Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Rubbernuke]

It's their ball - they can take it home any time they like if someone else demands to play with it.

No its not- they play in a shared universe, and at that point in time have a game item someone else wants. In the context of Open, that narrative for both players then plays out- either the pirate gets something, the trader escapes via running or giving in to the demand.

If you break that narrative, then piracy breaks down, and there are no consequences felt for the trader or the pirate.

Apparently not - as menu exit still works.

And if its used to break continuity its detrimental to the game at that point.

Not every interaction in Open is worth partaking in - as not everyone enjoys PvP.

It does not matter, if you don't like interaction then don't place yourself in that position.

If only one party is seeming meaning, narrative and conclusion then they're rather out of luck in this game.

Then I struggle to put it any more clearly- narrative in this case is the chain of events and its outcome. Piracy:

Pirate is destroyed
Pirate runs away empty handed
Pirate gains cargo

Trader is destroyed
Trader runs away untouched
Trader drops cargo and survives

If the trader in an already gated mode pulls the handle when they are about to lose, it breaks meaningful outcomes of that interaction, and the wider game because the structures that build on them cannot exist in a coherent form.

.... or people just need to accept that no-one needs to PvP with them, regardless of game mode.

Thats like saying footballers can't tackle. Thats an absurd thing to say when several parts of the game depend on violent or aggressive interactions, and that for one (Powerplay) that action can lead to an explicit loss or win condition.

There's the thing - something being a possibility does not mean that it is an unavoidable necessity. The game certainly includes the possibility of PvP between players who are up for it - it does not, however, force any player to engage in it or stick arround when someone else engages them.

Which is cheating others then- for honest pirates who see logging all the time, thats not a basis for a fun occupation in the game. We have modes for a reason, people should use them intelligently rather than distorting them.

 

[Rubbernuke]

A subset of the player-base would be less than chuffed at their gameplay being changed in that manner this long after release.

NPCs are provided by the game for "fun" - and I don't see the need for consequences for shooting NPCs to be the same as those for shooting at other players (although I know that some are dead set against them being different). We did have Pilots' Federation bounties for a short time - however they disappeared after an update.

NPCs in the game are not fun because they don't scale to 50% of the playerbase. Only other players can pose danger to players.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

A subset of the player-base would be less than chuffed at their gameplay being changed in that manner this long after release.

Changed how? It's already that way, I'm just increasing the consequences somewhat, and adding rewards for PvP bounty hunters in the process.

 

[Drelthar]

We did have Pilots' Federation bounties for a short time - however they disappeared after an update.

They made a lot of sense (to me) I don't get why they were removed.

Separating NPC's from Players was an excellent idea - we are the cool fun space adventurers, the NPC's are the boring average Joes - it's a great way to make stuff more fun - and in this case, makes it so that player to player interaction means more than player/NPC.

If you destroyed a player and got a 700 million credit bounty on you for it, which you knew you were going to have to pay in some way shape or form (perhaps with a discount through interstellar factors at a station you were cozy with the local crims - or maybe by running several more illegal but lower bounty jobs against NPCs) then you'd think a little bit more about if you absolutely needed to destroy them -robbing them should have a vastly lower bounty though-

Espectially if the law would hound you somewhat more than it currently does

You know, I often drop out of super cruise, and I'm maybe, transferring an item to a friend, or we are looking at a thargoid probe - and "flumpf!- " there's a pirate dropping out of cruise.... bah, ok you die.

Now, I don't remember that happening with ATR really, even though I did get quite a bit of notoriety several times.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No its not- they play in a shared universe, and at that point in time have a game item someone else wants. In the context of Open, that narrative for both players then plays out- either the pirate gets something, the trader escapes via running or giving in to the demand.

We play in a shared universe regardless of game mode. If both parties want to see the encounter through to a conclusion then they can, if they wish. One player can't impose their play-style preference on another player in an inescapable encounter though.

If you break that narrative, then piracy breaks down, and there are no consequences felt for the trader or the pirate.

And if its used to break continuity its detrimental to the game at that point.

I'd agree - however that does not change the basic need for menu exit or block feature. Frontier have been aware for years that PvP piracy suffers due to menu exit - I remember seeing a support response on the topic.

It does not matter, if you don't like interaction then don't place yourself in that position.

.... or simply leave when one wishes - there are no rules as to when players should and should not play in Open.

Then I struggle to put it any more clearly- narrative in this case is the chain of events and its outcome. Piracy:

Pirate is destroyed
Pirate runs away empty handed
Pirate gains cargo

Trader is destroyed
Trader runs away untouched
Trader drops cargo and survives

If the trader in an already gated mode pulls the handle when they are about to lose, it breaks meaningful outcomes of that interaction, and the wider game because the structures that build on them cannot exist in a coherent form.

Thats like saying footballers can't tackle. Thats an absurd thing to say when several parts of the game depend on violent or aggressive interactions, and that for one (Powerplay) that action can lead to an explicit loss or win condition.

Which is cheating others then- for honest pirates who see logging all the time, thats not a basis for a fun occupation in the game. We have modes for a reason, people should use them intelligently rather than distorting them.

That's a delightful oxymoron - "honest pirates".

I have long held the opinion that pirates who are actually pirates have been hard done by by gankers and griefers - as, at the onset of the encounter, the target has no inkling what the attacker intends and, I'd expect, assumes the worst and takes actions accordingly - and Frontier continue to offer them the tools to both leave quickly and block them.

There's no limitation on who should play in which mode - and Open is a compromise, i.e. it allows PvP and it allows players to be blocked and for players to leave at any time.

As I said earlier, players who rely on other players to facilitate their play-style are vulnerable to other players not wanting to play along. Players can retract consent at any time in an interaction and leave the game using a feature that Frontier provide and have known affects certain gameplay for years.

If players want a game mode where menu exit is impossible and the block feature doesn't work then I suggest that they suggest to Frontier that a new mode be added that accommodates their play-style preference, as Open as it is does not - and Open as it is is a game mode for all players (apart from console players without premium platform access who are only permitted to play in Solo, of course).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Changed how? It's already that way, I'm just increasing the consequences somewhat, and adding rewards for PvP bounty hunters in the process.

Longer term consequences and increased costs - those sort of changes.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Longer term consequences and increased costs - those sort of changes.

Hardly a change, more an extra weight to the same mechanic

 

[CaptainPugwash]

I have long held the opinion that pirates who are actually pirates have been hard done by by gankers and griefers - as, at the onset of the encounter, the target has no inkling what the attacker intends and, I'd expect, assumes the worst and takes actions accordingly - and Frontier continue to offer them the tools to both leave quickly and block them.

On this point I agree, and an 'honest' pirate has failed in his mission if he kills the victim, which is why I want stronger penalties for killing.

 

[Morbad]

Separating NPC's from Players was an excellent idea - we are the cool fun space adventurers, the NPC's are the boring average Joes

I'd rather gameplay and one's abilities distinguish their characters from average Joes, rather than it being a pre-condition written into every player character.

 

[Screemonster]

If you destroyed a player and got a 700 million credit bounty on you for it, which you knew you were going to have to pay in some way shape or form (perhaps with a discount through interstellar factors at a station you were cozy with the local crims - or maybe by running several more illegal but lower bounty jobs against NPCs) then you'd think a little bit more about if you absolutely needed to destroy them -robbing them should have a vastly lower bounty though-

Okay, making it so that bounties can't just be paid off with cash next time you swing by an interstellar factors in your hot ship, and instead have to be negated by pulling a few jobs for the people that want you, sounds cool as all hell. Instead of being paid directly, they wipe off a chunk of debt against one of your hot ships.

Just don't take the job to remove the ethical constraints from the computer running Citadel Station.

 

[Rubbernuke]

We play in a shared universe regardless of game mode. If both parties want to see the encounter through to a conclusion then they can, if they wish. One player can't impose their play-style preference on another player in an inescapable encounter though.

Which means player piracy is null and void in Open, because you can't guarantee that you'll have a conclusion to that situation. The trader loses, yet wins. Why were they in Open?

I'd agree - however that does not change the basic need for menu exit or block feature. Frontier have been aware for years that PvP piracy suffers due to menu exit - I remember seeing a support response on the topic.

When consequences mean nothing, you don't have a game. Block words, not actions in Open, otherwise nothing can be worthwhile beyond trading or mining.

.... or simply leave when one wishes - there are no rules as to when players should and should not play in Open.

To the detriment of the game? PvP piracy is a dismal failure in ED, even though it should be a main driver for other player based roles.

That's a delightful oxymoron - "honest pirates".

It is what it is, someone has something you want, you fight to take it or are driven off.

I have long held the opinion that pirates who are actually pirates have been hard done by by gankers and griefers - as, at the onset of the encounter, the target has no inkling what the attacker intends and, I'd expect, assumes the worst and takes actions accordingly - and Frontier continue to offer them the tools to both leave quickly and block them.

The problem is that FD have cultivated a credit rich economy to the point where everyone mines, and rebuys, fuel, repairs are meaningless. It did not help that trade ships had weak hulls when pirates try to disable ships.

There's no limitation on who should play in which mode - and Open is a compromise, i.e. it allows PvP and it allows players to be blocked and for players to leave at any time.

Which is a contradiction- you have consequences but only to the point you deem them acceptable- to some thats cargo, some its destruction, others its simply seeing a hollow triangle- but all of them undermine the foundations of an ecosystem that if done properly would be built around them.

As I said earlier, players who rely on other players to facilitate their play-style are vulnerable to other players not wanting to play along. Players can retract consent at any time in an interaction and leave the game using a feature that Frontier provide and have known affects certain gameplay for years.

If you don't want to be tackled, you don't play football- if you don't want to be shot at or robbed, don't go into the mode that allows it since you are doing just as much harm as the griefer is.

If players want a game mode where menu exit is impossible and the block feature doesn't work then I suggest that they suggest to Frontier that a new mode be added that accommodates their play-style preference, as Open as it is does not - and Open as it is is a game mode for all players (apart from console players without premium platform access who are only permitted to play in Solo, of course).

This is where Open Powerplay comes in, a self contained, double gated feature.

 

[Stealthie]

Its the person taking the football home when they are losing- it breaks any sense of continuity if the other person can log on them.

PvPer: "What's right or wrong is dictated solely by the rules of the game"
Also PvPer: "It sucks that people can menu-log in combat"

 

[Rubbernuke]

PvPer: What's right or wrong is dictated by the rules of the game.
Also PvPer: It sucks that people can menu-log in combat.

Well, not really. If a pirate spends their time hunting another player to steal cargo thats valuable, its not unreasonable when they win the encounter to get something from that time spent.

Without something being risked and gained, its not a game loop really is it?

 

[Stealthie]

Well, not really. If a pirate spends their time hunting another player to steal cargo thats valuable, its not unreasonable when they win the encounter to get something from that time spent.

If a player menu-logs, that's within the rules of the game - just like it is when somebody in a flying death-machine decides to explode a newbie in a sidewinder who's minding their own business.

Why the double standard?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, not really. If a pirate spends their time hunting another player to steal cargo thats valuable, its not unreasonable when they win the encounter to get something from that time spent.

Just because one player wants to do something does not mean that others need to take their wishes into account.

Does an attacker take the wishes of the target into account when attacking? If not then the target doesn't need to take the wishes of the attacker into account when deciding how to respond....

Without something being risked and gained, its not a game loop really is it?

The risk and gain in the PvE game exists for all - in the PvP game it relies on willing participants. Those seeking unwilling participants can't make those unwilling participants play with them.

 

[Rubbernuke]

If a player menu-logs, that's within the rules of the game - just like it is when somebody in a flying death-machine decides to explode a newbie in a sidewinder who's minding their own business.

Why the double standard?

Its not a double standard- popping a new player for nothing is not the same as fighting over cargo. Hence why for most of this thread I've said for the majority of encounters I'm not fussed, except for Powerplay and piracy.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Just because one player wants to do something does not mean that others need to take their wishes into account.

Then don't fly in Open, or, don't expect people to play in defined roles and just gank away because thats whats happened because of this dysfunction.

The risk and gain in the PvE game exists for all - in the PvP game it relies on willing participants. Those seeking unwilling participants can't make those unwilling participants play with them.

Then don't risk PvP encounters then when the time comes. If you accept random interactions, then you accept you might get pirated. The only constructive way of achieving that is for people to play the mode that suits them.

 

[SMcA]

Not another one.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Then don't fly in Open, or, don't expect people to play in defined roles and just gank away because thats whats happened because of this dysfunction.

.... or don't expect players to abide by rules that don't exist.

Then don't risk PvP encounters then when the time comes. If you accept random interactions, then you accept you might get pirated. The only constructive way of achieving that is for people to play the mode that suits them.

As mentioned many times, the game lacks an official social mode with unlimited population (and no PvP). Open is a compromise mode.

 

[Rubbernuke]

.... or don't expect players to abide by rules that don't exist.

Then all you will get is more ganking, because nothing matters in the game and the situation you have now.

As mentioned many times, the game lacks an official social mode with unlimited population (and no PvP). Open is a compromise mode.

And to me its a compromise that curtails piracy to the point of irrelevance, and Open Powerplay interactions as meaningless.