Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Misty_Dark]

Honestly, I feel like if PvPers were really interested in having "wars", they'd simply find a way to organise it, either based on Squadrons, PP, or the BGS.

ED has a bunch of PFs who have embraced this and they seem content (if not actually happy) with how it works so I can't help thinking that those who ignore the options already available aren't actually that interested in any kind of "respectable" PvP.

I was thinking on the PMF thing, what if we got another kind of MF, that is only for PvP. They can only expand using PvP. and they can only target other PvP MF.

So without getting into how you invade/defend, etc, the only thing that we care about is that only PvP actions do count, you cannot win a conflict without blowing up your oppositions ships, so there is no "cheating" by doing stuff in Solo etc... if you want to take over another PvP MF resource/system, you MUST win over the oppositions in PvP fights


Now lets start to look at some concerns about how this could work in practice...

• Since there is no crossplay, yet, we need to have 3 groups of PvP MF, there is no point for a PC group pto try to fight a war with a console group.
• Physical location, ie, most Euroean players play at different times than what players in North America, Asia, Australia do, so even if we disregard network latency etc, having PvP battles can be hard if these things are not considered. So to make this less of an issue, PvP MF need to select a physical location, so that they can get grouped together, avoiding frustration like I do not ever see that 500 Australian strong group etc.... And having these MF spread out throughout the entire bubble makes little sense, ifthere are no other PvP MF to have a fight with, why even have PvP MF to begin with?
• What about Colonia?
• Totally ignoring inactive player groups.

I doubt that PvP MF as a concept, will work, it is more of a flawed idea to begin with, as to make this feasible, we would need todo alot things to make the PvP into a emergent gameplay in these conflicts, that is why we need to put these in close proximity in a limited space, so that the limited player base that might be interrested in this do get to have their PvP fights, over resources/systems etc, and by deliberately limit these to be PvP activities only, creates quite alot of issues that for most parts have been skipped over. As any introduction of NPC opposition would encourage cheating in "solo", by this I mean, even if force this activity to be done inn Open, but being creative with your local Firewall, you can create your own personal solo instance in Open, and thus you can now engage in what is meant to be PvP only activity, without the PvP part...


Take a look at Elder Scrolls Online, in their PvP maps, where you can capture resources, these are defended by NPC's, so you have some resistance to overcome to take over the map. So if players are not caring about the PvP map, one side could take over the map without doing any PvP activity, and then a few hours later, the other side, do the same, and we can keep flippping the map back and forth without actually doing any PvP!!! that is crazy... So even here on a dedicated PvP map, PvP can be entirely optional...

 

[DaveB]

That's not really PvP content, just a bunch of stuff to make ganking harder. Which I'm not completely against but it's kind of, meh.

You want more PvP content, then you're first going to have to get an environment where a PvP-focused career path is viable, which includes consideration of the population that are more interested in other career paths. They can't be fish in a barrel for the dedicated PvPer or they'll be gone. Simple as that. And without them there wont be enough players exposed to PvP for it to be worthwhile to take that career path.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

And without them there wont be enough players exposed to PvP for it to be worthwhile to take that career path.

Why does PvP have to include non-PvP players ?
Why is it impossible for PvPers to simply fight each other?
No other career path in ED involves preying on other players at random.

 

[Morbad]

PvP isn't a 'career path'. It's just what happens when two or more CMDRs come into contact and at least one of them decides that damaging the other is the best option given the situation at hand.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

PvP isn't a 'career path'.

The suggestion above is that one be created.
Although given that combat has it's own path to Elite you could suggest it already exists

 

[Screemonster]

Interesting idea that would however modify the PvP piracy dynamic, as it would remove the threat of destruction which is a part of the negotiation - do we really want that?

Oh, it'd change it for sure. Still, "Give me 10 tons or I will hatchbreak you and stick you with a big repair bill" still works to a degree.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

Oh, it'd change it for sure. Still, "Give me 10 tons or I will hatchbreak you and stick you with a big repair bill" still works to a degree.

Not the traditional buccaneer trope though is it.

 

[Taimaru]

Even if Solo/PG were dropped or BGS / Powerplay were Open Mode only there would still be ganking as people who gank like ganking and that's their style of playing.

So I don't see the point of changing the game to something different to what was advertised back at the birth of Elite: Dangerous and what people bought based on that advertising.

 

[Screemonster]

Not the traditional buccaneer trope though is it.

Eh, well. Better than nothing and it's the best I can come up with for a system that would permit piracy while preventing random sealclubbing.
A complete invincibility toggle would be the worst of both worlds on the piracy front as you'd end up wasting your time following a hollow pip only to find they're untouchable, a separate PvE-only mode would be preferable since it'd at least get them off the scanner. It'd be even worse than trying to pirate in a powerplay control system, where you see a big fat T9, swing about to scan them and it's yet another bleedin' sirius transport.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

Eh, well. Better than nothing and it's the best I can come up with for a system that would permit piracy while preventing random sealclubbing.
A complete invincibility toggle would be the worst of both worlds on the piracy front as you'd end up wasting your time following a hollow pip only to find they're untouchable, a separate PvE-only mode would be preferable since it'd at least get them off the scanner. It'd be even worse than trying to pirate in a powerplay control system, where you see a big fat T9, swing about to scan them and it's yet another bleedin' sirius transport.

The threat of death is fine, there just needs to be consequences and proactive law enforcement.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Powerplay were Open Mode

You can't gank in Powerplay....

By its nature every power uses violent means to bring down another, it stands to reason violent means are brought upon those who pledge.

 

[Misty_Dark]

I'd agree - which is why I'd prefer a fully-fledged Open-PvE game mode to be added rather than PvP flags.

the problem I have with both a PvP flag and the Open PvE, is that we ge alot of new issues, like the ramming thing.

Becuase, we onyl need to look at how players today use the existing game mechanics to grief other players.

So solving the I pew-pew is "easy"... as already stated, we have those magic bullets that do not damage to wing members... expand the concept and that is one issue solved.

But the we have the ramming... so eitther we do the magic thing, and remove ramming damage, but that creates a whole new issue, as if I now boost my Corvette at your Sidewinder, in game physics will now give your Sidewinder a big push. So I push your sidewinder into the side of a station, and you blow up? that is bad.... so what if we make is that I cannot push you. how do we handle that? should loose all the momentum, and just come to a standstill? this can create all sorts of strange behaviour, and we already have alot of strange behaviour with ingame physics and collision between player ships.
Another way is to remove collision between players altogether, no pesky physics rules to adjust, but quite immersive breaking having yet another Beluga engulf your ship and all you see is Beluga "everywhere"... So just passing through each other is obviously bad, as the beluga could stop and let you run into the NPC that you can collide with... I can see lots of outside the box players using this to grief players... So whenever you are "colliding" with another player ship, we turn the other ship transparent, so you can see around you and avoid ramming that NPC ship, this would be just another immersion breaking change.

And if we now have removed eh colliding thing and allow us to occupy the same space, player can now seek shelter in other players, IE, I fly my Cutter, and you fly a Vulture, you are taking a beating and to recharge your shields, you can now simply fly into my Cutter and "hide"... yet another immersion breaking thing...

This is why I do not believe in any of the concepts of PvP flag or Open PvE... as believe that what makes Elite's ship flying mechanics would need to be changed to stop players from abusing it to grief other players.


Look at the history of ramming, first you could get away with a heavy ship, Orca was one such popular ship, that rammed other players to death, and it could be done near stations without being wanted.
To solve that issue, we go the speed limit near stations. So what happened, people started to use small weak ships, and rammed into other pplayers, but not to kill the other player directly, but to die themselves, since if the other player was speeding, that player got charged with murder and the station would act on that directly, and in most case, kill the other player. So the obvious answer was, do not speed. until some crafty players learned about the wonky physics, that if you crashed into the ship from behind, sometimes, you could push the ship over the speed limit before you died! We know what happens next.

So without addressing these sorts of things, PvP flag and Open PvE would still be wide open to grief other players.

 

[Screemonster]

You can't gank in Powerplay....

View attachment 179191

By its nature every power uses violent means to bring down another, it stands to reason violent means are brought upon those who pledge.

This is why I figured "actions that summon an authority response" would be a fantastic qualifier on PvP flagging. Conflict zones, powerplay enemies, the target being wanted, anarchy systems, all these "dangerous" situations would be properly dangerous, while someone minding their own business in supercruise in a high-security system would be protected.

 

[Screemonster]

the problem I have with both a PvP flag and the Open PvE, is that we ge alot of new issues, like the ramming thing.

Becuase, we onyl need to look at how players today use the existing game mechanics to grief other players.

So solving the I pew-pew is "easy"... as already stated, we have those magic bullets that do not damage to wing members... expand the concept and that is one issue solved.

But the we have the ramming... so eitther we do the magic thing, and remove ramming damage, but that creates a whole new issue, as if I now boost my Corvette at your Sidewinder, in game physics will now give your Sidewinder a big push. So I push your sidewinder into the side of a station, and you blow up? that is bad.... so what if we make is that I cannot push you. how do we handle that? should loose all the momentum, and just come to a standstill? this can create all sorts of strange behaviour, and we already have alot of strange behaviour with ingame physics and collision between player ships.
Another way is to remove collision between players altogether, no pesky physics rules to adjust, but quite immersive breaking having yet another Beluga engulf your ship and all you see is Beluga "everywhere"... So just passing through each other is obviously bad, as the beluga could stop and let you run into the NPC that you can collide with... I can see lots of outside the box players using this to grief players... So whenever you are "colliding" with another player ship, we turn the other ship transparent, so you can see around you and avoid ramming that NPC ship, this would be just another immersion breaking change.

And if we now have removed eh colliding thing and allow us to occupy the same space, player can now seek shelter in other players, IE, I fly my Cutter, and you fly a Vulture, you are taking a beating and to recharge your shields, you can now simply fly into my Cutter and "hide"... yet another immersion breaking thing...

This is why I do not believe in any of the concepts of PvP flag or Open PvE... as believe that what makes Elite's ship flying mechanics would need to be changed to stop players from abusing it to grief other players.


Look at the history of ramming, first you could get away with a heavy ship, Orca was one such popular ship, that rammed other players to death, and it could be done near stations without being wanted.
To solve that issue, we go the speed limit near stations. So what happened, people started to use small weak ships, and rammed into other pplayers, but not to kill the other player directly, but to die themselves, since if the other player was speeding, that player got charged with murder and the station would act on that directly, and in most case, kill the other player. So the obvious answer was, do not speed. until some crafty players learned about the wonky physics, that if you crashed into the ship from behind, sometimes, you could push the ship over the speed limit before you died! We know what happens next.

So without addressing these sorts of things, PvP flag and Open PvE would still be wide open to grief other players.

This is the other thing. No possible solution will be perfect. There will always be ways to cause trouble and loopholes to exploit.

The absolute best that any system could hope for is to mitigate the very worst, most abusable cases while creating the fewest unintended side-effects.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Look at the history of ramming, first you could get away with a heavy ship, Orca was one such popular ship, that rammed other players to death, and it could be done near stations without being wanted.
To solve that issue, we go the speed limit near stations. So what happened, people started to use small weak ships, and rammed into other pplayers, but not to kill the other player directly, but to die themselves, since if the other player was speeding, that player got charged with murder and the station would act on that directly, and in most case, kill the other player. So the obvious answer was, do not speed. until some crafty players learned about the wonky physics, that if you crashed into the ship from behind, sometimes, you could push the ship over the speed limit before you died! We know what happens next.

So without addressing these sorts of things, PvP flag and Open PvE would still be wide open to grief other players.

Simple solution, ban station rammers after certain numbers of reports.

 

[Rubbernuke]

This is why I figured "actions that summon an authority response" would be a fantastic qualifier on PvP flagging. Conflict zones, powerplay enemies, the target being wanted, anarchy systems, all these "dangerous" situations would be properly dangerous, while someone minding their own business in supercruise in a high-security system would be protected.

If you want to stop ganking, well answer one is you can't, since someone has to die to set off the chain. But, you can make a criminals life harder by accruing more and more heat that does not go away.

We have weak sauce BH come after you, who need to be engineered and come in large numbers. They need to be annoying and a threat to work.

We need ATR that are persistent, and that follow you. I suggested this:

At notoriety 10, each full NPC / player scan spawns an ATR vessel

A half though out idea, but: If a player is at notoriety 10, they have to be very careful about being scanned by random ships, security or other players as if they are, an ATR security vessel drops in to hassle them. The handwavium being that a scan is like a sighting of you thats disseminated...

forums.frontier.co.uk

What this does is remove a killers shields wherever they go and are detected (but can be avoided with skill- i.e., if they lay low and stay away from trouble).

Lastly its on the individual to do as much as they can to be safe, 'git gud' is not an insult, but advice. Build better, fly smarter.

Notoriety has to act as a modifier, in that by being naughty it shuts you out of 'polite society' and opens up places like anarchies. Imagine there are systems that have roving bands of pirates in G5 ships, and the only way to get them to avoid you is to be feared via notoriety 10, 20 etc. In this way players who kill are encouraged away from law abiding systems which have the roving ATR on scan (as done above).

I really hate artificial clauses and would love something more organic like this, where the way you play shapes how the galaxy reacts to you that at the same time allows the norms to be protected but still allows killing.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Simple solution, ban station rammers after certain numbers of reports.

Can you elaborate, what is so simple about that? What if the people doing this would report everyone they rammed? so you now GOT BANNED! because you got to many reports against you!

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Can you elaborate, what is so simple about that? What if the people doing this would report everyone they rammed? so you now GOT BANNED! because you got to many reports against you!

Make game save kinetic state of ships starting from some seconds before collision. If somehow one commander seems to get rammed in shieldless sidewinder over and over again, it is quite clear who is the ramming troll.

 

[SamSlade]

At notoriety 10, each full NPC / player scan spawns an ATR vessel

A half though out idea, but: If a player is at notoriety 10, they have to be very careful about being scanned by random ships, security or other players as if they are, an ATR security vessel drops in to hassle them. The handwavium being that a scan is like a sighting of you thats disseminated...

forums.frontier.co.uk

That ATR spawn idea is awesome; I'd definitely go pirate for a while to see how that went.

 

[Misty_Dark]

This is the other thing. No possible solution will be perfect. There will always be ways to cause trouble and loopholes to exploit.

The absolute best that any system could hope for is to mitigate the very worst, most abusable cases while creating the fewest unintended side-effects.

True, but why try to create something we know will be flawed from the start? there are other potential ways to address most of these issues, we have most of the building block in the game already to address most of the situations where ganking occurs. And instead of trying to artificially block or prohibit this, we simply add a game response to these sorts of activities.

So regardless if you are mean to NPCs or other players, your infamy will rise, and the response from authorities regarding this lawbreaker will scale accordingly... slow at first, a small time criminal is not worth the full attention, so this response scales slowly in the start, but at certain points, the response increase is significant, and players should be warned about what their choose playstyle will lead to in form of the increased response.


So we are not trying to absolutely block any "unwanted" behaviour, but instead move these activities to more suitable places, and we already such places all over the game, anarchy systems!

So in the process of encouraging these players to move their activities to other places, so not high security and mostly from medium security, to primarily anarchy and low security systems, we have also laid the ground work to add a new modifier to mission rewards! delivering stuff to anarchy systems are now much more dangerous, and thus we could add a suitable hazard pay... would still potentially be more dangerous in Open, than in Solo, but game can now warn about Anarchy system, and spawn some proper Pirates in Solo to make the danger more present here too...