Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Stelar 7]

A core tenant of the game is that other players are optional.

So lobby for an expansion of the CQC system. Everything connected to the rest of the game will work in solo and PG, attempts to force players from PG and Solo to Open removes consent from the pvp experience. That's bad.

If all the pvp people really want to pvp in open with pvp minded people, advertise.

Pick a region and powerplay or Bgs goal and dare the rest of the pvp enthusiasts to come stop you.

Otherwise it's just talk about preferring a fight to ganking.

 

[AkenBosch]

If all the pvp people really want to pvp in open with pvp minded people, advertise.

As someone doing and advertising races with other racing minded people, this. ☝

 

[Deleted member 121570]

As someone doing and advertising races with other racing minded people, this. ☝

Lo-salt, too! Racing's where it's at

 

[Nadreck]

The galaxy is vast, and even the Bubble is pretty big. But if PvP'ers can't find each other at widely-recognised PvP locations (like San Tu), then they should accept that they are a tiny minority.

 

[Kerrash]

Why is empathy such a forgotten art?

 

[Konan]

Cool, if you're truly looking for a single player experience, I have no problems with that. But if you're interacting with the greater galaxy, having no incentive to do this in open where PvP can occur while having the same impact as those who choose to be in open where there's greater risk is a flawed design contributing to more people just resorting to ganking.

You're assuming these other cmdrs will want to pvp. I play in open always and I'm not a ganker. I like the excitement and danger but most cmdrs apparently do not want it. They lose their ships (even though they have insurance) and they look at that as time invested. Now, I have a suggestion that may help. I think that a cmdr that has notoriety should not have insurance. What insurance company is gonna insure a murdering skanky pirate? None. Might make regular gankers think twice about flying into non anarchy systems killing folks if they feel they may lose their ships with no re buy. Notorious pirates wouldn't be insured. Players may come out in open more with this. At least the ones I suggested it said they would.

 

[Konan]

I really love fencing, me and my friends would love to fence all the time with everyone else in the gym, but most of the other members really don't understand our love for fencing and the gym rarely hosts tournament for us to fence in. So, the only natural way to have organic fencing is to go around the gym and stab random members doing their push-ups and squats. It's the gym's fault anyway, they should hand a sword to everyone coming in to do their exercises. And with exercises I mean fencing, of course.

Lol.....you win the forums today...

 

[Stelar 7]

You're assuming these other cmdrs will want to pvp. I play in open always and I'm not a ganker. I like the excitement and danger but most cmdrs apparently do not want it. They lose their ships (even though they have insurance) and they look at that as time invested. Now, I have a suggestion that may help. I think that a cmdr that has notoriety should not have insurance. What insurance company is gonna insure a murdering skanky pirate? None. Might make regular gankers think twice about flying into non anarchy systems killing folks if they feel they may lose their ships with no re buy. Notorious pirates wouldn't be insured. Players may come out in open more with this. At least the ones I suggested it said they would.

According to the devs, who have the data, most people play in open.

I think its safe to say all the people who want pvp are already there. What they need is something like red vs blue where fights and fighters are arranged.

 

[RamirezKurita]

According to the devs, who have the data, most people play in open.

That's something I have wondered about though, whether players play in open deliberately or simply because it is at the top of the list. How many of those players in open actually want to go out and engage with others consciously vs those that simply select it as the "default" option? Unfortunately, I have no idea how the numbers are in that regard or even how those numbers could even be obtained.

It does amuse me though that most open stories basically boil down to "I loved open play, until I met another player".

 

[Agony_Aunt]

FD should just take the neuclear option and give everyone Energy Bombs. Yeah, the griefers will use them, but so can everyone else. Griefer appears, you bomb them right back and everyone dies.

Also would be a great credit sink

Remember to vote for me as Game Designer of the Year 2020!!!

 

[Rubbernuke]

A core tenant of the game is that other players are optional.

So lobby for an expansion of the CQC system. Everything connected to the rest of the game will work in solo and PG, attempts to force players from PG and Solo to Open removes consent from the pvp experience. That's bad.

If all the pvp people really want to pvp in open with pvp minded people, advertise.

Pick a region and powerplay or Bgs goal and dare the rest of the pvp enthusiasts to come stop you.

Otherwise it's just talk about preferring a fight to ganking.

Or, just make Powerplay Open only (or, part of it as I suggest here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...es-on-sandros-last-ideas.526335/#post-8079411). Then everyone gets a slice of the pie.

 

[ManlyVIK]

4) CQC: Perhaps the only PvP that actually works, but it's not very meaningful in the sense of personal CMDR progression or contributing to something bigger. We also cannot use the ships we want to fly, which are the ones we've spent credits and time building.

CQC isn't meant to just be another engineering competition, that's what open and private group is for.

 

[Bigmaec]

FD should just take the neuclear option and give everyone Energy Bombs. Yeah, the griefers will use them, but so can everyone else. Griefer appears, you bomb them right back and everyone dies.

Also would be a great credit sink

Remember to vote for me as Game Designer of the Year 2020!!!

No way that could work out badly by, let's say, energy bombing everyone above an engineer port in a sidey repeatedly

 

[Brrokk]

How many would actually believe the reason given by the person that interdicted and then destroyed them?
If you got ganked you got ganked. Don't treat the term as a pejorative.

The reason is crucial. It also needs to be clearly expressed and convincing enough for me to believe. I'll give a bit of "benefit of the doubt" if I'm not sure, but if the reason is completely implausible it'll be block.

 

[Brrokk]

FD should just take the neuclear option and give everyone Energy Bombs. Yeah, the griefers will use them, but so can everyone else. Griefer appears, you bomb them right back and everyone dies.

Also would be a great credit sink

Remember to vote for me as Game Designer of the Year 2020!!!

Ah, I remember pressing E!

 

[Leper Messiah]

FD should just take the neuclear option and give everyone Energy Bombs. Yeah, the griefers will use them, but so can everyone else. Griefer appears, you bomb them right back and everyone dies.

Also would be a great credit sink

Remember to vote for me as Game Designer of the Year 2020!!!

Why can't FD just make it a massive EMP pulse? Give players the option of EMP shieldng tech but it ONLY fits in weapon slots. That would actually give weaponless traders and explorers some options.

 

[Dragsham]

Its the big problem.
You can't stop a pvper attacking a trader or explorer or noob at an engineers.
If it were offset by some mechanism as yet not in-game it could change the game. Incentivised open play and to a huge extent.. guaranteed delivery or accomplishment by the aforementioned.
Just how this Is done fluidly with risk and reward and an unknown element is beyond me. Rank? Ghosts? Idk but that is the biggest nemesis in terms of PvP cross-platform and open play.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

I've been thinking about this some more. I still think there is a fundamental misunderstanding going on.

Your basic aim is to get more PvP action.

It would appear that suggestions are being made to incentivise people to play in open. Right. But that is making quite a leap. Playing in open is not a declaration that I'm here to do PvP, particularly if you have stuck bonuses on things like trading in open. That is a declaration that you're here to earn the 10% extra.

It is an admission that you accept you could find yourself in a PvP situation, that is not the same as wanting it and remember, you want people to want PvP, because you're saying it had to be meaningful PvP. For it to be meaningful, both have to want it (make your own comparisons at home folks).

This is where the idea for incentives falls down. Unless you put some mega bonus on PvP but then my guess will be, you'll only get a few takers. Not enough for your requirements.

Getting more people to play in open is not the same as getting more people interested in PvP. By getting more people to play in open you are only presenting those that want PvP more chances to shoot at other CMDRs but it is unlikely to be the meaningful PvP you want, more like, just a step up from the ganking you're purportedly trying to prevent.

 

[THECATISDEAD]

Player A: I want PVP
Game: Too large to contain everyone into a single place plus single player/private groups
Player A: Change the game so I can play the way I want
Game: CQC?
Player A: it's , nobody is ever there
Game: cool story bruh

Conclusion: Majority does not want to PVP.

Personally i don't care, never had issues being ganked and i don't even own larger ships. But i seldom play anymore so what do i know

 

[Maggie_Oz]

There are large groups that play to carry out Power Play activity.
There are large groups that play to carry out BGS activity
There are large exploring groups that carry out organised exploration
There are large RP groups that carry out in game RP and storylines.
"PvP'ers need someone else to organise things for us otherwise we've got nothing else to do but be annoying to other players"