FD utter failure: engineering brought to an excess

[NeilF]

But it does separate them from others.

Flying 5.5k ly in a PvP built ship to do nothing but kills easy player targets differentiates them from the normal people. That's like flying from Dublin to New York to beat up a few school kids. Not only are they actually flying so far to kill a few players, but their picking on the weakest of the weak.

I'm sure a Psychologist could provide a better explanation. All I know is it seems childish to me, not to mention the high possibility of some 'issues'.. But that's my opinion.

The most cynical example I've witnessed was at the Thargoid reveal. This was where FD slowly led the community around a set of locations finally to the location with a "Thargoid Reveal"...

It was literally within minutes that gankers turned up to the location. Of course most/all of the folks already there were in specialised exploration ships, which the Wings of gankers - no doubt flying in fully engineered PvP combat ships - picked on carefully one at a time, popping them literally in seconds. Three-four engineered ships, all firing upon one exploration ship at a time... Pop!

Spoiler

The fact it was a high profile community event... The fact it was pointless... The fact it was ruining people's enjoyment of the event, needlessly... No doubt made it all worthwhile to them.

There's nothing positive about this behaviour. Nothing is added to the game by this behaviour. Yet here we are year(s) on, and FD still haven't done anything significant to rein in such habitual illegal/pointless toxic destruction.

 

[Stigbob]

The most cynical example I've witnessed was at the Thargoid reveal. This was where FD slowly led the community around a set of locations finally to the location with a "Thargoid Reveal"...

It was literally within minutes that gankers turned up to the location. Of course most/all of the folks already there were in specialised exploration ships, which the Wings of gankers - no doubt flying in fully engineered PvP combat ships - picked on carefully one at a time, popping them literally in seconds. Three-four engineered ships, all firing upon one exploration ship at a time... Pop!



The fact it was a high profile community event... The fact it was pointless... The fact it was ruining people's enjoyment of the event, needlessly... No doubt made it all worthwhile to them.

There's nothing positive about this behaviour. Nothing is added to the game by this behaviour. Yet here we are year(s) on, and FD still haven't done anything significant to rein in such habitual illegal/pointless toxic destruction.

Blowing people up is OK, you might not like it but the game caters to that so why dwell on it when you can just use mode choice and block to opt out of it completely.

 

[Aashenfox]

It was fun for the gankers. Why is that difficult to understand. They paid their money to play a game, they play it within the rules outlined by FD.

It has long been documented that in video games, some like to play evil and act out things that they can't do in real life because consequences. Others like to roleplay the person they are in real life, while others want to RP the virtuous paragon of Justice (I'm that last one ).

Given that this is known, FD has responsiblity to do something about anything that happens in the game. It is not reasonable to tell someone who paid their money just as you did, what is ok and what isn't, if it is not in the rules of the game.

I do think some are just out to be toxic, but I doubt it's even half. For the others, it's a great laugh with friends, exactyl what MMOs are designed for.

This is going to be my last post on the subject.

 

[sollisb]

Mine was more a passing comment. I know to play in PG and just bypass this.

I'm not asking Frontier to change nor am I asking the bankers to change. More, asking the newer peeps to be aware, and to know they can easily bypass it too, by just not playing in Open.

That being said, you play in open, you play by their rules.

 

[NeilF]

It was fun for the gankers. Why is that difficult to understand.

It is and isn't hard to understand...

I understand the game has gankers and they enjoy it. But I ultimately don't pretend to understand how people actually get enjoyment out of actively going out of their way simply to just cause needless grief to other players.

Again, the individuals in question are going out of their way to attack hollow squares, when solid squares are far easier to find, and doing this for no ingame reason/outcome. They are doing it solely because they know it causes aggravation and grief to other players, needlessly.

Personally I don't understand the mindset of such a person. And personally I don't understand how FD thinks ignoring this behaviour is a good thing for the game. But then given after four years the continued lack of any PvP gameplay progress, it's maybe all part of PvP simply being ignored... But hey! At least there's time for CQC, Generation Ships, Multicrew and Bobbleheads... [where is it]

 

[Brrokk]

Wow, this is some thread. A single issue keeps coming round, so here's my two-penn'orth on it.

I like exploring. I want to carry certain equipment so I fit that in and engineer everything for best possible jump range (OK, not every explorer prioritises jump range; I do).

Someone else likes playing a cat-and-mouse game where his combat ship tries to destroy explorer ships.

My choices are:

1. Fly in Open. I usually succeed in doing what I want. He gets his game. I risk rebuy and loss of exploration data. He risks nothing.

2. Fly in PG or Solo. I succeed in doing what I want. He doesn't get his game. I risk nothing not intrinsic to my exploration. He risks nothing.

To me, 2 stands out as the obvious best choice for me.

Choice 1 would only be attractive if either I liked the cat-and-mouse excitement or I felt some obligation to give him the game he wants. Some people choose it for those reasons; I don't.

Now for the thread title: none of this is anything to do with engineering. My reasoning is unchanged whether he and I are flying engineered ships or not.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

It is and isn't hard to understand...

I understand the game has gankers and they enjoy it. But I ultimately don't pretend to understand how people actually get enjoyment out of actively going out of their way simply to just cause needless grief to other players.

Again, the individuals in question are going out of their way to attack hollow squares, when solid squares are far easier to find, and doing this for no ingame reason/outcome. They are doing it solely because they know it causes aggravation and grief to other players, needlessly.

Personally I don't understand the mindset of such a person. And personally I don't understand how FD thinks ignoring this behaviour is a good thing for the game. But then given after four years the continued lack of any PvP gameplay progress, it's maybe all part of PvP simply being ignored... But hey! At least there's time for CQC, Generation Ships, Multicrew and Bobbleheads... [where is it]

If I viewed ED as a PvP game, I might do just the same. Hunting and killing prey is fun activity. It's about how you go and perceive a game. This works well in dedicated PvP games because that's what its all about but it falls apart when you tell the sheep it's totally fine to play your game, it's all a happy place where everyone gets to play after their fashion and then find out you can't and it's been a tale been told to you.
It's a matter of design and selling to a wider audience with promises that don't hold up when the hunters go for some real hunting and the galaxy isn't so big that random encounters are diluted to meaninglessness.

FD maybe hoped to circumvent the problem of PvE vs PvP by avoiding choke points but when you have events at locations that's the easy time for sharks to have a feast.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

All that minimum engineering, all the tips help nothing if you are up against players who know what to do. You may escape lucky but you'll die more often when the game holds you neatly in place for several seconds while spooling up the FS drive. And you can do nothing.

You're invincible during the countdown.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

You're invincible during the countdown.

That wasn't always the case.

 

[NeilF]

If I viewed ED as a PvP game, I might do just the same. Hunting and killing prey is fun activity.

Yes it could well be... BUT why do the individuals in question get "fun" out of spending more time and more effort specifically "hunting" hollow squares when they in truth offer no more/less challenge to the solid squares that are far easier to find? And why is it "fun" when it's for no in game purpose/outcome? And why is it "fun" when it's knowingly done to needlessly aggravate another player due to their pointless needless destruction, the more pointless, once side and cynical the more fun it is?

I find it hard to dress it up for any other than the toxic cynical pointless behaviour it is...

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Yes it could well be... BUT why do the individuals in question get "fun" out of spending more time and more effort specifically "hunting" hollow squares when they in truth offer no more/less challenge to the solid squares that are far easier to find? And why is it "fun" when it's for no in game purpose/outcome? And why is it "fun" when it's knowingly done to needlessly aggravate another player due to their pointless needless destruction, the more pointless, once side and cynical the more fun it is?

I find it hard to dress it up for any other than the toxic cynical pointless behaviour it is...

I don't know. But I know that you can't change people and I know that you can change design to avoid the anti-social behaviour displayed. It'd been better to not allow it in the first place.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Yes it could well be... BUT why do the individuals in question get "fun" out of spending more time and more effort specifically "hunting" hollow squares when they in truth offer no more/less challenge to the solid squares that are far easier to find? And why is it "fun" when it's for no in game purpose/outcome? And why is it "fun" when it's knowingly done to needlessly aggravate another player due to their pointless needless destruction, the more pointless, once side and cynical the more fun it is?

I find it hard to dress it up for any other than the toxic cynical pointless behaviour it is...

Who cares "why"?

It's pointless worrying about it.

 

[Cmdr Ultra]

Yes it could well be... BUT why do the individuals in question get "fun" out of spending more time and more effort specifically "hunting" hollow squares when they in truth offer no more/less challenge to the solid squares that are far easier to find? And why is it "fun" when it's for no in game purpose/outcome? And why is it "fun" when it's knowingly done to needlessly aggravate another player due to their pointless needless destruction, the more pointless, once side and cynical the more fun it is?

I find it hard to dress it up for any other than the toxic cynical pointless behaviour it is...

It's like watching Spock trying to understand the concept of fun.

 

[Stigbob]

I don't know. But I know that you can't change people and I know that you can change design to avoid the anti-social behaviour displayed. It'd been better to not allow it in the first place.

Why on earth would they not allow a perfectly legit (and entirely optional) way of playing the game ?.

Maybe they just expect people to make sensible mode choices for themselves.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

Yes it could well be... BUT why do the individuals in question get "fun" out of spending more time and more effort specifically "hunting" hollow squares when they in truth offer no more/less challenge to the solid squares that are far easier to find? And why is it "fun" when it's for no in game purpose/outcome? And why is it "fun" when it's knowingly done to needlessly aggravate another player due to their pointless needless destruction, the more pointless, once side and cynical the more fun it is?

I find it hard to dress it up for any other than the toxic cynical pointless behaviour it is...

I'm asking that myself too sometimes, but then different people enjoy different things I guess.

I do get a rush out of escaping, but there's this player who kept interdicting me every time we shared the same instance (this went on over weeks and months) without even a single o7, or some funny RP, or whatever.

He was a tough enemy to escape from as well (difficult to shake, including him disabling my FSD despite my FA-Off Headless Chicken evasive maneuvers), and I lost many rebuys, plus failed missions, because of him. Didn't block him though initially as technically he didn't do anything wrong per se.

But last time it happened I started to ask myself, the risks are stacked against me, so what do I actually get out of playing in the same instance as him, with him? It was hard to avoid him, especially during weekends, unless I switched to Solo, given his playground is Founders World which is also my home base (including missions). The whole gameplay loop of returning to Jameson's and him being around and interdicting me, more often than not interrupting what I was doing (PvE stuff) was getting really, really tedious in the end.

Am glad there's a halfway solution between Solo and Open, i.e. the block function. Plenty more gankers in the sea anyways so confident enough I won't miss him from my game; but happy I can continue playing in Open all the same as most people there are actually decent guys/gals.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

If an explorer is ridiculed for building a ship purely for exploration with the onus on maximum jump range then I can laugh and point at those who build a PvP death machine that has a single digit jump range then complain and whine like incessant children because of the delay in ship transfers. If as Commander Lighthouse ascertains that there is no gap, everything is equal, then this entire discussion would not be happening as everyone would be on a level playing field. But that is not the case is it!

1) The vast majority of the whining and foot-stomping I've seen on this thread has come from those who can't wrap their heads around the importance of proper outfitting and evasive skills (or at the very least, selecting the proper mode for themselves of they can't be bothered to do so). I have yet to see, for example, your example of a PvPer demanding that their min-maxxed-for-combat vessel be arbitrarily granted an increased jump range because they can't be bothered to outfit for exploration.

In fact, I don't think I've ever seen such a request/demand from one. Perhaps there is an innate difference between those who challenge themselves to develop skill and understand the game and those who simply want an "I win" button for their paper airplanes?

2) Adjusting the gameplay mechanics to bring every ship, regardless of type and engineering, into relative parity with one another would be to kill off the entire point of both different ships and engineering.

 

[Jack Schitt]

1. Fly in Open. I usually succeed in doing what I want. He gets his game. I risk rebuy and loss of exploration data. He risks nothing.
2. Fly in PG or Solo. I succeed in doing what I want. He doesn't get his game. I risk nothing not intrinsic to my exploration. He risks nothing.
Choice 1 would only be attractive if either I liked the cat-and-mouse excitement or I felt some obligation to give him the game he wants. Some people choose it for those reasons; I don't.

I like that. Even trimmed down it's not quite the Holy Grail of Mode arguments, which would ideally fit in the space below a signature image, but it's damned close.

It's like watching Spock trying to understand the concept of fun.

Spock understood that human beings are emotionally complex creatures whose notions of fun are wildly variable. Faced with humans who themselves chose to ignore this he would have glanced between them, raised a quizzical eyebrow, and returned to monitoring his systems. Much as I've been doing for many of the last 650-odd posts.

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

1) The vast majority of the whining and foot-stomping I've seen on this thread has come from those who can't wrap their heads around the importance of proper outfitting and evasive skills (or at the very least, selecting the proper mode for themselves of they can't be bothered to do so). I have yet to see, for example, your example of a PvPer demanding that their min-maxxed-for-combat vessel be arbitrarily granted an increased jump range because they can't be bothered to outfit for exploration.

In fact, I don't think I've ever seen such a request/demand from one. Perhaps there is an innate difference between those who challenge themselves to develop skill and understand the game and those who simply want an "I win" button for their paper airplanes?

2) Adjusting the gameplay mechanics to bring every ship, regardless of type and engineering, into relative parity with one another would be to kill off the entire point of both different ships and engineering.

You must not have seen the regular threads demanding instant ship & module transfer then to allow tiny FSD fitted meta boats to be easily moved about.

 

[Weps]

I have yet to see, for example, your example of a PvPer demanding that their min-maxxed-for-combat vessel be arbitrarily granted an increased jump range because they can't be bothered to outfit for exploration.

In fact, I don't think I've ever seen such a request/demand from one. Perhaps there is an innate difference between those who challenge themselves to develop skill and understand the game and those who simply want an "I win" button for their paper airplanes?

[rolleyes]

Spoiler

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/205809-Federal-Corvette-please-buff-jump-range
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/204170-Fer-de-lance-jump-range
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/388588-Jump-Range-as-a-Balancing-Factor
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/327679-Balancing-Ships-with-Jump-Range-creates-Tedium

 

[PeLucheuh]

You must not have seen the regular threads demanding instant ship & module transfer then to allow tiny FSD fitted meta boats to be easily moved about.

Irrelevant, you have to be in the destination station if you want to initiate the transfert (the journey has to be done already)...
Tiny FSD meta boats are already easyly moved... Also, since 3.0 C&P, players had to adapt to the system and are not using such FSD in systems without at least 2 station controlled by 2 different factions.

You clearly did not understand the purpose of the instant/remote transfert option request. As a side note, this request is not exclusive to PvPer...

My choices are:
1. Fly in Open. I usually succeed in doing what I want. He gets his game. I risk rebuy and loss of exploration data. He risks nothing.
2. Fly in PG or Solo. I succeed in doing what I want. He doesn't get his game. I risk nothing not intrinsic to my exploration. He risks nothing.

3. Fly in Open. Understand and acknowledge possibilities offered by FDev rules and mechanics for their game (3.0 C&P is advised). Realise every player is under the risk of a rebuy and will face consequences for that. Enjoy.