That's why mine has mines. I'm not going to stick around and fight, but if i have to wait for a cooldown, then can always make life fun for the attacker by throwing some mines in their face.
Will Colonisation Attract Gankers?
- Thread starter Cmdr Travers
- Start date
That's why mine has mines. I'm not going to stick around and fight, but if i have to wait for a cooldown, then can always make life fun for the attacker by throwing some mines in their face.
Were those features added after you bought the game?instead of suggesting to rely on the various cringe game features.
If not, why did you bother buying it if some features are so distasteful?
I'd suggest they log off, every time, just to annoy...
I just meant that a solid ship build [like the one posted above] will work much better than flying in open a paper ship with a ton of players in the blocklist (as this can be avoided) [as well as menu logging, which somewhat may cause forms of retaliation].
Generally yes, though I still take a reasonably tough ship so I have a chance to get away when I forget to switch before hitting the CG system.A variety of approaches here.
Now that I'm awash with credits I refuse to give them what they want. If interdicted for no gameplay reason I set throttle to 50% and fly straight, explode, rebuy and block. It's very rare these days though; at a CG I'm in Mobius.
Most of the gankers seem to be set up for an unaware unengineered target though, which makes escape the normal result.
I'm under the impression that people are saying that ganking will be unlikely due to the dilution of the systems being colonised (true), while the activity will actually happen in the systems where the Trailblazer megaships will be deployed, since that is where the concentration will be, like a constant CG.
The more megaships, the better the dilution, but I suspect that even then, some will be more popular than others, based on their location.
Want to reduce the chances?
Get delivering for the current CG to get as many megaships as possible!
The more megaships, the better the dilution, but I suspect that even then, some will be more popular than others, based on their location.
Want to reduce the chances?
Get delivering for the current CG to get as many megaships as possible!
I'm under the impression that people are saying that ganking will be unlikely due to the dilution of the systems being colonised (true), while the activity will actually happen in the systems where the Trailblazer megaships will be deployed, since that is where the concentration will be, like a constant CG.
The more megaships, the better the dilution, but I suspect that even then, some will be more popular than others, based on their location.
Want to reduce the chances?
Get delivering for the current CG to get as many megaships as possible!
I agree with this entirely.
Some form of retaliation?
A black mark on the gankers website and universal disgust from the PvP / ganker crews that they lost their prey over a legal exit? Laughable, in truth...
Sorry, my sympathy is a bit low today.
One can totally ignore that when happens outside of the game... but some squadrons have "house" rules not condoning menu-logging, and a menu-logging during a piracy attempt with human pirates couldn't really make a happy day for a pirate.
Noted, lol
Yeah, I've long been of the opinion that BGS-trashing is far worse than ganking in terms of qualifying as grief. At least a gank is a one-and-done (explo data aside, but I've been fairly consistent on saying that losing that on death was a mistake in design that should be corrected) whereas wrecking another active player group's bgs project requires a deliberate, targeted, extended campaign over the course of weeks or months with the sole aim of kicking down whatever they've built, and there's no amount of modes or blocking that can stop them.
I'd be far more worried about people doing some petty nonsense like stalking a particular player, bookmarking their carrier to track where they're working, and messing with whatever projects they happen to be working on. Because there are players petty enough to do that.
On this note, at the eve of the colonization launch, I would strongly urge people to double check their Inara account settings to verify that your flight logs aren't publicly shared.
I nuked my account there sometime ago because I wasn't happy at how much detail was publicly available by default - but that's just me. Just be careful.
A while ago I blew up a powerplay enemy and he started screeching in system chat because I didn't have my cmdr logs available on inara so he couldn't check up on how many murders I do.
I called him a weirdo. Specifically "someone blows you up in a video game and your first instinct is to stalk their socials?"
IIRC, FDev do have rules regarding things like "targeted harassment" but you have to wonder if/how that might be applied.
Player A reports players X, Y and Z for repeatedly doing something bad that hinders player A's colonisation project.
Players X, Y and Z claim to be part of an anti-establishment collective who seeks to prevent new colonies so that uninhabited systems can remain undeveloped and exist in their natural condition.
Conversely, for the sake of balance, maybe player A is pledged to Felicia Winters and is trying to colonise a system right on the edge of Alliance space and players X, Y and Z are all pledged to Ed Mahon.
Is that griefing, targeted harassment or simply expected gameplay?
If one person's work is at the mercy of many people (who might have genuine reasons to take action or might just be nobbers who're doing it for the lulz), that's something FDev is going to have to figure out how to deal with.
Yeah, the age of social media twisted a lot of things and people. Today, it's taken for granted that your personal stuff is all out there. Otherwise, you're the strange one.
Very tricky, this example. Like I do quite a bit of PP (for Mahon lol) but consider any colonization project I do as separate, personal stuff. But those pledged to Powers opposing Mahon may have a different view - and you can't exactly blame them for it.
Last edited:
Ages ago I exploded somebody who was destroying unmanned ships at the Guardian Ruin sites.
Guy starts spouting all sorts of weird stuff about what he thinks I spend my time doing in ED.
Eventually he goes for his best shot with "Ima report you and get your Inara account banned"
"Erm, dude, I don't have an Inara account".
I guess when "socials" are such a big deal in RL, some people just assume the same thing applies in games.
I'm late to the discussion and it might already been all said, but I think ganking in the traditional sense will not be a problem. Colonisation efforts will be too spread out to give gankers systems to focus on. If a player or group A doesn't like player or group B trying to start a colony in a specific system (maybe because they want the system for themselves) and tries to stop them by killing them, I would say unironically that it's emergent gameplay. If there's a big and widely advertised community effort to colonise an area and then gankers show up just because there's a concentration of players to shoot, I'd say that's more like traditional ganking. Not always a clear distinction, though.
There's a dichotomy in that which doesn't make sense to me... specifically, what do you mean by "BGS trashing" in the way you've described it?
To me, that just sounds like a pretty typical squadron v squadron war right? One of the side-effects of the BGS is that so many factions are way bigger than any one group can sustain, let alone defend.... and to take back anything that's been built up over weeks or months takes an equally long time to undo... if we're talking just flipping control of a station or system(s) then that's pretty quickly and easily flipped back. If we're talking fully retreating a faction out of systems though... like... I don't know.... saying that a "deliberate, targeted, extended campaign" to kick down a particular faction is "bad" is a bit like saying PvP is fine, unless you destroy the other ship?
Other side of this being... if a group's territory crumbles before the efforts of another player or group, then they are absolutely one of these "too big to sustain their own borders"... I should know because my group has been one of those sorts. We've lost stations, systems, been retreated, had dramas in systems that have held long and historic value to our group. But in reality? That's just all part of the story, which is what the BGS is there for.
what i hear from screenmonster is: 'whaaaa someone is using the same game mechanics we're using to oppose us in a game that otherwise wouldn't because the npcs are laughably easy and we think that shouldn't be allowed'
that's not bgs trashing. that's just literally playing the bgs game.
and getting killed trucking goods just cuz is not ganking. the only conceivable reason players have a space trucking role that is profitable is because there's presumably risk in the task. if the npc pirates didn't suck so bad at their job, the occasional pvp death wouldn't even register as forum post worthy.
fdev makes the opposition provided by players exceptional and jarring because they have extremely easy npcs everywhere. there's no scale that can allow profit to align with difficulty and make risk exist in the game even when not dealing with other humans.
so, no. it won't attract gankers because you literally can't gank people who have chosen to play in the only optional mode where undesirable opposition might occur.
while that doesn't stop unwanted opposition in the bgs, that opposition is literally one of the main mechanics of the bgs. it's like crying about other people in monopoly buying property in your color section to keep you from putting up hotels.
that's not bgs trashing. that's just literally playing the bgs game.
and getting killed trucking goods just cuz is not ganking. the only conceivable reason players have a space trucking role that is profitable is because there's presumably risk in the task. if the npc pirates didn't suck so bad at their job, the occasional pvp death wouldn't even register as forum post worthy.
fdev makes the opposition provided by players exceptional and jarring because they have extremely easy npcs everywhere. there's no scale that can allow profit to align with difficulty and make risk exist in the game even when not dealing with other humans.
so, no. it won't attract gankers because you literally can't gank people who have chosen to play in the only optional mode where undesirable opposition might occur.
while that doesn't stop unwanted opposition in the bgs, that opposition is literally one of the main mechanics of the bgs. it's like crying about other people in monopoly buying property in your color section to keep you from putting up hotels.
Personally I'm of the opinion that the BGS belongs to all. As such no individual or group has any legitimate 'claim' to a system and all such claims can be challenged.
That said I doubt I've hung around anywhere long enough for my actions to be in anyway noticeable.