Reading between the lines, I'm getting the impression that "every time" in this case means "once, when I went to a CG".
Reading between the lines, I'm getting the impression that "every time" in this case means "once, when I went to a CG".
And.. I have a friend of a friend of a friend that was ganked once, too.
Pretty much true. I've been in Open last few months and outside Shinrarta i've barely seen another player.
Makes me think there might be something to this open only bonus some people want.... i'd be getting more credits for zero extra risk
Not that i need more credits.Haven't done a CG in a long time, but last time i went, i went in open, fully prepared to be ganked... and didn't see another player the whole time i was there. Maybe instancing was going wonky for me, not sure.
If by “play style” you mean sociopathic behavior, yes. I dislike it rather strongly. And as a veteran of more than a few MMO games where PvP is a preacknowledged factor, I can say with surety that gankers are an acknowledged problem, for players and developers alike.
So much so, that a recent talk was given at GDC regarding ten types of loners.
During which time he mentioned ‘Type 3’, the sociopath who either has not, or deliberately refuses to, learn how to interact on a social level with other players. He ganks because he thinks it is fun, and because it gets an emotional reaction.
Piracy is one thing, and I have seen and experienced it done right. (I look forward to doing some myself...IF FD can manage to apply the reputation system correctly such that engaging in piracy has enough of a price that makes doing so something to think thrice about.
Ganking is something else entirely, and nowhere in official postings, warnings etc from FD have I read “Starting out in this game, you should evacuate your start system immediately if playing in open. Here there be Gankers!”
Had I read anything of the sort, I would have thought twice about buying the game.. and then spent the money with the warning in mind.
But, I digress. Let’s talk about ‘Type 3’ loners for a bit.
Everyone who purchases a license to play the game is looking for content, something interesting to do and discover, something fun to engage in. To the Type3, other players are content. There is very little means of connection in the game to present other players as human beings with lives, wants, dreams, desires and emotional states. The space ships are simply something to blow up, the text is, when not completely ignored, something to cause a little flutter of shadenfreud/sadistic pleasure. The cargo, if any is carried, is completely lost.. and only a few bits of wreckage remain, which the accomplished and bored ganker does not even need or want. There is nothing to gain other than causing inconvenience to other players.
Had the Type3 ever wanted to actually test their skills, there is a venue precisely for this in the form of CQC. But it is not where the ganker engages in ganking, that venue is Open Play, where new players go to encounter others who are trading, fighting in and exploring the vast boundaries of ED.
So, using other players for their self indulgent sadism is their aim and purpose. But..
I did not purchase Elite Dangerous to become content. I doubt that very many do.
It is neither my obligation, nor my duty to be the avenue by which sociopaths with access to the internet learn how to interact with other people in a functioning society.
FD did not create this game in order to be the educational tool by which sociopaths learn how to behave in a society.
So, when I propose harsh penalties and costs for gankers who purposefully go after players outside of CQC, deliberately, repeatedly, and consistently choosing those less able to fight back on equal terms.. and choosing also not to present even the veneer of piracy..what I am proposing is not a penalty to a ‘play style’ that I dislike. I am proposing that FD manage their product in a way that assures that the player base who play in Open Play as FD wishes, will actually enjoy playing and have cause to continue doing so for a long time.
No functioning society tolerates blatant murder or mass killers. There are penalties.
There is gradual, but enevitable ostracism and exclusion by all but the most ostracized of groups. Services are not rendered to the unrestrained killer in a functioning society. The doors close in the face of criminals, leaving only the most debased of organizations left to associate with and interact with.
That is what I am proposing.
Piracy is piracy, and should have both cost and reward.
Ganking players should have its cost as well. Far more than some petty faction warrant and a half minute in a far off station.
That is what I am proposing.
ED already has the tools in place. I strongly encourage them to be put to use.
That was way too many words to simply say "solo or private group are the ideal modes for me".
Last edited:
You actually make a lot of good points- however, none of them are really all that "new" in these discussions.
Frontier have been told time and time again that a "self-regulating game" isn't going to work. And they've been shown this over a good 5+ year period now but still refuse to accept the idea that "emergent content" isn't going to work as an enforcement system.
Somehow we're all supposed to suspend reality completely and believe the future will just a "free for all gankfest" and that no systems of order will actually exist- people will simply just "regulate themselves".
Seriously- reread that sentence, again. And keep rereading it. Definitely something awry here. Even in the "Old West" the Federal Government stepped in where law and order did not exist. Yet we have trillions upon trillions of populated systems that are supposed to just "fend for themselves" in an advanced technological social setting where we've learned how to travel faster than light.
Uh-huh.
C&P 2.0 was yet another weak attempt at grasping to hold onto their denial, and did absolutely nothing to correct the deficiencies in the game in regard to a true crime/punishment system. By deficiencies- I mean actual systems that exists to provide societal protection in populated areas of the universe. What we have instead is some fantastic prevailing attitude that somehow, 1000 years from now, we would have absolutely NO protections exist "in space" because "something something dystopia". It's not "crime and punishment", but simply "Crime and Slap-on-the-wrist".
Because video game.
Plenty of people have called Frontier out on it- and plenty continue to discuss it, yet nothing will change because they're playing both sides of this fence to avoid "alienating" one group or another for the sake of marketing and money. Frontier is a business, first and foremost- and they're not going to start paying attention until their bottom line is affected.
That's the reality, my friend.
(Sigh)
Ok, I can accept that as the current reality. Not to imply that I accept it as the end, by any means.
There are multiple ideas which have been proposed, and discarded by FDev for as many reasons..and yet the Ganker/Griefer problem persists. If it were not a problem, then the boards would be completely vacant of posts regarding the subject.
Ganker vs Griefer is another argument entirely, and one which I have argued internally about at length.
Both, I have come to accept, have their place in E
. (Yup, I said that.)However.. I firmly believe that the tools existing already in E
can be tweeked to make being either/both a much more interesting..and possibly profitable prospect for everyone.Reputation as a mechanic could be used as a minor deterant, as any but anarchy systems would shut their doors to pilots engaging in ‘random murder’ outside of..and possibly inside of their systems.
Or.. and more toward enhancing gameplay, the warrant/bounty system could actually be managed to create a reason for Gankers and Griefers to be exactly that, and for PvP specialists to want to engage them. A win-win for both. The G/G get their noteriety and an endless run of fights against the most dangerous and exciting predators, and Bounty hunters (if successful) get a deservedly large pay-out. (Approximately the value of the most expensive ship the G/G destroyed up until his own destruction.)
But.. whereas the ideas of the community may be endless, FDev seems much less capable.
Did you forget to reset your network settings and clear your block list?
I don't think i have blocked anyone. Haven't had reason yet.
Neither have I. Blocking someone is, and should be, the very last measure a player has to use. A functioning C&P system would make blocking another player pretty much obsolete.
The only reason I would block someone is if they were sending me abusive comms. Any C&P system isn't going to do much about that.
For the record, I seldom play in open, preferring Mobius for those times when I want to see other players.
Having said that, if I were to start playing in open more, I don't understand this aversion to using the blocking feature to eliminate undesirables from my gameplay.
If someone 'gets in my face' while playing in open, why shouldn't I block them? I see it as a useful mechanism, similar to the 'ignore' function here on the forums. And while I only use ignore for some of the really baiting posters, I do use it. And the list is still growing.
So if someone becomes a bother in open, why shouldn't I block them and then go about enjoying my game?
Having said that, if I were to start playing in open more, I don't understand this aversion to using the blocking feature to eliminate undesirables from my gameplay.
If someone 'gets in my face' while playing in open, why shouldn't I block them? I see it as a useful mechanism, similar to the 'ignore' function here on the forums. And while I only use ignore for some of the really baiting posters, I do use it. And the list is still growing.
So if someone becomes a bother in open, why shouldn't I block them and then go about enjoying my game?
Last edited:
Agreed.
I know this topic is contentious and usually spirals down quickly, but I actually find it fascinating.
My big interest in this gameplay discussion revolves around the downfall of one of my favorite games of all time; World of Warcraft.
In vanilla WoW, you had open PvP whether you liked it or not. I didn't engage in it much because I prefer controlled PvP. I like it when everyone consents to it, there is mutual understanding of the game mechanic chosen, and people are on level ground. However, in WoW, it was a core part of the game because the Horde and Alliance were at WAR. I think Elite has much the same mechanic with PowerPlay and I think PvP in open (even when it is not consented by all parties) has its place.
First and, to me, foremost, it deters the kind of player who feels entitled to everything. WoW was ruined because everyone wanted everything their way without having to work for it. The first levels could be bought (you could skip straight to the previous expansions top level with the purchase of the next expansion). Heirloom equipment meant nothing was a challenge. End game content was made accessible to anyone and everyone. That sense of entitlement to every facet of the game without any effort is something to be desperately avoided by devs.
Second, incorporating this kind of play, though hard for non-conflict-oriented player, could serve to ENHANCE player interactions. There SHOULD be tension at meeting new people in large, deadly ships. In certain parts of the galaxy, it's the wild west.
Finally, open-only gameplay does NOT mean accepting bad behavior, griefing, harassment, etc. PvP, even unwanted by one party, CAN be made interesting if there are option available to the person being targeted. They just need an out. WoW struggled with high level players ganking low level players, which can't really happen in Elite. The escape mechanic in interdiction is nice, stations and secure RES zones have something of a safe feeling.
What I would love to see is open PvP incorporated into the rest of the gameplay. For instance, a Federation player who pirates another Federation player could be removed from that PowerPlay faction (once PP is compelling enough for everyone to want to participate) and added into a pirate faction. Stations could list pirate presence in systems so players can't be as easily caught unawares. There could be significant incentive to pirate hunting that would attract real PvPers to be bounty hunters while the typically less skilled griefers would become the targets. Most obviously, some kind better implemented war mechanic in the PowerPlay and BGS elements of the game could create more compelling reasons for players to put themselves at risk of PvP. For example, I would be thrilled to have to run my Anaconda through a hostile system with other players on the hunt for the VIP in my cabin whom I am transporting to an important strategic site which will improve my faction's chance at taking the system. But ferrying X number of merits back and forth is dull and I see no reason to risk multi million credit rebuys for that kind of gameplay.
To sum up, I think open PvP could enhance the game if done properly, but it is a tightrope to walk. WoW fell off of it hard and I don't want to see Elite do the same. As it is, there is no compelling reason for a non-PvP player to go into open and all the people who desperately want to prey upon PvE-geared T9's with no escorts crying about how it's unfair isn't going to change that.
My big interest in this gameplay discussion revolves around the downfall of one of my favorite games of all time; World of Warcraft.
In vanilla WoW, you had open PvP whether you liked it or not. I didn't engage in it much because I prefer controlled PvP. I like it when everyone consents to it, there is mutual understanding of the game mechanic chosen, and people are on level ground. However, in WoW, it was a core part of the game because the Horde and Alliance were at WAR. I think Elite has much the same mechanic with PowerPlay and I think PvP in open (even when it is not consented by all parties) has its place.
First and, to me, foremost, it deters the kind of player who feels entitled to everything. WoW was ruined because everyone wanted everything their way without having to work for it. The first levels could be bought (you could skip straight to the previous expansions top level with the purchase of the next expansion). Heirloom equipment meant nothing was a challenge. End game content was made accessible to anyone and everyone. That sense of entitlement to every facet of the game without any effort is something to be desperately avoided by devs.
Second, incorporating this kind of play, though hard for non-conflict-oriented player, could serve to ENHANCE player interactions. There SHOULD be tension at meeting new people in large, deadly ships. In certain parts of the galaxy, it's the wild west.
Finally, open-only gameplay does NOT mean accepting bad behavior, griefing, harassment, etc. PvP, even unwanted by one party, CAN be made interesting if there are option available to the person being targeted. They just need an out. WoW struggled with high level players ganking low level players, which can't really happen in Elite. The escape mechanic in interdiction is nice, stations and secure RES zones have something of a safe feeling.
What I would love to see is open PvP incorporated into the rest of the gameplay. For instance, a Federation player who pirates another Federation player could be removed from that PowerPlay faction (once PP is compelling enough for everyone to want to participate) and added into a pirate faction. Stations could list pirate presence in systems so players can't be as easily caught unawares. There could be significant incentive to pirate hunting that would attract real PvPers to be bounty hunters while the typically less skilled griefers would become the targets. Most obviously, some kind better implemented war mechanic in the PowerPlay and BGS elements of the game could create more compelling reasons for players to put themselves at risk of PvP. For example, I would be thrilled to have to run my Anaconda through a hostile system with other players on the hunt for the VIP in my cabin whom I am transporting to an important strategic site which will improve my faction's chance at taking the system. But ferrying X number of merits back and forth is dull and I see no reason to risk multi million credit rebuys for that kind of gameplay.
To sum up, I think open PvP could enhance the game if done properly, but it is a tightrope to walk. WoW fell off of it hard and I don't want to see Elite do the same. As it is, there is no compelling reason for a non-PvP player to go into open and all the people who desperately want to prey upon PvE-geared T9's with no escorts crying about how it's unfair isn't going to change that.
What about the player who doesn't want or need to play a computer game with other people? For those people (myself included), there will never be a compelling reason to play in open.
On those rare occasions where I want to see a cmdr or two, I can go into a PG instead of dealing with open and all the baggage that goes along with that experience.
On those rare occasions where I want to see a cmdr or two, I can go into a PG instead of dealing with open and all the baggage that goes along with that experience.
Then you read wrong. "Every time" would, I'd have thought, imply more than once. Each time started out fine but sooner or later, some 'rapscallions' would show up and spoil our (me and the kids) fun. PG is much better suited to my/our needs.
I get it. I really do. But if there were "safe zones" or instancing weighted by rank or something purposeful to make PvP part of a grander mechanic, would it really ruin the experience for you?
As someone who does not at all enjoy the idea of being attacked by a player in a PvP FDL while mining in my stripped out Anaconda, I would risk that if the game had a meaningful reason behind the interaction. What I enjoy even less than the idea of being attacked by another player is piddling around in a galaxy with no actual threats, able to dispatch any and every NPC that is hostile without breaking much of a sweat. The game currently lacks challenge and I think meaningful PvP or risk of PvP would actually improve it.
I'm not sure what a meaningful reason, or grander mechanic would be. The makers of this game have biased it towards the 'shoot 'em in the face' crowd, and the bias got even worse with their brilliant so-called engineering mechanism. I cannot build a ship that will hold off a ship (or wing of ships) that is purposely built to blow my ship up before I can run. The makers intentionally made available 'extra features' to make it easier to kill a player's ship, regardless of how it is built. And then there is the tracking and interdiction features of the game.
As I said, this game is intentionally biased towards those who just want to blow up other people's ships. I'm not interested in spending the time to grind out the pp or guardian extras to maybe have a ship that can survive one of these great encounters. That is not how I want to spend my game time.
I see this game as I do most games I play: A way to disengage from real life and enjoy myself for a bit. Different people want different things from their gameplay.
I don't begrudge you wanting PvP in-game to make it more interesting for you. My understanding is that is what open is for.
Just don't expect me to want to jump into open and be your meaningful gameplay.