PvP consequences mechanics and combat logging.

[Psycho Romeo]

Surely that's a good thing?

Ramping up crime punishment is indeed a good thing, and has been suggested by many criminals. Come to think of it, I've can't recall any arguments against ramping up the consequence of crime in general, for many months at least.

However what you suggested is not a ramping up the consequence of crime. What you suggested was locking down anyone who sneezes on a hauler, to the point where extra game mechanics would need to be implemented just to bail them out, in a sidewinder no less. This is absurd, because this completely misses the problem. You want to remove the combat loggers from open? You ban them. You want a more proactive approach? You promote the idea that flying in open is not for those with questionable intestinal fortitude. Why risk millions of credits in open? Same reason I do, as well as many others: people enjoy the challenge. People enjoy the ruthlessness. The harder gamers among us don't have the same aversion to loss that the masses do. Some people like to flip the galaxy the bird and prove they can survive.

What you continue to fail to understand is that no matter how intense security gets, people who are gonna combat log are still gonna combat log. Sure, the situations where they would need to combat log will be fewer and further between. However this solves nothing: they are still a combat logger, and will remain a combat logger until they are educated. Them getting attacked less often will not at all make them less likely to pull that plug.

Based on what I'm getting, according to you, traders die a lot less often than pirates, and as a result pull the plug more often. To address this, you want pirates dying more often and traders dying less often. You for some unfathomable reason think this will fix open. Won't this just make pirates pull the plug more often? So again, in what reality is this a solution?

 

[Mr_sukebe]

Ramping up crime punishment is indeed a good thing, and has been suggested by many criminals. Come to think of it, I've can't recall any arguments against ramping up the consequence of crime in general, for many months at least.

However what you suggested is not a ramping up the consequence of crime. What you suggested was locking down anyone who sneezes on a hauler, to the point where extra game mechanics would need to be implemented just to bail them out, in a sidewinder no less. This is absurd, because this completely misses the problem. You want to remove the combat loggers from open? You ban them. You want a more proactive approach? You promote the idea that flying in open is not for those with questionable intestinal fortitude. Why risk millions of credits in open? Same reason I do, as well as many others: people enjoy the challenge. People enjoy the ruthlessness. The harder gamers among us don't have the same aversion to loss that the masses do. Some people like to flip the galaxy the bird and prove they can survive.

What you continue to fail to understand is that no matter how intense security gets, people who are gonna combat log are still gonna combat log. Sure, the situations where they would need to combat log will be fewer and further between. However this solves nothing: they are still a combat logger, and will remain a combat logger until they are educated. Them getting attacked less often will not at all make them less likely to pull that plug.

Based on what I'm getting, according to you, traders die a lot less often than pirates, and as a result pull the plug more often. To address this, you want pirates dying more often and traders dying less often. You for some unfathomable reason think this will fix open. Won't this just make pirates pull the plug more often? So again, in what reality is this a solution?

By your statement, should I surmise that you are a PvP player in open?

I get the point that CL'ing isn't a polite thing to do, and for someone who's initiated the combat, is simply not on.
For all that, combat for a trader is simply not a real fight. A typical "trader" is likely to be:
- PVE focused on his ship build, likely to be armed with gimballs
- Probably not very good in combat. After all, they're chosen to go trading, and it's probably for a good reason
- Will have a ship maximised for jump range and cargo capacity, NOT filled full of hull upgrades and re-inforcements
Do you genuinely believe that it's a fair fight when a trader gets jumped by an experienced PvPer?

My suggestion would make the bubble a far more believable place to be in. Civilisations with the level of piracy in game is likely to highly unsustainable. Again, think of my analogy of the Royal Navy, defending our sealines. It wasn't just so the Brits could say they had a big navy. It was to defend it's merchant fleet and money making capabilities.
If you want a challenge involving combat, make best use of the anarchy systems, and pick your fights accordingly. After all, the "bad guy" PvPers are likely to be in similar locations, so a whole lot easier to fight.
Both sides win...

 

[Psycho Romeo]

By your statement, should I surmise that you are a PvP player in open?

I am many things with the notable exception of explorer. I am what seems fun at the moment. Many of those moments are slaying someone for no reason while in a fighter. Many of those moments are fleeing from someone who's trying to kill me while in a trader.

- PVE focused on his ship build, likely to be armed with gimballs
- Probably not very good in combat. After all, they're chosen to go trading, and it's probably for a good reason
- Will have a ship maximised for jump range and cargo capacity, NOT filled full of hull upgrades and re-inforcements
Do you genuinely believe that it's a fair fight when a trader gets jumped by an experienced PvPer?

Any trader flying as you suggest in open deserves any death they get, and then some.

When I'm trading I typically do it in a T6. I flee from clippers to SC. Why? Because I put in the effort to protect myself. I take chaff, I take HRPs, I take strong shields, I take powerful thrusters. Yes, this eats into my maximum cargo and jump range. But it also keeps me alive. So, to put it simply, any trader who does not put in the effort to protect themselves while playing in the most dangerous game mode deserves the insurance screen. If they feel the need to combat log, they've nobody to blame but themselves. Any smart trader is going have a build expecting pvp, any smart trader is going to have some combat experience, any smart trader is going to take hull upgrades, and HRPs, and a good shield. Smart traders survive many if not most of their encounters. The others die, then complain that they got ganked, or about not getting a fair fight, or use this as justification for combat logging or suggesting a crack down on crime.

My suggestion would make the bubble a far more believable place to be in. Civilisations with the level of piracy in game is likely to highly unsustainable. Again, think of my analogy of the Royal Navy, defending our sealines. It wasn't just so the Brits could say they had a big navy. It was to defend it's merchant fleet and money making capabilities.
If you want a challenge involving combat, make best use of the anarchy systems, and pick your fights accordingly. After all, the "bad guy" PvPers are likely to be in similar locations, so a whole lot easier to fight.
Both sides win...

Your suggestion doesn't address the problem of not-smart traders, and by extension, the the issue of PvP justifying combat logging.

 

[Politenessman]

PvP is very much a possibility with any CMDR you come across.

I expect they will expect people to purchase the game for the same reason I did: to play in a cutthroat galaxy full of consequence and loss.

Illegal in the federation is different than illegal in the empire. As I understand, we are all independent spacers of the pilot's federation, they are a rather independent organization themselves. So it could very possibly be that they let crime and punishment be handed down at the local level. Because you know, all crime is local anyway.

I notice you chose not to address the fact that, in your 'cutthroat galaxy filled with manly men doing manly things' the insurance companies are decidedly less cutthroat than they are today in our 'PC, everyone gets a trophy world', any reason for that?
I also notice you are backing away from your claim that PvP is the basis of the game, now it is just a possibility. good, we are making progress.
The business you raise about the Pilots Federation is a non sequiter, but also not well thought out, how many professional organisations support the murder of members of their own organisation, by members of their own organisation?

 

[Muffet]

By your statement, should I surmise that you are a PvP player in open?

I get the point that CL'ing isn't a polite thing to do, and for someone who's initiated the combat, is simply not on.
For all that, combat for a trader is simply not a real fight. A typical "trader" is likely to be:
- PVE focused on his ship build, likely to be armed with gimballs
- Probably not very good in combat. After all, they're chosen to go trading, and it's probably for a good reason
- Will have a ship maximised for jump range and cargo capacity, NOT filled full of hull upgrades and re-inforcements
Do you genuinely believe that it's a fair fight when a trader gets jumped by an experienced PvPer?

My suggestion would make the bubble a far more believable place to be in. Civilisations with the level of piracy in game is likely to highly unsustainable. Again, think of my analogy of the Royal Navy, defending our sealines. It wasn't just so the Brits could say they had a big navy. It was to defend it's merchant fleet and money making capabilities.
If you want a challenge involving combat, make best use of the anarchy systems, and pick your fights accordingly. After all, the "bad guy" PvPers are likely to be in similar locations, so a whole lot easier to fight.
Both sides win...

So what you are saying is: Said traders don't put any effort to have the MINIMAL resourses to escape or fight for their cargo, so this instantly should give them immunity? Are you sure you know what game you bought? this isn't Euro Truck

Those who fly like that deserve rebuying their ships, over and over until they either learn to play the game or just curl themselves at Solo, because your so claimed "Trader loadout" only works for solo.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

I notice you chose not to address the fact that, in your 'cutthroat galaxy filled with manly men doing manly things' the insurance companies are decidedly less cutthroat than they are today in our 'PC, everyone gets a trophy world', any reason for that?

I'd love if the insurance mechanic was made more consequential. But you know, this has little to do with PvP and open. So I chose not to address that.

I also notice you are backing away from your claim that PvP is the basis of the game, now it is just a possibility. good, we are making progress.

I don't recal saying PvP is the basis of the game. I recall saying that PvP is very much a possibility with any CMDR you come across.

The business you raise about the Pilots Federation is a non sequiter, but also not well thought out, how many professional organisations support the murder of members of their own organisation, by members of their own organisation?

The kind from out of this world?

Next.

 

[Mr_sukebe]

So what you are saying is: Said traders don't put any effort to have the MINIMAL resourses to escape or fight for their cargo, so this instantly should give them immunity? Are you sure you know what game you bought? this isn't Euro Truck

Those who fly like that deserve rebuying their ships, over and over until they either learn to play the game or just curl themselves at Solo, because your so claimed "Trader loadout" only works for solo.

Minimal? Is that a serious question?
Go back to my earlier point about the difference in ships likely to be used. A solo trader in a ship setup for trade is NEVER going to be a fair fight for a skilled PvPer. After all, it's possible to have more armour in a Viper (with HRP), than a stock Python, and that's before you talk about the differences in weapon load outs, use of SCBs, stealth flying etc.
At best a trader can run, at worst, just die miserably if he's been mass locked by a wing of ships including something big.

As for the game type, I think that you need to revisit the game notes and advertisements, where FD talk about choosing your own path, whether you want to be a trader, miner, pirate etc. I don't seem to remember that saying "whether you want to be a pirate, or a victim".

I'll say it again, this game is NOT here just for the benefit of PvPers. It is being PAID for by all player types, as happily shown by the number of threads about exploration, trading etc.
In addition, you've even been given a dedicated area to fight each other on fairly even terms, i.e. CQC.
So why would you feel the need to pray on easy kill PVE players?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

...
Any trader flying as you suggest in open deserves any death they get, and then some.
...

THAT pretty much says all we need to know in this discussion.
As stated in my other reply. This game has been SOLD to the players for ALL player types. NOT solely for the purpose of PvPers to go pray on "easy kills" of traders. If you're struggling with that concept, PLEASE, take the time to go read the game notes as published by FD.
As such ALL players should have a reasonable shout of having a decent game, and NOT simply becoming victims of random interdictions by players.

I get that players should have the opportunity be pirates, but right now, the opportunity is just completely one-sided and NEEDS to be re-addressed if you want to see a decent amount of traders interacting with each other in Open play.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Just left of center.

THAT pretty much says all we need to know in this discussion.

As stated in my other reply. This game has been SOLD to the players for ALL player types. NOT solely for the purpose of PvPers to go pray on "easy kills" of traders. If you're struggling with that concept, PLEASE, take the time to go read the game notes as published by FD.
As such ALL players should have a reasonable shout of having a decent game, and NOT simply becoming victims of random interdictions by players.

I get that players should have the opportunity be pirates, but right now, the opportunity is just completely one-sided and NEEDS to be re-addressed if you want to see a decent amount of traders interacting with each other in Open play.[/QUOTE]
I really don't get it. It's such a simple concept. What's the deficiency here?

Open is for people who want a terrifying and unpredictable experience.
Group is for people who want interactions more tailored to their liking.
Solo is for people who don't want to play with others.

So, the only traders that should ever play in open are the ones who want danger and risk at every turn. This is what open was made for.
Those who want to interact with others in a way that is more suited to them should play group. That is what group is made for.
Those who don't want any interactions with others should play solo. This is what solo was made for.

The game has been sold to players of all types. That doesn't mean it's made for all types. Open doesn't need to appeal to everyone. The heavy moderation of group and solo modes certainly don't appeal to me. And that's fine.

You keep bringing up PvPers and leveraging that into an argument. That's rather irrelevant, considering the nature of the problem. The issue isn't with the people doing the killing. They are following all the rules of the mode they are in. The problem is with the people who die/combat log and then complain about the parameters of the mode they chose. Hey, I don't buy a space sim then complain that there's space ships in it. I don't click open then complain there's an interaction that isn't to my liking - and this doesn't change regardless of whether I'm in a trade ship or a combat ship. It's quite simple, and we're all just sitting here waiting for you to get it.

So, as evident by the content of your post, a specific lack education on the subject is the problem. Not crime.

 

[Mr_sukebe]

Open is for people who want a terrifying and unpredictable experience.
Group is for people who want interactions more tailored to their liking.
Solo is for people who don't want to play with others.

....

As defined by who, you, FD? Please, find me a link as issued by FD that states as such.
Otherwise, that would imply that you're trying to marginalise a whole group of the player base. Is that the case?

 

[Psycho Romeo]

As defined by who, you, FD? Please, find me a link as issued by FD that states as such.

Defined by the reality of the situation?

Dear FD,
Frag cannons are broken and they need to be fixed.  They are only effective within 500m.  There is no link issued by FD that states such is intended.  This clearly means that they are broken and need to be fixed, as it implies you're trying to marginalize the weapon.  
Sincerely, 
Someone Who Discards Reality in Favor of Their Own Idea of What Should Be

I believe there's a word for this kind of behavior, and that word is delusion.

Otherwise, that would imply that you're trying to marginalise a whole group of the player base. Is that the case?

Marginalize: Treat a group as insignificant or peripheral.

Well, I'm baffled as to how you've arrived at this conclusion.

 

[Mr_sukebe]

Defined by the reality of the situation?
...

Let me translate that to what you really mean: "because this is what I want it to be". Yes?


Sorry to say it, but you are NOT the person who defines the way that the game must be played and who can play where. The only people who can do that are FD, and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of them, you're a bit out of luck.

No wonder we're having a spot of bother here. Of course there will be a degree of difference of opinion when things are not fully defined.
You, me and others have different agendas, desires and goals in game. Thing is that none of us on our own have the "right" to an area. As such, WE need to identify a way to get along.

As such, back to my suggestion a few posts above, THAT would create a more believable "bubble", where the PvPers can have their fun at will in anarchy systems, but it's dangerous (though far from impossible) to come into a policed zone for a fight. See, it's a win win.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Let me translate that to what you really mean: "because this is what I want it to be". Yes?

Unless this is some crazy matrix thing, I believe reality is reality, and what I described is the reality, with no 'want' aspect to it at all. What you translate is merely your own fabrication.
Open is for people who want dangerous and unpredictable experiences because you may have interactions with people who are dangerous or unpredictable.
Group is for people who want interactions with a moderated group of people because moderating who you can interact with is a feature of the mode.
Solo is for people who want to have interactions with nobody, because you are in it alone (solo).

Are you seriously still deciding not to accept this reality?

Sorry to say it, but you are NOT the person who defines the way that the game must be played and who can play where. The only people who can do that are FD, and in the absence of any supporting evidence on behalf of them, you're a bit out of luck.

I'm deciding nothing for anyone. What I'm saying is that anyone who joins open without an idea of what they're getting into has nobody to blame but themselves. I'm deciding nothing because nothing needs to be decided. There's not a 'well it could be this or it could be that'. There is a 'this is what it is'. And the 'this' in these cases is 'reality' and I happen to subscribe to it.

As such, back to my suggestion a few posts above, THAT would create a more believable "bubble", where the PvPers can have their fun at will in anarchy systems, but it's dangerous (though far from impossible) to come into a policed zone for a fight. See, it's a win win.

Except for the parts pointed. Specifically where you completely lock down anyone who accidentally sneezes on a hauler, to the point where you need to implement additional mechanics to bail them out of getting spawn camped by their own respawn point. Having authority crackdown on crime is a great suggestion, as I and many others have stated in every thread identical to this one, to posters identical to you. What you suggest is and will remain absurd, until something fundamental changes. Which it hasn't, because you are stuck on pushing around your idea of the modes instead accepting the reality of the situation.

Sit there and say with a straight sentence that this does not reflect reality:

Open is for people who want dangerous and unpredictable experiences because you may have interactions with people who are dangerous or unpredictable.
Group is for people who want interactions with a moderated group of people because moderating who you can interact with is a feature of the mode.
Solo is for people who want to have interactions with nobody, because you are in it alone (solo).

And then tell me what part of this is 'because this is what I want it to be', or that I'm 'deciding' something for FD.

 

[Mr_sukebe]

As everyone else seems to have left this thread, I think I will to.
I'm not going to sit here and waste my time and debate with someone who's clearly already made his mind up about how you "believe" that things should be, yet with no genuine justification on behalf of the people who actually create and run this game.

I'll say this once. Players following your train of thought are the people who are driving the traders out of "open". Do enjoy yourselves when there's only PvP players left.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Sit there and say with a straight sentence that this does not reflect reality:

Open is for people who want dangerous and unpredictable experiences because you may have interactions with people who are dangerous or unpredictable.
Group is for people who want interactions with a moderated group of people because moderating who you can interact with is a feature of the mode.
Solo is for people who want to have interactions with nobody, because you are in it alone (solo).

And then tell me what part of this is 'because this is what I want it to be', or that I'm 'deciding' something for FD.

Yeah, I didn't think you could either.

 

[Muffet]

As everyone else seems to have left this thread, I think I will to.
I'm not going to sit here and waste my time and debate with someone who's clearly already made his mind up about how you "believe" that things should be, yet with no genuine justification on behalf of the people who actually create and run this game.

I'll say this once. Players following your train of thought are the people who are driving the traders out of "open". Do enjoy yourselves when there's only PvP players left.

I'm with him, and i can hardly be called a PvPer in the sense of seeking a combat against another commander, but if it happens or anyone from my group is being attacked he will be engaged.
You already have your solution, open is not to be your safe bubble, is to be the other way around. There is many ways you can stay safe, solo, mobius private group and so on. But you keep bashing the same key of open needing to be like all those two options, that will affect even people that eventually kill without noticing. [Sniffing in a hauler at a station being one of the various of the options, another one being attacking a wanted vessel before it shows as wanted]

 

[CMDR Mr S]

I've been away for about a week. This thread pretty much sums up the reason why I now wish I didn't invest so much into this game. I think I'll step away from it for a while.

 

[vernonator]

What I don't think any of you "leave it alone OP is wrong" people understand is - the OP is NOT asking to stop PvP or even limit it. He IS asking for there to be real meaningful consequences. So - kill all the newbies you like, do all the Griefing your body can handle, sit outside the starter station in your Combatconda and smoke Sidey's till the cows come home if that's what gets your schoolboy nuts off. But know that there will be real viable consequences of your actions (I know a weird concept in todays world). There SHOULD be situations when its OK to ambush any one (PC or NPC) and there should be situations when it is not.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

What I don't think any of you "leave it alone OP is wrong" people understand is - the OP is NOT asking to stop PvP or even limit it. He IS asking for there to be real meaningful consequences. So - kill all the newbies you like, do all the Griefing your body can handle, sit outside the starter station in your Combatconda and smoke Sidey's till the cows come home if that's what gets your schoolboy nuts off. But know that there will be real viable consequences of your actions (I know a weird concept in todays world). There SHOULD be situations when its OK to ambush any one (PC or NPC) and there should be situations when it is not.

Okay, so, you're new here. What you people who throw the word 'griefer' around a lot don't understand is that nobody disagrees with making security stronger, making crime harder to commit, or making the consequences of crime more meaningful. Nobody. As in literally nobody. At least, I not seen any posts that protest against making crime more punishing, and I've been around a while.

There are two topics in this thread:
1) No amount of cracking down on crime is going to fix the underlying problem, and the OP and a few others think it will. The problem is that people join open but they are not expecting interactions with other CMDRs that they don't like. Increasing crime doesn't fix this, education does. To draw a humorously fitting analogy, MODERATION doesn't solve the problem of people making threads about topics that have already have threads for them - EDUCATION on using the search bar does. Moderation is only going to address a symptom of that problem, where education prevents it from happening to begin with.
2) One poster made an absurd suggestion where a station will spawn camp anyone with an active bounty.

 

[Muffet]

What I don't think any of you "leave it alone OP is wrong" people understand is - the OP is NOT asking to stop PvP or even limit it. He IS asking for there to be real meaningful consequences. So - kill all the newbies you like, do all the Griefing your body can handle, sit outside the starter station in your Combatconda and smoke Sidey's till the cows come home if that's what gets your schoolboy nuts off. But know that there will be real viable consequences of your actions (I know a weird concept in todays world). There SHOULD be situations when its OK to ambush any one (PC or NPC) and there should be situations when it is not.

No one is saying that, particularly if i did piracy and crime i would love to have adrenaline juice from it with more severe consequences, but a few suggestions here [Like stations destroying your buttocks immediately, having your issurance taken away..] are downright outrageous, and would make even people that commited a crime "by mistake" to be completely obliterated, and would eat a big chunk of playerbase since well, no one would love to be utterly punished like that for something the game should encourage​ you to do!

 

[CMDR Mr S]

What I don't think any of you "leave it alone OP is wrong" people understand is - the OP is NOT asking to stop PvP or even limit it. He IS asking for there to be real meaningful consequences.

Thank you very much for that.