PvP Is nonconsensual PvP really that much of a problem?

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Wouldn't be a proper Riverside post without at least 2x smart , passive aggressive comments buried within, eh? I'm not sure that the average player needs "thousands of hours" to run into the deficiencies of the average NPC, but as for me, I'm a slow learner.

How many different ways do I have to explain it? Catering to these people I'm talking about has directly and explicitly lead to a PvE experience that I find woefully substandard, regardless of how many hours it took for me to figure that out.

Its like the Engineers in Colonia they put in out there.

Colonia is filled with Alt accounts.

They locked those engineers behind unlocking the ones in the bubble so the ALT accounts cant use them without playing the game.

If we're playing the BGS out there against one another. That's most definitely late game content. It takes many hours to learn the basics of the game. Let alone something like that.

The thing is, none of those people are going to level those Engineers up out there because they didn't need them before. And they aren't going to need them now.

Its also why Bots can wreck Havoc because they dont need to play parts of the game to do what they do. They have limitless options not to play it and still affect people.

So until Fdev forces people to play their game in a some what linear way. (which they kind of did with those engineers, they just need to encourage people to need them)

A lot of people will limit themselves and then turn around and say the game is a mile wide inch deep.

God bless that kickstarter Amirite?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hey Ziggy.

In those NHL games do you pick fights to create a power play?

Thats what we ironically call them here in the USA. Powerplay. Where 1 team has more members on the hockey field than others. A strategic fight can sometimes be produced to gain a lead or to come back from behind.

Of course if your team doesnt try to complete the PVE objective of using a stick and puck to make it into the net on the other side. While there is still a team they have to compete against. It doesnt help to fight ALL the time.

So while you sit there with your brand new PS4 playing a Hockey game. Think about how that would apply to Elite Dangerous with BGS player groups and Powerplay.

Why PVP means something in Hockey, just the same as it should in Elite.

That game wouldn't be very fair fighting against ghosts of the other team now would it?

Now if you'll excuse me. Im METAphored out.

o7 Cmdrs

https://youtu.be/UxxajLWwzqY?t=67

On topic: the AI cheats like a motherhumper, breaks all the rules, but I don't care.

I LOVE IT

 

[PeLucheuh]

Yes. I'm not sure why you think this video proves something different.

I'm not flying shieldless (I even upgraded my shield recently - ha!), but I can understand why someone might. If you're going to be destroyed anyway, then you might just remove the shield and focus on something else - cargo and evading. If you're able to trade more, when you're finally destroyed, rebuy will not make much difference and you'll be still making profit.
edit:which is pretty much what Riverside just posted^^)

The video debunked your statement about PvP player having all the advantage in the world and maxing on one activity only.
The guy is litteraly min/max for exploration and PvP combat (and of course survavibility because it is not linked to a specific activity).
Simple question : How do you explain that i am using a min/max FSD for high range on my PvP combat ship ?

As said before, Survavibility is common to every activity in this game. With Min/maxing you are maximising aspects you need while minimizing those you don't according to game rules and mechanics.

I prefer to min/max my trading ship according to rules and mechanics of the game (in Open). That way i can built my trading ship for that one activity only without being impacted by other available activities.
At the end, i am able to trade in a more effective way than you. Yes i loose a bit of cargo capacity which is largely compensated by not getting destroyed that would make me loose cargo(credits)/reputation/time and rebuy cost.
NPCs/players or nothing does not matter because i am well prepared according to game rules and mechanics.

So yeah, don't be focused on a specific tree because ED is the forest around it.

 

[Florenus]

The video debunked your statement about PvP player having all the advantage in the world and maxing on one activity only.
The guy is litteraly min/max for exploration and PvP combat (and of course survavibility because it is not linked to a specific activity).
Simple question : How do you explain that i am using a min/max FSD for high range on my PvP combat ship ?

As said before, Survavibility is common to every activity in this game. With Min/maxing you are maximising aspects you need while minimizing those you don't according to game rules and mechanics.

I prefer to min/max my trading ship according to rules and mechanics of the game (in Open). That way i can built my trading ship for that one activity only without being impacted by other available activities.
At the end, i am able to trade in a more effective way than you. Yes i loose a bit of cargo capacity which is largely compensated by not getting destroyed that would make me loose cargo(credits)/reputation/time and rebuy cost.
NPCs/players or nothing does not matter because i am well prepared according to game rules and mechanics.

So yeah, don't be focused on a specific tree because ED is the forest around it.

FSD is not related to combat in any way. You can have only this module maxed for high jump range, although because of the rest of combat oriented modules you'll not have a ship maxed for exploration in most commonly understood way. Maxing it for exploration can mean many things actually, but usually it's considered making the most jump range, therefore loosing all weight not needed for exploration purposes.
You can go exploring in any ship with pretty much any jump range and configuration. All you really need is fuel scoop, the rest depends on what you want to do and how focused on that part of exploration you want to be. Usually weapons are the last thing on any explorer list. Some also loose shields, because asiade from griefers and planet landing (if not careful), they can pretty much avoid damage.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

FSD is not related to combat in any way. You can have only this module maxed for high jump range, although because of the rest of combat oriented modules you'll not have a ship maxed for exploration in most commonly understood way. Maxing it for exploration can mean may things actually, but usually it's considered making the most jump range, therefore loosing all weight not needed for exploration purposes.
You can go exploring in any ship with pretty much any jump range and configuration. All you really need is fuel scoop, the rest depends what you want to do and how focused on that part of exploration you want to be. Usually weapons are the last thing on any explorer list. Some also loose shields, because asiade from griefers and planet landing (if not careful), they can pretty much avoid damage.

Lol, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Florenus]

Lol, you don't know what you are talking about.

and again master of conversation strikes

 

[Florenus]

The video debunked your statement about PvP player having all the advantage in the world and maxing on one activity only.

And I think that video proved the exactly opposite.
He lured a guy into a trap, where he had every advantage - to a point where the other one came completely unprepared.

 

[Riverside]

And I think that video proved the exactly opposite.
He lured a guy into a trap, where he had every advantage - to a point where the other one came completely unprepared.

I don't really condone setting that kind of trap but I was out on that side of the galaxy at the time in a fully armed & armoured Corvette. Also I may be wrong on this but I heard about it from the bragging and subsequent nearly universal disapproval, not from the one that lost their ship complaining

 

[jasonbarron]

Are you sure about that ?

Just goes to show you that even when exploring it's still a dog eat dog universe out there!

 

[Riverside]

Just goes to show you that even when exploring it's still a dog eat dog universe out there!

I think that since the Guardian boosters were added, this might be the first period in ED's lifespan where there have not been many calls for jump ranges to be extended, and with the new FSS slowing stuff down a bit & leaving players stationary & blind in supercruise there might actually be a bit more incentive for explorers to add some survival defences to their loadouts.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

Within who's rules? Your rules? My rules? Another CMDr's rules? In open currently, killing for no reason IS within Frontier's rules.
I don't grief personally but have been jumped in SC now a few times and a few more times while innocently NPC bounty hunting at the CG this week. I fought some. Ran some. But never once started to cry [ugh][cry]. It's part of playing in open.
If I ever decide I hate it I'll join Mobius. Why play in "OPEN" where anything can happen then complain when it does? If I walk through the hood in my city overdressed and waiving hundred dollar bills in the air I won't be completely shocked when I get robbed! If I drive 110MPH down the freeway and get a ticket instead of going to a private strip (Mobius for people who like to drive fast ) to drive fast that's MY FAULT, not the cop who wrote me the ticket. I had a choice. I chose poorly.
Frontier has provided many solutions including Private and Solo but if you want interaction with other CMDers too I get that.
Go join Mobius https://elitepve.com/page/join

Yeah moral relativism is cool if you’re in junior high but doesn’t get you far elsewhere. I never argued that FD had a specific rule about it, but just because there is no hard rule against it, does not mean that it is what is wanted. Simple game theory states that you should conduct yourself in a way that will allow you to play/win in multiple games over time. If you act in a way that people don’t like (even if it within the “rules”) they will not play with you. Hence the example of playing soccer. It’s within the rules to keep kicking the ball out of bounds, but if one does it all the time for no reason, people will stop playing with you.

This is what we are seeing, people are getting frustrated with open and going to other modes/ quitting the game. Your examples miss the point entirely. The example of the guy getting robbed makes sense because the robbers gain money. Going 110 and getting a ticket makes sense cause it enforces the law.

The main issue is not PVP piracy or PVP law enforcement. It’s PvP players randomly killing. A proper example would be a person punching a guy that is walking to work, and then telling him to get better at MMA. It’s violence for the sake of violence. The more concerning thing is the PVP players that consider themselves some type of “skill police” or think they are providing content or public service.

If you want to act like that then don’t complain when there is never an open only feature. I think they should replace private group with a PVE mode (with the advent of squadrons I don’t see the use of PG other than mobius).

 

[Dirtbird]

And I think that video proved the exactly opposite.
He lured a guy into a trap, where he had every advantage - to a point where the other one came completely unprepared.

The one aspect of this game I have learned is that humans are the most dangerous thing in the game. Aliens are optional. The explodee in that video came prepared for paint damage, perhaps the occasional jump-too-close-to-stars damage and maybe the odd parking ding on a planet. Who in their right mind would prepare a starship for exploration in the unknown like that? Even in their most happy happy joy joy let's join hands and sing around the campfire stage, Star Trek had weapons and shields on their exploration vessels. In the Elite Dangerous galaxy, there isn't really an unknown as such because the sandbox is limited to what has been programmed into it. Random encounters with dangerous NPC entities in the middle of nowhere aren't in there yet. So it comes down to the billion to one chance you will meet a human (CMDR) adversary out in the black who wants to blow up your ship. Well, if you go to the popular tourist spots, take that to a thousand to one chance? Just guessing at numbers here. If you don't prepare for that possibility, you can quickly become explodey space pixels.

I'm not much of an explorer despite having smashed headlong into Exploration Elite by accident but in my 7-12kLy trips around the local sights, I've flown a small ship with the best shields for its class, the fastest thrusters for its class, weapons enough to engage if I think it would be worth it, and engineered bulkheads. That way, I'm much more likely to depart an encounter with a hostile CMDR on my own terms. Last time I went exploring, it was in a Cobra Mk III and by my numbers, I could have taken out an "exploration" fit Asp Explorer in less time than it would have taken for them to high wake. Or boosted away out of weapons range (6km) of any Anaconda in a matter of seconds while tanking some of the damage on shields and hull. I built my ship to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, and to boldly go where no other clapped out Cobra Mk III has gone before, and (here's the important part) come home again.

However what really happened was I ran to someone at Betelgeuse while looking at the size of that thing and we had a pleasant conversation and then we both went on our way. A roleplayer of all things, Doctor something or other, doing a tour of The Largest Stars in the Galaxy.

 

[Havvk]

Yeah moral relativism is cool if you’re in junior high but doesn’t get you far elsewhere. I never argued that FD had a specific rule about it, but just because there is no hard rule against it, does not mean that it is what is wanted. Simple game theory states that you should conduct yourself in a way that will allow you to play/win in multiple games over time. If you act in a way that people don’t like (even if it within the “rules”) they will not play with you. Hence the example of playing soccer. It’s within the rules to keep kicking the ball out of bounds, but if one does it all the time for no reason, people will stop playing with you.

This is what we are seeing, people are getting frustrated with open and going to other modes/ quitting the game. Your examples miss the point entirely. The example of the guy getting robbed makes sense because the robbers gain money. Going 110 and getting a ticket makes sense cause it enforces the law.

The main issue is not PVP piracy or PVP law enforcement. It’s PvP players randomly killing. A proper example would be a person punching a guy that is walking to work, and then telling him to get better at MMA. It’s violence for the sake of violence. The more concerning thing is the PVP players that consider themselves some type of “skill police” or think they are providing content or public service.

If you want to act like that then don’t complain when there is never an open only feature. I think they should replace private group with a PVE mode (with the advent of squadrons I don’t see the use of PG other than mobius).

Nailed it

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Yeah moral relativism is cool if you’re in junior high but doesn’t get you far elsewhere. I never argued that FD had a specific rule about it, but just because there is no hard rule against it, does not mean that it is what is wanted. Simple game theory states that you should conduct yourself in a way that will allow you to play/win in multiple games over time. If you act in a way that people don’t like (even if it within the “rules”) they will not play with you. Hence the example of playing soccer. It’s within the rules to keep kicking the ball out of bounds, but if one does it all the time for no reason, people will stop playing with you.

This is what we are seeing, people are getting frustrated with open and going to other modes/ quitting the game. Your examples miss the point entirely. The example of the guy getting robbed makes sense because the robbers gain money. Going 110 and getting a ticket makes sense cause it enforces the law.

The main issue is not PVP piracy or PVP law enforcement. It’s PvP players randomly killing. A proper example would be a person punching a guy that is walking to work, and then telling him to get better at MMA. It’s violence for the sake of violence. The more concerning thing is the PVP players that consider themselves some type of “skill police” or think they are providing content or public service.

If you want to act like that then don’t complain when there is never an open only feature. I think they should replace private group with a PVE mode (with the advent of squadrons I don’t see the use of PG other than mobius).

Ganking etc is condoned gameplay.
It's by design so morals have nothing to do with it.

They want criminals.

and again master of conversation strikes

It's called being concise.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

Ganking etc is condoned gameplay.
It's by design so morals have nothing to do with it.

Ehhhh no. Ganking is a symptom of the freedom allowed in this game. I’m all for criminals if it makes sense, like piracy or killing an opposing PP group. Again, there is a difference between “technically allowed” and intended gameplay. It is allowed because there’s no good way to stop it without intruding on other freedoms.

Nobody wants serial killers and they are objectively a detriment to the game

 

[jasonbarron]

Ehhhh no. Ganking is a symptom of the freedom allowed in this game. I’m all for criminals if it makes sense, like piracy or killing an opposing PP group. Again, there is a difference between “technically allowed” and intended gameplay. It is allowed because there’s no good way to stop it without intruding on other freedoms.

Nobody wants serial killers and they are objectively a detriment to the game

They're "objectively bad for the game." That's a pretty powerful statement, Big Mike. Got something factual and statistical to back it up with, something besides your feelings? Because my standpoint is that the game not only condones it in term of the rules, it actively encourages the behavior. Couple that with the fact that the dev's themselves have said that Open is the most popular mode and I'd have to opine that you're full of horse apples right up to your ears.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Ehhhh no. Ganking is a symptom of the freedom allowed in this game. I’m all for criminals if it makes sense, like piracy or killing an opposing PP group. Again, there is a difference between “technically allowed” and intended gameplay. It is allowed because there’s no good way to stop it without intruding on other freedoms.

Nobody wants serial killers and they are objectively a detriment to the game

You're just making stuff up.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Just goes to show you that even when exploring it's still a dog eat dog universe out there!

Only if there are any dogs out there which there aren't... in Fleetcomm... or open

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

You're just making stuff up.

Nope

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Nope

You absolutely are.

And you're way off base on a number of things.
PP isn't criminal.
"Killing other Cmdrs" with no other qualifications/conditions is perfectly acceptable.

Open, where all of this horror is happening, is by far the most popular mode, and the game is doing just fine.