How Frontier Empowered Gankers, and How to Fix It

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Yeah as most people have said, and I've witnessed before, current FD team is quiet hell bent on going towards this path of their vision, which, most people who have rather extensive experience in games or with some sense in them can see how awkward it goes. Either FD can go all in, and perhaps even hire a dev or two that are very experienced in balancing multiplayer environments, and fix this issue without fearing the flow of whinings and salt of the other part of the community to achieve a game that ultimately works great, or, don't want to sound too doomy gloomy but, they can keep hiding from that outburst and happily live in this waist-height pool of salt to fly this game slightly above stalling speed with minimal potential achieved and minimal quality of players acquired.

And unfortunately It seems it goes that way.
Just my other 0.02$.
 
Wow. So, yeah, I am 100% on board with 'Frenotx's Elite Dangerous'. Your vision here is *exactly* what I want.

Frontier would do themselves a big favor by including you on their design team, because I sure as heck do not want what we currently have right now.

Accurate analysis, valid critique, clever and rational suggestions with solutions I wish I could see implemented tomorrow.

@Edward Lewis - If there is any one request I could make, it's that this thread be pushed to the tippy-top of the feedback pile that the Fdev team reads and uses.

(And right underneath that, is the sticky-note saying "Please, for the love of Braben, remove combat XP division")
Thank you for your exceptionally kind words. It's good to know I'm not the only one that would like to see the game move in the outlined direction. I wish I could take a more active role in making it happen, but as much as I'd love to work with FDev, I think the likelihood of that happening is probably nil. In liu of that, I'll just keep providing what feedback I can, and hope it gets seen by the right people.
 
In short, if I have to go to a third part site to research everything, I'm not interested. And with Elite, that pretty much is required.

That’s daft, pretty much every aspect of modern life, every product and pastime has a 3rd party website telling you how to do it better and how to fix it. Have you noticed how OEM manuals have withered away as a result?
 
Agreed, not sure why fdev are reluctant to get this right, i'm sure the overwhelming majority would be all for these sorts of changes, it's been going on long enough you'd have though they'd have nailed it by now.
 
In short, if I have to go to a third part site to research everything, I'm not interested. And with Elite, that pretty much is required.

There is one use to make of third party sites, to be honest - that's to identify the currently "hot" trade hops and stay the heck away from them.

They attract pirates and murderhobos only marginally less than CGs do and when everybody and their space-loach is grinding T9s and cargo Cutters along them, the market craters way faster than the lesser known one that you researched yourself and that the the third party tools can't find.
 
  1. BALANCE ENGINEERING. Several of the issues caused or exacerbated by engineering would be mitigated by points #2 and #5, but the glaring issue of vanilla (or not-fully-engineered) ship vs. engineered ship remains. Engineering should be about specialization and side grades, not raw stat increases. If engineering were balanced this way, vanilla ships would remain a reasonably-viable, "generalist" option. They'd still likely be at a disadvantage vs. an engineered ship that is build / flown to fully capitalize on the specialization / side-grade direction they've engineered for, but the delta would be far far smaller. Ideally, a well-flown vanilla ship would still be a completely credible threat to a fully-engineered ship.
This is what they bloody should have done from the beginning with the Engineers. Everytime it came up in the way back, though, the justification was always "Well, we always want the players netting a bigger and bigger bonus as they upgrade, both over previous levels and over the baseline."

As for the rest of your post... ship it. It's an excellent direction for the game to go.

It won't happen, of course. FDev seems pretty heavily committed to vertical progression for progression sake, but I really wish I were able to play your version of the game.
 
Last edited:
If only we could... if only we could....

2bhwrk.jpg


I mean yeah... E: D's backbone with OP's suggestions, I'd gladly play that... ney, I'd certainly pay/re-pay for that instead of this.
 
Agree with everything in the OP. Honestly, making those changes would be the biggest shift towards getting people playing in open, as those are the exact reasons I currently don't. I don't even mind griefers, I mind that they are able to seal club anyone who doesn't play the game as much as them. If I die, I want to know it's because they were more skilled. I don't mind that.
 

Deleted member 38366

D
The way I saw it :

- Pre-Release Beta

Players note that Crime carries no punishment nor deterrent whatsoever, advise that this will become a severe issue if not addressed.
FDev : No Comment, No Action

- Pre-Release Gamma

Players note again that Crime carries no punishment nor deterrent, advise that time is running up fast. If unfixed before Release, this will become a severe issue.
Alternatively, some protection area around the Starter Region is strongly recommended to be implemented to afford at least brand new starters some level of safety.
FDev : No Comment, No Action

- Release V1.0

No C&P System is in place.
(notable odd exception : Smuggling. Getting caught smuggling carried instant death penalty and (for its time) extreme Credit amounts going into the Millions, making it the only capital crime in existence. A Murder Crime? A harmless fixed 6400cr total, which could be paid off at anytime, anywhere, regardless of criminal Status. Anyone could go on a killing spree, pay those few Credits and be clean like a Saint in a heartbeat. Or Suicidewinder of course.)

- V1.1

As predicted, crime is already beginning to explode. The old worlds are found infested with Criminals. The now-infamous Lave Cluster has become a System-wide Anarchy Conflict Zone.
The new Community Goals are increasingly found overrun with Criminals, becoming temporary Anarchy Hotspots.
Even Pirates and Pirate Groups are beginning to fight against Gankers, as they undermine their operations and cause Traders to become increasingly uncooperative to any Interdiction attempts.

After hundreds of complaints and increasing public pressure, around March 2015 the Lead Designer is forced to publicly address the issue for the first time :
"It was a Design Decision"

However, instead of recognizing the capital mistake, no further comment is given. No changes planned. Be it incompetence, a false sense of personal pride or ego - or any combination. But at least it's official now.
On this day, the term ELITE : Toxic was born, denouncing Open Play for the increasingly toxic and hostile Gameplay it offers. DAY-Z in space.
The game's on-paper C&P System is publicly exposed for the pathetic fake it was (now officially) designed to be. It's a total design failure, an absolute beginner-level mistake for any MMO Game.

- V1.2 through V2.3

Open Play increasingly attracts Gankers and Griefers like light attracts moths, over time increasingly discrediting legit PvP Players and Groups, as well as undermining legitimate Piracy.
Ever since it was officially acknowledged that the "Game is designed to protect Criminals and permit limitless Ganking/Griefing", the seeds for the presence of better-organized Groups flourished.
In combination with an openly demonstrated inability and/or unwillingness to deal with Cheaters/Hackers, the floodgates were open for the Player archetypes long banned from other MultiPlayer Games.
Even repeated and public clear TOS violations went unsanctioned, with only isolated extreme events (sniping of Cancer Charity livestream) creating a massive backlash against FDev - eventually forcing their hands.
Notably, the biggest Ganker Groups gain VIP Status with FDev "Triple-ELITE", further manifesting that their presence is not only tolerated but highly welcome, adding highly volatile fuel to the fire.

- V2.1 RNGineers

Creating the single most unbalanced power Creep in ELITE's history, it's a Ganker's/Griefer's wildest Dreams come true.
As a Result, the already existing severe C&P issues are multiplied. Ganking and Griefing has never been easier and faster.

Almost all related Beta-Test results (some of which were downright ludicrous, highlighting some massively OP blueprints and Special Effects) are entirely ignored.

After several months, even Ganker Groups openly demonstrate against some insane still-unfixed Weapon special effects.
As a result, even Stations - at the time by far the most heavily Weaponized assets in the entire Galaxy - had to receive not one but two massive buffs... While entirely forgetting System Authority and Defense Forces suffering from the same problem.
Some Weapons and their Special Effects are eventually downright ousted by the Community, causing anyone to utilize them in Combat to instantly end up on public KOS lists.

- V2.4

Open Play participation continually declining, Mobius PvE Group repeatedly bursting game limitations and general attitude towards Open Play being now negative by the majority of total Players.
The majority of Players is now found in other modes.
FDev after years of passiveness and having a new Executive Producer takes baby-steps to correct one of the most damaging and toxic design flaws of ELITE Dangerous.
Small C&P amendments are made, but quickly proven way too little and way too late. However, the key takeaway is that the problem is publicly acknowledged for the first time. A huge step forward.

- V3.0

With all trends unbroken, a newly designed C&P System is presented - and instantly proven utterly awkward, inconsistent, unreliable and ineffective.
It is implemented despite all valid critique, naturally applauded by most experienced Gankers - fully knowing it's a swiss cheese with plenty of loopholes by virtue of its deep and illogical design flaws.

On top, more Ganker toys are implemented, nicely supplementing the existing huge arsenal of unbalanced and power-creep Weapons.
By now, the term "Balancing" has virtually ceased to be used - since simply none exists. At least not in Open Play. That wrecked condition becomes the unique second nature of Open Play.

===============================================

As it stands now, many years after release :
- there's absolutely no risk for Criminals/Gankers/Griefers for as long as they at least have a little clue what they're doing
- Piracy has become a tiny RP niche and effectively ceased being a profession
- many previous Credit Exploits have rendered the purely Credit-based Punishment fundamentally irrelevant anyway
- the biggest punishment? It hits the clean/unprepared guys the hardest
- no improvement or fix is in sight, as FDev - reasons unknown, discussed ad infinitum in the past - doesn't seem to comprehend the magnitude and how much damage has already been done

Hate to say that.... But all it'd take would be :
1) Common Sense
2) someone with in-game experience

Difficult times though, with only a skeleton team remaining and Resources for Development being minimal at best.
Fixing C&P and Engineers together, revamping and entirely redesigning System Security, Permit Systems and its effects... By now that's no small feat anymore. IMHO there's no Quckfix for that, it's too late.

I'd say biting the sour apple and splitting up into two official Modes (Open PvP, Open PvE) by now would be - by far - the easiest way. I'd know of no cheaper solution than this.
Still, despite all its issues, Open Play with its C&P issues has earned its unique reputation and holds that as a quality of its own. It just isn't for everybody and rather extreme at times - which is kind of a problem and unfortunate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems I'm out of rep, so virtual rep to Frenotx. Excellent, well thought out, and explained thread opener. +support

Also FalconFly, thanks for the history from before I started playing. Everything 2.0 and beyond was spot on accurate. I can only assume your account prior to that is accurate as well.
 

Rafe Zetter

Banned
It seems I'm out of rep, so virtual rep to Frenotx. Excellent, well thought out, and explained thread opener. +support

Also FalconFly, thanks for the history from before I started playing. Everything 2.0 and beyond was spot on accurate. I can only assume your account prior to that is accurate as well.


It certainly is - I remember reading and myself posting dozens of threads about how badly the Gamma's laughably labelled "C&P" system was implemented and what was going to happen based on many previous experiences in other games.

If I worked at FDev, I'd print FalconFly's summation off and staple it to every door in FDev's offices. "Good Will Hunting" in reverse, instead of solving issues, inescapably highlighting them over and over and over again.

As FalconFly stated, FDev were not interested in the feedback, let alone driven to do anything about it.

Sadly that was not enough of a warning sign, and clearly displayed FDev's attitude to the playerbase for the coming years.

I told you so, many times.

FDev tell us they pay attention to such threads and feedback, but I truly beleive that they don't, how else do you explain what continues to happen? They either ignore them entirely, or read them and without conscience or second thought, discard it; "I don't wanna". It's either that or they are one of the most incompetant DGAF dev houses of modern times.... Jurassic Park World will tell if it's the former or latter.

FDev won't be able to hide their true colours if they do the same thing TWICE in a row.
 
Last edited:
Very well written - unfortunately FDev doesn't seem too interested in a SERIOUS attempt at discouraging ganking, the most annoying thing one can do in this game bar none.
 
Very well written - unfortunately FDev doesn't seem too interested in a SERIOUS attempt at discouraging ganking, the most annoying thing one can do in this game bar none.

They’re plenty interested. The recent changes to c&P shows that effort has gone into just that. The move to shift powerplay to open only is also intended to deal with that to some degree. The problem is they actually don’t play or really quite understand how others play their own game. There’s clearly a lack of comprehension coming from the top and a lot of decisions are done without full understanding of either their unintended consequences or care for consistency within the game Universe. That’s how we end up with absurdities like holome, SLF Pilots that can only be accessed in stations (any station magically?) and skimmers that can destroy cutters if they fall on them. Long list of examples, really, but work in the morning and time is precious.
 
OP, very impressive explanation of, to use your word, the rift.

I will say that the fixes you suggest, while certainly would solve the problems, are a bit time consuming to say the least. That's a tremendous amount of code to go through and repair...even if they are organized enough to find it all quickly, which I assume they are.

I've recommended a slightly different solution to this, which is to blend players in with NPCs in terms of:

1) how we are viewed on the scanner (no more hollow box)

2) no Commander title on contacts list or target info

3) Custom named commanders, non unique (since frontier account or gamertag handles that already)

4) affiliation with a minor faction, to replace Independent status. However, pledging in PowerPlay replaces this with the powers name, making you a viable PvP target.

5) communications panel shows other players in the instance (would prefer the entire system, but one thing at a time) by their unique identifier, allowing for socializing without fear of giving away your ship/location...something that should be plausible in 3304. A nice feature here would be an allow ship location option, which shows the hollow square only to that player...worth debating.

And last an options suite to undo each of these for those who prefer to be seen by all.

The overall goal being to reduce the preference towards player griefing builds without undoing the whole game. Griefing is still possible, but the griefers would really have to pay attention closely to differentiate a player from an NPC.

Curious as to your thoughts (others as well) on this as an anti-griefing solution.
 
Last edited:
OP, very impressive explanation of, to use your word, the rift.

I will say that the fixes you suggest, while certainly would solve the problems, are a bit time consuming to say the least. That's a tremendous amount of code to go through and repair...even if they are organized enough to find it all quickly, which I assume they are.

I've recommended a slightly different solution to this, which is to blend players in with NPCs in terms of:

1) how we are viewed on the scanner (no more hollow box)

2) no Commander title on contacts list or target info

3) Custom named commanders, non unique (since frontier account or gamertag handles that already)

4) affiliation with a minor faction, to replace Independent status. However, pledging in PowerPlay replaces this with the powers name, making you a viable PvP target.

5) communications panel shows other players in the instance (would prefer the entire system, but one thing at a time) by their unique identifier, allowing for socializing without fear of giving away your ship/location...something that should be plausible in 3304. A nice feature here would be an allow ship location option, which shows the hollow square only to that player...worth debating.

And last an options suite to undo each of these for those who prefer to be seen by all.

The overall goal being to reduce the preference towards player griefing builds without undoing the whole game. Griefing is still possible, but the griefers would really have to pay attention closely to differentiate a player from an NPC.

Curious as to your thoughts (others as well) on this as an anti-griefing solution.
I am generally for changes that better blend players into the game world. The closer we can get to, "just some person going about their life in the world of Elite", the better. In response to the specific changes you've outlined, I don't think they would do much to rectify the problems I'm trying to address in the OP. Non-combat-hyperspecialized and / or vanilla ships would remain crushingly weak vs. combat min-maxed ships. If I wanted to kill CMDRs at a CG, I could still do so with the same lack of resistance that exists in the current game. The only difference is that I'd encouraged to destroy ALL ships I come across, instead of just waiting around when only NPCs are on the scope. More traders might slip through while I'm beating up some NPC that I thought might have been a player, but the game experience of the myriad players that still get got will not have been improved at all. Additionally, now people in engineered but not combat-specialized ships would have to be significantly more paranoid. If a ship interdicts them and it's just an NPC, they don't really have much to worry about. If that ship they thought was just an NPC turns out to be an armed-to-the-teeth player out for blood, they may just be screwed.

It's always important to look at multiplayer mechanics from the perspectives of both sides of an engagement, and consider what their game experience is like. What are their options? Do they have interesting choices to make? Are they engaged? What are they doing on a moment-to-moment basis? How can they win this engagement? How can they lose? What is the likelihood of either outcome? What all is being risked? What do winning and losing feel like, and how do they affect their overall experience?
 
I am generally for changes that better blend players into the game world. The closer we can get to, "just some person going about their life in the world of Elite", the better. In response to the specific changes you've outlined, I don't think they would do much to rectify the problems I'm trying to address in the OP. Non-combat-hyperspecialized and / or vanilla ships would remain crushingly weak vs. combat min-maxed ships. If I wanted to kill CMDRs at a CG, I could still do so with the same lack of resistance that exists in the current game. The only difference is that I'd encouraged to destroy ALL ships I come across, instead of just waiting around when only NPCs are on the scope. More traders might slip through while I'm beating up some NPC that I thought might have been a player, but the game experience of the myriad players that still get got will not have been improved at all. Additionally, now people in engineered but not combat-specialized ships would have to be significantly more paranoid. If a ship interdicts them and it's just an NPC, they don't really have much to worry about. If that ship they thought was just an NPC turns out to be an armed-to-the-teeth player out for blood, they may just be screwed.

It's always important to look at multiplayer mechanics from the perspectives of both sides of an engagement, and consider what their game experience is like. What are their options? Do they have interesting choices to make? Are they engaged? What are they doing on a moment-to-moment basis? How can they win this engagement? How can they lose? What is the likelihood of either outcome? What all is being risked? What do winning and losing feel like, and how do they affect their overall experience?

I see your point, I still like the blending idea, but you are right that it could add a bit too much stress to piloting in open since you wouldn't know who (NPC/PC) is interdicting you. Might have the opposite effect I would be after, which is making open a more viable first choice for those who want it to be.

Thanks,
o7
 

ryan_m

Banned
I am generally for changes that better blend players into the game world. The closer we can get to, "just some person going about their life in the world of Elite", the better. In response to the specific changes you've outlined, I don't think they would do much to rectify the problems I'm trying to address in the OP. Non-combat-hyperspecialized and / or vanilla ships would remain crushingly weak vs. combat min-maxed ships. If I wanted to kill CMDRs at a CG, I could still do so with the same lack of resistance that exists in the current game. The only difference is that I'd encouraged to destroy ALL ships I come across, instead of just waiting around when only NPCs are on the scope. More traders might slip through while I'm beating up some NPC that I thought might have been a player, but the game experience of the myriad players that still get got will not have been improved at all. Additionally, now people in engineered but not combat-specialized ships would have to be significantly more paranoid. If a ship interdicts them and it's just an NPC, they don't really have much to worry about. If that ship they thought was just an NPC turns out to be an armed-to-the-teeth player out for blood, they may just be screwed.

It's always important to look at multiplayer mechanics from the perspectives of both sides of an engagement, and consider what their game experience is like. What are their options? Do they have interesting choices to make? Are they engaged? What are they doing on a moment-to-moment basis? How can they win this engagement? How can they lose? What is the likelihood of either outcome? What all is being risked? What do winning and losing feel like, and how do they affect their overall experience?

On top of that, there would still NEED to be a way to identify player vs. NPC and if I can still do it using history or scanning individual ships, there is only more danger for a random trader against a ganker. The trader would have to scan every single ship to know if they are in real danger, but the ganker only has to scan new ones entering the instance.
 
Here is a good possibility:

A trucker engine for non combat ships (needs a better name).

This could be a cat C engine, offered similarly to how bi-weave shields are. Other possibilities are a class 1 optional module, or a class C distributor....however it comes, should be low cost.

The way I see it, hard trade/explorer/mining vessels all have a capacitor for weapons...but rarely use it (miners excluded, but they are covered).

So one option to add balance would be to have some way for these playstyles to sacrifice cruising speed for a super boost engine that drains both the engine and weapon capacitors. To give an idea numerically, we are talking 100m/s cruising speed, but 600m/s boost speed.

The idea needs fine-tuned, obviously. But you get the general idea, something to the effect of good for truckers and bad for combatters would go a long way in balancing out the two playstyles.

Another more controversial idea may be to have the FSD Interdictor drain weapon capacity, forcing a grey area where gankers can not drop you and immediately fire off plasma rounds. And it makes some sense that maintaining an interdiction would seemingly require a power source. So in this system, it's more advantageous for the ganked player to drag out the interdiction and drain the gankers power a bit, then fail or submit. Sure, he might shoot some torpedoes at you on drop, but shields are more capable of handling this over plasmas or huge beams.

Anyways, that's all I got, you've covered anything else thoroughly. Hopefully something comes of it, but sadly I won't be holding my breath.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom