Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

[CMDR Sheehy]

Hi Anthonysheeshc, thanks for your reply.

My question is, What if the PVP is not about griefing but just a regular pirating exercise which is one of the core aspects of the game? Does this justify the actions of players to go single player mode and avoid the risks? What is the purpose why people choose single player mode then later on, once they bought the most expensive decked out ships, go on open play?

In my view this is plainly " gaining unfair advantage" over those who only play in Open Play mode and creates a "MAJOR" Imbalance to the game.

There are ways to penalise griefers (ex. banning the player, create a ignore function, etc.) but creating a feature that allows players to use (or Exploit) to negate any dangerous encounter with a player or used to gain advantage over others who solely play Open Play defeats some of the core mechanics of the game.

The question players needs to ask the developers is, does this feature (allowing switching mode between singple play and open play) is really the fix to greefers or does it create further imbalance?

Im not sure but if you will ask me, this is definitely a huge design flaw which the devs need to rethink and reconsider.

The DDA includes the whole discussion. Those who paid enough had input at the time. So it was people who really cared about the game actually contributed to this design. I'm careful to point out that the reason was "perceived griefing" with the perceived part being the focus. The idea was not to say that PvP combat was griefing. Most of the time it is not. There is room in Elite for psychopathy... we have such NPCs as well. The problem is as I perceive it is that such a role is far to easy, there is no challenge and no real motivation to do anything else. That is the flaw that needs changing.

You may view the ability to switch as a MAJOR imbalance and flaw, but it was by carefully thought out and discussed design created that way in anticipation of pilots behaving in that manner. Guess what happened: Pilot behaved in that manner... and then complained about switching...

I'm sorry... I do find that funny.

PS. Anthony will do...

 

[ianstrauss]

The DDA includes the whole discussion. Those who paid enough had input at the time. So it was people who really cared about the game actually contributed to this design. I'm careful to point out that the reason was "perceived griefing" with the perceived part being the focus. The idea was not to say that PvP combat was griefing. Most of the time it is not. There is room in Elite for psychopathy... we have such NPCs as well. The problem is as I perceive it is that such a role is far to easy, there is no challenge and no real motivation to do anything else. That is the flaw that needs changing.

You may view the ability to switch as a MAJOR imbalance and flaw, but it was by carefully thought out and discussed design created that way in anticipation of pilots behaving in that manner. Guess what happened: Pilot behaved in that manner... and then complained about switching...

I'm sorry... I do find that funny.

PS. Anthony will do...

The problem here is that "percieved griefing" has got too much focus and attention on the design while there are more important matters to be addressed, most especially Game Balance. I've worked for a few critically acclaimed game development companies for the past few years which produced games of multiple genres (MMO, RTS, FPS, etc) and notably for online games, the way that they dealt with griefers are through banning, account suspensions, in-game control via ignore function, and these works on most big tested online games.

Apologies but I also find it funny that this is the first time I've seen a online game that created a feature that allows you to negate any type of danger (from human players) to create a unfair advantage even at scenarios were "griefing" is not even present.

Scenario: Oh I see a player on sight, time to go single player now. Not to worry, later on when I have a fully decked Anaconda I'll go Open Play for show while others in Open Play take risks in trading with human pirates (which is a core game aspect mind you).

 

[Uueerdo]

... There is room in Elite for psychopathy... we have such NPCs as well. The problem is as I perceive it is that such a role is far to easy, there is no challenge and no real motivation to do anything else.

Yes, I've always found it a bit entertaining when "pirates" in disposable attack ships try to lecture traders about risk vs reward.

 

[Dabba]

Apologies but I also find it funny that this is the first time I've seen a online game that created a feature that allows you to negate any type of danger (from human players) to create a unfair advantage even at scenarios were "griefing" is not even present.

Welcome to the revolution. This is the future of choice based online multiplayer gaming. Benefits everyone except the people that are out to ruin other peoples day, and leaves them sad and alone where they belong. Its about time someone came up with the solution.

Also where again is this unfair advantage when everybody can do it? Not seeing it.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

The problem here is that "percieved griefing" has got too much focus and attention on the design while there are more important matters to be addressed, most especially Game Balance. I've worked for a few critically acclaimed game development companies for the past few years which produced games of multiple genres (MMO, RTS, FPS, etc) and notably for online games, the way that they dealt with griefers are through banning, account suspensions, in-game control via ignore function, and these works on most big tested online games.

Apologies but I also find it funny that this is the first time I've seen a online game that created a feature that allows you to negate any type of danger (from human players) to create a unfair advantage even at scenarios were "griefing" is not even present.

Scenario: Oh I see a player on sight, time to go single player now. Not to worry, later on when I have a fully decked Anaconda I'll go Open Play for show while others in Open Play take risks in trading with human pirates (which is a core game aspect mind you).

Talking from authority are we?

One thing I am glad of is that FDev is an independent company that is not driven by the publishers. The design, as it is, was driven by people who supported the game and who care about it. You can read all about it in the DDA if you like.

I have no problem with Pirates. No-one has a problem with pirates if that's what they are. People tend to have a problem with throw away PKers who kill for lulz. Unlike Piracy, all they need is the ability to point and shoot, then go and make a bit of money so that they can easily afford the fines. In fact, some don't even bother with the fines, it is actually easier to wipe your save and use a stock sidey to ram ships (something FDev are looking at.)

Your 'perceived' unfair advantage is just that. Perceived. Just like people 'perceive' griefing from campers and pkers. The difference? The second is catered for in carefully thought out and discussed design.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm sorry I made no attempt to describe 'how the game works' , and indeed dont really care how it works. You are (probably) entirely correct, but that's neither here nor there..

I just used the term 'mode' to make it easier for people to get my point, but if you wanna get technical go right ahead.

It seems we are in agreement, I'm not pushing for more people to goto 'open' play, far from it.

Removal of the group switching feature is not a palatable option for the 35% of players in a recent poll who play between open and solo / private groups.

If one group is discriminated, it is just reasonable to help it, I think. More love to the competetive hardcore gamers, dear devs, please!

Who is discriminated against and how, exactly?

this might sound like a dumb question at this late stage ...

but, 'why' do we need to move people out of 'solo/group' and into 'open' ?

seriously, why ? the solo/group people seem entirely happy where they are ..

See above about the transient population.

I just want my open experience kept "clean".

Ah - you want *your* of play-style to over-ride others - you want everyone to play by your personal rule-set - no thanks - Frontier has told us *all* to "play the game how you want to" - that does not mean that anyone needs to be forced to play the game how *you* want to.

I'm still not entirely sure why this needs to change .. the options we have seem to please the majority of players.

You're perfectly correct - nothing needs to change - the options do indeed seem to please the majority of players.

The remaining seem only to suffer from 'resentment' of solo/group players being able to arrive in 'open' fully armed and fully cashed up.

Resenting another's choice of play-style in a game where we are all told to "play the game how you want to" is futile.

Separate the 'modes' then. Make each mode independant of the the other, so in effect they are 2 separate universes. That way, if you wanna play in open, then you cant earn all your cash in solo/group and just turn up in a fully kitted 'conda. Likewise, if you're getting scared or griefed or just a little butt-hurt from being pwned in pvp, you cant run and hide in solo/group.

Wipe the lot, separate the modes, start again. Those people over there ... and those people over there. Done.

Again, the options we have seem to please the majority of players - no need to remove any of the features relating to three play modes or the ability to switch between them on a session by session basis. These options have been in the stated game design from the beginning of the Kickstarter, over two years ago. The game was successfully funded on the basis of that stated game design. To remove the ability to "play the game how you want to" for players who might group switch simply to satisfy a perceived minority of competitive players does not seem consistent with the choices and freedoms that Frontier have offered us.

 

[ianstrauss]

Talking from authority are we?

One thing I am glad of is that FDev is an independent company that is not driven by the publishers. The design, as it is, was driven by people who supported the game and who care about it. You can read all about it in the DDA if you like.

I have no problem with Pirates. No-one has a problem with pirates if that's what they are. People tend to have a problem with throw away PKers who kill for lulz. Unlike Piracy, all they need is the ability to point and shoot, then go and make a bit of money so that they can easily afford the fines. In fact, some don't even bother with the fines, it is actually easier to wipe your save and use a stock sidey to ram ships (something FDev are looking at.)

Your 'perceived' unfair advantage is just that. Perceived. Just like people 'perceive' griefing from campers and pkers. The difference? The second is catered for in carefully thought out and discussed design.

So how would you identify a griefer who just kills for lulz and a legitimate human pirate who wants to kill for your cargo?

Do you solve the problem of reducing griefing by creating a feature to allow you to go single player mode each time you see people? Does this create any imbalance to those who only play Open Play?

If you are attacked by a human pirate who are after your goods for profit and you go single player mode to negate the risks, can it be justified as fair to those who play in Open Play 100% and attribute this to "griefing"? How do you penalize such behaviour of exploiting the system for what its not intended purpose?

People like choices. Granted, and thats totally fine... but in a game design perspective game balance is very important ... and through experience if you sacrifice something as game balance just to satisfy something as trivial as "perceived griefing" then I'm not sure if you're truly concerned about the future of the game, or just concerned about your in-game character's well being.

If you like Single Player, why not stick with the Single Player universe? Im not suggesting to remove single player, what Im suggesting is if you choose to play Single Player then keep all your CR and progression there. Open Play should provide you with a totally unique CMDR and not affected by any progression made from Single Player.

 

[Robert Maynard]

All the data needed for one commander fits on one 80's floppy disk. Just database entries; no magic involved here.

I sincerely doubt that a commander's full transaction history for trade / ship purchase & outfitting / combat / exploring / etc. could be contained on even a 1.2MB 5.25" floppy disk....

If the devs don't want to change the game modes, and I fear they won't, they should at least tweak the mechanic to switch between them.

For starters: switching between solo, group and open play should only be allowed while being docked at the station. With a cooldown of lets say 5-10 minutes?

At the moment we have to log out and in to change play mode. Previously the Devs have indicated that mode changing would probably take place in stations or after a ship changes instance (i.e. FSD, etc). Why have a cooldown to use a game feature?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Some people will never be happy, even if we were all forced in to open, they'd still be upset over something.

They would be upset about not being able to find players because the galaxy is really quite big....

Let us see where the other players 'are' in the galaxy, because we want that even if we don't know it yet. (Player Traffic filter for Galaxy Map?)
.
Open players want to encounter other players, enable this.

Lo and behold - the request for an "easy mode" for finding players - didn't take too long.

The problem here is that "percieved griefing" has got too much focus and attention on the design while there are more important matters to be addressed, most especially Game Balance.

In your opinion - other opinions naturally vary.

I've worked for a few critically acclaimed game development companies for the past few years which produced games of multiple genres (MMO, RTS, FPS, etc) and notably for online games, the way that they dealt with griefers are through banning, account suspensions, in-game control via ignore function, and these works on most big tested online games.

Argument from authority is never a good tactic in an internet discussion....

Apologies but I also find it funny that this is the first time I've seen a online game that created a feature that allows you to negate any type of danger (from human players) to create a unfair advantage even at scenarios were "griefing" is not even present.

Not all players will mode switch at the first sign of a player. What you find "funny", others find quite refreshing as players are not all corralled into a single mode for the benefit of those whose play-styles depends on other players.

So how would you identify a griefer who just kills for lulz and a legitimate human pirate who wants to kill for your cargo?

Do you solve the problem of reducing griefing by creating a feature to allow you to go single player mode each time you see people? Does this create any imbalance to those who only play Open Play?

If you are attacked by a human pirate who are after your goods for profit and you go single player mode to negate the risks, can it be justified as fair to those who play in Open Play 100% and attribute this to "griefing"? How do you penalize such behaviour of exploiting the system for what its not intended purpose?

People like choices. Granted, and thats totally fine... but in a game design perspective game balance is very important ... and through experience if you sacrifice something as game balance just to satisfy something as trivial as "perceived griefing" then I'm not sure if you're truly concerned about the future of the game, or just concerned about your in-game character's well being.

If you like Single Player, why not stick with the Single Player universe? Im not suggesting to remove single player, what Im suggesting is if you choose to play Single Player then keep all your CR and progression there. Open Play should provide you with a totally unique CMDR and not affected by any progression made from Single Player.

You should read Sandro Sammarco's post (Dev) on the topic:

Hello all!

Time to dive in to this thread with our current thoughts:

Scamming:

In game - well, there will be certainly be the ability to scam.

We have the concept that a commodity/equipment canister does not necessarily contain what it says it contains. So there will be methods to disguise a canister's content.

On the flip side of the coin, we have ways of seeing what a canister contains (and this equipment/these methods will be available to use in player trades), so there is a potential arms race between lies and truth.

Why are we doing this? A couple of unrelated reasons, actually.

Firstly, we are not interested in making player trading the central pillar to trading game play. The various markets fulfil that role. So we don't need to protect player trading. The Elite universe is full of smugglers, pirates and general ne'er do wells.

Secondly, I think the ability to lie/cheat *using game rules* is reasonable and opens up more gameplay options. If you get traded a canister of "grain" that turns out to be "human organs" you can be sure of a number of things:

• The player that traded it had to go to some effort using game rules to set up the scam
• That player altered their reputation when they made the trade
• If you spent the time/resources, you could have detected the scam before the trade completed
• If you detect the scam we may be able to directly generate missions/events from the process

Now some folk may understandably still balk at this, but my response has to be that I think it makes the game better (mainly by giving us lots of mission/event potential from NPCs as well as players).

So in this case, we will hopefully be aiming for a very "light touch" because in theory we see nothing wrong with players role playing "bad guys".

Griefing:

So, we've said we don't mind bad guys. In fact, we go further; we have bad guy gameplay options (piracy, smuggling etc.) By default, this includes psychopathic behaviour - randomly attacking other player "because you can".

We're currently looking at two different angles of defence: an in-game law system and private groups.

The in-game law system should be pretty robust. It allows plausible but strong responses from NPC factions to criminal activities (using authority ships, structures and factional bounties), as well as player-driven bounties (via the Pilot's Federation) and player bounty hunting mechanisms (e.g. broadcasting "sightings" of know villains to help player bounty hunters track them).

All of this should mean that that if you're being naughty you are generating additional challenges for yourself which will undoubtedly make the game harder in some ways (this applies equally whether you are attacking players or NPCs).

It won't guarantee safety, even though it guarantees additional challenges to the bad guys. Which I think is about right; we don't want to make being the bad guy impossible.

The second factor is our grouping mechanisms.

The way it's currently standing, players will be able to enter and leave private groups of some sort reasonably easily, so they will be able to control the level of perceived griefing they want to suffer.

I know this is a very contentious issue, which I have been wrestling with since I first came on to the project. The way I see it at the moment is pretty straightforward:

• We have players that want a range of different experiences
• All of those experiences are valid
• Some of those experiences are mutually exclusive

So my answer is to say that we will support all of them but not to the point where one player is happy at the expense of another. And a clean way to do this is by using a grouping system.

The worst case scenario here is that a player who wants to avoid an encounter will vanish into a private group. In this case, the player will be forced to escape conventionally first (via hyperspace, docking or something similar).

In this instance, the aggressor still gets some benefit - they "defeated" their prey, and we can hopefully build on this in terms of rewarding them in various ways: via reputation, which can lead to missions and events, via player bragging rights (perhaps only players that remain in the "all group" can feature in various global news feed articles) and potentially via limited physical rewards.

If players are going to live in private groups, well, that suggests that if we had a single environment they would be playing offline or not at all, so they aren't part of the equation.

Players that dip into the "all group" after farming "private groups"; there are a few things to say about this.

• They are unlikely to have as good player-vs-player skills as those who live in the "all" group day in day out.
• NPCs can and will offer appropriate risks (in fact, it would not be a lie to suggest that we *could* make NPC ships significantly nastier than any human ships in the majority of situations. Not that we will, mind. But we could), so to get a tooled up advantage such players will have been facing a appropriate threat level (basically private groups should not be considered "easy mode").
• Everyone has access to their own private group(s)

It's not perfect, but it's my best shot at the moment.

Anyway, taking these two strands into account, again, the result will again be hopefully a "very light touch".

Other:
Offensive behaviour during communication, whether in game or on the forums is always unacceptable. We will have some form of reporting/investigation service to service this. We will also allow players to "ignore" communications so that they don't have to listen/read stuff that doesn't interest them (on a related note - I'm very dead set against session-wide or bigger chat channels. In my opinion they ruin ambience and are uneccessary for Elite: Dangerous).

I can't actually think of out-of-game scams that could be possible at the moment.

Finally:
On a personal note. I also find (even mildly) derogatory terms and statements unpleasant and unhelpful. They don't advance arguments and they are used to intentionally insult people/groups. It's perfectly fine to disagree, but it's not fine to insult (just as it's not fine face to face).

I also think that more civil (if not understanding) we can be (in game and on the forums) the more likely we are to grow the community which will be to the benefit of us all.

 

[Calenir Varrik]

Feel free to debate below...

While I feel strongly that many of the closed threads shouldn't be lumped together as they are not the same issue, I'm happy to respect the wishes of the mods however I would like to see a poll added as the results of one I was most interested in seeing (bonus reward for open play risks) was closed after a day, which I highly doubt was enough time to get enough votes/data.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Doesn't work that way. Let's meet at system xy? Just 300+ lys away? You have to jump x times to get there and x times back to continue trading?
People are lazy. People are impatient.
They want instant action.

There are loads of games which offer instant PvP arena based action, which sounds like what you want..... some of them are even free to play (ie Star conflict or War Thunder) but not every game has to be that kind of game.... like it or not elite certainly isnt.

indeed, right back in KS I suggested having an arcade simulator of sorts - it turned out that is exactly what Star Citizen ended up doing!! - where when you were in a space station you could load up a simulator and have practice battels against other players, so essentially exactly what you are suggesting...

And I was told pretty much unanimously, Elite is not that game. I didn't mind, it was just an idea.... but there you go.

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

They will just think: Why bother? Let's stay in Lave (+vincinity) and shoot some traders...

That is only because right now the game is not performing as advertised..... Back before launch we were told in Anarchy systems this could happen, but in hi sec systems the police take a VERY dim view on fragrant murder of federation of pilots members, and that anyone doing it would be punished harshly and punished swiftly by the security forces.

It is my hope that this will be fixed sooner rather than later. Of course you may be correct and the devs do not care whether the security can cope in high sec systems or not, in which case that would be a shame, but, there are always the group modes

DB also said that if players insist on continually murdering other players (or otherwise being antisocial in ALL) outside of the pre-defined warzones, and outside of the set roles in the game, they could be removed from the all group entirely and put in their own group of gr..... errrr...... like minded players.

 

[xDreadnoughtx]

While I feel strongly that many of the closed threads shouldn't be lumped together as they are not the same issue, I'm happy to respect the wishes of the mods however I would like to see a poll added as the results of one I was most interested in seeing (bonus reward for open play risks) was closed after a day, which I highly doubt was enough time to get enough votes/data.

Yes why not. May as well rinse repeat. Would not change the clear trend of that poll would it though.

 

[Shaamaan]

Well, I'll throw in my 2 cents.

There are a few aspects of this whole debate that, I believe, need to be looked at separately and only summarized afterwards.
First, let’s look at the mechanics.

The game is (currently) absolutely identical in terms of mechanics regardless of the mode you choose. It may seem like stating the obvious, but it’s important to point this out. The NPC threats are the same in any mode. Also, look at various MMOs for for a bit of inspiration, and if said MMOs offer different server types (PvE and PvP), you’ll find that, once more, the servers are identical except for the fact that in one case players can openly attack other players while they cannot in the other.
Also, we really DO have a huge universe to toy with.

This brings me to my second point – a question of balance.

If you ask yourselves why do we even HAVE this discussion, you’ll find that the answers is “because some people were griefed by other players”, but if you consider the vastness of the universe then the reason is “because too many people are in the same spot, for some reason”. What’s that reason? Well, rare trading, possibly the only way to make any sensible money early on. There’s a limited number of stations offering rare goods and so traffic around those stations is going to be much higher. IF the whole universe was packed with rares and things to do, then people would migrate, and chances of running into a bad guy would be considerably smaller.
Of course, player pirates (the legitimate kind – the kind that wants your cargo, not your life) would also find themselves lacking targets to shoot up. NPCs should be as valid targets as players, but player-NPC interaction is currently limited to docking requests and blowing things up, which is kind of sad.

Also, with racks of dumbfire missiles, people can blow up big and bulky targets with very small fight craft*, risking very little while possibly costing someone else a lot of time and money. There’s very little risk involved for the offenders, currently, as the bounties can be paid off easily and the police forces are a joke. If you consider that a lot of unwanted PvP has taken place in Lave and realize that said system is NOT an anarchy system, you start to see why some people get tired of PvP before it even starts.
Considering that the game is, mechanically, the same regardless of the mode, then the realization that the biggest dangers in space are other people who are out just to ruin your day is a startling one!

(* - I'm on the edge when it comes to this particular thing. On one hand I think it's good that you can have smaller craft still being a danger to larger ships, but I don't think it should be this "cheap"...)

Finally, there’s the psychological aspect. I’m no psychiatrist, so this is purely speculation driven by subjective opinions on my part.

I prefer to work WITH others rather than AGAINST others. Judging by the quickly growing number of people playing in the Mobius group, it seems I’m not the only one. In fact, humans in general are far more likely to be cooperative than not. Fighting against a soulless machine (NPCs) is a lot different than fighting another human being, and not merely because of difficulty involved! If I get killed by an NPC, I’ve got myself to blame. If I kill an NPC, I know I didn’t do anyone harm. Neither statement holds true if the opponent is another human. And, just for the record, the first time I engaged an NPC Anaconda in my Cobra and had to run because I was out of shield cells and with my canopy compromised – that still got my heart pumping.

As the game is, I believe any attempts to permanently separate open from solo (or change either one to make them mechanically different) is a bad idea. Perhaps if the separation was there from the start there wouldn’t be so many people in open just out to blow things up for fun… but the sad bit is, these people, eventually, always turn up. So perhaps it’s good that we have solo and grouped play to go back to. Now, if only the grouped thing WORKED… I’ve had very little luck seeing other players in the Mobius group, despite coordinating with them via TeamSpeak to meet up in space. But that’s a different story for another time (and likely a far more technical one)…

 

[Calenir Varrik]

Yes why not. May as well rinse repeat. Would not change the clear trend of that poll would it though.

I'm interested in the results whichever way they lead however 1 day is certainly not enough time to draw any form of real conclusion. Many people don't check this forums everyday or even more than once a week so I think to get a better estimate of the communities feelings you would need at least 1 to 2 weeks (otherwise you'd just be getting the regulars who spend their days here)

Again, I'm interested in the true result whatever that may be after a fair amount of time.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

So how would you identify a griefer who just kills for lulz and a legitimate human pirate who wants to kill for your cargo? .

becasue pirates DONT kill their mark unless they have to.

scanning a player, IDing cargo, messaging and demanding cargo, and if not destroying cargo hatch is piracy.

the only time a pirate would kill their mark would be if they were forced to.

killing a clean player with no cargo or, blowing them up without asking them to drop cargo is NOT piracy..... it gives true pirates a bad name, and if there was a pirates guild - which I think is part of the long term plan - then you would lose rep with them for acting like that as you are killing the golden goose.

There is no such thing as "killing for cargo". when you blow up a ship you blow up the cargo, and if the player is clean it does not even add to your combat rating. There is NO ingame reason to murder a clean empty player..... That being said psychopathy is possible, and it is MEANT to be possible, but equally it is meant to be somethign not taken lightly. As it is not a recognised career mode, the theory is if you choose that then the police will hammer you, and every faction will hate you....... it was not, or at least as I understand it, it was not meant to be something to do easily and without long lasting repercussions to your character.

KILLING a member of the pilots federation was meant to be something which was frowned upon by ALL ingame factions.

 

[CMDR Bansidhe]

becasue pirates DONT kill their mark unless they have to.

scanning a player, IDing cargo, messaging and demanding cargo, and if not destroying cargo hatch is piracy.

the only time a pirate would kill their mark would be if they were forced to.

killing a clean player with no cargo or, blowing them up without asking them to drop cargo is NOT piracy..... it gives true pirates a bad name, and if there was a pirates guild - which I think is part of the long term plan - then you would lose rep with them for acting like that as you are killing the golden goose.

There is no such thing as "killing for cargo". when you blow up a ship you blow up the cargo, and if the player is clean it does not even add to your combat rating. There is NO ingame reason to kill a clean empty player.

And after the event how do we know they killed for no reason and not because the "victim" wouldn't pay up, or opened fire.

In fact - there you go - if player A has a bounty on them and player B shoots at player A then player B will still be clean.

So you are saying it is disallowed for player A to shoot back because, and I quote, "There is NO in-game reason to kill a clean, empty player."

Ten seconds later I provide one. It doesn't look like you thought through your position too well.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

And after the event how do we know they killed for no reason and not because the "victim" wouldn't pay up, or opened fire.

In fact - there you go - if player A has a bounty on them and player B shoots at player A then player B will still be clean.

So you are saying it is disallowed for player A to shoot back because, and I quote, "There is NO in-game reason to kill a clean, empty player."

Ten seconds later I provide one. It doesn't look like you thought through your position too well.

what? sorry I have no idea what you mean. The system seems simple to me, and its not me who didnt think MY position out too well, I am just repeating what has been said regards to piracy and player killing in the DDF and in interviews with the team.

if a player is clean and has no cargo, it is impossible to pirate them. how can a player give what they have not got?

if player A has a bounty and player B is a bounty hunter then of course player A will defend themselves when they are attacked!!! What has that got to do with PIRACY which is what I was responding to..... I was not talking about a pirate defending themselves from a BHer who attacked them.

WE do not need to know anything, it is quite trivial for the GAME to know how the attack occurred and assign set crime levels

The game would know.

did "trader" have bounty?
did "pirate" scan "trader"
did "Trader" have cargo?
did "pirate" message "Trader"
did "Trader" drop Cargo.
did "pirate" kill trader even after dropping cargo
if Pirate opened fire on Trader 1st, did "pirate" target cargo hatch

 

[Shaamaan]

And after the event how do we know they killed for no reason and not because the "victim" wouldn't pay up, or opened fire.(...)

If your point is that it might be / will be difficult to create in-game mechanics to discern pirates from psychopaths, then I agree.
If your point is that they are the same, then no, you're wrong, and you're looking at the picture very narrowly.

 

[Gibbonici]

My question is, What if the PVP is not about griefing but just a regular pirating exercise which is one of the core aspects of the game?

Pirating done properly and as anticipated by the design adds a lot to the game. The idea is that pirates threaten and wound their targets into dropping cargo for them to scoop up. Killing your target is not piracy it's murder, and according to the original design concept for piracy murder was supposed to bring a big reputation hit with the pirate factions to the point of them becoming hostile.

Killing traders outright is not good practice for pirates. All it does is drive traders to Solo as they stand to lose millions each time rather than a few tens of thousands through handing cargo over. If Solo were locked they'd just play Solo. If there were no Solo at all they'd eventually quit, as the losses are too great, or they'd stop trading and do other stuff instead. All of this is bad for the pirates.

Instead of demanding that the game design changes to facilitate murder as a main dynamic (remember, this is NOT EvE and it never can be for several fundamental reasons), pirates should probably do that rarest of things on the internet and take some personal responsibility for their effect on traders. Don't just blow them up, force them to hand cargo over. It is possible and it's done daily by shrewder pirates than many on this thread.

Is this not more of an interesting interaction anyway? Is there not more challenge in forcing a Lakon 9 to drop cargo than to simply blow it up in your combat-pimped Viper or whatever?

Elite is a game of consequence, and as such pirates share the responsibilty for the reactions of their victims.

 

[CMDR Bansidhe]

what? sorry I have no idea what you mean. The system seems simple to me, and its not me who didnt think MY position out too well, I am just repeating what has been said regards to piracy and player killing in the DDF and in interviews with the team.

if a player is clean and has no cargo, it is impossible to pirate them. how can a player give what they have not got?

if player A has a bounty and player B is a bounty hunter then of course player A will defend themselves when they are attacked!!! What has that got to do with PIRACY which is what I was responding to..... I was not talking about a pirate defending themselves from a BHer who attacked them.

WE do not need to know anything, it is quite trivial for the GAME to know how the attack occurred and assign set crime levels

The game would know.

did "trader" have bounty?
did "pirate" scan "trader"
did "Trader" have cargo?
did "pirate" message "Trader"
did "Trader" drop Cargo.
did "pirate" kill trader even after dropping cargo
if Pirate opened fire on Trader 1st, did "pirate" target cargo hatch

Or I could just have been responding to the quote I er quoted. "There is NO in-game reason to kill a clean, empty player." and then, ten seconds later I provide one.

That is all.

You then agree I was right. So you admitted you were wrong. No harm done.