PvP Gankers - why can't pvp be made consentual?

[znôrt]

Doh. See my OP. The entire premise of this thread is predicated around consideration around changing the current status quo so that open does not explicitly entail consent to being ganked. This is why you really need to read things from the start.

nonsensical proposals in OP can be safely ignored and still give way to interesting discussion around the general topic ...

btw what you want is a pve mode and that has already been discussed at length. no problem in discussing it yet again, but some prior research would be in order.

 

[Hairy Polo]

Doh. See my OP. The entire premise of this thread is predicated around consideration around changing the current status quo so that open does not explicitly entail consent to being ganked. This is why you really need to read things from the start.

...yet, you replied to my OP in accordance with your OP. Hmmmm. Not even abiding by your own 'rules' there...ironic.

 

[DeletedUser191218]

nonsensical proposals in OP can be safely ignored and still give way to interesting discussion around the general topic ...

btw what you want is a pve mode and that has already been discussed at length. no problem in discussing it yet again, but some prior research would be in order.

Lol. If you say so mate. It obviously wasn't nonsensical as it's engaged you. I'm going to try Mobius but i haven't really been given a reason why the system can't be altered. Essentially i asked why X can't change to Y and received the answer "because X = X". It doesn't take a master of logic to see how that completely fails to address the question. There have been genuinely helpful responses but some have misunderstood the question it seems and responded by restating the very arrangengement I was challenging. No matter. I thank you for your effort, even if the tone was less than friendly.

 

[Hairy Polo]

Lol. If you say so mate. It obviously wasn't nonsensical as it's engaged you. I'm going to try Mobius but i haven't really been given a reason why the system can't be altered. Essentially i asked why X can't change to Y and received the answer "because X = X". It doesn't take a master of logic to see how that completely fails to address the question. There have been genuinely helpful responses but some have misunderstood the question it seems and responded by restating the very arrangengement I was challenging. No matter. I thank you for your effort, even if the tone was less than friendly.

OK, I'm going to try hard to not be sarcastic and give you an honest response. I've read your OP again, as you are engaging your OP and taking the time to respond to the people in your post.

You spoke of consideration for changing 'x is x' to 'x being y' with respect to agreed/non agreed pvp. The thing is, I believe you're looking at a problem that either does not exist OR it's of your own making. So no changes are required.

The current 'system' of play just needs to be understood a little more. It's been said over and over, there are 3 modes to satisfy all ways of playing.

I agree with a previous comment in your thread from someone, regarding a possible warning when entering open, might be a good idea.

But at the end of the day, entering open is giving consent to being attacked, ganked and smashed up by OP fully engineered ships. Or the other way round. The opportunities are equal for everyone, no-one is disadvantaged in this game - no pay to win.

And with the material traders and new engineering system, things on the equality front actually improved the time grind for engineering.

I think you're kind of looking at a problem that isn't really there.

Nevertheless, an interesting thread.

 

[DeletedUser191218]

OK, I'm going to try hard to not be sarcastic and give you an honest response. I've read your OP again, as you are engaging your OP and taking the time to respond to the people in your post.

You spoke of consideration for changing 'x is x' to 'x being y' with respect to agreed/non agreed pvp. The thing is, I believe you're looking at a problem that either does not exist OR it's of your own making. So no changes are required.

The current 'system' of play just needs to be understood a little more. It's been said over and over, there are 3 modes to satisfy all ways of playing.

I agree with a previous comment in your thread from someone, regarding a possible warning when entering open, might be a good idea.

But at the end of the day, entering open is giving consent to being attacked, ganked and smashed up by OP fully engineered ships. Or the other way round. The opportunities are equal for everyone, no-one is disadvantaged in this game - no pay to win.

And with the material traders and new engineering system, things on the equality front actually improved the time grind for engineering.

You're kind of looking at a problem that isn't really there.

AGAIN though. You've said being in open means consenting to pvp. I know that. What i was discussing was whether it would be reasonable to consider a change to that given that ganking is so rife. I still don't really see a reason why being in open has to necessitate being open for being ganked in a CG. I know it currently is the way it works but ut strikes me as being a poor way to implement a PvP system. I gave an example of a game that offers open play & pvp while managing to make pvp optional (pvp zone + duel requests). The best solution it seems is Mobius, but it's still a workaround.

To reiterate - i was questioning wether being in open acting as a de facto consent to ganking could be changed and your response is "entering open is giving consent to being attacked, ganked". Do you get why continually stating how the current arrangement works doesn't offer a rational explanation as to why it can't be changed.

We'rd getting into entirely academic debate now as mobius should fulfil my desire but i want to explain why i don't feel you've actually addressed my query.

 

[Hairy Polo]

AGAIN though. You've said being in open means consenting to pvp. I know that. What i was discussing was whether it would be reasonable to consider a change to that given that ganking is so rife. I still don't really see a reason why being in open has to necessitate being open for being ganked in a CG. I know it currently is the way it works but ut strikes me as being a poor way to implement a PvP system. I gave an example of a game that offers open play & pvp while managing to make pvp optional (pvp zone + duel requests). The best solution it seems is Mobius, but it's still a workaround.

To reiterate - i was questioning wether being in open acting as a de facto consent to ganking could be changed and your response is "entering open is giving consent to being attacked, ganked". Do you get why continually stating how the current arrangement works doesn't offer a rational explanation as to why it can't be changed.

We'rd getting into entirely academic debate now as mobius should fulfil my desire but i want to explain why i don't feel you've actually addressed my query.

With respect, the title of your post is
'Gankers - why can't pvp be made consensual?' My point being, it already is.

 

[Marra Morgan]

AGAIN though. You've said being in open means consenting to pvp. I know that. What i was discussing was whether it would be reasonable to consider a change to that given that ganking is so rife. I still don't really see a reason why being in open has to necessitate being open for being ganked in a CG. I know it currently is the way it works but ut strikes me as being a poor way to implement a PvP system. I gave an example of a game that offers open play & pvp while managing to make pvp optional (pvp zone + duel requests). The best solution it seems is Mobius, but it's still a workaround.

To reiterate - i was questioning wether being in open acting as a de facto consent to ganking could be changed and your response is "entering open is giving consent to being attacked, ganked". Do you get why continually stating how the current arrangement works doesn't offer a rational explanation as to why it can't be changed.

We'rd getting into entirely academic debate now as mobius should fulfil my desire but i want to explain why i don't feel you've actually addressed my query.

Only the game's creators can answer your actual question - it seems a bit futile asking us why.

There is a Suggestions forum, where you can suggest that they change the nature of Open. No guarantees that they will, of course, but at least you'd be going through the proper channels.

 

[DeletedUser191218]

With respect, the title of your post is
'Gankers - why can't pvp be made consensual?' My point being, it already is.

The body of my post explains the query. Hence why I advised reading it. Debating over semantics of the way the title was phrased seems petty.

Only the game's creators can answer your actual question - it seems a bit futile asking us why.

There is a Suggestions forum, where you can suggest that they change the nature of Open. No guarantees that they will, of course, but at least you'd be going through the proper channels.

Well to me it hasn't been futile. I asked the question and received the suggestion that I use Mobius. So the post resulted in a workaround that hopefully means I can avoid annoying gankers. It achieved it's purpose, more or less.

 

[Madrax573]

lol complaining about PvP but still logging into open is like putting on a pair of gloves, face shield, gum shield and getting into a boxing ring then complaining to the ref that the other guy in the ring started punching you in the head!

As previously stated there are risk associated with open play. These are well known and documented and comment upon and advertised and YT'd about etc. By choosing open game mode you ARE giving implied consent to be engaged in PvP whether or not you want it at the time.
Similar to calling the ambulance you are giving them implied consent to render first/medical aid. What you are suggesting would be like calling the ambulance but them telling them they can't help you to save you...

 

[Hairy Polo]

The body of my post explains the query. Hence why I advised reading it. Debating over semantics of the way the title was phrased seems petty.



Well to me it hasn't been futile. I asked the question and received the suggestion that I use Mobius. So the post resulted in a workaround that hopefully means I can avoid annoying gankers. It achieved it's purpose, more or less.

I previously read the body of you post twice. Your post title and my interpretation of it is definitely not semantics or trival for the subject you raised. I've said my piece. Mobius would probably be a good space for you as previously suggested by someone else.

 

[Achilles7]

Solo/Mobius...glad I could help!

 

[NeilF]

Similar to calling the ambulance you are giving them implied consent to render first/medical aid. What you are suggesting would be like calling the ambulance but them telling them they can't help you to save you...

And if you're lying there on the ground, unable to move very well, and a group of ambulances turn up, and proceed to repeatedly drive over and reverse over you? All's well?

I think all people are after in OPEN is some rhyme and reason to it. For mindless destruction to have sensible penalties, and even better, for the game to actually offer and promote some long overdue meaningful and easy to access PvP gameplay.

Seriously. Consider here we are four years on, and if you want to PvP right now what do you do? What's the quickest way to it? Interdict random players, for no real in game purpose? Contact someone for a consensual PvP sessions, for no real in game purpose?

Four years! And we're still having to make the best out of this paper thin PvP stuff?

Why excusing the game's shallow gameplay four years on with, "If you go into OPEN, you sign up to the continued poor mechanics!"

Maybe better to suggest we need improved mechanics and gameplay in OPEN (at long last)?

 

[DeletedUser191218]

lol complaining about PvP but still logging into open is like putting on a pair of gloves, face shield, gum shield and getting into a boxing ring then complaining to the ref that the other guy in the ring started punching you in the head!

As previously stated there are risk associated with open play. These are well known and documented and comment upon and advertised and YT'd about etc. By choosing open game mode you ARE giving implied consent to be engaged in PvP whether or not you want it at the time.
Similar to calling the ambulance you are giving them implied consent to render first/medical aid. What you are suggesting would be like calling the ambulance but them telling them they can't help you to save you...

No. It's similar to going into a boxing gym and having someone lay into you while you were shadow boxing. I boxed for years. I can assure you people don't attack you unless you agree to a fight. Otherwise it's unprovoked assault.

I previously read the body of you post twice. Your post title and my interpretation of it is definitely not semantics or trival for the subject you raised. I've said my piece. Mobius would probably be a good space for you as previously suggested by someone else.

Lol. Ok bro.

 

[Madrax573]

No. It's similar to going into a boxing gym and having someone lay into you while you were shadow boxing. I boxed for years. I can assure you people don't attack you unless you agree to a fight. Otherwise it's unprovoked assault.

I suggest you read it again. I specifically said step into the ring after gearing up, just like booting up open mode. Then complaining about getting hit by your opponent.

you keep making the wrong distinctions in your arguments, this is one of the reasons why people keep repeating the same info as you just won't accept the simple fact that open is consenting to the possibility of PvP, whether you want it at the time or not.

 

[Morbad]

But why can't pvp be consentual?

Because it would result in a serious deviation from Frontier's vision, which, despite all the compromises they've made, still pays lip service to verisimilitude.

Having to opt-in to PvP means the default is opting out of a plausible, immersive, experience.

Indeed even having the game distinguish PvP combat from any other kind of combat is already a step to far, IMO.

But it's also a GAME.

It's a game trying to simulate the experience of a Pilot's Federation Commander in the Elite universe.

Having one's weapons refusing to fire, or suspending the setting's natural laws of physics because another CMDR could be harmed, is not conducive to this.

We can solve the issue by either making the game realistic or fun.

Completely, emphatically, disagree.

In a game like this, you cannot sacrifice verismilitude and still have fun. They go hand in hand. The less real the game world would seem from my CMDR's perspective, the more inconsistency interjected, the less entertaining the game can be.

The whole problem is that Elite, unlike pretty much every multiplayer game I've ever played punishes you for dying. And not just a little bit, it punishes you hard. And it doesn't reward you for winning either. Your reward is simply not being punished for losing. Elite's like a Japanese game show.

Every MMO I've really enjoyed was far more punishing for 'death' than Elite: Dangerous.

It's difficult to get shot down in ED and when you do, your CMDR loses almost nothing unless you happen to have a significant quantity of exploration data or are playing a fool who didn't maintain enough for a rebuy.

So? Change it. It sucks.

Your opinion, and one that Frontier disagrees with.

 

[Madrax573]

And if you're lying there on the ground, unable to move very well, and a group of ambulances turn up, and proceed to repeatedly drive over and reverse over you? All's well?

I would have to question your logic to jump from that statement to your result?!?!

 

[Heater]

The whole problem is that Elite, unlike pretty much every multiplayer game I've ever played punishes you for dying. And not just a little bit, it punishes you hard. And it doesn't reward you for winning either. Your reward is simply not being punished for losing. Elite's like a Japanese game show.

THIS ^^^,
Is the major issue people complain about in PVP is the re-buy cost! if FD were implement a true "insurance" policy i.e. the more you die the higher you "premiums" will be. and it your choice if you buy it or not and what coverage you want. but at least you have the choice!

 

[Morbad]

Actually I cannot understand why in an high security system authorities do not interdict gankers. Especially after they have been harassing in wings for hours.

High, Medium and low security system should give wings of gankers hard time interdicting them with a frequency proportional to the security rating of the system.

There is almost no risk for gankers now except a wing of gankerhunters.

C&P is still broken, and there was never any risk for gankers, even with gankerhunters, because no one can shoot down anyone who is prepared for a fight and ready to run if they aren't winning.

Open suits my playstyle.

Evidently not.

No. It's similar to going into a boxing gym and having someone lay into you while you were shadow boxing. I boxed for years. I can assure you people don't attack you unless you agree to a fight. Otherwise it's unprovoked assault.

ED isn't a boxing simulator or any other for of abstracted-combat-come-arena-sport simulator.

It's a(n incomplete) life simulator for your CMDR.

Just as most real violence doesn't take place in the context of a sport, neither can such be expected of most in-character violence in Elite: Dangerous.

the major people complain about PVP is the re-buy cost!

Yeah, it's about 95% too low.

 

[Evanitis]

i was questioning wether being in open acting as a de facto consent to ganking could be changed

Elite is designed to allow multiple playstyles for players of different expectations. If a player doesn't want to be shot, he can play solo. If a player doesn't want to be shot, but still wants to share space with other people who doesn't want to get shot, there is Mobius PG.

If a player does want to get shot randomly, or if he wants to gank others, he can play open.

Now, you are suggesting to change the only mode out of three that doesn't fit your playstyle, to be exactly like the others. Instead of playing solo-PG yourself, you want open to turn into a huge PG, regardless of the majority playing it as it's designed.

Don't you feel selfish?

 

[DeletedUser191218]

Elite is designed to allow multiple playstyles for players of different expectations. If a player doesn't want to be shot, he can play solo. If a player doesn't want to be shot, but still wants to share space with other people who doesn't want to get shot, there is Mobius PG.

If a player does want to get shot randomly, or if he wants to gank others, he can play open.

Now, you are suggesting to change the only mode out of three that doesn't fit your playstyle, to be exactly like the others. Instead of playing solo-PG yourself, you want open to turn into a huge PG, regardless of the majority playing it as it's designed.

Don't you feel selfish?

Not really mate. I've requested access to Mobius after learning about it in this thread. I asked a question. Received a solution. Off you go now. Someone else will rise to your bating.