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

*only just becomes aware*
Er... what happened anyway? Am I to assume that the nice explorers at Woodstock got ganked? Now I feel bad not going to protect them, I really thought they'd be OK.
 
Triple Elite, been to Beagle four times, ganked, been ganked, bit off more than I chew many times with goids, countless CGs, play almost entirely in Open.......never once felt my experience diminished by another player's actions regardless of situation.

PVP Flags, divided servers, mulligans for crying, PG rules being FDev enforced......those diminish an experience with a game quite literally built on a foundation of risk, albeit laughable sometimes, but none the less.


Maybe you can't control every experience in the game, but you can control how you react to it.
 
since when is it impossible for organizers to "organize" a protection detail?

Since always. I wonder if you're having a chuckle here. You've seen the same carnage videos I have (you've probably seen more) from the USA launch.

C'mon. How on earth could the protection detail keep those little paper airplanes alive? A Mamba/Clipper ramgank build boom booms most of them them in under 5 seconds and runs away. Vette can probably do it too just tank a bit of damage on the way in.

Spacecops might kill a few but they will have had their lulz.

Best use of protection detail is to tell the paper airplanes to push the solo button with great effect.
 
*only just becomes aware*
Er... what happened anyway? Am I to assume that the nice explorers at Woodstock got ganked? Now I feel bad not going to protect them, I really thought they'd be OK.

It was chum in the water feeding frenzy. I went to Pallaeni to gage the level of these gankers, not expecting the level of organization I found there. One group, Nomads (members of them at least) pulled lawfuls like me while another group (13th legion) kept clubbing away with gleeful abandon. The only way to counter this would be if the DW2 organizers had enlisted one of these ganker groups to patrol open and keep the other gankers busy. Expecting the Fleetcomm "security" force to confront pro gankers in open is a joke.
 
Agree with the sentiment and non bolded 100%

PP needs so much more fixing (throwing away and rebuilding), that I feel the bolded suggestions would be used pretty much sole-ly to murderhobo. Pledging is already widely done just for modules, this would be just one more reason to treat pledging as roleplay-meaingingless. Also might serve to drive the rare 1% of PP haulers who actually play in open back into solo as they would be the only easily found gank targets. Even though those very rare open haulers tend to be good pilots who could evade, it would be incredibly frustrating to have one chain interdiction after another. Nor would it really hit the mark since it wouldn't be power vs. power warfare, it would be power vs. ganker warfare.

Ye hit's not an ideal solution, just something I support more than another mode.
 
Since always. I wonder if you're having a chuckle here. You've seen the same carnage videos I have (you've probably seen more) from the USA launch.

C'mon. How on earth could the protection detail keep those little paper airplanes alive? A Mamba/Clipper ramgank build boom booms most of them them in under 5 seconds and runs away. Vette can probably do it too just tank a bit of damage on the way in.

Spacecops might kill a few but they will have had their lulz.

Best use of protection detail is to tell the paper airplanes to push the solo button with great effect.

Well, I do know, but not just because I was watching videos:)

While I agree that paper airplanes would be hard to fully protect, some effort could be made, which would be better than no effort at all. Also, not having them all show up at a beacon in a Low Sec system would have been better than what ended up happening.
 
The first statement shows your victim mentality. Maybe they do it because they enjoy shooting other CMDRs in a pvp game (or mode)?


That said, it's pretty lame IMO to join a PG with PvE rules and break them.


No. Stating "I've never understood those who take pleasure in going out of their way to spoil other people's fun, it seems a very odd mind set." is not a "victim mentality." Thinking that is simply ridiculous. A victim mindset would be, "Why oh why do they have to kill me, it's not fair." That is NOT what PiLhEaD was saying.
 
No harm to the distant worlds folks but, FDev shouldn't be giving this private group any special treatment they wouldn't give any other group.
I would also suggest if they are going to start "enforcing" private group rules on behalf of said groups I would rather they "punish" offenders that break those rules, rather than "repairing" the damage done by them.

I would actually prefer instead if they up whatever they are paying to Amazon for AWS so that they can cope better when the game has a large influx of players - we have an unfortunate situation now where the more succesfull Elite becomes the worse the game is likely to perform.
 
The biggest issue is that the use of private groups has been corrupted beyond the devs original concept for the play mode. The intention was to provide a means for a few players to play together in a cooperative way, with the assumption that those utilizing this mode were 1. inviting their friends and people they knew/trusted and 2. were relatively small groups. Private groups were never intended to be a special mode with special rules run by a single dictator with thousands and thousands of members--this is not in the spirit of the private group mode. It was never intended to be a corruption of gameplay and an exploit for those that want all the benefits of open play with none of the risk.

Private group membership should have been hardcapped at a handful of players from the beginning, which would have prevented this whole problem in the first place.
 
First things first: I'm not what you call a "ganker", I've never been and never will be, I don't like usually to have a bounty over my head and act accordingly to that, mainly because I've got stuff to do with politics (both background simulation and powerplay) and I like to do useful things for my goals.

But we can't ignore that we have a basic design problem in Elite Dangerous: the developers must decide what they want to do with Elite Dangerous, if they want a MMORPG game, promoting interactions between the players, or they want a "crowded single player game", where the single player has total control over interactions with other players.

And my answer is that they should decide both.

We've got here two totally unconciliable views of the game, one side you can find people like me, who want this game to be Open Only for a lot of reasons (mostly "in-game-political reasons") and consider "ganking" totally legit in any condition (of course with the exception of exploits and cheats, but this is implied), the other side we've got people who don't wanna bother with conflict within players but they don't want the isolation of private or solo servers.

And because of that I think it's time to give the community two different servers, one basically as the one we have right now with the addiction of the "pve-openplay" feature some people long for, it could be considered both as a regular server and a training server, and another one strictly open only, in every condition of the game (yeah, even when you wanna go engineering, or you want to mine, do missions etc), these two should be totally separate servers (something like the beta servers) with different CMDRs. The only things that would change are the "politics" of these servers, faction influences, powerplay etc, maybe CGs.

It may sound harsh but I don't see any other possible solution: you can't fit into the same game a MMORPG approach and basically a "Cooperative" Single Player Game approach, FDev tryed to do so, didn't succeed (was really hard honestly to think otherwise), so we say goodbye each other and we go on in our very own Galaxy, with our different rules and mechanics.

Because right now Elite Dangerous allow people to shoot other people (which many don't like) and allow people to fight for politics in the total security of a protected private/solo environment (which isn't considered fair by many).

We've got different views of a game that's trying to be all the games people wish for it to be, so let's accept reality and split the Galaxy in two.
 
The biggest issue is that the use of private groups has been corrupted beyond the devs original concept for the play mode. The intention was to provide a means for a few players to play together in a cooperative way, with the assumption that those utilizing this mode were 1. inviting their friends and people they knew/trusted and 2. were relatively small groups. Private groups were never intended to be a special mode with special rules run by a single dictator with thousands and thousands of members--this is not in the spirit of the private group mode. It was never intended to be a corruption of gameplay and an exploit for those that want all the benefits of open play with none of the risk.

Private group membership should have been hardcapped at a handful of players from the beginning, which would have prevented this whole problem in the first place.

Are you saying forcing everyone (not just the clueless) into open would have prevented this?
 
The biggest issue is that the use of private groups has been corrupted beyond the devs original concept for the play mode. The intention was to provide a means for a few players to play together in a cooperative way, with the assumption that those utilizing this mode were 1. inviting their friends and people they knew/trusted and 2. were relatively small groups. Private groups were never intended to be a special mode with special rules run by a single dictator with thousands and thousands of members--this is not in the spirit of the private group mode. It was never intended to be a corruption of gameplay and an exploit for those that want all the benefits of open play with none of the risk.

Private group membership should have been hardcapped at a handful of players from the beginning, which would have prevented this whole problem in the first place.

And I strongly agree with that - this all smacks of policy making on the "fly" - it WILL end badly.
 
Back
Top Bottom