Solving the pve/pvp problem.

[Bob Lighthouse]

Hi Bob - good to see you

I think I may have seen you on the Distant Ganks 2 Thread. If you don't believe that that thread and all of the related posts/threads'tubes have an impact on the gank narrative I think you may be minimizing their weight. I think you know I don't want to take away the gank, just the pinch on the gankee. If that blands your pepper, I'll have to defer to minimizing suffering as the greater good.

What does that have to do with what I posted?
The narrative is still false.

Why do you need to make it personal?
My pepper?

I'm pointing out that they seem to be following what constitutes good game design by the oft (mis)quoted father of game types vis a vis MMOs.
That has nothing to do with me, or you.
I'm not discussing what I want.
I am discussing what is.

Why is that such a difficult distinction 'round these parts?

If you think that's bad design, take it up with Bartle and Braben.

Bartle is talking about "the greater good" specifically, with the pepper comment.

 

[RhysTheT00n]

I think the PVE problem is way worse. When you're being tracked in a trading mission you can have an engineered Anaconda chasing you down and when the Feds show up to take it out it high wakes away as soon as it's on 50% health, only to return 5 seconds later fully repaired. I think that AI ships shouldn't spawn in engineered for a player who doesn't have the DLC unless they're in a wing with someone who is.

Another problem with PvE is that enemy ships don't have the same restraints as yours, when your modules drop below 75% health they have a chance to stop working for brief periods of time, with an AI it will work flawlessly even on 1% health. The modules have to be fully destroyed in order to stop working which makes trying to stop them escaping really difficult.

 

[Scubadog]

I'll avoid getting into the debate over achievements. I do have a problem with your idea that FDEV should be accountable for the intentional effort by some players to "inflict human suffering". That's just ridiculous. People are generally evil to begin with, and you'd have to be blind not to see all the instances where people intentionally do very bad things for nothing more than the sheer fun of it. And if you have ever been the victim of ganking in ED, you have likely come across some variation of the ganker saying "I like to pew pew players because I can and it's fun, huh huh". This drive has absolutely zero to do with FDEV. The developers don't make people choose to be evil. The developers create a game. Now, we can debate whether or not the game has sufficient crime and punishment mechanisms built in. And, as I mentioned earlier, one way to address that could be leveraging the re-buy cost against the murderer so that the victim is reimbursed. This is essentially how car insurance works, so it's not a new idea. As for players getting "back into action more quickly, I'm not sure I understand the complaint. We get back into action pretty much immediately. You make a choice at the re-buy screen and there you are.

 

[Chaparral]

What does that have to do with what I posted?
The narrative is still false.

Why do you need to make it personal?
My pepper?

I'm pointing out that they seem to be following what constitutes good game design by the oft (mis)quoted father of game types vis a vis MMOs.
That has nothing to do with me, or you.
I'm not discussing what I want.
I am discussing what is.

Why is that such a difficult distinction 'round these parts?

If you think that's bad design, take it up with Bartle and Braben.

Bartle is talking about "the greater good" specifically, with the pepper comment.

Bob, I am sorry. I really did not mean to offend. Maybe I misinterpreted the quote in your signature. My understanding of the quote is that the pepper in pvp is the suffering of the pk'd player. If I misinterpreted the quote I apologize.

I suppose I should engage in writing FDEV directly about my concerns regarding game design as well. My hope in posting on the forums is to shift attitudes of players away from blaming other players about the experience of being ganked, and start to look at the game design.

 

[Chaparral]

I'll avoid getting into the debate over achievements. I do have a problem with your idea that FDEV should be accountable for the intentional effort by some players to "inflict human suffering". That's just ridiculous. People are generally evil to begin with, and you'd have to be blind not to see all the instances where people intentionally do very bad things for nothing more than the sheer fun of it. And if you have ever been the victim of ganking in ED, you have likely come across some variation of the ganker saying "I like to pew pew players because I can and it's fun, huh huh". This drive has absolutely zero to do with FDEV. The developers don't make people choose to be evil. The developers create a game. Now, we can debate whether or not the game has sufficient crime and punishment mechanisms built in. And, as I mentioned earlier, one way to address that could be leveraging the re-buy cost against the murderer so that the victim is reimbursed. This is essentially how car insurance works, so it's not a new idea. As for players getting "back into action more quickly, I'm not sure I understand the complaint. We get back into action pretty much immediately. You make a choice at the re-buy screen and there you are.

I think you are missing the underlying design that permits and favors the gank. PVE / PVP partitioning mechanics exist in most mmos so the cul de sac complaining about other player's morality and competence just isn't a thing. Credits are not a punishment for the established player in this game.

If players actually took the time to gear and practice to avoid ganks, and then ran every time there was a hollow triangle, then rebuilt their progress (exploration data, missions, slf npcs, etc.) every time they were unsuccessful at avoiding, we would be talking about a major slice of game time devoted to not playing, not socializing, not enjoying a liesure activity.

You can blame players, and try to punish players for playing by the rules - but these folks are smart, this game is loaded with loopholes, PVE and PVP are not partitioned and you're simply not going to see a change in behavior.

You'll be better off softening the consequence for being pk'd than trying to modify the behavior of the players in this broken box.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

If there's a problem with PvP/PvE balance, it's that it's entirely possible to be every "class" at once.

You can be fast, shield tank, hull tank, and hit hard too.

A "simple" fix is simply increaes the power requirements for weapons(and possibly shields), and make mass bog down ships more.
So if you choose to be excellent in one area, you have to accept you'll suck elsewhere.

Of course, balancing all those factors is a nightmare, so I doubt it'll happen. Lol

 

[Scubadog]

I think you are missing the underlying design that permits and favors the gank. PVE / PVP partitioning mechanics exist in most mmos so the cul de sac complaining about other player's morality and competence just isn't a thing. Credits are not a punishment for the established player in this game.

If players actually took the time to gear and practice to avoid ganks, and then ran every time there was a hollow triangle, then rebuilt their progress (exploration data, missions, slf npcs, etc.) every time they were unsuccessful at avoiding, we would be talking about a major slice of game time devoted to not playing, not socializing, not enjoying a liesure activity.

You can blame players, and try to punish players for playing by the rules - but these folks are smart, this game is loaded with loopholes, PVE and PVP are not partitioned and you're simply not going to see a change in behavior.

You'll be better off softening the consequence for being pk'd than trying to modify the behavior of the players in this broken box.

I'm afraid that I'm not quite following your logic here. What are the "partitioning mechanics" you're referring to? And your point about credits not being a punishment for the established player doesn't really matter to me as a victim if the game was changed so that the ganker's insurance paid for MY re-buy if he/she ganks me. Maybe they won't feel the pain, but it significantly reduces my pain...and would be realistic if, as I said, we use auto insurance as the analogy. Also, are you trying to say that players learning to configure their ships and developing evasion skills is such a massive undertaking that it takes significant time away from "play, socializing, enjoying" the game? If so, then I couldn't disagree more. It is, in fact, PART of playing the game. And, once you've figured out what works for you it's not as if you are forever "figuring it out".

As the game stands now, I am not seeing any loopholes. However, there are some additional compromises that I think might work. The insurance issue is one. And since we somehow are able to maintain our gathered materials after our ship is destroyed, I don't see why cartographic and codex data couldn't also be maintained via a "galactic cloud". As for actual cargo, the toughest nut to crack there might be giving us a way to actually go back to the "scene of the crime" to try to recover some or all of the cargo, assuming the ganker/pirate hasn't scooped it all up. I'm not sure how that would work systematically, but it might be possible.

 

[Misty_Dark]

I'm afraid that I'm not quite following your logic here. What are the "partitioning mechanics" you're referring to? And your point about credits not being a punishment for the established player doesn't really matter to me as a victim if the game was changed so that the ganker's insurance paid for MY re-buy if he/she ganks me. Maybe they won't feel the pain, but it significantly reduces my pain...and would be realistic if, as I said, we use auto insurance as the analogy. Also, are you trying to say that players learning to configure their ships and developing evasion skills is such a massive undertaking that it takes significant time away from "play, socializing, enjoying" the game? If so, then I couldn't disagree more. It is, in fact, PART of playing the game. And, once you've figured out what works for you it's not as if you are forever "figuring it out".

As the game stands now, I am not seeing any loopholes. However, there are some additional compromises that I think might work. The insurance issue is one. And since we somehow are able to maintain our gathered materials after our ship is destroyed, I don't see why cartographic and codex data couldn't also be maintained via a "galactic cloud". As for actual cargo, the toughest nut to crack there might be giving us a way to actually go back to the "scene of the crime" to try to recover some or all of the cargo, assuming the ganker/pirate hasn't scooped it all up. I'm not sure how that would work systematically, but it might be possible.

I do not agree with Commander Danicus assesment of git gud and all that nonsense.

PvE and PvP not partioned, is that in every game mode where there can 2 or more players, does not have any game mechanics to block or stop PvP.


And onto the suggestion that the killer should pay for the rebuy of the "victim", is flawed logic, as there are several ways, where the ganker can suicide onto a "victim" and make the game believe the vitim killed the ganker. So that is why this sort of "punishment simply will not work. That is part of the loopholes.


Now, there plenty todo regarding player deaths by another player, If we reduce the rebuy by 100%, so dying does not cost anything, then we remove one bad thing for getting killed. Now if we restore any data, like bonds, bonuty voucher, exploratoin etc. then we remove another grievance for getting killed. Now if we restore all the cargo you had when you died, that is one less thing to worry about, Now let restock any mission cargo that you might have lost (hatch breaking limpets, malfunction cargo hatch etc, so you can go back, you will not auto fail the mission or have to turn it in not fully completed. And any NPC pilot onboard is restored.


Then we give a few more options on where you can respawn.
Last docked station
Closest station to where you died
Previous system you did an FSD jump from.


Now the only thing you have lost is some time.
You also know that in the system X there is a "ganker".

You now have the option to decide, do I want to try again?
Block the ganker
Change mode and continue on your journey.





This would weaken the powertrip gankers get, as now their victims would not be as upset. And on another level the actualy PvP community, that enjoys challenges etc, just got an easier time and more people could actually be curious to try PvP, as the costs for doing that is mostly time now.

 

[Marra Morgan]

And onto the suggestion that the killer should pay for the rebuy of the "victim", is flawed logic, as there are several ways, where the ganker can suicide onto a "victim" and make the game believe the vitim killed the ganker. So that is why this sort of "punishment simply will not work. That is part of the loopholes.

Yes, this is what David Braben was getting at when he ruled out a No-PvP / PvE-Only mode.

Now the only thing you have lost is some time.

And any sense of risk and challenge

 

[00nutzy]

Yes, this is what David Braben was getting at when he ruled out a No-PvP / PvE-Only mode.



And any sense of risk and challenge

I am not sure what you mean

While I am not a fan of the idea as stated, i fail to see how it removes the risk or the challenge.

There is still the risk of being blown up and the challenge to stay alive is also still present.
It might mean there were more unskilled pilots flying in open (debatable) but it would not remove the challenge that is already there.

Its not a removal of PvP

 

[Marra Morgan]

I am not sure what you mean

While I am not a fan of the idea as stated, i fail to see how it removes the risk or the challenge.

There is still the risk of being blown up and the challenge to stay alive is also still present.
It might mean there were more unskilled pilots flying in open (debatable) but it would not remove the challenge that is already there.

Its not a removal of PvP

Without loss, where is the risk?

A sense of loss is needed to create risk and present a challenge.

Else it'll turn into a brain-dead shoot-em-up.

 

[JetsonRING]

There is no PvP/PvE "problem".

The only people that I ever see whining about a PvP/PvE "problem" are the wanna-be PvP baby-seal clubbers. I do not think I have ever seen a PvE player complain about a PvP/PvE "problem".

When was the last time anyone saw a thread that said "PvE player here and I want Elite Dangerous to be a PvP-only game."?

 

[Chaparral]

I do not agree with Commander Danicus assesment of git gud and all that nonsense.

PvE and PvP not partioned, is that in every game mode where there can 2 or more players, does not have any game mechanics to block or stop PvP.

And onto the suggestion that the killer should pay for the rebuy of the "victim", is flawed logic, as there are several ways, where the ganker can suicide onto a "victim" and make the game believe the vitim killed the ganker. So that is why this sort of "punishment simply will not work. That is part of the loopholes.

Now, there plenty todo regarding player deaths by another player, If we reduce the rebuy by 100%, so dying does not cost anything, then we remove one bad thing for getting killed. Now if we restore any data, like bonds, bonuty voucher, exploratoin etc. then we remove another grievance for getting killed. Now if we restore all the cargo you had when you died, that is one less thing to worry about, Now let restock any mission cargo that you might have lost (hatch breaking limpets, malfunction cargo hatch etc, so you can go back, you will not auto fail the mission or have to turn it in not fully completed. And any NPC pilot onboard is restored.

Then we give a few more options on where you can respawn.
Last docked station
Closest station to where you died
Previous system you did an FSD jump from.

Now the only thing you have lost is some time.
You also know that in the system X there is a "ganker".

You now have the option to decide, do I want to try again?
Block the ganker
Change mode and continue on your journey.

This would weaken the powertrip gankers get, as now their victims would not be as upset. And on another level the actualy PvP community, that enjoys challenges etc, just got an easier time and more people could actually be curious to try PvP, as the costs for doing that is mostly time now.

I think you misread my post. Other mmos partition pve and pvp. This means separating pvp from pve into different instances, or employing flags for players open for pvp, or duel invitations, or entire servers dedicated to pvp or pve. ED does not have these partitions.
I absolutely agree that blocking the pk'r is valid but does it not diminish the consequence of the pk.

 

[Chaparral]

I'm afraid that I'm not quite following your logic here. What are the "partitioning mechanics" you're referring to? And your point about credits not being a punishment for the established player doesn't really matter to me as a victim if the game was changed so that the ganker's insurance paid for MY re-buy if he/she ganks me. Maybe they won't feel the pain, but it significantly reduces my pain...and would be realistic if, as I said, we use auto insurance as the analogy. Also, are you trying to say that players learning to configure their ships and developing evasion skills is such a massive undertaking that it takes significant time away from "play, socializing, enjoying" the game? If so, then I couldn't disagree more. It is, in fact, PART of playing the game. And, once you've figured out what works for you it's not as if you are forever "figuring it out".

As the game stands now, I am not seeing any loopholes. However, there are some additional compromises that I think might work. The insurance issue is one. And since we somehow are able to maintain our gathered materials after our ship is destroyed, I don't see why cartographic and codex data couldn't also be maintained via a "galactic cloud". As for actual cargo, the toughest nut to crack there might be giving us a way to actually go back to the "scene of the crime" to try to recover some or all of the cargo, assuming the ganker/pirate hasn't scooped it all up. I'm not sure how that would work systematically, but it might be possible.

Partition mechanics in other mmos include dedicated PVE or PVP servers, designated zones/instances for pve and pvp, pvp flags, dueling invitations, pve lobbies for pvp instances etc.

The rebuy cost is not a deterrent since credits are so accessible. The time penalty of recovering exploration data, missions, cargo, an slf npc pilot that has been ranked all represent a much greater loss for a pk'd player than the rebuy cost.

Since this game does not have pve/pvp partitioning, C&P is not an effective deterrent, and credit recovery does not diminish the actualy play time loss for ecovering exploration data, missions, cargo, an slf npc pilot that has been ranked, it follows that reducing these penalties is the best option to improve the situation.

 

[Azmuth Divarchchron]

I'm pretty sure this post is going to spark a massive heated debate on both sides of the PVP issue, but I have a simple solution that could easily solve the entire thing. There's a massive imballance between pvp and pve builds due to engineering and the time investment required to fully outfit every part in your build with the required upgrades. On top of the time sink, we have the fact that the upgrades are just so much more powerful than their non-engineered counterparts. This completely decimates people who may have chosen not to buy the horizons pass. Instead of arguing over game modes, we should look at the ballance issues that adding engineering has brought to the table and find ways to reduce the grind required to fully engineer a ship so that more people are better able to survive against fully engineered ships. I am in support of an open PVE mode, but that's not the point of this thread, so let's talk ballance. I'm looking for suggestions here on how to make stock ships a bit better and reduce the reliance on engineering for more casual players who may not have the 10-30 hours to grind out all the rare materials they need to max out their ship, and keep in mind, that's just for one ship.

I have a solution.
there is no pve/pvp problem
learn how to play.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

A better C&P system, and properly fleshed out criminal gameplay elements would go a long way to pulling PvPers out of the CG's. Lest we not forget that the majority of people only murder folks because piracy was killed by the PvE crowd's insistence on combat logging and FDev's silence regarding the issue.

Yeah sure there are some bad eggs, hell, I even indulge in random PKing when I feel like it, but if there was something built in for these players to do (Ideally something with the difficulty curve we are aclimbatised to) would go a long way to stop the issue.

Though that being said, I also thng both sides do each other no favours. The PvPers kill someone, that person is upset, posts on the forums, they are given advice on how to deal with it sure, but also they are mocked, they then ignore said infomation becasue of said mockery. Make the same mistakes and the circle begins again.

But I've frequented these forums for about a year now and it's my honest opinion that the game is'nt as much of a problem as far as the PvE/PvP issue goes as much as the players are.

Posts like "Gankers should be banned from the game" and "Please remove PvP from the game" Go an extremely long way to proving this hypothesis.

 

[Hossi]

I don't think reducing the engineering grind will do anything to reduce the 'pve-pvp-problem'.
The root of this 'problem' is simply, that a ship build 100% for high intensity combat is much better at, well, high intensity combat then a ship build for anything else (e.g. exploration).
The only way to reduce this 'problem' would be to drastically reduce the flexibility of ship configuration. Either forcing everybody to fly combat ships, regardless of what they want to do, or limiting the possibilities of adapting the ship for combat.
I'm highly opposed to that, since for me building my ships the way I want them to be is a major part of the gaming experience.

 

[CMDR X]

New fun for both sides.

o7 CMDRs

Been watching these PVP/PVE, Gankster VS Trader threads here and elsewhere for a while now.

Many start off with great suggestions but almost all die the same death.
GetLost + GitGud = ThreadClosed.

Haven't seen this elsewhere yet, lets see where it lands.

Combat logging is bad. The present C&P is useless. The Risk2Reward ratio is pitiful.

My humble idea:

It is the year 3305. I suggest a new "weapon" module for peaceful traders and explores. Sorry miners.

It would consists of two parts, each taking up one largest hard point on the ship.

Introducing the ImNotAPew-36 Supersonic 911 Gravitator.

One part is the "Heavy Gamma Transmitter Unit" the other is the "High Gain Focus Antenna Relay". Sell it fairly expensive and in semi-remote locations. Like the AX weapons and non engineer-able.

The module would be shielded and undetectable when equipped. Attackers should never know who has one or not. It would remove some of their perceived clairvoyance plus provide a sense of real accomplishment. If they can beat it.

To avoid abuse, it would be for Clean CMDR only, limited in ammo and active only after a Interdiction submission. Restock available at stations as normal.

Operation example with one attacker in a HighSec system:

Trader submits to ID and activates 911 module. This will enable Wing beacons, drain all capacitors to 75% and immediately call in one G5 Elite FDL NPC officer. The NPC will target and audibly ask the perpetrator to holster pews and stand down. The NPCop will not fire until the attacker does, or refuses to comply after X# seconds. Trader is given a few extra seconds to plan and attempt the escape.

The presently useless SysSec level and the number of attackers would effect the power, size, number and speed of the NPCops:

For example with one attacker:

HighSec - 1 G5 Elite FDL NPC, 1 second delay
MedSec - 2 G4 Deadly Vulture NPCs, 2 second delay
LowSec - 3 G3 Dangerous ViperMV NPCs, 3 second delay (while they pack up their donuts)
Anarchy - Zero NPCs, of course, but make it very worthwhile for the traders to venture in there. Make the payout nice and juicy.

These are just examples. The final balance of everything could be worked out over time.
It should be very balanced for both sides. Taking into consideration Factions, PP, etc.

If the trader is still too slow and/or the perps are able to evade the NPCops, then game over for trader. But hey, at least we've made some use of our useless police "force".

If the attacker gets popped, they should be punished as they are today IRL.
Fat fine and ship re-buy with only the default, empty E modules. Make 'em grind.

Implemented and used properly, this could give the peaceful player a tiny bit of non-combative chance. They would also not feel totally helpless and victimized and hopefully not be so scared of playing in Open. Meanwhile the hot shots, if they have the skill and not just the big guns, should not have too much trouble dealing with the authorities and catch the mouse anyway. Let's see how gud they really got

I think both sides would find this fun and hopefully level the playing field a bit.

Even if all this gets laughed to scorn, at least let traders hire some sort of limited protection for each trip.

Thanks for reading.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

o7 CMDRs

Been watching these PVP/PVE, Gankster VS Trader threads here and elsewhere for a while now.

Many start off with great suggestions but almost all die the same death.
GetLost + GitGud = ThreadClosed.

Haven't seen this elsewhere yet, lets see where it lands.

Combat logging is bad. The present C&P is useless. The Risk2Reward ratio is pitiful.

My humble idea:

It is the year 3305. I suggest a new "weapon" module for peaceful traders and explores. Sorry miners.

It would consists of two parts, each taking up one largest hard point on the ship.

Introducing the ImNotAPew-36 Supersonic 911 Gravitator.

One part is the "Heavy Gamma Transmitter Unit" the other is the "High Gain Focus Antenna Relay". Sell it fairly expensive and in semi-remote locations. Like the AX weapons and non engineer-able.

The module would be shielded and undetectable when equipped. Attackers should never know who has one or not. It would remove some of their perceived clairvoyance plus provide a sense of real accomplishment. If they can beat it.

To avoid abuse, it would be for Clean CMDR only, limited in ammo and active only after a Interdiction submission. Restock available at stations as normal.

Operation example with one attacker in a HighSec system:

Trader submits to ID and activates 911 module. This will enable Wing beacons, drain all capacitors to 75% and immediately call in one G5 Elite FDL NPC officer. The NPC will target and audibly ask the perpetrator to holster pews and stand down. The NPCop will not fire until the attacker does, or refuses to comply after X# seconds. Trader is given a few extra seconds to plan and attempt the escape.

The presently useless SysSec level and the number of attackers would effect the power, size, number and speed of the NPCops:

For example with one attacker:

HighSec - 1 G5 Elite FDL NPC, 1 second delay
MedSec - 2 G4 Deadly Vulture NPCs, 2 second delay
LowSec - 3 G3 Dangerous ViperMV NPCs, 3 second delay (while they pack up their donuts)
Anarchy - Zero NPCs, of course, but make it very worthwhile for the traders to venture in there. Make the payout nice and juicy.

These are just examples. The final balance of everything could be worked out over time.
It should be very balanced for both sides. Taking into consideration Factions, PP, etc.

If the trader is still too slow and/or the perps are able to evade the NPCops, then game over for trader. But hey, at least we've made some use of our useless police "force".

If the attacker gets popped, they should be punished as they are today IRL.
Fat fine and ship re-buy with only the default, empty E modules. Make 'em grind.

Implemented and used properly, this could give the peaceful player a tiny bit of non-combative chance. They would also not feel totally helpless and victimized and hopefully not be so scared of playing in Open. Meanwhile the hot shots, if they have the skill and not just the big guns, should not have too much trouble dealing with the authorities and catch the mouse anyway. Let's see how gud they really got

I think both sides would find this fun and hopefully level the playing field a bit.

Even if all this gets laughed to scorn, at least let traders hire some sort of limited protection for each trip.

Thanks for reading.

No.

 

[ethelred]

As an Open trader, I'd prefer not to give up more cargo space when with just these Few Simple Tricks I Can Avoid Interdictions And Being Blown Up:-

1. Fit for open.
2. Watch scanner and don't allow myself to be interdicted.

You're welcome.