The recent anti pvp ideas concern me. Reasons and "better" suggestions inside

[rckstr]

Hey guys. I feel encouraged to post the following because i am really concerned about the recent anti pvp movement and the ideas plopping out of it.

Before we continue i want to note that i defend the opinion that

Solo caters all the people that want to be left alone and don't want to socialize in any way at all.

Group caters all the people that want to play with just their friends in a closed environment or in a group with special rules like mobius

Open is for all the people out there that like to meet other people whether they are friendly or not, whether they have a reason to attack/ help you, or not. Anything can happen at any time.


I agree that there should be a disclaimer about the danger of open if you choose it the first times. I also agree that groups like mobius should be advertised as an alternative for all those that fit into the Solo/ Group criteria. Adding a description text of the group (if not already available) and tickboxes with preferences to find the perfect mode for you are surely appreciated.

But i disagree with ideas that separate the people even more or change the ability of doing whatever you like, whenever you like, in open.

I want to show you some examples of ideas i have seen recently and disagree with because they would be easy to abuse by others. Although i don't like the term ganker or griefer i will use it here just to keep it simple.

Adding a PVE flag for open where a cmdr can no longer be shot after enabling it would be irritating for others and an immersion breaker. Also it probably would be abused by the ganker. With the pvp flag enabled he still can ram you. If ramming won't deal damage he still could try to make you crash into other ships, rocks, stations, etc. Even if he just stays in your line of fire and catches your shots or blocks your view to prevent you from doing your stuff would be enough to make you hate him pretty quick.

Let the killer pay the insurance cost is another "easy to abuse" idea. The ganker would simply take a very expensive ship and fly into your line of fire with low health. The average cmdr is screwed after that.

A tied penalty to the rank is another bad idea. The ganker would reset his save game and continue ganking, even if all current progress is lost. Getting into a viper or vulture won't take too long and the ganker is still deadly as hell although he is low ranked. Only the type of crime should be a trigger and acting against cmdr's or NPC's should be treated the same. Different criminal acts have a different impact.

It was suggested to even ban the ganker which goes way too far. Especially with still implemented mechanics where things can be turned against you. Only cheating and exploiting should be a reason to get banned.

Instead of the above things and similar i would suggest you the following:

A better reputation system. Currently wanted status can be cleared off with a sidewinder. If you would gain a a visible positive or negative reputation that remains after death things would be a bit different. With such a system you could add penalties or perks for the system where you have a certain reputation. The perks and penalties shouldn't be too big though. Also your reputation would have a small radius that affects nearby systems, with decreasing penalties or perks the further you move out of the center of your reputation. The threshold in systems affected by your reputation is way lower than in systems that "don't know you" at all. Systems with active community goals could have a more sensible reputation system, committing crimes as a wing has a higher multiplier. The typical ganker would gain the status of a "criminal" pretty quick and could be a kill on sight target everywhere with such a bad reputation. Killing him won't put a bounty on you but also would not earn you money as long as he has no bounty. To extend this, a criminal could loose access to the higher tier modules in affected systems, have a slightly increased insurance, lower earnings from CG's or bounty hunting, etc.

Another result of a proper reputation system would be that you can no longer have a good reputation with all major factions.
As an example:
Working for a minor federal faction and against a minor imperial/alliance/independent faction would also change change your major faction reputation slightly.
Working for minor federation faction A and against minor federation faction B has only a reputation change with the affected minor factions, major faction reputation would not change. This includes bounty hunting in a RES for example. Of course different values would be needed for attacking ships in a RES, helping in distress calls (etc), joining random encounters, or doing missions with different reputation effects. Obviously the mission description would need to point out where you would gain or loose reputation.

Additionally as a result of your major faction reputation your alignment can be identified by others when not participating in PP.
To cater the people that don't want to participate in PP furthermore, but feel in a disadvantage because they miss the bonuses from it, a very good reputation (in your home system for example) might give you similar bonuses to some of those from PP.


The next problem people have is that they can not organize effectively against gankers, especially wings of them.
I suggest that people that don't carry a negative reputation in the current system can flag themselves for "auto wing up" with others that are interested and don't have a negative reputation. Furthermore wake signals can be approached quicker if the reputation is not negative. For gameplay reasons and to prevent ganking from this, your weapons will not shoot on the cmdr who created the wake and his allies. This should give people the ability to protect others more efficiently and add the perk to be able to outnumber an organized wing of gankers easily.

Fix the interdiction mini game and make use of it. Starting an interdiction already "triggers" system authorities if available. The longer an interdiction takes, the shorter the time span until they arrive. This would give people that might need help a reason to actually fight the interdiction. The reputation of both "participants" has an effect on the rank/number/ship types of the arriving authorities. Interdicting in a wing has a bigger impact on the authorities, scaling with wing size.

To prevent a little the abuse the "speed limit penalty" i suggest to add vectors for incoming and outgoing traffic matching the lights of the mailslot. They could be visible on your hud or inside the game as some kind of projection. Flying against the correct direction has an increased risk and different rules apply.

To prevent station camping and ganking against hostile PP cmdrs there is a small radius around the station where even friendly member could trigger station attacks.


Edit:
To protect the starter systems they also react very sensible on crimes committed by veterans. This can take ingame hours into account. Committing a threshold of crimes as a veteran would be penalized with a permit loss and immediate bad reputation in the nearby systems.

Edit 2:
While we're already at abusive behavior i would also like to suggest a "mode hopping" prevention. I respect the opinion that a player should be able to play in his favored mode at any time but i also think that switching between modes in a short timespan to create new bulletin board missions for example should be prevented.

Edit 3:
Lack of adjustable quick comms for RP reasons. This would reduce the number of uncommented attacks and people would be able to make up a RP reason on interdiction including automated "response" when being interdicted.
I might even have more on my mind but unfortunately i have to leave now.
Please tell me if this would help with the pvp situation.

Edit 4:
Cooldown for mode switching for XX minutes after a battle.

Edit 5:
Additonally to my suggestion about interdictions- Arriving security forces wouldn't need to arrive in massive fleets or deal an enormous amount of damage. They could be equipped with a weapon/ module that could cause different things. Disabling thrusters for a short period/ disabling boost. Overcharge your power distributor what will empty your WEP/SYS/ENG capacitors and they refill slower, block your FSD frequency (or whatever you want to call it) so you would be unable to low wake back in SC and you'd have to high wake, add/increase cooldown on your FSD, malfunction other systems or just start to fry your internals pretty quick until you retract your hardpoints. (Just trying to be creative)
Fly safe!

 

[Deadspin]

All ideas are helpful in regards to the discussion itself.

The question then becomes whether or not frontier will actually implement anything. I really don't see them changing anything.

 

[shadragon]

All ideas are helpful in regards to the discussion itself.

The question then becomes whether or not frontier will actually implement anything. I really don't see them changing anything.

The mode exists. Whether people choose it or not is not up to anyone but the pilot involved.

 

[Sandmann]

Some worthwhile ideas there... though I'm not certain how they encourage PvE-ers back to open and discourage ganking. Still, it's a good start and very refreshing to see a (I'm assuming) PvP player taking the problem seriously and offering thoughtful suggestions instead of just wielding holy symbols and crossing themselves at the very idea thaf PvP and PvE could coexist. Have a +1 on me.

 

[JosiahD]

For mine, it's never been anti-PvP but rather anti the arrogant attitude of a certain subset of the PvP crowd - you know, the type that instantly brands anyone who disagrees with them a 'carebear' and such, the type who just don't get that this game is not about their wants but obstinately keep insisting that what they want for PvP must be implemented or the game will fail? I think most people accept PvP as a valid gameplay style and accept that open mode (and private group for that matter) include the possibility of PvP. It's the way a certain subset of PvP players approach it though, that gets most opponents of their attitude and behaviour vocal. Mind you, there's also an equally stubborn subset in the PvE crowd too - the difference being of course that they don't go around seal-clubbing unarmed traders or noobs (CMDRs that is, not NPCs) using wings of heavily armed ships (with little or no consequences for their actions to boot).
.
But then, it was always going to be near impossible to balance the needs/wants of both PvE and PvP players in one mode (open) - one of those has to suffer, and as the game's core is principally PvE, some people just need to accept that PvP is the junior partner here - as we all knew from the very start, this game won't suit everyone.

 

[Leo Sagan]

Constructive post, +REP, even though I wouldn't hold my breath when it comes to the time we'll get any of this implemented.

 

[Deadspin]

But then, it was always going to be near impossible to balance the needs/wants of both PvE and PvP players in one mode (open) - one of those has to suffer, and as the game's core is principally PvE, some people just need to accept that PvP is the junior partner here - as we all knew from the very start, this game won't suit everyone.

I'm not pro-anything except for the game itself but do tend to lean more towards the pvp side of the argument where Open is concerned and, because of that, I have to disagree with you on the bolded text. This game is equal parts PvP and PvE in open and a player's actions are what ultimately decides that. If you go to Washington DC (Assuming you're an American) then you'll very likely take the time to learn which parts of the city you shouldn't go into (assuming you're a smart American). The same practice applies to this game. You don't go into SDC/Code space and expect to be left alone. You don't go to a high visibility CG (in open) and expect to be left alone.

To traverse a living galaxy (or a living bubble within said galaxy) and expect to be able to just flit about from A to B with no regard for the locals or for the actions and methods of the locals is to invite danger upon yourself. I wouldn't go to a CG and expect to not encounter at least 2-3 hostile players the same way I wouldn't walk through the shadier parts of my own city (not DC) and expect to come through unscathed. The police can't be everywhere at once and even if you call them they probably won't make it before some serious harm is inflicted. Why people think it's acceptable to demand that safety barriers be put up in place to protect them from the bad people in space is something I truly wish to know. Open is open, through and through. Anything goes all the time.

We here, on the forums (the active commenters/contributors, good or bad) represent the tiniest slice of the Elite community. At most I would ask that Frontier expand the control mechanisms for Private Groups so that multiple people could handle the acceptance/denial of prospective members. I would also expect a hard coded "no player damage" flag to be added to said mechanics to truly give players a pve only environment in whatever group they join. I wouldn't expect them to change much else though beyond perhaps tweaking the reputation system to carry a bit more clout across systems.

 

[Darrett]

1. Add more options for disabling ships and a reason to do so, like buffing hatch breakers. 2. Increase the bounty significantly for destroying a ship and add increasingly powerful cross-system Bounty Hunter NPCs that chase you with kill warrant scanners as well as providing players updates on your location through the bulletin board. Tie bounties to the Powerplay power on a regional basis to prevent the easy "jump one system away for profit" method, or bring back the Faction-wide bounty once you reach a threshold. 3. Increase piracy rewards while adding fine amounts to piracy missions for destroying rather than disabling targets.

 

[Kristov]

I'm not pro-anything except for the game itself but do tend to lean more towards the pvp side of the argument where Open is concerned and, because of that, I have to disagree with you on the bolded text. This game is equal parts PvP and PvE in open and a player's actions are what ultimately decides that. If you go to Washington DC (Assuming you're an American) then you'll very likely take the time to learn which parts of the city you shouldn't go into (assuming you're a smart American). The same practice applies to this game. You don't go into SDC/Code space and expect to be left alone. You don't go to a high visibility CG (in open) and expect to be left alone.

To traverse a living galaxy (or a living bubble within said galaxy) and expect to be able to just flit about from A to B with no regard for the locals or for the actions and methods of the locals is to invite danger upon yourself. I wouldn't go to a CG and expect to not encounter at least 2-3 hostile players the same way I wouldn't walk through the shadier parts of my own city (not DC) and expect to come through unscathed. The police can't be everywhere at once and even if you call them they probably won't make it before some serious harm is inflicted. Why people think it's acceptable to demand that safety barriers be put up in place to protect them from the bad people in space is something I truly wish to know. Open is open, through and through. Anything goes all the time.

We here, on the forums (the active commenters/contributors, good or bad) represent the tiniest slice of the Elite community. At most I would ask that Frontier expand the control mechanisms for Private Groups so that multiple people could handle the acceptance/denial of prospective members. I would also expect a hard coded "no player damage" flag to be added to said mechanics to truly give players a pve only environment in whatever group they join. I wouldn't expect them to change much else though beyond perhaps tweaking the reputation system to carry a bit more clout across systems.

I enjoy PvP myself, but I'm also fully aware that this is not a PvP game, it wasn't designed for it, it wasn't offered as part of the game play either, matter of fact, even during the early testing, it was not something FD liked seeing and commented about in that context. It's an online multiplayer game that promoted coop, not PvP, it's in the written adverts, it's in the interviews, it's even on the KS page, coop, not PvP, always the intention. Multiplayer doesn't mean PvP, it never has, why some people assume otherwise is their problem, and no one else's, and we shouldn't have to deal with their lack of education nor should FD be responsible for that.

People attacking others is allowed to happen, but it's never been promoted outside of CQC, keep that in mind, CQC is for PvP, that's it's sole function. That not making it crystal clear isn't FD's fault, it's the people who refuse to understand the game's design and are trying to force it to be something else.

 

[Deadspin]

CQC was tacked on almost as an afterthought (or so it felt like it). When you make a multiplayer game that has no rules to prevent PvP (and even talk about said PvP happening, eg: the rare and meaningful pvp item) you'e going to have pvp whether you like it or not.

Calling players who participate in and prefer PvP to relentless grinding uneducated because they don't stick to your strict translation of definitions is asinine and immature. Considering that, in the last year, Frontier has done nothing to mitigate outright PvP and only enacted steps in an attempt to cut down on acute griefing, I find it hard to believe that they, as a development studio, are against PvP in the slightest.

Aside from a few wild nuts I haven't seen anyone actively advocating for pvp also advocating for changing anything about the game. Most of us like it the way it is right now and even support the PvE crowds call for more features to actively mitigate some of the free-form PvP that's going on. As someone who occasionally goes out and hunts down other players (not newbies, mind you) I wouldn't at all mind a bounty system that was more imposing that what is currently offered, or even a reputation system that would allow the game to flag myself and those I fly with as threats (should we fit the bill) to other players.

Outside of that, I'm perfectly content with Solo/Private/Open as it currently stands and believe that the Private Group players need some love before anyone else does.

 

[rckstr]

Increase the bounty significantly for destroying a ship and add increasingly powerful cross-system Bounty Hunter NPCs that chase you with kill warrant scanners as well as providing players updates on your location through the bulletin board.
...or bring back the Faction-wide bounty once you reach a threshold.

I really don't want to undermine your post but i would not recommend to increase the bountys issued for committing crimes. You can not prevent that it gets claimed by friends after you switched to a sidewinder.

I also would like to point out again the possible serious drop in reputation in the system where the crime has been committed and the neighboring systems.

A reasonable amount of slightly increased insurance, i am suggesting not more than 10-12% of ship value, repair cost, etc and lost access to top tier equipment in affected systems.

 

[Kristov]

CQC was tacked on almost as an afterthought (or so it felt like it). When you make a multiplayer game that has no rules to prevent PvP (and even talk about said PvP happening, eg: the rare and meaningful pvp item) you'e going to have pvp whether you like it or not.

Calling players who participate in and prefer PvP to relentless grinding uneducated because they don't stick to your strict translation of definitions is asinine and immature. Considering that, in the last year, Frontier has done nothing to mitigate outright PvP and only enacted steps in an attempt to cut down on acute griefing, I find it hard to believe that they, as a development studio, are against PvP in the slightest.

Aside from a few wild nuts I haven't seen anyone actively advocating for pvp also advocating for changing anything about the game. Most of us like it the way it is right now and even support the PvE crowds call for more features to actively mitigate some of the free-form PvP that's going on. As someone who occasionally goes out and hunts down other players (not newbies, mind you) I wouldn't at all mind a bounty system that was more imposing that what is currently offered, or even a reputation system that would allow the game to flag myself and those I fly with as threats (should we fit the bill) to other players.

Outside of that, I'm perfectly content with Solo/Private/Open as it currently stands and believe that the Private Group players need some love before anyone else does.

I didn't call people who participate in PvP uneducated, I called the people who think this is a PvP game uneducated because they are, or willfully ignorant if you prefer that term? The game advertisements and the KS, all clear, multiplayer is coop, they never make it about PvP, that's restricted to CQC advertisement only. And CQC is tacked on, it was done because A) XBOne version of the game, appealing to the fast and furious PvP market there, which is a huge one, and B) the PC conversion was simple enough, XBOne and PC using the same OS after all, and C) it makes FD's stance on PvP rather crystal clear, you want to do PvP, HERE is where you do that!

And I'm seeing lots of PvPers who push constantly to make the game cater to PvP, make it matter, make it important, force people to Open, there's plenty of people pushing for that stuff, all insisting that PvP is the focus of this game, it's the only reason they got it. Sorry, those are uneducated people or straight up idiots, take your pick. PvP was never the focus or intent of David Braben and FD, they've been clear on that many times over, and yet....

I know your group, we've worked together in the past to go hunting people killing newbs, I enjoy PvP myself, but like I said, I know that this game wasn't designed for it, it wasn't meant to be anything but rare, the sheer size of the bubble alone makes THAT clear as hell, 20,000 systems, astronomical odds to encounter another player in that mess. Hence CQC, which I admit doesn't really appeal to me much, tried it, it's fun, but it's not my thing. I've got PvP dedicated games I play for that purpose, I got Elite for other reasons, but I also knew what I was buying before I bought it.

 

[goemon]

some very good ideas in here, and - i say this as a fellow cmdr, not a mod - it adresses many of my fears regarding "anti-pvp-combat-ideas" in open, saying this as somebody who isn't doing non-consential pvp-combat.

just on a sidenote: "people that don't carry a negative reputation in the current system" - you won't believe how fast you get a negative reputation in a system, where you back your minor faction, if you work on the bgs, and how fast you can get back to friendly while flying around with a 300 k bounty on your head for shooting 70+ ships.

 

[Roybe]

First, the game is a PvP game...but not a direct PvP game.

The PvP is defined as the collection of PvE trophies between groups of players. Direct PvP..is allowed...but terribly supported...and this is by design.

Let's look at the OP suggestions in this light:

Reputation- Solid idea...with one flaw. The game is not designed to track single players. There is a video that explains the way the databases interact...this design precludes this type of granularity.

Spoiler

[video=youtube;EvJPyjmfdz0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvJPyjmfdz0[/video]

i include this not to try to say this is a bad idea...just that the game would have to redesigned in a massive way to keep track of the idea...particularly if you were going to do this for every system that a pilot flies in.

As far as 'organizing against gankers'....I, as a PvE player cannot be horsed to bother...unless it's for fun and games. I just do not care enough. The PvP players are failing to see the cost they incur in ganking (basically, fewer people to play with in Open)...that's their problem to fix....not the PVE players. On top of this, you are basically suggesting reverse ganking...PvE players gang up and kill single players. Not solid logic there...but you are not alone. This is the devs expectations also...and is failing for the same reason.

 

[rckstr]

some very good ideas in here, and - i say this as a fellow cmdr, not a mod - it adresses many of my fears regarding "anti-pvp-combat-ideas" in open, saying this as somebody who isn't doing non-consential pvp-combat.

just on a sidenote: "people that don't carry a negative reputation in the current system" - you won't believe how fast you get a negative reputation in a system, where you back your minor faction, if you work on the bgs, and how fast you can get back to friendly while flying around with a 300 k bounty on your head for shooting 70+ ships.

Valid points. Although i can not back the following with a lore reason- what if a criminal/ bad reputation caused by crimes against other cmdrs , especially murder, can not be compensated with simple bulletin missions? You could gain reputation for the minor faction but would still be marked as a criminal with the penalties already suggested.

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

First, the game is a PvP game...but not a direct PvP game.

The PvP is defined as the collection of PvE trophies between groups of players. Direct PvP..is allowed...but terribly supported...and this is by design.

Let's look at the OP suggestions in this light:

Reputation- Solid idea...with one flaw. The game is not designed to track single players. There is a video that explains the way the databases interact...this design precludes this type of granularity.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvJPyjmfdz0

i include this not to try to say this is a bad idea...just that the game would have to redesigned in a massive way to keep track of the idea...particularly if you were going to do this for every system that a pilot flies in.

As far as 'organizing against gankers'....I, as a PvE player cannot be horsed to bother...unless it's for fun and games. I just do not care enough. The PvP players are failing to see the cost they incur in ganking (basically, fewer people to play with in Open)...that's their problem to fix....not the PVE players. On top of this, you are basically suggesting reverse ganking...PvE players gang up and kill single players. Not solid logic there...but you are not alone. This is the devs expectations also...and is failing for the same reason.

The technical limitations are a fair point but only the devs can say if it could be solvable.

But i think i have to disagree with the term "reverse ganking". I guess that those affected would not be bothered if people could organize against them. Additionally this would be a tool to increase system security and oppose "ganking".

 

[Blackcompany]

The Attacker Pays the Insurance works perfectly. Please note: the ATTACKER Pays the insurance, NOT the Survivor.

In other words, if you are attacked in lawful systems, and you do not have a bounty or Power Play affiliation, and you are destroyed, your attacker Pays your insurance.

If you win, you pay nothing. Because you were not the aggressor, the other person was.

 

[rckstr]

The Attacker Pays the Insurance works perfectly. Please note: the ATTACKER Pays the insurance, NOT the Survivor.

In other words, if you are attacked in lawful systems, and you do not have a bounty or Power Play affiliation, and you are destroyed, your attacker Pays your insurance.

If you win, you pay nothing. Because you were not the aggressor, the other person was.

I have to repeat. If implemented, this would be abused massively. Just take two cmdrs in a RES or CZ, both clean. The ganker has a very expensive ship and very low health. He just has to fly into your line of fire and die. Although the game would identify the survivor as the aggressor he clearly is not in such a case.

 

[Red Anders]

Although i don't like the term ganker or griefer i will use it here just to keep it simple.

Adding a PVE flag for open where a cmdr can no longer be shot after enabling it would be irritating for others and an immersion breaker. Also it probably would be abused by the ganker. With the pvp flag enabled he still can ram you. If ramming won't deal damage he still could try to make you crash into other ships, rocks, stations, etc. Even if he just stays in your line of fire and catches your shots or blocks your view to prevent you from doing your stuff would be enough to make you hate him pretty quick.

Let the killer pay the insurance cost is another "easy to abuse" idea. The ganker would simply take a very expensive ship and fly into your line of fire with low health. The average cmdr is screwed after that.

A tied penalty to the rank is another bad idea. The ganker would reset his save game and continue ganking, even if all current progress is lost. Getting into a viper or vulture won't take too long and the ganker is still deadly as hell although he is low ranked. Only the type of crime should be a trigger and acting against cmdr's or NPC's should be treated the same. Different criminal acts have a different impact.

It was suggested to even ban the ganker which goes way too far. Especially with still implemented mechanics where things can be turned against you. Only cheating and exploiting should be a reason to get banned.

I appreciate that you said you don't like the terms but if you're going to use them at all then for the sake of clarity it would be helpful if you used them correctly. All of your references to gankers and ganking above are singlular, yet ganking is a specific term used to refer to the act of a group of players attacking a single one, or sometimes another significantly smaller group, for example a 10 vs 2. If you're talking about a single player doing anything to another player, regardless of whether it's attacking them in a straight fight, ramming them or whatever, they are not ganking.

I'm not mentioning that to be picky, it's just that words do have specific meanings and it's not going to make the points you're presenting particularly transparent to a lot of people.

 

[tresch]

You guys caught me in a mood so here we go.

I disagree with the notion that it's not inherently a PvP game. It's designed to provide an open, sandboxy, wild-west "blaze your own path" experience. From the very beginning, yes the VERY beginning, it has been advertised as a place where you can play however you want, damn the consequences. They've talked about pirating other players, fighting wars, murdering, doing nasty things, from the very start. Their counter to those who don't want this is solo and group play.

The history of gaming is /wrought/ with games that had an awesome, semi-anarchic approach to PvP and how they were ruined by developers catering to people who were intimidated by it, removing all the real risk and diluting the game into a nice safe grind into riches, and stories of "the old days" when things were actually interesting and challenging and suspenseful and RICH and how that all went away.

I think this game already rewards people too much for playing in the safe zones. We don't need arbitrary limitations in open play. What we need are more mechanics to help PLAYERS solve the problems, not arbitrary fourth-wall-breaking video-gamey garbage.

Revise the bounty system to something that actually has consequences for repeat offenders. Bring in reputation systems that give griefer's something to think about aside from money (which is easy to come by) when causing trouble. These are not problems that need to be solved by REMOVING things from the game. Done right, we can keep the freedom we have, and make it MORE interesting, and encourage MORE people come to open play, and have stories about losses and close calls, risk and reward.

I am not a griefer. I'm the kind of guy that would love to hang around and hunt down griefers. But, do you know what I can't do, if we just turn off PvP? HUNT GRIEFERS. If you make it impossible to be a bad guy, you also make it impossible to be a good guy. We come to play these games because we want something we can't get in real life, and that's RISK. That's CONFLICT.

I cannot overstate this enough. This is about video games being something more than just a senseless pass-time. It's about video games being something more than sit-coms and reality TV. This is about video games giving us moments that sharpen our focus and force us to improve ourselves, both in our skills as well as our mental and emotional fortitude. This is about video games being something good and powerful that has the potential to improve people, and I am very sick, and very tired, of every single game that dares to be something greater than the cloned masses around it to be beat down into submission by swarms of impatient sore losers who so can't stand the feeling of being weak that they blame the game and everyone around them. How DARE they make me work for my rewards?

Do we want to help people have an easier start? Do we want to help guide people along better? Yes, definitely. Do we want to put sweeping limitations on the game so people don't have to feel risk? No. No we don't. You fly, you die, you fly again. Fight for your survival, know the thrill of overcoming difficult odds. Get involved with communities that help you learn to defend yourself and traverse the galaxy more effectively.

Don't come to me and tell me that the game is terrible because you feel terrible about yourself. No, YOU brought that to the table, not the game. It's not the game's fault that you're weak.

Pick yourself up off the ground, get over yourself, and ask for help. We will help you. We will help you become strong, as we have helped many, many before you. It will take work, but it will be worth it.

I'm not dropping this mic. I'm keeping it. Want it back? Friend me in game, I'll let you know where I am, and you can come take it from me.

 

[Roybe]

Valid points. Although i can not back the following with a lore reason- what if a criminal/ bad reputation caused by crimes against other cmdrs , especially murder, can not be compensated with simple bulletin missions? You could gain reputation for the minor faction but would still be marked as a criminal with the penalties already suggested.

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



The technical limitations are a fair point but only the devs can say if it could be solvable.

But i think i have to disagree with the term "reverse ganking". I guess that those affected would not be bothered if people could organize against them. Additionally this would be a tool to increase system security and oppose "ganking".

For PvE players...who have no interest at all in fighting other PC's...it really is a matter of 'who cares?'. The only reason the PvE crowd cares about Open at all, is that there is a large contingent that want to play in the game in a multiplayer/MMO manner...but do not want to be involved in direct PvP based on a few or 10 reasons.

As far as the capabilities of the game based on the design of the backend...you are correct. However, watching the video, you can definitely understand how hard this expansion would be on the devs to implement. It's not 'just code something over night'...or something that would be 'easy to implement'. It would be a massive undertaking by a substantial number of people and major rework to the whole of the game. Even if they decided today to add this feature...it could be 2 or 3 years for it to come to light. Pretty sure the PvP crowd will only leave faster and come back Someday™.