Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Hole in Head]

You are not making a good case really, because you are actually showing what team gameplay is possible if this ever happened. Pirates would love working in gangs, just as bounty hunters against them (paid for by the traders).

Yup, if that were the case, that's a great example of PvP gameplay that people would love if the game design facilitated it more.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But the outcome (logging) favours the person being robbed because they get to keep what they are transporting.

It's collateral damage to the necessity for the inclusion of menu exit, i.e. "some players".

If you want something to be fair you can't have rules for NPCs and not players, especially since the BGS and Powerplay is player driven.

PvP inherently favours the attacker - as they would be daft to select a hard target - and the target hasn't a choice as to whether they are targeted or not - define "fair in that context....

And of course rules can be different for NPCs and players. BGS and Powerplay are PvE driven with entirely optional PvP for those who wish to partake (if they can find someone to engage).

It attracts and informs players as to what the experience is and what to expect. I wonder how an honest blurb would be?

"Friendly fire is always on, but it has no consequences as you can simply opt out of danger".

That's for marketing to decide.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You are not making a good case really, because you are actually showing what team gameplay is possible if this ever happened. Pirates would love working in gangs, just as bounty hunters against them (paid for by the traders).

Not really - just pointing out that only one of the attackers requires to compromise their build.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yup, if that were the case, that's a great example of PvP gameplay that people would love if the game design facilitated it more.

Find some players who enjoy playing as one of "the herd" and have at it. No one can be forced to participate in that though.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So you would be quite happy to destroy my game mode? I actually like (a lot) to meet players and have the excitement of possible dangerous encounters and without that danger it wouldn't be the same, but I would only engage in PvP when there is a roleplay reason for it, including but not only PvP piracy. So you are now part of the 'force other people to play the game how I want it' club.

Those calling for Open only anything don't seem to care whether such a change would ruin the game for players who eschew PvP - they're only focused on what they want - so why should those who eschew PvP consider the desires of those players?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Assuming you're in a wing. Same could be said about the cargo runners. If they want to run a hyper specialized ship to maximize cargo, they can be winged up with people to run interference to stop attackers before they can get interdicted.

Not everyone plays at set times to play with trustworthy wing mates - which applies to both sides, of course.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's collateral damage to the necessity for the inclusion of menu exit, i.e. "some players".

And what about people not carrying anything or have missions running? Or parking somewhere safe, or in an empty instance?

PvP inherently favours the attacker - as they would be daft to select a hard target - and the target hasn't a choice as to whether they are targeted or not - define "fair in that context....

If you are carrying 10K merits in Open Powerplay, and I interdict you and you pull the plug, how is that fair? That 10K could change the outcome for that week.

And of course rules can be different for NPCs and players. BGS and Powerplay are PvE driven with entirely optional PvP for those who wish to partake (if they can find someone to engage).

We are back to the argument that PvP has to be meaningful again. If I catch you with merits, or you catch me, its not acceptable that either one of us can escape via the menu and 'win'. Thats not meaningful at all.

That's for marketing to decide.

Well lets hope they decide sooner rather than later before more people get the wrong idea.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Not really - just pointing out that only one of the attackers requires to compromise their build.

And at the same time the person feeding money can bankroll bounty hunters as wingmen- and that for pirates to be effective they need to work as teams. It means lone pirates have to do all the heavy lifting- and as you say:

Not everyone plays at set times to play with trustworthy wing mates.

So it can't be both ways.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And what about people not carrying anything or have missions running? Or parking somewhere safe, or in an empty instance?

It doesn't suffer those sort of limitations - as, if it did, players could be kept in the game indefinitely by those inclined to do so....

If you are carrying 10K merits in Open Powerplay, and I interdict you and you pull the plug, how is that fair? That 10K could change the outcome for that week.

How do you know how many merits a target is carrying? Is it shown on a scan?

We are back to the argument that PvP has to be meaningful again. If I catch you with merits, or you catch me, its not acceptable that either one of us can escape via the menu and 'win'. Thats not meaningful at all.

Some may want it to be meaningful - for others it's a tedious waste of game time.

Well lets hope they decide sooner rather than later before more people get the wrong idea.

People have been getting the wrong idea since the design was published - and have been trying to get Frontier to change it for over seven years.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And at the same time the person feeding money can bankroll bounty hunters as wingmen- and that for pirates to be effective they need to work as teams. It means lone pirates have to do all the heavy lifting- and as you say:

Depends on how they earn their credits - they may not need wingmen where and how they do it.

So it can't be both ways.

Already updated to acknowledge that.

 

[soloe]

Fair enough. Most properly built ships can flee.

But a new player in a non engineered ship is toast.

And anyone in a ship optimized for exploration or maximum cargo, or cheap modules is probably toast, too.

The point stands, a ship built for combat has a massive advantage, and can force other ships to do something they're not fit for.

That's as fair as forcing a PvP fit ship to mine 100 tons of cargo, or fly 1000ly, or haul 300 tons 100ly.

Shouldn't it be quite obvious that a ship optimized for combat will outmatch a ship optimized for exploration in a fight? I don't think that is a problem. Loosing exploration data from a long trip sucks - I can sympathize with any explorer loosing a ship after a long trip be it by accident or to an attack. However: the explorer knowingly took a risk by min maxing a ship solely for jumprange and obviously made a mistake if he lost his ship in an accident or by choosing a dangerous destination to sell data if he lost his ship to an attack.

The danger for an explorer to loose his ship in open is nearly nonexistent if he's not planning to drop the data in either shin or deciat. ;-)

The miner and the trader also traded safety for profit, and will not loose nearly as much as the explorer. Imo he can afford to pay for his mistake. My mining ship for example has 256t of cargo and is a tough nut to crack. I'll need more runs than a build maxed out for cargo, but I'll most likely will deliver the load to the max buying system without being blown up.

I'd like to add that I don't find 'ganking' to be a very interesting gamestyle. It does add spice to open for me though and I wont judge anyone having fun doing it. In open everything goes and this has to be accepted by a player clicking that button, just the same as I do accept that bgs and pp can be influenced by solo and pg players. Im fine with both personally.

 

[SMcA]

"Open" is a dumb name for the mode. It should have been called "Dangerous".

Dangerous(Open)/Private Group/Safe(Solo). It should be very clear to new players that the highest form of in-game danger is another player.

The more I think of it. The more I think it would be a good and low tech idea. That and ensuring that the myth of Open is the only way you can be a real man (or woman if anyone wants to claim the distinction ).

 

[Rubbernuke]

It doesn't suffer those sort of limitations - as, if it did, players could be kept in the game indefinitely by those inclined to do so....

Would it? It means that if you are minding your own business you can do what you like, while if you are engaged in features that have knock on consequences you can't. Its fair to both parties and respects the feature you are engaged in.

How do you know how many merits a target is carrying? Is it shown on a scan?

You can't see combat merits directly AFAIK (you know any UM from station reports) but you can see cargo such as fort or prep materials, as well as bounties (which are a byproduct of UM). Its why if you see someone in an expansion, preparation or your own territory you need to eliminate them. But in my example its irrelevant because you'd be able to menu log if clean.

Some may want it to be meaningful - for others it's a tedious waste of game time.

But the point still stands- missions, cargo, merits, they all have consequences outside of that interaction.

People have been getting the wrong idea since the design was published - and have been trying to get Frontier to change it for over seven years.

Its either meaningful and has an impact or its just fluff- and that has to be communicated clearly.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Depends on how they earn their credits - they may not need wingmen where and how they do it.

But it automatically gives wealthy traders an advantage while griefers have to find someone willing to pay the bills, stay still for them and drain them of money.

 

[Deleted member 121570]

Dangerous(Open)/Private Group/Safe(Solo). It should be very clear to new players that the highest form of in-game danger is another player.

Or just....mostly safe / safer / safe-ish.
The highest form of in-game danger isn't another player. I reckon more people die trying to land on stations and planets than are killed by other players.
Players are trivial to avoid, so they're just not dangerous.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Those calling for Open only anything don't seem to care whether such a change would ruin the game for players who eschew PvP - they're only focused on what they want - so why should those who eschew PvP consider the desires of those players?

I can hardly believe what i’m reading to be perfectly frank. YOU ALREADY HAVE PG man! Why write thousand of posts that consistently stonewall any reasonable discourse about open mode, what is your problem? You’re the one who wants to force players into cotton wool mode to suit your play style, not the other way round, and you’re obviously willing to spend an awful lot of time on the forums to achieve your aim. Get a life.
I very rarely treat other people on forums this way, but don’t worry, you won’t hear from me again.

 

[Havvk]

I can hardly believe what i’m reading to be perfectly frank. YOU ALREADY HAVE PG man! Why write thousand of posts that consistently stonewall any reasonable discourse about open mode, what is your problem? You’re the one who wants to force players into cotton wool mode to suit your play style, not the other way round, and you’re obviously willing to spend an awful lot of time on the forums to achieve your aim. Get a life.
I very rarely treat other people on forums this way, but don’t worry, you won’t hear from me again.

Let me put it in a way you can understand.


Some people like open to meet strangers for friendship purposes, not to go hamper somebody else's game just because you think it's the "proper way to play the game". And from experience, that "some" is more like a majority. I know playing in open means the potential for PvP. I get it, but that is not the issue most of us have. The issue is that all these "Anti pve" threads are thinly veiled excuses for basically saying "F- you if you don't play the way I demand you to play. You better spec all your ships as if you're getting ready for WAR or else I will blow you up for being weak bla bla bla"

That's like me telling you, that if you're not flying with a fuel scoop, at least 1 cargo rack and the biggest Guardian FSD booster you can fit, then you don't know how to fly and you deserve to get blown up because I said so.

 

[Havvk]

'Many' is not 'all'- its a case of providing a broad amount of features that appeal to as many people as possible. You have 1:1 CQC, the main game for general play, BGS for multi mode tasks which leaves Powerplay caught in limbo- what is it for? Its a five year old dinosaur in the space age that needs a purpose.

What you just said smells like word salad. So vanilla, brah

 

[Robert Maynard]

Would it? It means that if you are minding your own business you can do what you like, while if you are engaged in features that have knock on consequences you can't. Its fair to both parties and respects the feature you are engaged in.

It would, obviously - unless the player chose to self destruct, of course.

Pretty much any action a player carries out has an effect on the BGS - so what this is effectively saying is "unless you're doing nothing, you can be trapped in an instance". Given the attacker can't see missions held by the player, bounties, combat bonds, etc. (and many don't bother to fit a cargo or kill warrant scanner), the attacker likely has no proof of what the target is really doing.

You can't see combat merits directly AFAIK (you know any UM from station reports) but you can see cargo such as fort or prep materials, as well as bounties (which are a byproduct of UM). Its why if you see someone in an expansion, preparation or your own territory you need to eliminate them. But in my example its irrelevant because you'd be able to menu log if clean.

The game doesn't make that distinction - no matter how much some may like it to.

But the point still stands- missions, cargo, merits, they all have consequences outside of that interaction.

.... and bounties, exploration data, combat bonds, etc.. Pretty much anything that the player can carry in their ship has some consequence for the BGS.

Its either meaningful and has an impact or its just fluff- and that has to be communicated clearly.

It's marketing - and has no control over the game itself.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

You have Roberts attitude: assume that a certain group has a certain unreasonable stance, then take the opposite stance. Nothing is left to say.