How Frontier Empowered Gankers, and How to Fix It

[DNA-Decay]

I hope Adam and the gang read the OP.
One of the best posts on the topic.

 

[Schmack]

I was thinking today that the iEagle I was flying should be faster. It seems so limited even fully engineered and lightweight, but agile and really fun to fly. My Cutter can almost keep up with it. In movies of space battles, small craft zoom by using their speed as a defensive mechanism, just as fighter aircraft do when attacking larger targets. In the game, you see your speed shoot up and it hits a limit and just stops increasing.

I think new players should be in a permitted system that, instead of gaining the permit, they lose it after they have ranked up. How would you get them out of it? You simply pay them to leave it (in Cr of course) and you can only progress a certain number of ships and modules in that permitted safe space so campers in that area won't make much, and once they jump from it after ranking they cannot jump back (but they can transfer their ships and modules from it). How would they fly with friends who are ranked? They can leave the permitted system when they want, but after ranking they cannot go back. A bit like solo but with players of your own skill level (2nd accounts notwithstanding and you know they'd be there).

Otherwise, I am not for making a lot of changes to fix one aspect of a mode I don't play. I wouldn't play in open if all these things existed, not because I don't have a chance (I have a good chance), but because the same dufus types are still in there and I don't want to be in a game with them, not even Tetris.

 

[Schmack]

It's easy to talk about penalties and what not, but very difficult to actually make concrete rules that result in what you want to happen. I think giving people a chance to be the better pilot regardless of current ship has a lot of merit. I'm biased. I'm a decent PvP pilot. Nothing would make me happier than turning a gank on my trading vessel into an abject lesson. But it's just not realistic with the way the game is right now.

I just think the game overall would be more exciting if everyone could pose a threat. To pride, if nothing else. Because a lot of people (and I include myself in this despite not goldrushing) don't care about rebuys to any real degree and NPC cops are less than an afterthought on the edge of a waking dream.

I find it problematic that people can scan you in supercruise or any time to see what your weapon loadout is, even internals. Then they know they can probably take you. I would like to see even the "elite" or other ranks removed from the information. I'd prefer no different looking squares, everything looks the same. You don't know if you're shooting a commander or an NPC. Take the "CMDR" title off as well. That makes everyone a threat.

 

[NeilF]

It's easy to talk about penalties and what not, but very difficult to actually make concrete rules that result in what you want to happen.

Why? Give me an example of what's difficult with my proposal?

I think giving people a chance to be the better pilot regardless of current ship has a lot of merit. I'm biased. I'm a decent PvP pilot. Nothing would make me happier than turning a gank on my trading vessel into an abject lesson. But it's just not realistic with the way the game is right now.

I just think the game overall would be more exciting if everyone could pose a threat. To pride, if nothing else. Because a lot of people (and I include myself in this despite not goldrushing) don't care about rebuys to any real degree and NPC cops are less than an afterthought on the edge of a waking dream.

The problem with trying to get the game to police illegal destruction, is first and foremost the actual acceptance of mindless toxic destruction itself. How does it makes sense to in anyway reward/tolerate a player destroying another player (who most likely isn't interested in PvP, let alone outfitted for it) for no in game reason. And the more one sided and pointless the combat, the better.... And if a Wing of you can do it it fully engineered combat ships, against someone without even a weapon fitter? All the better!

Now add to this the instancing issue, mode switching and complete lack of ability to therefore hold another CMDR accountable, we're on to a lost cause.

Far better (IMHO) to rein in toxic illegal destruction using punishments of long enough duration (eg: days/weeks instead of hours), and wide enough scope (more and more station/systems denying you access). And then for the game to actually - we're approaching 4 years now - to actually offer and orchestrate some interesting PvP gameplay for those folks actually interested in it.

Are you really telling me the best ED can offer PvP wise in 2018 (after 4yrs of developement) is the notion that somehow one or more players hunting down another player not interested in combat, let alone outfitted for it, to simply blow them up (gank them) for in truth no in game reason or outcome at all, and instead simply because these individuals get a buzz out of the grief it will cause the other player, is in anyway a good position to be in? Why isn't the game more solidly penalising this and more importantly actually offering some interesting/involved (more consensual) PvP gameplay (which would of course piggy back on more interesting/involved PvE). Why enough time for CQC, Generation Ships, The Engineers v1 & v2 and Multicrew, but not for more involved meaningful PvE and PvP gameplay?

 

[PeLucheuh]

Exactly.

It's way too easy to be a griefer/ganker. Just put on some weapons and an interdictor and go out and hunt the weak. Not hard. But it should be.

It's way too easy to be a carebear/victim as well. Just avoid using any available defensive module and go out assuming nothing other than what you want can happen. Then once you got nuked, just complain about other players being equally able to play the way they want.

 

[NeilF]

It's way too easy to be a carebear/victim as well. Just avoid using any available defensive module and go out assuming nothing other than what you want can happen. Then once you got nuked, just complain about other players being equally able to play the way they want.

1) What is so noble/worthwhile when one (or often more) CMDRs in dedicated combat ships, Engineered to max, attack CMDRs not interested in combat, not outfitted for combat, for in truth no in game reason/outcome, and simply because they get enjoyment out of causing grief to other CMDRs? Consider: Why are these individuals not attacking "solid dots" on their scanners? Because that won't cause grief to someone. It's often this black and white, and this cynical!

2) Why is it telling that these sort of individuals resort to childish bait talk rather than any logic/reason?

3) Would it not be better in 2018, if a space combat game, four years since release, actually offered easy to access and interesting PvP? Or is mindless cynical toxic ganking the best we can hope for?


So again, heavily penalise illegal destruction. ie: Act like a psycho, get treated like a psycho! And actually start offering some PvP gameplay with meaning, depth and accessibility!

 

[B1rdy]

We are still waiting for DB`s statement "[PvP]combat will be rare and meaningful" to come true. "Squadrons" could potentially provide a platform for PvP, but FDev rather announces some new ship (fleet carrier) and no new game mechanics.

 

[NeilF]

We are still waiting for DB`s statement "[PvP]combat will be rare and meaningful" to come true. "Squadrons" could potentially provide a platform for PvP, but FDev rather announces some new ship (fleet carrier) and no new game mechanics.

LOL!

Yes, at the moment, it's common and all too often meaningless...

As for Squadrons, and Powerplay and even Fleet Carriers offering PvP related gameplay? Oh yes - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ron-quot-Role-quot-and-more-involved-gameplay

 

[PeLucheuh]

1) What is so noble/worthwhile when one (or often more) CMDRs in dedicated combat ships, Engineered to max, attack CMDRs not interested in combat, not outfitted for combat, for in truth no in game reason/outcome, and simply because they get enjoyment out of causing grief to other CMDRs?

It does not matter. Is it supported by the game mechanics and players can do it. Not being interested or outfitted for an activity does not remove said activity from the game.

Consider: Why are these individuals not attacking "solid dots" on their scanners? Because that won't cause grief to someone. It's often this black and white, and this cynical!

Consider : you are just assuming they don't do it. The sure things though is they are playing the way they want within the framework of the game rules.
People are playing for their own reasons that only matter to them.

2) Why is it telling that these sort of individuals resort to childish bait talk rather than any logic/reason?

People are irrationnal because they are driven by their feelings. They are so focused on "why and reasons" that they don't acknowledge "how" the game can be played. Hence having wrong expectations and making irrational assumptions.

3) Would it not be better in 2018, if a space combat game, four years since release, actually offered easy to access and interesting PvP?

It definitely would be more engaging. I am all for OOPP feature but it won't change what a player can do within the framework of the game rules.

Or is mindless cynical toxic ganking the best we can hope for?

Ganking won't disappear because it is a perfectly valid way to play the game. I guess we will still have to deal with toxic complaints from players who are frustrated due to their wrong expectations and understanding about how the game works.

So again, heavily penalise illegal destruction. ie: Act like a psycho, get treated like a psycho! And actually start offering some PvP gameplay with meaning, depth and accessibility!

I am ok if it is heavily rewarded as well. Also, maybe non combat ships not using available defensive modules should not be covered by the insurance and face full rebuy.

 

[NeilF]

It does not matter. Is it supported by the game mechanics and can players do it. Not being interested or outfitted for an activity does not remove said activity from the game.

Well isn't it amazing that FD hit the nail on the head with 100%, perfect, fit for purpose, ideal for all outcome, mechanics with their place holder gameplay four years ago...

You're suggesting that maybe the game mechanics could not be altered to create a more healthy and logical OPEN for the majority of players?

And if this unfortunately means the reduction of what (IMHO) most players see as minless cynical and toxic behaviour of a (most likely a small) minority, you're suggesting then that minority will not be able to learn to deal with that grief of their resultant gameplay experience? Akin to the grief they of course expect the rest of the community to currently suck up for their prefered game mechanics?


And as I said before:-

What is so noble/worthwhile when one (or often more) CMDRs in dedicated combat ships, Engineered to max, attack CMDRs not interested in combat, not outfitted for combat, for in truth no in game reason/outcome, and simply because they get enjoyment out of causing grief to other CMDRs? Consider: Why are these individuals not attacking "solid dots" on their scanners? Because that won't cause grief to someone. It's often this black and white, and this cynical!​

Please let's not suggest that what we currently have in ED pretending to be interesting and/or rewarding PvP is anything of the sort. It's bare minimum placeholder gameplay ticking a PvP available tick box purely from a minimal viable product POV. It's embarrassing that this game four years on has really not moved PvP forwards at all...

Consider : you are just assuming they don't do it. The sure things though is they are playing the way they want within the framework of the game rules.
People are playing for their own reasons that only matter to them.


People are irrationnal because they are driven by their feelings. They are so focused on "why and reasons" that they don't acknowledge "how" the game can be played. Hence having wrong expectations and making irrational assumptions.


It definitely would be more engaging. I am all for OOPP feature but it won't change what a player can do within the framework of the game rules.


Ganking won't disappear because it is a perfectly valid way to play the game. I guess we will still have to deal with toxic complaints from players who are frustrated due to their wrong expectations and understanding about how the game works.


I am ok if it is heavily rewarded as well. Also, maybe non combat ships not using available defensive modules should not be covered by the insurance and face full rebuy.

See above..

I am ok if it is heavily rewarded as well. Also, maybe non combat ships not using available defensive modules should not be covered by the insurance and face full rebuy.

The fact you seemingly continue to skirt around the fact that your proposed gameplay is simply blowing up other CMDRs for no ingame reason/outcome/pursose, other than the giggles of blowing them doesn't highlight a huge glaring issue to you?

It does to me!

 

[PeLucheuh]

You're suggesting that maybe the game mechanics could not be altered to create a more healthy and logical OPEN for the majority of players?

And if this unfortunately means the reduction of what (IMHO) most players see as minless cynical and toxic behaviour of a (most likely a small) minority, you're suggesting then that minority will not be able to learn to deal with that grief of their resultant gameplay experience? Akin to the grief they of course expect the rest of the community to currently suck up for their prefered game mechanics?

I am not suggesting anything. Just stating that being emotional and focused on "why and reasons" while ignoring the "how" a game can be played is irrelevant.
As an example : Ganking is not griefing. It is supported and countered by the game mechanics. It can happen for whatever or no reasons but people who refuse to acknowledge that will feel griefed.
And yes, ganking can be used in order to grief people but it requires specific situation and circumstances (seal clubbing noobwinder or station gank using force shell cannon).

And as I said before:-

What is so noble/worthwhile when one (or often more) CMDRs in dedicated combat ships, Engineered to max, attack CMDRs not interested in combat, not outfitted for combat, for in truth no in game reason/outcome, and simply because they get enjoyment out of causing grief to other CMDRs? Consider: Why are these individuals not attacking "solid dots" on their scanners? Because that won't cause grief to someone. It's often this black and white, and this cynical!​

​

And as i said before this does not matter. Being only interested in a small part of the game actvities only applies to the player and does not disable other possibilitties.

Please let's not suggest that what we currently have in ED pretending to be interesting and/or rewarding PvP is anything of the sort. It's bare minimum placeholder gameplay ticking a PvP available tick box purely from a minimal viable product POV. It's embarrassing that this game four years on has really not moved PvP forwards at all...

I am not and i agree with you. OOPP will provide a more obvious context for PvP than a cut throat galaxy where you can just hunt other commanders.

The fact you seemingly continue to skirt around the fact that your proposed gameplay is simply blowing up other CMDRs for no ingame reason/outcome/pursose, other than the giggles of blowing them doesn't highlight a huge glaring issue to you?

I don't though.
I am looking and playing the game accepting its full range of possibilities. My proposed gameplay is everyone can equally play the game the way they want within the framework of the game rules.
As an example, I am not interested in exploration and i don't care about why people are doing it. I don't feel griefed because they are putting their CMDR name in system bodies and I am not asking for it to be heavily penalised.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

We are still waiting for DB`s statement "[PvP]combat will be rare and meaningful" to come true. "Squadrons" could potentially provide a platform for PvP, but FDev rather announces some new ship (fleet carrier) and no new game mechanics.

It IS rare.

It's also obviously meaningful by the amount of hand-wringing it causes!

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

The fact you seemingly continue to skirt around the fact that your proposed gameplay is simply blowing up other CMDRs for no ingame reason/outcome/pursose, other than the giggles of blowing them doesn't highlight a huge glaring issue to you?

It does to me!

That is FDev's proposed gameplay.

 

[NeilF]

I am not suggesting anything. Just stating that being emotional and focused on "why and reasons" while ignoring the "how" a game can be played is irrelevant.

Take a look at my signature.

Do I look like the kind of person who would suggest why, without thinking how?

 

[NeilF]

That is FDev's proposed gameplay.

Then why are FD seemingly (finally) adding in mechanics to penalise it?

And why has Sandro suggested habitually mindlessly blowing up other CMDRs for no reason is not what they ideally want?

I'd suggest we are where we are at the moment due to place holder gameplay/mechanics still being in place 4yrs on. The concern is, we continue to stay with them.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Then why are FD seemingly (finally) adding in mechanics to penalise it?

And why has Sandro suggested habitually mindlessly blowing up other CMDRs for no reason is not what they ideally want?

I'd suggest we are where we are at the moment due to place holder gameplay/mechanics still being in place 4yrs on. The concern is, we continue to stay with them.

I don't think you are being reasonable.

They are not penalizing that aspect specifically; to wit see how c&p affects nearly everyone.

Mindless?
That is you building a strawman.
It's not mindless.
That is what killing NPCs is!
They fly right into your weapons, hahahaha!
An NPC Eagle will fly straight for a Vette's c4s line of fire.
That is mindless.

You asked why people prefer human targets and that is your answer.
Humans are not mindless and killing them is more involved, well, ideally.

You just wrote about the new mechanics so I'm not sure what to make of your last sentence.
We're even looking at the open only powerplay proposal.
It's not static.

Seems you really don't like the game as designed.
Of course it is supposed to be a dystopia!

 

[Jacques d'Orleans]

Do I look like the kind of person who would suggest why, without thinking how?

Well, it's a pretty colorful avatar that you have.
I'll get my coat.

 

[Frenotx]

The problem with trying to get the game to police illegal destruction, is first and foremost the actual acceptance of mindless toxic destruction itself. How does it makes sense to in anyway reward/tolerate a player destroying another player (who most likely isn't interested in PvP, let alone outfitted for it) for no in game reason. And the more one sided and pointless the combat, the better.... And if a Wing of you can do it it fully engineered combat ships, against someone without even a weapon fitter? All the better!

The whole point of the OP is eliminate the concept of "outfitting for PvP". It also heavily mitigates the single-fight-performance-impact of fitting for combat in general. No matter what you fit for, you can still mount a full defense, and you can still carry a full rack of weapons. Even a ship stuffed to the gills with cargo holds could still max out the hull defense of their ship, and max out the shield defense of their ship just by taking a full sized shield generator. Engineering would no longer provide a huge stat increase either (just specialization), so even a vanilla ship could mount a respectable defense vs. an engineered attacker, without needing to give up internal module space. Ships smaller than their attacker could run away, since they'd be faster. Furthermore, cops would actually be relevant again (since they'd be comparably powerful to player ships).

The OP is all about eliminating the incredibly asymmetrical combat situations that gankers thrive on. With those changes, it would be significantly more difficult to find "easy kills", and significantly more difficult to illegally kill more than a handful before the getting your butt (as well as a steep rebuy) handed to you by the cops, the ATR, a well-flown target, or a CMDR bounty hunter out to make money off of your bounty.

Now add to this the instancing issue, mode switching and complete lack of ability to therefore hold another CMDR accountable, we're on to a lost cause.

There will always be instancing issues, of course. The nice thing about these changes is that they're resistant to them. The targets being attacked will be able to pose a legitimate threat to their attacker (or easily flee), the cops will be a legitimate concern for the attacker (since the cops will now be comparably powerful to player ships), and the ATR would be absolutely terrifying (since they'd be tenacious, and significantly more powerful than player ships). Instancing doesn't affect any of these mechanics, since the only CMDRs involved are the attacker and the defender, which obviously are already in the same instance.

If a player bounty hunter ends up in the right instance, it will be far more possible for them to bring the criminal to task as TTK would be far, far lower. The bounty hunter would also have the (now actually significant) assistance of the cops on their side, assuming they chose to have crime reporting on. Sure instancing issues could conceivable prevent the criminal from ever getting matched with a bounty hunter, but as I stated before, there are several other instance-independent mechanisms to keep criminals in check already.

Far better (IMHO) to rein in toxic illegal destruction using punishments of long enough duration (eg: days/weeks instead of hours), and wide enough scope (more and more station/systems denying you access). And then for the game to actually - we're approaching 4 years now - to actually offer and orchestrate some interesting PvP gameplay for those folks actually interested in it.

Not all illegal destruction is necessarily pointless, or "toxic". The majority of my illegal player kills have been for perfectly legitimate in-game reasons. The most common one that springs to mind driving uncooperative players from my hunting grounds, when I'm out bounty farming. If a player keeps stealing kills from me in a RES and refuses to join me in a wing (or I just feel like RPing a lone wolf sort, and don't want to wing), I tell them this is my hunting ground, and they need to leave. Another example that comes to mind is running across a CMDR that has wronged me or mine in the past, but is currently clean. Vengeance is one of the most classic motivators for killing. Occasional illegal player kills aren't really a problem, and are sometimes the only way to deal with unpleasant / undesirable player behavior. Occasional illegal killing isn't inherently "toxic" behavior (god I'm getting sick of that word). The problem is when CMDRs are going on killing sprees, and / or killing someone over and over. Both of these behaviors would be significantly more difficult with my proposed changes. Vastly reducing the number of "easy targets", significantly increasing the risks via increased police / ATR relevance and threat, and making it easier and more profitable for player bounty hunters to find and destroy CMDRs engaging in such behavior.

Adding massive long-lived penalties adds nothing to the gameplay, and is just a ham-fisted way of dealing with the issue. If FDev's was going to introduce crippling long-lived penalties to illegal player destruction that nobody in their right mind would choose to inflict on themselves, they may as well drop the illusion of choice and just disable illegal player-to-player damage (not a thing I want).

Are you really telling me the best ED can offer PvP wise in 2018 (after 4yrs of developement) is the notion that somehow one or more players hunting down another player not interested in combat, let alone outfitted for it, to simply blow them up (gank them) for in truth no in game reason or outcome at all, and instead simply because these individuals get a buzz out of the grief it will cause the other player, is in anyway a good position to be in? Why isn't the game more solidly penalising this and more importantly actually offering some interesting/involved (more consensual) PvP gameplay (which would of course piggy back on more interesting/involved PvE). Why enough time for CQC, Generation Ships, The Engineers v1 & v2 and Multicrew, but not for more involved meaningful PvE and PvP gameplay?

Combat is a reality of this game. Even trade ships have weapon hardpoints. Carrying any cargo at all occasionally spawns NPC pirates hunting you. Even trade missions occasionally send NPCs after you. If a CMDR has 0 interest in even the possibility of combat, then they should head out on an exploration ships. Every other activity I can think of has some possibility of combat, either PvE or PvP (the distinction of which this proposal seeks to eliminate). The other big thing this proposal seeks to accomplish is to allow all ships to "outfit for combat" (at least in the context of a single fight) without cutting into their ability to outfit for whatever task they're looking to do. A ship specifically outfit for combat would be able to stay out in the field longer and get in more fights (things like AFMUs, repair limpets, or any other field-endurance modules FDev might release), but their single-fight performance would be on-par with a ship fit for any other activity.

Adding new meaningful PvP activities isn't really in the scope of this proposal- it's more about making the game balanced, and setting the stage for such activities to exist in a balanced, well-integrated form. That said, making player bounty hunting both more possible, and more profitable seems at least like a small addition of meaningful PvP to me. My proposal is more about fixing the foundation, than adding more stuff on top of it. Fix the foundation first, then worry about adding a prettier building on top of it.

 

[NeilF]

I don't think you are being reasonable.

They are not penalizing that aspect specifically; to wit see how c&p affects nearly everyone.

Mindless?
That is you building a strawman.
It's not mindless.
That is what killing NPCs is!
They fly right into your weapons, hahahaha!
An NPC Eagle will fly straight for a Vette's c4s line of fire.
That is mindless.

You asked why people prefer human targets and that is your answer.
Humans are not mindless and killing them is more involved, well, ideally.

You just wrote about the new mechanics so I'm not sure what to make of your last sentence.
We're even looking at the open only powerplay proposal.
It's not static.

Seems you really don't like the game as designed.
Of course it is supposed to be a dystopia!

Let's put some meat on the bones? Let's both hop into Pythons and fly around the game in OPEN. When you're attacked by CMDRs, what do you think their reason for doing so will be?
1) For an in game reason?
2) To blow you up for the lolz?

Be realistic now? I'd easily suggest (2) being well over 50%. Is that an unfair/unrealistic assumption?


"Humans are not mindless and killing them is more involved, well, ideally." - By this anology then, why does any ganking exist where the victim isn't even firing back? How is that more involved than a group of actually challenging NPCs? Indeed why isn't ganking zero, and these folks instead involved in taking out Thargoids in Eagles?

Sorry, we're on different pages with this...

If you want involved PvP then the game doesn't really offer/orchestrate it does it. Even four years on! By now I would have hoped to have seen the game orchestrating and offering easy to find enjoyable PvP for an actual reason, generally involving CMDRs interested in PvP. What we have at the moment is still the shallow minimum viable product place holder we had four years ago!

 

[NeilF]

Combat is a reality of this game. Even trade ships have weapon hardpoints. Carrying any cargo at all occasionally spawns NPC pirates hunting you. Even trade missions occasionally send NPCs after you. If a CMDR has 0 interest in even the possibility of combat, then they should head out on an exploration ships.

And here we hit the crux of the matter?

How often do CMDRs get ganked where there's not even any cargo on board... Let alone the attacking individuals stop to scan before opening fire? You're talking about some quaint notion of piracy where a CMDR tries to steal another CMDRs cargo. How often is that happening? How often is it instead just attack any open square no matter the reason?

The game should be improving Piracy depth and mechanics along with offering more viable and interesting PvP!


As for heading out in exploration ships? Let's consider the following screen shot where I was at an Exploration related event which I and many others stupidly attended in OPEN in exploration ships...

It didn't take long for Wings of gankers to turn up, and quite literally start destroying CMDRs there at a rate of one every few seconds. And this is good for the game because?