PvP improvements

[Mahalo]

1) Less of a credit loss for being killed by another player. Maybe 1% or lower... Might need some logic to avoid abuse with wing mates.

2) Decals which are selected by opponents and displayed on the insurance screens of the defeated. Teddy bears anyone?

I believe these changes would be easy to implement and foster a more positive PvP environment. Also $$$ from decal packs

 

[coca_fr]

I didn't understood anything you proposed !

Are you asking for lower insurrance rebuy cost when killed by another player ?

I don't understand where you proposal lead to better PvP.

Please explain more your ideas.

Thanks.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

I see no reason to reduce insurance costs when killed by another player. Insurance costs should be increased globally if you ask me. Along with penalties associated with crime.

 

[Mahalo]

Please explain more your ideas.

Thanks.

Hopefully this picture is worth one thousand words.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Hopefully this picture is worth one thousand words.

I take issue with your desire to decrease unfairness as a method to promote PvP. This isn't CQC. Unfair situations are great - they bring diversity to situations, changing rules and outcomes.

 

[DragoonKnight]

I see no reason to reduce insurance costs when killed by another player. Insurance costs should be increased globally if you ask me. Along with penalties associated with crime.

Yes, Completely do away with insurance so having your Conda destroyed will eliminate months of work. But Why STOP there?
Maybe we can even get a Ninja to break into a player's house whenever the player's ship is destroyed and punch the player in the face.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Yes, Completely do away with insurance so having your Conda destroyed will eliminate months of work. But Why STOP there?
Maybe we can even get a Ninja to break into a player's house whenever the player's ship is destroyed and punch the player in the face.

I don't get it. You step into an anaconda and you risk months of work. Why not take a more appropriate risk, and fly something other than one of the most expensive ships in the game?
.
Nobody's forcing you to stake 90% of your assets.

 

[Mahalo]

I take issue with your desire to decrease unfairness as a method to promote PvP. This isn't CQC. Unfair situations are great - they bring diversity to situations, changing rules and outcomes.

I agree; some fights shouldn't be fair. Modifying the rebuy cost may only change the outcome of a PvP interaction when a player which would have normally run decides to fight instead.


The suggestion is trying to make unfair interactions more acceptable to the average player. The logos behind this suggestion is to get more players out of solo play and into an environment where they can interact positively with other players.

 

[coca_fr]

Insurance is already more than fair. You pay really nothing and you grind so much.

People play solo for others reason than insurance...

 

[Psycho Romeo]

I agree; some fights shouldn't be fair. Modifying the rebuy cost may only change the outcome of a PvP interaction when a player which would have normally run decides to fight instead.


The suggestion is trying to make unfair interactions more acceptable to the average player. The logos behind this suggestion is to get more players out of solo play and into an environment where they can interact positively with other players.

It should say 'decrease the consequence of unfairness' rather than what it says.
.
Unfair situations are supposed to be unacceptable, otherwise what makes them different from fair ones?
Put another way, I don't think the fear of a wing of four clipper psychos should be something that should be feared any less than what they currently are.

 

[AJW]

Creating a "more positive PvP environment" would start by ensuring that all parties involved actually wanted PvP in the first place, rather than the ambiguous 'open' we have at the moment where ganking noobs seems to be the preferred playing style of far too many. Fix that first...

 

[StuF]

Move to the "open" möbius group and there is no ganking/pvp and other nonsense - actually quite nice to meet other CMDRS without wondering if they are winged up looking for someone to murder

 

[Mahalo]

Insurance is already more than fair. You pay really nothing and you grind so much.

Insurance is very fair when a player can control the risks. In a PvP situation, a player may have no control and lose their ship in a very unfair way.

Based on how hard and efficiently a player wants to grind they might be limited by insurance costs.

As an extreme example, a ship with a 50 million credit rebuy will almost never be flown into multi-wing combat. How boring would it be if everyone flew the same ship into a conflict involving multiple players or if ship A > ship B > ship C? Reducing or eliminating rebuy costs for PvP interactions allow the devs more freedom when it comes to balancing ships for PvP.

People play solo for others reason than insurance...

Yep, solo play is great!! In my opinion, insurance costs from PvP shouldn't be the reason for someone to play it.

 

[X-Terminator]

Silly ideas OP. Seriously though there is no reason to do PvP unless you have found a worthy Bounty. It's as though it pays to be good but in real life we know this is NOT how it works at all. You should be able to get Credits for killing any player even though there is no Bounty on them. I do NOT partake in PowerPlay but is there a reasonable pay involved for killing enemy factions or are you left to merely kill NPCs and do trading? Besides, there should be a Faction that will pay you for any kills. You should have to find them once an offer is made for the murder. Perhaps the offers could come up whilst in the vicinity of other players thus enticing you to the dark side!

 

[AJW]

Yesterday, I came back from a very short exploration trip (only gone for a week), with about 5 million in credits to claim for the data - and more important from my personal perspective, the right to claim first discovery of a good few interesting planets etc. Whether my insurance was 80,000 credits or 8 credits would have made precisely zero difference to my decision not to return to base in open. As long as open remains a gankers' paradise, getting more people involved isn't going to come about by tinkering with insurance.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Insurance is very fair when a player can control the risks.

But you do control your risk. You and you alone make the decision of how much credits you are risking. This is what I do not get. People are flying around with 95% of their assets on their back and then say the insurance system is broken. I don't walk around with 95% of my money in my wallet and complain about interactions with people when I get mugged.

 

[Mahalo]

Unfair situations are supposed to be unacceptable, otherwise what makes them different from fair ones?
Put another way, I don't think the fear of a wing of four clipper psychos should be something that should be feared any less than what they currently are.

I don't think allowing players to bully each other doesn't lends itself to a healthy or dynamic PvP experience. Those clippers might never go challenged because of the costs and risks associated with it.

 

[Mahalo]

Yesterday, I came back from a very short exploration trip (only gone for a week), with about 5 million in credits to claim for the data - and more important from my personal perspective, the right to claim first discovery of a good few interesting planets etc. Whether my insurance was 80,000 credits or 8 credits would have made precisely zero difference to my decision not to return to base in open. As long as open remains a gankers' paradise, getting more people involved isn't going to come about by tinkering with insurance.

Yeah good point; this suggestion isn't a silver bullet.

Obviously, taking this idea one step further would allow exploration data, bounties?, cargo?, etc? persist through PvP death ( within the bubble ).

LOL! As a side effect NPC interactions would feel much more 'dangerous' !

 

[Psycho Romeo]

I don't think allowing players to bully each other doesn't lends itself to a healthy or dynamic PvP experience.

If you wanted healthy and dynamic PvP experience, you should go to CQC, not the cutthroat galaxy that behaves like the wild west. I really don't believe this is that kind of game.

 

[AJW]

Yeah good point; this suggestion isn't a silver bullet.

Obviously, taking this idea one step further would allow exploration data, bounties?, cargo?, etc? persist through PvP death ( within the bubble ).

LOL! As a side effect NPC interactions would feel much more 'dangerous' !

So basically, what you are saying is that because you don't like the element of risk involved in PvP, the entire balance of the game needs to be revised. Not going to happen. Not least because even the PvPers on the whole (excluding the gankers of course) actually seem to prefer to take their chances. If you want a game with no risks, and endless meaningless rewards (which is what they are without risk) I suggest you look elsewhere...