The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Riverside]

And perhaps even provide a substantial penalty for murder after cargo has been ejected. Like something exponential to the amount of cargo being requested.
You know, since the "victim" complied with the request.
Because in the end, that's where all these academically interesting discussions tend to fail, and the "gankers" fall back on prerogative.

Several years ago I started a thread to discuss differentiating between pirates and 'gankers':

Karma vs PvP Piracy

The question of how piracy could fit in with the proposed 'karma' system has come up a few times recently, I'd like to see if we can come up with a solution. PvP Piracy is obviously illegal according to the in-universe laws (lets call this 'lore') but positively encouraged by the game itself...

forums.frontier.co.uk

I agree the differentiating factor is the kill, and having some motivation to have the 'victim' survive the encounter might be a good way to go.

The main reason I've linked to it is that is contained contributions from several active (at the time) 'baddie' players that I think provide an interesting perspective. Worth a read imo.

 

[Sylveria]

I sense community-wide agreement and harmony is only one page away.

New to Hotel California, are you?

 

[Sylveria]

Several years ago I started a thread to discuss differentiating between pirates and 'gankers':

Karma vs PvP Piracy

The question of how piracy could fit in with the proposed 'karma' system has come up a few times recently, I'd like to see if we can come up with a solution. PvP Piracy is obviously illegal according to the in-universe laws (lets call this 'lore') but positively encouraged by the game itself...

forums.frontier.co.uk

I agree the differentiating factor is the kill, and having some motivation to have the 'victim' survive the encounter might be a good way to go.

The main reason I've linked to it is that is contained contributions from several active (at the time) 'baddie' players that I think provide an interesting perspective. Worth a read imo.

Yeah, I remember perusing that thread a while back, as well as hundreds of other discussions regarding the differences between what constitutes "murder", and then whether or not that "murder" is justified, etc. Without proper mechanics in place to deter such, again, this is all academic discussion with no definitive ending. These discussions devolve into debates about "moral positions/justification", all the while advocating for strengthening criminal career activities while negotiating naught in return. And we haven't even begun the infinitely circular discussion regarding what constitutes "PvP" and what constitutes "harassment", either.

Yet again, I remember the reasons why I avoided such discussions... because in the end, as Frontier chooses to justify criminal careers by avoiding strict penalties, it will also continue to be an avenue for those who wish to exploit the mechanics for other nefarious purposes. (e.g., harassment of players) The latter of which can simply be avoided by blocking, but results in nothing being done to curb the behavior of those who engage in it. (Which is why "ganking" will always be present)

I often wonder why Frontier bothered introducing a "crime and punishment" system at all- given we always come full circle to "blazing your own trail" and criminal activity should be encouraged rather than discouraged. If there was a true distinction in how criminal activities were punished differently vs NPC's than players, the discussion itself would have merit.

Alas, there is not. And thus, we are relegated back to all things being "pixels" and it all being a game, and no one should take their time investment so seriously. And no amount of money ever bought a second of time, for whatever that's worth.

Round and round we go.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Very much this.
Don't think I ever saw a player use hatch breakers on me.

I've used them with a fake mining T7 on other miners... they didn't suspect anything (I admit having copied any idea of @Screemonster )

 

[Morbad]

As far as im concerned they come under the same bracket - low life.
They want something for nothing and don't have to work for it, how hard is it to bully a merchant ship in a murder boat? no skill no honor.
Come up against an equal ship and they run a mile.

They are just gankers with a Parrot

O7

'Low lifes' should be a part of the Elite setting and as long as everything is vaguely contextual, there should be no stigma associated with playing such a character.

That's why I say gankers have destroyed piracy. They've made a game environment in which the meta is to not wait for communication.

The meta was always to not wait for communication. My CMDR doesn't want his cargo taken, so he does his best to prevent that from happening. Since well before the game was released, there has been a best way to do this (i.e. just jump away), and that best way has never involved wasting time with communication.

Gankers didn't do this. The fundamental lack of consequence mechanisms (for both victim and assailant, levied by either NPC or player-controlled forces) of the game did. What we have is the inevitable result of a system where failure is not costly enough and all encounters are ultimately optional.

And perhaps even provide a substantial penalty for murder after cargo has been ejected. Like something exponential to the amount of cargo being requested.
You know, since the "victim" complied with the request.
Because in the end, that's where all these academically interesting discussions tend to fail, and the "gankers" fall back on prerogative.

Trying to codify in-game C&P to encourage piracy, by broadly stigmatizing a refusal to comply with the demands of criminals, is not something I'd find particularly credible. Some outlier polities might work this way, but it should not be the norm. Even areas that don't recognize a right to self-defense will almost always recognize a right to flee from illicit attack, if not have a legal duty to retreat rather than comply with criminal demands. Likewise, assaulting someone for their property should not be less illegal than assaulting someone just because.

The game cannot distinguish between 'pirate' and 'ganker' and shouldn't even try. Even finding a clear consensus on where the line is among players would be difficult.

I agree the differentiating factor is the kill, and having some motivation to have the 'victim' survive the encounter might be a good way to go.

Victims always survive. The other side of that coin is that retaliation always fails.

No potential for loss = no risk = no meaningful punishments = no credible deterrent.

 

[Riverside]

Victims always survive. The other side of that coin is that retaliation always fails.

No potential for loss = no risk = no meaningful punishments = no credible deterrent.

The best things I've experienced in the game started with a desire for vengeance, it is an excellent source of motivation
Success is nice but not essential, and failure is an important part of the learning process. I think if one never succeeds perhaps ones goals are set to high, and I will usually break a large target down into manageable chunks that I can count as wins to keep me motivated.

Loss on rebuy is a subjective thing. I am almost always carrying quite a bit of explo data for example, it's a handy way to quickly apply fairly precise amounts of influence to a faction that controls a dockable asset. On the rare occasions I get popped it matters to me, and it stops me being too complacent.

Right now I have 22 pages of explo data on me, and while I could just sell it whenever I dock on my carrier... well where's the fun in that? When I eventually get back to the bubble I can do a lot more with that data than just earn cash & get tags, assuming I manage to sell it

 

[Morbad]

The best things I've experienced in the game started with a desire for vengeance, it is an excellent source of motivation
Success is nice but not essential, and failure is an important part of the learning process. I think if one never succeeds perhaps ones goals are set to high, and I will usually break a large target down into manageable chunks that I can count as wins to keep me motivated.

Loss on rebuy is a subjective thing. I am almost always carrying quite a bit of explo data for example, it's a handy way to quickly apply fairly precise amounts of influence to a faction that controls a dockable asset. On the rare occasions I get popped it matters to me, and it stops me being too complacent.

Right now I have 22 pages of explo data on me, and while I could just sell it whenever I dock on my carrier... well where's the fun in that? When I eventually get back to the bubble I can do a lot more with that data than just earn cash & get tags, assuming I manage to sell it

The point was that the game doesn't provide for any objective failure critiera. There is no state one's CMDR can be pushed to that appreciably degrades their ability to act. Rebuy was a rather soft penalty originally and is usually meaningless for most people in the current state of the game. BGS results only influence those who care about them, which generally doesn't apply to gankers or pirates.

One can opt in to certain losses, like carrying around exploration data in a situation where they might by some miracle, be subject to a ship loss, but that's an individual contrivance, not something that any outside party can impose.

 

[zikolach]

In context of PvP I have a question - whether (and if yes how much) does the engineering affect ship price (rebuy cost)?

Would it make sense to define in-game price per engineering component depending on the grade in credits? And use/include it (if not yet) into the ship rebuy cost?

I remember I saw that my engineered Corvette cost is above 1B, but I am not sure if it is just cost of all modules (deducted by hot status and probably affected by distance from my current location).

 

[Riverside]

In context of PvP I have a question - whether (and if yes how much) does the engineering affect ship price (rebuy cost)?

Would it make sense to define in-game price per engineering component depending on the grade in credits? And use/include it (if not yet) into the ship rebuy cost?

I remember I saw that my engineered Corvette cost is above 1B, but I am not sure if it is just cost of all modules (deducted by hot status and probably affected by distance from my current location).

It doesn't. If you have so little cash you cannot afford rebuy, losing an engineered ship really hurts though

 

[zikolach]

It doesn't. If you have so little cash you cannot afford rebuy, losing an engineered ship really hurts though

No one (except newcomers) flies without rebuy

Than another question(s):

• Would it make the game worse if we can rebuy our ships at any point of time when we have/collect enough money?
• And we are allowed to do so when we got rid of the notoriety?
• In the systems where we have full access to the station (no local bounties)?

 

[Riverside]

The point was that the game doesn't provide for any objective failure critiera. There is no state one's CMDR can be pushed to that appreciably degrades their ability to act. Rebuy was a rather soft penalty originally and is usually meaningless for most people in the current state of the game. BGS results only influence those who care about them, which generally doesn't apply to gankers or pirates.

One can opt in to certain losses, like carrying around exploration data in a situation where they might by some miracle, be subject to a ship loss, but that's an individual contrivance, not something that any outside party can impose.

We have discussed self-limiting before, although maybe not in this thread.

Once a goal can be achieved at all (killing an NPC for example) it becomes a matter of how quickly it can be done, how many can be killed (the basis of the Combat Elite rank), and maybe how little equipment can be used to still succeed; self-limiting.

After that the PvE threat runs out of steam & the main existential threat comes from other players, if one is inclined to expose themselves to that kind of experience. Then how many can be handled, then how little equipment can be used; self-limiting.

In all of that, we all can find a level of threat that keeps the game challenging whether it be getting a team together to protect each other from NPC pirates right up to soloing a wing of gankers in a hauler.

And it's a game. Inherently meaningless even to non-nihilists, apart from having fun and doing things like helping or opposing others that make one feel good. Play in an interesting way & set an example to inspire others to try to too

 

[Riverside]

No one (except newcomers) flies without rebuy

Than another question(s):

• Would it make the game worse if we can rebuy our ships at any point of time when we have/collect enough money?
• And we are allowed to do so when we got rid of the notoriety?
• In the systems where we have full access to the station (no local bounties)?

Try it & see

 

[Sylveria]

No one (except newcomers) flies without rebuy

Than another question(s):

• Would it make the game worse if we can rebuy our ships at any point of time when we have/collect enough money?
• And we are allowed to do so when we got rid of the notoriety?
• In the systems where we have full access to the station (no local bounties)?

• For those who are spacerich, this is already the case. When they have billions of credits (some owning more than one capital ship), millions for a rebuy is a mere annoyance, not a deterrence.
• Fines also don't mean diddly (see #1) when the notoriety system has attrition built into it- yet another reason why the current C&P system is absolute weaksauce. If one can simply "wait it out and cool their heels", then why have a notoriety system in the first place? What point is there in even having C&P for that matter, other than some fantasy RP layer?
• Iinterstellar Factors "backdoors" need to be closed for serious crimes, like murder.

Of course, if Frontier does strengthen penalties, then we'll have the complaints all over again how the game isn't "respecting one's time" (which is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard) and then they'll back it off and it all becomes meaningless (ergo pointless) again. That's why it's a broken system, that's why it's exploited.

 

[zikolach]

Not being true supporter of this idea but just thought once again of PvP on/off switch and questioned myself what would we all loose if we have it in game as described below?

Imagine it to be implemented as:

• similar to "report crimes..." switch with cooldown e.g. min 5 minutes and until next jump (load screen)
• for player who set it to "off" - all players are shown as NPC on the radar in SC (still semi-distinguishable by name, but that doesn't make it important)
• for player who set it to "on" - radar shows players selected "on" as hollow markers (as now in open) and players selected "off" as NPC
• players can form a wing only having all the same setting ("on" or "off") and cannot switch it until leaving the wing
• when one of the players interdicts another one (or another submits) even if they have different settings (or one drops on another low wake signal) - they appear at the same instance only when both are having setting "on", otherwise 2 separate instances created with an NPC controlling the opponent's ship. The behavior of opponent-NPC would depend on the target cargo, belonging to superpower, faction reputation, bounties etc.
• players having setting to "off" could instance together only with wing mates and players from friend list having setting "off" (drop out of SC, stations, ground settlements etc)
• if 2 (or more players) players appeared in separated instances and managed to low-wake there could be a cooldown before they oould see each other again in supercruise (instance)
• all players can message via chat and appear in recent contacts (top panel) and contacts (left panel) to send direct messages

Would it help to bring all players to open and feel inhabited space more "populated"? Would we loose something (if now many just play in different modes anyway)?

Theoretically this solution would:

• help players from solo to feel safer as the attack by PvP-player would look exactly as an attack by NPC pirate or another superpower member (enemy) (except maybe interdiction difficulty).
• allow players participating powerplay in open counteract (to a certain degree) by seeing other players delivering PP materials and fight their NPC-clones and stealing cargo etc.

 

[Robert Maynard]

• when one of the players interdicts another one (or another submits) even if they have different settings (or one drops on another low wake signal) - they appear at the same instance only when both are having setting "on", otherwise 2 separate instances created with an NPC controlling the opponent's ship. The behavior of opponent-NPC would depend on the target cargo, belonging to superpower, faction reputation, bounties etc.

Better just to not let players with PvP-on interdict or wake follow those with PvP-off - as they would not instance together in normal space.

• players having setting to "off" could instance together only with wing mates and players from friend list having setting "off" (drop out of SC, stations, ground settlements etc)

Why restrict players with PvP-off from instancing with like minded players and artificially restrict them to instancing with wing members or those on their friends list? They may as well play in a Private Group is that were implemented.

 

[zikolach]

Both good points. I will try to explain it.

Better just to not let players with PvP-on interdict those with PvP-off - as they would not instance together in normal space.

It is important to keep it to allow to create these separated instances, to affect the other player at certain degree, but not destroy their gameplay by direct (combat) interaction.

Why restrict players with PvP-off from instancing with like minded players and artificially restrict them to instancing with wing members or those on their friends list? They may as well play in a Private Group is that were implemented.

This is important so other PvP-players were not able to set the setting to off, to instance with non-PvP players. It is also important to not having a need of resticting non-PvP players to fire each other (e.g. they may still cooperate combat zones, use healing beams or do training 1-to-1 fights if they want with wingmates and people from friend list).

UPD: the proposed solution is not "traditional" PvP-off switch when PvP-on-players cannot shoot PvP-off-ones. It is sort of play with instancing to avoid non-likely-minded to instance together.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It is important to keep it to allow to create these separated instances, to affect the other player at certain degree, but not destroy their gameplay by direct (combat) interaction.

In which case the PvP-on players would be able to force NPC interactions on PvP-off players, even when no NPC interaction was generated by the game.

This is important so other PvP-players were not able to set the setting to off, to instance with non-PvP players. It is also important to not having a need of resticting non-PvP players to fire each other (e.g. they may still cooperate combat zones, use healing beams or do training 1-to-1 fights if they want with wingmates and people from friend list).

If players can damage each other, with both set to PvP-off, then the feature would be broken - and would not be worth wasting the development effort in implementing it (IMO).

 

[zikolach]

There is at least one issue (or technical difficulty) I see with this solution related to friend list - how to cluster players in a way to manage instancing for friends/contact of the second (and more) degree.

In which case the PvP-on players would be able to force NPC interactions on PvP-off players, even when no NPC interaction was generated by the game.

Not sure what you mean and NPC interaction generated by game, but I assume e.g. attempt of pirate to attack player triggered by mission. So I think there would not be a limit to that except the cooldown timeout for 2 players (PvP-on and PvP-off) to see each other in supercruise. So basically it would be even less dangerous than even avoiding subsequent interdiction from the same NPC-pirate after fleeing (low wake) from combat.

If players can damage each other, with both set to PvP-off, then the feature would be broken - and would not be worth wasting the development effort in implementing it (IMO).

Why do you think so? If player having PvP-off can instance only with friend or wing mate, why do you think they should be limited from doing some occasional friendly-fire (and potantially other direct interactions like sending hatch-breaker limpets etc)?

Maybe it would be easier to see how it could work if we describe it the other way around:

• players are playing in different modes as now
• single player mode is equivalent of own player PG
• all players are visible to each other independently of the mode they are playing in
• if 2 players play in different modes they are shown as NPC
• when player from another mode interacts (interdicts, drop on low wake or POI) with player from another mode each of them appear in its own instance with the NPC-clone of the other player
• the result of direct interaction of both players (e.g. combat) with their NPC-clones are independent (as they would interact with other 2 random NPC)
• the behavior of NPC-clone is defined by the rules (not by the actions of original player), so like any other normal interactions with NPC generated by game
• if one solo player sends wing request to another solo player and it is accepted their single player PGs are merged together

It is all the same as above just described from different point of view. Technical implementation may be the same with small variations (explicit trigger setting or choice of Solo/Open).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Not sure what you mean and NPC interaction generated by game, but I assume e.g. attempt of pirate to attack player triggered by mission. So I think there would not be a limit to that except the cooldown timeout for 2 players (PvP-on and PvP-off) to see each other in supercruise. So basically it would be even less dangerous than even avoiding subsequent interdiction from the same NPC-pirate after fleeing (low wake) from combat.

Put simply, PvP-on players would be able to interdict PvP-off players (where NPC interdictions are much, much easier to win than player interdictions) and effectively force the PvP-off player to lose the interdiction to an NPC that they then need to deal with / avoid in normal space.

Basically it would be one more way for PvP players to waste the time of those who don't enjoy PvP.

Why do you think so? If player having PvP-off can instance only with friend or wing mate, why do you think they should be limited from doing some occasional friendly-fire (and potantially other direct interactions like sending hatch-breaker limpets etc)?

If a "PvP-flag" does not enable / disable PvP damage then it does not work. If it is designed to still allow PvP damage then it's not a PvP-flag.

Maybe it would be easier to see how it could work if we describe it the other way around:

• players are playing in different modes as now
• single player mode is equivalent of own player PG
• all players are visible to each other independently of the mode they are playing in
• if 2 players play in different modes they are shown as NPC
• when player from another mode interacts (interdicts, drop on low wake or POI) with player from another mode each of them appear in its own instance with the NPC-clone of the other player
• the result of direct interaction of both players (e.g. combat) with their NPC-clones are independent (as they would interact with other 2 random NPC)
• the behavior of NPC-clone is defined by the rules (not by the actions of original player), so like any other normal interactions with NPC generated by game
• if one solo player sends wing request to another solo player and it is accepted their single player PGs are merged together

It is all the same as above just described from different point of view. Technical implementation may be the same with small variations (explicit trigger setting or choice of Solo/Open).

Sounds like a PvPer's wish list - to be able to force interactions on players who choose not to play with them....

 

[zikolach]

Put simply, PvP-on players would be able to interdict PvP-off players (where NPC interdictions are much, much easier to win than player interdictions) and effectively force the PvP-off player to lose the interdiction to an NPC that they then need to deal with / avoid in normal space.

Basically it would be one more way for PvP players to waste the time of those who don't enjoy PvP.

Do you see it as a problem that PvPer will "spam" non-PvPer with interdictions? What is the purpose? Especially if:

• subsequent interdictions are limited by cooldown
• interdiction difficulty may be adjusted fr this case or instance split may be done at the moment of interdiction start (so non-PvP player will compete respective level NPC/ship)

Will it still be problematic from your point of view?

If a "PvP-flag" does not enable / disable PvP damage then it does not work. If it is designed to still allow PvP damage then it's not a PvP-flag.

But that is the only not immersion(lore)-breaking way for cooperative gameplay (imo). Do not accept wing invitations from non-trusted players. Do not add people you scared of to your friend list (if using friend list for non-PvP instancing at all). Problem solved (imo).

Sounds like a PvPer's wish list - to be able to force interactions on players who choose not to play with them....

As originally suggested - implement it as setting in Open mode. If one is avoiding any interactions at all - continue playing in Solo/PG - I am not suggesting to remove it. In worst case there is always block function, if someone managed to spam you with interdictions or chatting - just block them.

If you have any particular scenarios in mind which would not work with suggested implementation, please share them.