Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Havvk]

Well attacking other ships NPC or players IS a crime in most jurisdictions inside game. More robust C&P would be welcome. (At least from viewpoint of lawful CMDR )

If the game would punish unlawfuls much more harshly and unforgivingly(like NO REBUY IF YOU DIE WITH X AMOUNT OF NOTORIETY) but still allow for more REAL nuanced "PvP" moments, such as pirate vs. merchant/PP hauler or any other vs. you can think of that doesn't relate to PP. That might actually make me WANT to pvp finally.

I refuse to seal club. I refuse to gank ships as a full wing against a lone ship that couldn't even survive through a mildly windy day. No, I will never risk driving away a potential new CMDR just because I've some stupid ego trip while saying "git gud lmao"..like that helps

 

[Stealthie]

The point that it's a crime isn't relevant. The fact that criminal CMDRs have virtually absolute 0 risk compared to their targets is.

I'd start buy cancelling the rebuy for any ship destroyed with more than a minimal bounty on it.

Sure, most gankers are unlikely to lose a ship to a soft target but the elevated risk might help deter gankers from fitting all their best toys to an outlaw ship... which would, in turn, improve the chances of a target escaping.
Also, with that kind of thing in place, you are going to get PvP groups hunting outlaws with the specific intention of causing them the pain of losing a fully engineered ship.

Ultimately, we might end up in a situation where gankers decide it's prudent to fly unengineered or moderately engineered ships and that's only ever going to improve the game's balance in the long-term.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

If the game would punish unlawfuls much more harshly and unforgivingly(like NO REBUY IF YOU DIE WITH X AMOUNT OF NOTORIETY) but still allow for more REAL nuanced "PvP" moments, such as pirate vs. merchant/PP hauler or any other vs. you can think of that doesn't relate to PP. That might actually make me WANT to pvp finally.

I refuse to seal club. I refuse to gank ships as a full wing against a lone ship that couldn't even survive through a mildly windy day. No, I will never risk driving away a potential new CMDR just because I've some stupid ego trip while saying "git gud lmao"..like that helps

Personally I play as lawfull, even against NPC it is either self defence or bounty hunting. Most of bounties I have had were from traffic violation stuff or few non-violent illegal stuff like smugling...

 

[Stelar 7]

I'd start buy cancelling the rebuy for any ship destroyed with more than a minimal bounty on it.

Sure, most gankers are unlikely to lose a ship to a soft target but the elevated risk might help deter gankers from fitting all their best toys to an outlaw ship... which would, in turn, improve the chances of a target escaping.
Also, with that kind of thing in place, you are going to get PvP groups hunting outlaws with the specific intention of causing them the pain of losing a fully engineered ship.

Ultimately, we might end up in a situation where gankers decide it's prudent to fly unengineered or moderately engineered ships and that's only ever going to improve the game's balance in the long-term.

That would impact me and my bounty comes from gameplay with NPC.

/edit

To elaborate if you drive gankers into minimally engineered ships they will seek softer targets, new players.

What we need is mechanics that reward people interested in pvp to find each other. CQC exoansion.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

But I kind of RP, my commander is from illegitimate branch of THOSE Duvals, and has keen desire to make himself Imperial nobleman, stooping down to murder is beneath his dignity.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

That would impact me and my bounty comes from gameplay with NPC.

Would that not only apply though if you were simply killing NPC's without context?

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Nothing against making CQC better, though I really think it does not affect ganking activity. As gankers do not want fair fight, there is after all many ways to get fair fights against other pvp'rs.

 

[Havvk]

I'd start buy cancelling the rebuy for any ship destroyed with more than a minimal bounty on it.

Sure, most gankers are unlikely to lose a ship to a soft target but the elevated risk might help deter gankers from fitting all their best toys to an outlaw ship... which would, in turn, improve the chances of a target escaping.
Also, with that kind of thing in place, you are going to get PvP groups hunting outlaws with the specific intention of causing them the pain of losing a fully engineered ship.

Ultimately, we might end up in a situation where gankers decide it's prudent to fly unengineered or moderately engineered ships and that's only ever going to improve the game's balance in the long-term.

And that's how you make proper and REAL emergen PvP gameplay, something that even the most anti-pvp PvE carebare has to agree with.


If they don't, they're just as bad as griefers

 

[Havvk]

That would impact me and my bounty comes from gameplay with NPC.

/edit

To elaborate if you drive gankers into minimally engineered ships they will seek softer targets, new players.

What we need is mechanics that reward people interested in pvp to find each other. CQC exoansion.

To which said "soft targets" would actually live longer than 0.0000002 nanoseconds every time any ganker so much as looks at him

 

[Stelar 7]

Nothing against making CQC better, though I really think it does not affect ganking activity. As gankers do not want fair fight, there is after all many ways to get fair fights against other pvp'rs.

I agree, that's why I think the block button is brilliant. A ganker should see a much emptier open than I do.

 

[Schmack]

I don't see gameplay style as wrong or right. I see it as desirable or undesirable. I was an outlaw for a long time, after I was a good guy (so to speak). I even went to Colonia and attacked the feds in some of the systems relentlessly. I think all of it short of griefing is acceptable gameplay but maybe not for me at the moment.

 

[Stealthie]

To elaborate if you drive gankers into minimally engineered ships they will seek softer targets, new players.

What we need is mechanics that reward people interested in pvp to find each other. CQC exoansion.

Pull the other one. It's got bells on.

You're telling me that gankers really NEED a fully engineered FdL to explode an unarmed AspX and that if they were forced to into unengineered ships they be forced to go after even softer targets?

And you're saying that like they don't already go after the softest possible targets.


You do raise a valid point regarding NPC combat, though.
Set it up so that only PvP bounties will result in your rebuy getting cancelled.
Let's say the Pilot's Federation is responsible for insuring members' ships so they refuse to pay out when one PF member attacks another PF member without good cause.
Problem solved.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Making robust C&P mechanism does not make moral stance of some playstyles, it just makes universe more living and believable and drives certain playstyles to where they belong, anarchy systems.

 

[Screemonster]

Taking settlement scan missions is wrong because in-game it's a crime. Apparently. I've been playing the game wrong all these years. I've been playing it super wrong by repeatedly telling people how to outfit their ships to carry them out.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Pull the other one. It's got bells on.

You're telling me that gankers really NEED a fully engineered FdL to explode an unarmed AspX and that if they were forced to into unengineered ships they be forced to go after even softer targets?

And you're saying that like they don't already go after the softest possible targets.


You do raise a valid point regarding NPC combat, though.
Set it up so that only PvP bounties will result in your rebuy getting cancelled.
Let's say the Pilot's Federation is responsible for insuring members' ships so they refuse to pay out when one PF member attacks another PF member without good cause.
Problem solved.

Nah, NPC's from viewpoint of the game are people too And its not PF but Bank of Zaonce who underwrites insurance.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

Taking settlement scan missions is wrong because in-game it's a crime.

It's only wrong against the victims, i.e. the fraction you are scanning .

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Taking settlement scan missions is wrong because in-game it's a crime. Apparently. I've been playing the game wrong all these years. I've been playing it super wrong by repeatedly telling people how to outfit their ships to carry them out.

Criminal activity should have repercussions. Scaling up on severity of crime.

 

[Havvk]

Pull the other one. It's got bells on.

You're telling me that gankers really NEED a fully engineered FdL to explode an unarmed AspX and that if they were forced to into unengineered ships they be forced to go after even softer targets?

And you're saying that like they don't already go after the softest possible targets.


You do raise a valid point regarding NPC combat, though.
Set it up so that only PvP bounties will result in your rebuy getting cancelled.
Let's say the Pilot's Federation is responsible for insuring members' ships so they refuse to pay out when one PF member attacks another PF member without good cause.
Problem solved.

Exactly. Otherwise the Pilot's Federation should have been wiped out by and bankrupted by its very own policies way before the events of the first Elite even happened to begin with lmao.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

Criminal activity should have repercussions. Scaling up on severity of crime.

You ever been mugged, burgled or assaulted? How quick and efficient does the police response tend to be - they catch the perp that same day?

Now imagine the police first have to travel 1,500Ls to get to the scene of the crime.

If anything C&P in the game is far too effective. Completely immersion breaking.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

If anything C&P in the game is far too effective. Completely immersion breaking.

how? C&P has basically nil effect regardless of the crime committed