+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: Reducing pvp death consequences to avoid ''gank'' rants. (/showthread.php?tid=92857)
Reducing pvp death consequences to avoid ''gank'' rants. - sindroms - 01-21-2013
Remember the event servers we had before 86 came out? LN vs RM, KNF-BAF-GRN brawl, my own servers for OC-Cor, GMG-RM and so on?
Did you see anyone complaining about people using overwhelming force to take them out? Perhaps, but there is always SOMEONE, who whines about it.
How I see it, it was because there was little to no consequences upon a pvp death. Obviously, this cannot be done on the main server, because of balance issues and each of us has experienced the problem at least once, when someone annoying keeps re-engaging you every time you kill them. However, perhaps we can further reduce the system kill time.
I remember we had it at 6 hours at some point, if I am not mistaken. Back then, whining about ganking was even more of an issue.
But what if we reduced it to two hours? Or perhaps even one, though that might be stretching it a bit.
My point is, if the person will not feel that he has been denied access to his primary play area for multiple hours because of someone using a larger force against them, people would be less jelly about it.
This is coming from me, who sends Torpeodes against LNS caps. I am pretty sure they would like to return to the system sooner rather than half a day later. I am also sure that every one of us has experienced the moment, when your parents (If you are still living with them) give you only a limited time at the PC.
Less restrictions, more fun, more pew and perhaps a bit of RP somewhere in the middle.
My two cents.
RE: Reducing pvp death consequences to avoid ''gank'' rants. - Shintaz - 01-21-2013
I find the 4 hour penalty quite fair to be honest.Also you using terms as "jelly" and more "pew pew" as arguments of offering an idea is doomed for failure.And it's quite simple actually, don't DIE.
If you are going in against a foe that is going to destroy you, you should face the consequences instead of being allowed to "derp" around and get away with it.Also the 4 hour period is not only there to prevent "pew pew" it serves a much greater purpose of system control.
RE: Reducing pvp death consequences to avoid ''gank'' rants. - sindroms - 01-21-2013
True, but at the same time system control is pretty non existant, because most players allow themselves to enter the system again before 4 hours have passed, if the player who killed them leaves it. Obviously not instantly, but, for example, LNS after Uboat raids in NY. Or Corsairs/Outcasts returning to their home system after the raid is over even though they have died a hour or two ago.
In these situations, there is no real system control, since the attackers have left two hours ago. Obviously noone would mind the player coming back, if by doing so he is not hindering anything. Usually we view the 4hour rule only when the player returns to the system while the battle is still taking place, or when the victors have pushed the defense back to dock on the planet and are gloating over system comms.
RE: Reducing pvp death consequences to avoid ''gank'' rants. - Shintaz - 01-21-2013
Valid point, but if you reduce the penalty there will be incidents of particular individuals abusing it to settle scores.Or the ones who are overly mad at the outcomes of battles and wish to re-engage sooner.ALSO if there is going to be a big conflict between factions in a particular system.A bit of a longer penalty is still required in order to give players a chance to recuperate after a fight.Else it would be constant assaults untill one faction loses its playerbase at certain daytimes.
RE: Reducing pvp death consequences to avoid ''gank'' rants. - sindroms - 01-21-2013
Exactly, that is why I mentioned reducing the cooldown, true, but perhaps no less than 2 hours. That is still enough time for things to calm down. As for the constant battle phenominon...I suppose that was the reason why the event servers were fun.
I mean, as an example, if you are a capship captain and have invested hours upon days upon weeks to get your cap8 cloakship, you might as well deserve to use it a bit more. But again, I agree that reducing the time might bring a few more issues, but about exploiting it, let us face it, people exploit everything. There is no real way to help it. Just like they would exploit the reduced cooldown time, they would exploit the current one by killing players and keeping them out of the system all the time. Such examples are mining sites and pirates, for example.
So in either way, there will be problems. We just need to figure out which of the two would have less of them.
RE: Reducing pvp death consequences to avoid ''gank'' rants. - Shintaz - 01-21-2013
Fair enough, I've seen people do friendly-fire so they can claim the kills and allow the victims back into the system.So I guess there is no way of stopping people from exploiting it.
The only issue would be the transition and the effects of it.Certainly would keep the lawfulls more entertained.
RE: Reducing pvp death consequences to avoid ''gank'' rants. - sindroms - 01-21-2013
Perhaps, but it would depend on the area.
Right now, the unlawful/lawful ratio in, say, New York is a bit unbalanced, so I doubt the lawfuls would be too glad for the chance of pirates returning sooner rather than later after they (finally) get them out of New York.
My suggestion at some point, was to introduce ''battle areas'' where the 4 hour rule was reduced. Such places were, say, Leeds for BAF-GRN fun, Hudson and Baffin for LN-RM fun and so on. So people have a place to just let it rip, but at the same time, keeping the overall ''control'' factor over more populated systems.
RE: Reducing pvp death consequences to avoid ''gank'' rants. - Shintaz - 01-21-2013
Ah, so specific areas that are going to be titles something as Warzones of sorts.It could work if those areas were more erm. Out of the new playerbase reach? For example that new players would not have to become targets of such change.Also if that would happen you would have to take into account the traders.Trading takes time to travel and dealing with all the hostility in such warzones ( which would be populated for such change of early return) . A lot of thinking would have to be done about this.
RE: Reducing pvp death consequences to avoid ''gank'' rants. - sindroms - 01-21-2013
This would be fun if some ''blockade running'' routes went through such dangerous territories. I really miss the blockades in Texas and Hambrugh.
RE: Reducing pvp death consequences to avoid ''gank'' rants. - Echelon - 01-21-2013
Take this... How bout Instead of 4 Hour wait period for Re-entering a system after pvp death. we lower that allitle. but keep the 4 hour idea of not re-engageing the person/ (or people who you fought) who killed you for 4 hours?