I hope DW2 gets ganked all the way to Beagle Point.

[Ian Doncaster]

Any player that loses a hull for any reason would respawn at the nearest dock surely?

The respawn rules are:
- if there's a dock big enough for your ship in the current system, respawn at the closest one of those in the system
- if there's not, respawn you wherever you last docked
- if you have legal issues at the station selected by the above rules, or were killed by someone collecting your bounty, go to a detention centre instead

If you just die in a random system on the far side of the core, you won't be recovered to Colonia but to wherever you last docked. (If it did work like that for uninhabited systems there would be some interesting fast-travel exploits)

The majority of people on this particular expedition once past Sag A* will probably have docked at the new station to be built there, of course.

 

[JesusRocks1988]

You see nothing wrong in infiltrating PGs to kill unhardened targets?

Plenty immoral in it, but I don't think Frontier should do anything about it.

EDIT: Aside from taking action against "griefing" where they decide that it has occurred.

 

[zipline]

Players heading into the 'black' build their ships for the risks at hand. They also join private groups to reduce certain risks.

I get that, but there is always risk, the goids could always get you. So the PG was infiltrated, doesn't this just feed into ED lore and preparations for DW3?

 

[Globusdiablo]

You see nothing wrong in infiltrating PGs to kill unhardened targets?

But this is something entirely new, surely. I've NEVER heard of FD reimbursing PvP kills in private groups before?

 

[PeLucheuh]

I understand what Frontier are saying they're going to do, based on what Paige has posted... but I still can't help feel that it's wrong nonetheless. I don't think Frontier should be restoring anything for Distant Worlds participants who get killed out in the black - the same way they wouldn't for the lone explorer who gets ganked 3km from returning to a starport after a year exploration.

I am a Distant Worlds participant by the way, and I will be playing in Open the whole way. I am not in the Private Group either, but even if I were, I still wouldn't agree with the mollycoddling.

Absolutely this.

If Frontier makes the mistake to let player specific rules change how game mechanics works, it will set a precedent for any other PG.

 

[Factabulous]

I understand what Frontier are saying they're going to do, based on what Paige has posted... but I still can't help feel that it's wrong nonetheless. I don't think Frontier should be restoring anything for Distant Worlds participants who get killed out in the black - the same way they wouldn't for the lone explorer who gets ganked 3km from returning to a starport after a year exploration.

I am a Distant Worlds participant by the way, and I will be playing in Open the whole way. I am not in the Private Group either, but even if I were, I still wouldn't agree with the mollycoddling.

Actually if you read up on what they are proposing it is exactly the same as if an explorer gets ganked within 3km of returning from a long trip - IF they were returning in a PG that prohibits PvP.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

As I already said somewhere before in this thread.
There should be an official OPEN PvE where the players weapons are simply uneffective on other players. No need to mess up with C&P, Private Groups, Support Tickets and so on...

What would you do about ramming?

- nothing: a ship built for ramming can easily kill an unhardened ship without needing weapons
- no damage, normal momentum transfer: being rammed constantly into the ground or a station wall will kill an unhardened ship pretty quickly too
- no damage or momentum transfer: a couple of players in Sidewinders can take it in turns to completely prevent takeoff or landing at a station because they can no longer be pushed aside. Bad news if you've already taken off and are on the five minute countdown.
- player ships pass through each other: a Sidewinder can hide inside a big ship as it's going along (especially if it's going fairly slowly) then shoot the station and use the big ship as ablative armour. Also, it'd look really silly.

For Frontier to advertise an official "Open PvE" mode they'd need to make really sure that you can't die as a direct result of another player's actions, even if the other player is being more inventive than just shooting you. There's a very easy way to do that - make sure you can't instance with other players, i.e. Solo - but anything else is not practical. There's far more than just weapons which can be used to kill (or otherwise inconvenience) other players.

 

[Arkadi]

Griefing: a player being repeatedly harassed by another player

maybe could translate to

a group of players being harassed by another group of players repeatedly.

I want to refund my popcorn. I have seen better shows.

 

[Mengy]

I don't agree at all.

I'm a bounty hunter, I don't care if you're an NPC or a player, if you're wanted, you are my payday.

Imagine seeing a wanted commander floating by at 50mps giving you the bird, cos his pvp flag is down.

We aren’t talking about a PvP flag you can set or unset, we are talking about two distinct modes of play you choose from the main menu: Open PvP and Open PvE. If said wanted target was flying in Open PvE then you would never even see him because, since you are a bounty hunter looking for prey, you’d naturally be flying in the Open PvP mode.

Now, if you were a bounty hunter flying in Open PvE then you wouldn’t care because you would have agreed to the terms of the mode when you joined it, just like people who play in Open today agree to the terms of PvP at any time when they join that mode.

The net result is both PvP and PvE players having official all inclusive modes for both playstyles implemented into the game itself. The only players who think that is a bad thing are the players who want to grief or force their own playstyle upon others. I’d rather see players having the choice to play how they want to without being forced to play how someone else wants them to.

 

[Riverside]

Absolutely this.

If Frontier makes the mistake to let player specific rules change how game mechanics works, it will set a precedent for any other PG.

Gotta ask, why this would be a problem?

Not saying you're wrong, just asking why you think it's wrong.

 

[JesusRocks1988]

Actually if you read up on what they are proposing it is exactly the same as if an explorer gets ganked within 3km of returning from a long trip - IF they were returning in a PG that prohibits PvP.

Okay, I am basing this on what Paige said qualifying what I've read elsewhere in the thread. Where can I read the actual proposals?

Because it sounds like Frontier are considering putting ganked players back to the point of death if they were in a Private Group that prohibits PvP, and I am assuming this includes exploration data and codex discovery bonds? If so, then, unless I am very much mistaken, Frontier don't do that for any explorers in any private groups... The game as I have always known it is that if you get killed before selling your exploration data, it is lost. Too bad; so sad, and that is the game working as intended. I mean, if that has always been a thing Frontier Support would do, then I have definitely missed out on something here.

 

[jasonbarron]

Absolutely this.

If Frontier makes the mistake to let player specific rules change how game mechanics works, it will set a precedent for any other PG.

Yep. If Fdev is going to to spend energy and resources to help facilitate these massive expeditions/get togethers, I'd prefer to see them work on their abysmal netcode & servers, because far and away that's the biggest problem. Not only was yesterday an embarrassment from a technical perspective, each and every get together at the checkpoints is likely to see the same "server turbulence" as yesterday. If I was going along in an explorer role, I'd much prefer hordes of PKers anyday over that garbage.

 

[Ashnak]

It wasn't as bad as you think - only the EU launch crashed. The subsequent US and AU launches went through. But yes, instancing/netcode is a problem.

 

[Bartizan]

Okay, I am basing this on what Paige said qualifying what I've read elsewhere in the thread. Where can I read the actual proposals?

Because it sounds like Frontier are considering putting ganked players back to the point of death if they were in a Private Group that prohibits PvP, and I am assuming this includes exploration data and codex discovery bonds? If so, then, unless I am very much mistaken, Frontier don't do that for any explorers in any private groups... The game as I have always known it is that if you get killed before selling your exploration data, it is lost. Too bad; so sad, and that is the game working as intended. I mean, if that has always been a thing Frontier Support would do, then I have definitely missed out on something here.

I spend most of my game time exploring and I have lost days/weeks of data from making a mistake. I would never ask nor expect restoration if the event that killed me was within the definition of the game mechanics. Likewise, I strongly dissagree with Fdev restoring ships as have been reported (or rumored) from DW2. As for the PGs, they should not be excempt from the game mechanics either. Police yourselves, don't ask for exceptions just because your arbitrary rules for being in the PG are more restrictive than the base game mechanics. You all agree to not PVP? Never heard of insider threats? Make it a mini-game within your PG to police yourselves if you feel that strongly about it.

 

[jasonbarron]

It wasn't as bad as you think - only the EU launch crashed. The subsequent US and AU launches went through. But yes, instancing/netcode is a problem.

It was almost unplayable for everyone I know. I was at the beacon in Open and it just went to garbage. Probably saved a lot of lives, though.

 

[Riverside]

It wasn't as bad as you think - only the EU launch crashed. The subsequent US and AU launches went through. But yes, instancing/netcode is a problem.

I was in the game during the EU launch (but nowhere near it) and had a few disconnects, significant framerate stutters, FSS data corruption messages and one massive warp that crashed my ship into a star at several C (other warps had no meaningful consequence).

During the US launch (I am in Europe) I had minor framerate stutters and slightly delayed instance transitions I wouldn't have given a second thought to if I didn't know about DW2.

 

[Dedhed]

Where can I read the actual proposals?

That's my question. I don't know where people are getting the idea that Fdev are automatically reimbursing pvp killed players in the DW2 private groups. In fact what Paige said was that getting ganked did NOT constitute automatic reimbursal. So ... link?

 

[JesusRocks1988]

I spend most of my game time exploring and I have lost days/weeks of data from making a mistake. I would never ask nor expect restoration if the event that killed me was within the definition of the game mechanics. Likewise, I strongly dissagree with Fdev restoring ships as have been reported (or rumored) from DW2. As for the PGs, they should not be excempt from the game mechanics either. Police yourselves, don't ask for exceptions just because your arbitrary rules for being in the PG are more restrictive than the base game mechanics. You all agree to not PVP? Never heard of insider threats? Make it a mini-game within your PG to police yourselves if you feel that strongly about it.

Precisely

 

[NeilF]

I fully endorse this. Ganking sucks. FDev need to realise that. I might actually chase them down and start ganking myself, just to make a point.

I've almost felt like doing this before...

That said, I recall once at a Thargoid exploration location - where I'd witnessed gankers turning up of course to blow up explorers knowing not a single negative outcome would be applied to them for doing this - I saw an explorer's Asp sitting there while they'd SRV'd off. I was sorely tempted just to blow it up for the "giggles" but ultimately realised how the other person would feel, and how much hassle I'd just needlessly be causing them for in truth no gain to myself.

So like most normal (non-toxic) individuals in the game, I just let the other CMDR happily go about their business...

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

I don't agree at all.

I'm a bounty hunter, I don't care if you're an NPC or a player, if you're wanted, you are my payday.

Imagine seeing a wanted commander floating by at 50mps giving you the bird, cos his pvp flag is down.

I would consider uninstalling for good if that were ever allowed to happen.

Besides the fact that it would split the playerbase down the middle and make both modes (open pvp and open pve) much poorer. If we had millions of players, sure. But we don't.

I agree with you even though I'm a PVE player.