Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Rat Catcher]

Is it though?
Does Fdev describe Elite as such a game? I would say that Fdev doesn't do so at all. And that is kinda a problem..
Since they want to make a game for everyone, thus everyone has to suffer.

I'm not so sure... From the Frontier Store description: (My Highlighting)

Elite Dangerous

Take control of your own starship in a cutthroat galaxy. In the year 3300, across the vast expanse of an epic, full-scale recreation of our Milky Way, interstellar rivalries flare as galactic superpowers fight proxy wars.

Some may know you as an ally; others will call you a pirate, a bounty hunter, a smuggler, an explorer, an assassin, a hero... Fly alone or with friends, fight for a cause or go it alone; your actions change the galaxy around you in an ever unfolding story.

Start with a small starship and a few credits, and do whatever it takes to get the skill, knowledge, wealth and power to stand among the ranks of the Elite.

Doesn't sound too friendly

 

[Robert Maynard]

Is it though?
Does Fdev describe Elite as such a game? I would say that Fdev doesn't do so at all. And that is kinda a problem..
Since they want to make a game for everyone, thus everyone has to suffer.

The marketing at elitedangerous.com fight does.

 

[Stealthie]

The problem from what you say though is that it flies in the face of what FD describe ED as, ED is either cut throat or not.

It also claims to allow players to blaze their own trails too - and provides a bunch of non-combat ways to do so.

Seems like the easiest/only way to compromise so that both of these aspects of gameplay can co-exist would be to make certain bits of the bubble less cutthroat than others.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It also claims to allow players to blaze their own trails too - and provides a bunch of non-combat ways to do so.

Seems like the easiest/only way to compromise so that both of these aspects of gameplay can co-exist would be to make certain bits of the bubble less cutthroat than others.

The modes don't hurt in achieving that goal either.

 

[Stealthie]

The modes don't hurt in achieving that goal either.

True enough.

Must admit, I thought this was the thread where we were operating on the assumption that Open-Only was the desired result and my comment was made in that context.

 

[Robert Maynard]

True enough.

Must admit, I thought this was the thread where we were operating on the assumption that Open-Only was the desired result and my comment was made in that context.

While that may be a development of the proposal in the OP, that Open only is desired by some, it's certainly not desired by others.

 

[Misty_Dark]

There are two datasets, from both sides of collision. Okay they mismatch, and no one can determine who was at fault. Not from single point of data. Now then our brave suicide rammer continues his antics. Always when there is collision our rammers data has mismatch. That kind of analysis can be automated, and it does not need genius level people to find out who needs to banned.

Basic problem in general is not that there are some systems in place, problem is that there are people who abuse such systems. And solution to that is to do utmost to discourage them from doing such things. Bans of increasing length including permanent ones can do that.

Now this is moving from being simple to requiring quite alot more effort. and you have still not said how we should get this data from both clients... like should data always be sent to server? how long should it be stored then? extra storage costs etc for saving these for period of time etc. etc

These things are as simple as people wish them to be..

 

[soloe]

You want more PvP content, then you're first going to have to get an environment where a PvP-focused career path is viable, which includes consideration of the population that are more interested in other career paths. They can't be fish in a barrel for the dedicated PvPer or they'll be gone. Simple as that. And without them there wont be enough players exposed to PvP for it to be worthwhile to take that career path.

I agree that a life of crime should be much more dangerous than this of a lawful player. Though I do also think that it should come with better and other rewards. Smuggling for example seems to be a career path completely abandoned by the devs. But, as Ganksalot already pointed out: it's a whole other topic. PvP does not necessarily mean crime. So I do not agree that punishing criminals harder will make for a better environment for PvP. To make a PvP "career" more viable, there has to be appealing PvP content.

Her is a question PVP folks. Why haven't you created a PG for PVP the way Mobius has made one for PVE?

Because there's no need to. There's open mode.

To have fun, obviously.
But getting in-game credits doesn't mean not having fun! Calculating the best ways to get credits, is part of the fun for me ^ ^. As are interactions with other players, obviously. But yes - to some (myself included) - credits are at least a part of the reward in the game. A goal, of sorts.

If open had more reasons in terms of rewards for the risk taken, for players to join, it would bring players to open. Wouldn't it be funnier? We would have more players who prepare their ships while going to open - because they have a goal in mind. We would have more happy players, who don't get angry when getting ganked/pirated, because they understand, that while this time they failed and the pirate won, they can try again and this time score a reward they wouldn't be able to get in solo/pg.
Wouldn't that be fun?

And i do not mean to say, that right now you can't have fun in the game, while pirating or being the prey.
I am just saying my point on the matter and what could be changed to make it funnier for more people.

Scaled rewards for being in open? More credits? More mats? More bgs impact? More Fun for everyone? That'll be great!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Scaled rewards for being in open? More credits? More mats? More bgs impact? More Fun for everyone? That'll be great!

Some players have been trying for years to get Frontier to introduce a bonus for playing in Open. The only game feature that seems to, possibly, be on their list is Powerplay (see the Powerplay Flash Topic of May'18). The BGS was clearly stated to be not on Frontier's list of game features that they might consider suitable for an Open play bonus (or Open only for that matter).

 

[Stelar 7]

...To make a PvP "career" more viable, there has to be appealing PvP content.

This

Because there's no need to. There's open mode.

Where people complain of blocks and logging and not finding targets.

As to said, there needs to be engaging content. People who want pvp should work for that, organize something. Draw a line in the sand and advertise it.

Scaled rewards for being in open? More credits? More mats? More bgs impact? More Fun for everyone? That'll be great!

No thank you.

All players are equal but open players are more equal. Not a good idea. This encourages people to be evasive in open and stigmatizes non open play. I can get that bonus by stretching my block list. It also ignores consol players.

Better expand on CQC with some kind of instancing. Have a sign up area where pvp minded players can sign up to a faction and queue for an attack or defense or convoy mission. Give it a calendar so folks can plan to be online togeather.

Still that's dev time, so for now advertise we are defending blah system. Carrier x will pay for material Y if you think you can make it sign up on discord and get added to carrier y owners friends list so you can dock...

Tons of ways to have pvp be more if you put some effort in.

 

[soloe]

Some players have been trying for years to get Frontier to introduce a bonus for playing in Open. The only game feature that seems to, possibly, be on their list is Powerplay (see the Powerplay Flash Topic of May'18). The BGS was clearly stated to be not on Frontier's list of game features that they might consider suitable for an Open play bonus (or Open only for that matter).

Yeah. I know all that.
What do you think? Would it be a good idea, or not? Let's say it would only be a slightly upscaled reward and let's take bgs from the table. Combine it with communicating the "dangers" of open even better. Couldn't that maybe help calming the "victims" feelings a bit if they knew they took a risk and also could've been rewarded for it? I'm aware that some aren't able to play other modes than solo, but if the advantage wasn't too big, but noticeable, would it be a problem?

 

[Stealthie]

Yeah. I know all that.
What do you think? Would it be a good idea, or not? Let's say it would only be a slightly upscaled reward and let's take bgs from the table. Combine it with communicating the "dangers" of open even better. Couldn't that maybe help calming the "victims" feelings a bit if they knew they took a risk and also could've been rewarded for it? I'm aware that some aren't able to play other modes than solo, but if the advantage wasn't too big, but noticeable, would it be a problem?

FWIW: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/how-open-only-would-balance-ed.549351/page-13#post-8563889

This is what I meant by getting confused between two concurrent threads on similar topics.

 

[soloe]

People who want pvp should work for that, organize something. Draw a line in the sand and advertise it.

"They" do. But there's a difference between emergent content and player created events. Cqc and PP hold great potential to deliver this...

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yeah. I know all that.
What do you think? Would it be a good idea, or not? Let's say it would only be a slightly upscaled reward and let's take bgs from the table. Combine it with communicating the "dangers" of open even better. Couldn't that maybe help calming the "victims" feelings a bit if they knew they took a risk and also could've been rewarded for it? I'm aware that some aren't able to play other modes than solo, but if the advantage wasn't too big, but noticeable, would it be a problem?

I think that the BGS is, as it has always been advertised as being, a feature for all players to affect, regardless of game mode - and nowhere have Frontier said that players in Solo and Private Groups would be treated as second class players by reducing their reward (or increasing reward in Open) - rather the opposite, Frontier have indicated on several occasions that they consider all game modes to be equal and valid choices.

If the "victims" received a reward for a PvP interaction then I'd expect that it would not be long before it was exploited in uncontested encounters.

 

[soloe]

I think that the BGS is, as it has always been advertised as being, a feature for all players to affect, regardless of game mode - and nowhere have Frontier said that players in Solo and Private Groups would be treated as second class players by reducing their reward (or increasing reward in Open) - rather the opposite, Frontier have indicated on several occasions that they consider all game modes to be equal and valid choices.

If the "victims" received a reward for a PvP interaction then I'd expect that it would not be long before it was exploited in uncontested encounters.

Robert, I asked for your opinion not Fdevs stance on the matter. I said bgs shouldn't be scaled, maybe I used a wrong phrase when I said "from the table "? No native speaker. I never said victims should be rewarded either.

 

[Stealthie]

If the "victims" received a reward for a PvP interaction then I'd expect that it would not be long before it was exploited in uncontested encounters.

Inevitably, this.

 

[soloe]

FWIW: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/how-open-only-would-balance-ed.549351/page-13#post-8563889

This is what I meant by getting confused between two concurrent threads on similar topics.

That's why I decided to not engage in ducks thread

 

[Robert Maynard]

Robert, I asked for your opinion not Fdevs stance on the matter. I said bgs shouldn't be scaled, maybe I used a wrong phrase when I said "from the table "? No native speaker. I never said victims should be rewarded either.

I agree with Frontier's stance.

 

[Stelar 7]

"They" do. But there's a difference between emergent content and player created events. Cqc and PP hold great potential to deliver this...

I hope so. I'd like to see CQC get more active. I've not been matched when I queue up. Possibly I'm too impatient.

 

[Mohrgan]

I have proposed a way of integrating PvP into the main game/PP for some time now. It's a voucher system that rewards for PvP engagements that reach a conclusion. In my view rewarding the losers in a PvP fight is essential. It is essential if you want the hunter/prey dynamic, and are interested in drawing new players (not just newbs, but those who may be new to PvP/open play). I propose a system that rewards the winners, something like, 3 vouchers, and the losers 1 for sticking out the contest until the end. These vouchers would then be turned in for influence over the BGS or PP.

Integrating PvP into the main game is the only sensible course of action. Chopping off a piece of content simply for the PvP crowd is ridiculous. Especially having alternatives that just normalize PvP into the struggle, without having to grant some kind of exclusive features. With a reward system like I proposed people interested in PvP would have an outlet. People on the fence may be enticed by rewards only granted through PvP. Finally, players that just want to stay out of it, can.

But, ganking won't change. The notion that gankers gank because they are bored is a myth. A transparent myth used as a thinly veiled justification for some overall recognition of PvP. A cry for help, if you will.