Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Robert Maynard]

And instead of quick fixes that cause problems, why not build an ecosystem that naturally makes griefers run out of money? By having a game where money falls out the sky and nothing matters you are fueling the problem.

In a game that does not revolve around PvP, I doubt that redesigning it to deal with some players who choose to play in a manner that some others find objectionable is high on their list of priorities when the three game modes, menu exit and the block feature exist.

The block feature has been strengthened a few times now though and the permit locked starter area has been introduced for new players - so that's not no changes.

 

[Rubbernuke]

In a game that does not revolve around PvP, I doubt that redesigning it to deal with some players who choose to play in a manner that some others find objectionable is high on their list of priorities when the three game modes, menu exit and the block feature exist.

The block feature has been strengthened a few times now though and the permit locked starter area has been introduced for new players - so that's not no changes.

Its not designing the game around them, its making the game work as it did back in the beta and early gamma phases. In a limited credit economy the trader and miner has all the power by having the ability to generate money, and can afford to buy protection from mercs. Pirates then have to be very careful as not to destroy the cargo, otherwise no money for them. If fuel and repairs actually had an impact it would mean anyone who simply destroys for lulz would run out of money fast, while legit gameplay generates income. Its a functioning ecosystem, it won't eliminate everything, but with skill and judgement from both traders, mercs and pirates it would be much more positive for the game than simply allowing people who have lost an encounter to lose nothing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It happens because of boredom (PvE game challenge wise levels out far too early), money is too plentiful and its impossible to lose a situation (i.e. consequences are minimal).

Which means that they'll revert to it any time that they're bored or want to attempt to force Frontier to make some change or other - it'll likely never cease.

If money was less plentiful, gankers would have a worse effect on the player-base than they do at the moment - as all players have access to free Sidewinders, gankers included.

Some players seem dead set against C&P treating crimes against players and NPCs differently. That being the case, as NPCs are provided for our enjoyment, crimes against them can't incur consequences that are too severe which, in turn, means that gankers don't face serious consequences for their actions.

But thats ED- piracy has been in the game since 1984. Are you saying that any negative consequence now is optional?

PvE piracy has always been part of the Elite games and is part of this version. PvP piracy, like multi-player, is new to this version.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Firstly, I provided the example of a player in full-on PvP ship exploding a sidewinder. I didn't mention piracy.
Secondly, I said that action was unethical. I didn't mention "griefing".

Thing is, if you're a "respectable" pirate then maybe you should consider that it's the gankers who're harming your game-experience too, by teaching players to menu-log at the first sign of trouble?

Let's face it, some players are always going to menu-log - just as some players are always going to gank - but if players thought they were likely to pirated, rather than simply exploded for no reason, they might be more inclined to stick around.

Honestly, I used to regularly fly my up-armored T7 around at CGs with the specific intention of attracting PvPers and I used to live in hope that I'd eventually encounter an attacker willing to provide a bit of roleplay.
Closest that I ever saw was somebody who sent a message saying "In the name of the Emperor, die!" before attacking me.
Other than that, it was just interdiction and then pew-pew.

If you're an outlaw, act like one.
If you're a murder-hobo, don't try and tell me you're an outlaw.

Personally, I'd say both actions are unethical but, y'know... it's the rules of the game.

When I said:

"popping a new player for nothing is not the same as fighting over cargo "

 

[Robert Maynard]

Its not designing the game around them, its making the game work as it did back in the beta and early gamma phases. In a limited credit economy the trader and miner has all the power by having the ability to generate money, and can afford to buy protection from mercs. Pirates then have to be very careful as not to destroy the cargo, otherwise no money for them. If fuel and repairs actually had an impact it would mean anyone who simply destroys for lulz would run out of money fast, while legit gameplay generates income. Its a functioning ecosystem, it won't eliminate everything, but with skill and judgement from both traders, mercs and pirates it would be much more positive for the game than simply allowing people who have lost an encounter to lose nothing.

Beta and, to an extent, gamma had little bearing on how players would play in the released game - as not all features were in place and periodic wipes meant that progress would not carry forward to the released game - so players didn't necessarily play the way that they were going to on release.

Some players who received the attentions of players who revelled in PvP were already migrating to Private Groups before the game launched - the first Mobius PG was formed about three months before launch.

If fuel and repairs had a significant impact then gankers could bankrupt others with repair bills - which would not be much fun for them.

The "functioning ecosystem" would require to work in Solo too, i.e. without any other players.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Which means that they'll revert to it any time that they're bored or want to attempt to force Frontier to make some change or other - it'll likely never cease.

f money was less plentiful, gankers would have a worse effect on the player-base than they do at the moment - as all players have access to free Sidewinders, gankers included.

And yet, traders would gain much more money and afford much better ships and repairs, while gankers are stuck in Sidewinder rust buckets, and lawful mercs have decent ships.

Some players seem dead set against C&P treating crimes against players and NPCs differently. That being the case, as NPCs are provided for our enjoyment, crimes against them can't incur consequences that are too severe which, in turn, means that gankers don't face serious consequences for their actions.

If C+P was actually well thought out, then there would be no need for separations. But at the same time individuals need to step up and be proactive, and use the plethora of information the game gives you to avoid trouble.

PvE piracy has always been part of the Elite games and is part of this version. PvP piracy, like multi-player, is new to this version.

But its still someone taking your things, with people logging from both.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And yet, traders would gain much more money and afford much better ships and repairs, while gankers are stuck in Sidewinder rust buckets, and lawful mercs have decent ships.

If C+P was actually well thought out, then there would be no need for separations. But at the same time individuals need to step up and be proactive, and use the plethora of information the game gives you to avoid trouble.

It'd be a different game from the one we have - bearing in mind that two Elite ranks don't require the player to fire a shot in combat and the game has attracted players for those roles as well as players who obviously prefer combat.

But its still someone taking your things, with people logging from both.

NPCs aren't "someone" - they are constructs created by the game in game consistent circumstances and pose a challenge considered appropriate by the game designers. The same cannot be said of players.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Beta and, to an extent, gamma had little bearing on how players would play in the released game - as not all features were in place and periodic wipes meant that progress would not carry forward to the released game - so players didn't necessarily play the way that they were going to on release.

Some players who received the attentions of players who revelled in PvP were already migrating to Private Groups before the game launched - the first Mobius PG was formed about three months before launch.

Fuel and repairs were far more expensive, and money making much harder.

If fuel and repairs had a significant impact then gankers could bankrupt others with repair bills - which would not be much fun for them.

If a trader can make millions in a week, and a ganker makes nothing, who is going to be safer in the long run? Without repairs your ship is weaker, less well armed, while the trader can afford defences, armour and NPC crew. Its already balancing out.

The "functioning ecosystem" would require to work in Solo too, i.e. without any other players.
[/QUOTE]

This system would work in all modes, because its tied to actions not players. You fight for no money? You wind up with no money and can't afford anything. To make money you then have to stop killing or go legit- so instantly its pushing a positive loop.

 

[Drelthar]

Extreme position 1
VS!!!!!
Extreme position 2

Place your bets now!

 

[Rubbernuke]

It'd be a different game from the one we have - bearing in mind that two Elite ranks don't require the player to fire a shot in combat and the game has attracted players for those roles as well as players who obviously prefer combat.

And yet the game is advertised as "be ready regardless of your role".....

NPCs aren't "someone" - they are constructs created by the game in game consistent circumstances and pose a challenge considered appropriate by the game designers. The same cannot be said of players.

Does it matter? Going by some responses people would want to disable any NPC just as they do players. In a shared galaxy all actions have to have meaning otherwise there is an imbalance- so when PvP happens it needs to count just as much as when someone delivers something in solo.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Fuel and repairs were far more expensive, and money making much harder.

Which meant that attackers could inflict losses on the target requiring more time to recoup.

If a trader can make millions in a week, and a ganker makes nothing, who is going to be safer in the long run? Without repairs your ship is weaker, less well armed, while the trader can afford defences, armour and NPC crew. Its already balancing out.

That depends on how much the trader is making if "money making much harder".

This system would work in all modes, because its tied to actions not players. You fight for no money? You wind up with no money and can't afford anything. To make money you then have to stop killing or go legit- so instantly its pushing a positive loop.

Might be interesting - however the inventive amongst the player-base would work out the min-max method to ensure as much ganking time was available to them - at the expense of their targets.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Extreme position 1
VS!!!!!
Extreme position 2

Place your bets now!

You know when online games switch off, and everyone is cuddling each other?

Maynard and I will be debating as the darkness comes in and EDs world ends....

 

[Robert Maynard]

And yet the game is advertised as "be ready regardless of your role".....

Advertising is advertising - to experience how the game actually is, one must play it - in whichever game mode one prefers.

Does it matter? Going by some responses people would want to disable any NPC just as they do players. In a shared galaxy all actions have to have meaning otherwise there is an imbalance- so when PvP happens it needs to count just as much as when someone delivers something in solo.

It does matter. PvP doesn't do much other than stop players completing PvE actions in this game.

.... and it doesn't seem to be specifically rewarded simply because players can't be trusted to contest encounters.

 

[AkenBosch]

You know when online games switch off, and everyone is cuddling each other?

Maynard and I will be debating as the darkness comes in and EDs world ends....

That's forum jousting if I ever saw one. The question is: who will run out of Forum Cell Bank first?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Which meant that attackers could inflict losses on the target requiring more time to recoup.

Which a trader could recoup easily, while the attacker gains nothing. Eventually the attacker is left destitute while the trader can buy ever better ships and weapons.

That depends on how much the trader is making if "money making much harder".

You are not fixed where you trade, you can go anywhere and avoid places where attackers live. The opposite is true because to find you, the attacker has to spend time looking for you- which means more repairs and fuel. If they stick to popular areas, you then have contained them without resorting to anything.

Might be interesting - however the inventive amongst the player-base would work out the min-max method to ensure as much ganking time was available to them - at the expense of their targets.

But the thing is, medium to long term attackers with no goals other than lulz are shut out, saddled with crippling bounties and stuck in rubbish ships. Sure, they can go legit and build up money, but thats removing them from the lulz, and they are at a disadvantage.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That's forum jousting if I ever saw one. The question is: who will run out of Forum Cell Bank first?

I've waited 5 years for Powerplay improvements, which in forum jousting is like a 10A SCB of crazy.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Advertising is advertising - to experience how the game actually is, one must play it - in whichever game mode one prefers.

But it has to mean something, otherwise why say it?

It does matter. PvP doesn't do much other than stop players completing PvE actions in this game.

.... and it doesn't seem to be specifically rewarded simply because players can't be trusted to contest encounters.

If players in Open trusted less, and had training in escape methods, I recon about 60- 70% of problems would stop, and over time problems in SC or real space would be drastically reduced.

And PvP has to matter otherwise there is no point replacing an NPC with a player in Open. That player you log on is playing as well, rather than an NPC pirate who vanishes when the instance is collapsed.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

This might be a stupid idea but that has never stopped me before.

How about, just as you sign up for one of the PP mob, you could sign up, or more accurately declare, that you are a pirate. You could do this instantly but it would take a time period (say 24 hours) for you to be able to opt out, or rather, you can opt out straight away but your status as a pirate remains for a longer period.

So as a noob, I fly into a system and I immediately get a warning (much like the Mission objective message you get) to say, warning, pirates are operating in this area. I could immediately make plans to get out of there. Straight away, the noob has escaped.

Let's say I get the warning and decide I will take my chances. Maybe the pirate kills me. Tough, he was labelled as such. Maybe it wasn't a pirate but a griefer/ganker posing? Well, same applies, you had your warning, you lost your chance.

Yeah? I hear you ask, why would a griefer/ganker announce to the world that they're a pirate? Well, what if under the label 'pirate' you had the right to just kill anything you found, no comeback but an undeclared ship killing someone does have comeback. Obviously there are exemptions. Faction against faction. Victim actually had a bounty on them. Consequences for a straight out, unsolicited kill, could be punishment such as a fine or a 'time-out' ban.

I feel this would give a player in open to do a [insert gif of Abe Simpson waking in and out of door] option if there are pirates in the area. Those willing to take their chances have by proxy of remaining, declared their acceptance of their situation.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But it has to mean something, otherwise why say it?

NPCs do attack, so there's that.

If players in Open trusted less, and had training in escape methods, I recon about 60- 70% of problems would stop, and over time problems in SC or real space would be drastically reduced.

Sounds like they'd need to play in a way other than the way they want to.

And PvP has to matter otherwise there is no point replacing an NPC with a player in Open. That player you log on is playing as well, rather than an NPC pirate who vanishes when the instance is collapsed.

PvP exists simply because we can shoot at anything we instance with - and, in a multi-player setting, other players may enjoy that and shoot back. It's not special, no game features require any player to engage in it (apart from CQC) and Frontier would seem to be "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in it.

 

[Arvel Yael]

Why, again, is the fact that soloers can affect the BGS being used as an argument to justify dragging solo players into PVP?

How many solo players actually give a flying fox which nameless faceless pointless faction is in charge of a station or system? How many care which power controls a system for that matter?