To Fly in Open or Not - Is Ganking/Griefing Really That Bad?

[Weps]

You're free to play it your way.

I'll keep playing my way. We'll probably never cross paths. I'll shoot at you if we do, but that's just me. Don't take it personally.

Oh, not at all. My post wasn't direct at you personally either, just wanted to point out that some players expected a game with a certain ruleset and received one with a different ruleset. Does not mean that the current ruleset is axiomatically flawed, it just means that it's different, but this in itself should allow people the right to voice their opinion about what they desire.

 

[Deadspin]

I wouldn't care for a CCP High Sec like security force in High Sec ED systems, With military grade reserved interdictors (+500 mass lock) , the npc already cheats in ED with alien tech sensors, last time I tested my stealth fitted DBS, and inadvertently scratched the paint of a federation security ship in a high-rez, they still got 90%+ accuracy on me at 3km+

I would envision it more as a force designed to counter players and only players. You'd still see normal System Security flying around but in the event that you were illegally attacked by a player in a high security system this special Concord like security force would pop into the instance and begin engaging the aggressor immediately. Normal sys security would remain unchanged and the higher power units would FSD back out of the instance once the offending player jumped out or was destroyed.

The point is to, in high security and medium security systems, discourage pvp enough that ganking is not as huge of an issue as it is right now. No, I don't want to get rid of it, hit and run alpha builds should still be possible but the chance of success shouldn't be 100% anymore, it should be more like 30%. Of course, with such a system, I'd take insurance into account too. Payout would cover hull and basic modules but nothing beyond D grade and no weapons and there'd be none of this "Get your engineered modules back after death" crap.

 

[thirstyfish]

The observed lack of inaction by FD seems to indicate that they may not want/can't easily change the C&P, even if they have asked for feedback previously, same for clogging.

To my knowledge, FD has never said one way or another if they can even prevent/track clogging in their software/hardware system. Personally, the number of server connection errors I have experienced seems to be on the uptick, can the system sense a difference between that and clogging?

Unless FD gives a definitive answer on clogging prevention/tracking, all we are doing are burning up pixels on these threads. Right now you are chided, that you "ungracefully" left the game, as if FD expected gentlemanly behavior from everyone, good luck with that one.

Past game history shows a pattern of "balancing" the game, but much of this "balancing" seems to be made up of changing numeric values in the existing code, easily done, instant effects. Other desired/requested changes may be more complex but that shouldn't mean that they never get attention.

IMHO, ganking/griefing is more than likely supported within FD, adds to the "dangerous" part of the game, but ganking/griefing is unbalanced, the advantage is to the attacker. The attack is random, usually superior in number/equipment, and repercussions woeful. Further, the victim, usually powerless to retaliate, has no redress and if they complain, the standard litany of "git gud" "working as intended" "stop you whinge" is trotted out.

So the victim loses the attack, his cargo and ship, is off to the re-buy screen and is ridiculed. Why is anyone surprised if there is some anger there?

To those that say, "well, I'm okay with millions in re-buy costs", good for you, others may not share you feelings as they maybe can't afford the loss and the lost game time.

If flying in open is dangerous, then make it dangerous as well for those that have adopted criminality as a game play style; example: if the griefers/gankers want combat, give it to them with overpowered security force NPC's pursuing them for their misdeeds. The changes would add to the "spice" of the game.

No. Fdev can't detect if it is a connection issue or a case of clogging. P2P architecture, which is how this whole game was built, can't do it. Don't need Fdev to say anything. Just need a little computer science knowledge. They can't do anything about combat logging, hence why the had to declare it as an exploit. Its a possibility that the system they built couldn't handle and its an issue that they can't eliminate with any kind of ease. The only ways to at least cut down on instances of combat logging involve either working in something so that PvE players don't have to resort to mobius or solo mode, or seriously rework the C&P system. Neither of which they seem to be willing to do.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

You are 100% t-totally couldn't be more CORRECT here. While I've clearly "defended" legal play (ganking) I in no way endorse it. For me these are issues of ethics, issues of right and wrong.

Exactly, each system has a security status AND a government. Those two factors should add a framework for security and how the system and region views ethical actions of it's inhabitants.

I'm completely ok with PVP as long as their is equal risk. Not risk in firepower and getting blown up but CONSEQUENCES.

Criminal gameplay actually needs GAMEPLAY. We need a criminal status that works as a reputation where you can gain better assassination, smuggling and sabotage missions. Smuggling missions should not be a TRADE trait but rather a criminal trait.

The same goes for piracy. make Anarchy systems great again, or at least great.

Make Anarchy systems THE location for PVP encounters but make the rest of the universe react differently to it.

make laws and crimes MEAN something FOR criminals and against them

- Make bounties ties to the SHIP as an APB, selling the ship detracts the bounty from the sale price - no more suicidewinders since the bounty will still be SOMEWHERE as long as a ship is kept
- Switching ships would make the pilot "clean" in the eyes of the law
- Add a sliding scale on the bounty so the higher the bounty the greater risk of being blocked from landing on a station (This should not be a COMMON occurrence.)
- Bounties cannot be claimed by Pilot Federation members (We do not police ourselves and it removes the risk of gambling the system)
- A bounty adds 1LY per 100 credit bounty as a jurisdiction area where the crime was commited and shows up as red circles on the galaxy map
- If a bounty reaches X amount within a major faction the ship is now wanted in the ENTIRE controlled space of said faction

So, now we have a framework above for punishments and laws (specific laws might have to be tweaked)

Now we need incentives to BE a criminal except blowing up ships - We need GAMEPLAY.

- Have criminals gain a reputation based on their current total bounty that ties into any criminal mission activity, the higher you criminal status the better the mission
- Have criminals gain a favourable status in anarchy systems in regards to system security as they tend not to attack likeminded individuals
- Require a criminal record to have access to a black market, you need connections for these things, they are not a large advertised bazaar in every station
- Require a criminal record to join Archon Delaine, he wants hardcore criminals not clean traders
- Selling to a black market gains a +100% to sale price, we are selling hard to find stuff in that area right
- No black market in anarchy systems, everything is legal and has the normal price
- Purchase from black markets are possible at a +100% purchase price
- Total wanted status/reputation affects how interdicted NPC's react to you (yes, if Blackbeard the merciless interdicts you, you WILL drop cargo)
- Wanted Federation pilots blowing each other up will not count towards any criminal activity (The pilot federation has no problem with dirty members "cleaning themselves up")
- Clean commanders and npc's are fair game in anarchy systems (as it should be)
- Feudal societies might also count as anarchy systems for PVP encounters (the government might not care what happens IN SPACE but might care what happens on ground and stations)

Any more ideas?

 

[Maelkhor]

- Switching ships would make the pilot "clean" in the eyes of the law

This is begging for more exploit mechanism, also it makes little sense, switching cars would make a criminal clean in the eyes of law ? I hope you mean until scanned ? Just like weapons id are tied to an individual, legislators in 2016 know for long that any vehicule must be tied to an indiviual and trying to mess with this identification process is a legal offense by itself.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

This is begging for more exploit mechanism, also it makes little sense, switching cars would make a criminal clean in the eyes of law ? I hope you mean until scanned ? Just like weapons id are tied to an individual, legislators in 2016 know for long that any vehicule must be tied to an indiviual and trying to mess with this identification process is a legal offense by itself.

Not really.

The SHIP has an APB on it, not the OWNER.

Switching ships means that the ship stored on a station is still wanted.

So if you have an Anaconda pimped out you would have to remove ALL modules, Sell the ship, minus the collected bounty and fines and buy a NEW hull.

EDIT: With a high enough bounty you might not be able to remove modules due to the sell price dropping below the bounty

And yes, a ship is tied to an individual.

Unless the the CMDR is scanned WHILE inside the ship with an APB only the ship is the culprit (stolen, fake transponder or other). Let's call it a burden of proof before blowing someone up just like you have to scan someone to find a bounty.

Another way to add it is to be able to KEEP the bounty on said ship and add an Anarchy system perk, the ability to remove the wanted status on a ship, until it is scanned, similar to paying ones bounties but here one simply pays a fee to hide ones true nature.

 

[NeilF]

Can I ask - For all those suggesting new mechanic X, Y or Z to cater and handle Pilots Federation Destruction, why even run circles around the matter?

Let's assume for a moment the illegal destruction of a Pilots Federation was so severely penalised, it just basically wasn't practical to do it, and certainly not over and over. Can I ask, how would the game be worse off? What does illegal (pointless) destruction of a Pilots Federation member bring to the game, that isn't completely out-weighed by its negative aspects?

If we can agree that in fact mindless/pointless destruction is generally nothing more than that, surely that's the place to start from. Penalise it so heavily it's made basically impossible to do. Now what's the problem?

The next question would be about piracy? Well, why should piracy be about destruction? Surely it should be about stealing cargo, and ideally an alternative career path with alternative experience/gameplay? eg: Increasing a reputation. Gaining favour with pirate groups/faction. Gaining access to special locations (asteroid bases anyone?). And gaining access to more lucrative black markets and missions. And what the hell, if it works within the game, rare legal PvP assassination missions if you want them - ie: Go to a location (eg: a community goal) and destroy a Pilots Federation member (legally because of the mission). So the game can therefore even control the amount of "mindless destruction" (anarchy) taking place.

What about PvP then? Of course CMDRs want to fight other CMDRs... Well, as I've said before, the game should be orchestrating/offering PvP via dedicated mechanics. There's nothing noble or productive about ED's current approach - Fly around interdicting people at random. So legal PvP should be undertaken via missions/tasks which (if you choose) expose you to "enemy" CMDRs. Powerplay would be a logical place for this, but other avenues could be open to. Ultimately the game needs more combat related mechanics to offer for PvP (& indeed PvE). eg: Defend a VIP's ship until it's repaired. And then in Powerplay an enemy power could have a task to go and destroy that ship. And consider if these mechanics were ramped up and could be layed, such that a pivotal Powerplay battle between two powers was around a single blockaded station, with one Power's CMDRs trying to enforce the blockade, while the other was trying to get supply ships through, or evacuate passengers, all under cover from their CMDRs etc.

Alternatively, does randomly interdicting other CMDRs (most of whom are unwilling/unable to fight) sound more appealing and constructive?

 

[Comrade Error]

Can I ask - For all those suggesting new mechanic X, Y or Z to cater and handle Pilots Federation Destruction, why even run circles around the matter?

Let's assume for a moment the illegal destruction of a Pilots Federation was so severely penalised, it just basically wasn't practical to do it, and certainly not over and over. Can I ask, how would the game be worse off? What does illegal (pointless) destruction of a Pilots Federation member bring to the game, that isn't completely out-weighed by its negative aspects?

If we can agree that in fact mindless/pointless destruction is generally nothing more than that, surely that's the place to start from. Penalise it so heavily it's made basically impossible to do. Now what's the problem?

The next question would be about piracy? Well, why should piracy be about destruction? Surely it should be about stealing cargo, and ideally an alternative career path with alternative experience/gameplay? eg: Increasing a reputation. Gaining favour with pirate groups/faction. Gaining access to special locations (asteroid bases anyone?). And gaining access to more lucrative black markets and missions. And what the hell, if it works within the game, rare legal PvP assassination missions if you want them - ie: Go to a location (eg: a community goal) and destroy a Pilots Federation member (legally because of the mission). So the game can therefore even control the amount of "mindless destruction" (anarchy) taking place.

What about PvP then? Of course CMDRs want to fight other CMDRs... Well, as I've said before, the game should be orchestrating/offering PvP via dedicated mechanics. There's nothing noble or productive about ED's current approach - Fly around interdicting people at random. So legal PvP should be undertaken via missions/tasks which (if you choose) expose you to "enemy" CMDRs. Powerplay would be a logical place for this, but other avenues could be open to. Ultimately the game needs more combat related mechanics to offer for PvP (& indeed PvE). eg: Defend a VIP's ship until it's repaired. And then in Powerplay an enemy power could have a task to go and destroy that ship. And consider if these mechanics were ramped up and could be layed, such that a pivotal Powerplay battle between two powers was around a single blockaded station, with one Power's CMDRs trying to enforce the blockade, while the other was trying to get supply ships through, or evacuate passengers, all under cover from their CMDRs etc.

Alternatively, does randomly interdicting other CMDRs (most of whom are unwilling/unable to fight) sound more appealing and constructive?

While we're at it can't we also reduce the chance of an NPC attacking you to 0. It ain't really constructing very well with my piracy when the NPCs keep coming in and you know, shooting me.

 

[NeilF]

While we're at it can't we also reduce the chance of an NPC attacking you to 0. It ain't really constructing very well with my piracy when the NPCs keep coming in and you know, shooting me.

Is that humour or a straw man? [Sorry hard to tell on the Internet]

Eitherway, I don't see anything productive, noble or useful about CMDRs in dedicated PvP ships, engineered to the max, interdicting CMDRs going about other ingame activities (so probably not even interested in PvP, yet alone able to really take part in it) simply to get a kick from causing grief to them.

Again, if I'm missing some vital depth or mechanic this is adding to the game, I'd love to know what it is... Because to me it's simply a reflection of a complete lack of depth and mechanics that the game should have by now. The fact that PvP in ED more often than not boils down to CMDR A interdicting CMDR B (who isn't even interested yet alone capable of fighting back) just to blow them up is demonstrating what else? Why are there not more involving and engaging PvP mechanic? It's been two years now!

 

[Deadspin]

I believe the vital depth or mechanic is...


..."play your way".

Such is the way of the sandbox. No, I'm not advocating for ganking but I'm also heavily against penalizing any type of pvp enough to completely discourage it.

 

[kofeyh]

Is that humour or a straw man? [Sorry hard to tell on the Internet]

Eitherway, I don't see anything productive, noble or useful about CMDRs in dedicated PvP ships, engineered to the max, interdicting CMDRs going about other ingame activities (so probably not even interested in PvP, yet alone able to really take part in it) simply to get a kick from causing grief to them.

Again, if I'm missing some vital depth or mechanic this is adding to the game, I'd love to know what it is... Because to me it's simply a reflection of a complete lack of depth and mechanics that the game should have by now. The fact that PvP in ED more often than not boils down to CMDR A interdicting CMDR B (who isn't even interested yet alone capable of fighting back) just to blow them up is demonstrating what else? Why are there not more involving and engaging PvP mechanic? It's been two years now!

You know at the rate you say this happens? I should be dead every day. Every, single, day. Just every time I log into open I suddenly die from super OP commanders and a fatal dose of lead poisoning or heat death - just all the time. As in every single time I log in I am dead.

Do you know something? It doesn't happen. I'm even located at Shinrarta Dezhra so should be dead twice over and facing constant ruination from all the endless ganking.

The problem with crying wolf, is eventually people stop listening. It's noise. Noise that's highly situational, borderline irrational and being endlessly pumped into threads like this all with a single purpose. Whatever valid points you had have long since left the building.

Honestly I'm going to have to stop reading your responses. I hate that that's the case. Because I try very much to consider all points of view. But it's like you once had a point that's long since just become endless indistinct noise. And now it's (almost) like that angry old religious bloke on a street corner screeching about hell and damnation and sounding for all the world like a certifiable lunatic.

The thing you say that happens 24/7 always in open always to everyone always - doesn't - and endlessly claiming this isn't ever going to convince Frontier; they aren't suddenly going to agree. So keep being offended at things that aren't constantly always happening 24/7 always forever endlessly in open.

Indeed - if you keep doing this, and it keeps being fundimentally untrue to the degree claims? Frontier is right to ignore it. As perhaps it's time we all did. There's a desire to improve, and then there's a desire to distort the truth. So which is it? Because lately I can't tell.

And that's bad. What's worse? You'll follow this with a question asking me to explain how could you possibly be wrong because have you seen open? Which is the great irony here because yes I have I fly in it all the time.

The danger of endlessly saying the same thing, regardless of what it is, for long enough? You start to believe it.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

The thing you say happens 24/7 always in open always to everyone always - doesn't - and endlessly claiming this isn't never going to convince Frontier. So keep being offended at things that aren't constantly always happening constantly happening in open.

But if you keep doing this, and it keeps being fundimentally untrue to the degree claims? Frontier is right to ignore it. As perhaps it's time we all did. There's a desire to improve, and then there's a desire to distort the truth. So which is it? Because lately I can't tell.

And that's bad.

It's actually completely irrelevant how OFTEN it happens IMHO.

Why?

It's about immersion and realism.

The game is supposed to simulate a breathing living universe where we have different socities, customs and laws. We have strict laws and silly laws where we get blown up for loitering in a station but a complete lack of proper police responses to blatant murder within a major factions jurisdiction.

Not only that, but even within the HEART of the Federation, Alliance and Empire - the equivalent of shooting someone in the head outside the White House.

That should not happen without SEVERE repercussions and long lasting legal problems for an aggressor.

I have no problem getting blown up in an Anarchy system if I venture there or a semi-barbaric feudal space system with a dictatorship but I DO have issues with being blown up for no reason and the culprit have nothing to worry about even though it happened in one of the most secure and well patrolled systems in a major faction.

And the only drawback is a 6000 bounty for the attacker, that's the "Elite Dangerous" part for the Attacker, a 6000 bounty while such an individuals victims loose MILLIONS.

ALL actions should have long lasting consequences for both attacker and victim unless it happens in an Anarchy system or similar OR that it was a powerplay fight for example.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I believe the vital depth or mechanic is...


..."play your way".

Such is the way of the sandbox. No, I'm not advocating for ganking but I'm also heavily against penalizing any type of pvp enough to completely discourage it.

how about discourage it from high sec space and push it out onto the fringes, in lawless areas? seems a fair compromise and also would sit better in the game imo.

not sure why i am interested as i have no dog in this..... but, just a thought.

 

[Deadspin]

how about discourage it from high sec space and push it out onto the fringes, in lawless areas? seems a fair compromise and also would sit better in the game imo.

not sure why i am interested as i have no dog in this..... but, just a thought.

Find my idea a few pages back. That's exactly what I thought we should do.

That being said, to Snarfbuckle:

One station with millions of souls on board > A single ship with a single pilot and some cargo. I think their over-reaction is a bit more justified given the resources that must go into something that large.

Also, think 1985 because DB never left 1985 and neither did Elite.

 

[Comrade Error]

Is that humour or a straw man? [Sorry hard to tell on the Internet]

Eitherway, I don't see anything productive, noble or useful about CMDRs in dedicated PvP ships, engineered to the max, interdicting CMDRs going about other ingame activities (so probably not even interested in PvP, yet alone able to really take part in it) simply to get a kick from causing grief to them.

Again, if I'm missing some vital depth or mechanic this is adding to the game, I'd love to know what it is... Because to me it's simply a reflection of a complete lack of depth and mechanics that the game should have by now. The fact that PvP in ED more often than not boils down to CMDR A interdicting CMDR B (who isn't even interested yet alone capable of fighting back) just to blow them up is demonstrating what else? Why are there not more involving and engaging PvP mechanic? It's been two years now!

Humor with serious.

I don't see anything productive, noble or useful about NPCs in dedicated combat ships with their odd manuvers and stuff coming in and obscuring my piracy. I mean it's not like the NPCs even have a reason to be there, they just kinda exist spawn in and out, for all I know they're just there harassing me and following me. Or I could just be minding my own buisness not even pirating and I will still sometimes get interdicted at shot at by an NPC.

But anyway. So you want to completly shut down PvP instead of improving on it? ''Meh, can't be bothered trying to fix this mess, lets just shut it down'' type of deal? Shut down on powerplay because you know, how dare you attacking an enemy power in their territory, blockading, piracy (which can require killing, pirates killed they were not pleasent people) etc. So instead of ENCOURAGING that stuff you just go ''Nah, remove it.''

Or do you just think that PvPers are completly unable and unwilling to do that stuff? Do you know how many PvP groups there are who don't go about shooting low hanging fruit? Who do other stuff like going to war with other factions or protecting CGs from gankers for example. A lot more than gankers I bet, I would bet there would be a whole lot more if the PvP stuff was fleshed out. Like piracy, where's the Code? They've left or doing something else now, thanks to mechanics and as far as I can tell a community.

As if shooting and killing other players can't be fun without being an .

I wonder, how many active members does the SDC even have? 30? 50? 100? A drop in the bucket I think and yet they are able to stir and stir that pot of biowaste so well that everyone es themselves (and or other emotional response) at the sound of their name, what a joke.

 

[kofeyh]

It's actually completely irrelevant how OFTEN it happens IMHO.

Wait so you are saying it's fine to make up stats as to how often this happens to justify a position. It doesn't matter how often. Really?

It's about immersion and realism.

Funny, I thought it was about the gaps in the law and the the need for a more effective crime and punishment system. My bad, it's just immersion and feels.

I'm going to stop quoting right there because if you want it to emulate reality, then ignore the reality when it suits, I'm pretty sure we'll never agree.

ALL actions should have long lasting consequences for both attacker and victim.

They would if the laws and enforcement was based on logic and consistency. That has nothing to do with "immersion and reality", but consistency of action and reaction. It's become an emotional football, not the very important failure in logistics and consistency we have.

Immersion can't fix this. Reality is humans are universally a bad bunch. Consistency and logic is the cure. And they can't happen when people are misrepresenting, assuming, uncompromising and spouting rhetoric with a form of religious zeal that borders on obsessive.

This game will never improve while people peddle garbage and misrepresent, rather than push for logic and consistency. If you don't get why that's important, and I think you do? Again we will never agree.

There are problems. There are also solutions. The enemy isn't other commanders. It's Frontiers inactions. And whilst people fight each other, literally, frontier is free to ignore it.

The day a bunch of PVP and PVE people put aside differences for a common goal of genuinely dragging Frontier to the table? Is the day that this starts being fixed. And it will never happen.

Because winning the argument is now more important than fixing the problems.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Find my idea a few pages back. That's exactly what I thought we should do.

That being said, to Snarfbuckle:

One station with millions of souls on board > A single ship with a single pilot and some cargo. I think their over-reaction is a bit more justified given the resources that must go into something that large.

Also, think 1985 because DB never left 1985 and neither did Elite.

Actually i don't think so simply due to technology.

Station shields should be able to handle the piddly firepower of one ship.

And crashing into a station landing pad could easily be stopped by the landing pad magnets set on reverse - repelling the ship from the area.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait so you are saying it's fine to make up stats as to how often this happens to justify a position. It doesn't matter how often. Really?



Funny, I thought it was about the gaps in the law and the the need for a more effective crime and punishment system. My bad, it's just immersion and feels.

I'm going to stop quoting right there because if you want it to emulate reality, then ignore the reality when it suits, I'm pretty sure we'll never agree.



They would if the laws and enforcement was based on logic and consistency. That has nothing to do with "immersion and reality", but consistency of action and reaction. It's become an emotional football, not the very important failure in logistics and consistency we have.

Immersion can't fix this. Reality is humans are universally a bad bunch. Consistency and logic is the cure. And they can't happen when people are attacking the community with a form of religious zeal that borders on obsessive.

This game will never improve while people peddle garbage and misrepresent, rather than push for logic and consistency. If you don't get why that's important, and I think you do? Again we will never agree.

Now you are picking my statement somewhat out of context.

The point THAT it happens at all without any reasonable consequences is the problem.

AND that there are no logical laws laws and reasonable enforcement of them.

And while X people have no PVP interaction in open we have several reports of people being blown up constantly by ats. The problem has never been PVP players but the actual ats hiding behind the moniker.

I want PVP and play in open but I see no point in open as it stands right now since a proper crime and punishment system combined with a good system for piracy and anarchy systems would enrich gameplay for all involved except perhaps the ats that would actually have to cope with consequences and operate out of anarchy systems like actual criminals.

 

[Aigaion]

I'm answering the question a bit late, but here I come.

First of all, griefing does not exist. This "term" was invented by fragile people who had to find a word other that "I'm stupid" to excuse the fact that they clicked on Open Play and faced PvP players in an open world where PvP is possible. If you don't want to take the risk of PvP interaction at any time, stay either in solo or private groupe, or assume the fact that you can be killed, in no case it's called griefing as you have to free choice to avoid these interactions thanks to both solo and group mode.

 

[thirstyfish]

I'm answering the question a bit late, but here I come.

First of all, griefing does not exist. This "term" was invented by fragile people who had to find a word other that "I'm stupid" to excuse the fact that they clicked on Open Play and faced PvP players in an open world where PvP is possible. If you don't want to take the risk of PvP interaction at any time, stay either in solo or private groupe, or assume the fact that you can be killed, in no case it's called griefing as you have to free choice to avoid these interactions thanks to both solo and group mode.

You clearly have never been on the receiving end of an FDL engineered to the nines and piloted by a psycho player, or maybe you say that because you are one. Either way, you make sweeping generalizations with no way to support your claim. Congratulations, you would be great a pseudo-science.

 

[NeilF]

I'm answering the question a bit late, but here I come.

First of all, griefing does not exist. This "term" was invented by fragile people who had to find a word other that "I'm stupid" to excuse the fact that they clicked on Open Play and faced PvP players in an open world where PvP is possible. If you don't want to take the risk of PvP interaction at any time, stay either in solo or private groupe, or assume the fact that you can be killed, in no case it's called griefing as you have to free choice to avoid these interactions thanks to both solo and group mode.

With views and insight like that... Maybe try and be even later next time?

If your idea of constructive interesting PvP gameplay is a CMDR in a PvP dedicated ship, no doubt engineered to the hilt, interdicting other CMDRs (not currently interested in PvP, yet alone capable of it), simply to destroy them for no ingame reason/reward, then I don't know what to suggest really? The fact that in truth so much of PvP in ED boils down to this vapid nonsense, is so comical it's kind of sad really...


Can we really not evisage actual PvP gameplay in ED where CMDRs fight other CMDRs for a purpose/reason/outcome?