Open Play, Gankers and Notoriety

[norlin]

Are we? I don't think we are. Most of the time, I just don't want to play with you, so please explain to me how forcing me to play with you would be a better experience for me?
Sorry, it's not personal. I just mostly prefer playing by myself, or with a small group of friends in coop activities. I never wanted WOW on a PvP server in space in the first place. In fact, I would have vastly preferred Fallout New Vegas in space with coop mp. I did not get that either, but I knew I was not getting that going in. I knew I was getting a multiplayer sandbox, and barring the waste of hard drive space Odyssey represents to me, I have been fairly happy with the game. I'm still playing after all.

You're comparing solo vs open, but that's not what I meant when talking about worse experience.
All the players are getting much worse experience because of the player base is disconnected while the underlying systems are connected.
Anyway don't see any point of arguing, FDevs does not change anything, unfortunately

 

[Dragsham]

Powerplay is broken. You've only gotta read what those chaps say.
The bgs could also do with an overhaul.
So why not meld the two.
Have pvp as the "elite vs elite" (whoever wants to) which in turn makes a difference within said powers. Solo and pgs also make a difference. But the varying amount of "difference" should be proportional to the risk involved.
30 merits per npc kill.
100 merits per pvp kill.

Simple

 

[Fake Newts]

Apologies - it seems that I may have misinterpreted this:

I mentioned the BGS broadly as an example of 'a multiplayer component', not specifically as a vector for PvP. I happen to also think it has the potential to be used as a staging ground for voluntary, systemically supported PvP, as does Powerplay, but that's not exclusively why I mentioned it. I would also like better co-op missions for example, or to be able to identify BGS factions in need of help, neither of which has anything to do with PvP.

I think you're characterising me as a player who's purely interested in shooting other people, moreover against their will, which is the opposite of what I would want from a hypothetical PvP patch.

If we consider the mining update - it was pretty much universally well received. It's optional, doesn't cater to every taste, but they did such a good job reworking its systems it encouraged some people to try it for the first time. It also must've been a great thing for long-term mining enthusiasts who, I think it's fair to say, had previously been somewhat neglected. It's still not something I'm personally that interested in but I'm pleased that they made such a marked improvement to that section of the game, even from a distance. These are the kinds of patches I'd like to see, regardless of whether they address my preferred playstyle or otherwise. As a long-term player it's straight-up exciting to see Fdev make this kind of leap forward.

Top of my personal "wish it had a revamp" list would be a PvE piracy, smuggling and criminality update - piracy tools are barely sufficient currently and PvE piracy is an often frustrating endeavour for those who still do it. Smuggling is extremely thin and not particularly distinct from regular trading in its current incarnation. Long range smuggling had its day, but was removed.

I'd love to see a racing module, adding ring courses and time attack boards for players to compete on, too.

In terms of a PvP update I would envisage "something to fight over beyond bragging rights", currently top-tier skillful PvP is organised almost exlusively via discord servers and takes place arbitratily in locations chosen by players for aesthetic reasons. That's fine for what it is, and would likely continue to be the case to a degree, but I believe the game has room for systemic PvP that'd take place adjacent to diegetic stakes. It's complicated to design this kind of thing, as 5th columning a PvP event for a BGS result would be extremely plausible, and again I'm not a developer so while I have some ideas as to how this could be avoided I'm not going to bother listing them. It'd also of course have to be carefully balanced against existing gameworld levers, as any new lever should be.

These are the kinds of changes I'd be excited to see, at no point with anyone being arm-twisted into engaging in content they don't like, nor engaging with other players at all if that's not something they enjoy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

30 merits per npc kill.
100 merits per pvp kill.

Simple

Which could be trivially exploited by players colluding together.

 

[Brrokk]

I don't think it could, I think it could potentially better cater to all tastes using mode differentiation. I'm not talking about multiplayer being designed better in order to get everyone in Open play. I think there could be more structured multiplayer components for those that want it, both in terms of co-op and PvP.

Both sides of the debate regularly present the idea that the behaviour of the other side is responsible for Elite's 'sub par' emergent multiplayer interactions - I still feel like I'm being misunderstood as having an agenda re. enforcing one mode. I don't care which mode people play; it's completely immaterial to either group's complaints - the multiplayer concerns people have do not stem from a population issue, nor can they be solved by brow-beating the other side into behaving differently.

I'm actually getting a bit frustrated at being so consistently misunderstood, I'm willing to accept it might be my failure in writing but I wish I knew how to express it in such a way that didn't keep getting me pushed into one absurd camp or another. At no point in this thread did I claim I wanted people to be forced together in a single server, in fact from the outset I said the exact opposite (edit: I'm not the OP).

Yes, it's one of those arguments where both sides hate you if you won't pick a side.

Recently I got involved in a maths discussion about whether pi or 2 x pi is a more fundamental constant. I ended up saying, "I'm sticking with pi because of history but I'm happy to change if everyone else does". Got told off by both sides.

 

[nemolomen]

Yesterday I played in open at the CG, sometimes running cargo and other times tooling around in an unengineered Chieftain looking for gankers. I'm all topped off and ready to not play in open for at least another month or two. Many thanks to all who participated in my entertainment (IE: slaughtering me).

 

[TobiasFuzz]

Yesterday I played in open at the CG, sometimes running cargo and other times tooling around in an unengineered Chieftain looking for gankers. I'm all topped off and ready to not play in open for at least another month or two. Many thanks to all who participated in my entertainment (IE: slaughtering me).

I am not sure I understand what you try to say. That is surely based on my language knowledge , not your fault.

 

[Ettanin]

Regarding ganker issues: We could implement something like Runescape did - If you PK an unflagged CMDR, you become flagged for two hours, time only ticking while in-game and not docked (time refreshes to 2 hours for each kill).

Flagging:

• Your icon appears as a hollow square with an X inside. If you deploy hardpoints, your icon appears as a hollow triangle with a line from the top/bottom vertex to the opposite side. Players in supercruise who see this icon have a chance to log out to avoid unwanted PvP.
• If you attack an unflagged target, you become flagged. If the victim CMDR retaliates, they will stay unflagged as you comitted the crime against the Pilot's Federation.
• You forfeit your rebuy reduction on destruction if you get destroyed by an unflagged player or NPC. You can rebuy for 100% of the value instead. If both sides involved are flagged, normal rules apply, as the PF has to assume the attack was of mutual consent (i.E. Powerplay).
• You will not get flagged for shooting or ramming an untargeted CMDR ship within 5 seconds or less than three times in a row. If you continue to fire for more than 5 seconds (or three times in a row, whichever applies later) on an untargeted CMDR ship, you will get flagged. This is enough time to detect griefing. In case of ramming, the speeds and the trajectories have to be taken into account.
• The flagging counts EVERYWHERE, even in anarchies. It's CMDR vs CMDR aggression. The Pilot's Federation has an interest in this action, no matter the jurisdiction.
• Ramming within the station does not incur flagging (there are easy enough ways to get around this type of griefing and it's well-known already)
• You can flag yourself at any time at will. This has a cooldown of 15 minutes, unless an unflagged CMDR kill occurred, then it's 2 hours.
• Piracy without harm does not cause flagging, because it's theft, not ship destruction.

 

[TobiasFuzz]

I want mention another incident concerning piracy yesterday at the CG. I was interdicted by a player (I flew my fully engineered conda). I just high-wake imidiatly as ever to a nearby system to start the run again. That guy must have an high wake scanner as he followed me. I was chased through some more systems and he interdicted me 2 or 3 times more. I always imidiatly high-waked. Then I realise he was in python, surely not a ganking ship I thought. One jump later back in EGM 559 he interdicted me again and I did wait if he send a message. Indeed... He begged for 10 tons of cargo. He even said please and sounded (by texting of course) very sad. I gave him the 10 tons, I was almost sorry for him.

First, I have the impression piracy is a very unfullfillung job when you have to beg... He seemed to me more like a beggar then a pirate. I could have easily escaped again, but the guy was so persistent in chasing me through multiple systems, I don't wanted to discourage him to keep pirating.

Second thought... He was very clever having that high-wake scanner. So he effectively denied my chances to reach the megaship. We could have continued that chasing game for much more time, but it was easier for me to pay him of and deliver my cargo.

So clever pirate, but as it seems truly the available mechanics for piracy gameplay need an overhaul.

 

[nemolomen]

I am not sure I understand what you try to say. That is surely based on my language knowledge , not your fault.

Oh. It was entertaining...for a while....

 

[Screemonster]

Apologies - it seems that I may have misinterpreted this:

.... unless the suggestion was to have some form of PvP-flag, i.e. a player with it set would be identified as being willing to engage in PvP?

If that were the case then there'd be those who would specifically target those with the flag set to "off" - because they would know for sure that the target didn't want to PvP.

The issue for people that want to PvP is largely finding other people that are up for a scrap - sure, people would attack those with it off at CGs and the like, as CGs are really the only reliable way to find other players of any preference. Outside of that, it's a needle in a haystack to find anyone for any spontaneous interaction, positive or negative. Some sort of "I'm up for meeting people" flag combined with a heatmap of sorts on the galaxy map (or notification when jumping into the system!) for people to actually find each other, with unflagged people not being displayed or trackable, would be great!

System chat helps a little, as outside of somewhere like a CG system where you're almost guaranteed to have someone there, or happening to be there when someone sends a message, there's no way of knowing whether there's anyone else in the system in any mode to receive your messages. Unless you've got them on your friends list, the only way to encounter another player is by pure chance - you can stack the odds a little by visiting systems you know to be popular such as shindez or the like, but that's still a gamble and depending on your time zone you could well still be broadcasting into the void. And there's no guarantee that the person you're talking to is in the same mode or even the same platform!

Basically, finding other people to play with using the tools available in-game isn't a problem that's limited to PvPers and it's a real shame - and like I said earlier in the thread, some of the best fun I've had when it comes to spontaneous interactions with other players, combat or otherwise, has been in the systems that aren't the hugely super-popular concentrated systems that are swarming with gankers ready to blow you out of the sky, but bumping into them by chance at the systems that get some traffic but not enough to elevate them to the point where they're worthwhile hunting grounds.

That little grey "entering system chat: <systemname>" is kinda pointless if it doesn't tell me whether there's anyone to chat with. If I entered an IRC channel and I was the only person on the userlist I wouldn't exactly waste the time to type hi, yanno?

 

[Lacika2000]

A few thoughts, if I may:

1. PVPers want to have more people joining the open game, because they don't seem to have enough targets to shoot at. Beyond pointing out the obviously sociopath behavior and reasoning of these players, let me ask it straight: what have you done lately for the other players you want to shoot at? (A bit of help: if you don't understand the question, see the sociopath part for reference... and please consider that you have done little to nothing to make the open universe an inviting place to be that I would want to experience with you.)
2. FDev: ganking is way too easy and has almost no actual downsides. If (ever) you have the intention to balance this aspect, please do the following: increase the chance of avoiding ganking and (not or!) add substantial penalty to the ganker failing an interdiction. For example, with a higher chance to avoid ganking (min 50% at average skills in all ships) and knowing that the ganker's hyperdrive and SC functionality will go up in smoke upon an unsuccessful ganking attempt (i.e. not possible to repair, needs to rebuy fully and unengineered), a ganker will be less willing to start this activity as he/she will potentially get stranded millions of km's away from the nearest station/FC to dock.
3. Bounty: I would put only one condition to be able to place a bounty, which is "I got interdicted by another player", without the need to be killed in action. So an attempted but not successful ganking would not grant the possibility to the 'almost ganked' player to place a bounty (see point 2 for possible impact on the ganker though). The bounty should be everlasting until confirmed killed, should eliminate the ganker's chance to dock anywhere, and should induce the highest system police response until the bounty is in place. If this is not enough, you could add the following options: force a week time-off from playing open after the ganker's confirmed kill, force a non-discounted rebuy (without engineered items), or remove of the ganking player's engineering blueprints and/or reset their unlocked engineering levels.

 

[Bigmaec]

Some gankers would gank even if there were "solid pvp piracy".

Some gankers would gank in a PvE Mode just to spite.

A few thoughts, if I may:

1. PVPers want to have more people joining the open game, because they don't seem to have enough targets to shoot at. Beyond pointing out the obviously sociopath behavior and reasoning of these players, let me ask it straight: what have you done lately for the other players you want to shoot at? (A bit of help: if you don't understand the question, see the sociopath part for reference... and please consider that you have done little to nothing to make the open universe an inviting place to be that I would want to experience with you.)
2. FDev: ganking is way too easy and has almost no actual downsides. If (ever) you have the intention to balance this aspect, please do the following: increase the chance of avoiding ganking and (not or!) add substantial penalty to the ganker failing an interdiction. For example, with a higher chance to avoid ganking (min 50% at average skills in all ships) and knowing that the ganker's hyperdrive and SC functionality will go up in smoke upon an unsuccessful ganking attempt (i.e. not possible to repair, needs to rebuy fully and unengineered), a ganker will be less willing to start this activity as he/she will potentially get stranded millions of km's away from the nearest station/FC to dock.
3. Bounty: I would put only one condition to be able to place a bounty, which is "I got interdicted by another player", without the need to be killed in action. So an attempted but not successful ganking would not grant the possibility to the 'almost ganked' player to place a bounty (see point 2 for possible impact on the ganker though). The bounty should be everlasting until confirmed killed, should eliminate the ganker's chance to dock anywhere, and should induce the highest system police response until the bounty is in place. If this is not enough, you could add the following options: force a week time-off from playing open after the ganker's confirmed kill, force a non-discounted rebuy (without engineered items), or remove of the ganking player's engineering blueprints and/or reset their unlocked engineering levels.

1) PvP hub, Ganks Gank Evasion Academy, numerous guides by people knowing all sides of the game, not just minmaxing after some DTEA youtubes?
Saying the PvP community does nothing for the community is very very wrong. (Rinzlers how to, anyone?)

2) Ganking is only easy if the Gankee knows nothing about the game or proper builds. Actually the dps/hp balance is way in favor of hp.
Saying ganking is too easy is also wrong.

3) Another revenge fantasy post. Build your ships to survive and cope with open, or use the other two modes if you don't want to

 

[Robert Maynard]

Some gankers would gank in a PvE Mode just to spite.

There's no "would" about it - it's happened quite a few times. One of the most recent occurrences seems to have instigated an improvement to Private Group management, i.e. when a player is kicked from the PG they are also session kicked if playing in the PG at the time.

 

[Bigmaec]

There's no "would" about it - it's happened quite a few times. One of the most recent occurrences seems to have instigated an improvement to Private Group management, i.e. when a player is kicked from the PG they are also session kicked if playing in the PG at the time.

Yeah. "will" obviously. This was in forum quotation hell for whatever reason, so sorry for pinging you

 

[Brrokk]

Wow, still going.

OK, just an example from yesterday in a FB group. Someone who admits ganking was asking about latest ways to earn credits. He was told that the present CG pays well for Geo Equip. He replied that he'd tried it, but couldn't get to the megaship in a reasonable time because of repeated interdictions, (he always plays in Open).

Yes, an experienced PvP player is unable to take part in intended credit-earning gameplay because of his self-imposed Open-only limitation.

This is ridiculous game design; it's about time FD did something better about C&P and notoriety.

 

[Lacika2000]

1) PvP hub, Ganks Gank Evasion Academy, numerous guides by people knowing all sides of the game, not just minmaxing after some DTEA youtubes?
Saying the PvP community does nothing for the community is very very wrong. (Rinzlers how to, anyone?)

My question was about making it a more attractive place for those who are not interested in PVP, so that more of these players join the open world. Or is there a PVP movement that punishes gankers that I don't know about?

2) Ganking is only easy if the Gankee knows nothing about the game or proper builds. Actually the dps/hp balance is way in favor of hp.
Saying ganking is too easy is also wrong.

It is too easy to pull a player out of SC: based on players' feedback too many time such efforts result in being ganked in a PVP setting. Please show actual data if you believe this is, in fact, not the case.

3) Another revenge fantasy post. Build your ships to survive and cope with open, or use the other two modes if you don't want to

So the gankers can keep abusing their position? I am afraid you are sitting on the horse backwards... Why encourage a sociopathic gameplay style systematically (FDev??) and, apologies for the pointed question, why do you push the perversely inverted logic that those players who don't like the sociopaths must adjust their gameplay to deal with rampant bad behavior, instead of trying to nudge the undesired behavior towards a better outcome (from the perspective of the community at large)?

Anyway, let's focus on the OP: it is not me who is wishing to join the open gameplay, it is a ganker who would like to instigate the overarching rule that all players must join the open play... so why they don't present an attractive open gameplay that would pull more players in?

 

[Zieman]

Yes, an experienced PvP player is unable to take part in intended credit-earning gameplay because of his self-imposed Open-only limitation.

This is ridiculous game design; it's about time FD did something better about C&P and notoriety.

Lol, self-imposed limit (and a ganker getting a taste of their own medicine) causing some delays is suddenly FDEV's fault?

 

[Brrokk]

Lol, self-imposed limit (and a ganker getting a taste of their own medicine) causing some delays is suddenly FDEV's fault?

Yes, my opinion is that it's FDev's fault. I don't mind people getting a taste of their own medicine but I consider a community activity that can't be carried out in Open mode stupid game design.

 

[Zieman]

Yes, my opinion is that it's FDev's fault. I don't mind people getting a taste of their own medicine but I consider a community activity that can't be carried out in Open mode stupid game design.

But he's just doing it wrong / sucks at evading gankers / is poor pilot / whatever .
Hasn't he watched Rinzler's how to trade in open tutorial?