It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.

[PeLucheuh]

DW2 has reintroduced the argument of PVE Open to the forums in a big way.
FDEV seems unwilling or unable to embrace a PVE Open server.

It has never been an argument though. Open mode is already an Open PvE mode but is not restricted to it. If you don't like FDev's rules & mechanics of Open, they provided options to restrict game possibilities by creating Open access player groups or Private groups where the moderator of said group is able to set and enforce specific restrictive player's rule.

So the PVE community is stuck with the Private Group solution, with the overflow being grist for the mill in Open.

No they are not, you can PvE in Open.

One of the core features of a collaborative PVE experience is that it shared between players with similar goals and expectations.

Same goes for collaborative PvP experience. They are not exlusive to each other.

PG population caps, related instancing restrictions, and being pk targets all reduce the basic biochemical reward for positive social interaction that is a reasonable expectation of an MMO experience.

You can't eat your cake and have it to.

PVP players are simply playing within the rules outlined by FDEV when they attack any other player within Open instances.

Indeed they are. All players are equally playing within the rules outlined by FDev. That's FRONTIER's game after all.

The PVP players are NOT the reason that PVE players are restricted from a collaborative positve social experience.
The game design has established these conditions.

Nobody is retricted from collaborative positive social experience by the game design. It is on people and their mindset.
If anything, the game design offers possibilities and multiple choices in order to get a specific and restricted social experience.

Currently, the consequences for PVP character death represent an insurance rebuy, loss of all exploration data, loss of cargo, loss of all missions, loss of all bounties, loss of all combat bonds, and a reset of your ship to the last station visited.

Consequences for PvE character death are exactly the same. Note : with 3.0 C&P, consequences for PvP character death can be lower (see the "Notoriety and murder section" on this link )

It is fair to say that the threat of character death at the hands of NPCs or pilot error is VASTLY LOWER than the threat of character death by an actual PVP player.
The consequences of charater death seem appropriately punishing given the minimal threat in solo or PG.

Hello ATR / Thargoids / engineered NPCs. Anyway it is more complex than that and mostly depends on the player capacity to acknowledge, understand and adapt to its environment.

So the calculation a player must make is:
[snipe...]

The calculation a player should do : Does the rules and mechanics of this game fit my personal expectations and desires ? If no, do i have options ?

My plea to FDEV is that they reconsider the heavy handed rebuy and character losses for PVP deaths.
It is probably too late to develop a PVE Open offering, but it is certainly not too late to reduce the costs of PVP death.

Already debunked.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What’s still missed and/or glossed over is that PvP is not optional when it is inflicted by another. I count myself among those who do not enjoy PvP. I find it tedious and boring. Which is one of a number of reasons there has been such an outcry for an Open PvE, though I realize the technical difficulties involved here.

There really isn’t a viable solution, as the PG limits and difficulties in managing and maintaining and enforcing whatever rules might be established for PG’s are demanding and nearly impossible to manage and enforce.

iI stay out of Open though for different reasons, namely performance. I suspect an Open PvE environment would suffer the same way, and I’d Avoid it as well.

Once a player has initiated the encounter, no - it's happening (although, we are often assured that it is completely escapable, with one simple trick - YMMV) whether one wants it or not.

Predictable in outcome, tedious and repetitively boring are also terms that I'd use to describe PvP combat - I've been at the receiving end of it often enough to arrive at that conclusion.

DBOBE commented on the difficulty of eradicating all possible PvP actions to make a PvE mode - it would not be a trivial task - and probably fruitless as some players would no doubt find innovative ways to inconvenience other players (even if they could not destroy them directly).

I'd prefer to see some optional rules for Private Groups, e.g.:

• Disable player / player interdiction? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake following? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake dropping? [yes/no]
• Kick player on attacking another player (also kick from game temporarily to force an instance change)? [yes/no]
• Kick player on destroying another player (also kick from game temporarily to force an instance change)? [yes/no]

 

[Eidolon]

The Pilots Federation who pay our insurance at 95% of the total value of our ships, should stop paying it for killing of other PF members.
That's 100% rebuy value to PK'er's plus bounties naturally.

Or we could just have that Open PvE mode we have been asking for since before release

 

[Robert Maynard]

In a game that was once advertised as a game that allowed you to "just hunt other commanders", it has become quite unpleasant.

It was an interesting development when that particular phrase was removed from the advertising in the recent revamp.

 

[voidwalker]

I would be totally fine with a buff to npcs. I really like the changes to the new assassination missions, CZs and scenarios.

I'm not asking for a PVE OPEN.

I'm asking for a reduction in penalties in OPEN PVP PKs so that players can enjoy social interaction that nearly every other mmo offers.

It's a big population of players. If you're suggesting the very young, very old, physically impaired, or simply soft players should not have access to social interaction within its framework, that's not healthy for the game in my opinion.

I was replying to someone who was asking for PVE open. I haven't decided how I feel about your idea, but as an EVE Online player, I know loss is something you get used to, and I also agree entirely with Morbad. Let me explain what you're meant to do. You're meant to spend some time in small, cheap ships, that are cheap to lose. You learn the ropes in that stuff, and here's the thing about learning: you learn more when you lose something in an encounter, PVE or PVP, than you do if you're winning and doing everything right, because if you're already winning, what is there to learn anyway? Anyway, once you're confident you've learned enough to take a risk in something bigger and more expensive, then you start upgrading.

No one in EVE starts out in battleships. We start in frigates. Small, fast, and in a group, can easily swarm and kill a battleship. Hell, by the time I was done with EVE, after a decade of playing, I was solo'ing battleships in frigates. Lots of fun, but I digress, the point is, EVE does progression right, by limiting access to big ships via the skill training system. Well... it used to, until skill injectors. They're part of the reason I left the game, it's becoming pay-to-win trash. Very disappointing.

Here's my idea: licenses. First of all, get rid of ALL federal and imperial navy requirements for ships. Then, add licensing. And here's how it works. You take the rank system (Harmless > Elite) and you break it up even more into ship size. So, someone might have Combat Elite in small ships, but only Combat Master in mediums. Trader Elite in mediums, Trader Broker in larges, etc etc. Same for exploration. Now, what happens is, in order to be able to acquire ships of a larger size, you need to get a license. To get mediums, you just need to achieve Competent (combat), Dealer (trade), or Surveyor (exploration) in small ships first. Then, to get large ships, go a little higher, and require players to achieve Master, Broker, or Pathfinder. This creates a progression system that results in players spending more time in smaller ships, and learning more things about the game, before they upgrade using the money they got from whatever credit exploit they used to acquire it. These ranks aren't incredibly hard to achieve, and they become even easier to get to the bigger your ship gets, that's why I suggest higher ranks to go from medium to large. But it would certainly take longer than the two weeks a lot of players seem to be spending to go from Sidewinder to Anaconda, and in some cases, even quicker, learning nothing along the way and losing really big expensive stuff because they have no idea what they're doing, no understanding of the risks involved, and no concept of risk mitigation in this game.

Right now, being Elite means nothing. It's just a label you earn when you've shot enough NPCs, sold enough void opals, or honked enough star systems. PVP only has meaning because of the potential for a hurtful loss. A while back, I lost an Anaconda in PVP with something like a 30+ million rebuy. Do you know why it doesn't bother me? It's because of my experience losing stuff in EVE. Most people haven't played EVE, and haven't learned to lose stuff with grace and dignity, nor have they learned how to learn from that loss. This is what we should be encouraging, rather than offering to hold their hands and wipe their noses of any potential responsibility they have for the choice to fly in open and risk their ship, however valuable it is, to the PVP that they have consented to by virtue of playing in open.

 

[Zaphod Hawke]

It was an interesting development when that particular phrase was removed from the advertising in the recent revamp.

We noticed. And we are not amused.

Frankly, I've been planning my exit for a long time.

Already executed it, in fact. Deleted my character even.

But it was restored without me even having to ask.

Say what you will about the game, but FDEV support is top notch.

 

[voidwalker]

True. This is why we need Open-PvE mode.

No, that's why you WANT an open PVE mode. There is a significant distinction there. In any case, I'm happy for you to have an open PVE mode. With concessions, of course.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Say what you will about the game, but FDEV support is top notch.

While opinions certainly vary on the game, Customer Support is indeed top notch.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

We noticed. And we are not amused.

Frankly, I've been planning my exit for a long time.

Already executed it, in fact. Deleted my character even.

But it was restored without me even having to ask.

Say what you will about the game, but FDEV support is top notch.

Damn you could have taken this CMDR rebuy and start from scratch in a sidey like a man...

Kids these days.

 

[Sooden]

The real reason for no PvE option is, Fdev loves to watch gank videos in their down time but...

As much as i hate the idea that people can manipulate the BGS in solo and PG, an PvE options wont make it any worse so.

In open as we have it now, we have people expecting different things from the game. Some are in it for PvP, some to get Salt, and some to meat meet people, more like a social chat room.... all fair, well maybe apart from the salt mining, but we cant all be as wonderful as me

When it comes to games where you have the ability to role play and the ability to kill.. you get predators and victims. The issue is, one type of player as chosen to play that way and the other has not (In a game like PUBG, all players know they are there to kill, no one is role playing, no one is an unwitting victim).

I understand the 'anger' of Gankers that feel they need to teach care-bears a lesson, show them what the game is really about (watch hours of it now, some dark minds out there) but they are picking on unwitting targets, people that are not able to fight back.. it's an easy kill for kicks.

Not really what the game is about (its not an e sport,competitive league game - its a sandbox).. it's not meant to be a tool for some people with real world needs to get their rocks off. Example being, joining multi crew and attacking your mother ship. These people aren't here for contest, but the very real endorphin hit they get some upsetting other players. They are in the game to upset, that's their goal.

i can see how having an PvE option would hurt such people... as they would only be engaging with targets who are willing to play a riskier game (open).... there will be so much less salt and upset player (apart from ganklers not getting thier reaction videos /posts)

Many games have this issue, but from the few i've played, there has always been an PvE option.

Now before you think i'm a care-bare.. far from it. I love the Pve option because i want to be sure that the people i'm fighting are their in agreement (i know, people say that's what open its, but here we are again). It reduces the mistake of 'nice' players hanging around to talk to someone that turns up, instead of just jumping out of there , if they are at risk. (because, it becomes, you have to fear all players, sure that may be how some think it should be, but some are not here for that)

an PvE mode would clear up why people are in the game... I don't wanna blow up someone that thinks the game is all roses... some may say they deserve it, but i'm not hear to make people upset in a game ><

 

[Chaparral]

All you're doing is keep repeating the same thing over and over, without substanciating your claims, without actually answering or addressing the points made.

So this is the last time I ask this:

1) why would Frontier want to slow down your progress when they have otherwise made every effort to speed it up to crazy rates (no money sinks to speak of, activities that pay several times over your rebuy's worth in about one hour) and when it would actually hurt their recurring paintjob sales?

2) if we established in 1) that Frontier is indeed trying to slow you down, why would they rely on the unlikely scenario of PvP death, which targets only a portion of the playerbase (the portion that wants social interactions in Open, you see in this very thread not everybody is interested in that), when they could be either adjusting your rate of progress at the source (that is reducing the payouts -even though they have done the opposite for the past 4 years) or making the environment more dangerous, and therefore be reaching the whole playerbase?

What is it exactly about PVE players in Open that makes them such a target for Frontier in your mind?

1) why would Frontier want to slow down your progress when they have otherwise made every effort to speed it up to crazy rates (no money sinks to speak of, activities that pay several times over your rebuy's worth in about one hour) and when it would actually hurt their recurring paintjob sales?

I completely agree that FDEV has made enormous jumps in reducing grind. It is clear they have responded to criticisms about credits, mats, rep, etc. to improve the playability of the game. I would cite this as hopeful evidence that they would respond with a change in the consequences of pvp death. Though I am loathe to cite the Steam numbers because that introduces a whole number of peripheral arguments, it is clear the current state of the game is well received by large numbers of players. In my opinion, the death penalties for pvp are consistent with the old grindy model, and not with the new progression focused model.

2) if we established in 1) that Frontier is indeed trying to slow you down, why would they rely on the unlikely scenario of PvP death, which targets only a portion of the playerbase (the portion that wants social interactions in Open, you see in this very thread not everybody is interested in that), when they could be either adjusting your rate of progress at the source (that is reducing the payouts -even though they have done the opposite for the past 4 years) or making the environment more dangerous, and therefore be reaching the whole playerbase?

Let me see if I can steel man your argument here. "There are better tools to slow progress than pvp death penalties." Yes. I agree.

PVP death penalties are the only ones levereaged against collaborative player interaction however.

If we look back at your point in 1), the evidence would seem to suggest that improving access to progression improves player engagement and play time. I hope FDEV sees this.

 

[Arkadi]

The real reason for no PvE option is, Fdev loves to watch gank videos in their down time but...

As much as i hate the idea that people can manipulate the BGS in solo and PG, an PvE options wont make it any worse so.

In open as we have it now, we have people expecting different things from the game. Some are in it for PvP, some to get Salt, and some to meat meet people, more like a social chat room.... all fair, well maybe apart from the salt mining, but we cant all be as wonderful as me

When it comes to games where you have the ability to role play and the ability to kill.. you get predators and victims. The issue is, one type of player as chosen to play that way and the other has not (In a game like PUBG, all players know they are there to kill, no one is role playing, no one is an unwitting victim).

I understand the 'anger' of Gankers that feel they need to teach care-bears a lesson, show them what the game is really about (watch hours of it now, some dark minds out there) but they are picking on unwitting targets, people that are not able to fight back.. it's an easy kill for kicks.

Not really what the game is about (its not an e sport,competitive league game - its a sandbox).. it's not meant to be a tool for some people with real world needs to get their rocks off. Example being, joining multi crew and attacking your mother ship. These people aren't here for contest, but the very real endorphin hit they get some upsetting other players. They are in the game to upset, that's their goal.

i can see how having an PvE option would hurt such people... as they would only be engaging with targets who are willing to play a riskier game (open).... there will be so much less salt and upset player (apart from ganklers not getting thier reaction videos /posts)

Many games have this issue, but from the few i've played, there has always been an PvE option.

Now before you think i'm a care-bare.. far from it. I love the Pve option because i want to be sure that the people i'm fighting are their in agreement (i know, people say that's what open its, but here we are again). It reduces the mistake of 'nice' players hanging around to talk to someone that turns up, instead of just jumping out of there , if they are at risk. (because, it becomes, you have to fear all players, sure that may be how some think it should be, but some are not here for that)

an PvE mode would clear up why people are in the game... I don't wanna blow up someone that thinks the game is all roses... some may say they deserve it, but i'm not hear to make people upset in a game ><

That was one sensible post. I didn't think a open-pve mode was necessary, I thought better managment tools for private groups would be enough. But how you have put it, right maybe Open-PvE Mode is a good thing..

edit: the only disadvantage is, I will not meet all the fine poeple playing Open-PvE because I will stick to classic open.

Bye Bye to half of the players I could have met ingame. Hello segregation.

And now this is why I still disagree. It will complicate things. If I want to play with people I meet on discord, they tell me, let's wing up, but hey I am over at PvE. Then I go to PvE and a friend from open messages me, he want's to join, but he is in classic open... bah. Nah. Segeregation is a rotten apple.

 

[Chaparral]

I just want an open-world space travel/trade/combat game that tries for some level of verisimilitude and immersion when depicting it's setting.

If that means being unappealing to those that can't handle in-game consequences, well that's vastly better than the alternative.

Reducing the resurrection rebuy and data loss will prevent you from having that experience. I am sorry for your loss.

 

[Wrecked]

I find it weird that the conclusion the OP comes to is that PVP death needs to be less punishing, when everything they describe should lead one to conclude that it is PVE deaths that are way too easy to avoid.

It's not that players are inherently more dangerous that is the problem, it's that the rest of the game isn't.

WRONG

NPCs aren't going around trying to find helpless commanders and blowing them up for fun in their godlike engineered ships.

NPCs are programmed to behave in a way similar to how you would expect a normal, sane person to behave.

What these Distant Gaynk II A-holes are doing isn't normal behavior. It's just cockdickery.

 

[mossfoot]

When an explorer dies, they should drop a scannable data cache that their attacker can turn in for credits and first discoveries.

Given that cargo doesn't drop when you die (unless cargo hatch is damaged and leaking), I'd have to say no. But...

You should be able to use a limpet to steal discovery data too.

that makes perfect sense given that we have hacking limpets already

 

[Chaparral]

Well that's not really true is it. Going into open is a choice. I've been using three different private groups for DW2.

In my humble opinion, the answer is the same as it has always been: a real crime and punishment system. There needs to be real consequences for crime. Today in ED, there are no significant consequences.

They kind of botched C&P.

PG instancing or chances for meeting new folks is no where near as good as in open.

 

[Zaphod Hawke]

Damn you could have taken this CMDR rebuy and start from scratch in a sidey like a man...

Kids these days.

What do you not understand about a player no longer wanting to play the game?

You miss the part about not asking for a restore?

Zaphod only came back to the game for DG2.

And that would not have been possible without the help of an overly enthusiastic customer support department.

Be sure to thank them for me when you get the chance.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

What do you not understand about a player no longer wanting to play the game?

You miss the part about not asking for a restore?

Zaphod only came back to the game for DG2.

And that would not have been possible without the help of an overly enthusiastic customer support department.

Be sure to thank them for me when you get the chance.

Zaphod could start to practice what he preaches.

 

[Chaparral]

What do you not understand about a player no longer wanting to play the game?

You miss the part about not asking for a restore?

Zaphod only came back to the game for DG2.

And that would not have been possible without the help of an overly enthusiastic customer support department.

Be sure to thank them for me when you get the chance.

Wow Zaphod that's awesome news! I never expected such validation. Thanks!

 

[Ephraim Stone]

The real reason for no PvE option is, Fdev loves to watch gank videos in their down time but...

As much as i hate the idea that people can manipulate the BGS in solo and PG, an PvE options wont make it any worse so.

In open as we have it now, we have people expecting different things from the game. Some are in it for PvP, some to get Salt, and some to meat meet people, more like a social chat room.... all fair, well maybe apart from the salt mining, but we cant all be as wonderful as me

When it comes to games where you have the ability to role play and the ability to kill.. you get predators and victims. The issue is, one type of player as chosen to play that way and the other has not (In a game like PUBG, all players know they are there to kill, no one is role playing, no one is an unwitting victim).

I understand the 'anger' of Gankers that feel they need to teach care-bears a lesson, show them what the game is really about (watch hours of it now, some dark minds out there) but they are picking on unwitting targets, people that are not able to fight back.. it's an easy kill for kicks.

Not really what the game is about (its not an e sport,competitive league game - its a sandbox).. it's not meant to be a tool for some people with real world needs to get their rocks off. Example being, joining multi crew and attacking your mother ship. These people aren't here for contest, but the very real endorphin hit they get some upsetting other players. They are in the game to upset, that's their goal.

i can see how having an PvE option would hurt such people... as they would only be engaging with targets who are willing to play a riskier game (open).... there will be so much less salt and upset player (apart from ganklers not getting thier reaction videos /posts)

Many games have this issue, but from the few i've played, there has always been an PvE option.

Now before you think i'm a care-bare.. far from it. I love the Pve option because i want to be sure that the people i'm fighting are their in agreement (i know, people say that's what open its, but here we are again). It reduces the mistake of 'nice' players hanging around to talk to someone that turns up, instead of just jumping out of there , if they are at risk. (because, it becomes, you have to fear all players, sure that may be how some think it should be, but some are not here for that)

an PvE mode would clear up why people are in the game... I don't wanna blow up someone that thinks the game is all roses... some may say they deserve it, but i'm not hear to make people upset in a game ><

This is a good summary of the situation. When a significant proportion of players come to the game looking for a cooperative, non pvp mode, it makes sense for FDev to accommodate. As you say, it doesn't prevent those that enjoy pvp sticking with the current open option.

The change in advertising strap line for the game is interesting, and perhaps indicates that for FDev too, unwanted pvp can become "too much".