Total removal of PvP would have no overall detrimental effect to the game. Pilots federation rules of engagement idea

[Madrax573]

I've come to the conclusion that total removal of PvP in ED would have no overall detrimental effect to the game.

However I am very much a fan of PvP in general in online games (13 year EvE online veteran). But ED is so not really set up for it. For a few technical reasons which I won't really talk about but also for gameplay reasons.
As in there isn't really any reason to fight in PvP other than because you want to etc.

So I have an idea to give PvP a bit of something game/lore wise. Pilots federation rules of engagement...

This idea kinda touches on a few aspects of the game from Open v Solo/PG, PP, BGS, ganking and crime and punishment so bear with me.

Basic premise is that you have different 'rules of engagement' between CMDR's depending on where you are and what activities you engage in.

New 'Mercenary' status. This acts like a PP pledge but for minor factions. I basically means you are actively engaged with a minor faction for the purpose of military actions (wars, massacre missions, assassinations etc). Any mercenaries can engage any other mercenaries in free for all PvP if their respective factions are actively at war in any system.
Conflict Zone: you are automatically signed up as a Mercenary for the faction you have selected.
Mercenary status continues until you 'resign' from the faction as a mercenary. This is CMDR based, not squadron etc.

PP: Free for all PvP anywhere against other PP CMDR's

RoE based on System security status (this could be hugely expanded based on many factors but I picked Sec status as simple approach)
High Security: Zero PvP allowed. The pilots federation simply locks you weapons from firing on another CMDR's ship, unless you are a Merc or PP as above then those rules apply.
Medium Sec: Limited PvP. Merc and PP rules supersede these rules. You are allowed to attack other CMDR's without warning however if you do your FSD is locked and can't be operated and a wing of high thread response come in to take you out. You can defend yourself against them if you wish. The wings keep respawning if you continues fighting, getting tougher the longer you hold out. You can escape them by evading their targeting scans for 5 mins... at which point your FSD becomes unlocked and reboots itself so you can wake out.
Low Sec: Limited PvP. Merc and PP rules supersede these rules. Similar rules to medium security space but your FSD only powers down for 1 min and automatically starts up again even if you are still engaged with your target or the HTR wings. Except around stations where it acts just like the Med Sec systems and you can't power up your FSD until you evade scan for 5 mins.
Anarchy/Lawless: Free for all PvP. Anything goes here.

Rewards for operating in the lower security systems would be buffed to represent the potential additional danger say Med 10% inc, Low 20% inc and Anarchy 40% increase of activities only in those areas.

Solo/PG influence reduced to just 10% for BGS and PP activities simply as there is little to no danger doing these in Solo/PG. For influence only, not monetary rewards.

This is think gives a 'reason' for CMDR's to be engaged against one another but also some framework to deal with ganking and potentially some C&P aspects.
Obviously this isn't a 100% fleshed out idea but it could be workable with minimal disruption to how most people play. Heck it may even entice a few people to actively fight for their chosen side...

Flame retardant suit at the ready

 

[Bigmaec]

What if I simply block you to prevent you shooting me?

 

[thelion]

I've come to the conclusion that total removal of PvP in ED would have no overall detrimental effect to the game.

However I am very much a fan of PvP in general in online games (13 year EvE online veteran). But ED is so not really set up for it. For a few technical reasons which I won't really talk about but also for gameplay reasons.
As in there isn't really any reason to fight in PvP other than because you want to etc.

So I have an idea to give PvP a bit of something game/lore wise. Pilots federation rules of engagement...

This idea kinda touches on a few aspects of the game from Open v Solo/PG, PP, BGS, ganking and crime and punishment so bear with me.

Basic premise is that you have different 'rules of engagement' between CMDR's depending on where you are and what activities you engage in.

New 'Mercenary' status. This acts like a PP pledge but for minor factions. I basically means you are actively engaged with a minor faction for the purpose of military actions (wars, massacre missions, assassinations etc). Any mercenaries can engage any other mercenaries in free for all PvP if their respective factions are actively at war in any system.
Conflict Zone: you are automatically signed up as a Mercenary for the faction you have selected.
Mercenary status continues until you 'resign' from the faction as a mercenary. This is CMDR based, not squadron etc.

PP: Free for all PvP anywhere against other PP CMDR's

RoE based on System security status (this could be hugely expanded based on many factors but I picked Sec status as simple approach)
High Security: Zero PvP allowed. The pilots federation simply locks you weapons from firing on another CMDR's ship, unless you are a Merc or PP as above then those rules apply.
Medium Sec: Limited PvP. Merc and PP rules supersede these rules. You are allowed to attack other CMDR's without warning however if you do your FSD is locked and can't be operated and a wing of high thread response come in to take you out. You can defend yourself against them if you wish. The wings keep respawning if you continues fighting, getting tougher the longer you hold out. You can escape them by evading their targeting scans for 5 mins... at which point your FSD becomes unlocked and reboots itself so you can wake out.
Low Sec: Limited PvP. Merc and PP rules supersede these rules. Similar rules to medium security space but your FSD only powers down for 1 min and automatically starts up again even if you are still engaged with your target or the HTR wings. Except around stations where it acts just like the Med Sec systems and you can't power up your FSD until you evade scan for 5 mins.
Anarchy/Lawless: Free for all PvP. Anything goes here.

Rewards for operating in the lower security systems would be buffed to represent the potential additional danger say Med 10% inc, Low 20% inc and Anarchy 40% increase of activities only in those areas.

Solo/PG influence reduced to just 10% for BGS and PP activities simply as there is little to no danger doing these in Solo/PG. For influence only, not monetary rewards.

This is think gives a 'reason' for CMDR's to be engaged against one another but also some framework to deal with ganking and potentially some C&P aspects.
Obviously this isn't a 100% fleshed out idea but it could be workable with minimal disruption to how most people play. Heck it may even entice a few people to actively fight for their chosen side...

Flame retardant suit at the ready

Bad form old bean, what what

Just bally bad form indeed.

Toodly pipsky

 

[Robert Maynard]

Solo/PG influence reduced to just 10% for BGS and PP activities simply as there is little to no danger doing these in Solo/PG. For influence only, not monetary rewards.

Removing a player's effect on the galaxy is, from anecdotal evidence, one of the punishments meted out by Frontier to those who break the rules.

What is being suggested in this proposal is for players who are not breaking any game rules to be treated in almost the same way simply because they choose a game mode other than Open.

 

[Madrax573]

What if I simply block you to prevent you shooting me?

The block is to stop instancing afaik. that would function as it currently does. Instancing is one of the 'technical' issues I alluded to but didn't want to tackle.

 

[Madrax573]

Bad form old bean, what what

Just bally bad form indeed.

Toodly pipsky

Care to give some reasons?

 

[Madrax573]

Removing a player's effect on the galaxy is, from anecdotal evidence, one of the punishments meted out by Frontier to those who break the rules.

What is being suggested in this proposal is for players who are not breaking any game rules to be treated in almost the same way simply because they choose a game mode other than Open.

Yeah I understand that as well but my personal opinion is that if you are affecting BGS or PP without the potential for other players to directly oppose you then you shouldn't be able to mete out the full INF rewards.

This could simply be removed from the idea to keep with current convention.

 

[Zieman]

Yah nah.
Lots of development work for nothing.
Bad troll 2/10.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yeah I understand that as well but my personal opinion is that if you are affecting BGS or PP without the potential for other players to directly oppose you then you shouldn't be able to mete out the full INF rewards.

Understood. Not every player shares that opinion, of course, and no player bought a game where the potential for PvP is a requirement to engage in any game feature (except CQC).

This could simply be removed from the idea to keep with current convention.

It could indeed.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

No need for complete removal - general PvE environment with distinct PvP zones should do the trick just fine.

 

[zimms]

I've come to the conclusion that total removal of PvP in ED would have no overall detrimental effect to the game.

[...]

Lol? I'm sure people who do PvP would disagree.

It's like saying removing hyper jumps has no detrimental effect because it would reduce stress on the servers and I'm happy with the starter system anyway.

 

[Shaele]

Removing a player's effect on the galaxy is, from anecdotal evidence, one of the punishments meted out by Frontier to those who break the rules.

What is being suggested in this proposal is for players who are not breaking any game rules to be treated in almost the same way simply because they choose a game mode other than Open.

and yet its ok for players who simply want to play in a social non-pvp environ to be harassed (potentially) by those who think forced pvp is ok?

This is why a non-pvp version of open, similar to Eve's High-Sec or better still where players cannot damage other players would be my ideal.

Remember, its not just open that these force PvP players do this, they even sneak into player groups to do it there, like in distant worlds.
How is that not a form of harassment when thousands of players get together for a player run, community PvE event and then get harassed by those who think that their way is the way it should all be?

 

[CMDR Serra]

Well.
This should be good...

 

[Madrax573]

No need for complete removal - general PvE environment with distinct PvP zones should do the trick just fine.

So you read the title and not the post....

 

[Madrax573]

Lol? I'm sure people who do PvP would disagree.

It's like saying removing hyper jumps has no detrimental effect because it would reduce stress on the servers and I'm happy with the starter system anyway.

Well in the grand scheme of things dedicated PvP'ers are a tiny subset of the players so.... ;P

 

[Ian Doncaster]

High Security: Zero PvP allowed. The pilots federation simply locks you weapons from firing on another CMDR's ship, unless you are a Merc or PP as above then those rules apply.

So, what happens if someone isn't targeting your ship, fires their weapons, and you happen to cross the line of fire?
(Let's say non-hitscan weapons, so the game can't know when the fire key is pressed whether you'll be in the same place as the bullets later)
...and, well, there's always ramming.


Mercenary status it seems there's no actual benefit to signing up for unless you actively want to be attacked by other players? (Powerplay's rewards aren't great but at least they exist, plus there's a bunch of gameplay you can't do unless you sign up)


I don't see why you've taken so many steps to make PvP virtually impossible outside Anarchy systems, then feel it's also necessary to penalise Solo/PG in BGS effects? [1] Surely under this proposal no-one is getting attacked in Open either [2] and therefore Open should also have a massive influence penalty?


As with all "make security state matter" proposals, this basically just encourages going after the weakest possible targets:
- explorers in uninhabited systems
- new players and unshielded ships who can be exploded in seconds, then boost clear of the police response / use a cheap disposable ship for the attack
- people flying at 101m/s in large ships near stations (and with the hyperdrive rule, even if they outrun the station guns they're still dead)
- people not watching their aim in a RES
...while moderately shielded ships with decent piloting can already escape a player attack without needing a huge pile of police ships to help out, so don't benefit any further from this proposal.


Presumably all RES would be removed from high-sec systems as the pirate weapons would be locked from firing on anyone as well? Wanted players could still be attacked by clean bounty hunter NPCs, but wouldn't be able to return fire? Combat missions of all sorts (except wartime) would not target high-sec systems as either the player wouldn't be able to shoot their target, or the NPCs wouldn't be able to fire back and so wouldn't be there in the first place?
(Frankly, the NPC pirates shouldn't show up even in low security either, if the response is a wing of HTR ships getting a minute of free fire on them)

Making the rule only apply to player-player combat is just going to lead to confusion and bug reports because 99%+ of the game is player-NPC; it needs to be consistent so people know what the rules are, or the only people who benefit are the people who have a reason to know the more obscure rules inside-out... see for example the current C&P system which does nothing to deter gankers and generates at least one forum thread most days complaining about how harsh and unfair it is on everyone else.



[1] Leaving aside that the way the BGS is entangled with basically everything there's no non-exploitable way to apply those restrictions anyway.
[2] 99% of the time no-one is getting attacked doing BGS in Open anyway, so...

 

[zimms]

and yet its ok for players who simply want to play in a social non-pvp environ to be harassed (potentially) by those who think forced pvp is ok?

[...]

Harassment is not ok, but (involuntary) PvP and harassment are not synonyms.

"Forced" PvP is part of the game. If that's a complete deal breaker to some, then they should have bought a different game. We already have Solo and PG if you don't fancy PvP at the moment. And it's the responsibility of the PG's owner to decide who to let in (or kick out).

I think it's completely unrealistic to demand Frontier cut out an integral part of the game years after its release.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I've come to the conclusion that total removal of PvP in ED would have no overall detrimental effect to the game

There would have been a great place to stop...

But it was a very nice wall of text to then hit the 'meat' that there should only be a single mode as 'those folk hiding in PG & solo' shouldn't affect my game.

Well in the grand scheme of things dedicated PvP'ers are a tiny subset of the players so.... ;P

Indeed... So why didn't you suggest they had their own tiny playground and had no effect on BGS at all? PP, being intended as direct conflict, yes, I'd agree with that

Nice effort though, shame it ended up being totally unoriginal when compared against threads that have gone before.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

Me reading about Eve Online one more time.

 

[Madrax573]

To answer some of the questions above.

Why have the 'merc' status. Simply to give a game mechanic reason to allow PvP to happen organically. none of the current PvP club activities would be remotely affected by this as they mostly occur in Anarchies.

Making the rule only apply to player-player combat is just going to lead to confusion and bug reports because 99%+ of the game is player-NPC; it needs to be consistent so people know what the rules are, or the only people who benefit are the people who have a reason to know the more obscure rules inside-out... see for example the current C&P system which does nothing to deter gankers and generates at least one forum thread most days complaining about how harsh and unfair it is on everyone else.

some of your examples above would be the 'fleshing out' I said as I didn't want to work through a myriad of potentials.
As for the NPC v CMDR thing. This in nothing new in MMO's as many already have successfully implemented such systems. It is not 'immersive' at all but some things often need to be non-immersive for gameplay reasons.