"The path of least resistance"

[Fromhell]

Hello Fromhell!
Thank you for your map suggestion. Looking at it, I think it's worth raising a few points from a dev point of view:

You equate NPC aggression with player versus player status. I personally don't think this is a reasonable correlation.

I suspect that a large proportion of players who would like to avoid player versus player combat do so not because of the inherent difficulty increase.

Thanks for your direct reply - you may be right about that, but think about the "casual PvE-only player". Maybe he is a bit older, less twitch combat affine, or just likes floating around in peace and most likely won´t play the hardest that PvE possibly can offer anyway.

Maybe that target audience player would be ok with low to medium PvE difficulty, or worse, would even complain to nerf overall "too hard" difficulty PvE?

No objection though to make the PvE difficulty range from low to hard in a police guarded PvE-only territory, it doesn´t really matter with a territory split, right?

The hypothetical "hardcore" skilled PvE-only player could even be the one getting interested in trying out PvAll at a later point. Think about it, if you are the most bad-ass PvE pilot taking on every AI robot of the galaxy single handedly, wouldn´t you at least try to move on from shooting scripted AI to taking on human players some day for more challenge?

I have a similiar view as Chris Roberts with SC who wants that players sooner or later engage in PvAll in the outer lawless areas because he knows that PvP is least predictable and therefore harder. But no one is "forced" to go there, but it will have the highest rewards. Also the PvE will probably be harder because of higher NPC pirate activity.

Don't get me wrong, players are always going to be less predictable in terms of how they act and how they're equipped, potentially making them more difficult opponents. However, I think dislike of player versus player combat is more likely to be because of the psychological elements of adversarial/competitive activities. Even though it's just a game, I think it can gain a personal level of psychological/social importance which some people don't want.

I am not opposed to giving the PvE-only players the possibility to prevent PvP, as long as it´s not done in an immersion breaking way for everyone else. (e.g. "flagging system" is a big no-go as well as turning off friendly fire). The best way I believe is a heavily NPC policed system and blowing up OR disabling the PvP attacker within seconds, before the victim blows up. Start with a warning, then deduct a hefty credits fee, disable the attackers ship, confiscate it. Things like that which work in fiction, not with gamey mechanics.

You also have some features that we are not supporting; player station/defence building and player controlled territories. It's possible that these features might be looked at further down the line, but there are no plans for them at the moment.

just a proposal for the far out future and things that could happen in the "outer rims".
I´d like to see plans for something really cool beyond Elite status, some everlasting "endgame" with different things to do like building a station where you can put your ships, collected artifacts or trophies or even craft high quality goods. Plus large scale player conflict.
If Elite status is like "Level 50" in MMOs and no new gameplay possibilities start afterwards apart from collecting ships, it is like themepark MMO xy would be ending at level cap with no "raids" afterwards. Not everyone is into creating an ALT and starting from scratch if you suddenly lack meaningful progression.

In PvE driven games players will always demand more content, if they can´t make their own, like it is possible in player conflict driven games.

So, I also have a question about the galaxy segregation in your map and I'd be interested to hear your response: If we were to use such a layout I would assume that the players who had less interest in player versus player combat would never leave the "safe areas", except perhaps to dabble at the fringes.

I wouldn´t call it safe area, just safe from PvP. Yes, some players would probably never leave this "safe area", but does it make a difference? The Elite galaxy is endless, SC has only 100+ systems, EvE 5000. In ED I think it simply doesn´t matter if you have 100 billion or 400 billion for a certain playstyle at your disposal.

Wouldn´t the territory segregation make it easier for you to put specific missions into the playstyle specific territories?

- Co-Op and single player focused missions could take place in the PvE-only guarded zone.
- PvPvE missions like proposed in the "AllGroups-only missions" thread and PvP objective missions could take place in the PvAll territory, as well as arena missions like PvP deathmatches, capture the flag type activities or even Podracing type parcours with spaceships. Endless possibilites of player competitive things to do.

Assuming that such players were completely safe from player persecution in the "safe" area, how different would this be from a group system where such players could switch between "private" and "all" groups?

Several reasons
1. The switch is still an immersion break and an out-of-fiction mechanic, not a big fan of "gamey" solutions, when you have enough NPCs to govern systems / punish criminals who make trouble in the PvE-only zone.

2. People are taken out of the multiplayer universe just because they don´t like PvP happening, when you could have them all in the same universe, not in different "group dimensions".

3. The possible exploiting methods which many users mentioned.
e.g. hypothetical super valuable asteroid, made out of marshmellows, camped and mined by pirate players. What keeps me from switching to private or solo and getting the marshmellows, instead of getting friends for help, or waiting until they fly off?

4. Path of least resistence: What keeps me from running valueable cargo only in solo/private group, then switching back to all-group when I have nothing of value on board? Which trader would even take the risk to run cargo in the all-group, if you can make your life a little easier without consequences for adapting your circumstances by switching groups.

5. Missing out fun voluntarily:
Let´s say three ships actually blew me up in a PvAll territory and I´m raging. So I´ll put them on ignore because someone said something starting with "your mom". So the group switch and ignore options are there, I use it and they vanish from my universe forever. Not really fun. Fun would be using the bounty system and set them up for destruction, or getting a group together for revenge, but the quicker way is with the group and ignore mechanics.

Taking an alternative look: if we assume that even the "safe" area is not one hundred percent safe; that police response may not be quick and powerful enough to stop an attack, even if they can punish the aggressor after the fact, then I think we both know that this will happen to some degree. So whilst statistically the chance of being attacked by humans will be low, the perceived threat will likely be much higher. In this case those who don't care for the player versus combat experience will have basically lost out, as the "safe" area would randomly not be so.

People who try to attack a player in the PvE-only zone should just be punished in the hardest possible way. e.g. Take away their ship, give it to the attacked ship owner to cover their repair cost. Send the pilot to jail for two weeks. There are some similiar mechanics in "Age of Wushu". Basically ganking should be pure suicide and a total loss for the attacker and a win for the victim. Just think up the harshest possible punishments. Make ganking only a pain for the ganker - simplest, most effective solution, plus ->realism.

Another very interesting point about the map is the reward layers. In your map, there is a clear distinction between the potential rewards based on the risk of encountering adversarial human players. This makes perfect sense. However, it's also highly unpalatable for players that want a cooperative or single player experience, and that also makes sense.

Correct - this is what I think would be a sufficient risk vs. reward model, also encouraging people to take higher risks over the course of time.
Maybe some day a PvE-only player who shot a gazillion bots will think about venturing into the more riskier areas and finds out it isn´t that bad after all, no tons of "evil teenagers" waiting around every corner.

ED should encourage riskier gameplay involving multiplayer, because at the end we know it is the superior game mode. Don´t force single players to play multiplayer but encourage them to at least check out multiplayer and go for riskier more social gameplay and reward them for doing it.

Firstly, it may be the case that you are hoping for massively multiplayer features (territory control, large scale player organisations) that we aren't going to support. Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to help much on this one. It's just not Elite: Dangerous. In fairness we've not promised anything like this (to my knowledge ) I also think that what we are attempting is quite ambitious enough and nicely focused.

well maybe some day in the future. Owning a piece of the galaxy would be great and I think there is more than enough territory avaible to host a billion players and give all of them a couple of systems to call their own

Secondly, it may be that you are after risk/rewards that are commensurate with player versus player skill. Basically, the more skilful players get the best stuff/"win". In this case, I would like to ask another question: If the game clearly differentiated between rewards obtained in the "all" group and "private" groups, so players could very clearly see who had trod the path more dangerous, would you be less strongly against a grouping system.

Yes, that would work.

Take for example, Fallout New Vegas (got it off steam during the recent summer sale)
It has a "hardcore mode" and I wondered what the difference is:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Hardcore_mode

"Hardcore mode can be toggled off at any time through the options menu. Once turned off it can be turned back on, but you will not get the achievement/trophy."

So now I´m playing hardcore mode. Is it fun? You bet! But at the same time it´s also a major pain in the back, but the fun comes out of the increased realism and another layer of gameplay which is constantly looking for water and food. Even bullets have weight. It is just more realistic, to care about your dehydration and nutrition level all the time, looking for water sources which are not contaminated with radiation. Broken limbs don´t heal if you sleep in a bed not owned by you. Once I had to walk half an hour back to town with a broken leg to get to the doctor. Did it suck? YES. But there was a sense of achievement arriving there, shooting the damn geckos on the way.

It makes the game better, but if there wouldn´t be that silly steam achievement and alleged super weapon you get for completing the entire game in hardcore mode, I would have simply turned it off (path of least resistance again).

But I would lose the achievement and I´m already half way in the game.

(btw players complained they don´t got a super weapon or anything worthwhile for completing the game in hardcore mode, so the "trophy" reward is pretty lame, but the game is still more rewarding with hardcore mode on, and once you are in you just want that damn trophy anyway (carrot on a stick)...

In ED I´d rather like to see something like the "luxury yacht" which was available in SWG as an exclusive reward for a specific playstyle.

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

I am not opposed to giving the PvE-only players the possibility to prevent PvP, as long as it´s not done in an immersion breaking way for everyone else. (e.g. "flagging system" is a big no-go as well as turning off friendly fire). The best way I believe is a heavily NPC policed system and blowing up OR disabling the PvP attacker within seconds, before the victim blows up. Start with a warning, then deduct a hefty credits fee, disable the attackers ship, confiscate it. Things like that which work in fiction, not with gamey mechanics.

This is the worst possible thing to implement. Instant ganking - whether its players instant ganking other players - or NPC police instant ganking criminal players is not an immersive game mechanic. Its just a quick fix.

It ruined criminal play in UO where thieves and murderers would be 'insta-whacked' and it ruined criminal activity in Eve Online where a fleet of police battleships would instantly appear out of thin air and instantly pop a pirate within seconds of him discharging his lasers at someone in high-sec.

I agree with the hefty fines and making life a real pain for criminals who break the law in high security systems - but instantly killing them with quick and unrealistic fixes isn't the way imho.

I would much prefer criminal activity to be punished over a longer period of time than insta-punishment. If he hangs around the crime scene for a period of time, then yes by all means have Vipers finally turn up (after traveling from their designated station and not doing an Eve-type Houdini act and appearing out of thin air!). And yes the Vipers will dish out any punishment merited.

But if the criminal makes good his escape, he has still got his fines and bounty to deal with once the crime is reported - but I'd also add an additional feature along the lines of a bounty 'kill-right', which is something the victim receives. Its a kill-right that doesn't expire until the victim has exacted his revenge, or the victim can even sell the kill-right to a real player bounty hunter who does the deed instead. The advantage is anyone holding a kill-right (victim or bounty hunter) can use NPC agents to locate where the criminal is currently located (similar to how agents in Eve work). The key is though the kill-right doesn't expire even if the criminal has paid off his fines. A revenge-kill is the only way it'll expire. I believe that is a longer drawn out and much more interesting way to deal with high-sec player killing than instant punishment where the victim gets no satisfaction really.

 

[Fromhell]

This is the worst possible thing to implement. Instant ganking - whether its players instant ganking other players - or NPC police instant ganking criminal players is not an immersive game mechanic. Its just a quick fix.

It ruined criminal play in UO where thieves and murderers would be 'insta-whacked' and it ruined criminal activity in Eve Online where a fleet of police battleships would instantly appear out of thin air and instantly pop a pirate within seconds of him discharging his lasers at someone in high-sec.

I agree with the hefty fines and making life a real pain for criminals who break the law in high security systems - but instantly killing them with quick and unrealistic fixes isn't the way imho.

I would much prefer criminal activity to be punished over a longer period of time than insta-punishment. If he hangs around the crime scene for a period of time, then yes by all means have Vipers finally turn up (after traveling from their designated station and not doing an Eve-type Houdini act and appearing out of thin air!). And yes the Vipers will dish out any punishment merited.

But if the criminal makes good his escape, he has still got his fines and bounty to deal with once the crime is reported - but I'd also add an additional feature along the lines of a bounty 'tag', which is something the victim receives. Its a kill-right that doesn't expire until the victim has exacted his revenge or sold the tag onto a real player bounty hunter who does the deed instead. Anyone holding a kill-right (victim or bounty hunter) could even use NPC agents to locate where the criminal is currently located (similar to how agents in Eve work).

It'll give rise to true outlaws and not just suicide gankers that plagued Eve.

you should have highlighted the second part of the quote too, where it says "start with a warning".

So someone needs to decide who to protect, the ganker or the victim? I'd say the victim. Why shoot at or bump into a player ship anyway in PvE-only space? Doesn't make sense, right? Just aim your lasers somewhere else. If it's just an accidental quick shot (might happen!), you could get away with a warning.. then credits fine... then... you get disabled and towed away, or go BOOM. Or lock up the ship and send the pilot to jail on top of the fines.


"it ruined criminal activity in EvE"

sure, wasn't that the intention in the first place? To have no criminal player activity in a PvE-only zone? Worked perfectly for EvE. Police Ships appearing or jumping out of hyperspace are not immersion breaking. Alternatively to appearing ships, it could even be a built in "security system lock" in your own ship for example. If you tried to gank you could wait in your disabled ship for an hour until you get towed away and pay the fine.

 

[STABB666]

Coconut dream is a Pina Colada.

This is the worst possible thing to implement. Instant ganking - whether its players instant ganking other players - or NPC police instant ganking criminal players is not an immersive game mechanic. Its just a quick fix.

It ruined criminal play in UO where thieves and murderers would be 'insta-whacked' and it ruined criminal activity in Eve Online where a fleet of police battleships would instantly appear out of thin air and instantly pop a pirate within seconds of him discharging his lasers at someone in high-sec.

I agree with the hefty fines and making life a real pain for criminals who break the law in high security systems - but instantly killing them with quick and unrealistic fixes isn't the way imho.

I would much prefer criminal activity to be punished over a longer period of time than insta-punishment. If he hangs around the crime scene for a period of time, then yes by all means have Vipers finally turn up (after traveling from their designated station and not doing an Eve-type Houdini act and appearing out of thin air!). And yes the Vipers will dish out any punishment merited.

But if the criminal makes good his escape, he has still got his fines and bounty to deal with once the crime is reported - but I'd also add an additional feature along the lines of a bounty 'tag', which is something the victim receives. Its a kill-right that doesn't expire until the victim has exacted his revenge, or he can even sell the tag to a real player bounty hunter who does the deed instead. Anyone holding a kill-right (victim or bounty hunter) could even use NPC agents to locate where the criminal is currently located (similar to how agents in Eve work).

It'll give rise to true outlaws and not just suicide gankers that plagued Eve.

A revenge bounty sounds positively excellent.

Also, smashing people for breaking the law is somewhat of a contradiction to the ethos of becoming 'Elite'. The original system of not letting you dock until you pay your fines, and the fines/punishment becoming ever more severe, seems more than sufficient to make me wait until the target attempts to flee. Of course, I'm not up against real people that I just want to kill because I really, really don't like them, but then I don't think any other player is worth taking on a negative status adjustment...well, maybe just this once...

 

[Nagual]

I am not opposed to giving the PvE-only players the possibility to prevent PvP, as long as it´s not done in an immersion breaking way for everyone else. (e.g. "flagging system" is a big no-go as well as turning off friendly fire). The best way I believe is a heavily NPC policed system and blowing up OR disabling the PvP attacker within seconds, before the victim blows up. Start with a warning, then deduct a hefty credits fee, disable the attackers ship, confiscate it. Things like that which work in fiction, not with gamey mechanics.

This is the worst possible thing to implement. Instant ganking - whether its players instant ganking other players - or NPC police instant ganking criminal players is not an immersive game mechanic. Its just a quick fix.

I would much prefer criminal activity to be punished over a longer period of time than insta-punishment. If he hangs around the crime scene for a period of time, then yes by all means have Vipers finally turn up (after traveling from their designated station and not doing an Eve-type Houdini act and appearing out of thin air!). And yes the Vipers will dish out any punishment merited.

But if the criminal makes good his escape, he has still got his fines and bounty to deal with once the crime is reported - but I'd also add an additional feature along the lines of a bounty 'tag', which is something the victim receives. Its a kill-right that doesn't expire until the victim has exacted his revenge, or he can even sell the tag to a real player bounty hunter who does the deed instead. Anyone holding a kill-right (victim or bounty hunter) could even use NPC agents to locate where the criminal is currently located (similar to how agents in Eve work).

It'll give rise to true outlaws and not just suicide gankers that plagued Eve.

In EVE I quite liked the police response. At first glance I agree with FromHell, however your reply made me think. You have a valid point, and I would say that insta-policing is immersion breaking, however as long as NPCs have fast travel in the same way as players will have, it could be that time to arrive at site of crime will be close to the time it takes for them to 'see' the crime, launch and then arrive at the scene. Add to that other factors such as the type of system, level etc ( thinking old elite here ) or just availability of vipers, then committing crime would have varied responses. In some systems they may respond quickly, others it may take some time. Combined with your other ideas, it could be an effective solution.

 

[STABB666]

Show me the way to go home...

In EVE I quite liked the police response. At first glance I agree with FromHell, however your reply made me think. You have a valid point, and I would say that insta-policing is immersion breaking, however as long as NPCs have fast travel in the same way as players will have, it could be that time to arrive at site of crime will be close to the time it takes for them to 'see' the crime, launch and then arrive at the scene. Add to that other factors such as the type of system, level etc ( thinking old elite here ) or just availability of vipers, then committing crime would have varied responses. In some systems they may respond quickly, others it may take some time. Combined with your other ideas, it could be an effective solution.

You make a good point here. Out in the Frontier anarchic systems there's hardly likely to be any actual police vipers, so best take a bunch o' shields. Which does remind me- even in some of the core systems, I've attempted to blow up space stations while police vipers bounce off my ship and explode like little firecrackers....so perhaps they're going to need a bigger boat.

 

[jabokai]

If you have insta police responses for player/player combat then why wouldn't the police be coming down as hard on NPCs in FromHell's central safe zone? Surely that's immersion breaking "gamey mechanics" too - that players are treated differently from NPCs? But if they were treated the same you're effectively saying that players are (to all intents and purposes) immune from ANY attack in that central safe zone. So, in the end, the safe zone ends up being even safer than going to a solo group and maintaining the current plan, or it has an immersion break.

 

[Nagual]

If you have insta police responses for player/player combat then why wouldn't the police be coming down as hard on NPCs in FromHell's central safe zone? Surely that's immersion breaking "gamey mechanics" too - that players are treated differently from NPCs? But if they were treated the same you're effectively saying that players are (to all intents and purposes) immune from ANY attack in that central safe zone. So, in the end, the safe zone ends up being even safer than going to a solo group and maintaining the current plan, or it has an immersion break.

Fair point. Vipers should intercede against NPCs also, in fact this would be a great idea - you could be flying along and encounter police vs BadGuys. Do you get involved? Who do you side with?...

Also consider that in less developed systems the viper response may well be slow, so NPC pirates and player pirates may have plenty of time to attack and escape with their bounty. In more developed systems the response could be quite quick, but not instant.

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

you should have highlighted the second part of the quote too, where it says "start with a warning".

I didn't highlight that second bit because I agree with it and said as much here....

If he hangs around the crime scene for a period of time, then yes by all means have Vipers finally turn up (after traveling from their designated station and not doing an Eve-type Houdini act and appearing out of thin air!). And yes the Vipers will dish out any punishment merited.

That punishment could range from arrest and towing (for accidental discharge of weapons) to blasting him to bits for murder. But the point is he should have a chance to flee and not be insta-whacked like other games do.

"it ruined criminal activity in EvE"

sure, wasn't that the intention in the first place? To have no criminal player activity in a PvE-only zone? Worked perfectly for EvE. Police Ships appearing or jumping out of hyperspace are not immersion breaking. Alternatively to appearing ships, it could even be a built in "security system lock" in your own ship for example. If you tried to gank you could wait in your disabled ship for an hour until you get towed away and pay the fine.

Eve stated all along nowhere was safe, not even the highest security systems. What happened though was it gave rise to suicide squads - people who bought cheap throwaway ships in the full knowledge they'd get two or three shots off before being whacked by "supercops" and they'd use these cheap ganksquads to kill players in high sec that flew much more expensive ships. It was always a win win for the pirates if expensive loot dropped that their innocent by-standing mates happened to pick up.

As for ships appearing from nowhere - they did exactly that. There was no physical undocking from space stations and no actual flying from space stations to the crime scene for Eve police. They appeared out of thin air, and 3 seconds later you were dead I'd hope the police in ED have to physically fly from wherever they're stationed - I believe the will be since they had to in Elite and Frontier.

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

In EVE I quite liked the police response. At first glance I agree with FromHell, however your reply made me think. You have a valid point, and I would say that insta-policing is immersion breaking, however as long as NPCs have fast travel in the same way as players will have, it could be that time to arrive at site of crime will be close to the time it takes for them to 'see' the crime, launch and then arrive at the scene. Add to that other factors such as the type of system, level etc ( thinking old elite here ) or just availability of vipers, then committing crime would have varied responses. In some systems they may respond quickly, others it may take some time. Combined with your other ideas, it could be an effective solution.

That's how I'd hope it'd work too. The travel time from deployment to crime scene would depend on lots of different factors. For one thing players shouldn't be able to know the exact response time. Its that element of "shall I try and steal that last bit of loot or should I make a run for it now?" that gets the heart pounding and adds an extra layer of risk vs reward to the event.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

The hypothetical "hardcore" skilled PvE-only player could even be the one getting interested in trying out PvAll at a later point. Think about it, if you are the most bad-ass PvE pilot taking on every AI robot of the galaxy single handedly, wouldn´t you at least try to move on from shooting scripted AI to taking on human players some day for more challenge?

I have a similiar view as Chris Roberts with SC who wants that players sooner or later engage in PvAll in the outer lawless areas because he knows that PvP is least predictable and therefore harder. But no one is "forced" to go there, but it will have the highest rewards. Also the PvE will probably be harder because of higher NPC pirate activity.

I'm still digesting the rest of your interesting post, but I'd like to address this narrow issue which seems key to some of the wider disagreements.

I agree that PvP combat is likely to be more difficult, but speaking for myself, it's actually less challenging. In fact, the degree of challenge is zero by definition.

I get joy from figuring out how to beat an AI opponent, but inflicting defeat on another human being just doesn't do anything for me. From Monopoly to Doom to Carcassonne, I have experienced decades of misery from my defeats but never a moment of joy from all my victories. It's made me infamous among my friends for gleefully giving up winning strategies in favour of novelty, because my brain simply doesn't recognise victory against other people as a thing.

So in my case, even if I could beat every AI in the galaxy blindfolded and bouncing a basketball in my other hand, I would never be tempted to reduce my level of challenge by seeking out humans to fight.

 

[Nagual]

That's how I'd hope it'd work too. The travel time from deployment to crime scene would depend on lots of different factors. For one thing players shouldn't be able to know the exact response time. Its that element of "shall I try and steal that last bit of loot or should I make a run for it now?" that gets the heart pounding and adds an extra layer of risk vs reward to the event.

Indeed. Perhaps also, if the player or NPC was infamous as a pirate or other criminal activity, it could vary the speed of response or even the type of ships sent. However I'd like to think that it would take a serious amount of wrong doing before that happens - I'm thinking Firefly, where the Serenity gets caught up in quite a bit of wrong doings, but really isn't even much more than a blip on their radar, so to speak.

 

[Nagual]

I'm still digesting the rest of your interesting post, but I'd like to address this narrow issue which seems key to some of the wider disagreements.

I agree that PvP combat is likely to be more difficult, but speaking for myself, it's actually less challenging. In fact, the degree of challenge is zero by definition.

I get joy from figuring out how to beat an AI opponent, but inflicting defeat on another human being just doesn't do anything for me. From Monopoly to Doom to Carcassonne, I have experienced decades of misery from my defeats but never a moment of joy from all my victories. It's made me infamous among my friends for gleefully giving up winning strategies in favour of novelty, because my brain simply doesn't recognise victory against other people as a thing.

So in my case, even if I could beat every AI in the galaxy blindfolded and bouncing a basketball in my other hand, I would never be tempted to reduce my level of challenge by seeking out humans to fight.

Interesting reasoning there. I tend to view success in PvP not over or against my opponent, but against myself. In that I mean I may have won the fight vs someone else but I've gained personal experience from it. Not game XP, but I've learnt how to do something better, faster or something else.

Likewise in defeat, it wasn't the other person that beat me, but my lack of skill, experience or planning etc. etc.

I like the idea of being in a fight where it's fairly obvious I could win then change tactics or as you call it using novel methods to test myself. Perhaps only using rear or side lasers?

 

[Andrew Sayers]

Eve stated all along nowhere was safe, not even the highest security systems. What happened though was it gave rise to suicide squads - people who bought cheap throwaway ships in the full knowledge they'd get two or three shots off before being whacked by "supercops" and they'd use these cheap ganksquads to kill players in high sec that flew much more expensive ships. It was always a win win for the pirates if expensive loot dropped that their innocent by-standing mates happened to pick up.

That gave me an idea - what if the rule in core systems was:

If you are attacked, your insurance will cover all damages up to and including a replacement ship with full cargo, so long as you fight back to the best of your ability. Conversely, aiding and abetting is punishable by a stiff fine - for example, dumping cargo in the vicinity of a criminal will cost you double the market value of the goods at the most expensive stock market within 10 light years.​

But in frontier systems, the rule was:

If you are attacked, your insurance will cover a fraction of your costs, to some maximum limit. If you choose to minimise your costs through bartering, that's your business.​

That means traders in core systems have nothing to lose, while pirates have nothing to gain - even fighting a much weaker opponent, they can expect their costs to be higher than their gains. It also makes insurance seem more realistic, with rich mature worlds willing to pay the exorbitant cost of individual insurance claims for the benefit of the overall economy.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

If you are attacked, your insurance will cover all damages up to and including a replacement ship with full cargo, so long as you fight back to the best of your ability. Conversely, aiding and abetting is punishable by a stiff fine - for example, dumping cargo in the vicinity of a criminal will cost you double the market value of the goods at the most expensive stock market within 10 light years.

The part in green is not measurable by the software.

It also goes entirely against the pirate ethos of "raising the flag" and removing cargo without firing a shot. There is no longer the challenge of persuasion, your reputation proceeding you, guile or bullying - instead its now just a punch up.

You're also advocating people get blown up instead - that is illogical - An insurance company would rather pay for replacement goods than the cost of a ship.

 

[DarkWalker]

So, in order to have the PvE/PvP segregation be based on territory, it needs some kind of absurd player protection service that breaks immersion by:

- Being utterly overpowered. For it to be efficient it needs to be able to destroy any ship a player could control, and likely destroy it within seconds. And the same with whole player fleets that attempt PvP. That is likely far more firepower than the players will ever see used in any other situation.

- Having omniscient detection capabilities in order to detect unlawful PvP action within seconds.

- Being able to more or less teleport at will within a star system, with a speed and precision far beyond what any other ship in the galaxy is capable.

- Discriminating between players and NPCs with no reasonable explanation. So, why does the overpowered omniscient teleporting police intervene only when it's two players fighting? Why doesn't it interfere when player pirates pick on a NPC, or when NPC pirates attack a player? In fact, if the systems have such powerful forces at their disposal, with the kind of detection that would be needed for PvP to be prevented, why haven't they completely eradicated unlawful menaces within their star systems?

- Discriminating based on location without any reasonable explanation. Why would a player without any previous unlawful activity be killed instantly on a patrolled system upon firing on another player for the first time, and a known and notorious pirate be allowed to stay active in a neighboring, unclaimed dark system?

Any less than that, in any of those aspects, would make it impossible for the police system to prevent PvP.

Sincerely, the groups idea seems much better for immersion than this. If the player wants PvP, he just remains in a group where PvP is enabled, where he will never have to see any immersion breaking effects preventing PvP; if the player wants to avoid PvP, he just plays in a group without PvP, or even solo, where the fact he can't attack other players isn't immersion breaking at all because the player wouldn't do it anyway. No need to deal with immersion breaking overpowered omniscient teleporting police.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

in the end, the safe zone ends up being even safer than going to a solo group and maintaining the current plan, or it has an immersion break.

Precisely - magic police who immediately know you're being attacked; know precisely where you are; and conveniently are within seconds of your location is totally far fetched and isn't consistent.

It also has the knock on effect of preventing skirmishes along the borders - if you are aligned with the Federation and you nip into the Alliances territory then as soon as you open fire you're going to be shot upon by the police - say goodbye to some interesting conflicts.

------------------------
Putting my PvP hat on for a moment ...

- 1 galaxy
- 2 rule sets (Ironman and Normal)
- Each "faction" has a home world
- As you move outwards from the home world the response time from the Navy to the conflict zone takes exponentially longer. (Possibly starting at 30s and gradually moving up to 10 minutes on the rim, if at all)
- No "bonus" areas
- Insurance favours cargo dumping over getting your ship destroyed
- It allows for the brave to come into territories (Alliance / Fed / etc) and try your luck before the police arrive

Sure, it means that pure PvE players might get attacked, but if you're near the home worlds or well inside a factions territory and you use your head (think: engines on full, evade for a while, wait for the cavalry) then you will be fine. Yes, you're going to take a beating; yes you're going to get damanged; but you will still keep your ship and cargo.

If you're too far out and a pirate attacks you (and you conveniently left your wingman at home) then either dump your cargo and the game mechanics force your life to be spared or you take your chances and risk being blown up.


ETA:
I also apologise to the PvE people - the proposals to segregate you apart, being as that's what you want, are getting absurd. It sometimes feels like myself and a couple of others are constantly battling it out and I have had enough. I always wanted PvP but recognise some people don't, however I have dumped a lot of money into this game so it's time to fight for what I want for a change - I personally want a risky galaxy that creates tension and drama - I want skirmishes along borders; I want to fly as my trader and sweat when an unknown ship appears on my radar .. I want to feel alive!

(Yeah feels like a 180 but to be blunt I am just ****** off with the whole thing ... 1 galaxy - space is hostile - deal with it)

 

[Fromhell]

Or maybe the simplest solution is offering a decent reward for staying all the way through Elite status in the All-Group without interruption.. would also solve a lot of possible problems

------------------------
Putting my PvP hat on for a moment ...

- 1 galaxy
- 2 rule sets (Ironman and Normal)
- Each "faction" has a home world
- As you move outwards from the home world the response time from the Navy to the conflict zone takes exponentially longer. (Possibly starting at 30s and gradually moving up to 10 minutes on the rim, if at all)
- No "bonus" areas
- Insurance favours cargo dumping over getting your ship destroyed
- It allows for the brave to come into territories (Alliance / Fed / etc) and try your luck before the police arrive

Sure, it means that pure PvE players might get attacked, but if you're near the home worlds or well inside a factions territory and you use your head (think: engines on full, evade for a while, wait for the cavalry) then you will be fine. Yes, you're going to take a beating; yes you're going to get damanged; but you will still keep your ship and cargo.

If you're too far out and a pirate attacks you (and you conveniently left your wingman at home) then either dump your cargo and the game mechanics force your life to be spared or you take your chances and risk being blown up.


ETA:
I also apologise to the PvE people - the proposals to segregate you apart, being as that's what you want, are getting absurd. It sometimes feels like myself and a couple of others are constantly battling it out and I have had enough. I always wanted PvP but recognise some people don't, however I have dumped a lot of money into this game so it's time to fight for what I want for a change - I personally want a risky galaxy that creates tension and drama - I want skirmishes along borders; I want to fly as my trader and sweat when an unknown ship appears on my radar .. I want to feel alive!

(Yeah feels like a 180 but to be blunt I am just ****** off with the whole thing ... 1 galaxy - space is hostile - deal with it)

Did someone hack your account? That's pretty much the ideal model, 1 galaxy, standard and Idonman ruleset - sounds DANGEROUS. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that....

big surprise YOU suddenly suggest that, it is really a "180"

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Or maybe the simplest solution is offering a decent reward for staying all the way through Elite status in the All-Group without interruption.. would also solve a lot of possible problems

I would think a vanity item of some kind would be fair (unique decal for instance)

Also have a statistic on your commander sheet :

- Total time online
- % spent private (Solo / Group play)
- % spent public (All-pilots)

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

So, in order to have the PvE/PvP segregation be based on territory, it needs some kind of absurd player protection service that breaks immersion by:

- Being utterly overpowered. For it to be efficient it needs to be able to destroy any ship a player could control, and likely destroy it within seconds. And the same with whole player fleets that attempt PvP. That is likely far more firepower than the players will ever see used in any other situation.

- Having omniscient detection capabilities in order to detect unlawful PvP action within seconds.

- Being able to more or less teleport at will within a star system, with a speed and precision far beyond what any other ship in the galaxy is capable.

- Discriminating between players and NPCs with no reasonable explanation. So, why does the overpowered omniscient teleporting police intervene only when it's two players fighting? Why doesn't it interfere when player pirates pick on a NPC, or when NPC pirates attack a player? In fact, if the systems have such powerful forces at their disposal, with the kind of detection that would be needed for PvP to be prevented, why haven't they completely eradicated unlawful menaces within their star systems?

- Discriminating based on location without any reasonable explanation. Why would a player without any previous unlawful activity be killed instantly on a patrolled system upon firing on another player for the first time, and a known and notorious pirate be allowed to stay active in a neighboring, unclaimed dark system?

Any less than that, in any of those aspects, would make it impossible for the police system to prevent PvP.

That's basically how Eve Online handles it. I trust Frontier Developments have more vision than that.

Sincerely, the groups idea seems much better for immersion than this. If the player wants PvP, he just remains in a group where PvP is enabled, where he will never have to see any immersion breaking effects preventing PvP; if the player wants to avoid PvP, he just plays in a group without PvP, or even solo, where the fact he can't attack other players isn't immersion breaking at all because the player wouldn't do it anyway. No need to deal with immersion breaking overpowered omniscient teleporting police.

Yes, this is the ideal set up that works for everyone. Unfortunately in ED its flawed because of the ability to switch between groups as and when you feel like it. That's where the path of least resistance crops up.

Ideally you'd pick a group at character creation and that's the one your avatar will forever live in. You're a bored soloplayer and now want to join the 'All' MP group? Fine make a new avatar and start in Lave with 100 credits.

This is my only gripe with ED. I'm still waiting to see how group switching abuse will be avoided with the current system.