I believe the biggest problem with cqc is that it's not embedded in the game-world. There need to be real rewards for winning a match and the arenas should be somewhere in the universe not behind a button on the loading screen.
Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking
- Thread starter Hole in Head
- Start date
Fundamentally, CQC needs NPCs.... and then the ability to fly regular ships.... all from within the main game.
Firstly, turn it into a way to "test drive" ships before buying them.
Secondly, turn it into a place to test loadouts of our ships.
Thirdly, turn it into a place where people can fly their own ships in "friendly PvP" without risk.
Fourthly, flying against NPCs would give people confidence before attempting PvP, as well as just providing a bit of shooty fun.
Fifthly, set up some kind of in-game championship, either based on performance vs NPCs, PvP or even a combination of both.
Any such mechanic is ripe for abuse.
I disagree. Getting the pvp into a CQC style arena is the only way to integrate more pvp into our current game. This makes a few assumptions. 1. No bonus or penalty attached to a game mode. 2. Needs a way for players to be assured an opponent. Otherwise any pvp bonus will really be a reward for off hours farming and people to mess with their connection to avoid match making. 3. Recognizes PVP is optional. This means new rewards, not bonuses to other elements of the game. Hence CQC rank is not combat rank.
Folks will gank. That's inevitable, it's why games need to be designed with good mitigation tools. The three modes plus blocking are a solid foundation. I've met a few folks interested in blowing up haulers with no interaction or gameplay other than a FDL smoking something much weaker. I'll never see them again thank you block list.
I disagree completely. But planned matchmaking, using our own ships, instancing parts of the regular galaxy for an event.
That's all potentially awesome.
That's a fairly long winded way of saying that the ganker takes basically no risk.
This what you envision PvP to be? Do you envision it to be a turkey shoot where fully kitted out engineered meta build vessels find the weakest prey and attack them relentlessly? I don't want to be on either side of that equation.
I gather a lot of other people don't want to be on either side of that equation either which is basically my point. It's why you are flying around in open staring at a star field.
Not passing judgment on either play style, it's your game you can play however you want obviously. The rest of the community is going to react how they do and that's how the votes have gone so far.
I already covered that. If you relog to get favorable circumstances then you're basically cherry-picking to say re-logging during a fight is somehow breaks a game ethics code while the other re-logging for favorable circumstances are okay.
Either you play the game straight up and you don't relog to change your circumstances or you think re-logging is okay. If you think relogging is okay then combat logging isn't very far away. It all comes down to exiting the game and restarting to change the circumstances you are dealt by the game.
Granted I don't combat log, I don't even play in open but the concept seems the same basically. To an extent the griefer is being griefed. There are some exceptions though and I believe I covered those already with consensual PVP.
But it's not about being a pirate. That role role is covered already. It's about the person being pirated wanting to play along with that entire scenario. That's why I said I will decide what I need. I'm not going to be the pirate. So if I'm going to be pirated I would like at least to have some type of roleplay where I understand this individual who is pirating me is indeed playing this role and doing so with a code of conduct even if it doesn't match mine completely. This is why I enjoyed playing alongside the Code because even though I was destroyed a few times by them they always introduced themselves to me and asked me what I was doing there and it was up to me how I wanted to deal with that. Just saying give me your stuff makes you no better than an NPC so why should I honor anything you want?
I don't think anyone here has asked for that one hundred percent cast-iron way of never being destroyed. I'm not worried about being destroyed - I've got billions upon billions of credits to fall back on. I just want something out of the exchange other than a rebuy screen. Otherwise I do not feel in the least bit compelled to offer gameplay to a group of players who aren't offering any gameplay back.
I understand all the nuances in the ins-and-outs of pirating and being pirated - I've been playing this game for a long time. I'm telling you why most of the bubble is going to be empty in Open and why people are going to combat log against you much of the time.
Besides, I wouldn't be against a "you win" flag where the loser can limp off and lick their wounds somewhere and not actually lose their ship. This would mean you get something out of it for winning other than a moral victory. It would certainly be better than looking at a combat log empty space with a vapor trail.
A lot of the time people forget that a player attacking another player who isn't engaged with PvP is wrong.
No it isn't.
The open mode of play is explicit that pvp can happen there. Attacking another player in open is no morally different than attacking in CSgo or PUBG.
You get notoriety and bounties for attacking other ships = against the law = wrong
You get notoriety and bounties for lots of activities depending on location. For instance I have gotten bounties and powerplay points for murdering beuracrats.
However you seem to be conflating the crime and punishment system in game with the morality of humans acting.
Also those systems only apply when a system has a government.
It doesn't work nor does it even imply like it makes criminal CMDRs have any sort of "risk" compared to the more lawful and timid CMDRs
Aww, bless!
Imagine attempting to use morality and decency as a barometer of what's right or wrong within a video game.
Next you'll be telling us you care about the feelings of other people you meet in-game too.
Yes I agree it isn't a very useful system at the moment, but the fact remains that it is a crime within the game.
Sometimes.
When is it not? Doesn't it always attract a bounty/notoriety ?
The point that it's a crime isn't relevant. The fact that criminal CMDRs have virtually absolute 0 risk compared to their targets is. If you can fix that, it'll fix everything else by default. PvErs won't cry to mommy because their attackers would have much more reasons to second-guess whether or not they should risk being killed in their 600 mil FDL without rebuy, and thus has more reason to actually play in open with the new "pillow armor" that the new gameplay loop would provide. Also gankers for the sake of ganking and/or griefing would eventually quit due to the fact that they can't afford rebuy anymore lmao. So they'll have to slow it down some and let non-violent CMDRs get to have fun in this game too
(The above is said with the assumption that such an idea allows skilled criminal CMDRs be able to not face such penalties when they pull off that dazzling LTD heist or when they blockade a system for whatever reason. As it stands, it feels like being a criminal is something that even a braindead chimp can do in his sleep, while lawful CMDRs are demanded way more skill, experience in-game and out of game meta knowledge just to not end up losing more credits than he's earning.)
Last edited:
Well attacking other ships NPC or players IS a crime in most jurisdictions inside game. More robust C&P would be welcome. (At least from viewpoint of lawful CMDR )
)Yes I agree.
If you attack in a star system with a government and if the person you attack is not wanted and if they are not an enemy of your powerplay patron, and are not in a combat zone. Then there is a bounty.
Anarchy system, all bets are off.
And I would not be against robust C&P even for crimes against NPC's it would affect players accross the modes.
That's is encouraging, there is at least a degree of context.