Dying with Notoriety higher than 2 should mean no rebuys.

It's not something that can be disagreed on. Non-PvP players should NEVER be attacked, no matter what.

If your CMDR can encounter my CMDR, you're as much of PvP player as I am.

In Elite, there is no mission objective targeting a player.

Elite: Dangerous allows, even encourages, one to set their own objectives for their characters and to go about them in way of their own choosing.

Lack of an explicit metagame incentive does nothing at all to preclude the myriad of potentially implicit ones and even if it did, wouldn't make arbitrary ones less acceptable.

There are countless scenarios where the destruction of a CMDR vessel is both contextually plausible, well within the established characterization of a given CMDR, and incentivized by game mechanisms.

The vast majority of so-called PvPers don't do it for PP reasons though, they do it purely to gank and grief innocent players.

I'm not remotely convinced this is the case, but I am convinced it's irrelevant either way.

Not only does killing a player not work to get the objective done, it can also be counter-productive to do so, but who am I telling that.

This depends on the objective.

My objective is to play my character in a way consistent with that character's established history and motivations. Metagaming the snot out of the BGS is an annoyance the game encourages, but nothing mandates I pass up opportunities for more immersive behavior that may include having my character destroy the vessel of another.
 
First, to make it so there are potential consequences for ganking.

Second, if you need a PR that bad, either take it from an anarchy faction or idk do one of the Reactivate missions that pay 3 PRs for landing on an empty settlement.
Why would an explorer try to turn in exploration data in open? If you've got billions in exploration data, and you don't want to lose it, drop to PG or even Solo to turn it in. If you're like "But I want to stay in open", then you asked for that risk, you got ganked and paid the price for that decision.
 
It's not something that can be disagreed on. Non-PvP players should NEVER be attacked, no matter what.
Rubbish.

Are you trying to tell me piracy shouldn't exist, and if a pirate is attacked when trying to seize cargo from a mark, that the pirate shouldn't fight back?

If you are a non-PvP player who NEVER wants to be attacked, go to solo. If you're in Open, you've tacitly agreed that being attacked is OK... this is literally why Solo and PG exist.

If that's what you're asking for, then ask for what you really want. Remove PvP completely, remove crimes, ships and weapons clip through each other, job done.
Well, you may disagree, but you know that you wont win the BGS (nor the PP) game by pvp.
At best (worst?), all you can do is annoy the other cmdr and force him to either play in pg/solo or to block you.
Yes, I know how the BGS works, and that PvP is definitely a sub-optimal approach, but that doesn't invalidate it as an approach, nor does the fact Solo/PG exist... after all...
Does there need to be an objective? What about just fun?
... I'm not going to raise the spectre of Hotel California here, but while I'm no proponent of bad ideas like Open-Only BGS... this is literally Solo, PG and Open are what they are. As I said earlier, if you're in Open, that's tacit agreement that being attacked is on the cards. It's just common sense.

If that's not your bag, go Solo/PG. That is the mechanism to agree to PvP (Open), somewhat understood interactions (PG), or no player interactions (Solo).

But like Rat Catcher implies... do the thing that's fun for you. If non-consensual PvP isn't fun in your books, don't go Open.
 
Last edited:
As I said earlier, if you're in Open, that's tacit agreement that being attacked is on the cards. It's just common sense.
100% this, if I wan't to play and not be disturbed, that'll be in my PG, often with squadron mates, otherwise, guess where I hang out - Yes, there are gankers there, but not around every corner, my evasion skills are good, my ships not tissue paper and, unless they are really good, I'm unlikely to be another notch (or salty!).
 
Defensive engineering also means that they can outright ignore the authority response - if you've got shields in the thousands, the cops aren't going to deplete that in any remotely reasonable timeframe, which effectively means they can act with impunity. Likewise, there are hulltank builds that can happily sit there ganking at stations, particularly surface stations cough*farseer*cough and virtually ignore the station guns.
A very good point, they even removed restricted optional slots for passenger cabins on passenger cruisers. Just so they also could use Orcas as ganking ships. That also prevents them from expanding the number of slots on the Beluga, preventing it from being a pure hull-tank.
 
The game has NPCs for a reason, stick with them.
I think you must have somewhat missed that it's perfectly possible to pick up notoriety in solo doing completely normal PvE activities. I really fail to understand why one would want to punish PvE players with such a draconian measure. And please stop mixing up notoriety with PvE/PvP and the different modes, that's really far to lazy on an intellectual level and it's very hard to understand what you're on about...???

If you are on about PvP then please don't log into open where it's completely acceptable gameplay..
 
If you are a non-PvP player who NEVER wants to be attacked, go to solo. If you're in Open, you've tacitly agreed that being attacked is OK... this is literally why Solo and PG exist.

I disagree on this interpretation.
And FDev, enforcing the Block function seems to disagree too.

Basically, Open is not a PVP mode, but a social mode where cmdrs can encounter random commanders.
PVP encounters are possible, but that doesnt mean one has to agree to being attacked. And the chances to be attacked get close to zero with a well crafted block list
(not that i'm advertising using large block lists, i'm just pointing out that Open can be almost pvp free - and this is by design)

Conversely, PG is a "playing with friends" mode based on direct invites from the PG owner.
PVP is still possible - being in a PG does not exclude PVP or being attacked.

And Solo is the "i dont really need to deal with other cmdrs shenanigans" mode (or the "my internet connection is not good enough" mode)
It's not a NO-PVP mode, it's a No_Direct_Multiplayer mode since it also excludes PVE Coop Mode.

Edit:
I guess what i'm trying to say is PVP is purely optional in Elite, by design, and whoever tries to force PVP on another player may set themselves to disappointment
Sure, some players go along with this Open=PVP either because it suits them or because they dont know better.
 
Last edited:
The upshot is that hitpoint inflation enables ganking way more than DPS inflation does, but any argument to tone hitpoint inflation back gets accused of wanting to make it easier for gankers. Go figure.
Yes and no, in that it also makes defense a lot easier, and matched defense is really cheap. The weapons can't be more than 100% better than stock - even allowing for better sustained DPS from distributor and better time on target from enhanced drives; paper DPS won't go above +75%. So you only need to engineer your defense up by 100% to match their attack. Assuming you're mainly shield-tanking for defence (and PvE builds tend to) you can get +100% defence with either of
- G4 reinforced shield + 2 G4 heavy shield boosters
- G3 reinforced shield + 3 G3 heavy shield boosters
Those have trivial material requirements - much cheaper than a single one of the multiple G5 upgrades the attacker needs to be applying, and the G3 version only requires unlocking the Dweller and Lei Cheung who are very easy for non-combat pilots - and are also sufficiently useful in a PvE context that it doesn't generally require compromising the PvE build anyway.

The catch is that most defenders complaining about dying now couldn't survive a stock-vs-stock fight either, so a mere 100% defence boost to cancel out the attacker's engineering won't be sufficient.



If we're talking defence inflation, then 1.3 rather than 2.1 was the big one anyway. Pre-1.3, a FDL could have a 5A shield generator, giving it 470 MJ before sys pips.
After 1.3 it could have a 5A Prismatic and 4 shield boosters for 1070 MJ, and with careful power management stick a 4A SCB on top of that for another 550 MJ (though if taking the SCB too, 4A Prismatic and 5A SCB gives even more total health, since this is pre-engineering and you don't need to worry about Feedback Cascade)

Similarly the Anaconda could previously have 595 MJ with a 7A pre-1.3 ... or post-1.3 upgrade it to a Prismatic and slap on 6 shield boosters to get to 1500 MJ, and still have spare power and heatsink space to slap on a 6B SCB for another 1800 MJ on top of that for over 6 times its original strength.

Engineering of course pushed all this to even more comedic heights, but 1.3 was where the worst of the defence inflation came from.
 
being in a PG does not exclude PVP or being attacked.
Indeed it doesn't... All it needs is a healthy attitude toward all kinds of interaction, including seeing the rebuy / Rescue Rangers screen.
Sure, some players go along with this Open=PVP either because it suits them or because they dont know better.
Or even recognise the potential for PvP to occur and accept it as part of the freedom of meeting random players?

As you mentioned:
PVP encounters are possible, but that doesnt mean one has to agree to being attacked. And the chances to be attacked get close to zero with a well crafted block list
Naturally, my own block list is empty. My choice.
 
I disagree on this interpretation.
Sure
And FDev, enforcing the Block function seems to disagree too.
I can't see how that tracks at all
Basically, Open is not a PVP mode, but a social mode where cmdrs can encounter random commanders.
Sure... but...
PVP encounters are possible, but that doesnt mean one has to agree to being attacked.
Completely disagree. You agree to any interaction with other players, within the TOS. That you can block players does not preclude this.

I get the feeling your use of the word "social" in the previous sentence is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

I prefer the actual definition provided by FD in-game.

1680093119290.png


There is no suggestion here that those encounters will result in hostility or not.
And the chances to be attacked get close to zero with a well crafted block list
(not that i'm advertising using large block lists, i'm just pointing out that Open can be almost pvp free - and this is by design)
Won't disagree with that. But that still doesn't preclude attacking other players being an entirely valid game choice, just the same as using the block feature is entirely valid.
Conversely, PG is a "playing with friends" mode based on direct invites from the PG owner.
PVP is still possible - being in a PG does not exclude PVP or being attacked.

And Solo is the "i dont really need to deal with other cmdrs shenanigans" mode (or the "my internet connection is not good enough" mode)
It's not a NO-PVP mode, it's a No_Direct_Multiplayer mode since it also excludes PVE Coop Mode.

Edit:
I guess what i'm trying to say is PVP is purely optional in Elite, by design, and whoever tries to force PVP on another player may set themselves to disappointment
Sure, some players go along with this Open=PVP either because it suits them or because they dont know better.
Again, I won't disagree with any of this. Your position in this is much more reasonable tbh (and debatable, thus my responses) than the position hard-disagree with, which was:

The truth is that there's absolutely never a valid reason to ever attack a PVE player.
Attacking any player in open is entirely valid. That they may run off to solo/PG, block you or whatever, is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
This thread TL;DR, a bunch of care bears are sad because a ganker killed them while playing in open while refusing to play solo or in a private group, meanwhile, gankers are creating threads being a bunch of cry babies because nobody want to play in open with them.
 
To me it appears even worse! If I haven't misunderstood, some are proposing to punish both PvE and PvP players in a misguided attempt to reign in ganking.. :)
This is outrageous. Where are the ban-hammer-armed mods who come in to take the gankers away? Where are they? This kind of behavior is never tolerated in Open. You play like that they put you in jail. Right away. No trial, no nothing. Pirates, we have a special jail for pirates. You are stealing: right to jail. You are using system chat too much: right to jail, right away. Driving too fast: jail. Slow: jail. You are charging FSD too close to somebody else: you right to jail. You undermine Power? Believe it or not, jail. You overcharge lasers, also jail. Undermine, overcharge. You make an appointment with the Fuel Rats and you don't show up, believe it or not, jail, right away. We have the best PvE-ers in the world because of jail.
 
Personally I have no idea why the Pilots Federation covers insurance of notorious criminals. It's the kind of thing that would very quickly get under scrutiny of the in-game superpowers/important figures.
 
It's not something that can be disagreed on. Non-PvP players should NEVER be attacked, no matter what.
Play solo or in a private group you dumb pickle, they exists for a reason. I'm not a ganker but this type of comments makes me want to gank the jello out of you. Am I wrong? Oh god, Am I the baddie now? Well, better get that fully engineered Imperial Cutter with 99999999999999999999999 shield strength so I can gank 1 handed while eating a sandwich.
 
Can't believe this needs to be said out loud, but if your covered vehicle is involved in homicide your insurance provider should not have to pay. You should lose the ship and all engineering forever and ever.

Alternately, the user might be able to keep the base ship but lose any PP, tech broker, or engineered modules to be replaced by stock.
Game design where players lose their progress and have to repeat the same (often boring) game loops to get it back is a bad game design.

What you are asking for is to fix bad design by extending it to another part of the game.

E.g. explorer getting back from long trip loosing exploration data is being attacked loosing all week's long progress. No one gets benefits in this case.

New player just made credits to buy a ship is being destroyed in popular system having no rebuy. No one gets any benefits again, except someone bored enough to start killing helpless players.

Miner (or more rare trader) loosing their cargo they collected (transported) spending their playtime and destroyed by another player who doesn't even have cargo space to collect a fraction of that cargo.

How in my opinion it could be fixed:
  1. Get rid of the rebuy screen entirely, as it does not bring any value to the game, but some frustration for new players. Ships can be impended instead and require wasting credits or use alternative game loops to get them back. But it should be allowed to restore game assets players owned for less effort than it originally required to get these assets.
  2. Exploration data, ship cargo etc. should not be so easily lost with no return. Each of these events should generate a variety of alternative game loops to restore the state. It can be done via completing find black box missions, visiting an enemy player faction and completing missions there to get black box back, or just paying a freelancer to do work on your own.
  3. Notoriety could be replaced by more meaningful fine/bounty (c&p) system, which on one hand can be less painful for players having small bounties (e.g. to not blocking access to stations due to friendly fire or speeding), but effectively pushing players with high bounties out of high/medium security systems.
In addition, players with high bounties could become a target easier to track down via administration of the stations/settlements (even low sec ones but controlled by not so friendly or allied factions - they can disclose/sell this info for small fee if player visited these or other stations of the faction). As opposite to current station board top 5, which are almost useless.
 
Maybe because it's an association made up of notorious criminals?
It doesn't look like it:


This was in 3302, so way before notoriety. Since the insurance is covered by Bank of Zaonce, I imagine they'd get flak too over covering notorious criminal rebuys. And they do answer to the law (at least Alliance), as was the case with the Kincaid scandal.
 
Personally I have no idea why the Pilots Federation covers insurance of notorious criminals. It's the kind of thing that would very quickly get under scrutiny of the in-game entities.
Because of gameplay, fdev needed an excuse of why would you be able to keep your ship while paying a fraction of the cost.

If you really want to go the "realistic" way, we should be purchasing a ship insurance plan with the possibility of getting our insurance plan rejected because "the client crashed their ship in a 9G planet" one too many times and represents a financial risk to the company, then we would have to find a new insurance company and we would need to submit pictures from the front, back, sides, top and bottom of the ship, so the insurance company has a better idea of the state of the ship before the insurance policy, then we would need to submit the pilot's date of birth, pilot's flying license number, pilot's social security number to our insurance company of choosing alongside a risk assessment based on your activities and how often you end up going in a ball of flames, because if you know the rescue rangers on a first name basis, your insurance payments should be higher, because you are a financial risk to the insurance company, if they even take you at all and don't reject your policy request. Then when you get blown up, if you got a policy, you would need to file a ship insurance claim. When you file a claim with your insurer, you'll be asked to supply information and documentation related to the accident. Some information you may want to collect includes: Names, contact, insurance and ship information for anyone involved in the accident, location, galactic time and flight conditions of the accident (for example, if it was inside a nebula or a LaGrange cloud), photos of the ship damage, names and badge numbers of any officers that responded to the incident and a copy of the accident report. Another important part of the claims process is understanding your ship insurance policy and what it covers. When filing a ship insurance claim you will need to know your deductible. When you purchased ship insurance, you selected deductibles for certain coverages, such as collision or comprehensive coverage. Make sure you know how much your deductible is — it's the amount you'll have to pay out of pocket toward repairs to your ship before insurance coverage kicks in. You will also need to know your transportation expense coverage. If your ship insurance policy includes transportation expense coverage (sometimes known as rental reimbursement coverage), it may help pay for a rental ship or other forms of transportation while your ship is being repaired. Ask your insurer for details on how you'll be reimbursed, especially before you fly a rental ship off the shipyard. You should also confirm your policy's coverage limits (for example, your insurer may provide up to 30.000 credits per day for a rental ship for a certain period of time). You also would need to be aware of how long you have to submit a claim. It's a good idea to ask your insurer about time limits that may be in place for submitting a claim. That's because if you don't submit the claim and necessary documents within your insurer's time limit, you may not be eligible to receive any money to help with things like ship repairs or recue ranger bills. You should also keep in mind that deadlines for filing a claim may vary depending on the type of claim you're filing. Your insurance company will typically send an insurance adjuster to check your ship and see what was damaged during the accident and investigate the losses. This helps the adjuster determine who is at fault for the accident. They will also provide an initial estimate of how much repairs will cost. Some insurance companies may require you to get an estimate for repair costs. The repair stations you go to will typically inspect the damage and send a report to the insurance company. The insurance company will then take the repair shop's estimate into account when determining how much they'll pay toward your ship's repairs. You have the right to choose the station that makes your ship's repairs. You are also entitled to ask the station to use engineered parts to repair your ship instead of less expensive stock parts. Some insurers may also write ship insurance policies to not include engineered parts at all. In this case, if you want engineered parts, you may be responsible for the difference in cost between the parts in the adjuster's estimate and the engineered parts. When it comes to paying for ship repairs, your insurance company might pay the station directly or pay you and let you handle the bill. If your ship is destroyed in a covered accident, and you have comprehensive or destruction coverage, your insurer will pay you the actual value in credits of your ship (minus your deductible). Actual credits value is the depreciated value of your ship. You would then use this money toward the purchase of a new ship. If you owe more money on your ship than it's worth, gap insurance may help pay off your ship loan.

Also, believe it or not, insurance companies ensuring criminals happens in real life. Sometimes the company doesn't know. Imagine that on a galactic scale, how can the company Sagittarius A Star Insurances know that I blasted some settlers in Colonia? As I said before, insurance companies don't ask for criminal records and even then, is posible to have a bounty on a independent system and have the rest of the galaxy not even know about it or not even care about it. Also, the existence of anarchy systems make it possible to be a criminal without a criminal record and/or bounties. And even if I have bounties, the insurance company has to give me an opportunity, maybe I'm trying to turn my life around and live the life of an honest miner or maybe I'm here to cause a state of Infrastructure Failure on the system, who knows?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom