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

[Robert Maynard]

The safest outcome for piracy should be the mark dropping cargo to placate the pirate. If you can't get that (i.e. traders see logging as the safest outcome) then the design is a failure.

Dropping cargo gives no guarantees - the attacker can still do what they wish to their chosen target - and the target can still do that they wish in relation to an unwanted encounter.

Indeed they can, such as mining now. But to have actual 24:7 careers you need to establish workable game loops. A thrifty pirate who knows his ship and mark (that does not magic out of existence) should be able to prosper.

Pirates can prey on NPCs as well - it is their choice to specifically target players - that being the case they are vulnerable to those other players not finding the interaction to be "fun" and therefore not choosing to provide themselves as targets (or choosing to leave at any time during the encounter).

Pirate encounters should mean something- if a pirate player loses for out of game reasons, thats silly. The pirate won and did things right, but lost. Thats rewarding bad habits and punishing playing.

All decisions are made out of game - just as the player pirate consciously chose to target other players who may have no desire to facilitate their gameplay so those targets may choose to nope out of the encounter.

Yes and no- for generic open play I agree, Powerplay however in an open context would be 100% full fat. The main thing is that once this is decided pre game, you can't alter your choices and for that session have to abide by them.

Powerplay is part of generic open play - it's not a special case, nor is it restricted to a single mode.

Not in Frontier's game - they consciously decided to allow each player to leave the game at any point.

I just want Open to be what was envisioned, a dangerous place that if you fly right is just about survivable and grows with you. Do you score large by flying into hostile space full of gangs, or keep to safe places with the occasional weak pirate? That simply does not exist in ED, its all topsy turvy.

Open has always included the menu exit and block feature - so while some players may have an opinion as to what was envisioned, not all share that opinion.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Too bad, other players don't like playing with you. I'm sure there's players that don't like playing with me, tough. It's a game, don't take it so seriously

And normally I would not care too much, except Powerplay which is competitive. If I caught an enemy that I knew held something vital and they logged out before destruction then I'd be annoyed. The same with piracy, people log out to escape rather than escaping in game.

 

[MarkAusten]

I agree. This is a problem. We need to think about how to solve this. You can implement an increase in the price of the "license" depending on the growth of the "combat rank". (this is for example and there are other possible solutions)

Does that include backwards. My game will steadily get worse over the next few years and any such system would have to allow for that.

 

[Havvk]

No, good design is good design. Look at Powerplay, within five minutes people saw the blatant problems that can be ironed out if only the designers sat down and thought about it. People predicted 5C, collusion piracy, foretold the future Powerplay we live in.

This isn't Eve Online where you're at huge wars with other coalitions, man. Chiilll. PP is meant to be played so

I agree. This is a problem. We need to think about how to solve this. You can implement an increase in the price of the "license" depending on the growth of the "combat rank". (this is for example and there are other possible solutions)

No.
What about the solo/pg players? This sounds like a B.S. excuse to make non-PvP players pay with having to do extra steps and grinding just to have a useless wannabe "PvP off" mode

 

[MarkAusten]

No, good design is good design. Look at Powerplay, within five minutes people saw the blatant problems that can be ironed out if only the designers sat down and thought about it. People predicted 5C, collusion piracy, foretold the future Powerplay we live in.

Good design relies on knowing just about everything in the problem-space in advance and even then, what appears to be a good decision at the time turns out to be a dud when used in the live system. I only wish my users would understand this. C'est la vie!

 

[Havvk]

annoyed

It's okay for you to be annoyed, but not okay for the CMDR you blew up to be annoyed. Got it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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

With a robbery one last option is to plea bargain- but it involves giving something up to escape alive.

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

Not really, cheap ships, some knowledge and build yourself up, or team up with others in a gang.

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

Yes, otherwise it can't be a chain. If you pre-group people then you can have this happen.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And for some occasions I don't mind the block- however in certain features its misused (Powerplay) and distorts a mode.

Having too many rules means every player plays to a different game, and when those collide we get these well trodden problems.

If ED had an ecosystem that encouraged co-op play like convoys for protection, hired wing members etc being in a herd would not be a death sentence.

Whether a player minds the implementation of the block feature, or not, matters not. That Powerplay is available to engage in in all game modes undermines the contention that the block feature has any great effect on a feature where PvP is already optional.

The rules are simple and few. Frontier chose to offer only one Open game mode where players of opposing play-styles meet.

Not everyone even wants to play in multi-player - and I'd hazard a guess that many can't guarantee to be able to keep to a play schedule with others. NPC wing members were part of a DDF proposal - they haven't yet materialised. Again, playing as the herd for others to get their fun attacking and defending is likely to provide less fun for the player in the herd. Suggesting that it would not be a death sentence is merely a suggestion that it may not be as bad as expected - there's no suggestion that it would actually be "fun".

 

[Rubbernuke]

It's okay for you to be annoyed, but not okay for the CMDR you blew up to be annoyed. Got it.

If they are in Powerplay, its your job to blow up rivals you see.

 

[A C Ender]

They try to be that already - however this thread seems to revolve around the fact that they're not much fun to play with for a not insignificant number of players - as being subjected to a parasitical encounter is not every players idea of "fun", more of an acquired taste.

This was already addressed by pirates hanging out in more dangerous systems where traders can come for bigger rewards. If you don't want to encounter a pirate, don't be greedy. You know very well where they will be in such a system, and you can 100% chose not to go there.

 

[MarkAusten]

With a robbery one last option is to plea bargain- but it involves giving something up to escape alive.

And why should the pirate even acknowledge that? The answer is that they don't have to and any "pirate" that wants to can just go blow up other non-PVP players at will.

Yes, otherwise it can't be a chain. If you pre-group people then you can have this happen.

And here I disagree. Your preferred play style is not mine.
[EDIT] Sorry, ignore that I misunderstood what you were saying.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This was already addressed by pirates hanging out in more dangerous systems where traders can come for bigger rewards. If you don't want to encounter a pirate, don't be greedy. You know very well where they will be in such a system, and you can 100% chose not to go there.

Pirates would operate wherever they wanted - there's no requirement for them to ply their trade in particular systems - unless there's a suggestion that piracy would be impossible outside of particular systems?

 

[MarkAusten]

This was already addressed by pirates hanging out in more dangerous systems where traders can come for bigger rewards. If you don't want to encounter a pirate, don't be greedy. You know very well where they will be in such a system, and you can 100% chose not to go there.

The problem with this is that if traders do not visit such systems, what is to stop the pirate actively seeking out traders in "safe" systems? Nothing. Sure these previously "safe" systems become "unsafe" but the traders trying to avoid PVP are then forced into it again.

 

[MarkAusten]

Pirates would operate wherever they wanted - there's no requirement for them to ply their trade in particular systems - unless there's a suggestion that piracy would be impossible outside of particular systems?

Snap!

 

[Rubbernuke]

Whether a player minds the implementation of the block feature, or not, matters not. That Powerplay is available to engage in in all game modes undermines the contention that the block feature has any great effect on a feature where PvP is already optional.

Powerplay is adversarial, otherwise whats the point of playing together but in rival teams in Open? Its asking footballers not to tackle.

The rules are simple and few. Frontier chose to offer only one Open game mode where players of opposing play-styles meet.

Its too broad, it needs focus- threads like this one are proof it needs more attention.

Not everyone even wants to play in multi-player - and I'd hazard a guess that many can't guarantee to be able to keep to a play schedule with others. NPC wing members were part of a DDF proposal - they haven't yet materialised. Again, playing as the herd for others to get their fun attacking and defending is likely to provide less fun for the player in the herd. Suggesting that it would not be a death sentence is merely a suggestion that it may not be as bad as expected - there's no suggestion that it would actually be "fun".

You have lots of tools, use them. Location, ship, skills- traders trade to make money and greed is a driving force to tempt them into danger. Pirates want quick money and don't want to work. Plus, if gets too hard drop to another mode.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The problem with this is that if traders do not visit such systems, what is to stop the pirate actively seeking out traders in "safe" systems? Nothing. Sure these previously "safe" systems become "unsafe" but the traders trying to avoid PVP are then forced into it again.

In a credit scarce system, only the better armed pirate could go to these places, but would risk more damage and death to score the same if they went to a less defended area. If pirates have less credits at once they have to go to places where the chance of sucess is higher.

 

[Havvk]

With a robbery one last option is to plea bargain- but it involves giving something up to escape alive.

I chose D, not playing your game to begin with. You rob me my LTD? I rob you of your gameplay and potential good loot. Simple, all is fair in love and war.

Not really, cheap ships, some knowledge and build yourself up, or team up with others in a gang.

Wrong. Newbies and noobs alike suffer the worst a player can suffer; Being "new" barely able to keep his wallet above a few tens of thousands of cr. Any rebuy for a newbie is a mortal and potential killing blow right then and there. They don't have billions of credits and an entire armada of ships to pick and choose from, they most certainly haven't even got to engineers yet.

Yes, otherwise it can't be a chain. If you pre-group people then you can have this happen.

Assuming players chose to do this. I can't say they would or won't, since I don't know what you're trying to imply with "food chain"


Go back to Eve online. Stop it. Stop. This is Elite: Dangerous, a completely different game.

 

[Rubbernuke]

This isn't Eve Online where you're at huge wars with other coalitions, man. Chiilll. PP is meant to be played so

But it is a conflict. Thats the whole point of it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Powerplay is adversarial, otherwise whats the point of playing together but in rival teams in Open? Its asking footballers not to tackle.

It can only be, as implemented, directly adversarial for those who choose it to be.

Its too broad, it needs focus- threads like this one are proof it needs more attention.

If it needs focus then the focus may not shift in the direction that some wish it to - as not all players want the same things.

You have lots of tools, use them. Location, ship, skills- traders trade to make money and greed is a driving force to tempt them into danger. Pirates want quick money and don't want to work. Plus, if gets too hard drop to another mode.

True enough - however there seems to be a desire from some for players to be available for interaction. If every trader simply chose to play in Solo or PG then the player pirates would be left to twiddle their thumbs due to a lack of player targets.

 

[MarkAusten]

In a credit scarce system, only the better armed pirate could go to these places, but would risk more damage and death to score the same if they went to a less defended area. If pirates have less credits at once they have to go to places where the chance of sucess is higher.

That is expecting the players to play by the rules. They don't.