Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Robert Maynard]

Then you don't understand the gameplay consequences of it existing to begin with. In strengthening them, you detrimentally impact parts of the game that rely on negative consequences.

I would suggest that the features in question are consequences of how some players choose to play the game.

Its explained to them via lots of in game text.

Private Groups are not advertised in the launcher - which means that, for a new player, Open is the only game mode where they might, for better or worse, meet another player.

The problem then becomes the hurdler again- people picking and choosing the rules to what should be a uniform race.

The game provides the mandatory rule set - players can choose to add to that due to their choices but everyone requires to play by the same rules. Being available for player interaction is not a rule requirement.

Or, it makes people realise situational awareness, ship builds and skill actually matter and use them more.

More that it would encourage players not to play in a game mode likely to contain griefers.

Without a chain of consequences, there is no game- just a jumble of random actions that go nowhere.

There are consequences - the mandatory set do not include player interactions though.

If there are no rules as to what rules are 'correct' then there is no game. Powerplay fails because the optimal path is the one that bypasses all action, and that NPCs do not offer what players do. In CGs this is fine because a CG is not an 11 way competition, in Powerplay where you have up to 100+ CGs at once its not, its repetitive grind. That and PP being optional to begin with, and, that you can block people who oppose you....can you restrain rival hurdlers to win the race? How is that a race to begin with?

There are rules as to what is "correct" inasmuch as players can affect the game from any game mode - however they don't mandate player interaction in this game.

Plus, if you agree to be in Open in a mode about opposing others, why is it right to block those shooting you?

Being able to block other players would seem to be a necessary consequence of how some players choose to behave. There is collateral damage however that does not change the apparent necessity of having block feature.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I would suggest that the features in question are consequences of how some players choose to play the game.

'Choice' being dictated by whats given- the more tools are given to absolve people of consequences, the less consequences happen.

Private Groups are not advertised in the launcher - which means that, for a new player, Open is the only game mode where they might, for better or worse, meet another player.

You have a description of what a private group is. Plus, you have system wide chat in solo now.

The game provides the mandatory rule set - players can choose to add to that due to their choices but everyone requires to play by the same rules. Being available for player interaction is not a rule requirement.

For a coherent Open you can't have the same rules as you do for solo.

More that it would encourage players not to play in a game mode likely to contain griefers.

How do you know that?

There are consequences - the mandatory set do not include player interactions though.

Without effective piracy you don't have wings protecting traders, traders preferring better builds, you don't have BGS player piracy and negative influence. In Powerplay every action is 100% guaranteed, efficient and dependable.

There are rules as to what is "correct" inasmuch as players can affect the game from any game mode - however they don't mandate player interaction in this game.

You are veering off question- the issue is behaviour within Open.

There are too many versions of rules inside the mode to build a game that has effective consequences that themselves in combination build more complex combative interactions.

Being able to block other players would seem to be a necessary consequence of how some players choose to behave. There is collateral damage however that does not change the apparent necessity of having block feature.

[/QUOTE]

Do understand the absurdity of going into Open, pledging, and then blocking a rival who is shooting at you? The worst outcome is destruction, which in itself is allowed- so why then be able to block that? Language I can understand, abusive and racist messages need to be blocked and reported. Conflating both is silly and detrimental.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That from those players viewpoint who want to immerse thems into game is a problem. IRL people, even most deranged sorts of people usually have some reason for violence. It might be of course some total delusional like "voices told me to do it" but it exists. Certain subset of this game's open population ownly has one reason "for the lulz". I would not be very unhappy if the lulz crowd left the game for good.

If people are wanting reasons from others rather than what they are doing themselves, surely that points to a general weakness within the game? The important thing is not the reason, but that a ship wants to kill you.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

If people are wanting reasons from others rather than what they are doing themselves, surely that points to a general weakness within the game? The important thing is not the reason, but that a ship wants to kill you.

In fact for me that reason is kind of important. For the lulz killers go straight to blocklist. It adds my fun considerably. And flow chart goes like this "no stated reason for attack" -> "for the lulz killer" -> block that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

'Choice' being dictated by whats given- the more tools are given to absolve people of consequences, the less consequences happen.

Less consequences from player interactions, maybe.

You have a description of what a private group is. Plus, you have system wide chat in solo now.

A Private Group with one member (as the only Private Group that a new player knows about is their own - with themself as a member) isn't much of a social experience.

For a coherent Open you can't have the same rules as you do for solo.

The modes are coherent with each other - Open is not a special case.

How do you know that?

Apologies - I speculate - I forgot to put "likely" before "encourage".

Without effective piracy you don't have wings protecting traders, traders preferring better builds, you don't have BGS player piracy and negative influence. In Powerplay every action is 100% guaranteed, efficient and dependable.

Without willing targets there is no PvP piracy, i.e. no-one needs to play with the player pirates.

You are veering off question- the issue is behaviour within Open.

The rules apply to all game modes. As mentioned above, Open is not a special case - it's just one of the two multi-player game modes.

There are too many versions of rules inside the mode to build a game that has effective consequences that themselves in combination build more complex combative interactions.

Maybe this isn't the game for that then.

Do understand the absurdity of going into Open, pledging, and then blocking a rival who is shooting at you? The worst outcome is destruction, which in itself is allowed- so why then be able to block that? Language I can understand, abusive and racist messages need to be blocked and reported. Conflating both is silly and detrimental.

Collateral damage to the necessity of unlimited access to the block feature.

 

[Rubbernuke]

In fact for me that reason is kind of important. For the lulz killers go straight to blocklist. It adds my fun considerably. And flow chart goes like this "no stated reason for attack" -> "for the lulz killer" -> block that.

But unless they tell you, how can you really know? Its like if I blew up your ship, would I be blocked because I withed a reason, or that reason was not obvious to you?

 

[soloe]

OP states that people turn to ganking because of boredom as there isn't enough meaningful PvP.

this is the important part. He's not struggling to find pvp, but meaningful and emerging pvp appart from ganking and organized fighting.

... are into PvP (not the same as simply playing in open)

Same old, same old.

I have no idea but to answe this with another same old statement:

In open mode you may encounter other commanders connected via this mode

Encounters can be both, peaceful and hostile.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

Ok, so if he’s struggling to find meaningful PvP, why is he making suggestions on getting people out of SOLO into open? Who is in SOLO looking for PvP.

See what I’m saying? It doesn’t make sense.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

But unless they tell you, how can you really know? Its like if I blew up your ship, would I be blocked because I withed a reason, or that reason was not obvious to you?

Thats not my problem, its their problem. I do not have much incentive to play with hostile people, they do have incentive to have potential targets. If most non-pvp'ers in open would take my policy, those wanting to do pvp better have some stated reasons and communicate those, otherwise they can go and gank other gankers.

 

[bigmuthatrukka]

Genuine question here but what exactly do solo players and group players get out of being made to play an open only game?

The problem has more to do with time. Some people are extremely time poor and don't have the opportunity to get a fully engineered and tricked out cutter. Their joy is in low level stuff, catharsis of pottering about for an hour here and there. There is little fun in wasting your precious time butting horns with someone 100 times stronger, more skillful, who for any number of reasons has time to be so. So open play is not for these people and the likelihood that they would have bought the game if it was the only play style is low. Elite has been a single player game a lot longer than an mmo.
So I quite agree, those in the time poor category have nothing to gain from own play in the meta way it is.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Less consequences from player interactions, maybe.

Which is then bad for Open, unless that has to be 100% positive only.

A Private Group with one member (as the only Private Group that a new player knows about is their own - with themself as a member) isn't much of a social experience.

You can chat with people from solo to find out what you want now.

The modes are coherent with each other - Open is not a special case.

They are not if consequences have different outcomes for others.

Apologies - I speculate - I forgot to put "likely" before "encourage".

Without willing targets there is no PvP piracy.

Which is a catch 22. You have to remove easy ways to leave the game to make the ecosystem robust enough to exist, and for other systems to coalesce around that nucleus.

The rules apply to all game modes. As mentioned above, Open is not a special case - it's just one of the two multi-player game modes.

No, in Open you accept bad things will happen- the problem is people have varying degrees of what is bad. Blocking in Open with Powerplay is beyond bad, its self defeating if your goal as a dev is to provide a compelling interactive conflict.

Maybe this isn't the game for that then.

Then FD need to get off the fence and actually define what they want from Open, what experience they want it to provide.

Collateral damage to the necessity of unlimited access to the block feature.

Which in itself is absurd. Powerplay suffers because FD expect a feature that spans the entire game to fit every niche- to the point where its fighting itself and one of its core reasons of being. But then, FD have ignored substantive Powerplay changes for years so the situation is not unexpected.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Thats not my problem, its their problem. I do not have much incentive to play with hostile people, they do have incentive to have potential targets. If most non-pvp'ers in open would take my policy, those wanting to do pvp better have some stated reasons and communicate those, otherwise they can go and gank other gankers.

wanting to do pvp better

What is 'correct' PvP?

IMO there is no 'correct' PvP- the only correct response is how you respond to it.

 

[Brrokk]

...
If there was an Open-PvE mode then a lot of the angst associated with players selecting Open for some, but not all, of its features would likely disappear.
...

This! We always end up here. I wonder that the PvP enthusiasts can't see it. If PvE players had their own mode, so would the PvP players. All the complaints about ganking would become untenable: the stock reply would be, "You were in the wrong mode!" Problems solved.

It's the way all other multi-player games go and I still predict it for 2021: either an Open-PvE mode or a PvP flag. I'd prefer the mode to the flag, but I don't know which is more likely.

 

[Misty_Dark]

'Choice' being dictated by whats given- the more tools are given to absolve people of consequences, the less consequences happen.

Choices, coherrent... I see alot of deliiberately trolling here, you know just as good as most here, that PvP is optional. you also know that this game is NOT about PvP.... You also know that this game does NOT allow anybody to force their gameplay onto others.

And still, you are here advocating for your way of wanting to play to be game to be norm for everybody. regardless of how the game was designed. So if you are going to force your way of playing onto the majority of players, then I want everyone that now has to play by "your" rules to be able todo the same.. enforce their choice on your game.
So we change Open with every little rule you have came up with, plus one rule... everyone that get killed by another player (who shot first, interdicted etc) can now ban that player from playing in Open for 1 week, look at it as the redesigned Block function. And if you kill the same player again, you get +1 week extra ban for everytime that player can hit the ban button.


Now you do whatever you like and the victim of your emergent gameplay can kick you out of open... So this will ofcourse create a stalemate, as it now can be quite hurtful killing players not interested in your chosen way of playing the game.





Forcing your way of playstyle onto other players is often a very bad idea, because if it is done once, the we the same can be done against you...

 

[Thepirateorc]

I was with you until the last line. "Exploit" doesn't mean "doing something I don't like".

Combat logging is an exploit

 

[TiberiusDuval]

What is 'correct' PvP?

IMO there is no 'correct' PvP- the only correct response is how you respond to it.

I don't have problem if someone try's to pirate me, I don't have problem if (when I have bounty) someone tries to claim that (in fact if I have bounty I even do not stick to that state your reasons policy, as reason is self-evident), and I do not have problem if someone wants me out of their turf, and issues warning/challenge. Outside of those cases, well I do have a problem. And will block people attacking me.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Choices, coherrent... I see alot of deliiberately trolling here, you know just as good as most here, that PvP is optional. you also know that this game is NOT about PvP.... You also know that this game does NOT allow anybody to force their gameplay onto others.

Really? What about pirates who require people to comply or be blown up? To pirate you have to impose on someone else. Powerplay in Open is the same, you have to accept people will come after you.

And still, you are here advocating for your way of wanting to play to be game to be norm for everybody. regardless of how the game was designed. So if you are going to force your way of playing onto the majority of players, then I want everyone that now has to play by "your" rules to be able todo the same.. enforce their choice on your game.

Its not imposing on anyone, other than making a mode have consequences.

And, if by choosing open you then decline to accept its random nature its "you" being silly, no "trolling" required.

So we change Open with every little rule you have came up with, plus one rule... everyone that get killed by another player (who shot first, interdicted etc) can now ban that player from playing in Open for 1 week, look at it as the redesigned Block function. And if you kill the same player again, you get +1 week extra ban for everytime that player can hit the ban button.

Now you do whatever you like and the victim of your emergent gameplay can kick you out of open... So this will ofcourse create a stalemate, as it now can be quite hurtful killing players not interested in your chosen way of playing the game.

I think that chip on your shoulder is cutting off your brains oxygen supply. The only change I really want is for Powerplay in Open to have an exemption, and for players anywhere else to be truly alone / docked to log out.

Forcing your way of playstyle onto other players is often a very bad idea, because if it is done once, the we the same can be done against you...

And how is that bad with piracy, or Powerplay, or in general? If someone intercepts me I want to have a coherent encounter and outcome.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Just adding the bit I forgot earlier...

Open permits any action by a player with respect to any other player - get it ingrained in brain 'muscle memory' - if any player doesn't want the chance of negative interaction with/by another player, remove the option - ignore open - it isn't hard!

I'd guess, by the continuing requests by posters for those not playing in open to be 'forced' to do so, that open isn't as well populated as it was when we were told by someone at Frotier that it was the most popular mode, perhaps since that vague comment was made the demographic has changed... If those players who didn't wish to be other's content chose a mode suited to such play the whole 'ganking' thing would disappear as the only players in open would be those who enjoy 'emergent content', surely?

 

[Brrokk]

I don't have problem if someone try's to pirate me, I don't have problem if (when I have bounty) someone tries to claim that (in fact if I have bounty I even do not stick to that state your reasons policy, as reason is self-evident), and I do not have problem if someone wants me out of their turf, and issues warning/challenge. Outside of those cases, well I do have a problem. And will block people attacking me.

That's about my policy too.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which is then bad for Open, unless that has to be 100% positive only.

As mentioned earlier, Open isn't "special" (no matter how much some players might want it to be) - it's just one of the two multi-player game modes.

You can chat with people from solo to find out what you want now.

True.

They are not if consequences have different outcomes for others.

Interacting with an optional extra, i.e. other players, may provide different consequences - just as choosing to fly a paper ship may in any mode. Choices have consequences - and players can't force other players to choose the same things they themself did.

Which is a catch 22. You have to remove easy ways to leave the game to make the ecosystem robust enough to exist, and for other systems to coalesce around that nucleus.

It seems that that robust ecosystem is not sufficiently necessary to remove player choice.

No, in Open you accept bad things will happen- the problem is people have varying degrees of what is bad. Blocking in Open with Powerplay is beyond bad, its self defeating if your goal as a dev is to provide a compelling interactive conflict.

If there was another game mode with an unlimited population that offered players the choice to play without PvP then I'd agree - however Open is a poor compromise choice for those players seeking a purely social experience (as opposed to encountering players who may wish to engage them in PvP). Blocking is not really an issue, in my opinion, in a game where interacting with other players is optional.

Then FD need to get off the fence and actually define what they want from Open, what experience they want it to provide.

I would suggest that Frontier decided which side of the fence they are on before they published the game design - and that design makes interacting with other players an entirely optional part of a game where every player affects the game.

Open is simply a matchmaker setting where any player who selected it on that platform may meet, P2P connections willing. It's there for players who wish to play in it but it's not a requirement of any game feature.

Each player's choice of who to play among takes precedence and may over-ride any desire that other players may have to play with them.

Which in itself is absurd. Powerplay suffers because FD expect a feature that spans the entire game to fit every niche- to the point where its fighting itself and one of its core reasons of being. But then, FD have ignored substantive Powerplay changes for years so the situation is not unexpected.

Maybe if a subset of players didn't engage in behaviours that necessitated a block feature in the first place then things would have been different - but here we are. Continuing player interactions, good or bad, to a conclusion is not a requirement in this game - if it was then there's be no menu exit at all when engaged in an interaction with another player.