredible that ANY development team would be surprised by what happened to open, let alone delay doing something about it. This goes double for Frontier, because the DDF thread on C&P indicated that they:

• Understood the general concepts behind what Bartle wrote
• Created what IMO was, on paper at least, a pretty good C&P system, with two tiers: one for player on NPC crime, one for player on player crime
• Deliberately chose not to add the second, and much more critical, tier of their system

 

[SushiCW]

He has a point... no custom-built explorer is ever going to be able to survive against a combat ship... it might survive a few seconds longer if some of the more extreme engineering effects are reduced, but the end results will be the same. It's similar with trading vessels. In the context of a game with different career paths and a large degree of customization, this absolutely makes sense.
IMO, the real problem is that such an attack has no consequences for the attacker. So, if such an attack were to occur and authorities would put a hefty bounty on the griefers, block them from high security systems or send police ships after them, things would be different and actually more realistic.

IMHO the problem isn't that the combat ship is going to win. It's that it takes seconds rather than minutes in order to do so.

Imagine how much more fun being interdicted by a superior ship would be if "fight and hold out until the police arrive, then use them to turn the tide" was a viable strategy. Submit&High-Wake is so boring for everyone involved.

PvP ship vs PvP ship takes too long, but PvP ship vs non-PvP ship is over too quickly. That needs to be reigned in.

 

[FubarBundy]

Don't know if this has been mentioned before but would it be a good idea to make a players hollow radar signature optional? This way at least the gankers would have scan and find them first instead of making a bee line straight for human players.

 

[FubarBundy]

Just not really active on the forums... so what's the consensus?

 

[thirstyfish]

Just not really active on the forums... so what's the consensus?

Answer to your question appears to be no. Human's don't fly like the AI does, and the bandwidth monitor makes it obvious if someone is in your instance.