Barely back in the saddle (seat) a week and idiots strike

[NeilF]

This is certainly true. On the other hand, suggestions to give PvP an officially supported reason - which in practice means Open-only content, unless you set up a very focused PG - tend to be criticised very strongly by those who feel that all content should be available in all modes. So we're left with setting up tournaments (fun, but a bit artificial), or - for the ones playing a "good" pilot - system patrol or escort (which relies, for it to be meaningful Pv*P*) on the people who are the targets of threads such as these.

The consistent experience of the losing side in any conflict not being able to accept it wasn't a fix (whether the conflict is direct PvP or otherwise, though the Salomé case had an even more ridiculous forum aftermath than most) probably also doesn't help if/when Frontier are thinking of setting any more up.

Consider the following?
1) We had the ability to have NPC wingmen in missions/tasks. You arrive and have X NPCs whom you can give simple commands to, attack this, defend that!
2) We had some more involved combat scenarios, such as defending/attacking a ship which has repairs ships coming/going, until it is repaired enough to fly off. Or defending/escorting a convoy of ships flying from Nav Beacon A to B (eg: through an asteroid field).
3) We even had full station blockade mechanics, whereby you'd exist SC a long way out and have to fly to the station in normal flight.

Imagine now how just these tools could be used, even in combination, for PvE and PvP gameplay. Consider trying to escort ships to a station through a blockade. Consider trying to enforce a blockade. Consider using NPC wingmen/fighters to help you. Consider working with a Wing of CMDRs.

Consider how they could be used for missions, Powerplay Tasks, and even CGs.

Consider how some OPEN only CGs could be offered allowing CMDRs to sign up to side A or B for the duration and undertake legal combat for an outcome.


But instead, we still have basic mechanics, many/most from 2014, both for combat and C&P. Strangely after all this time they're more than showing their age IMHO!

We don't need more questionable bolt ons eating up significant development time. We need the game to start truly progressing! It's long overdue! Multi-Crew is just the latest of many poor development choices IMHO that have squandered time that could have truly have moved gameplay forwards!

 

[StiTch]

Go to the player history tab in the comms panel and select the players who interdicted you and click "block player". They won't be bothering you again after that.

Actually they may well do, as blocking just tries to make it harder for matchmaking to happen.

It would also be ten times as glorious for someone to block another CMDR to avoid having his feelies hurt, but then they get instanced anyway and ganked so hard he has a flashback of every rebuy screen he's ever faced.

Players are honestly this terrified of human interaction to the point of making Open a single player experience, and still wonder why some folk have nothing better to do but gank... *chuckles*

Sorry to the OP for going a bit off-topic, but the fact that FD DIDN'T tie PvP to the strongest in-game conflict narrative they have: PowerPlay, says it all really. PowerPlay should/could have been the perfect playground for PvP. Meaningful PvP.

Don't go there. I've made several propositions before for PP to be improved for Open without affecting its use in Solo/PG, but when you actually ask for any PvP-able content, it's "but we don't want PvPers to have any content because we're all equal!"

Ofc when someone gets ganked, it's "but why don't PvPers just go do their PvP thing with each other honourably?"

This has been your captain speaking, on your flight to our midpoint "Facepalm Island" and stopping at "Entitlement city". I hope you have enjoyed your flights

 

[Globusdiablo]

Well, i'll tell you what my argument is, its actually more something that irritates me, and it should't, but it riles me up.

Most people will agree ED is a pretty safe game, there is very little in the way of danger unless you fall asleep mid jump, drop the ball docking or go AFK in a CZ. Other than that you really need to create the danger for yourself. Now the only real danger lies in Open...

These things can be avoided entirely by playing in Solo, avoided for the most part by having a little common sense/savvy in Open, and even if you get caught the vast majority of the time you can escape/highwake. When people go in to Open and they experience a little bit of danger, a minority (hopefully) come to the forum to aggressively condemn players who did nothing wrong but choose the murder-hobo path in the game.

These guys, didn't even attack the OP...Yet people are telling him to Block them immediately? And report them if they follow him?! I mean are you serious! People want to have their cake, eat it, then make more cake. They want to play in Open but condemn anyone that attacks them which is a perfectly legitimate playstyle. I ask you, who is actually the more aggressive person, the people who interdicted the OP but didn't even attack his pixels? Or him calling them "Idiots" for doing it? One of those is an attack on the players, the other is gameplay.

What narks me, is that this community is a stickler for attention to detail (that bit dosent annoy me but bare with me), they want to know how air stays in stations, how explosions can be heard, how the artificial gravity works..How insurance works, how the dark side of planets render light, etc etc etc. And yet, for such requested detail that (dosent actually matter?) people are more than happy to break this immersion and deal with anyone who decides they want to shoot them with totally unrealistic out-of-game means like blocking or reporting.

Honestly i know this community is a more mature age group, me included; but i do think some people need to grow up. This is a game, and if people want to attack you, in Open, within the rules of the game, why should we condemn them for it. The ball is in FDs court to create consequences to theses actions but again, the lack of C&P is NOT the players fault.

Now that's more like it! Thank you. Sadly I don't disagree with any of it...

 

[Noctover]

Now that's more like it! Thank you. Sadly I don't disagree with any of it...

Anytime :>.

 

[Gunnet]

Posts like this seriously boggle my mind. If they look at you block them, if they have the audacity to follow you in this online PVP enabled mode HEAVEN FORBID! REPORT THEM!....

Why dont we just cover everyone in bubblewrap. Better yet! Disable non-consensual PVP!

The EULA contains provisions against bullying and harassment for a reason. Persistently targeting a specific player with the intention of disrupting their ability to enjoy the game isn't acceptable behaviour.

 

[Globusdiablo]

...But all of it, all of it is redundant if it can't be enforced. The solutions are viable AI security that can reliably prosecute crime (where relevant), or other commanders. Which is it going to be? The system is only as good as its execution.

So much this. Laws/rules without consequences are defacto worthless. In-game and in real life.

 

[Noctover]

The EULA contains provisions against bullying and harassment for a reason. Persistently targeting a specific player with the intention of disrupting their ability to enjoy the game isn't acceptable behaviour.

Which is about on PAR with getting a guy steambanned in Counter-Strike because hes killed me 5 rounds in a row.

 

[Crank Larson]

That's fine....

But ultimately I'd rather "illegal destruction" was being done for some purpose other than a group of fully engineered ships getting a kick out of causing grief and aggravation to a CMDR in an exploration ship who is complete out-gunned. Is this the kind of gameplay we want? Is this what we should be excusing/embracing?

Illegal is illegal. The reasons are immaterial, and even if FD do implement better reasons, all that will do is increase these encounters - as you'll always have those people that just want to attack people for the "lulz". While an exploration ship may be outgunned, it should be able to escape. My exploration ships can run away from anything.

Personally I'd also much rather see the game offer some more interesting combat scenarios and gameplay than the all too common random interdictions going on. I'd like to sign up for a cause, and with other CMDRs fight for it, and see an outcome. The game tries to achieve this of course, but with basically 2+ years old placeholder mechanics it really is players trying to make the best of the paper thin tools available to them isn't it! Indeed even the capital promo-video from 2014 shows gameplay we still can only dream of!

I'm all for more gameplay. Of course I am. I'd hope that anyone who enjoys the game would appreciate more or different things to do. But this is a different matter to saying that people attacking others for no reason is against the game rules... It isn't - in fact, it is explicitly supported (as can be seen in FD's advertising).

To suggest the game was release 30+ months ago with perfect mechanics, that cannot be improved, and therefore what we see taking place now is all well and good, seems odd to me at least. The game needs improving both from a C&P (karma) point of view, and a PvE & PvP point of view... It's long over due... "Go and play in a different mode," after 2+ years doesn't cut it for me! (They've thrown buckets of time at CQC, Powerplay, The Engineers, Multi-Crew etc... and here we still are in the same paper thin mechanics/gameplay!)

Why suggest "Go and play in SOLO"... Why not suggest "Make OPEN better"?

I didn't suggest any of that. Where did I say anything was perfect? I said adequate (which is a long way from perfect). In a huge galaxy filled with humans, I expect to meet nutters that I won't like. This happens in real life too. In a game, this kind of encounter is very likely to end in violence if that is part of the game - and in E: D, it most certainly is.

2 years is not actually very long. FD have done amazing things in those two years. We have a fully playable game that many people are enjoying (I know this, as even in private group I see many hollow squares when I visit systems such as Cubeo - in Open play, there are even more). Yes, many things can be improved... But paper-thin? No, that's not true. And some of the features that you appear to be holding as an example of this are those that others appreciate. I like engineers, I've recently started playing PowerPlay. I've even had a couple of enjoyable rounds of CQC. Yes, improvements can be made everywhere, but in my view what we have after two years is a very solid foundation on which to build. And FD have already stated that 3.0 is all about building on this. So let's see how that goes, eh?

 

[Lateralus]

So anyone who interdicts another player without asking permission is an idiot now...? [haha]

OP you were flying a commonly used trade ship, to know what you're carrying a player needs to interdict you and scan (cargo racks do not show on basic-scan modules panel). Oh well never mind, enjoy taken-ball-home mode

 

[Globusdiablo]

Which is about on PAR with getting a guy steambanned in Counter-Strike because hes killed me 5 rounds in a row.

ROFL!

 

[Noctover]

ROFL!

Its true man. New tactic: Go to Bombsite A, if you get attacked, run to Bombsite B, the EULA has my back, he cannot chase me to another bombsite because that's harassment and hes deliberately targeting to me ruin my gameplay.

 

[Gunnet]

Which is about on PAR with getting a guy steambanned in Counter-Strike because hes killed me 5 rounds in a row.

Overwatch bans for griefing in CSGO now work on a two strike basis. Somebody who, say, deliberately flashes team mates or tries to cause them to teamkill him faces a real risk of being permanently banned. That behaviour is far more analogous to following an ED player from system to system chain interdicting them than killing members of the opposing team is.

Of course, actually using Valve's services to stalk and harass an individual on an ongoing basis would potentially result in a full account ban under Steam's EULA.

 

[kmwmtd]

I also decided to play mostly in open and was building myself a pretty sweet Asp Explorer to spend a bit of time exploring. No sooner had I grabbed a couple of meta-alloys to boost my FSD when a couple of goons in anacondas decide to repeatedly interdict me. One even reassured me they weren't going to attack me.

TBH, though I feel your pain - it's always annoying if other people decide to put obstacles in your way for no reason other than "fun" - in your position, I would probably have toyed with them until they got bored, maybe some goading in chat about how slow they were and how fast I was, maybe staying in normal space (albeit at top speed) outside their range for a while until they get complacent, and then SC for a bit, etc. Since it seems that they were only pestering you to annoy you, the best defence (in my opinion) is to not get annoyed (or at least, not show that you're annoyed), and look like you're enjoying yourself - I can almost guarantee that when they realise they aren't going to get a rise out of you, they will go elsewhere.

Alternatively, just submit to interdiction, boost away to get out of their sensor range, and then go and make a cup of tea while your ship is at full speed. When they realise you aren't going back into SC, they will go and find other target for their fun.

Back when I used to play EVE, sometimes in the middle of missions, players would jump in with the intention of looting the wrecks of ships I'd destroyed. Since I had already taken what I wanted from them, I had no further use for them, but, out of principle, I would let the little scamps get almost within range of a wreck, and then I'd shoot the wreck. After I'd done that a few times ... sometimes, ironically, with them calling me a griefer ... they would go elsewhere. If someone asked me first, I'd let them have the wrecks.

In summary, griefers usually don't like being griefed.

 

[Noctover]

Overwatch bans for griefing in CSGO now work on a two strike basis. Somebody who, say, deliberately flashes team mates or tries to cause them to teamkill him faces a real risk of being permanently banned. That behaviour is far more analogous to following an ED player from system to system chain interdicting them than killing members of the opposing team is.

Of course, actually using Valve's services to stalk and harass an individual on an ongoing basis would potentially result in a full account ban under Steam's EULA.

Difference is, and i think you know it full well; your just twisting the words of the EULA to suit yourself.

You suggested the OP report the guys that (didnt even) attack him for violating the EULA.

If im a pirate, and im lucky enough to be instanced with a trader, im going to pirate him. If he runs, im going to chase him. If you are going to try and convince me that im breaking the EULA doing that, im sorry dont waste your time. This is all those other players did.

If you seriously think its a violation to pursue a fleeing target i would argue that you take the game way too seriously and are a little over-sensitive.

 

[Cupcake]

Go to the player history tab in the comms panel and select the players who interdicted you and click "block player". They won't be bothering you again after that.

When a player complains about being interdicted after choosing to play in open........ Someone fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. Surprised you didnt cry about being "griefed" lol

 

[ZeroAi]

So, I hadn't been back into this big ol universe for months until about a week ago, and I decided to play on PC instead of Xbox One for a change.

I also decided to play mostly in open and was building myself a pretty sweet Asp Explorer to spend a bit of time exploring. No sooner had I grabbed a couple of meta-alloys to boost my FSD when a couple of goons in anacondas decide to repeatedly interdict me. One even reassured me they weren't going to attack me.

They may have been telling the truth because they didn't even manage to scratch me either time but why do other players insist on completely ruining the experience for others? I am flying a completely defenceless (albeit fast and manouverable) ASP X, was carrying no cargo and was purely looking to upgrade my FSD. In simple terms, I am of no interest to anyone in my current state.

As I said, barely a week back and I'll be steering clear of open from now on.. moan, moan, moan.

Yeah, not surprised. Anything can happen in open as anyone is free to do as they want.

This has literally ruined other games, but thankfully with Elite and for those who aren't comfortable with the "antics" of the public we have PGs (including the large PvE only PG Mobius) and Solo.

 

[Cupcake]

Looks like I've kicked a hornets nest and released a few angry little gamer boys. Aww..

No, I'm just amazed at how bad you are at trolling. You play in open yet complain on the forums about game mechanics that are working as intended and you were not "griefed" in any way, yet STILL feel the need to come here all butthurt. Get over it and grow a pair.

 

[William J Smith]

An Asp at palin's system and you did'nt bother getting your drives tuned...

After than Anaconda max speed 300 odd, aspX max speed about 500

Boost away.. jump for the next system : profit

Bill

 

[Gunnet]

Difference is, and i think you know it full well; your just twisting the words of the EULA to suit yourself.

You suggested the OP report the guys that (didnt even) attack him for violating the EULA.

If im a pirate, and im lucky enough to be instanced with a trader, im going to pirate him. If he runs, im going to chase him. If you are going to try and convince me that im breaking the EULA doing that, im sorry dont waste your time. This is all those other players did.

If you seriously think its a violation to pursue a fleeing target i would argue that you take the game way too seriously and are a little over-sensitive.

We weren't talking about piracy, or even ganking, as I think you know full well. We were talking about chain interdiction without attacking for no purpose other than wasting somebody's time so they would be unable to play the game.

Although I will reiterate that I only recommended reporting them if they were pursuing from system to system. Chain interdicting in a single system but allowing the "victim" to leave is fair game, by the current standards.

 

[Crank Larson]

We weren't talking about piracy, or even ganking, as I think you know full well. We were talking about chain interdiction without attacking for no purpose other than wasting somebody's time so they would be unable to play the game.

Sorry, but how do you know what the interdictors' motives were? Maybe they were trying out a new set of frameshift drive interdictors and the OP was simply the first unlucky target they saw. To assume from the outset that the two other players were maliciously doing this to ruin someone else's game is completely invalid. The OP was playing the game, they weren't being prevented from doing so at all. It's part of the game to encounter other people. If you don't like that part of the game, you have options to avoid it. It really is that simple.