Except Bounty Hunting as an activity doesn't require consensual PvP. You can do it with other players- or against the AI.
Except Bounty Hunting as an activity doesn't require consensual PvP. You can do it with other players- or against the AI.
AP Birdman
Banned
This is brilliant and highlights exactly why I'm frustrated with this game.
I cannot speak for all pvpers but I can say that most of my frustration IS with Fdev and the way they have treated pvpers.
My only frustration with pve-ers is that whenever ideas for PvP are brought up on the forums, they come out in droves to detest and complain and judging by the fact that PvP is the only part of the game that still hasn't been touched, I can only assume that Fdev is actually listening to those people.
Also, I don't blame the modes in any way for our crappy PvP situation. I argue for open only because I think a highly populated galaxy would be more fun and that further dividing us would be less fun in my opinion. I would argue for crossplay too but I feel that PC would have an unfair advantage over console players.
Last edited:
AP Birdman
Banned
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
To be more clear I mean, good guy players killing bad guy NPCs is the same as good guy players killing bad guy players.
Or to look at it another way, players from team A killing NPCs from team B is the same as players from team A killing players from team B.
And my point is, why does killing a NPC give you a reward but killing a player does not?
I know the answer is that Fdev haven't figured out a way to put us on teams or to properly designate who's a "good guy" and who's a "bad guy" in a way that isn't exploitable.
Last edited:
What I'm saying is there's a clear difference in choice of activities between players, and not between players.
The game was originally designed to be played alone or with people- so activities that are played "with" people don't have a specific incentive, because the game wasn't designed only for that purpose.
That's where a lot of people are failing to see that their disappointment has nothing to do with how other players choose to play, or what mode they play in.
In fact, the game was originally promised to be "offline solo" as an option- but that choice wasn't removed because Frontier "wanted the game to be multiplayer". If they had, the modes simply wouldn't have existed at release as a choice at all. They would have just dumped everyone in Open and said "Good luck CMDRS!". It was designed to be online, yes- but not strictly multiplayer.
Online, because the BGS has real-time updates. And arguably, because DRM (of which it's most probably the former, and the latter was simply icing on the cake)
Some need to take a step back and look at the game, and it's mechanics in true perspective, rather than what they want to see it as. Not trying to be "arrogant" I'm just saying in realistic perspective it's not designed to be what some apparently want it to be, and Frontier's not about to recode the entire game in order to satisfy some who want it to be something very specific to their own needs, either.
Except that 'bounty' doesn't require consent?
How would you determine 'consensual' PvP when there is no mechanism in the game currently (apart from modes) that indicates one party as being 'consenting' to another? Or do you consider that any player in open is by virtue of being in open consenting to PvP?
I agreed with you many pages ago that the game does not have any consideration for those who solely desire PvP action outside of CQC, and that is the game today.
I would wholly support an exclusive PvP mode that was still part of the BGS integration we have, so that that group would still 'feel' part of the overall game, but think it unlikely to happen.
AP Birdman
Banned
Ok, I see what you're saying but I think you're kind of inflating my point a bit.
I'm simply just making the point that one activity is ship vs. ship combat that pays the CMDR and the other is ship vs. ship combat that doesn't pay the CMDR.
We can discuss what is and isn't considered consensual but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
I consider consensual to be players that want to fight each other. Non consensual would be me interdicting a player, regardless of ship type and load out, and me blasting them while they're simply trying to get away.
New player here... what are you guys even talking about? LOL.
PVP in open is necessary because i like the freedom to do anything i want in space including kill people for no reason.
PVP in open is necessary because i like the freedom to do anything i want in space including kill people for no reason.
Last edited:
Fair enough, I'm not trying to get into disputes over what is and isn't consensual, after all- I'm merely looking at it from the overall perspective of what the game was designed to be.
Point I'm making has to do with why "incentives" don't exist among other players who choose multiplayer. Why should someone get a "bonus" just because they're choosing to play among other commanders, when the game wasn't marketed as just a multiplayer game to begin with?
When you've clearly marketed and advertised the game as alone or with others- you can't just cherry-pick who gets "extras". They have to be applied equally, or not at all.
MMO's clearly have bonuses for group play- because they were designed with that intent in mind. This one wasn't, because as a hybrid it was never intended to be just an MMO.
AP Birdman
Banned
Ok, look at it this way. The great thing about elite is the multiple ways a player can play the game and progress through it, right?
So a person who only enjoys exploration can do nothing but explore in this game and in so doing, make money to buy new ships, upgrade ships, etc. A person who enjoys trading can do nothing but run cargo and make a living, a person who enjoys bounty hunting can make a living doing it, a person who enjoys mining can make a living doing but a person who enjoys PvP basically gets the middle finger.
So basically, everyone else can play the game the way they want to and make a living off of it but I can't. I HAVE to run cargo or mine to fund my PvP habit and that's just wrong. Why can't I make a living off of doing what I enjoy when everyone else can?
Also, there is a huge number of players that don't take part in PvP, not because they don't have the skill or ability but because there is no reward for doing it other than to test your skills, which is enough for people like myself to continue doing it but not for others.
Having no rewards also means there's no incentives for new players to try it out which is why I think elite has such a huge ganker/griefer problem. Many players gank because they're just trying to find someone new to fight with. That's the only reason I ever gank people. I've gotten to where, if they don't want to fight I'll usually just let them go but there really is no other way to find new players to PvP with.
If Fdev created some kind of incentive and reward for consensual PvP I guarantee it would bring all kinds of new players to fight with and people like me would have no reason to gank random players anymore.
Last edited:
AP Birdman
Banned
Lol, this is a bit of meme thread but we've started discussing the usual PvP arguments in it regardless.
The thing is, most of the ideas brought up, end up being things that improve PvP at the expense of PvE'ers.
Which is why PvE'ers give so much resistance and hostility towards those suggesting the ideas.
Let's be honest, if I jumped into a PvP only game and started saying it should have AI / NPCs - how fast would I get told to get lost and stop trying to ruin the game?
I'd guess 30 seconds before I'm told to go play Hello Kitty, what do you think?
The main idea we see around here is forcing PvE'ers to play Open Mode by content locked to Open or just plain old removing Solo/PG to push everyone into Open.
And I'm sorry to say, but we all know that has nothing to do with "improving" PvP. All it achieves is adding soft targets to Open until those people get bored being killed and leave the game.
Then you're right back to square one, no real rewards for PvP and not enough people to shoot at.
Also, the galaxy isn't supposed to be "highly populated". That was a point made by David Braben years ago.
It was part of the "rare and meaningful" quote you may have seen. The whole segment talks about people spreading out and interactions between players being "rare and meaningful".
There are 400 Billion systems to visit, you are supposed to be able to wander about and see no one, CMDRs are supposed to be "rare" and interactions "meaningful".
So even with Open Only, you're supposed to be very lonely away from CGs / events or player hubs.
I mean Sandro already pointed out the majority of players (by a significant margin) are already in Open.
Pushing the last of the player base there by force, isn't going to change that.
PMFs alone made the starting bubble feel emptier as folks went 21,000Ly away to support a faction. So it could be argued PMFs made the situation worse - depending on what bubble you're in.
For example, I did a whole month in Open before Christmas and seen only 2 people total, at founders world (Jameson) in 30 days.
Both were AFK at the time I seen them, yay for "rare and meaningful" eh?
Forced interactions isn't the way to go. What we need is actual mechanics and rewards for player interactions that encourage willing participants.
But you said it yourself and I have the same issue - no idea how to do it in a way it's not going to be used for exploiting or cheating.
Now if someone can come up with something that isn't at the expense of those who don't want PvP, I'll be right there shouting my support for it.
Because I want everyone to enjoy Elite: Dangerous as much as I do. Just not at my expense
All games have griefer problems. Those without PvP still have issues with players who harass others, and games with PvP have issues with some who choose to exploit the system to gain unfair advantage, or simply harass others because they can.
It's not a PvP issue. Never has been. (and that's why changing the way PvP works isn't going to resolve it in this game, either)
And harassment of other players should never be tolerated by any competent developer because it drives away customers. It's also not MY job to patrol the game to ensure an enjoyable game experience, that IS however, the developer's job. Whether they do so or not can and will be reflected in their earnings reports, however. When they see sales go down, they'll scratch their heads and wonder why.
Conversely, it could also be said similarly of PvP and an "enjoyable game experience". I do agree, that from a "role" perspective, the inability to make earnings off PvP activity is a game-breaker. The problem is, how do they implement such a system where it's enjoyable or viable, without allowing some to exploit such a system by simply killing off their friends repeatedly in order to make such earnings, etc.? Bounty Hunting is actually the perfect example of this...
Say you get a group of buddies together on Discord, yet you're not Winged up in game- what's to stop you from forming a couple of groups and just farming mass credits or items repeatedly in order to increase your credits?
(I've my own solutions to offer here, but I'd like to hear your response before I discuss that)
Last edited:
AP Birdman
Banned
The thing is, most of the ideas brought up, end up being things that improve PvP at the expense of PvE'ers.
Which is why PvE'ers give so much resistance and hostility towards those suggesting the ideas.
Let's be honest, if I jumped into a PvP only game and started saying it should have AI / NPCs - how fast would I get told to get lost and stop trying to ruin the game?
I'd guess 30 seconds before I'm told to go play Hello Kitty, what do you think?
The main idea we see around here is forcing PvE'ers to play Open Mode by content locked to Open or just plain old removing Solo/PG to push everyone into Open.
And I'm sorry to say, but we all know that has nothing to do with "improving" PvP. All it achieves is adding soft targets to Open until those people get bored being killed and leave the game.
Then you're right back to square one, no real rewards for PvP and not enough people to shoot at.
Also, the galaxy isn't supposed to be "highly populated". That was a point made by David Braben years ago.
It was part of the "rare and meaningful" quote you may have seen. The whole segment talks about people spreading out and interactions between players being "rare and meaningful".
There are 400 Billion systems to visit, you are supposed to be able to wander about and see no one, CMDRs are supposed to be "rare" and interactions "meaningful".
So even with Open Only, you're supposed to be very lonely away from CGs / events or player hubs.
I mean Sandro already pointed out the majority of players (by a significant margin) are already in Open.
Pushing the last of the player base there by force, isn't going to change that.
PMFs alone made the starting bubble feel emptier as folks went 21,000Ly away to support a faction. So it could be argued PMFs made the situation worse - depending on what bubble you're in.
For example, I did a whole month in Open before Christmas and seen only 2 people total, at founders world (Jameson) in 30 days.
Both were AFK at the time I seen them, yay for "rare and meaningful" eh?
Forced interactions isn't the way to go. What we need is actual mechanics and rewards for player interactions that encourage willing participants.
But you said it yourself and I have the same issue - no idea how to do it in a way it's not going to be used for exploiting or cheating.
Now if someone can come up with something that isn't at the expense of those who don't want PvP, I'll be right there shouting my support for it.
Because I want everyone to enjoy Elite: Dangerous as much as I do. Just not at my expense
Ok first of all I'm not gonna start another open only argument with you because like I have already said many times, open only isn't even possible in the games current state because of a the points you've made. I would like it of this game could figure out a way for us to be able to all play together in the same mode and be happy but I am well aware that in the games current state, it's simply not possible and it would ruin the game for the pve crowd. So for me it's kind of a moot point to argue.
On the other hand, if you saw my thread about future updates being combat and PvP focused, the number of pve-ers that crapped all over my thread and mocked me for even suggesting PvP focused update made me want to vomit and are the kind of people I'm talking about.
Nothing in my thread had even a slight suggestion to take something away from the pve crown and yet they completely shat all over it. Those are the people I'm talking about, they are the ones I have a problem with.
Also, I see no reason why powerplay can't be taken away from the pve crowd and given to the pvpers. It's one function of the game that hardly anyone even touches anyway because of how poorly it was implemented in the first place. The only reason I see pve-ers complain about it being taken away is the "all modes equal" non sense. They don't actually care about the feature, they just can't stand the idea of pvpers having something exclusive to them which is just pure selfishness in my opinion.
1) I agree that PP should indeed be made into a PvP only function. It's a great implementation for "consensual" PvP. (arguably it could be used as THE flagging system for PvP, if properly implemented, so that players who want to engage in PvP can do so freely in Open without C&P, etc.)
2) The "all modes equal" isn't the only reason it's been disputed. It's also been disputed because once you start making features "exclusive" to certain modes, it weighs them differently. When you do that, you give the perspective that one is "better" than another, etc. Alternatives were also discussed, but those were shot down because others wanted to weigh their own mode above others with "risk and reward" arguments instead of seeing that what's fair is indeed fair. So both "sides" are at fault here that no agreement could be reached.
For example- PPOO for PvPer's but then perhaps Solo players would get NPC wings. What would be the harm in that? You get something, I get something- both are equally viable in terms of reflecting chosen styles of play. But no, now we have to throw in egos and perspectives of skill regarding player versus player versus AI to conflate a simple agreement.
Also, a change that makes modes with "exclusive" features doesn't at all address concerns some have with the BGS itself. They want all access to affect the shared universe changed so they have clear advantage in their own chosen styles of play. I'm not going to get into the details of such arguments, because it's rather pointless when you again look at the way the game was intentionally designed.
Just my 2 credits.
Last edited:
I don't recall seeing it (I may have when drunk and just forgotten
), but I agree it's wrong.But also, as I said in my post - if I went to a PvP heavy game and suggested PvE features, that's exactly how I'd get treated.
I know because it happened with EVE-Online (not to me personally, but I read the thread it happened in) when people asked for "dungeons" to be added.
The thread was carnage, anyone who supported the idea of dungeon/raid content was belittled and told to go reproduce with themselves or go play Hello Kitty (which is why I used that in my above example).
(On a side note, when PvE dungeon content was added, it was done in such a way PvP'ers got to troll and ruin it for the PvE'ers - so the whole exercise was a waste of time)
Alas, when you suggest something contrary to a game that favours a particular play style (regardless if it's PvP / PvE) - the main group see it as a threat to their game play and react badly.
See, you've completely ignored my above points and ignored the design of Power Play.
1) PvE'ers do play Power Play, so you're suggesting taking away content from people using it. So you'll get resistance.
2) Power Play does not reward direct PvP in any way, shape or form. You get nothing killing other CMDRs. You help your power through PvE Only.
3) "Hardly anyone touches" - where did you pull this from? It's random unsubstantiated claims like this that weaken your point and credibility.
4) Because you don't like the fact all modes are equal, does not make it "non sense". Inconvenient for your style of play maybe, but it is how the game was made.
Look, I'm trying to find common ground and work with you, but if you're just going to default back to silly outlandish claims and trying to steal content - then I'll just default back to copy pasting the WoI and pointing out how Frontier wanted the mode system, support the mode system and on purpose left PvP as nothing more than an optional side show.
I mean look how far these stances have gotten us so far. /s
I'd rather look at the cap on player bounties being increased or players being worth merits in PP.
Things that could help improve PvP without interfering with current PvE players or content.
AP Birdman
Banned
No doubt. I'm not saying that a reward system would completely eliminate griefers but you would definitely see a decrease in random players getting ganked.
Jockey and I have discussed this a few times and have concluded that a solution that can't be exploited would be really difficult to come up with.
The idea I have that I've come up with by putting together other ideas I've heard from friends and this forum is for PvP flags.
Every ship would have a module slot that could be toggled on or off and the only way a player could receive a bounty for their kill is if both parties involved have their PvP flag toggled on. If you have it off you can neither receive bounties for killing players nor can players receive a bounty for killing you and by making it a module in your optional slots you could have it on for all your PvP ships and off on all your non PvP ships. Also the only way players can toggle it on or off is through the outfitting menu so theyre not turning it on or off in battle.
The bounties you receive would scale to the rebuy cost of the ship you destroyed so roughly 40-50 million for Corvette's and Cutters or 4-9 million for FDL's and FAS's. This would hamper players killing each other for profit because the player killed still loses money regardless. The only way I see this being exploited would be if a friend is willing to "transfer" their own credits to you. Also, the bounty would either have to soley go to the player who delivers the killing blow or it would have to be divided between the players that "tagged" the ship with their weapons. So if 4 players collectively took down a Vette, each player would only receive 10 million each instead of 40 million if they took it down by themselves.
Additionally, if a player has their PvP flag turned off AND crimes turned on and they get killed by Joe the griefer, Joe will receive a 10 million cr bounty on his head and 1 strike against them with a 30 day cool down. Once Joe gets 3 strikes he forfeits his insurance and becomes a red dot on the galmap that everyone can see. If he dies he will not only have to pay full price to rebuy his ship but the bounty money will come straight out of his pocket. So 3 strikes means 30 million out of his pocket plus the cost of paying full price to get his ship back.
What do you all think? I'm thinking of posting this in the suggestions sections. I'd love to hear everyones feedback though first.
Last edited:
AP Birdman
Banned
I'm not ignoring your points I just disagree with them.
I believe that powerplay should become an open only, PvP focused feature and fdevs "all modes equal" stance is a dumb one that hampers the potential of every aspect of the game, not just PvP. That's just my opinion and you're welcome to disagree with it.
I don't want to simply take every feature away from pve-ers and leave them with nothing. I have a friend that I mine and run cargo with that has never even fired a weapon in this game and has never even played a multiplayer game in his life and I absolutely LOVE that we have a game that we can both enjoy together. I don't want to take features away from those players but you have to admit hardly anyone touches powerplay unless they're doing their monthly 750 merits for a pp module. I'd love to see a poll asking players whether they actually take part in powerplay other than the monthly powerplay modules.
Also, my idea for turning powerplay into a PvP focused system would still include pve-ers, they would just have to do it in open. I don't see any harm in that.
Last edited:
My thoughts, off the top of my head. I'll give it some more thought when I get more time- but this is a start.
1) The flagging system not even need be a "module" but simply joining the appropriate PP faction. Done and done. People who aren't "pledged" to a faction are civilians and should be treated as such.
2) Bounty rewards can be negligible. As to the amounts, I feel it's subjective- but it should indeed be profitable but not excessively so.
3) As to bounties themselves, and my question prior about how to implement it so that exploits are prevented- I suggest diminishing returns for killing the same player within "X" amount of time. Subject to discussion, but I'd suggest no less than a couple hours in between, and the diminishing would be scaled by 25% or more of the reward with each consecutive kill. This not only prevents abuse of the system to rack up credits- but also incentivizes finding NEW targets instead of simply killing the same players repeatedly.
4) Crime and Punishment should be negated for the purposes of pledged players, period. If you're pledged to an opposing faction, you're fair game, plain and simple. Don't like war? Don't fly the colors or wear the uniform. Be a civilian and stay the hell out of the conflict.
5) I agree with implementing something that also incentivizes group play- but again, with diminishing returns added for repeatedly killing the same targets.
6) Crime and punishment needs a good overhaul. I'm not even going into the details of the current system because it's broken. All it does is reward crime without actually punishing.
Your thoughts?
Edit: Also pledging a faction should include a minimum 24 hour period before allowing you to quit or change factions. This prevents people exploiting the system by simply flagging on and off constantly.
Last edited:
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this was suggested in the DDA phase and shortly after release.
PvP'ers shot it down, as having a mix of vulnerable and invulnerable ships "breaks immersion" for them.
Plus it loops back to Frontier not wanting to have to look after a PvE mode (because PvP flag off = PvE mode in essence).
Or deal with people exploiting / cheating for the purpose of causing grief to those with their PvP flags set to off.
I liked a flagging system myself btw.
As long as people had to be docked to change the setting, it sounded good to me.
I don't know if "hardly anyone" or if five hundred thousand people are involved with Power Play nor why they are involved with it.
The only thing any player knows and can speak to, is that there are players playing PP, as the PP leader boards change every week.
Trying to claim you know how many people are doing it or why is eroding my faith in any discussion on the matter.
Because claims about how many people are playing PP (regardless of how generalised they are) is pure fiction plain and simple.
Only Frontier know how many people are involved and what they get up to, and they won't give out the information.
It excludes people who don't want to do PvP - as they do not play Open.
So you are taking content away from them, you're not including them at all.
I mean I could argue that the BGS not being the "PvP content" should be locked to Solo/PG.
That's not taking content away from PvP is it? As you can still PvP in PGs, right?
The fact you may not want to PvP in PGs is irrelevant though isn't it, under your argument.
You're also excluding console players who may not be able to afford the premium services and are locked in Solo - why should they lose PP?
Content locking is a bad idea, no matter which way you want to look at it.
I'd rather fix PvP than band aid it with discrimination over who can play it.