Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Then thats not dangerous or cut-throat, is it? If thats the view then Solo and PG seem better fits really.
Not in terms of forced player interactions, no.

While Solo and PG may seem better fits, there's no restriction on any player playing in the only game mode with an unlimited population (subject to being able to play multi-player at all).
PvP can stop PvE, only if one party agrees the other is right. Thats......not logical in a game set in a hostile galaxy in a mode about random interaction.
When PvP can be avoided completely in two of the three game modes already, that it does not create inescapable interactions in Open is consistent.
Sadly its all rather artificial- if the same is required in features like Powerplay then the whole conceit is wrong.
It's a game - it's all artificial.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Agreed. Make it explicitly clear that "Dangerous" mode exposes you to other players, come what may, and that by entering it, you accept responsibility for your choice.

This will have five effects:
  1. It will ensure that players who are in Dangerous Mode are entirely happy with the risk (and indeed, the act) of being pirated, ganked, or otherwise PVPed.
  2. It will give PVPers the actual moral authority to say "Don't want shooting? Shouldn't be in Dangerous Mode".
  3. It will make it explicitly clear to PVPers who is okay with being a moving target (i.e. any player they see), and who is not (any player they don't).
  4. It will create a clear and solid divide between the players that are happy to shoot at (and by shot by) each other, and players that are not.
  5. It will save gigabytes of storage on the Frontier Forum servers that otherwise would have been dedicated to endless PVP/PVE threads.
Dangerous Mode has my complete support.
.... then add a "Not-quite-as-dangerous-as-Dangerous-Mode Mode" for those who want to play among others but don't want PvP. ;)
 
Maybe, maybe not - however I'd expect that at least some of the two "significant portions" of the player-base that Sandro advised us play in Solo and PG would like to play in such a game mode - without those who would be playing in "Dangerous Mode".
Just so I understand, would your 'dangerous' mode allow instancing with players in 'safe' node?
 
This is not true. Most of my ships are not built for PvP but will stand a chance in many encounters and being able to get away from an attack 99% of the time.
Fair enough. Most properly built ships can flee.

But a new player in a non engineered ship is toast.

And anyone in a ship optimized for exploration or maximum cargo, or cheap modules is probably toast, too.

The point stands, a ship built for combat has a massive advantage, and can force other ships to do something they're not fit for.

That's as fair as forcing a PvP fit ship to mine 100 tons of cargo, or fly 1000ly, or haul 300 tons 100ly.
 
And anyone in a ship optimized for exploration or maximum cargo, or cheap modules is probably toast, too.
Those ships are specialized for one thing only. It's expected that if they encounter something that outside of that narrow scope they'll suffer greatly for it. If you need to fly in dangerous areas when your ship is specialized for areas where there is no danger, this is an expected outcome.

The point stands, a ship built for combat has a massive advantage, and can force other ships to do something they're not fit for.

That's as fair as forcing a PvP fit ship to mine 100 tons of cargo, or fly 1000ly, or haul 300 tons 100ly.
I mean... that's how it should work, right? The whole point of combat forces is to do combat against another force. All the better if the opposing force is poorly equipped to handle it.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But that takes up a slot. It also means that the FSD default engineering is not just long range + long range experimental.

Repairs are the same, expensive or you use a limpet / AMFU. Both cost internal space.
A slot that can be changed out trivially in a friendly Carrier.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Those ships are specialized for one thing only. It's expected that if they encounter something that outside of that narrow scope they'll suffer greatly for it. If you need to fly in dangerous areas when your ship is specialized for areas where there is no danger, this is an expected outcome.
Sounds like only those players who prefer combat get to optimise their ship for their preferred role - everyone else has to compromise because of those who optimise for combat....
 
Not in terms of forced player interactions, no.

While Solo and PG may seem better fits, there's no restriction on any player playing in the only game mode with an unlimited population (subject to being able to play multi-player at all).
If you don't want that sort of interaction, maybe its better to consider something else.

When PvP can be avoided completely in two of the three game modes already, that it does not create inescapable interactions in Open is consistent.
Its not PvP thats the point here: its outcomes of actions. Its not consistent if an NPC can be robbed but a player can't.

It's a game - it's all artificial.
? If actions have to be pre-agreed thats not really a game that lives up to the box blurb really.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
If you don't want that sort of interaction, maybe its better to consider something else.
Maybe, maybe not - Open belongs to all players, after all.
Its not PvP thats the point here: its outcomes of actions. Its not consistent if an NPC can be robbed but a player can't.
Outcomes of PvP interactions - quite different from interacting with an NPC generated to entertain.
? If actions have to be pre-agreed thats not really a game that lives up to the box blurb really.
The box blurb doesn't adequately explain how the game really works. It used to say "or just hunt other commanders" and people complained that they couldn't hunt all CMDRs because not all players would play with them That bit got removed though.
 
A slot that can be changed out trivially in a friendly Carrier.
Which means more inconvenience for the attacker, and presumes a friendly carrier is about. That, and if this in the credit scarce environment how are they going to afford 5 billion? Carriers are set to deter commanders with notoriety as well, and without knowing someone you'll have to go to them (more fuel and repair costs).
 
Maybe, maybe not - Open belongs to all players, after all.
Well some more so than others if you can log out at any time, consequence free.

Outcomes of PvP interactions - quite different from interacting with an NPC generated to entertain.
At a BGS level they are identical, just one is AI and instanced.

The box blurb doesn't adequately explain how the game really works. It used to say "or just hunt other commanders" and people complained that they couldn't hunt all CMDRs because not all players would play with them That bit got removed though.
Well they need to clarify it more then, because those who hunt for piracy are 50/50 on getting anything and someone not logging. That, and having Powerplay merits made indestructible because of the same issue.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Which means more inconvenience for the attacker, and presumes a friendly carrier is about. That, and if this in the credit scarce environment how are they going to afford 5 billion? Carriers are set to deter commanders with notoriety as well, and without knowing someone you'll have to go to them (more fuel and repair costs).
In a credit scarce environment, a Carrier couldn't possibly cost 5B Cr.

Some Carriers are set to refuse docking to notorious CMDRs - some aren't. I'd expect that some players would either own the Carrier themselves (using one of their CMDRs) or be offered safe haven in a sympathetic player's Carrier.

Then there's the fact that credits can be transferred through a Carrier - currently at 2.3M Cr./t nett - so a Carrier owning sponsor could bankroll gankers trivially.
 
Top Bottom