Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Robert Maynard]

I know, so why are we discussing it? it is what it is.

Some players want change, some don't. Of those who do, not all want the same changes - they are sometimes diametrically opposed.

Suffice to say, we don't all want the same things.

 

[Morbad]

That will only fix 'everything' for you and whoever you favour... which is what this whole thread is all about.

An offline mode would fix quite a bit for anyone not dead set on the MMO aspect of the game. I was pretty dead set on these aspects...I never viewed the game as anything other than an MMO and was looking for a replacement for an MMO (Jumpgate) when I backed Elite: Dangerous.

It took years of neglect and dilution of fundamental gameplay elements to convince me that even if I could only snag a fraction of a percent of the Open player base on my own server (I can afford to support maybe five hundred consecutive players, bandwidth wise), that I could do better than Frontier, because I actually enjoy this game, while the developers are just trying to sell paintjobs and ship kits.

But PvP it is.

I agree, but I use the terminology as it is commonly understood to avoid having to preface every single post.

I agree the main problem is instancing, but not necessarily a game breaker. What have I missed??

That the game still stacks the deck quite profoundly in favor of defense and escape, making shooting down any competent CMDR who isn't inclined to fight to ship destruction very difficult.

Sounds like a prime case for blocking someone then.

There is no case for someone who wants an open 'Open' mode to block anyone.

I could not block that CMDR I showed you without shooting myself in the foot, because as crappy and abusive as that CMDR was (and not just in that encounter), he is frequently instanced with people I would like my CMDR to have a good chance to encounter. It's far less problematic to put up with his crap, keep reporting his abuse, and hope Frontier bans him a little longer next time, than it is to use the absurd block tool we are given, which would crap up my game and many others.

 

[Tyler-Rid]

Some players want change, some don't. Of those who do, not all want the same changes - they are sometimes diametrically opposed.

Suffice to say, we don't all want the same things.

Congratulations, you've all got what you don't want...

 

[CaptainPugwash]

That the game still stacks the deck quite profoundly in favor of defense and escape, making shooting down any competent CMDR who isn't inclined to fight to ship destruction very difficult.

You have kind of got me there, I agree ... the only counter balance I can think of atm is some kind of special drag effect weapon issued by the pilots federation when you take a bounty contract, which will only work against the perp. Maybe something else will come to mind.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I could not block that CMDR I showed you without shooting myself in the foot, because as crappy and abusive as that CMDR was (and not just in that encounter), he is frequently instanced with people I would like my CMDR to have a good chance to encounter. It's far less problematic to put up with his crap, keep reporting his abuse, and hope Frontier bans him a little longer next time, than it is to use the absurd block tool we are given, which would crap up my game and many others.

Maybe reach out to those other players, explain to them your dissatisfaction with that player, tell them you are blocking them, and that they might want to consider doing the same.

Otherwise do the block so their negative actions can't affect you, and if others are ok with it, then that is their business.

I'd say you are 100% warranted in blocking them.

And besides, the block only stops you instancing with others when that other person is around as well, and its not like they are going to be online in the same areas all the time.

If FD take action against him, then having blocked him won't make a difference. In the meantime you won't have them spoiling your session.

 

[Stelar 7]

You have kind of got me there, I agree ... the only counter balance I can think of atm is some kind of special drag effect weapon issued by the pilots federation when you take a bounty contract, which will only work against the perp. Maybe something else will come to mind.

The deck is stacked different at different stages.

If the target can see the attacker coming before the interdiction they can make an emergency exit from supercruise and high wake or shift modes.

Once the interdiction starts the defender is so unlikely to win that all advice I've seen is submit. A direct contradiction with best practice against NPC

Once out of super cruise the Attacker has a ship built for PVP and likely weapons designed to interfere with or severely complicate escape. Against a weak attacker escape is easy, however against someone with modules and experience it's quite different.

This is for a 1v1, defenders can also face numerical inferiority.

If the defender is in a noncombat ship, especially a slow one, they are doomed unless the attacker is poorly equipped or inexperienced.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Looks like the attacker will have to have stealth ability until the interdiction, after that he will need the advantage of some kind of drag effect weapon, but could still work.

 

[A C Ender]

An offline mode would fix quite a bit for anyone not dead set on the MMO aspect of the game. I was pretty dead set on these aspects...I never viewed the game as anything other than an MMO and was looking for a replacement for an MMO (Jumpgate) when I backed Elite: Dangerous.

It took years of neglect and dilution of fundamental gameplay elements to convince me that even if I could only snag a fraction of a percent of the Open player base on my own server (I can afford to support maybe five hundred consecutive players, bandwidth wise), that I could do better than Frontier, because I actually enjoy this game, while the developers are just trying to sell paintjobs and ship kits.



I agree, but I use the terminology as it is commonly understood to avoid having to preface every single post.



That the game still stacks the deck quite profoundly in favor of defense and escape, making shooting down any competent CMDR who isn't inclined to fight to ship destruction very difficult.



There is no case for someone who wants an open 'Open' mode to block anyone.

I could not block that CMDR I showed you without shooting myself in the foot, because as crappy and abusive as that CMDR was (and not just in that encounter), he is frequently instanced with people I would like my CMDR to have a good chance to encounter. It's far less problematic to put up with his crap, keep reporting his abuse, and hope Frontier bans him a little longer next time, than it is to use the absurd block tool we are given, which would crap up my game and many others.

I would join you.

 

[Morbad]

Maybe reach out to those other players, explain to them your dissatisfaction with that player, tell them you are blocking them, and that they might want to consider doing the same.

This is dozens or hundreds of random people, only a few of whom I am acquainted with. Most won't be paying attention. Most who are won't care. Most who would care wouldn't have reason to take my word for anything, even if I were inclined to proselytize others to my view regarding the sins of one player among many, which I am not. System and local chat in densely populated areas is often riddled with all sorts of accusations, most of highly dubious veracity from people e talking each other, those who don't have any idea what they saw, or paranoid types who think everyone is out to get them.

The sort of behavior evidenced should be up to Frontier to deal with, not mob justice with sloppy, easily abused, player tools...and if it wasn't against the rules, I shouldn't have any say in encountering that player.

If I blocked every cheating piece of scum I encountered, I'd be playing by myself in short order. This is exactly the opposite of what I want as an Open player.

And besides, the block only stops you instancing with others when that other person is around as well, and its not like they are going to be online in the same areas all the time.

I saw that CMDR during at least a half dozen CGs in the span of a couple months and I regularly encounter many of the same CMDRs in locales they haunt. I can find some of the CMDRs played by those in this thread, despite never having directly communicated with them, or friended them, without too much difficulty.

Open, for those who play regularly, is rather like a small town. If they aren't avoiding other players, people tend to have at least a vague idea of who is who and where they tend to be. There are a lot of transients, but the regulars don't have a rapid turn over.

Looks like the attacker will have to have stealth ability until the interdiction, after that he will need the advantage of some kind of drag effect weapon, but could still work.

Something like this might work for a narrow range of sanctioned bounty hunting activities, but I'd rather the game and setting as a whole be conducive to more organic PvP interactions, rather than needing a collection of ad hoc games within games or theme park rides.

I would join you.

You sure about that? I'd probably make ejection a manual thing, implement a real economy, and require insurance plans to be purchased, among other changes...as far as the tools provided allowed me to implement such things.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

EOk

This is dozens or hundreds of random people, only a few of whom I am acquainted with. Most won't be paying attention. Most who are won't care. Most who would care wouldn't have reason to take my word for anything, even if I were inclined to proselytize others to my view regarding the sins of one player among many, which I am not. System and local chat in densely populated areas is often riddled with all sorts of accusations, most of highly dubious veracity from people poopooe talking each other, those who don't have any idea what they saw, or paranoid types who think everyone is out to get them.

The sort of behavior evidenced should be up to Frontier to deal with, not mob justice with sloppy, easily abused, player tools...and if it wasn't against the rules, I shouldn't have any say in encountering that player.

If I blocked every cheating piece of scum I encountered, I'd be playing by myself in short order. This is exactly the opposite of what I want as an Open player.



I saw that CMDR during at least a half dozen CGs in the span of a couple months and I regularly encounter many of the same CMDRs in locales they haunt. I can find some of the CMDRs played by those in this thread, despite never having directly communicated with them, or friended them, without too much difficulty.

Open, for those who play regularly, is rather like a small town. If they aren't avoiding other players, people tend to have at least a vague idea of who is who and where they tend to be. There are a lot of transients, but the regulars don't have a rapid turn over.



Something like this might work for a narrow range of sanctioned bounty hunting activities, but I'd rather the game and setting as a whole be conducive to more orgainic PvP interactions, rather than needing a collection of ad hoc games within games or theme park rides.

Happy to hear any proposals you or others may have.

 

[Stelar 7]

Looks like the attacker will have to have stealth ability until the interdiction, after that he will need the advantage of some kind of drag effect weapon, but could still work.

Are you aware that drag weapons already exist? As do FSD disruption weapons and kinetic weapons that can offset alignment?

 

[MadSinUN]

Why don't you like the idea of a "license to kill"? The one who wants to kill players will have to buy it and then he will voluntarily become an honest goal for the same fans of Pvp. You can make this license temporary. During the license period, the player does not have the ability to block and switch to other modes if another player is nearby (for example, in the space of the star system). It is better of course to generally block the ability to play in other modes other than "open"for the duration of the license. Without such a license, a player cannot destroy other players. You can also assign flags, as suggested by Robert. This is not a complete ideal of the idea, but the concept is something like this. The only disadvantage so far is that a player who has received a license will be able to shoot at Pve players, but he will not be able to escape punishment if he is caught by hunters. Accordingly, the reward for such a licensed killer can be made significant. For Pve players, it is possible to implement the possibility of destruction only in systems with a low level of security, for example. Ganker/Griefer/Pirate/Hunter / Fighter PP will have to become fully open to Pvp on their own. And Pve players will have many opportunities to avoid the fight. Those features that are currently being used ( but I would like to work out the blocking in an open game in more detail).

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Are you aware that drag weapons already exist? As do FSD disruption weapons and kinetic weapons that can offset alignment?

Yes, but they don’t do enough

 

[Screemonster]

Taking @Screemonster 's proposal for a PvP-flag that would disable the ability for an attacker to destroy a ship duly flagged - then running with it - I propose the following to further the discussion:

That a flag indicating ones preference for PvP is implemented (preference only, it doesn't stop PvP);
1) If flagged for PvP:

a) the player loses the ability to use menu exit while undocked and instanced with another player;​

b) tracking "lost connection" count and frequency while in-danger due to player combat and instanced with players with a view to inflicting the player with a rebuy if the lost connection count exceeds a threshold in a time period;​

c) possible change to the block feature to only block communications for players that the player has blocked. Would not affect blocks by other players themselves flagged;​

2) If not flagged for PvP:

a) the player's ship can still be interdicted and attacked, but not destroyed, by another player;​

b) the player loses the ability to interdict other players (to stop "annoyance interdictions" of players by unflagged players who can't be destroyed);.​

The flag status of each player could be displayed on the HUD scanner using a hollow marker other than square or triangle or possibly by placing a dot in the centre of the hollow marker.

The Wing feature would reasonably be changed to only permit wing members with the same flag setting with auto-booting for players who change their flag while winged.

Changing flag state would reasonably require the player to log out of the game entirely.

I'd have gone with a slightly less intrusive toggle on the flag (such as automatically switching if you do decide to interdict or otherwise fire upon another player) with an exception to allow wing members to shoot each other without this automatic activation. If it's automatically raised, it lowers when you dock, or 30 minutes have passed and you jump to another system (similar to old-style bounties that had a timer - once the timer ran out, the bounty didn't actually disappear until you performed a jump)

Natually, an "always on" option would be available.

 

[Mohrgan]

Convert the "Report Crimes Against Me" toggle into a "PvP Active" switch. Turning on 'PvP Active' makes you available for PvP, puts you in open (If there end up being more than one Mode.), and changes your scanner icon to one that will identify you as active. It could also remove the criminality for assaulting and/or murdering a ship that is active.

This whole process would activate automatically when a non-active Commander attacks another Commander, and couldn't be switched back for a reasonable amount of time. Marry a reward system, like my voucher suggestion, and you have a system to attract all types of players into open, and let the PvP players identify each other.

None of this will meet with much acceptance from the PvP crowd, because it doesn't force every one into their gun sites. But, it does demonstrate the possibility of adding to PvP, without taking content from any players, or forcing PvP on any one.

 

[MadSinUN]

In fact, I would like to see suggestions from Pve players to improve the open mode for everyone. Because most Pve players are against the "open game" and Pvp in General. What do you say?"

And then there was the idea of a rough and radical solution. I think many people like such solutions in this game. Simply, once and for all, the player chooses a style of play in open mode. You can link this selection to your account. The choice between Pvp and Pve is completely voluntary. The player who chooses Pve style freely moves around the galaxy and fully interacts with players in trading and business moments, completely immortal for other players, but without the ability to attack other players. A player who chooses the Pvp style gets a full-fledged Pvp with the same players who choose the Pvp style. Without any "blocking" and dirty escapes. Real, brutal Pvp mode.

 

[Mohrgan]

In fact, I would like to see suggestions from Pve players to improve the open mode for everyone. Because most Pve players are against the "open game" and Pvp in General. What do you say?"

And then there was the idea of a rough and radical solution. I think many people like such solutions in this game. Simply, once and for all, the player chooses a style of play in open mode. You can link this selection to your account. The choice between Pvp and Pve is completely voluntary. The player who chooses Pve style freely moves around the galaxy and fully interacts with players in trading and business moments, completely immortal for other players, but without the ability to attack other players. A player who chooses the Pvp style gets a full-fledged Pvp with the same players who choose the Pvp style. Without any "blocking" and dirty escapes. Real, brutal Pvp mode.

See post number 1364, and my previous posts (in this thread) for just such a suggestion, from just such of a Commander.

 

[MadSinUN]

See post number 1364, and my previous posts (in this thread) for just such a suggestion, from just such of a Commander.

I understand that you are offering an on/off system? And I'm offering a permanent one, once and for all.

 

[Mohrgan]

I understand that you are offering an on/off system? And I'm offering a permanent one, once and for all.

Oh. Why not allow flexibility? Plus you don't really offer any improvement, or inducement to become involved with PvP.

 

[MadSinUN]

Oh. Why not allow flexibility? Plus you don't really offer any improvement, or inducement to become involved with PvP.

Flexibility is fine, but there are some Pvp players who will use the ability to turn off the Pvp mode in order to escape punishment. And the incentive for Pvp players is first of all the opportunity to enter the battle honestly. Without being nervous about a possible blockage or dirty escape. Those who love Pvp will choose Pvp in any case and absolutely nothing will be lost, but will get the same 100% honest Pvp players for their style of play.