Kill the PVP Rebuy

[Truesilver]

Many interesting posts in this thread, especially about comparisons to other games.

Maybe I spent too much time playing Civ games, where NPC-controlled nations remember if you break treaties, steal technologies, and stab them in the back to get ahead, and treat you as Untrustworthy when you act in such a manner. Maybe Powerplay and space-politics were not well thought out, badly implemented, and in dire need of some major overhauling around here.

Yes, I've just spent months immersed in Total War Warhammer PvE, which like all such games ultimately goes back to Civ, and the PvE did seem much more meaningful than in ED.

But of course in TWW I was playing as a general/god, in a single player environment. I don't know how if at all that could be made to work in ED, where we play as one random guy in a multiplayer environment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Going back to the consequences of PvP death, I don't think that loss of credits, missions or cargo are too harsh or disproportionate.

I do, however, think that Frontier should act in some way to reduce the only two true 'spikes' in the game: loss of exploration data and loss of high-level NPC crew. Both of those are completely out of line. I would literally pay a billion credits to save explo data (*if I had any) or an Elite SLF pilot (*if I had one).

Those penalties both seem anomalously harsh, to me. They are out of balance with all the others, because they can set the player back weeks or months, not days or hours.

 

[VR Jay Le Chardon]

There is a halfway house on this concept, comms panel in supercruise could have a new option, have the option to challenge someone to a simulated virtual duel. This new form of engagement would lorewise use telepresence/simulations of both ships to make their cmdr's feel like they were flying them at that moment, but they were essentially dreaming it as it only virtually happened. That way meaningful combat like blockades, powerplay, piracy etc can still happen with meaningful consequences yet frivolous tussles can be had for fun.

It'd also dovetail quite nicely with the new crime and punishment system as in the new system genuine PVP killing your opponent is going to bring about a new set of penalties which get more severe as your victories tally increases. But if it was just a simulation there'd be no harm, no fowl, and no rebuy nor notoriety/atr/hotship etc.

If anything Genuine PvP would actually be made more significant as you'd know the opponents weren't faffing about but instead genuniely trying to kill you causing you hardship in the form of rebuy / lost exploration data / lost cargo / failed missions and lost reputation arising from such.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

This translates into lost playing time - a very game-repulsive consequence.

Another way of putting this is that the game should never let a player fail, because if they do they've "lost" playing time. I would far rather see more consequences for decisions, not less, more possibilities for failure, not less. If that means mistakes cost people time, then good. If mistakes are free there's no incentive to learn from them. (Conversely, mistakes shouldn't be so costly that there's no incentive to risk making them. It's a difficult balance.)

At the moment the PvE side of the game is basically balanced around "once you know what you're doing you can't lose". Sure, there's a vertical learning curve to climb to get to that point, but I've been playing for about 3 years now and have lost a grand total of 4 ships in PvE ... all of them due to what might be described as "ridiculously excessive overconfidence". This, I think, has a problem for PvP - the game having told the player that they are the big unbeatable god of the universe ... it can get a bit tricky once two of them meet.

Is the Rebuy a positive element of the game right now? I don't think so.

I think rebuy as currently implemented is a bit weird and likely to get slightly worse in 3.0.
- the bigger ships have rebuys disproportionately high relative to their capabilities (and this ties in to the general economic matters that a cost level sufficient to make a Cutter pilot take notice but not be unable to fly the ship at all means that a Cobra pilot - or even a Python pilot - is basically free from costs)
- engineering massively improves capabilities without touching rebuy
- the more defensible you make your ship with weapons, shields, etc. ... the more its rebuy goes up.
- the exact same ship bought by different people in different times and places can have significantly different rebuy

The problem with rebuy I think is that fitting (and I mainly speak in a PvE context here) risk-reward around it is impossible.
- If you have a ship with a 10 million rebuy, and it can earn 1 million per trip, then it can basically never be destroyed, or you need so many successes to counteract the failures. A 5% failure rate would be balanced ... but impossible to implement.
- If instead it can earn 10 million per trip, then fine, a 33% failure rate is balanced and perhaps possible to implement. But then, there's a massive range of player skill. Who fails 33% of the time? If it's an average player, than an experienced one with a properly engineered ship will still never fail (or come close) ... if it's the experienced player, then the average player dies every time.

 

[Noctover]

Wow im honestly trying to think of a worse idea but....Nope not coming to me.

Dying in this game is REALLY REALLY HARD! You cant lose an interdiction anymore, PVE ships hit like wet paper bags and you can easily leave if you want too. I even tried to die to a goid but had a million chances to leave in a D rated Conda...And the only REAL threat, the only way to die you want all consequences removing? Well i really dont know what to say... No thanks.

 

[Sylveria]

I think in powerplay the powerplay tasks should have to be undertaken in a powers ships with a free rebuy. I think this would make powerplay a more interesting experience, conflict would be more balanced, but also more attractive. Conflict between power ships should never make you wanted.

To some extent- I actually agree with this... of course implementation within the current system as it stands, no. There's really no "meaning" to the PP system as it's currently implemented, not everyone participates, nor does it really affect anything else if you do. If PP were given some attention/TLC (which I'm quite sure it's on the "to do" list for core improvements this year) and really fleshed out so it ties into player reputation/notoriety, etc. then it would make a lot of sense to tie actions under representation of a faction and the consequences of them.

Opted in for PP and working for a rival faction? Then you're fair game- and killing you isn't "murder", as it wouldn't be in any "universally" recognized war/conflict. Actions outside of this would still (rightfully) be viewed as criminal activity and appropriate consequences would apply.

IMO, this also could have been the "PvP flagging system" for ED if it had been used from release. Too bad they decided to go with a FFA mess that they're having to clean up now with C&P years later. I'm not sure they'll implement it even now, but it would make a hell of a lot of sense if they did so.

 

[GunnerBill]

There's got to be a way to balance this.

No one like massive rebuys, but plenty of people enjoy PvP and I'd argue that more would enjoy PvP if the rebuy was lower. Note: not "nothing".

I'm already thinking that excessively punitive solutions will upset more than they please, even those that thought a harsher regime would be the solution. So in this vain much of our recent wing conversations have revolved around "missing the threat" or "buzz" of a PvP encounter should the new C&P really kill it off.

I'm not offering my ideas for a solution as I've sadly learned that any kind of blue sky thinking gets slagged rotten on this board, even if it's simply meant as a seed for discussion.

 

[Sylveria]

There's got to be a way to balance this.

No one like massive rebuys, but plenty of people enjoy PvP and I'd argue that more would enjoy PvP if the rebuy was lower. Note: not "nothing".

I'm already thinking that excessively punitive solutions will just serve to put everybody off the game. Much of our recent wing conversations have revolved around "missing the threat" or "buzz" of a PvP encounter should the new C&P really kill it off.

I'm not offering my ideas for a solution as I've sadly learned that any kind of blue sky thinking gets slagged rotten on this board, even if it's simply meant as a seed for discussion.

Hey I'm in agreement here- I'd love for the C&P not to excessively affect "innocent" CMDR's who aren't out to intentionally grief the hell out of others- but that's also the nature of the game FD introduced with this FFA chaotic mess that didn't have consequence to begin with and was allowed to snowball into the avalanche it exists in today.

Had they DONE something about it before now, they wouldn't be in the situation they're in... had they implemented a REAL flagging system for PvP to begin with, then they wouldn't be in the situation they're in.

FD created the "sandbox"- and some players decided to urinate in the center of it. Over the years people decided to move out toward the edges, and now FD is trying to make the center more attractive. What else can they do, given the situation as it currently stands, people bickering and fighting among each other about "context of actions" and so forth?

Strategically from their standpoint it's really the ONLY play they had- lock it all down, then loosen the reins later as time passes and effect has been assessed. Always easier to say "yes" later after saying "no" initially, unlock the door after it's been locked, whatever adage/metaphor you want to apply here. Essentially, they can't avoid *someone* being butthurt over their decisions now. Damage control is the only option.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I don't really play Ironman in games. I grudgingly accepted the rebuy for PvE gameplay. For this unbalanced mess that is PvP I cannot.

 

[GunnerBill]

I speak as someone who has participated in numerous paramilitary player group and Powerplay wars, who has treasured every single kill I have inflicted upon the foe, and who has grieved for every loss that I and my friends and wingmates have suffered. I have literally commiserated, online, with grown adults who were sad that they lost a ship. It seemed meaningful.

Your well meaning but, imho wrong, proposal would take all that away and replace it with nothing to treasure and nothing to grieve over - just a shallow race ... to rack up.

But equally some people just want to play a game. This is not meant as a detriment to your experience but none the less I am sure it's true and I'd be really interested to see the demographic on this.

Me? I'm unfortunately stuck in the middle. Somewhere between where you are at and then just wanting it to be a game.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

What about an official dueling challenge thing?

Same system as winging up, but crimes, and rebuy are disabled for those involved, and instancing with CMDRs not involved is also disabled, so you can't dive in an ruin it, unless you're already there.
Needs to be accepted by all parties.

Then you can have high end PvP as a sport, without the horrendous rebuy, or stopping at certain hull %.

But doesn't effect C&P or anything because it's mutually agreed.

To avoid trolling it, you can't leave / end the duel during danger, at all.
(You can log off though)

 

[Truesilver]

No one like massive rebuys, but plenty of people enjoy PvP and I'd argue that more would enjoy PvP if the rebuy was lower. Note: not "nothing".

But Bill, if we're talking about a hypothetical player who wants to get into ED Open World PvP but is put off by the prospect of the occasional rebuy, I'm afraid that I don't see how that player could actually be a RL person post-2.1 RNGineering. He or she is a mere construct that doesn't bear scrutiny.

ED Open World PvP, post 2.1, is massively engineered. The engineering process takes much longer and requires much more care and thought than the credit acquisition process. (This will be the same even after the 3.0 improvements.) Ergo, anyone genuinely ready for full organic PvP already doesn't care about creds.

I just don't believe that there's anyone out there with a ship that is suitable for ED Open World PvP that would even notice if Frontier deducted 10 of their chosen vessel's rebuys from their account overnight by mistake.

How could someone be modded module rich, yet credit poor? I mean, ok, in an infinite universe it's not impossible ... yet it doesn't seem realistic to me.

 

[c00ky1970]

I dont PvP, but having listened and read stuff from PvP players this is my suggestion.

CQC gets rebuilt.

CQC is an option in a starport that allows the CMDR to use his currently active ship in a new CQC simulation.

CQC is a mini Elite simulation where you are dropped into an "anarchy" system that has no BGS etc. Rebuys are free, as you are flying a simulated ship that you have bought, engineered and skinned in the main game.

The CQC simulation allows SC cruising, but no jumping tpo other systems, its all about the pew pew not the running away. System has a number of environments, rings, asteroid belts, space stations, other mega structures.

Players are all in the same CQC instance and can interdict or negotiate a fight and then have at it. You get killed you respawn at a central station, or even get booted from teh simulation.

CQC rank is based on PvP kills in this simulator.

Menu log returns player to ED universe.

So players can pew pew and not worry about rebuy in simulation, so they can hone skillz and git gud etc. but not affect BGS or attack players that dont want to be attacked.

Or players can play in open, hone their skillz, git gud and interact with any other open player but face the cost of rebuy and bounty.

FDEV get CQC back into use again, people find it relevant and advantageous to play CQC as it is real PvP and not this limited ships in limited zones with gameboy like powerups.

PvPers dont suffer rebuy costs as its a simulation, they can organise matches etc as there is an entire system to muck about in.

Open still has consequences and risk, but it gives all players an option to have a go and get blown up without sufffering a massive rebuy drain on your resources (ie. not many of us are Truesilver-aires ;-) but would try out PvP if it wasnt 5-10Mcr a death.

This doesn't eliminate PvP in open, far from it, but it re-invigorates CqC concept allows players to tweak their ships in "live" but pew pew to work out teh wrinkles in CqC and then if they want they can still pew pew in open/private/solo

It would allow PvPers to potentially have that issue of opposition having report crimes on issue to be negatyed as 1 you are in anarchy and 2 its a PVP CQC simulation with no BGS or bounty implications.

It might even entice me to have a go!

 

[Ian Doncaster]

How could someone be modded module rich, yet credit poor? I mean, ok, in an infinite universe it's not impossible ... yet it doesn't seem realistic to me.

I think it depends how you define "credit poor", since that varies a lot by ship.

I have a couple of ships which - had I engineered them under the 3.0 system - would be maxed out G5. One of them is an approximation to a 2.2.0-meta FDL. When I first obtained that ship back in 2.2, I had a few rebuys for it. But it was fully engineered (no god rolls, but enough actual rolls to get a maxed or near-maxed ship in 3.0)... I've never gone for any of the big credit earners, but none of the engineering unlocks require you to.

Nowadays - a bit over a year later from my engineering run - I have the same ships, but about a billion in spare credits. From my point of view, that's unlimited rebuys - from the point of view of someone who wants to fly a PvP Cutter it's barely enough to buy the ship never mind rebuy it afterwards. Losing ten rebuys at once would certainly be noticeable.

Of course, if I went for PvPing in a super-Sidewinder, or another enhanced-drives hit and run ship, I would be cash rich just getting the various ranks needed to unlock some of the engineers, never mind any other earnings.

 

[jasonbirder]

Its easy to conflate two different types of PvP here...
As has been pointed out...players geared up for PvP will likely be Credit Rich...as the route to Engineered Modules is a long one! So players expecting PvP whilst not exactly relishing a rebuy...won't wince too much...even if its a Cutter or a Corvette...likewise from a "time" and "effort" perspective...they'll be expecting it (Wanted/Powerplay etc) and relish the interaction...ready for combat or geared up and ready to run (balanced resistances, fast spin up FSD, Dirty Drives etc)
The system doesn't seem "broken" as it currently is for this kind of PVP...you can even go to Anaarchy Systems or turn off Notify Crimes if you want some consensual duelling...
BUT There's also the pseudo PvP that occurs at CGs/Engineers/Starter systems...were the usual social inadequates cue up to pot-shot unengineered Sideys and Haulers in their G5 FDLs...now how do you build a system that minimises the downside for the victim...without unbalancing the game? You take out the risk for the poor sod, new to the game that doesn't understand the difference between Open and PVE yet...and you leave NO consequences for other players who have their eyes open to what's happening...
Best case scenario...better system police, better C&P, Frontier stay on the ball to address loopholes (suicidewinders, mutual kills for bounty etc etc) and everyone else realise if you're at "Ganker Honeypots" maybe you're better off in PVE/Solo

 

[Imo]

I spend most of the time with grinding Credits. My first experiences in pvp told me that I won't be able to play the game this way because I have to spend so much time on grinding my money back and some more for just one more death that it did not make any sense.

Today I finally have enough Credits to pay the insurances of my ships hundrets of times. And you can not imagine how different the game feels when you do NOT have to worry about any loss. When you can just go out PLAY the game. When the worries end, the fun begins.

 

[GunnerBill]

But Bill, if we're talking about a hypothetical player who wants to get into ED Open World PvP but is put off by the prospect of the occasional rebuy, I'm afraid that I don't see how that player could actually be a RL person post-2.1 RNGineering. He or she is a mere construct that doesn't bear scrutiny.

ED Open World PvP, post 2.1, is massively engineered. The engineering process takes much longer and requires much more care and thought than the credit acquisition process. (This will be the same even after the 3.0 improvements.) Ergo, anyone genuinely ready for full organic PvP already doesn't care about creds.

I just don't believe that there's anyone out there with a ship that is suitable for ED Open World PvP that would even notice if Frontier deducted 10 of their chosen vessel's rebuys from their account overnight by mistake.

How could someone be modded module rich, yet credit poor? I mean, ok, in an infinite universe it's not impossible ... yet it doesn't seem realistic to me.

Sorry I'm thinking more of your average Joe kinda player who might be sticking to solo or Mobius because "rebuy". Perhaps if rebuy was lower they'd be in open and may even stick around for a bit of PvP when it comes their way. I'm not trying to overthink this.

We see plenty of starter players in our system who've graduated to their first Vulture (other ships are available) and I know for a fact rebuy hurts them. They'd love to stick around for the fight but know it's going to take a big chunk of time to replace if they lose. I'm not arguing for a no consequence game but I believe the whole point of this discussion should be how to engage players not discourage them.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

BUT There's also the pseudo PvP that occurs at CGs/Engineers/Starter systems...were the usual social inadequates cue up to pot-shot unengineered Sideys and Haulers in their G5 FDLs...now how do you build a system that minimises the downside for the victim...without unbalancing the game?

Sideys and Haulers, at least, are very cheap to rebuy compared with their earning potential - you only need to get through safely once, and the top 100% CG bonus alone will probably cover about 50 rebuys. And if they're that early on the learning curve, NPCs are still potentially a threat. Player kills you, NPC kills you, dead either way.
(I did a CG in an Eagle once - pre-engineering but it's still not as if I'd have survived multiple railgun hits from a FDL - and actually got through safely every time because the hostile pilots were looking for something a little bit bigger)

I think the problem comes in when people get slightly higher up the curve, into medium ships ... or especially if they use "follow this instructional video" to get the credits for a large ship quickly without also having the knowledge of the rest of the game to match ... and the rebuy costs become significant (even a top 10% CG finish won't cover one) but the rest of the PvE game hasn't required them to learn all the basic escape and evasion skills so they don't have any.

 

[Morbad]

Is the Rebuy a positive element of the game right now?

Consequences for one's actions or inactions are a positive element to the game.

The only problem with rebuy is that it's not harsh enough and doesn't get progressively harsher the more frequently you encounter it.

I'm not convinced the price of failure should be zero, but maybe reducing it to loss of cargo and failing missions, would bring it low enough to make the risk of operating in Open worthwhile and create a richer environment.

If the price to get these people into Open is to reduce the consequences for failure and cheapen loss, then the price is too high...they can can stay in the modes that suit them.

As has been pointed out already, there is a huge imbalance in professions, for a trader, bounty hunter miner etc losses are limited to a few hours play and maybe a few million in lost cargo and a rebuy, and a few hours of gameplay. Explorers could lose months of even a year of gameplay for no reward and potentially hundreds of million in credits due to lost exploration data. Any changes need to take this disparity into account. There was a suggestion earlier about explorers recovering some of their data, the reason why we lose data now is to prevent the suicide and turn in of data. We can't fly 30kly out into the black, suicide and then turn in that 30kly of data, thus cutting short the exploration paradigm.

So changes to the way rebuy and monetary penalties are applied would need to take that into account. This is why most explorers fly solo or PG, fleetcom for instance, when they return to populated areas and why any suggestion make open the only mode are strenuously opposed by explorers.

I'm entirely content with this perceived 'imbalance'. I explore in Open, and the chance that I could lose everything upon my return is one of the things that makes the trip worthwhile in the first place. Of course, I tend to explore in combat vessels, and get allies to scout ahead and/or escort me, but the trade-offs required for this are also a major part of the enjoyment for me. For those who do not enjoy, or are not accepting of, these risks, there are Private Groups and Solo (and I highly doubt Frontier is considering proposals to make Open the only mode).

[video=youtube;TPzKJ1LZCTo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPzKJ1LZCTo[/video]

I'm trying to figure out how to make it possible to expand the participants.

You can't expand the appeal without diluting the experience.

No one like massive rebuys, but plenty of people enjoy PvP and I'd argue that more would enjoy PvP if the rebuy was lower.

If you like PvP but don't like rebuys, agree on victory conditions that are likely to occur before ship destruction.

I'm not arguing for a no consequence game but I believe the whole point of this discussion should be how to engage players not discourage them.

Whatever it takes to engage some will discourage others.

Elite: Dangerous still hasn't decided what sort of setting it wants to depict. We've been teased with various appeals to various demographics, but to really have it's niche the developers should commit to something and do it, rather than equivocating in an attempt to not alienate people as that will just be worse in the long run.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Consequences for one's actions or inactions are a positive element to the game.

....

Losing current missions, goods, data travel distance is already enough consequence.

 

[smiths121]

I agree with the OP, the griefers will find away around any C&P system >watch out for unshielded A rated medium ships with 1% hull in Res Sites jumping in front of your lasers, is the obvious one under the current system.

The problem of using crime and punishment systems is, well there is crime and there is punishment for the vast majority of us, it works great. For the Griefer, they just have to work out if punishment is best taken by themselves or best taken as the attack by the vivtim. Their soul aim is to ruin others enjoyment, so their basic objective is to use any mechanics, crime and punishment the obvious to maximise destroying other people's fun. Suicide Eagles was a meta a few versions ago, to transfer the punishment to the victim. Lets see what they come up with this time.

I agree on removal this time though - well at the moment, they may come up with nough!.

Simon