What kind of support is there for a pvp flag which is raised automatically by certain activities?

[Mengy]

I think it sounds wonderful, as long as the distinction between a populated anarchy system and an unpopulated one is implemented.


I still think a straight up Open PvE mode would probably be much easier for Frontier to implement, but if I had my choice I'd pick your flag solution instead.

 

[Ethaidan]

If the list of caveats is so extensive, why bother with wasting time on a feature that is likely to do nothing to promote Open and would offer plenty of opportunity for trolling?

Yes. Too many caveats, too many opportunities for... what, I had no idea that activity raised my flag...

I'd much rather FDev spent the time properly fixing the different security ratings in systems, completely flesh out a Player BH system with System, Power, SuperPower wide notification & tracking capabilities and BH leaderboards, rethink notoriety (attach in background to commander that can be seen with an advanced BH scanner, and change the degradation system, locked in Open when above 1), etc.

Edit: while they're at it... redress the base vs engineering imbalance - increase base ship stats related to combat & reduce the %increase of all engineering - keeping hull, speed, shield, weapon maxes as they are now but raising the low end and closing the gap.

 

[Wrecked]

yeah, why bother to respond to what he actually said guy.

I'm not your guy, buddy!

 

[Aashenfox]

Yes. Too many caveats, too many opportunities for... what, I had no idea that activity raised my flag...

I'd much rather FDev spent the time properly fixing the different security ratings in systems, completely flesh out a Player BH system with System, Power, SuperPower wide notification & tracking capabilities and BH leaderboards, rethink notoriety (attach in background to commander that can be seen with an advanced BH scanner, and change the degradation system, locked in Open when above 1), etc.

This would be my preference too.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I'm not your guy, buddy!

I'm not your buddy, friend!

 

[ethelred]

As long as there is a mode where it's Open with no caveats (like now), then yes.

 

[Aashenfox]

I'm not your buddy, friend!

I'm not your friend, chum.

I just can't resist...

 

[Old Duck]

I'm not your friend, chum.

I'm not your duck, fox!

 

[Wrecked]

If the list of caveats is so extensive, why bother with wasting time on a feature that is likely to do nothing to promote Open and would offer plenty of opportunity for trolling?

Care to elaborate on how you figure this would promote trolling? Just because something has a possibility of abuse, doesn't mean you just give up. There's got to be a way to make things better for everyone.

Right now, there is no balance between PVP gankers and everyone else. There needs to be. You want to be a ganker, fine, but it should come with such sever consequences or extremely specific circumstances that you would have to be suicidal to want to destroy another player's ship without acknowledging these things.

 

[BDelacroix]

PVP flag has been previously suggested and rejected.

One argument is that joining Open IS the pvp flag. There are obvious problems with this scenario.
One argument is that flagged people find a way to trick others anyway so don't do it. Weak argument in my opinion.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Care to elaborate on how you figure this would promote trolling?

Invincible, un-interdictable ships being able to carry out legal missions can affect the BGS - I imagine that that would cause CMDRs intent on controlling access to their adopted system some angst.

Just because something has a possibility of abuse, doesn't mean you just give up. There's got to be a way to make things better for everyone.

"better for everyone" in a situation where play-styles are diametrically opposed is a tough challenge.

Right now, there is no balance between PVP gankers and everyone else. There needs to be. You want to be a ganker, fine, but it should come with such sever consequences or extremely specific circumstances that you would have to be suicidal to want to destroy another player's ship without acknowledging these things.

I doubt that that would be accepted by some players that like to engage other players in combat (regardless of the desires of the target).

 

[EUS]

I can't get on board with any of this.
I'm perfectly happy with the modes we have.
Dialing back the engineers effects would solve a lot of so called problems.

 

[MottiKhan]

I'm not your buddy, friend!

I'll be your friend.

 

[MottiKhan]

Possibly. I'd add more triggers.

Carrying PP merits of any kind, for example.
Any hostile PP related system (changing BGS in exploited systems can have detrimental effects on a power)

I don't care too much about carrying high dollar cargo, as long as hasrez is on the list.

Along with something like this, anarchy systems need to have lucrative missions/cargo to incentivize them.\



I don't think this system would ever happen though.

I'd add just one trigger.

If you're in open mode.

 

[Ouberos]

Invincible, un-interdictable ships being able to carry out legal missions can affect the BGS - I imagine that that would cause CMDRs intent on controlling access to their adopted system some angst

I would suggest that having a Solo and PG mode has already created this situation. You wouldn't be coming round to the idea of Open only BGS and PP would you?

Joking.

I actually am in agreement with you on this position and support the three modes as equal.

The game is good as it is. If people take the correct precautions then rebuys can be avoided. With regards the BGS, (when it's working!) Dedicated gameplay will win whatever the mode.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Quick thoughts on some more obvious issues:
- what happens if a bounty hunter (who isn't automatically going to meet any of those conditions) wants to attack a pirate? More generally what happens if someone with the flag off shoots at someone with the flag on?
- what happens if someone who doesn't meet those conditions wings up with a PvPer and just heals them while being completely immune to return fire?
- what if rather than winging up they just fly a T-9 into the instance and let the PvPer use them as a big shield?
- how much fun are people going to have making their flag "off" and then using their invincible ship to boost-ram other players into stations, planet surfaces, etc.?

I suspect whatever you do you'll either end up with weird and exploitable loopholes (which the attacker will know and most defenders won't) ... or it'll be immensely complex about exactly what happens when (which the attacker will know and most defenders won't) ... Certainly no-one previously trying to come up with useful "Open PvE" rules or computer-readable "legitimate PvP" definitions has managed to even come close - but that shouldn't stop you trying.

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

I wouldn't support a 'flagging' system, they always feel too false; prefer a pve server before that if the need is felt but I don't think it's necessary.

 

[SpaceScania]

I think PvE servers make more sense rather than adding additional complexity to open? But yes, there should totally be options for multiplayer Elite Dangerous where PvP is not possible.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

How do you get rid of the flag? If it's temporary, people will just let their 1000 W rigs run all night while AFK to wear it off like notoriety.

 

[Aashenfox]

Quick thoughts on some more obvious issues:
- what happens if a bounty hunter (who isn't automatically going to meet any of those conditions) wants to attack a pirate? More generally what happens if someone with the flag off shoots at someone with the flag on?
- what happens if someone who doesn't meet those conditions wings up with a PvPer and just heals them while being completely immune to return fire?
- what if rather than winging up they just fly a T-9 into the instance and let the PvPer use them as a big shield?
- how much fun are people going to have making their flag "off" and then using their invincible ship to boost-ram other players into stations, planet surfaces, etc.?

I suspect whatever you do you'll either end up with weird and exploitable loopholes (which the attacker will know and most defenders won't) ... or it'll be immensely complex about exactly what happens when (which the attacker will know and most defenders won't) ... Certainly no-one previously trying to come up with useful "Open PvE" rules or computer-readable "legitimate PvP" definitions has managed to even come close - but that shouldn't stop you trying.

- If the pirate is not wanted he can't.
- if one person in wing has flag raised, all do.
- haha, good one. That might work for about half a minute.
- This is an issue, but not an insurmountable one.

I don't support this idea very much myself, but there are few technical arguments against it as other games implement it well enough. And as for 'it would be too complicated', all I have to sy to this, is 'lol, have you seen what we currently call CnP?'

Anyway, yeh, nobody said it was perfect. When someone made a certain spaceship game, I'm sure they said, 'but won't players kill each other for no reason cos they're butts?', didn't stop it being a good idea.