Some thoughts on Player Verses Player when it lacks the "Verses"

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Hello TESTies.

TL;DR I'm not sure but I think I've observed a complication with multi-disciplinary PvP games which might be giving a misleading impression whenever anyone says "SC is a PvP game" it's more than that and I might have picked up on something which has always been there but I don't think anyone has really thought about it enough up to this point to have been able to recognise and name it... If you are interested read on, if you are not please save yourself the time it's wooooordy and probably nonsense anyway:

I was on Spectrum (never a good sign) and seeing a thread about what makes a PvP engagement a good legitimate Piracy encounter compared to a bad Griefing session really got me thinking about the whole consensual/non-consensual PvP proposition and I got really, really thinky.

In that thread, which is about something not quite what I was diverting to, I did put my thoughts across but have had limited discussion (understandably as a semi-derail) so thought I would discuss with the good peoples of TEST, because this feels like a discovery of Gravity thought... It was always there, it was always quietly a part of existence and then Newton went "Oh, yeah... this is totally a thing, isn't it?"... It might not be as defining as Gravity, but I think it explains a lot and if taken into account may help with game balance moving forward:

Pasting my posts from Spectrum so they may not make flow smoothly sequentially like this:

....................................
Post 1: Outlining multi-disciplinary PvP verses single type PvP games, the concept of PvP without the Verses where different types of PvP meet, and coining the term "PoP" Player On Player and another concept of Dominant and Submissive PvP styles conflicting.
....................................

Over the years I've been watching and thinking about this PvP issue and have made many observations on the nature of Griefing, Harassment, Non-consensual and Consensual Players Verses Players.

From what I have picked up to this point...

In a game like SC, PvP has many different types beyond what is classically considered the default PvP: Combat. When these different types overlap there is the risk of non-consent in that some players have logged in to play a different type of game to others, and incompatibility between PvP types as some players will be adversely effected by their type of PvP being subjected to another. This incompatibility between the two can then lead to the total inability to compete for one of the players involved, with steep unfairness for one of the parties and an appearance of Griefing - Players getting pleasure from spoiling other players play sessions.

Walk into a game like COD or Fortnite and you know the one competition mechanic is combat. There may be different styles on the theme for variety, but they are all built around combat. The "implied consent" argument that people have logged in to engage in one type of PvP works for those games because there is only one type of PvP to do in them but in a game like SC with multiple types of PvP, that implied consent does not stand.

In SC there are so any different types of PvP coexisting: FPS combat, Ship combat, Vehicle Racing, Competition between players for the best Trade buying and selling prices, Mining competition to find and exploit the best resources and refinery slots, and may more to come including Salvage etc.

I put forward where two conflicting types of PvP means there isn't actually any Verses for one of the parties, consensual or not, it can no longer be defined Player Verses Player and should not be called PvP at all...

Although some types of PvP are similar like FPS and Ship combat, not all are and where we have one type of Player Verses Player which isn't related force itself on another type of Player Verses Player with total advantage, for example a Crusader Ares Inferno engaging in Combat with a trading Drake Caterpillar trading full of cargo (where is the Verses, that is all one-sided) without consent, then we have what I would term as Player On Player, or PoP.

PoP is otherwise valid Player Verses Player play mechanics (which are Dominant) subjected to another type of Player Verses Player play mechanic (which is Submissive) which has no way to compete with the dominant mechanic. With no competition there is no Verses, with no Verses there is no Player Verses Player.

At present there is no detriment to an advantageous dominant PvP type forcing itself on a submissive type of PvP, but this PoP overlap risk doesn't have to be without consequence - Destroying miner and trader PvPers has no consequence on the disruptive combat PvPer at present, but logically speaking hampering production of resources and their transport around the 'Verse will cause the flow of those resources to slow or stop...

I used to hear a lot of players reply with "Just hire escorts" - aside from the economics of hiring three other players meaning a two hour trade route netting 50k UEC will pay them a pittance once split up and not guarantee any combat for them either, why is not the logical response to that utterance "to repair and resupply your fighter ship just hire Miners and Traders" to create their metals, missiles and fuels for them? After a while when the supply of missiles dries up, Quantum fuel gets expensive and repairs cannot be processed not only will they be inconvenienced, it will also physically effect their ability to affect their PvP on other types in that bullets, energy weapons, components such as generators and missiles will no longer be available for them to utilize against others...

It's easy to see why Combat PvPers can be accused of Griefing when there is the assumption of implied consent and there is no Verses in their one-sided dominant interactions which then spoil other players sessions (the definition of griefing). When it is all one-sided it is not a Verses proposition, being purely Player On Player and we really should term it as such. But that itself should not be without its repercussions for the aggressor, and if at such a point those repercussions arrive for Combat PvPers, they will also effect the other types of PvPer in equal measure and the 'Verse itself will encourage a balance of all types of PvP to live alongside one another in tolerance and the understanding that if I effect them, I too in turn are effected and it is in my own self interest as well as everyone else's to allow everyone else to play their PvP styles without too much detrimental PoP.

This is my set of observations to this point, I haven't worded all of my thoughts out here on every single angle because I don't want to write an essay but PoP is pretty much it in a concise manner... Is it correct? I have no idea I'm just another player not a sociologist, but from what I have watched it seems this is the lay of the land in terms of interaction of combat PvP and other types of PvP in the mix of Consensual PvP, Non-consensual PvP, Incompatible Player On Player (PoP) between types of PvP, malicious Griefing for fun and flat out Targeted Harassment.

....................................
Post 2: In response to a compliment on the above thoughts.
....................................

While reading over my speech there to make sure it made sense, I was pondering the different PvPs and was thinking Combat was the dominant one which could enforce itself on all others, however it occurs to me even Combat PvP has a PoP submissiveness: Racing PvP.

I have many multiple times been accused of being a "Runner" due to liking fast ships and ducking out of combat rather than engaging. This is the use of Racing PvP mechanics out of place in Combat PoP. I press the accelerator, they have no way to compete, which means no Verses which means no Player Verses Player.

....................................
Post 3: After pondering a comment on implied consent and how in another game it was not shied away from to the benefit of the game overall.
....................................

This has got me thinking further on the Assumed Consent in regard to Combat, and players not consenting to having their play interfered with by other styles of PvP, and how this actually applies to combat PvP too...

...remembering being called a Runner due to my preference for remaining away from or disengaging from combat at the first possibility using speed which is from the Racing PvP play style, I was pondering on why Combat PvP has a derogatory label such as "Runner" in the first place and it has dawned on me: it is because other players refusing to entertain and actively denying engagement with a Combatants PoP attempt is spoiling combat PvPers play...

...the Combat PvPers accusation of "Runner" is similar or even the same as other types of PvPer, like Miners and Traders, accusing Combat players of using their dominant PvP type in a one-sided encounter of "Griefing". The Runner is entirely in control of and interferes in the Combat PvPers play by being able to deny it. The Combat PvPer when attacking Miners and Traders etc is generally totally in control, they are interfering in the other types of PvPs play in a Player On Player PoP proposition as inferred earlier. Although Runners can inflict no damage on the Combat player so there is no loss, it is also an instance of PoP. I am using my Dominant PvP style on your Submissive PvP style and you can't do anything about it.

When the term "Runner" is used, it is used by someone who does not consent to their play being interfered with.

So on assumed consent that everyone is up for being shot at when they log in, my below question, based on the above thoughts is:

Q) Why is assumed consent only applicable to the Combatants enforcing their PvP style on other types? Why do I have to consent to their control, but they don't have to consent to mine and can accuse me of not playing the game properly as a "Runner" because "it's a PvP game"?

Good people of Spectrum, it is not only non-consenting players who are accusing others of griefing - Combat PvPers are also guilty of this when their play is interfered with by a Dominant PvP style too, but in a slightly different wording which boils down to the same core complaint: You are spoiling my play for your own satisfaction.

....................................
Post 4: After pushback on the above with suggestion the anology is not quite right and accusation of "Runner" is likely just taunting to force a desired combat reaction.
....................................

I think your thoughts are hitting aspects of Consensual and Non-consensual PvP and where different individual players definition of implied consent differ in that you personally do accept Running is part of the game where no, others definitely do not for:

If the act of "Runner" had an implied consent by all those who choose to utter it, was accepted as part of the intended game mechanics and was understood to be fair because the game allows it, and doesn't interfere with the specific combat players desired PvP outcomes: There would be no driver for it to have existed as a phrase in the first place - it would not exist.

But it does.

It's very existence betrays the non-consent of those who use it. Combat PvP is very dominant, but is still has some submissive weaknesses that totally deny that PvP play. To misquote one of the early posts "Not all PvP is Griefing, but all Griefing is PvP": not all Not all Player On Player dominance is Running, but all Running is Player On Player dominance.

Whether it is consented to as being another player taking control of your Combat PvP style totally and utterly is fairly immaterial, It is a rare example of dominant total denial of Combat PvP just as a Combat PvP player destroying a traders ship is dominant total denial of Trading PvP. There aren't many ways to dominate and deny Combat PvP, but this is one and it was named by its victims denied their fun: "Runner".

Player On Player. There is no Verses when Dominant style is inflicted on Submissive style.

To that end, your take on Taunting is an interesting one and I will not deny it may be true in some cases, but if accusations of "Runner" is simply taunts, it must also be true in accusations of "Griefer" as well, must it not?

How does that Taunting apply to players who accuse Combat PvPers of being Griefers? When they have been interfered with are the non-combat players just reverse-taunting the combatant into leaving them alone as they wish...? Or is it actually someone showing another player NO there is no implied consent here, NO I did not and do not consent, NO just because you can doesn't mean I want you to, NO you are not invited to interfere with my play session in that manner again...? But if that is actually what Combat PvPers are being told when they are being called "Griefer", does that not destroy the whole concept of Implied Consent...?

Again I say, we call each subset of PvP what it is: Player Verses Player where Players can actually Verses each other, but when they overlap in a Dominant/Submissive way, it must be called Player On Player because there is no sign of Verses when the Dominance to totally deny the other PvP player of their style of PvP is enforced on others.

I'm not saying players should not have a PoP at each other or we will not have a sandbox game which is what we all want, PoP will exist in this setting just as it exists In Real Life... I hope we get balancing and mechanics which causes consequences where none exist at present that encourage PoP to be a part of peoples play like Piracy where resource still flows but in a different market but where there are also much greater risks for players indulging in that play loop.

What I'm saying is we should stop pretending it is fair PvP and start calling it what it is. Player On Player: Cold, unyielding, dominance of those who cannot compete with you.

....................................
Post 5: In response to "I guess my main point though is that this is a game in which you will be attacked non-consensually at some point by design."
....................................

I see where you are coming from, I suppose amongst my already stated PoP points I think my main hinge of repetition in response to your point on non-consensuality is to stop calling these interactions, consenting or non-consenting, a "Verses" proposition when it is anything but.

There are circumstances in SC where a player of a certain type of PvP will have as much chance of defending themselves verses another player of a different kind of PvP as an ant would against a child with a magnifying glass, or indeed as that child would have of defending themselves verses the mighty power of the sun if they were stuffed into a cannon and fired into the heart of it. An Anvil Arrow Vs a Mustang Delta is a Verses proposition whether the two players consent or not. A Crusader Ares inferno vs a Mustang Delta is even an uneven Verses proposition but it's still Verses as the Mustang does have the tools to participate in the PvP... An Anvil Arrow or Ares inferno Vs an Argo Raft is totally one sided, there is no Verses proposition at all the Raft will fall, even if the encounter is consensual.

To recognise, understand and name an issue we can then think about and address it in the context of it's own existence. Calling PoP "PvP" would be like calling Targeted Harassment "Trolling", a term which is misused incredibly often which clouds the issue and hides a key part of the problem. In PoPs case I believe the hidden part is the Dominance over those who cannot compete with the mechanics being used against them. Harm does not have to happen for PoP dominance to be present but the most harm brings the most attention, such as when Combat PvPers are accused of Griefing due to the results of their Dominant PoP actions bankrupting Traders or loosing Miners a big haul of rare ore...

Part of the problem as I see it is the blanket statement that SC is a PvP game (when it is a Multiple-Disciplinary-Conflicting-PvP-Game at present), when players of a certain style are easily wiped out and harmed by a dominant style in a PoP shot where the "V" is totally absent, calling it "PvP" is misleading to put it mildly, it's not PvP. In naming it, in telling people PoP is a thing and what that means for players and that it is more likely to happen in areas X, Y or Z or indeed in the current map that it could happen anywhere, they then have some control and can take measures to avoid suffering it even if it is eventually fully included in the finished game or indeed can never be removed due to the nature of some people just being whoever they happen to like being that day.

Can we do something against some of the more unfair PoP shots which are happening? Well, yes actually we can and yes some things are being done right now like Kelscher... Do we want to do something against some or most of the PoP shots which are happening...? Making all trading vessels faster than all fighter ships would help remove that harmful Dominance with a non-harmful Dominance in the other direction but is that how we want the game to play out? That's up to the designers and they will be able to temper the amount of dominance/interference players command and experience on certain factors like which sectors they are in. High Security, Low Security, and other factors like to use the example of Racer pilots PoP Dominance over Combat, could there even be a star system where I will not be able to be the Runner from a Combat PvPer due to strong solar winds or gravity spikes or temporal distortion or some other mechanic which places an artificial speed cap in a certain area and I loose my advantage? Potentially, if a need is seen for it...

Thanks for joining in the discussion, I apologise if I just keep repeating the same thing over and over again but it is quite an all-embracing concept which is obvious when you think about it but doesn't seem to have been called-out and named before?

....................................

And that's where I've got to. If you have read all the way down to here... thoughts?

 

[BUTUZ]

I scrolled all the way down to here....does that count???

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I scrolled all the way down to here....does that count???

That does, but I forgot to say "Boredom" is a state of being rather than being a thought of feedback :-)

 

[Ayeteeone]

@NaffNaffBobFace What you are talking about is THE fundamental balance issue that CIG faces. Everything else, ship weapons, flight models, legal system, economic simulation, all of it, is just details in answer to this question. Hopefully Todd Papy and the handful of royalty at the top understand.

I think you've put an excellent framework around the situation, and I deeply appreciate your "thinky" as it has genuinely expanded my own thought processes.

SC by design is a game where rock-paper-sissors-lizard-Spock is a foundational concept, and not all of those elements are in place yet nor balanced in any reasonable way. So someone who chooses to be a sociopath and harm other players has little to get in the way of doing that; it generally takes another player doing harm to them. Which then effectively subjugates all other play to the choice of the sociopath whether they win or lose. (Also, fairly accurate simulation of real life..)

One of the ships I love in this game is the 315p. Many better choices for bounty missions, but for getting out of and staying out of unwanted scrapes it sings. As you point out, speed can be a useful tool for avoidance. The MSR is a fantastic tool for this as well, Avenger__one has done videos showing how it can dictate if a fight happens or not. And what it can do when the triggers are pressed.

Games ARE supposed to provide outlets for fantasy/imagination. As is so often (ad nauseum) pointed out, providing the ability for players to attack each other creates a dynamic tension in gameplay that the designers want to exist. To keep the game alive and running though, that tension needs to stay AS TENSION most of the time, not the reality of being attacked regularly/routinely. Too many people lose a PoP engagement too often, and the game dies. Period.

I'm no slouch at PvP, but I'll go on record saying have no specific interest in any form of it. It is a set of tools I sharpen, rather than a drive to be pursued. If those tools have to come out too often; if relaxing turns into unwanted conflict, then I'm finding something else to spend my time and money on.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

@NaffNaffBobFace What you are talking about is THE fundamental balance issue that CIG faces. Everything else, ship weapons, flight models, legal system, economic simulation, all of it, is just details in answer to this question. Hopefully Todd Papy and the handful of royalty at the top understand.

I think you've put an excellent framework around the situation, and I deeply appreciate your "thinky" as it has genuinely expanded my own thought processes.

SC by design is a game where rock-paper-sissors-lizard-Spock is a foundational concept, and not all of those elements are in place yet nor balanced in any reasonable way. So someone who chooses to be a sociopath and harm other players has little to get in the way of doing that; it generally takes another player doing harm to them. Which then effectively subjugates all other play to the choice of the sociopath whether they win or lose. (Also, fairly accurate simulation of real life..)

One of the ships I love in this game is the 315p. Many better choices for bounty missions, but for getting out of and staying out of unwanted scrapes it sings. As you point out, speed can be a useful tool for avoidance. The MSR is a fantastic tool for this as well, Avenger__one has done videos showing how it can dictate if a fight happens or not. And what it can do when the triggers are pressed.

Games ARE supposed to provide outlets for fantasy/imagination. As is so often (ad nauseum) pointed out, providing the ability for players to attack each other creates a dynamic tension in gameplay that the designers want to exist. To keep the game alive and running though, that tension needs to stay AS TENSION most of the time, not the reality of being attacked regularly/routinely. Too many people lose a PoP engagement too often, and the game dies. Period.

I'm no slouch at PvP, but I'll go on record saying have no specific interest in any form of it. It is a set of tools I sharpen, rather than a drive to be pursued. If those tools have to come out too often; if relaxing turns into unwanted conflict, then I'm finding something else to spend my time and money on.

Many thanks for your angle and observations on PoP and engaging with the concept, really appreciate it :-)

I'm hoping if we are able to identify, name and observe the occurance of PoP as its own thing seperate from PvP (which it relates to) it can be considered as a seperate entity and pondered about as it actually exists rather than being obscured behind the blanket statement that "SC is a PvP game".

 

[Bambooza]

You have some great points @NaffNaffBobFace and once again it is a great pleasure in reading your thoughts. While I am not a fan of the vernacular use of the words concensual in regards to a pvp experience as its often attempted to tie in to a far more negative event and the emotional repugnant of it as if pvp its self should have a similar response. Your use was fair and did help clarify your meaning.

As for SC and PVP I have to agree with @Ayeteeone on this as this game is built around conflict and how it drives the risk reward balance. Your own telling of the miners and being told to hire escorts is a simple feed back of that risk reward. Do I as a miner take a larger risk and not hire escorts or do I reduce my risk and thus my reward by paying out for escorts services. Same goes for traders and any of the non combat professions. I would go so far as to argue that the non combat professions are very important as they create the flash point and meaning to combat more so then the scripted and dynamically created events. Think of any game and how thrilling and nail biting the npc encounter was until you learned the pathing and combat patterns at which point it becomes trivial. It's why pvp fps exist while a degree of meta come into the game its still always dynamic and unpredictable which gives the thrill and excitement rewards.

As for the current state of the game while pvp is there the game lacks a lot of the punishment game play loops that are needed to rein in the psychopath tendency while still allowing players to play both sides and create the dynamic tention that makes games fun. For when the pirates have to weight the risk reward of attacking the cargo ship and the possible loss of their shop against the possible pay day at fence rates along with added heat from bounties and increase security. Then you'll see the possibility. While there will always be those who will never want to engage in pvp while trading and mining and cry loudly when it happens about the unfairness of it all hopefully most will enjoy the struggle and cheer on the tales of victory snatched out of the jaws of sure defeat or the more likely tales of defeat for its not the tales of another flawless dungeon run that we remember but the leeroy Jenkins moments that are fondly retold.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

You have some great points @NaffNaffBobFace and once again it is a great pleasure in reading your thoughts. While I am not a fan of the vernacular use of the words concensual in regards to a pvp experience as its often attempted to tie in to a far more negative event and the emotional repugnant of it as if pvp its self should have a similar response. Your use was fair and did help clarify your meaning.

As for SC and PVP I have to agree with @Ayeteeone on this as this game is built around conflict and how it drives the risk reward balance. Your own telling of the miners and being told to hire escorts is a simple feed back of that risk reward. Do I as a miner take a larger risk and not hire escorts or do I reduce my risk and thus my reward by paying out for escorts services. Same goes for traders and any of the non combat professions. I would go so far as to argue that the non combat professions are very important as they create the flash point and meaning to combat more so then the scripted and dynamically created events. Think of any game and how thrilling and nail biting the npc encounter was until you learned the pathing and combat patterns at which point it becomes trivial. It's why pvp fps exist while a degree of meta come into the game its still always dynamic and unpredictable which gives the thrill and excitement rewards.

As for the current state of the game while pvp is there the game lacks a lot of the punishment game play loops that are needed to rein in the psychopath tendency while still allowing players to play both sides and create the dynamic tention that makes games fun. For when the pirates have to weight the risk reward of attacking the cargo ship and the possible loss of their shop against the possible pay day at fence rates along with added heat from bounties and increase security. Then you'll see the possibility. While there will always be those who will never want to engage in pvp while trading and mining and cry loudly when it happens about the unfairness of it all hopefully most will enjoy the struggle and cheer on the tales of victory snatched out of the jaws of sure defeat or the more likely tales of defeat for its not the tales of another flawless dungeon run that we remember but the leeroy Jenkins moments that are fondly retold.

Thank you for taking the time to read the concept and your kind considered response.

Interesting angle on the side of of Risk/Reward for noncombat PvP - what stands true for miners and traders too stands true for Combatants, let us look at that risk/reward from an aggressors angle: At present the risk for an Arrow pilot attacking a lone Prospector is minimal, it is a dominant interaction, but at this point in time the reward for our attacker is also minimal and up until recently was simply nonexistant. Things like extortion would have to be applied to get a reward from an interaction, and even now with cargo boxes spawning most fighter ships are not suitably equipped to take that reward having no interior and minimal cargo: if PoP dominance was being applied to claim bigger rewards at smaller risk from other players who are unable to Verses, it would be committed at the controls of Cutlasses and Freelancers to take their spoils back home to profit off, would they not...?

I do get your point about risk/reward in terms of submissives needing to hire dominance as protection and don't disagree, it is going to be part of the game and is indeed designed, but to this end I do not expect any single player will eventually have the ability to totally dominate other ship which does not have the means to compete with them (that leaves the door wide open for legitimate griefing) I don't expect a single gladius to be able to destroy a Starfarer etc, my expectation is a ship that large would be able to shrug off a lone light fighter without even the need to fire back... I dont expect any single fighter ship to be able to be able to take on/out another ship that is not able to compete with it in PvP without that other ship having a balance of alternate dominant aspects to protect itself for a short term... for example a Prospector may have to run but it should be able to tank damage from a single light fighter long enough to hit the Quantum Drive. They would be far from safe but they would not be totally victim either.

If players unable to compete must simply hire escorts, aggressors in turn may have to form Posse groups - even wolves have to hunt in a pack to take down larger prey or stop smaller targets from escaping...

Additional balance I also expect is in the lines of incentive - mining/trading payouts increased to be able to offer escorts more than they can earn off missions over the same timeframe, and indeed the payout of missions decreased in line to lead combat players to see escort as a valuable opportunity rather than a waste of time they could spend getting more in a shorter space of time elsewhere.

But yes, planty of balance and mechanics still to come, however I still contest that where there is no Verses, where there is no ability for one player to compete with another, there is no PvP and that in multi-diciplinary games such as SC there will be times of PoP even for combat players in regard to Runners, and if we make this apparent a lot of accusations and false defences will be rendered mute: No, their attacking your lone defenseless ship isn't always griefing, no your attacking a lone defenceless ship isn't always PvP, and no the concept of assumed consent is mute too. If you are forcing yourself on someone else, just accept the reality of the situation: You are forcing yourself on someone else :-)

 

[Vavrik]

A Prospector is not a physically defendable ship. Every Prospector owner knows this. But with the high risk, also comes high rewards. But it is not worth combat to protect the ore, and it's not worth paying a ransom. So why would you? To save an hour or two? Most miners don't even wear heavy armor anymore. Some even fly in their skivvies. Reduces the risk to funds in the bank. Also by the way, a Prospector (or MOLE) gets no reward while they're mining or even taking ore back to the station to refine. The reward only comes after the refining process when the ore has been turned into cargo. It still needs to be transported to market in order to be worth anything. But prospector miners - stop looking down at your rock. Make sure you can see your surroundings, including the horizon. That way you can see the pings of other nearby ships. You can sometimes see them on your radar. As a Prospector pilot, my tolerance for nearby players is extremely low.

Trade also has high risk and high rewards, but the cost of taking unnecessary risk can be devastating. Unlike the Miners, you have to buy the entire cargo, then transport it to where you can sell it. If your ship is attacked and you lose, you lose everything. If you win the combat, you can be attacked again and again by others during the same trip. Your ship can also be attacked while you're buying the cargo, and if it explodes then, you're just totally out of luck. If it's a C2 worth of cargo, you're also an idiot. A C2 can last a fairly long time in combat, often enough time to QT away. But you're still depending on luck. That's not good business.

ROC and Hand mining are also included in the high risk, high rewards but they have more to lose than the Prospector or MOLE pilots, because they basically need to wear armor. ROC miners also risk whatever is in the ship that brought the ROC to the ground in.

But you CAN counter these threats. It's all about risk tolerance. It's not even hard. If you notice, more and more groups of players are finding that when they operate together, they are more successful. Fighter pilots know this better than miners or traders. Notice that and plan accordingly. (Even Prospectors can take advantage of group play to stay safer than they otherwise would be.) But you need a clear communications channel to your group, that means being in Discord, in a channel for your group.

If you don't like that, or you like playing alone - fine. Its your risk, and that means you're going to occasionally where it. Just be honest with yourself.

 

[Cugino83]

I red all the wall of text of @NaffNaffBobFace (I've really done that!) and I agree 100% on your analisys (?): in the current game state there is more PoP then PvP especially becouse there is basically no conseguence for the agressor part.
I bet in the future a PoP player that act like a mass murderer will suffer different conseguences: outside of prison time (that I assume will be extended in the future), there will be more restriction on action you could take due to restricted access to station and services, but also do to the change in the possible change in teh enviroment.
Abount envoromental changes I'm not referring on some strange natural fenomenal of course, but on the summon of "law enforcers" being them UEE navy that storm a system with several corvette and fighters to actually deal with threats, but also (and may be in conseguence of this) other "non lawfull" faction: after all if you are a drugn dealer or a smuggler the last thing you'll like is to draw attentions of law force since that make your movement and business more difficult.
Same thing for treading: too many attacs on a valuable route and that route will be less valuable, so less target to pray on for pirate, and less material in the system (plus the eventualy increase of law enforcing) and the conseguences, even if not directly affect the single player, will affect him and anyone else in the area.

On the other side of the problem there are player who are generally not interested in the combat or PvP part of the games, that assume they'll be left alone just for that.
Miner are an example (and salvager will too in the near future), and they'll should learn to prevent un-wanted attention.
As @Vavrik state if you are out there alone, be it for mining, salvaging, box deliver or whatever, you should be extreamely carefull when you encounter other players, especially if you are in a remote area where encountering someone else should be a rare thing.
Outisde of safe area the "unfrendly ultill proven otherwise" should be a best practice for every one, even if the other player is not in a combat ship or wear a combat equipment.

 

[Bambooza]

Thank you for taking the time to read the concept and your kind considered response.

Interesting angle on the side of of Risk/Reward for noncombat PvP - what stands true for miners and traders too stands true for Combatents, let us look at that risk/reward from an agressors angle: At present the risk for an Arrow pilot attacking a lone Prospector is minimal, it is a dominant interaction, but at this point in time the reward for our attacker is also minimal and up until recently was simply nonexistant. Things like extortion would have to be applied to get a reward from an interaction, and even now with cargo boxes spawning most fighter ships are not suitablely equipped to take that reward having no interior and minimal cargo: if PoP dominance was being applied to claim bigger rewards at smaller risk from other players who are unable to Verses, it would be committed at the controls of Cutlasses and Freelancers to take their spoils back home to profit off, would they not...?

I do get your point about risk/reward in terms of submissives needing to hire dominance as protection and don't disagree, it is going to be part of the game and is indeed designed, but to this end I do not expect any single player will eventually have the ability to totally dominate other ship which does not have the means to compete with them (that leaves the door wide open for legitamate griefing) I don't expect a single gladius to be able to destroy a Starfarer etc, my expectation is a ship that large would be able to shrug off a lone light fighter without even the need to fire back... I dont expect any single fighter ship to be able to be able to take on/out another ship that is not able to competewith it in PvP without that other ship having a balance of alternate dominant aspectd to protect itself for a short term... for example a Prospector may have to run but it should be able to tank damage from a single light fighter long enough to hit the Quantum Drive. They would be far from safe but they would not be totally victim either.

If players unable to compete must simply hire escorts, agressors in turn may have to form Posse groups - even wolves have to hunt in a pack to take down larger prey or stop smaller targets from escaping...

Additional balance I also expect is in the lines of incentive - mining/trading payouts increased to be able to offer escorts more than they can earn off missions over the same timeframe, and indeed the payout of missions decreased in line to lead combat players to see escort as a valueable oppertunity rather than a waste of time they could spend getting more in a shorter space of time elsewhere.

But yes, planty of balance and mechanics still to come, however I still contest that where there is no Verses, where there is no ability for one player to compete with another, there is no PvP and that in multi-diciplinary games such as SC there will be times of PoP even for combat players in regard to Runners, and if we make this apparent a lot of accusations and false defences will be rendered mute: No, their attacking your lone defenseless ship isn't always griefing, no your attacking a lone defenceless ship isn't always PvP, and no the concept of apllied concent is mute too. If you are forcing yourself on someone else, just accept the reality of the situation: You are forcing yourself on someone else :-)

Combat balance is hard to get right and given that this whole game hinges on that I am glad they have a team tweeking the experience to push it to a state they want.

One thing that I am reminded of is their use of rock paper scissors and I think it's still a great anology of what they are attempting to achieve which in part seems a bit counter to your expressed wants. As you said if your ship of choice doesn't have the necessary tools to engage the arrow then it should either be able to tank it or be able to flee the situation. And while I think to a degree those options sort of exist I am also reminded that paper does not have an opertunity to counter scissors like rock cannot hope to win against it. That a miner in a prospector when caught by the arrow does not have much options left as it cannot outrun or tank the damage long enough to spool up and jump away. While at the same time the arrow can shoot and blow up the prospector it is truly a loose loose prospect for the pirate due to the cost with no rewards.

And your right the trade professions like mining and expessaly trading will require escorts and thus push players to play together and fullfill the multi-player aspect. And in doing so force the pirates to group up to have a chance and in doing so start to create very dynamic situations that have more probability of an unknown outcome. Where the prospector vs arrow match up us very one sided throw in several prospectors and a warden vs several buccaneers and a mantis and the fight turns into a true match up. But even when playing solo its fully expected a prospector is going to get interdicted by npc pirates and in the future pirate encounters will spawn near you and in all cases duck and run at the first sign of trouble is your only option. But as for the interdiction you really don't have any options.

While I agree with you that the trading and mining need more economic balance passes to help paying for escorts the other thing it shouldn't be just you paying for escorts but several miners pooling resources to pay for escorts.

 

[Sky Captain]

Its somewhat a problem of 'PVP scale' too.

Enabling PVP at the individual level where there are no factions (i.e., nobody is on any 'side') leads to unpredictable chaos at the individual player level that requires other forms of balancing.

Enabling PVP at the factional level (i.e, players take one of two or three sides, a direction that many 'PVP MMOs' have taken in the last two decades) has a way of solving much of that.

So far, Star Citizen's design lacks 'factional' PVP. We can't choose to roll a 'Vanduul' character, for example. We cannot 'formally' role play the UEE in PVP, we can only take the role of thug in PVP.

My hunch for what's next? They won't solve this with racial factions (humans vs aliens). They will solve it with 'guild' factions, allowing anyone to choose to go 'open PVP' beyond that. Balancing it at a complete open individual level will be too hard.

We'll see.

 

[Bambooza]

Its somewhat a problem of 'PVP scale' too.

Enabling PVP at the individual level where there are no factions (i.e., nobody is on any 'side') leads to unpredictable chaos at the individual player level that requires other forms of balancing.

Enabling PVP at the factional level (i.e, players take one of two or three sides, a direction that many 'PVP MMOs' have taken in the last two decades) has a way of solving much of that.

So far, Star Citizen's design lacks 'factional' PVP. We can't choose to roll a 'Vanduul' character, for example. We cannot 'formally' role play the UEE in PVP, we can only take the role of thug in PVP.

My hunch for what's next? They won't solve this with racial factions (humans vs aliens). They will solve it with 'guild' factions, allowing anyone to choose to go 'open PVP' beyond that. Balancing it at a complete open individual level will be too hard.

We'll see.

Your right in the need for factions and I am seeing that in the form of orgs and the reputation system.

 

[Cugino83]

Your right in the need for factions and I am seeing that in the form of orgs and the reputation system.

True, but that need to be integrated in the game itself and not being a separate "lore" thing that live in the CIG site only.
Also, while there is a sort of reputation in game at the moment, there is a need for a "long time" reputation that goes further then the current one, one that can keep track of the long time behavior of a player/ORG during the whole player's time and can't be "reset" by spending some time in a prison (that is a short time reputation that we have right now).

All this features has already been discuss by CIG in several occasion as the final goal but so far very little, if nothing at all, has been implemented.... not even some org logo or in-game identifier for org-mate and that is a seveer limitation for some aspect: if you know that an ORG sponsor themself as crime sindicate is more likely to have player that will pray on you if they have the opportuniity, while ORGs that present themself as more "chill out" ORG will be less likely to do those aggressive game play.
Of course the while ORG category system could be "abuse" for deceiving others, but that is also part of the game and, if and ORG abuse of it, they could be easily be spotted and "blow theyr cover"... a game of mirror and deceiving that could be interesting and open up new possibility.

 

[Bambooza]

if you know that an ORG sponsor themself as crime sindicate is more likely to have player that will pray on you if they have the opportuniity

Just what we need mantis used to stop you so that these orgs can pray on you.


But your right there is a lot of that system that has not been implemented that really needs to be. As for the length I am not sure what time period the rep should last for as they're needs to be some flexibility in allowing players to change their play style but it also needs to last long enough. But at the same time perhapes it should more closely mimik the real world we're we don't have rating above our heads

 

[Vavrik]

But at the same time perhapes it should more closely mimik the real world we're we don't have rating above our heads

But you do have rating systems hanging over your head. You have a credit score, you have an insurance risk (for every conceivable insurance), you have a tax score for your state and federally - that has a risk assessment attached for every state you work in or inhabit (You seriously don't want "nexus" That is a fast way to turn up on everyone's "randomly audit this guy" list.) And Airlines have a rating system too. Be anonymous to airlines or enjoy your next trip to the airport and back home.
That's just the US. Some other places get a little more, some have a little less. I suspect the "less" means they have some other way to track and rate you.

Gawd I love living in the 21st century.

Oh yeah. My wife has a rating system too. All I can tell you is it seems to go from 10 to 0 even faster than my insurance.

 

[Bambooza]

Very true all these rating systems exist and are mutable but I was talking about there is not yet a litteral rating number above your head that those near you can see. While these values should exist in the game it is my hope that other players will not be able to see them as a overlay when looking at your char. That there is a degree of mystery as to the ratings of everyone around you unless you've meet them before and have them on your friend or enemy list.

 

[maynard]

I think you meant 'versus' when you said 'verses'

either way there is a lot of food for thought here

where does non-consensual PVP/POP cross the line into griefing?

'hire an escort' is economically unrealistic until you reach massive scale

I have long been a proponent of a sovereignty mechanic like Eve Online's ro empower Orgs to control access to areas of space

there are good reasons for not copying Eve too closely

but the devs shouldn't reject the good ideas just because they didn't come up with them first

 

[Cugino83]

Very true all these rating systems exist and are mutable but I was talking about there is not yet a litteral rating number above your head that those near you can see. While these values should exist in the game it is my hope that other players will not be able to see them as a overlay when looking at your char. That there is a degree of mystery as to the ratings of everyone around you unless you've meet them before and have them on your friend or enemy list.

I agree with that and in fact I actually like that in Sc you don't see a player name over the others head, just on your party member.
i don't even thik you should need something like that honestly: in cityes and medium developed outpost local security should be able to keep less lawfull player (and NPC) at bay, with some exception, while in ship you are able to scan another ship and see a good degree of data.
Scanning option was mentioned some time ago even for FPS enviroment and is intended to be part of the BH gameplay.

Of course there should be come haking tecnic that a unlawfull player can use to cover his identity and ship data up to some point, while for NPC simply the (bad)reputation could be a factor: a small outpost will probably recognize only very hight wanted cirminal, while the smaller one, especially if crime are committed in another system (maybe even one that is not directly connected to theyr own), should be safe untill tthey do somehting stupid.

But all of the above they feel to me more tided to the "good" unlawfull gameplay: the mas murder player wont give a s**t about covering they traces or apply those fine haking tecnique.... in those cases I think the good old solution of a mod with some limited item is the right way to deal on: it work in every single MMO so far competitive or not, and there is no need ot reinvent the wheel onther time.
Worst case scenario: permanent ban...

 

[Shadow Reaper]

. . .the mass murder player wont give a s**t about covering they traces or apply those fine hacking technique. in those cases I think the good old solution of a mod with some limited item is the right way to deal on: it work in every single MMO so far competitive or not, and there is no need to reinvent the wheel on their time.
Worst case scenario: permanent ban...

I think officially, CIGs response to mass murderers is going to be bounties so large that it pays for teams of bounty hunters to chase them. Griefers they will punt, but horrific outlaws of great skill are intended. If Avenger_One earns a multi-million aUEC bounty, you can rest assured that a team will go after him, and that will make dramatic gameplay. I am no great sympathizer with outlaw activity, but I agree there is a place for it in game, otherwise there is little challenge for the Bounty Hunters. They need hard targets to keep it all interesting, which means they need PvP.

This thread is huge, so pardon if I skimmed over something that appears is missing. I think it's super important to recognize that risks/rewards are intended to scale system to system. Once we all have a choice of many systems, we'll have a spectrum available to us to choose our own level of risk and reward. Core systems will then have so much security that outlaws will virtually never appear, or if they do they'll be "cleansed" immediately by both hunters and AI security. Fringe systems will have almost no security and offer the highest rewards for virtually all activity, especially exploration. Understanding this is the same to say "pirates can get away with this, for now."

I'm guessing someone already said this and I missed it.

 

[breadbin]

I think officially, CIGs response to mass murderers is going to be bounties so large that it pays for teams of bounty hunters to chase them. Griefers they will punt, but horrific outlaws of great skill are intended. If Avenger_One earns a multi-million aUEC bounty, you can rest assured that a team will go after him, and that will make dramatic gameplay. I am no great sympathizer with outlaw activity, but I agree there is a place for it in game, otherwise there is little challenge for the Bounty Hunters. They need hard targets to keep it all interesting, which means they need PvP.

This thread is huge, so pardon if I skimmed over something that appears is missing. I think it's super important to recognize that risks/rewards are intended to scale system to system. Once we all have a choice of many systems, we'll have a spectrum available to us to choose our own level of risk and reward. Core systems will then have so much security that outlaws will virtually never appear, or if they do they'll be "cleansed" immediately by both hunters and AI security. Fringe systems will have almost no security and offer the highest rewards for virtually all activity, especially exploration. Understanding this is the same to say "pirates can get away with this, for now."

I'm guessing someone already said this and I missed it.

Get that bounty so huge there is no safe harbour from the unrelenting storm of players chasing them down. Even fellow pirates and their stations begin to eye their former comrades with a glint in their eye. Done right, with enough incentive, all you need is an ever-escalating bounty system. Problem is making it so you can't abuse it to get rich, that's the real issue.