Random thought regarding pvp, I'm just throw it out there

[Namcigam]

I just thought of a way that you could remove the need of a safe zone that's really simple I think. no safe zones but you can only attack ships that have weapons. You would have to come up with a reward system for engaging in pvp per kill or damage done etc. That way haulers that aren't pvping are hopeless victims. Just a random thought I thought I'd put out there. 

[Namcigam]

It's ok I got my big boy pants on I can be wrong...

[Namcigam]

A Non-Combat Ship is a classification for vessels within the universe. Non-Combat Ships, as the name suggests, are vessels that are not fitted out for combat having either very minor or nonexistent weapons and are susceptible to being destroyed by enemy forces.

 

However, I don't think I'm wrong.

[Nosomu]

I agree with the spirit of your idea Namcigam. I believe that removing safe zones around some of the planets might make gameplay more interesting for pvpers. I also believe that the subset of pvpers that focus on griefing rather than pvping for a strategic purpose should have more consequences for their actions than what is currently in-game. Ships that don’t equip weapons should also have defensive tools in my opinion.

[Namcigam]

Thanks, non trolling comments are hard to come by on this forum and I mentioned you're point in other comments the need for counter measures and some type of evasive maneuvers etc. This notion that haulers are supposed be fish in barrel is absurd to me.  

[blazemonger]

I do not think that the idea has merit as I do agree with thw notion that choosing to leave the safe zone much carry risk. That said though, what he game lacks currently is options for non combatant players to mitigate that risks. I really hope NQ gets around to bringing those in before they release as I can see many more just not leaving the safezone.

[GraXXoR]

3 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

 

Do us a favor, and next time you get those random thoughts, keep them to yourself.  I feel embarrassed for you.

Who pissed in your cornflakes? Or were you trying to score points in front of your boy/girlfriend?

a simple. I don’t agree with you would have sufficed. 
 

you’re the embarrassment. 
 

elite dangerous and Star Citizen both touted methods to completely avoid PvP in their kickstarter stages. 
 

elite promised a solo game mode where you don’t encounter other players and Star citizen promised a pvp slider. 
 

Naturally, only one of those games actually delivered a pvp free experience for those uninterested in having their play ruined by basement dwellers who seem to get a thrill and like to rub one out after verbally abusing other players on game forums or in game chat. 
 

I understand the OPs desire but feel that method would be open to abuse by simply and unfairly sidestepping any defenses or attack strategies orgs have put in place. 

[VandelayIndustries]

31 minutes ago, Deleted said:

 

Naturally, only one of those games actually delivered a pvp free experience for those uninterested in having their play ruined by basement dwellers who seem to get a thrill and like to rub one out after verbally abusing other players on game forums or in game chat. 
 

 

 

Yes, because anyone who pvps is a basement dweller.  Typical carebear speak.  Its a vidoe game, its not meant to horde all your useless pixels. 

[Namcigam]

I mean it's ok if you can only handle targets that can't shoot back ehh it's not that weird...

 

[VandelayIndustries]

1 minute ago, Namcigam said:

I mean it's ok if you can only handle targets that can't shoot back ehh it's not that weird...

 

 

You can say that all you want, doesn't make it true.  If you wanna believe I only shoot at people that cant shoot back go for it.  But you obviously lack any ability to understand game design, hence your absolute terrible suggestion. 

[TildaW4]

The idea of declaring as "non combatant" might be a trigger for some idea, but it has to be much more long term and with much more consequences for the player or org declaring "non combatant" than just not equipping weapons.

 

pvp players will come up with so many ways to take advantage of no-weapon ships during actual pvp, even if it is just to slow boat missions or high tier resources betweeen the outer planets and the markets at zero risk.

 

But even with meaningful restrictions like no L cores, fewer HQ tiles, etc, to be a neutral merchant / non combatant player - orgs will rather rely on alt accounts / alt orgs rather than outsource to real non combat players.

[CptLoRes]

10 hours ago, blazemonger said:

I do not think that the idea has merit as I do agree with thw notion that choosing to leave the safe zone much carry risk. That said though, what he game lacks currently is options for non combatant players to mitigate that risks. I really hope NQ gets around to bringing those in before they release as I can see many more just not leaving the safezone.

Yeah.. The PvP system is boring/bad and very seldom worth considering for non aggressive players. And NQ is making it worse by trying to force players to engage in PvP using their by now 'famous' quick patch approach making things like the asteroid scan notification system etc, instead of improving the PvP so that people would actually want to do it.

[Knight-Sevy]

The plan is to keep only the safe zone of Alioth Madis and Thades.

The other planets will one day become fully PvP (if the game survives).

 

There is no reason to allow the unarmed carrier to escape attack.
A PvP player is first and foremost a PvE player, and they probably do a lot more and better than the average PvE player.

 

Destroying undefended supply convoys is a war strategy. Protecting or destroying supply lines is strategically very interesting and important.

 

Games like Foxhole represent this very well for example and it is very entertaining.

 

Otherwise, as an IRL example, we can rely on the Second World War.
On the German side, U-boat fleets in the Atlantic sank hundreds of unprotected transports.

They were defeated only when the convoys organized to travel in groups and under escort.

 

This is what is missing on DU. PvE players are often solo and play in a very selfish or capitalist way.

 

On Ion dozens of freighters have been destroyed by only 1 or at most 2 combat ships of SNS (Legion).

Can't complain about massive gank.

There are several freighters leaving every day, but none are teaming up to defend themselves.

[GraXXoR]

10 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

 

Yes, because anyone who pvps is a basement dweller.  Typical carebear speak.  Its a vidoe game, its not meant to horde all your useless pixels. 

Oof, sorry, I didn't realise I hit so close to home. I was just selecting the level of my language to match the audience.

Who is a typical Carebear? I enjoy my PVP very much (in games where PVP actually requires flying or aiming skill - I have >1000 kills in Elite Dangerous CQC, thank you very much and used to be highly ranked when I still played that game, thank you very much) but despite liking shooting other players, I prefer WILLING TARGETS and I certainly would never stoop to calling "those who hate PVP" carebears... You HONESTLY, really think that this game's PVP sucks because of the builders? REALLY? In another one of your rantposts, you directly blamed the builders for why this game has no decent PVP.

 

4 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

 

The reason there is nothing to fight over is when even a hint of something is mentioned the carebears whine and scream and throw tantrums like a 2 year old and say they deserve access to all the games content without having to pvp. And that pvp should be purely optional. Well if it's "optional" then it can't be fought over. 

 

 

See? He just can't help being insulting.

 

So, how exactly does having people who like building prevent a programming team from coding proper, skill based, decent PVP elements into a game? I really want to know.

[blazemonger]

38 minutes ago, Deleted said:

proper, skill based, decent PVP elements 

 

Might be that would be too much to handle for some /s  

[blundertwink]

12 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

 

You can say that all you want, doesn't make it true.  If you wanna believe I only shoot at people that cant shoot back go for it.  But you obviously lack any ability to understand game design, hence your absolute terrible suggestion. 

 

Since you're an expert, how about posting one of your game designs here so we can see your overwhelming talents and see how someone that "understands game design" does things? 

 

Or...maybe stick to ideas on their merits instead of grade school insults. 

 

"You can say what you want, that doesn't make it true....but I'm going to call your idea terrible with no other explanation and that is true..." ? 

[Namcigam]

11 minutes ago, blundertwink said:

 

Since you're an expert, how about posting one of your game designs here so we can see your overwhelming talents and see how someone that "understands game design" does things? 

 

Or...maybe stick to ideas on their merits instead of grade school insults. 

 

"You can say what you want, that doesn't make it true....but I'm going to call your idea terrible with no other explanation and that is true..." ? 

I almost had to bust out the care bear stare on that one...

[VandelayIndustries]

4 hours ago, Knight-Sevy said:

The plan is to keep only the safe zone of Alioth Madis and Thades.

The other planets will one day become fully PvP (if the game survives).

 

There is no reason to allow the unarmed carrier to escape attack.
A PvP player is first and foremost a PvE player, and they probably do a lot more and better than the average PvE player.

 

Destroying undefended supply convoys is a war strategy. Protecting or destroying supply lines is strategically very interesting and important.

 

Games like Foxhole represent this very well for example and it is very entertaining.

 

Otherwise, as an IRL example, we can rely on the Second World War.
On the German side, U-boat fleets in the Atlantic sank hundreds of unprotected transports.

They were defeated only when the convoys organized to travel in groups and under escort.

 

This is what is missing on DU. PvE players are often solo and play in a very selfish or capitalist way.

 

On Ion dozens of freighters have been destroyed by only 1 or at most 2 combat ships of SNS (Legion).

Can't complain about massive gank.

There are several freighters leaving every day, but none are teaming up to defend themselves.

 

Exactly,  and if NQ doesn't fix this, Don't see the game going anywhere long term. 

[OrionSteed]

I'm not a PvP type, but for this game to thrive, it NEEDS PvP. The only PvP based game I've involved myself in and played was Dark Age of Camelot many moons ago lol.  There, I feel they had the perfect system.  "Realm" based combat where the side you fought for gained bonuses if you held one of the three realm relics.  Going after these relics was an arduous task, and if you succeeded, you were king of the hill.  Forts lost in a realm territory weakened the fort with the relic.  It encouraged PvP fights on a daily basis, because even if you weren't strong enough to take the big enchilada, a smaller group could still take a lesser fort to weaken the big one and help the realm.  Why not put some middle ground in this game with something fantastic to take back to your faction where they enjoy bonuses of some type? Right now there's no focus to PvP.  It's completely random to run into someone.  Maybe they have something in mind when atmo and territory pvp comes out soon, but without some game mechanic encouraging it, I feel that there's no point.  Give the PvP'ers something worthy of bringing their guns to battle instead of unarmed haulers. Spice it up a bit!