But only if the nail was in Open.
- Status
But only if the nail was in Open.
Oh, if this thread is just supposed to be about ganking, then of course I accept that the gankers have all the numbers, all the outfitting and none of the risk.
However, this is the Opening Post of this thread in full:
I and, I can see immediately, scores of other posters have not treated that viewpoint as confined to ganking. My own post was really responding to those whose comments were more about reasons not to get into consensual PvP, i.e. reasons not to go looking for a fight. Immediately before posting I'd just read some posts above page 90.
Of course in the various stages of the 94 pages different discussions and contexts may have developed somewhat...
Last edited:
The Replicated Man
T
You could have low waked for max disrespect
The Replicated Man
T
Ah well. Bloody gankers.
Well, The Elite Dangerous demo is all about pew pew, so it would seem that the game is based on this game play. What non-combat pilots need is some way of getting even if they can't fight and I posted this in another thread but did not get enough traction or views. Noticed this one has a lot of takers so it will be good to see some thoughts on this being employed by non=combat CMDRs as a way to keep Griefers/Gankers occupied and possibly under some form of direct karma by other CMDR's.
Wouldn't it be good if CMDRs could award other CMDRs credits and issue bounties.
How I think it should be done.
1] ONLY a high naval ranked CMDR has the feature to issue bounty kill orders against another CMDR. The contractor must be of the same Powerplay faction as issuer. (This is to ensure game longevity, some complexity and PP factional relevance)
2] For every bounty issued. The issuing CMDR has to pay a Pilot's federation fee of X to register the contract. (credit sink and decision making)
3] The bounty reward amount is set by the issuer and the Pilot's federation will hold all credits including reward as escrow. ( lock-in contract )
4] The CMDR who has bounty issued against them will be notified of the contract by Pilot's federation and will be also given the name of the issuer and the contractor/s. (just to add some suspense/anger/fear bwahahaha)
5] The Pilot's federation can disclose the current docked position of the Issuer the Contractor/s and the Target for a nominated fee of X and only, if any parties are docked in any PP controlled territories regardless of faction.(jurisdiction)
This feature can be queried x amount of times with a cool-down of 5 minutes between queries. (help for bounty hunter and also to give the target a chance of evasion)
6] If contract is terminated/cancelled by issuer then all credits held by pilot's federation will be forfeit and kept by the pilot's federation. Contractor's will be awarded 25% of nominated reward and split for multiple pilots. (pays for inconvenience)
7] Every bounty contract issued has a sunset period of x time. (some urgency and further incentive for evading bounty hunters)
8] If bounty is unclaimed within the time limit then reward credit held in escrow will be refunded less 25%. Issuing fee is forfeit. (This is to make decision making a little trickier)
9] The target can file a counter bounty kill order as revenge or as a counter if they qualify for the feature. (bwahahaha evil twists....)
ESTIMATED EFFECT ON GAMEPLAY:
Player Factions would like this as a way to secure their territories.
Gankers and Griefers will have something to deal with and will probably be less motivated to do what they do.
You can contract a good fighter CMDR to dish out some punishment against someone who is bullying you if you have done the grind for rank.
Incentives to grind for rank.
High naval ranking CMDR vs CMDR drama and suspense when there is a counter bounty issued.
A good and fun way to earn credits for bounty hunters and a nice reward for good combat pilots.
Adds the thrill of being hunted to the game much more than the senseless interdictions.
Adds extra layer to the game without the expense and use of time organizing new artwork and designs.
To my knowledge, no other game has this and it would suit Frontier's name as pioneering in the game development gig.
CAUTION: This advice is free...No promises No guarantees...Hang on...Iv'e heard that somewhere before...
EDIT ADDED: CMDRs who initiates/finances the kill bounty should be able to post a line stating the reason for contract being initiated and it can be read by all involved in the contract.
Most likely this will need some more refining like the possibility of excluding NPCs out of the contracts. The point is if there is a notorious CMDR who is constantly griefing other pilots/explorers/traders/miners/etc then they will end up with a lot of
bounty hunters sent by other CMDRs that they have had beef with. In turn they shall get
a taste of their own medicine.
I read an early dev post with something similar to this but it seems that it hasn't been worked on further.
Hence my point, what you consider OP PvP builds may not be the same as me... for instance I am dead against the over powered nature of Shield Booster stacking which get's compounded in some PvP builds with excessive levels of engineered resistance. 2 Shield Boosters with engineering is normally what I consider acceptable and balanced personally. Go to 4 or more Shield Boosters with Engineering and it starts getting OP.
I have died in less than 20s in a brief one-on-one PvP encounter in a Beta with a ship build that is more than adequate for PvE combat.
There are major imbalances between PvE builds and PvP builds, there is no getting around that.
Last edited:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that PVPers have it even 1/10th as bad as explorers, nor would I personally defend the typically unsavory tone of PVP (and anti-PVP) people on the general forums... but looked at objectively, (if you swap out "high waking" for "cable-yank waking") the above are all actually valid complaints.
- The Forum is pretty unfriendly and judgmental, almost always equating PVP with ganking. Exhibit A: PVPers are having to defend the existence of PVP even on the PVP forums.
- There also does seem to be at least a historical unofficial unfriendliness to PVP that purportedly caused most of the (decent and polite) PVP crowd to exodus rather early in the games history, leaving us only with a PVP crowd that is as toxic, angry, and bitter as the explorer community.
- And yes it's true that every single update for the last nearly 3 years has been HEAVILY centered on combat. However combat is not PVP, and the competitive PVP gene has no legitimate mechanic to express itself, which is precisely why nearly all PVP is asymmetric, uninvited, and unwelcome. Because short of creating an unofficial PVP league (which people have actually done several times) ganking is the ONLY path left to express your competitive-sporting side.
- The fact that factions can be influenced without personal risk is functionally no different from having your ship blown up by an invisible sniper. If this happened in PVP, the forums would ignite in an atomic powered witch hunt. But when it happens in Solo vs Open, somehow it is acceptable? This is a blatant double standard of what constitutes acceptable unwelcome PVP aggression.
- High waking is 100% legit, but Combat log waking is both cheating and dishonorable. Perhaps the death penalty is too high as Agony suggests, but I get the feeling that many of these people would combat log as a matter of 'principle" even if the rebuy cost was Zero. I've had several people combat log against my 42% hull Sidey, despite being in massively superior ships like Pythons, Clippers, etc.
3.0 is going to make it relatively easy for people to have maxed out builds. There might be skill gaps to overcome, but as with anything, it only requires practice and curiosity. Twitch muscles aren't as important as having a good plan/build. So the "odds being stacked" issue is essentially going away very soon. Hopefully this + the C&P implementation will be enough to draw reluctant PVPers out into the Open melee. Personally the god-rolled broken ships were 100% of the reason I was largely abstaining from PVP. Now I will not be hesitant because the loss is just money, and money in Elite is something that multiplies like rabbits even without trying. Much as with evolution, Credits need a natural predator just to retain a healthy disposition.
Last edited:
I fully agree with the balance issues. I which SBs, SCBs, HRPs and MRPs were removed from the game and took the premium and special weapons with them. Then the game could be ballanced.
Most of the time I fly an Asp with a class 3 Bi-w. It would not last long If someone were able to catch me.
It has a cheap rebuy and good super cruice agility, so the risk is acceptable.
I don’t fly it in open, If I have 50t bromelite for Bill Turner onboard.
As a PvE player, you controll the situation. The ganker needs you. You don’t need the ganker.
As long as a PvEer doesn’t turn a blind eye to the fact that there are killers in open, it’s fine there.
Fly cheap, fly fast, fly stong or fly around.
Still does not counter the original point - there is no peaceful co-existence possible. Even ignoring the imbalance issues, it goes against the grain of the modern generation of PvPers.I fully agree with the balance issues. I which SBs, SCBs, HRPs and MRPs were removed from the game and took the premium and special weapons with them. Then the game could be ballanced.
Most of the time I fly an Asp with a class 3 Bi-w. It would not last long If someone were able to catch me.
It has a cheap rebuy and good super cruice agility, so the risk is acceptable.
I don’t fly it in open, If I have 50t bromelite for Bill Turner onboard.
As a PvE player, you controll the situation. The ganker needs you. You don’t need the ganker.
As long as a PvEer doesn’t turn a blind eye to the fact that there are killers in open, it’s fine there.
Fly cheap, fly fast, fly stong or fly around.
Last edited:
Do you have a meme for 'if you can't beat 'em ignore them & play in solo or a private group'?
If your gameplay is PvE you aren't reliant on other players. If they are there you have a choice to co-op, but whatever you are doing can still largely be done. Maybe not as quickly.
However, if your chosen style of play depends on having other players around...
Seems to me 'you' need 'them' more than 'they' need 'you'. Something to think about
Last edited:
I don't fly it much, but if I am flying my Asp it looks like this:
https://eddp.co/u/PGcGQPf7
And I'm not worried about getting ganked at all. In fact I wish more people would try.
There might be situations where I'd get taken out: station ramming or something planetside. But getting interdicted out of supercruise, as long as I'm not falling down drunk, I'm gonna get away.
But a 133% optimal on a dd5? Eww. Dun tuch me with that.
Ha, left overs from vulture and fdl rolls. Although I never ended up getting a really good size 5 thruster roll. I think the best I have is a 135.
You miss my point - no I don't... FD go by the principle of playing the game your way, for Open that essentially means PvP meta/counter-meta builds or bust in essence. I prefer to have flexibility and real choice in my build decisions as opposed to be forced to follow a handful of metas. Where PvE is concerned, there are some common sense build decision considerations but not to anything like the same degree that PvP largely requires (if you wish to either just survive or win in combat).
The C&P changes may address certain behavioural issues and the engineering changes may address certain aspects of build accessibility but they do not change the imbalanced nature of certain core game mechanics. Removal of tools/features as basically proposed by Zen is not the answer, but rebalancing said tools would be the right thing to do. Until appropriate adjustments to those mechanics is done, Open (and PvP in general) will remain as unattractive to at least some of us as it has been since (at least) the time the Wings feature was introduced.
IMO FD may have missed a prime opportunity to rebalance the impact of engineering on builds and to address the related component stacking issues. There are a few things they could have done at the same time to help level the general build balance playing field while not actually preventing players from having certain current pre-3.0 OP builds.
It does not actually bother me personally since I have zero desire to engage in an ED environment that requires me to consider current restrictive PvP-meta concerns in my build choices (i.e. Open) AND Private Group modes in the main fulfil my personal co-operative PvE desires. However, to try and claim that the build imbalance issues are not a fundamental part of the root cause for PvP perhaps being unpopular amongst at least some is unwise if people truly want the current status quo to change wrt PvP popularity.
The forum is just as unfriendly towards PvEers. A forum on the internet will have people being unfriendly equally divided over all segments. I think it has to do with being humans.
Exhibit A+: Poor PvEers having to fight to keep the modes they enjoy from the evil clutches of meanie PvPers who want everything Open only, or even want to get rid of the modes altogether. Woe is definitely us [sad]
This has nothing to do with moderator PvE bias when handing out infractions.
Infractions are more related to behaviour than what you decided to play against.
Combat is the medium of PvP. PvP profits from development on combat. There hasn't been much specific PvP content, sure.
Argument by analogy (sniper). Please state the argument.
Where the analogy goes flawed is where you can counter sniper the invisible sniper.
Good thing I was talking about high waking then.
Last edited:
Depends on your definition of peaceful co-existence. All I'm saying is that it's fully possible to play PvE in open. There is no reason to do it unless you want to include PvPers in your content, but it's doable. It will influence the choices you make, but rarely your finances.
When I play in open I play PvE, but I'm open for PvP. This means that I don't attack players for no reason.
If I'm interdicted by someone I think I can handle, I will fight.
This has of course never happened in the time I have played ED. Everyone I have ever met with mean intentions, have been in a far more powerful ship than mine.
This is why PvP isn't more popular. Having to stop playing the game and switc to 'PvP mode', to get a balanced fight does not cut it.
Until I can keep my fuel scoop, a bit of cargo space and decent jump range and still be on par, it's not happening.
I like scanners on my ships, not shield boosters. That means no PvP. I like to have an SRV, not SCBs. No PvP.
Multi-roles are useless in PvP. Not because they are not as good as a combat build. That's OK. Whats not OK, is the amount of difference.
In my book a fully upgraded multi-role build should have about 10% less combat capability than a combat build(same ship). This is well within the margin that can be made up for with skill.
In ED the multi-role can have the same weapons as a combat build, so no problem there.
Defense however, is where the game breaks down. A multi-role with top shields and armor is easily out tanked 3-4 times by a combat build. We are no longer within the margin of skill or luck. The fight has become pointless and will not happen.
The ultra defense has also lead to the introduction counter weapons. Premium synth and Power Play specials that are heavily gated behind long grins also reduces the number of hostile encounters that are within the skill margin.
No one wants to fight the fights they know are lost form start. It does not matter which method a player chooses to avoid them. PvP gets marginalized either way. Currently it's so marginalized that most players find it just to be an annoyance.
I fear that if nothing is done, PvP will be restricted to anarchy systems only. Popular demand will push FD make insta-death security in other types of systems.
Frontier's illogical policy on this is unambiguous, and very much in the favor of Solo/PG players, so the self pity emoji is wholly unwarranted.
In any case, the only aspects that PVP players have lobbied to be Open only are the competitive ones. This makes logical sense because "solo/private competition" is an oxymoron. Most of the PVE explorers that I know agree, even the ones that don't care for PVP. Admittedly while I do know hundreds of players, my sample size is only a small subset of the player base. On a brighter note, Frontier seems to be attempting to use all of the honey in their combs to make large swaths of Open into a safe space for PVE players. So maybe there is some hope for literal common ground here.
In Open combat you can certainly counter snipers with snipers using your naked eye and wits to spot the "invisible" target. In the BGS or PP, there is very often no way to tell who is attacking you or why. Several BGS gankers/terrorists/mercenaries use this cowardly stealth mode to mask their BGS attacks so that retaliation is impossible because there is no target. Period. To be clear, these are not freedom fighters or justice seekers. These more often than not are the same kind of "black hat" people that bomb "white hat" groups (like cancer patient exploration events) for the giggles. And the only way we know this is because enough of these people love notoriety too much to stay uncredited for the deeds. But the only ingame way to know of attackers is if they are clumsy enough to murder people in your systems and go on a most wanted list.
Hmm, was assuming you either mistyped or simply misread what PVP players actually complain about. But just so you know, PVP players typically slot grom missiles, shift lock cansiters, ion disruptors, wake scanners, and even know how to physically grapple and pin other ships with their own to prevent escape. If you ever see a PVP player complain about high waking, they are either making a meta complaint about the lack of mass inhibition effect on high wake vs low wake, or they are just PVP neophytes who don't know what the fudgsicles they're talking about.
I was talking about the friendliness on the forum towards PvPers/PvEers.Frontier's illogical policy on this is unambiguous, and very much in the favor of Solo/PG players, so the self pity emoji is wholly unwarranted.
On a brighter note, Frontier seems to be attempting to use all of the honey in their combs to make large swaths of Open into a safe space for PVE players. So maybe there is some hope for literal common ground here.
I content both sides have their eloquent spokesmen, both sides have the howling monkeys, and they're both on display. I reject any sense of moral superiourity in either group.
Retaliation is possible through working the BGS yourself, which is what I meant by counter sniping.
Oh fer sure there are unsavoury people taking advantage of PvE game features, on par with PvP gankers.
But as complaining about ganking is a act of futility, since you cannot control pillocks, and gankers don't mean that all PvP is bad the same applies when pillocks abuse the PvE system.
Yep, the latter.
Mind you, I was not talking about PvPers. I was taking about the Special Victims Unit subset of PvPers who display just as much victim mentality as they are railing against. Projection is a thing.
Last edited:
- Status