Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Robert Maynard]

If the intent was being able to rescind one's consent at any time, then combat logging wouldn't be prohibited, there would be no point to such a prohibition. At anytime strongly implies instantly, not after 15 seconds, and not until someone re-instances. The game is sending very mixed signals here.

Quite - hence the delay and instance change requirements.

None of that is in dispute or of any relevance to what I wrote.

I'm saying that your proposed PvP flag, if implemented in Open, would remove essentially all PvP, even the overwhelming bulk of consensual PvP, by making use of a PvP flag a liability for anyone not engaged in a carefully curated match, or the interdiction ship of a troll wing.

Presumably players seeking consensual PvP would flag themselves for PvP.

 

[Morbad]

Presumably players seeking consensual PvP would flag themselves for PvP.

Which is a silly assumption, as is the assumption that one has to be 'seeking' anything to be accepting of it, or to find it enjoyable.

I'm seeking PvP maybe 5% of the time I'm playing, possibly less. I am always in a state of consent to PvP encounters (I consider it an implication of the Open mode and I don't use other modes, if I can avoid it, for any purpose). Find my CMDR while I'm away from my controls taking a dump and his shieldless DBX is parked on some planet somewhere? I'm consenting to PvP and/or anything else that could possibly occur within the rules of the game. Someone destroys his ship in such a scenario, I'll applaud the player's ability to find it, and probably be pleasantly surprised to the point of elation (it's one of the few things that's never happened to my CMDR before)...then my CMDR will seek violent retribution.

I am not going to advertise my CMDR's presence, or try to attract excess attention by flagging him for something, but I don't want to discourage it either, at least not via anything other than actual gameplay. My CMDR is often actively avoiding hostile encounters, sneaking in and out of starports, dodging CMDR interdictions, trying to get lost in a crowd, but that's part of PvP. This flag mechanism has zero in-setting context, and shouldn't part of my experience. No matter which way it could be set, it would harm my gameplay.

 

[A C Ender]

Taking @Screemonster 's proposal for a PvP-flag that would disable the ability for an attacker to destroy a ship duly flagged - then running with it - I propose the following to further the discussion:

That a flag indicating ones preference for PvP is implemented (preference only, it doesn't stop PvP);
1) If flagged for PvP:

a) the player loses the ability to use menu exit while undocked and instanced with another player;​

b) tracking "lost connection" count and frequency while in-danger due to player combat and instanced with players with a view to inflicting the player with a rebuy if the lost connection count exceeds a threshold in a time period;​

c) possible change to the block feature to only block communications for players that the player has blocked. Would not affect blocks by other players themselves flagged;​

2) If not flagged for PvP:

a) the player's ship can still be interdicted and attacked, but not destroyed, by another player;​

b) the player loses the ability to interdict other players (to stop "annoyance interdictions" of players by unflagged players who can't be destroyed);.​

The flag status of each player could be displayed on the HUD scanner using a hollow marker other than square or triangle or possibly by placing a dot in the centre of the hollow marker.

The Wing feature would reasonably be changed to only permit wing members with the same flag setting with auto-booting for players who change their flag while winged.

Changing flag state would reasonably require the player to log out of the game entirely.

Why not have the PvP flag be the hollow squares/triangles we got now, and those not flagged will be indistinguishable from NPC on the radar?

On the topics of bounties; I think a galaxy wide player bounty board could work by updating whenever you get scanned. At any station, you could access the bounty board which would contain information on your last known location, size of bounty, and last time scanned. The size of your player bounty would only reset when killed by another player.

To foster both criminal players and bounty hunters, it could be that notorious player bounties could only be claimed by those without notoriety, and that the black market would offer rewards to notorious people to kill bounty hunters. Bounty hunter locations and bounties would also be shown in the same way on any station with a black market.

 

[MadSinUN]

What if we actually introduce a "license to kill"? If the player wants to kill, then he buys a license and kills, but then he is blocked from switching to another mode if there is another cmdr nearby (for example, in one system). It is not possible to block other players. And for the head of such a player, you can assign a reward. In all other cases, this will be an "open PvE".What do you think?

 

[MadSinUN]

On the topics of bounties; I think a galaxy wide player bounty board could work by updating whenever you get scanned. At any station, you could access the bounty board which would contain information on your last known location, size of bounty, and last time scanned. The size of your player bounty would only reset when killed by another player.

This is a good option. Station security services could record information about the stay of a player for whom there is a reward and hunters could track their targets. And the bandits would have to avoid scanning when they docked. Or use stations in Anarchy or low security systems

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why not have the PvP flag be the hollow squares/triangles we got now, and those not flagged will be indistinguishable from NPC on the radar?

It is possible that some players who flag themselves for PvP would not want to inadvertently attack a player who was unflagged for PvP - so making them indistinguishable from NPCs would make discerning the difference more challenging (but not impossible, of course).

It would also give players so inclined "plausible deniability" in that they could claim that their target was not obviously a player and they were attempting to attack an NPC.

On the topics of bounties; I think a galaxy wide player bounty board could work by updating whenever you get scanned. At any station, you could access the bounty board which would contain information on your last known location, size of bounty, and last time scanned. The size of your player bounty would only reset when killed by another player.

To foster both criminal players and bounty hunters, it could be that notorious player bounties could only be claimed by those without notoriety, and that the black market would offer rewards to notorious people to kill bounty hunters. Bounty hunter locations and bounties would also be shown in the same way on any station with a black market.

Nav beacons could also report on wanted players entering populated systems.

 

[Rubbernuke]

As implemented, consent, even in Open, can be removed at any time and the player may leave. Hence all player interactions are ultimately optional - which is not that surprising given that players themselves are an optional extra in this game.

If not being able to force an unwilling player to remain in an interaction to its conclusion means that it is pointless then pointless it is - noting that it's Frontier's choice not to force interactions and also that some players are willing to continue interactions to a conclusion, offering them presumably meaningful encounters with likeminded players.

Mind you, playing games can be considered to be a waste of ones time - and can therefore be argued to be pointless.

Then Open can't be considered dangerous at all, and that no action is meaningful.

all player interactions are ultimately optional

I'd like FD to actually put that on the adverts, and see how it goes down.

If not being able to force an unwilling player to remain in an interaction to its conclusion means that it is pointless then pointless it is - noting that it's Frontier's choice not to force interactions and also that some players are willing to continue interactions to a conclusion, offering them presumably meaningful encounters with likeminded players.

Which is silly if you have modes that do that already- eroding what Open mode is about, and wasting time for those players who actually care.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Then Open can't be considered dangerous at all, and that no action is meaningful.

It's a video game played for "fun" in the comfort and safety of our preferred gaming environment - with an immortal space pixie as an avatar and an unlimited supply of free ships - it's not "dangerous".

I'd like FD to actually put that on the adverts, and see how it goes down.

It'd be interesting to see.

Which is silly if you have modes that do that already- eroding what Open mode is about, and wasting time for those players who actually care.

What is Open about, given its implementation?

.... and players who attack players don't seem to care whether they are wasting their target's time.

 

[A C Ender]

It is possible that some players who flag themselves for PvP would not want to inadvertently attack a player who was unflagged for PvP - so making them indistinguishable from NPCs would make discerning the difference more challenging (but not impossible, of course).

It would also give players so inclined "plausible deniability" in that they could claim that their target was not obviously a player and they were attempting to attack an NPC.

Nav beacons could also report on wanted players entering populated systems.

That's true, but it would also allow you to hide in the crowd. I see the potential problem however.

Regarding bounties and nav beacons, would that scan happen automatically as you enter a system? As you scan it? Would it depend on security level?

I think it makes a more interesting gameplay loop if it's possible to hide from scans. If for example scanning a nav beacon yourself also revealed you, that could make for interesting choices for both lawless hunting for bounty hunter, and bounty hunters looking for lawless. The time since last scan would also be an indication for where you might find an individual.

With avoiding scans right now being quite easy, it might be a good idea to increase frequency of scans in high sec systems etc.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Some of these options are tools that enable negative quite a bit of negative behavior/encounters.

Every time I encounter a different instance than I otherwise would because of a block (especially if it does not target my CMDR), even if I'm not aware of the problem or it's source, it's an encounter with a 'negative type'. Everytime someone interferes with what my CMDR is doing, and then uses their ability to switch modes at will to avoid retaliation or detection while repositioning for another attack, it's an encounter with a 'negative type'.

Right. So perhaps you also need to complain about people who play on different platforms. People who don't pay the MS/Sony tax and are forced into solo. And of course, people who play at a different time from when you are online. Perhaps you need to petition FD to restrict play times to when you are online!

 

[A C Ender]

.... and players who attack players don't seem to care whether they are wasting their target's time.

Players aren't doing anything I haven't been subjected to by NPC's since day 1. They're just better at it. I don't consider it time waste when it's virtually identical to core gameplay.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Players aren't doing anything I haven't been subjected to by NPC's since day 1. They're just better at it. I don't consider it time waste when it's virtually identical to core gameplay.

Some players don't mind the interruption, of course.

 

[MadSinUN]

I'd like FD to actually put that on the adverts, and see how it goes down.

I would also very much like to see it. +1

 

[Misty_Dark]

I have read pretty most of this thread, and can honestly say that I have absolutly no interest in PvP. Had there only been an Open Play I would not have puchased it.

What would be really interesting is to find out the actual number of those who play in Open Play and those who just play in Solo and PG. I would edge a bet that the latter has more. Then ask the question why so many don't play in open.

The lack of popularity in Open as far as I can see is that nobody will play a game whereby they are constantly being killed by a more advanced player with a fully engineered combat ship before even getting the chance to build up the engineering on their own ships. This is what is happening in the game of Open Play where there are gankers in every system that has an engineer.

Also with Player interdictions is near impossible to evade and this is solely on FDev's shoulders. The interdiction should be a case of "I want to PvP" and evading is "I do not want to PvP" and make it exactly the same is an NPC interdiction. Then you will eliminate the ganking and create a fight that both players consent to and it will also give the lower ranked combat pilots a chance to escape. Heck it may even have positive consequences (but hey I am a dreamer).

I will say there are many game styles in ED and it is what makes it so enjoyable and diverse and most of the players I have come across are actually respectful players and recognise one gamestyle is not better than an other as this is down to personal preference.

Frontier have said in a livestream that the majority of players played in Open, but not everyone, and they also says that a significant portion plays in either solo and private group...

Now, combine this with another statement that Frontier made a while ago. which said something along the lines of, that only a small portion of the player base have engaged in PvP!


So no big surprise, Frontier knows how large each player base is, and what activities are engaged with and what the most popular activities is, and I am pretty sure, that Frontier, knows how many players that get killed by gankers... and sadly, the lack of changes to this situation, leads me to believe that these numbers are low, and we have seen when Frontier ACTED on ganking.. when gankers crashed the Distant Worlds 2 expedition... here they reimburshed ganked players their losses, including lost exploration data.

So for most part, it is about reducing risks for most players, they have heard the stories, and all that, seen the stupid reasons for why people say they gank, like AI to predictable, so of course we target players in weak ships that for most part have limited combat skills, and if they have any, it is aginst NPC's... does not sound like these are any more challenging...

 

[Morbad]

Right. So perhaps you also need to complain about people who play on different platforms. People who don't pay the MS/Sony tax and are forced into solo. And of course, people who play at a different time from when you are online. Perhaps you need to petition FD to restrict play times to when you are online!

I don't have a problem with any of these things, nor do I see how you'd come to the conclusion that I would from my post.

The players that are playing on other platforms, who use the modes as intended, or who are on at different times aren't imposing their instancing filters on me, nor are they abusing game mechanisms with the intent of interfering with my experience.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Regarding bounties and nav beacons, would that scan happen automatically as you enter a system? As you scan it? Would it depend on security level?

I think it makes a more interesting gameplay loop if it's possible to hide from scans. If for example scanning a nav beacon yourself also revealed you, that could make for interesting choices for both lawless hunting for bounty hunter, and bounty hunters looking for lawless. The time since last scan would also be an indication for where you might find an individual.

With avoiding scans right now being quite easy, it might be a good idea to increase frequency of scans in high sec systems etc.

Maybe only if the CMDR dropped into normal space in range of the Nav Beacon?

Higher security level systems could have a higher chance of security vessels patrolling the system arrival zone.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I don't have a problem with any of these things, nor do I see how you'd come to the conclusion that I would from my post.

The players that are playing on other platforms, who use the modes as intended, or who are on at different times aren't imposing their instancing filters on me, nor are they abusing game mechanisms with the intent of interfering with my experience.

Then excuse me, because what i got from your post is you had a problem with people working the BGS when you could not oppose them directly.

I must have not understood what you meant by abusing game mechanisms.

Actually, i'm still not sure what you mean by abusing game mechanisms. How does one do that exactly? Surely you don't mean the block function, which is there to block people you do not want to play with.

(Disclaimer: I'm currently 3 sheets to the wind, 4th coming up soon, so apologies if this is more confrontational than i wanted it to be. Celebrating).

 

[Oddy-B]

Frontier have said in a livestream that the majority of players played in Open, but not everyone, and they also says that a significant portion plays in either solo and private group...

Now, combine this with another statement that Frontier made a while ago. which said something along the lines of, that only a small portion of the player base have engaged in PvP!


So no big surprise, Frontier knows how large each player base is, and what activities are engaged with and what the most popular activities is, and I am pretty sure, that Frontier, knows how many players that get killed by gankers... and sadly, the lack of changes to this situation, leads me to believe that these numbers are low, and we have seen when Frontier ACTED on ganking.. when gankers crashed the Distant Worlds 2 expedition... here they reimburshed ganked players their losses, including lost exploration data.

So for most part, it is about reducing risks for most players, they have heard the stories, and all that, seen the stupid reasons for why people say they gank, like AI to predictable, so of course we target players in weak ships that for most part have limited combat skills, and if they have any, it is aginst NPC's... does not sound like these are any more challenging...

Once again a post of a livestream that is two years old, and I stated previously two year old data does not reflect what is going on wihtin the game today. Also, if you read all of my post this was not the point I was making yet, it seems as usual a on the forums here there are those that look for nitpicking. I did not say that most players play in pg/solo I said that as of NOW "I would edge a bet that most do".

The point of my post was to highlight one problem with the way Player Interdictions occur with respect to NPC interdictions and how simply making Player Interdictions easier to escape by bringing them inline with NPC interdictions would make Open Play a more favourable place for most to play. As it stands a player interdiction gives little chance for the pilots being interdicted.

 

[MadSinUN]

Robert, please tell me the most important thing. If we suddenly find some super solution to this problem will there be a chance that this will be implemented or will everything remain at the level of "forum debates"?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Robert, please tell me the most important thing. If we suddenly find some super solution to this problem will there be a chance that this will be implemented or will everything remain at the level of "forum debates"?

As ever, and at the risk of stating the obvious, that's up to Frontier.