Yes PVP is unfair.

[snadge]

I must admit that with modules available, stealth ships are the best of a bad bunch, there is absolutely no reason to fit otherwise, two seperate people fitting for a certain task will usually come up with the same fit for that ship for the task in hand without conferring, more variety in module types would be very good.

On to the PvE only mode, no I do not think there should be one, if FD decide to do one, risk/reward should be affected, I play in open, Mobius and solo depending on what I am doing, ATM my piloting skills are terribad to say the least and my bank balance is woefully low so I do not PvP at this time.

The game in itself is a PvP dream game though, great piloting skill is needed but there is absolutely no ingame reason to PvP to change anything, so it becomes a sport on the sidelines, I believe the modes are perfectly suited for what they are but I feel with the mechanics available (which are shared across all 3 modes) should be tweaked ie, bounties, trade profits and mission payouts should be at least 100% higher in open than group and group at least 50% higher than solo, the influence you can have on the map should also be tweaked in all 3 modes similarily.

Also functioning crime and punishment ATM it is an absolute joke.

Bringing in player owned territories with structures that need defending against other enemy players in open with comparative rewards that can not be affected from other modes would help the PvP players to re focus attention.

I can only dream of a player fuelled economy/manufacturing base.

Just a few witterings from someone on the outside.

 

[Mohrgan]

What you are effectively saying is that you don't want PVP (fine, if that's the case). If you balance ships around PVE but allow PVP then some meta may still emerge for PVP. Either you must aim to balance both or cut one out. - Side note: In the ideal case there shouldn't be a need to equip ships specifically for PVE or PVP.

It's generally not game mechanics that cause this phenomenon (do do da dodo) but rather human nature. A wide variety of builds are viable and successful through out the PvE game. It's the desire to have the edge in a PvP fight is what draws people to the FotM builds. This is amplified by the players that are only interested in PvP. It's asking players to be a victim by their own design. I want an SRV, so I'll have to sacrifice re-buy screens for it. Or not, and just play in a Group.

My idea for balance is for FD to create the gear the way it makes sense to them, and let the chips fall where they may. Changing things that don;t work is fine, but if a FotM is inevitable, why worry over what it is?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

If your gonna take complaints about bad mechanics as crying then everyone crys about everything all the time on this forum the difference is the other roles had enough tears to make a change happen.

At least miners got a good one and there really aren't that many of them, live in hope.

Those threads did include genuine discussions on the mechanics of the game. That didn't stop the fact that they also included a considerable and aggressive display of crying. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Pirates crying? I have not yet seen it in this forum.

Selective observation is a thing.

 

[Derath]

Those threads did include genuine discussions on the mechanics of the game. That didn't stop the fact that they also included a considerable and aggressive display of crying. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Yes but look at it from their point of view for once, regardless of whether you destroy ships or not you are vilified here, and the only beneficial change they have received since the games release is the ability to have a robot scoop for you. If any of the other professions were anywhere near as bad as piracy you'd be washed away by their tears here the only reason you only get them here and there is because there are only 10 pirates left

Of course they are going to cry, they just have more reason to than most

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

aggressive display of crying

The mental image of aggressive crying is amusing.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

Two words:


Smuggling.

I see what you did there

+R But due to forum limitations you'll have to wait 2.1 days.

 

[Mohrgan]

Yes but look at it from their point of view for once, regardless of whether you destroy ships or not you are vilified here, and the only beneficial change they have received since the games release is the ability to have a robot scoop for you. If any of the other professions were anywhere near as bad as piracy you'd be washed away by their tears here the only reason you only get them here and there is because there are only 10 pirates left

Of course they are going to cry, they just have more reason to than most

I try to be fair, and I am not against Piracy. Check my commanders name. My intention was to pirate away. But, I have never been able to be the bad guy, it gives me angst. I wasn't convincing enough. No, there was plenty of hyperbole and drama from both/every camp. Pirates included, having a good cause doesn't forgive the histrionics.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes but look at it from their point of view for once, regardless of whether you destroy ships or not you are vilified here, and the only beneficial change they have received since the games release is the ability to have a robot scoop for you. If any of the other professions were anywhere near as bad as piracy you'd be washed away by their tears here the only reason you only get them here and there is because there are only 10 pirates left

I do wonder if the lack of any specific modules aimed at facilitating piracy (by hindering the target's ability to escape) have not been introduced simply because anything that facilitated piracy in that way would give players who just want to PK even more time to do so. The fact that some pirates and (all?) PKers prefer players as targets, Frontier would be expected to balance the "fun" on both sides of the interaction. In Zac's recent reddit post, it is interesting to see the following:

"On a personal level, I must say, on the most part we see community members taking part in PVP or roleplaying piracy in a way that works for everyone. If a trader is stopped and asked to drop their cargo, they feel better for the experience and not having to rebuy their ship - That player is more likely to continue to trade. The pirate can then plunder another day.

It isn’t piracy if a player deliberately tries to ruin another player’s experience. It is unfortunate to see players trying and taking pride in this kind of experience."

Frontier are stuck with the problem of traders, pirates and PKers all having different desires for the game - and the fact that anything that gives pirates more time to carry out their role also facilitates PKing.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Frontier are stuck with the problem of traders, pirates and PKers all having different desires for the game - and the fact that anything that gives pirates more time to carry out their role also facilitates PKing.

not neccesarily. a weapon which slows down the charge time of a ships FSD, but uses a lot of energy and creates a lot of heat, therefore can use no other weapons at the same time would be great for piracy on an escaping ship. this would give the pirates hatchbreakers time to do their thing


ok in a gank squad this weapon WOULD also give the PKers more time to shoot the escaping ship, but, at the same time the ship using the disrupter would essentially be toothless.

as it is right now, 4 fast ships on 1 slow trader are going to probably disable a ship before it can highwake anyway, so 3 ships with slightly longer time to cause havoc probably wont make such difference (indeed maybe better for the fleeing ship because the 3 ships only have so much weapon charge before their attack power is reduced significantly).

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Bringing in player owned territories with structures that need defending against other enemy players in open with comparative rewards that can not be affected from other modes would help the PvP players to re focus attention.

I can only dream of a player fuelled economy/manufacturing base.

Just a few witterings from someone on the outside.

Too much EVE in that.

While it works in EvE there we were Capsuleers, demigods compared to the rest of civilization who was mere pawns to us.

Elite in scope is far more realistic where the pilots federation is merely a minor faction.

CMDR's are simply to FEW to have a major impact on economy and ability to control a majority of corporate power when we are outnumbered by BILLIONS of NPC's and corporate powers that span hundreds of light years.

 

[Faded Glory]

So why do you hate people who have fun in a computer game?

Careful, that argument can be thrown right back at you... Fun is subjective.

 

[Derath]

I do wonder if the lack of any specific modules aimed at facilitating piracy (by hindering the target's ability to escape) have not been introduced simply because anything that facilitated piracy in that way would give players who just want to PK even more time to do so. The fact that some pirates and (all?) PKers prefer players as targets, Frontier would be expected to balance the "fun" on both sides of the interaction. In Zac's recent reddit post, it is interesting to see the following:

"On a personal level, I must say, on the most part we see community members taking part in PVP or roleplaying piracy in a way that works for everyone. If a trader is stopped and asked to drop their cargo, they feel better for the experience and not having to rebuy their ship - That player is more likely to continue to trade. The pirate can then plunder another day.

It isn’t piracy if a player deliberately tries to ruin another player’s experience. It is unfortunate to see players trying and taking pride in this kind of experience."

Frontier are stuck with the problem of traders, pirates and PKers all having different desires for the game - and the fact that anything that gives pirates more time to carry out their role also facilitates PKing.

You can't pirate of NPC's thats part of the problem (well you can but that have insulting cargo, even if they are carrying something good they do things like fly a T9 with 10t only) so of course this focuses on players.

I hear what your saying about it benefiting PK'ers if they make modules that work properly for piracy but i'm not sure that module restriction is how they should deal with PK'ers, everyone, including the pirates as far as i've seen, want a much more rigorous criminality system. Thats the side i'd be addressing the PKs from, and they could then do incredibly novel things for pirates like make limpets faster than 200m/s, or work on spinning ships lol.

Another point on this is generally pker's are going for vulnerable targets, modules to facilitate piracy are completely unneccesary to PK these targets. Until the powerplant changes and the addition of a few super heavy ships you could literally kill any ship in the 15s it takes to high wake, i'm sure you can't do that anymore without a wing but I bet you can still destroy a T7 or T9 in that time -_- or any smaller freighter.

making NPC's carry viable cargo and lots of it so when people want to pirate they don't have to focus players would be a great idea as well, the most fun i ever had pirating was actually the steal intelligence objective at lugh, you had to pirate in the middle of a warzone and you were stealing a high value item that the T9's had sufficient of to make it worthwhile. More gameplay like that would be superb.

I'd love to see them add some piracy ships, the thing is people tend to think it'd just be an OP combat ship with cargo room but its not right at all, pirates go after freighters, they don't need to be heavily armed or shielded and infact not being so would make it more entertaining for combat traders. I notice this same niche for miners, there are plenty of ships to mine with but none that are mining focused.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

I do wonder if the lack of any specific modules aimed at facilitating piracy (by hindering the target's ability to escape) have not been introduced simply because anything that facilitated piracy in that way would give players who just want to PK even more time to do so. The fact that some pirates and (all?) PKers prefer players as targets, Frontier would be expected to balance the "fun" on both sides of the interaction. In Zac's recent reddit post, it is interesting to see the following:

"On a personal level, I must say, on the most part we see community members taking part in PVP or roleplaying piracy in a way that works for everyone. If a trader is stopped and asked to drop their cargo, they feel better for the experience and not having to rebuy their ship - That player is more likely to continue to trade. The pirate can then plunder another day.

It isn’t piracy if a player deliberately tries to ruin another player’s experience. It is unfortunate to see players trying and taking pride in this kind of experience."

Frontier are stuck with the problem of traders, pirates and PKers all having different desires for the game - and the fact that anything that gives pirates more time to carry out their role also facilitates PKing.

That is a recurring problem.

The fundamental issue seems to be that the game has no way of distinguishing between "legitimate PvP" (IE PvP means to an end) and "illegitimate PvP" (killing for the sake of killing). The context is lost in the nuance of the game's communication systems.
That's especially true for the changes to the crimes system Sandro was discussing. Such a system will struggle to differentiate between a wing of 4 FDLs destroying an Asp for the sake of it, and a lone pirate in a Python destroying said Asp because it refused to hand over any cargo.

Perhaps a solution would be the addition of a "Surrender" system, such as the "yield" implemented in games such as Life is Feudal. The idea being, if you "Surrender" then you automatically stop and cannot control your ship for a set number of seconds (30-60?). Your assailant would be free to then loot your ship of merits or cargo via an in-game option; but if they instead chose to destroy you, then the stringent penalties (rebuy cost increase, no docking at high-sec stations, massive bounty etc etc) would come into force. Perhaps even the rebuy cost could be reduced if you are destroyed while surrendered in a high-sec system with crime report on (the idea being, the police that failed to protect you would reimburse part of your rebuy)

Then after a set amount of time, you would automatically jump away (to a nearby system? To the nearest station?).

This might stop the mindless killing of players who simply want to survive, while preventing being overly harsh on those who pursue a role within the game universe that's less... uncompromisingly murderous.

Players could surrender via hotkey, or automatically on submitting to an interdiction (would also solve the annoying submit-hop pseudo exploit, while still leaving it as an opportunity to submit to authorities).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Perhaps a solution would be the addition of a "Surrender" system, such as the "yield" implemented in games such as Life is Feudal. The idea being, if you "Surrender" then you automatically stop and cannot control your ship for a set number of seconds (30-60?). Your assailant would be free to then loot your ship of merits or cargo via an in-game option; but if they instead chose to destroy you, then the stringent penalties (rebuy cost increase, no docking at high-sec stations, massive bounty etc etc) would come into force. Perhaps even the rebuy cost could be reduced if you are destroyed while surrendered in a high-sec system with crime report on (the idea being, the police that failed to protect you would reimburse part of your rebuy)

Rather than a mechanism that would put the target at the mercy of the pirate for a period of time (that any other players dropping into the system could take advantage of), I'd rather that the existing cargo scan mechanic be speeded up and then used as the initial declaration of piracy and subsequent haggling over the quantity of booty to be dropped. Sitting helpless in space is hardly rewarding gameplay for the target, after all.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Rather than a mechanism that would put the target at the mercy of the pirate for a period of time (that any other players dropping into the system could take advantage of), I'd rather that the existing cargo scan mechanic be speeded up and then used as the initial declaration of piracy and subsequent haggling over the quantity of booty to be dropped. Sitting helpless in space is hardly rewarding gameplay for the target, after all.

The idea would be that attacking a surrendered player would be

a) unnecessary

and

b) an extremely bad idea

Hence why players who surrender should feel relatively safe (or at least, safe in the knowledge that whoever destroys them will suffer far worse consequences than they will).

I'm not suggesting that the surrender is "to" a particular person, rather than a state which is obvious to all (show up green on scanner?) and would result in stringent penalties for anyone who attacked or killed them in this time

Players who don't like the idea of yielding wouldn't have to.

I do like the idea of faster cargo scans. The current speed is laughable when your target can high wake in 10 seconds

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Actually come to think of it an ingame version of the haggling over cargo normally present in piracy would be excellent. Would translate over to PvE nicely as well

 

[Robert Maynard]

Actually come to think of it an ingame version of the haggling over cargo normally present in piracy would be excellent. Would translate over to PvE nicely as well

It would mean that pirates could "haggle" with NPCs....

 

[Alexander the Grape]

It would mean that pirates could "haggle" with NPCs....

It has always frustrated me that NPC piracy is so pants. It's better now you can force a "surrender" by shooting out a powerplant, but I've had many situations in the past where a type 6 in 1% hull will turn around and shoot at me scooping up what I've made him drop :/

A good haggle system would make it a lot more believable. Shoot down their escort, and they throttle down, try to negotiate a surrender, and drop goods for you... A CMDR can dream

I'm not sure FDev really know how pirates operate. Certainly they don't program their NPCs to do it effectively. Maybe one day we'll see my dream of piracy becoming real (IE NPC piracy being as compelling and challenging as PvP piracy, with the former taking up the majority of the pirates time and making good money, and the latter being an entertaining additional challenge to come up once every hour or so)

 

[Mohrgan]

I would like the Interdiction mini-game to have more meaning. Somehow give pirates an interdictor that a player couldn't submit to. That way there is a contest, for the upper hand, between the two Commanders without combat. If the Trader wins, the Pirate gets the cool down. On the other hand should the Pirate win, he has 45 clear seconds to prosecute his agenda. Interdictions with NPC's, in either direction, remain as they are currently.

If I remember right, FD's thing for the submit was to remove the damage costs when being pulled over by the cops.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

I would like the Interdiction mini-game to have more meaning. Somehow give pirates an interdictor that a player couldn't submit to. That way there is a contest, for the upper hand, between the two Commanders without combat. If the Trader wins, the Pirate gets the cool down. On the other hand should the Pirate win, he has 45 clear seconds to prosecute his agenda. Interdictions with NPC's, in either direction, remain as they are currently.

If I remember right, FD's thing for the submit was to remove the damage costs when being pulled over by the cops.

Yeah, it's morphed from a solution to a problem that no longer exists, to an anti-griefer mechanism. It definitely needs a rework, submit-hi wake feels very cheesy for both Player and NPC interdictions.

I'd love to RP as an armed trader, but currently there's simply no reason to