- Joined
- Mar 18, 2015
- Messages
- 2,709
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- PvP is a part of this game, and there are many players who enjoy it.
- PvE is also a part of this game, and there are many players who enjoy that.
- There is not a 100% crossover between the two areas, with the majority of players leaning more towards PvE than towards PvP.
- Many PvP players enjoy the danger aspect of being able to be attacked, many PvE players do not want to be randomly attacked.
- There are people that see "griefing" to be the main reason they play a given game (griefing defined here as meaning intentionally doing something for the express purpose of upsetting another player, which includes but is not limited to relentlessly attacking someone who cannot meaningfully fight back until they are forced off the server, either temporarily or permanently)
- PvP != griefing, griefing is an unwanted subset of PvP that does not represent all of PvP.
- There are always going to be problem players who will abuse any set of rules, PvE or PvP, in order to gain unfair advantages or benefits for themselves at the detriment of other players.
I believe we can also agree that flat out saying that either side wants to do away with the other, or to make it so that either side cannot play in the way they like is only going to make said side dig in it's heels. So, how do we reconcile the idea that one group wants to attack players, and the other set of players does not want to be attacked? I don't know, but I'd like to be a part of a constructive conversation on figuring it out.
I would posit that the following be considered a given:
- Each player has a right to be on a given server.
- Each player has a right to play on a given server whenever they like.
- Each player has a right to decide who they associate with or don't associate with.
- Each player has a right to play the game themselves, without having to depend on someone else to allow them to play.
- Galactic Conquest is not a valid gameplay style on an online server. It relies on the concept that one player controls everything, either directly or that other players are allowed to play only by paying "tribute" or otherwise submitting to a single player.
- Total War is not a valid gameplay style on an online server. The ability to destroy everything a player has is effectively a player enforced ban on another player.
So, given all of that, how do we make it so that PvP is a thing, but not to the point it actively dissuades new players? Lets see if we can't brainstorm some ideas that BOTH sides can hopefully agree to, given the above points. Remember brainstorming means tossing out whatever you can think of, it doesn't necessarily mean you are committed to any given idea, just that its being tossed out there, nor does it mean all ideas necessarily have to work together and can be contradictory.
So, here's a few ideas from me to kick things off:
- Home systems are "high sec".
Someone in their faction's home system (where their faction home is located) gain home base invulnerability throughout the system. This gives players a safe space to be in should they not want to participate in PvP. It also means that the player knows they have a fallback place with resources they are less likely to fret as much over losing everything, and hence more willing to risk what they have knowing its not an all or nothing outcome. - Something to fight over.
We need something to actually fight for. We need something beyond basic resources that we will want to have. Luxuries like in Civilization are one idea. But something that means we have to go out and take them so that no one can turtle in one system forever with everything they need. To create a King of the Hill style gameplay element where multiple factions can fight over that resource without needing to fight each other specifically (so that "winning" becomes control over the resource, not the complete destruction of the other faction).
As long as multiple types of resource/luxury are ideally required, a home station on a single system claiming it as in #1 shouldn't be too much of an issue as they would still need to venture out. - Make open space deadlier.
Right now, an attack on any entity a faction owns sets the entirety of both factions to war. What if being attacked in open space allowed for combat with the other ship without setting everyone to war? Being outside of your own space is dangerous, and you can get jumped without consequences to the other side. Attacking someone in their own space instantly declares war. - Replace the current space claiming system with something more akin to Influence. You can claim a system as your home system, but you can't just plop down a hidden block anywhere in another system that has to be found before it can be removed. Make it so you have to spend Faction Points to claim a system via your "influence", and FP to maintain a system, but also make it so that losing ships in those systems makes you lose influence. Meaning if you have no ships or stations in those influence systems, others can come in and "culture bomb" the system by spending their own FP to take it from you. Or if you have ships and stations there to defend the system, destroying them would make it easier and cheaper for them to take it.
Alternatively, it could be done similar to structured PvP in games like WoW where you have to have your people in a specific area long enough to claim the point. You go into unclaimed space, you build your station, it starts generating influence. You get enough influence in the system, and it claims automatically. Having ships and stations there and active builds influence, and having other faction ships/stations in an unclaimed system builds that influence for them as well, making contested space where you have to clear them out before you can fully claim it for yourself.
Combine with #3 so that your ships and stations claiming a sector aren't given the defense of "instant war", which makes it more clear that there is no real repercussion for attacking them out in the middle of nowhere. - Stop PvP for new players on a server entirely for X amount of time.
Attacking new players is a problem. It is also a problem that concerted efforts between multiple players can have a dozen people abuse the starting credits/blocks to destroy everything that isn't a faction base on a server (I've seen this happen more than once). If we disable PvP for new players entirely for say 24 or 48 hours, it gives new players ample time to set up in safety, while preventing the random driveby griefing squads from attacking servers as easily (as they would have to spend days before each character could even attack).
For me, the best way to both promote healthy and friendly PvP, protect those that don't want to PvP, and all around make the game better is going to revolve around changing the focus of PvP away from "Me vs. Them, as long as they exist I haven't won yet" to a more external goal where you are fighting for something, not just against someone. So that there can be a winner and a loser where the loser isn't crippled or completely destroyed in the process (but still could be crippled if they over-commit to their attack).
Give them a safe "home", and then make everywhere else but there deadlier. Those who want to one system turtle can do so safely and ignore the rest of the server if they want. Those who want to be big and powerful will have to venture out and expand in order to get that power, but they will have to defend every single system they take.
Which coincidentally would likely help promote multiplayer factions, as it would be beneficial to have multiple players defending multiple systems at once, instead of one player trying to jump back and forth between systems.
