Why is being a "prey" of a pirate in open a bad game design...

[MarkAusten]

While killers obviously exist, FD have struggled to make trader ships robust enough to survive a few shots to allow disabling them. If it was easier from the start (and had hatch breakers from day one) a lot of accidental destruction would have been avoided.

True but like with a lot of things, if we had them at the start, things would be a lot better for all....

Except, we would not have had Elite at all, as it would never have been released. Always one more thing to add.

Personally, I think that the "release early" option of development is good since developers rarely know in advance what will be required and it is only in use that this is determined.

So, we get something and use it and it gets iteratively changed, maybe improved, things get added and hopefully, things get better. But if we waiting until it was all done, well I doubt that many would be willing to wait that long.

 

[peteuplink]

While killers obviously exist, FD have struggled to make trader ships robust enough to survive a few shots to allow disabling them. If it was easier from the start (and had hatch breakers from day one) a lot of accidental destruction would have been avoided.

That's actually a fair point.

 

[Rubbernuke]

True but like with a lot of things, if we had them at the start, things would be a lot better for all....

Except, we would not have had Elite at all, as it would never have been released. Always one more thing to add.

Personally, I think that the "release early" option of development is good since developers rarely know in advance what will be required and it is only in use that this is determined.

So, we get something and use it and it gets iteratively changed, maybe improved, things get added and hopefully, things get better. But if we waiting until it was all done, well I doubt that many would be willing to wait that long.

Problem is to get piracy right, you need tools, an ecosystem in harmony between players, as well as consistent rules. FD got all of it wrong, hence the problems now.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Problem is to get piracy right, you need tools, an ecosystem in harmony between players, as well as consistent rules. FD got all of it wrong, hence the problems now.

The problem relates to players - as any tools that would help the pirate disable the target could and would be used by those simply seeking to make the game less fun for others. At the beginning of any alleged piratical encounter the target has no way to discern the motives of the attacker - and any communication from the attacker can be assumed to be inaccurate. Getting piracy right also requires sufficient players who find being pirated to be "fun" - as there's no need for any player to play among those who aren't "fun" to play with.

 

[MarkAusten]

Problem is to get piracy right, you need tools, an ecosystem in harmony between players, as well as consistent rules. FD got all of it wrong, hence the problems now.

I disagree with that statement. You consider that FDev "got it wrong", and you consider this in hindsight. I doubt that anyone could have predicted where we are now all these year later in the game from the start. I'm not clairvoyant and neither are you.

The game certainly has suffered from the law of unintended consequences but by definition, that could not be predicted as it is unintended.

And, simply saying "they got it wrong" is easy. Now go back 7 years and design a game like elite complete with all the complexities and see if you get it right first time.

I'll bet against you and anyone else that tries it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The problem relates to players - as any tools that would help the pirate disable the target could and would be used by those simply seeking to make the game less fun for others. Getting piracy right also requires sufficient players who find being pirated to be "fun" - as there's no need for any player to play among those who aren't "fun" to play with.

If you had hatchbreakers from day one, no need to shoot.

If everyone played to the same rules (i.e. everyone could not block or log out while being pirated), people would modify their behavior (i.e. use PDT near hatches, be better at evasion, fly with defnce) or play in a mode that was better for them. All round would create better gameplay than now, which is one dimensional (mining + something).

You need an economy driven by traders who can withstand losses because they are the income generators, or pirates who will always scrape by if they are bold- they would be limited by low funds and less capable ships.

Players need to be corralled into groups that want a certain experience. Open does that, but unfortunately allows too many other rule tweaks to make piracy consistent.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I disagree with that statement. You consider that FDev "got it wrong", and you consider this in hindsight. I doubt that anyone could have predicted where we are now all these year later in the game from the start. I'm not clairvoyant and neither are you.

The game certainly has suffered from the law of unintended consequences but by definition, that could not be predicted as it is unintended.

And, simply saying "they got it wrong" is easy. Now go back 7 years and design a game like elite complete with all the complexities and see if you get it right first time.

I'll bet against you and anyone else that tries it.

FD got so much wrong and were told as much, but they did it anyway and have made the mess of today. I can remember the comments of alpha onwards pointing out flaw on flaw to deaf ears.

And I've explained how I'd set up ED to actually foster these relationships. Its not hard, just takes an eye for detail and a willingness to stick to that (rather than cave in like FD have done).

 

[Robert Maynard]

If you had hatchbreakers from day one, no need to shoot.

If everyone played to the same rules (i.e. everyone could not block or log out while being pirated), people would modify their behavior (i.e. use PDT near hatches, be better at evasion, fly with defnce) or play in a mode that was better for them. All round would create better gameplay than now, which is one dimensional (mining + something).

You need an economy driven by traders who can withstand losses because they are the income generators, or pirates who will always scrape by if they are bold- they would be limited by low funds and less capable ships.

Players need to be corralled into groups that want a certain experience. Open does that, but unfortunately allows too many other rule tweaks to make piracy consistent.

The block feature and menu exit likely exist simply because "people" and the fact that Frontier don't force any player to play with others whose playstyle they may not find to be "fun".

We do all play to the same rules. That those rules are not accepted by all players is of no moment. If there was no block feature or menu exit then there'd likely be fewer players playing in Open, in my opinion.

Persuading players to play as "the herd" for attackers / defenders to play around is a tough sell.

Frontier obviously don't choose to corral players - not even in Open - and a players' consent regarding the continuance of any interaction can be withdrawn at any time.

.... and we're back to selective acceptance of the rules of Open.

 

[VR jefranklin18]

The block feature and menu exit likely exist simply because "people" and the fact that Frontier don't force any player to play with others whose playstyle they may not find to be "fun".

If there was no block feature or menu exit then there'd likely be fewer players playing in Open, in my opinion.

Persuading players to play as "the herd" for attackers / defenders to play around is a tough sell.

Frontier obviously don't choose to corral players - not even in Open - and a players' consent regarding the continuance of any interaction can be withdrawn at any time.

.... and we're back to selective acceptance of the rules of Open.

I still think the answer would have been a PvP On/Off toggle in settings or a "PvE server". Having the ability to create private groups just leads to diluting the player base.

 

[MarkAusten]

people would modify their behavior (i.e. use PDT near hatches, be better at evasion, fly with defnce) or play in a mode that was better for them.

You jest !

Players will do what they damn well please and if they can find a way around the "rules" then they will do it. That's why chasing the "perfect PVP" mode is never going to be possible. There is no perfect mode for everyone. It just does not exist and that includes your suggested version. It might possibly be better from your point of view but I doubt that everyone would agree with you, even the PVP players, and that's the nub of the problem.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The block feature and menu exit likely exist simply because "people" and the fact that Frontier don't force any player to play with others whose playstyle they may not find to be "fun".

If there was no block feature or menu exit then there'd likely be fewer players playing in Open, in my opinion.

Without an inescapable situation, you can't coerce someone.

Persuading players to play as "the herd" for attackers / defenders to play around is a tough sell.

And as I said, if the game revolved around traders / miners who control all the wealth, they can both withstand losses and make money unlike a bounty hunter or pirate who rely on traders. By making things expensive only the wealthy can own top end ships, while pirates cannot, meaning C+P is more effective.

Frontier obviously don't choose to corral players - not even in Open - and a players' consent regarding the continuance of any interaction can be withdrawn at any time.

Lovely as that is, unless there is an unwinnable state you can't force someone to drop cargo, because they'll just flip the table. Grouping like minded people should happen at the mode level but no more. I'd personally like blocking rules set before modes are selected each play time, so that the matchmaker can use that to group like minded people organically, rather than have players do it during the game.

.... and we're back to selective acceptance of the rules of Open.

If you want a food chain, you have to enforce it at some point.

 

[MarkAusten]

I still think the answer would have been a PvP On/Off toggle in settings or a "PvE server". Having the ability to create private groups just leads to diluting the player base.

A PVE server sounds like a good idea but from FDev's point of view I think it would be a disaster. There would be, in effect, two different games and would follow two different paths. It would not be possible to keep the story line synchronised simply because the two player sets would require and do very different things.

That doesn't even begin to address the problem of more than double the hardware and software costs, maintenance and so on.

 

[Rubbernuke]

You jest !

Players will do what they damn well please and if they can find a way around the "rules" then they will do it. That's why chasing the "perfect PVP" mode is never going to be possible. There is no perfect mode for everyone. It just does not exist and that includes your suggested version. It might possibly be better from your point of view but I doubt that everyone would agree with you, even the PVP players, and that's the nub of the problem.

My view is you build a consistent framework and people will play to it. Flaws are results of bad design.

 

[MarkAusten]

Without an inescapable situation, you can't coerce someone.

How many players wish to be coerced? Few of them I would suggest and now you are into the "play it my way" scenario.

And as I said, if the game revolved around traders / miners who control all the wealth, they can both withstand losses and make money unlike a bounty hunter or pirate who rely on traders. By making things expensive only the wealthy can own top end ships, while pirates cannot, meaning C+P is more effective.

Only experienced players with lots of money and wealth. The beginner would penalised even more right from the start.

Lovely as that is, unless there is an unwinnable state you can't force someone to drop cargo, because they'll just flip the table. Grouping like minded people should happen at the mode level but no more. I'd personally like blocking rules set before modes are selected each play time, so that the matchmaker can use that to group like minded people organically, rather than have players do it during the game.

I'd prefer that scenario as well.

If you want a food chain, you have to enforce it at some point.

And, again, you are back to enforcing a particular play style.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

As I see it, most of the people who do PvP in ED don't play as pirates. Some do, but they're the minority. A pirate is someone who raids or plunders other vessels for gain, usually in the form of cargo or currency. The players in ED who PvP mostly just seem to play the role of murdering psychopaths who simply kill because they know they can get away with it as there is no real punishment to prevent it. There's no gain aside from the thrill of knowing that they've just ruined someones game experience.

Don’t agree at all: the ‘murder psychopaths’ are a relatively small part of players who do some kind of pvp.

 

[MarkAusten]

My view is you build a consistent framework and people will play to it. Flaws are results of bad design.

No, flaws are the result of the game being played by people. If you want perfection, then you are in for a very long wait. No-one can forsee the exact results of a particular decision. and no-one knows what players will want years down the line.

I consider your comment to be fallacious at best.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I still think the answer would have been a PvP On/Off toggle in settings or a "PvE server". Having the ability to create private groups just leads to diluting the player base.

Solo dilutes the player-base too - yet both Solo and Private Groups have been part of the game design for just as long as Open.

How players interact with other players dilutes the player-base - as not all players seem to care whether they are "fun" to play with or not. Some profess to enjoy playing as a player pirate - a role that necessarily requires the pirate to attempt to dominate the target and either coerce or force them to drop cargo. Persuading players to cheerfully accept being dominated by others against their will during a leisure activity is likely a tough sell.

 

[MarkAusten]

Don’t agree at all: the ‘murder psychopaths’ are a relatively small part of players who do some kind of pvp.

Unfortunately, a with a lot of things, that minority can have a very great effect, usually negative as far as I can see.

 

[VR jefranklin18]

A PVE server sounds like a good idea but from FDev's point of view I think it would be a disaster. There would be, in effect, two different games and would follow two different paths. It would not be possible to keep the story line synchronised simply because the two player sets would require and do very different things.

That doesn't even begin to address the problem of more than double the hardware and software costs, maintenance and so on.

It would be a nightmare to maintain, but could have resulted in some interesting situations where CGs with competing goals have different results. Actually prefer the PvP toggle approach because it doesn't split the player base.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Without an inescapable situation, you can't coerce someone.

Indeed - which is why calls to change menu exit or the block feature are likely to go unfulfilled.

And as I said, if the game revolved around traders / miners who control all the wealth, they can both withstand losses and make money unlike a bounty hunter or pirate who rely on traders. By making things expensive only the wealthy can own top end ships, while pirates cannot, meaning C+P is more effective.

Any player can fund their habit for one role by playing in another role at any time.

Lovely as that is, unless there is an unwinnable state you can't force someone to drop cargo, because they'll just flip the table. Grouping like minded people should happen at the mode level but no more. I'd personally like blocking rules set before modes are selected each play time, so that the matchmaker can use that to group like minded people organically, rather than have players do it during the game.

When things "should happen" or not remains out of the control of players, other than their ability to make their own choices.

If the matchmaker is to be used to group like minded players together then it sounds like it needs a few more flags to use as the basis of its grouping "decisions".

If you want a food chain, you have to enforce it at some point.

I expect that only those who expect to be at or near the top of that foodchain really want it to exist. There is no apparent incentive from the majority who would be at or near the bottom.