Forums » Suggestions
...and one that is accentuated by the imbalance of forces between factions.
I would propose a system that gives an XP penalty when more than two PCs engage and destroy another lone PC. The penalty should be greater if the combat level of the lone PC is lower than the average level of the players ganking them.
Another thing that could be done to reduce ganking issues, is to make it so a PK is not given to a player who kills another player with the assistance of a third player... I don't think it's pertinent to dock XP for 2-on-1, as it can happen accidentally at times, but when there are three, four, or more players ganging up on a lone trader or fighter, (often times repeatedly), the lack of XP penalty deterrance is disturbing...
...and to be quite honest, I'm tired of giving gankers PKs, and being impeded in my own efforts by them. Fighting three other players solo is only fun if you can win at least 1/3 of the time (this is my opinion). The problem is, that there's no realistic way to win that often, especially when they run after being damaged and/or tag-team to kill you.
thoughts?
I would propose a system that gives an XP penalty when more than two PCs engage and destroy another lone PC. The penalty should be greater if the combat level of the lone PC is lower than the average level of the players ganking them.
Another thing that could be done to reduce ganking issues, is to make it so a PK is not given to a player who kills another player with the assistance of a third player... I don't think it's pertinent to dock XP for 2-on-1, as it can happen accidentally at times, but when there are three, four, or more players ganging up on a lone trader or fighter, (often times repeatedly), the lack of XP penalty deterrance is disturbing...
...and to be quite honest, I'm tired of giving gankers PKs, and being impeded in my own efforts by them. Fighting three other players solo is only fun if you can win at least 1/3 of the time (this is my opinion). The problem is, that there's no realistic way to win that often, especially when they run after being damaged and/or tag-team to kill you.
thoughts?
/me hates XP penalties.
Even aside from my dislike for XP penalties, I don't think this is something that can be done easily. How do you determine when the sides are imbalanced? Consider: Side A vs. Side B, both sides have 2, they're even, and wouldn't deserve any penalty, right? But, if both ships in Side A focus fire on one ship in Side B, and ignore the other ship in Side B, how is the game going to know that it isn't 2v1?
Also, what about larger scale battles? If it's 10v9, does the side with 10 deserver a penalty? What about 100v99? Or 50v25?
Even aside from my dislike for XP penalties, I don't think this is something that can be done easily. How do you determine when the sides are imbalanced? Consider: Side A vs. Side B, both sides have 2, they're even, and wouldn't deserve any penalty, right? But, if both ships in Side A focus fire on one ship in Side B, and ignore the other ship in Side B, how is the game going to know that it isn't 2v1?
Also, what about larger scale battles? If it's 10v9, does the side with 10 deserver a penalty? What about 100v99? Or 50v25?
an uneven battle isn't what I'm trying to combat here. in the event of the 10v9 scenario, perhaps a measure of the PCs in a sector would be set to override the penalty if the engaged players amount to a certian percentage on one side.
(Read: If >=5 players in sector, and |alliedplayers%|>33, then exempt (alliedplayers would have to be determined via faction standing most likely))
Something like that would force the game to look at the larger picture of the battle in addition to the smaller one of the current engagement, making erroneous XP hits less likely (or maybe we could even go faction hits?)
Best way I can think of to implement it is to have the system send up red flags if a player takes damage from other players in turn within a certian span of time (say, 15 seconds) so as to deter another player from engaing one who is already in combat. (or, rather, a fourth player engaing one who is already fighting two others, as 2v1 isn't exactly horribly weighted, or a priority - I killed one ganker in 2v1 today, and would have had the other too if they hadn't run after being damaged significantly)
Nobody likes being triple-teamed in a fight. It's something you have to be willing to accept in large-scale battles with many combatants from both sides, but when that's not the case (such as fighting alone), the enjoyability of the game really takes a hit.
(Read: If >=5 players in sector, and |alliedplayers%|>33, then exempt (alliedplayers would have to be determined via faction standing most likely))
Something like that would force the game to look at the larger picture of the battle in addition to the smaller one of the current engagement, making erroneous XP hits less likely (or maybe we could even go faction hits?)
Best way I can think of to implement it is to have the system send up red flags if a player takes damage from other players in turn within a certian span of time (say, 15 seconds) so as to deter another player from engaing one who is already in combat. (or, rather, a fourth player engaing one who is already fighting two others, as 2v1 isn't exactly horribly weighted, or a priority - I killed one ganker in 2v1 today, and would have had the other too if they hadn't run after being damaged significantly)
Nobody likes being triple-teamed in a fight. It's something you have to be willing to accept in large-scale battles with many combatants from both sides, but when that's not the case (such as fighting alone), the enjoyability of the game really takes a hit.
I still think it's pretty much impossible to do. There's just way too many complications. Say there's 4 players in a sector, 2 UIT, 1 Itani, and 1 Serco. Both UIT players have good standing with all factions, the Itani and Serco players both have bad standing with the other nation. How do you know which side of the fight the UIT players are on? Or are they not on either side, but making up their own side, trying to kill both the Itani and the Serco player? I can't see any way for the game engine to accurately determine when someone's being "ganked".
And, as it happens, I love being triple teamed. It gets the adrenaline going. But even aside from my personal preferences, I can come up with many situations when I think you & most others would agree that 2 or more players attacking a single player is acceptable. CtC is an easy example: if 3 players are escorting a CtC convoy, and one player tries to attack it, all three players are completely justified in teaming up to kill the attacker.
And, as it happens, I love being triple teamed. It gets the adrenaline going. But even aside from my personal preferences, I can come up with many situations when I think you & most others would agree that 2 or more players attacking a single player is acceptable. CtC is an easy example: if 3 players are escorting a CtC convoy, and one player tries to attack it, all three players are completely justified in teaming up to kill the attacker.
There are several very simple solutions to combat getting ganked repeatedly:
1. Get some buddies, and return the favor
2. Leave and come back later, since your aggressors will probably be gone
3. Ask the other guys for a more even fight (But don't just yell "GANKING SPAMMING BASITGES!!!111one" on 100)
There are probably others, depending on the situation. As it stands, however, "ganking" is not a bug or exploit within the game, and does not deserve to be treated like one. I fail to see why people should deserve to be penalized for achieving tactical control of a combat situation.
1. Get some buddies, and return the favor
2. Leave and come back later, since your aggressors will probably be gone
3. Ask the other guys for a more even fight (But don't just yell "GANKING SPAMMING BASITGES!!!111one" on 100)
There are probably others, depending on the situation. As it stands, however, "ganking" is not a bug or exploit within the game, and does not deserve to be treated like one. I fail to see why people should deserve to be penalized for achieving tactical control of a combat situation.
One thing I'd recommend is to keep moving. If the fight is between you and 3 opponents and they all have different ships (best case scenario), then usually the fastest ships will stay close while the heavies fall behind. Fight with the fast ship(s) until the heavies catch up, then get clear again, especially if they're trying to swarm you.
The other option, and one of my favourites (hi Nerde Verde :D ) is to grab a Prom Sky Command, MGC or other device lacking in subtlety and wade into the thick of it. You will probably die, but you can usually take down at least one of them. One for one is always good in my book.
The other option, and one of my favourites (hi Nerde Verde :D ) is to grab a Prom Sky Command, MGC or other device lacking in subtlety and wade into the thick of it. You will probably die, but you can usually take down at least one of them. One for one is always good in my book.
They can't tell if there was an assist, can it?
Ganking is an unfortunate 'style' some of folks use that, IMO, would be very hard to 'fix'. My two cents:
- XP bonus based on the damage inflicted. If a player has had his health reduced down to 5%, by pvp or bots, why should any other player get full merit for a kill on that player, just becuase he was the lucky guy to get the last shot? That's not skill. Same goes for the kill record.
- XP bonus based on the damage inflicted. If a player has had his health reduced down to 5%, by pvp or bots, why should any other player get full merit for a kill on that player, just becuase he was the lucky guy to get the last shot? That's not skill. Same goes for the kill record.
Wow. Another stupid carebear-friendly idea. Just because Incarnate said he'd change some things to decrease griefing does not mean that VO is now ATITD
Sorry Rogue, my point was not to excuse or condemn 'ganking'. It's not *my* style, but I don't expect it to go away. And to be truthful, while I prefer a 1:1 fight, in some scenarios the combined effort of multiple players are the only way to take down a single formibable adversary.
However, how would you feel if you had been battling a Hive sector where you had taken all the risks and gotten the Queen down to 2%; then I stuble through, spam a swarm and get the kill and the XP bonus?
Where's the skill in that?
What's the difference if it's a bot or a PC?
Nothing 'carebearish' at all about that. I'm just one that doesn't believe in 'to the scavengers, the spoils'.
However, how would you feel if you had been battling a Hive sector where you had taken all the risks and gotten the Queen down to 2%; then I stuble through, spam a swarm and get the kill and the XP bonus?
Where's the skill in that?
What's the difference if it's a bot or a PC?
Nothing 'carebearish' at all about that. I'm just one that doesn't believe in 'to the scavengers, the spoils'.
The assist credit idea for XP I've always supported. I would see it as yo uget a percentage of the available XP based on how much damage you did. So if a queen normally gives 1000 Light Weapons XP, and you did 15% of the damage to her, you would get 150 Light Weapons XP.
However, my earlier post was in response to the thread-parent post.
However, my earlier post was in response to the thread-parent post.
The rewards for bot-kills *are* split proportionately between people who did damage to it (since at least December). If you are seeing that not work somewhere, it is a bug, so please report it.
And I'm sure we will apply that to PKs at some point too.
And I'm sure we will apply that to PKs at some point too.
Ah, but extend that to PKs too...
PS: I seem to remember getting full credit for queen kills regardless if anyone else shot it or not...
PS: I seem to remember getting full credit for queen kills regardless if anyone else shot it or not...
"other device lacking in subtlety" - Martin
I'm sorry... but that is one of the best ways I have heard certain ship layouts described.
If the people "ganking" you are of different nations... then I'd just turbo through their formation and hope that they hit each other, then continue running away.
I'm sorry... but that is one of the best ways I have heard certain ship layouts described.
If the people "ganking" you are of different nations... then I'd just turbo through their formation and hope that they hit each other, then continue running away.
The loot issue could be a problem when "epic" items are introduced.
Cunjo... if you find yourself triple-teamed, l-mines and rockets are a beautiful thing.
Cunjo if you find yourself triple teamed /msg me.
Beolach:
wasn't there some talk of a personalized hostility measure in future versions? if this were implemented, such a system would become much more feasible, and could probably be implemented...
Greengeek:
1 is diff when nobody of the same faction is on to assist you, (imbalance of forces) 2 is only a partial workaround, and doesn't make the game much fun overall... 3 only works when the other players WANT to fight fair, which is less often than I'd like (they bring their buddies even when you challenge one of them to 1v1...)
Martin: (("The other option, and one of my favourites (hi Nerde Verde :D ) is to grab a Prom Sky Command, MGC or other device lacking in subtlety and wade into the thick of it. You will probably die, but you can usually take down at least one of them. One for one is always good in my book."))
Done it many times, and will continue to do it. Can sometimes get two before being taken down :D
WillRoberts:
Very good =) incentives don't seem to stop many people though... which is why I was looking at somewhat more proactive options... even standing loss and XP loss don't make a diff to some players, and they are, unfortunately, the players who habitually present the problem in the first place.
Phaserlight:
L-mines are a waste of space... lol. I'd much rather use it for my rockets =D
...never had much luck with L-mines... they're easy to avoid, or even to run the gauntlet... plus a sortie doesn't stay in one place for long, so they're soon left behind...
Kixkizzle:
when you're on, kix, when you're on. ;)
wasn't there some talk of a personalized hostility measure in future versions? if this were implemented, such a system would become much more feasible, and could probably be implemented...
Greengeek:
1 is diff when nobody of the same faction is on to assist you, (imbalance of forces) 2 is only a partial workaround, and doesn't make the game much fun overall... 3 only works when the other players WANT to fight fair, which is less often than I'd like (they bring their buddies even when you challenge one of them to 1v1...)
Martin: (("The other option, and one of my favourites (hi Nerde Verde :D ) is to grab a Prom Sky Command, MGC or other device lacking in subtlety and wade into the thick of it. You will probably die, but you can usually take down at least one of them. One for one is always good in my book."))
Done it many times, and will continue to do it. Can sometimes get two before being taken down :D
WillRoberts:
Very good =) incentives don't seem to stop many people though... which is why I was looking at somewhat more proactive options... even standing loss and XP loss don't make a diff to some players, and they are, unfortunately, the players who habitually present the problem in the first place.
Phaserlight:
L-mines are a waste of space... lol. I'd much rather use it for my rockets =D
...never had much luck with L-mines... they're easy to avoid, or even to run the gauntlet... plus a sortie doesn't stay in one place for long, so they're soon left behind...
Kixkizzle:
when you're on, kix, when you're on. ;)
Ganking encourages group combat, and should lead to the ganked forming a group. Thus I think it good
Re: Cunjo
> Beolach:
> wasn't there some talk of a personalized hostility measure in future versions? if this were
> implemented, such a system would become much more feasible, and could probably be implemented...
No, I still don't think it would work. You mean that if there's three ships in a sector, A B & C, and A has specified that B & C are both enemy ships, then the game will know that A is being ganked by B & C? That's not always going to be the case. Say A in Itani, B is Serco, and C is UIT. C may not be working with B to gank A, he is just as likely to be working towards his own ends, which may or may not include killing A - or killing B, or killing both A & B. Also, it would be exploitable.
> Beolach:
> wasn't there some talk of a personalized hostility measure in future versions? if this were
> implemented, such a system would become much more feasible, and could probably be implemented...
No, I still don't think it would work. You mean that if there's three ships in a sector, A B & C, and A has specified that B & C are both enemy ships, then the game will know that A is being ganked by B & C? That's not always going to be the case. Say A in Itani, B is Serco, and C is UIT. C may not be working with B to gank A, he is just as likely to be working towards his own ends, which may or may not include killing A - or killing B, or killing both A & B. Also, it would be exploitable.