Would this make you play Open more?

[Maymo]

Horses for courses.

Some of us like the challenge, some don't.

Just choose your mode appropriately and there's no problem

Ha! You know what man, I’ll give it a go...

I’ll do a CMDR reset and go hang around in Eravate for a bit and see how things turn out...maybe post a little log of my findings.

 

[Viking84]

Security response should be scaled based on the type infraction, faction reputation of the infractor, as well as bounty and fines, besides the security state of a system. Imagine this a bit like in GTA mixed with Freelancer's faction reputation system (i.e. if you are hostile, you will be shot at in any case).

The challenge with a solution like that is that you will have quite a few cases where, even in high sec, a commander can get blown to bits without much of a security response. While agree that this is more realistic I think it is bad for gameplay. High Sec should mean high sec, regardless. Open fire on someone who is not wanted in that system? Expect to be obliterated by system security in seconds. Interdict someone who is not wanted? Same thing. Maybe even add some form of EMP that disables that attacker while the feds finish him off - no means of escape

Basically word should spread that PvP in high sec just isn't possible. Combine that with incentives to go to lower security areas, be that cutting down travel time or increasing rewards, and you make for a galaxy that feels much more dynamic and alive instead of the "everywhere is the same" soup that we have now.

 

[Rinzler o7o7o7]

...there is very little to do about this other than escaping (waste of time)

You know what's an even bigger waste of time AND MONEY? A REBUY SCREEN.


Outfit your ships right, don't fly greedy paper-defense builds, keep an eye on your sensors, get familiar with how to handle your ship when under fire, and you'll always be fine.
PvP encounters are very stressful/exciting for players who haven't had many yet, and it's easy to get flustered and mess up your escape plan in the moment. But you won't git gud at it if you never try it.

 

[Sterling MH]

So without risk there should be no payouts for combat. Zero Risk, Zero Reward.

 

[Viking84]

You know what's an even bigger waste of time AND MONEY? A REBUY SCREEN.


Outfit your ships right, don't fly greedy paper-defense builds, keep an eye on your sensors, get familiar with how to handle your ship when under fire, and you'll always be fine.
PvP encounters are very stressful/exciting for players who haven't had many yet, and it's easy to get flustered and mess up your escape plan in the moment. But you won't git gud at it if you never try it.

That isn't really the point though. I fly a modded Cutter, I can escape pretty much anything. But being pulled from supercruise in a high sec system by some gank wing with no mission other than destroying me, and having to high wake away from them, is just a waste of time. It isn't fun, it certainly isn't immersive, and it doesn't add anything to my experience - particularly when accompanied by a torrent of abuse through chat.

Now make this type of interaction something that can be avoided entirely by sticking to High Sec systems and it becomes far more palatable. Yes gankers will gank, but I chose to travel to an Anarchy system to make an extra buck so that is my fault now, and far more plausible in the context of a populated universe. The alternative is for people who dislike PvP to remain forever in Solo or PG - which seems like a bad state of affairs for what has been promoted as a multiplayer game.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

The pvp itself is fine, even when its totally unexpected...what turns me off personally is the toxic attitudes behind it. If pvp was ddne fer role play purposes, Id be absolutely fine with that and play along with genuine pirates, part of the experience.

Unfortunately, the reality isnt quite as sugar coated and bona fide role players are as rare as hens teeth. I play in open most of the time but always switch to solo in busy areas and CG...just not worth it unless theres some incentive to sit and listen to their drivelling childish taunting. No incentive to put up with that...solo it is.

Ye wanna fix open? Fix the toxicity and that fixes open...anything else is just a bandaid ^

Don't think its possible. Your piracy example highlights the problem. (A minority of) PvPers killed PvP piracy, not modes, not FD, not anything else. It was those who kill for the lulz that makes it silly to wait around to see if a pirate in genuine.

Its why I don't like to play games that mix PvP with PvE. One or the other is fine. If its pure PvE, i know everyone else is PvEing. If its pure PvP i know everyone else is PvPing (including myself). No issues. Yeah, there can be toxicity in those games, but no PvP vs PvE toxicity.

I mean, even with Fortnite which has PvP and PvE modes, many play both, and the toxicity is mainly limited to fairly minor jibes between the communities. When the PvPers go into Save the World to farm Vbucks, they are there to do PvE and farm Vbucks (and they can't really PvP anyway). There are trolls in StW, and there are some people who will cause problems with objectives or destroy bases because people refuse to trade with them, but its very minor and reportable.

 

[verminstar]

You know what's an even bigger waste of time AND MONEY? A REBUY SCREEN.


Outfit your ships right, don't fly greedy paper-defense builds, keep an eye on your sensors, get familiar with how to handle your ship when under fire, and you'll always be fine.
PvP encounters are very stressful/exciting for players who haven't had many yet, and it's easy to get flustered and mess up your escape plan in the moment. But you won't git gud at it if you never try it.

Unless yer pulled by a wing of murderboats in which case one would have to question yer claim one would ¨always be fine¨...not sure what happens in your reality, maybe its all one on one yer talking about...unfortunately being ganked by an entire wing aint all that uncommon sadly.

How does one go about muting pvprs but still play in open? I dont really wanna listen to their purile taunting and insults like a bunch of demented 9yr olds in a playground squabble...the pvp I can tolerate...the immaturity and the salt however...I wanna block, mute and otherwise not listen to that at all and still play open.

Solutions? Past blocking them entirely, whats the solution? Asking nicely fer yer lot to grow up hasnt worked...cos none of ye listen...their constant whining on the forums is testament to that. So whats the solution gonna be? Somehow enjoy the game while a small number of inmates start running the asylum? Listen to their childish taunting and their quite frankly disgusting and deplorable insults?

All anyone focuses on is the rebuy, the costs, incentives...when fer many, its the toxicity that is the number one issue. And its the one issue nobody seems to wanna talk about...why is that I wonder? Takes a man to admit they got it wrong...seems to be a lotta little boys playing the pvp game, dont ya think?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

1. System Security. The security response in a high security system should be near instant and overwhelming. The defending ship should only have to be able to survive say 15 seconds before the attacker is swarmed by god-like system security ships and nuked to oblivion. Scale this progressively down to where low sec is more or less like medium sec is now, and anarchy is just that, anarchy.

1) If you can survive 15 seconds you can probably escape anyway without the help of an entire fleet coming to your rescue.

2) Does this also apply to PvE? If I'm flying in a high-sec system, should I expect NPC pirates to be present at all? (Corollary: should high-sec systems ever have RES? Should anywhere above low-sec be capable of having HazRES?) Similarly, should I expect that sort of security response for committing any crimes versus NPCs in a high-sec system?

3) Should the existence of such high-spec law enforcement fleets have any bearing on the rest of the game, or should it be just a way of saying "unapproved action, your ship has been destroyed"? (e.g. CZs in high-security systems massively favour the controlling faction which deploys its invincible station-gun fleets to the battles, e.g. Thargoids never attack high-security systems because there's no point trying)


I do think high-security systems should be considerably more secure than they currently are ... and low-security systems considerably less ... but the ability to do so in some sort of consistent fashion really disappeared with Engineers, unfortunately. (And wow, would making RES appearance aligned to system security really annoy a lot of players, judging by what happened when 3.0 shuffled some sites about)

 

[Viking84]

1) If you can survive 15 seconds you can probably escape anyway without the help of an entire fleet coming to your rescue.

That could well be the case - numbers will have to be tweaked I do think however that surviving for 15 seconds should be doable assuming that after 5 seconds an elite squad of god-like security ships arrive and open up on your opponent Testing must be done though, no doubt.

2) Does this also apply to PvE? If I'm flying in a high-sec system, should I expect NPC pirates to be present at all? (Corollary: should high-sec systems ever have RES? Should anywhere above low-sec be capable of having HazRES?) Similarly, should I expect that sort of security response for committing any crimes versus NPCs in a high-sec system?

I reckon the more of this that is common across all modes the better. Threats in Low-Sec and Anarchy should also be beefed up to mimic the risk of meeting PvP capable commanders.

3) Should the existence of such high-spec law enforcement fleets have any bearing on the rest of the game, or should it be just a way of saying "unapproved action, your ship has been destroyed"? (e.g. CZs in high-security systems massively favour the controlling faction which deploys its invincible station-gun fleets to the battles, e.g. Thargoids never attack high-security systems because there's no point trying)

A bit of fudging for gameplay will always be necessary, but as in point 2 I reckon it should be possible to keep this as consistent and immersive as possible without resorting to a simple PvE / PvP flag.

 

[verminstar]

Don't think its possible. Your piracy example highlights the problem. (A minority of) PvPers killed PvP piracy, not modes, not FD, not anything else. It was those who kill for the lulz that makes it silly to wait around to see if a pirate in genuine.

Its why I don't like to play games that mix PvP with PvE. One or the other is fine. If its pure PvE, i know everyone else is PvEing. If its pure PvP i know everyone else is PvPing (including myself). No issues. Yeah, there can be toxicity in those games, but no PvP vs PvE toxicity.

I mean, even with Fortnite which has PvP and PvE modes, many play both, and the toxicity is mainly limited to fairly minor jibes between the communities. When the PvPers go into Save the World to farm Vbucks, they are there to do PvE and farm Vbucks (and they can't really PvP anyway). There are trolls in StW, and there are some people who will cause problems with objectives or destroy bases because people refuse to trade with them, but its very minor and reportable.

I actually said more or less the same thing to a genuine role playing pirate...his comrades in arms killed piracy, not the game itself. I set my ship to self destruct and wandered afk to make a cuppa tea while he killed me...after he claimed and swore if I played along, it would be cool. Thats how much the gankers killed off genuine piracy role play...they shot themselves in the foot then came to the forums and blamed everyone but themselves.

And thats why I find it difficult taking them seriously...cos until they admit the problems were self inflicted, nobody can dd anything to fix the problem. Its like dealing with an addict...ye simply cant deal with the addiction if the addict doesnt realize its a problem...admitting the problem is the first step on the road to recovery. If ye cant admit its a problem, yer never gonna get it sorted.

Same sorta thing applies here...they refuse to admit its their problem ergo we have 5 years of hotel california to prove the theory. And until these issues are talked about by both sides, we can look forward to another 5 years of it ^

 

[Marra Morgan]

How does one go about muting pvprs but still play in open? I dont really wanna listen to their purile taunting and insults like a bunch of demented 9yr olds in a playground squabble...the pvp I can tolerate...the immaturity and the salt however...I wanna block, mute and otherwise not listen to that at all and still play open.

Solutions? Past blocking them entirely, whats the solution? Asking nicely fer yer lot to grow up hasnt worked...cos none of ye listen...their constant whining on the forums is testament to that. So whats the solution gonna be? Somehow enjoy the game while a small number of inmates start running the asylum? Listen to their childish taunting and their quite frankly disgusting and deplorable insults?

There's options in the Comms menu to turn on / off voice and text comms from other players.

 

[Vorxian]

I don't want to be just spitballs and manure.

I think at the very least players playing the 'run the gauntlet' game i.e. non combat missions, should be thrown a bone. It's food chain stuff that someone making logistical runs is bottom of the pile. In effect in a way, we (I) am just in OPEN to be someone elses content. Just like deliver x to y is my content... me getting from x to y is someone elses content. Why i have to foot the bill to be someone elses content is a mystery. It's like going to a park, and paying a thug £200 to beat the crap out of you. It's bizarre logic.

BUT here's the non spitball part, if PP (I assume we're talking Power Play here), that delivery / PvE / non combative missions (as part of the compensation) says... hey listen, we need you to deliver x to y, we'll pay you $$$ for successful completion.. if you fail, and get blown up doing something for our cause, then we'll cover the bill... so what I'm saying is, if a player is ON AN ASSIGNMENT for a PP figurehead, then they're covered. If they get blown up, the get their losses covered, but don't get paid, and end up resetting back to the station. Not getting paid, and losing however long it's taken to get to that point is enough of a punishment. It would encourage folks to actually be participating actively in PP rather than swanning about, when losses would not be covered.

anyway, my two bob bits.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I don't want to be just spitballs and manure.

I think at the very least players playing the 'run the gauntlet' game i.e. non combat missions, should be thrown a bone. It's food chain stuff that someone making logistical runs is bottom of the pile. In effect in a way, we (I) am just in OPEN to be someone elses content. Just like deliver x to y is my content... me getting from x to y is someone elses content. Why i have to foot the bill to be someone elses content is a mystery. It's like going to a park, and paying a thug £200 to beat the crap out of you. It's bizarre logic.

BUT here's the non spitball part, if PP (I assume we're talking Power Play here), that delivery / PvE / non combative missions (as part of the compensation) says... hey listen, we need you to deliver x to y, we'll pay you $$$ for successful completion.. if you fail, and get blown up doing something for our cause, then we'll cover the bill... so what I'm saying is, if a player is ON AN ASSIGNMENT for a PP figurehead, then they're covered. If they get blown up, the get their losses covered, but don't get paid, and end up resetting back to the station. Not getting paid, and losing however long it's taken to get to that point is enough of a punishment. It would encourage folks to actually be participating actively in PP rather than swanning about, when losses would not be covered.

anyway, my two bob bits.

Some people will say that's rubbish, that then there would be no risk... while sat there in their fully engineered FdLs....

 

[verminstar]

There's options in the Comms menu to turn on / off voice and text comms from other players.

Yer missing the point...its just the salt I dont wanna listen to, everyone else who is a grown up is fine, I dont wanna mute the grown ups just the imbeciles. Without selectively blocking each one, how do ye mute just the salt?

 

[Marra Morgan]

Yer missing the point...its just the salt I dont wanna listen to, everyone else who is a grown up is fine, I dont wanna mute the grown ups just the imbeciles. Without selectively blocking each one, how do ye mute just the salt?

I understand.

I'd like red and purple glitter to come from my car's exhaust, but hey ho.

 

[kilvenny]

I don't want to be just spitballs and manure.

I think at the very least players playing the 'run the gauntlet' game i.e. non combat missions, should be thrown a bone. It's food chain stuff that someone making logistical runs is bottom of the pile. In effect in a way, we (I) am just in OPEN to be someone elses content. Just like deliver x to y is my content... me getting from x to y is someone elses content. Why i have to foot the bill to be someone elses content is a mystery. It's like going to a park, and paying a thug £200 to beat the crap out of you. It's bizarre logic.

BUT here's the non spitball part, if PP (I assume we're talking Power Play here), that delivery / PvE / non combative missions (as part of the compensation) says... hey listen, we need you to deliver x to y, we'll pay you $$$ for successful completion.. if you fail, and get blown up doing something for our cause, then we'll cover the bill... so what I'm saying is, if a player is ON AN ASSIGNMENT for a PP figurehead, then they're covered. If they get blown up, the get their losses covered, but don't get paid, and end up resetting back to the station. Not getting paid, and losing however long it's taken to get to that point is enough of a punishment. It would encourage folks to actually be participating actively in PP rather than swanning about, when losses would not be covered.

anyway, my two bob bits.

Good post - Remove PP from solo/PG without offering anything to encourage the player to move to open is a mistake. Your suggestion I think is great. It offers a reason to PP in open. I have no problem with dying merely the cost of doing so.

 

[IcemanAJL]

Don't think its possible. Your piracy example highlights the problem. (A minority of) PvPers killed PvP piracy, not modes, not FD, not anything else. It was those who kill for the lulz that makes it silly to wait around to see if a pirate in genuine.

Funny, I seem to recall that the more prevalent ‘griefer’ groups, including SDC, started as pirates not happy that players were combat logging to escape dropping cargo or facing the consequences of choosing extra cargo space over security.

In fact a very large amount of loggers I get when pirating occur after my demand is made for cargo, the trader runs and I secure a successful disable and make my second and final demand. If it really was the fault of ‘PvPers’ killing piracy, then why would most logging occur at a point when it’s well established that the attacking ship isn’t out for a kill but for cargo? And it wasn’t just ‘rookie’ players either, I’ve had loggers of all ranks quit after being disabled, in one case when I tried hatchbreaking a disabled ship after a CMDR absolutely refused to give cargo on the grounds that they wanted me to either get notoriety or no cargo. (It was a rare trade CG so hatchbreaking was actually viable)

Piracy died from logging and C&P attempts at reducing ganking. This last part is ironic because police response is never enough to actually stop a gank on a bad build, but is now fast enough to make most systems too troublesome to collect cargo after a disable is made. Hatchbreaker buff might help with this IMO by making nonlethal attacks on noncompliant traders still provide decent cargo hauls without notoriety increase as ship destruction becomes less necessary as a coercion option when hatchbreaking becomes a viable alternative.

(An engineer upgrade for hatchbreaking that provides a massive amount of cargo but only works on ships with shields offline would be good for example. Limpets could gain with focused special experimental upgrades in general)

 

[Paralyysi]

At the end of the day, there's absolutely nothing FD can implement which will make me play open. If ED became open only, myself (and presumably others) will find something else.

Im definitely in the same boat. I allready got my ~3000 hrs and moving on wouldn't be a hard decision to make.
Still, those propositions in the OP would surely make the game better and less "shallow".

 

[verminstar]

I understand.

I'd like red and purple glitter to come from my car's exhaust, but hey ho.

That is actually possible...theres a car shop that actually sells kits that come with the sticker saying ¨powered by fairy dust¨. Doesnt last long but its possible but sure...hey ho and all that ^

 

[B1rdy]

The challenge with a solution like that is that you will have quite a few cases where, even in high sec, a commander can get blown to bits without much of a security response. While agree that this is more realistic I think it is bad for gameplay. High Sec should mean high sec, regardless. Open fire on someone who is not wanted in that system? Expect to be obliterated by system security in seconds. Interdict someone who is not wanted? Same thing.

I think it is a bit unreal to make security system so safe, that no one can be illegal destroyed.