It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Not sure why you are replying to my comment with this, its completely unrelated.

But to answer, i'm exploring to explore and have no interest in gimping my jump range just to give me some extra protection against other players when i don't have to.

Why do i care about range, because my life is crazy at the moment and i'm not sure how much time i can dedicate to this expedition and just keeping up with the fleet its going to be tricky, never mind extra time to actually do some exploration.

I've had like 1 hour play in the last 3-4 days.

So no, i'm not going fully kitted, because i don't have to, and the griefer can do whatever they want, since i won't ever see them anyway. If the griefer can play for many extra hours keeping up with the fleet, then that is their choice, and all i can wish on them is a lack of targets as i hope most explorers now understand playing in open in an exploration build is stupid.

Same. But I though we were talking about open and open only powerplay wont change people ganking explorers or others in open.

If people are still going to play in open. While Exploring and then having the audacity to complain about it.

That would be their own fault. Not the gankers.

Its like a man using a lock on the toolchest. If a guy locks it chances are the normal every day guy is not going to try to steal anything.

But if the opportunity presents itself and they really want to get in there. They will.

In this case, all the crybabies complaining about griefers and gankers using crappy builds and going into open.

Is like the man left his toolbox open and said, Here take all my stuff. You have a date night with my wife tomorrow at 9pm.

Enjoy.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

And that's perfectly fine. But you still made a choice to fit this way. Nobody made this choice for you. And nobody ever should. As long as you're prepared to accept the potential consequences for this choice, you're not doing anything wrong.

But I'll go back to an analogy I made earlier in this thread: if you choose to light your curtains on fire, you shouldn't be surprised if your house burns down.

Same. But I though we were talking about open and open only powerplay wont change people ganking explorers or others in open.

If people are still going to play in open. While Exploring and then having the audacity to complain about it.

That would be their own fault. Not the gankers.

Its like a man using a lock on the toolchest. If a guy locks it chances are the normal every day guy is not going to try to steal anything.

But if the opportunity presents itself and they really want to get in there. They will.

In this case, all the crybabies complaining about griefers and gankers using crappy builds and going into open.

Is like the man left his toolbox open and said, Here take all my stuff. You have a date night with my wife tomorrow at 9pm.

Enjoy.

I understand the whole point about how if people fly in open, etc.

I was just responding to what you said.

The comment where i came in on this though was a point about how open only PP won't stop gankers ganking and having a dig of those who pull out the dangerous meme while not facing any danger themselves (ie: gankers).

 

[Devari]

But to answer, i'm exploring to explore and have no interest in gimping my jump range just to give me some extra protection against other players when i don't have to.

You don't have fly an exploration build that is equipped to deal with combat in the same sense that you don't have to bring weapons, shields and AFMU or any other modules designed to increase your chances of survival. It's still a good idea to build your ship to handle predictable threats however and you need to accept the consequences of those choices. When I went to SagA (before we had Engineering) I flew a fully-armed and shielded Asp with a 30 ly jump range. I had read reports of a player sitting at SagA with a Corvette killing explorers and wanted to be able to defend myself if necessary. I also carried chaff and point defence on my ship. I knew the weapons I carried wouldn't deter a Corvette but it might deter a player in a small or medium ship long enough for me to escape. I also knew I had to get my data back to a station in the bubble and wanted to have defence against being attacked on the return trip since being interdicted near the end of my trip was a very real possibility. Could I have gotten a few more ly of jump range leaving all of the defensive weapons and equipment behind? Sure, but I wasn't setting out to explore the galaxy as if I were in a single-player game. I play exclusively in Open and part of the immersion comes from knowing another player might be out there trying to ruin my day. For that matter even the NPCs were out to do that to some extent. When I returned from SagA we had started getting reports of the Skynet NPC bug and an NPC interdiction could have easily destroyed my ship under those circumstances. The NPCs were using ridiculously overpowered weapons such as gatling plasma accelerators that would have destroyed my Asp in a single volley before I even realized what was happening. I was fortunate that I wasn't interdicted by any NPCs when I returned to the bubble and I made sure I plotted my return course to land at the closest possible station from SagA to minimize my risk of being interdicted before I could sell my exploration data.

The point here is that I considered all of the risks associated with exploration before I set out and prepared for my trip accordingly, which included outfitting my Asp with an appropriate selection of weapons (plasma accelerators and beam lasers), shields, chaff, point defence, SRV, dual AFMU as well as stocking up on mats before the trip. I also read about issues I might encounter, such as jumping between a close binary system, and I had various strategies for how to deal with rare but significant hazards. I was even prepared to deal with NPC interdictions outside of the bubble as there were reports of players getting interdicted thousands of ly away from inhabited space. The preparation was as important as the trip itself. The point of preparing and planning for that trip wasn't just to get to and from SagA, it was to get to and from SagA knowing that the hazards I would need to deal with were both stellar phenomena as well as other players or NPCs that might interfere with the success of my trip.

 

[deleteduser]

I've been away from these forums, and this game, for 2 years and I come back to exactly the same people making the exact same, terrible, argument.... Someone tell me this hasn't been going on all of that time, please!

 

[voidwalker]

I understand the whole point about how if people fly in open, etc.

I was just responding to what you said.

The comment where i came in on this though was a point about how open only PP won't stop gankers ganking and having a dig of those who pull out the dangerous meme while not facing any danger themselves (ie: gankers).

Do you ever ask yourself why they face no danger?

Is there any good reason why other players can be that danger?

Because that's my point. You call it a meme. I call it choice.

 

[Devari]

I've been away from these forums, and this game, for 2 years and I come back to exactly the same people making the exact same, terrible, argument.... Someone tell me this hasn't been going on all of that time, please!

Until FD fixes the C&P system and provides meaningful in-game consequences for seal-clubbing players, we are likely to keep seeing the same "PVE/PVP" arguments about griefing, trolling, combat logging, Open vs. Solo and basically every other argument that has been raised since the game launched. Fundamentally the root of the problem, i.e., no effective response by FD for indiscriminate killing of players, has still not been addressed by FD in any meaningful way and at this rate it most likely never will. The C&P "update" we got was an opportunity for FD to try to fix the issue but instead they just added a needlessly complex and annoying system that severely inconvenienced and frustrated players who got trivial bounties but has done nothing whatsoever to reduce griefing. This is another issue where FD does not play their own game and therefore does not really care about griefing because none of the devs have put enough time into actually playing the game to understand how frustrating it is for players.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You don't have fly an exploration build that is equipped to deal with combat in the same sense that you don't have to bring weapons, shields and AFMU or any other modules designed to increase your chances of survival. It's still a good idea to build your ship to handle predictable threats however and you need to accept the consequences of those choices. When I went to SagA (before we had Engineering) I flew a fully-armed and shielded Asp with a 30 ly jump range. I had read reports of a player sitting at SagA with a Corvette killing explorers and wanted to be able to defend myself if necessary. I also carried chaff and point defence on my ship. I knew the weapons I carried wouldn't deter a Corvette but it might deter a player in a small or medium ship long enough for me to escape. I also knew I had to get my data back to a station in the bubble and wanted to have defence against being attacked on the return trip since being interdicted near the end of my trip was a very real possibility. Could I have gotten a few more ly of jump range leaving all of the defensive weapons and equipment behind? Sure, but I wasn't setting out to explore the galaxy as if I were in a single-player game. I play exclusively in Open and part of the immersion comes from knowing another player might be out there trying to ruin my day. For that matter even the NPCs were out to do that to some extent. When I returned from SagA we had started getting reports of the Skynet NPC bug and an NPC interdiction could have easily destroyed my ship under those circumstances. The NPCs were using ridiculously overpowered weapons such as gatling plasma accelerators that would have destroyed my Asp in a single volley before I even realized what was happening. I was fortunate that I wasn't interdicted by any NPCs when I returned to the bubble and I made sure I plotted my return course to land at the closest possible station from SagA to minimize my risk of being interdicted before I could sell my exploration data.

The point here is that I considered all of the risks associated with exploration before I set out and prepared for my trip accordingly, which included outfitting my Asp with an appropriate selection of weapons (plasma accelerators and beam lasers), shields, chaff, point defence, SRV, dual AFMU as well as stocking up on mats before the trip. I also read about issues I might encounter, such as jumping between a close binary system, and I had various strategies for how to deal with rare but significant hazards. I was even prepared to deal with NPC interdictions outside of the bubble as there were reports of players getting interdicted thousands of ly away from inhabited space. The preparation was as important as the trip itself. The point of preparing and planning for that trip wasn't just to get to and from SagA, it was to get to and from SagA knowing that the hazards I would need to deal with were both stellar phenomena as well as other players or NPCs that might interfere with the success of my trip.

I do that though. I don't fly shieldless, i fit quite good thrusters so have a good turn of speed. I'm well equipped for the predictable threats of PvE.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Do you ever ask yourself why they face no danger?

Is there any good reason why other players can be that danger?

Because that's my point. You call it a meme. I call it choice.

They face no danger because they are flying combat fitted ships. Its not rocket science.

The disparity is massive between a combat and non-combat build.

Even if people kit for defense, they are not kitting for PvP. They still present no risk to a ganker. The more you kit for offense to provide risk for an attacker, the more you gimp your capability to do the actual task you want to do.

The only way to provide the risk back to the gankers is kit for combat, which means playing their game. A whole lot of the discussions that go on around here are about how (some) PvPers demand that everyone else plays the game the way they do, without any consideration that the game they play is not interesting for many.

They demand others face risk or play the game how they do, all the while facing no risk themselves from anyone who wants to do things other than combat.

And yet, when those who want to play the game differently suggest things like an Open PvE mode or reduced risk for not going combat fitted, then its all "oh no, can't be having that!"

Basically you are saying "play my way" to which is say "Poo to you"

 

[Devari]

I do that though. I don't fly shieldless, i fit quite good thrusters so have a good turn of speed. I'm well equipped for the predictable threats of PvE.

The point here is that unless you play in Solo, then PVP should also be a predicable threat. The idea that "well the PG rules say no PVP so I shouldn't have to consider that as a possibility" is nonsense. As long as there are other players involved they could choose to attack you at any time and the only 100% guarantee of no PVP combat is if you play in Solo.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Until FD fixes the C&P system and provides meaningful in-game consequences for seal-clubbing players, we are likely to keep seeing the same "PVE/PVP" arguments about griefing, trolling, combat logging, Open vs. Solo and basically every other argument that has been raised since the game launched. Fundamentally the root of the problem, i.e., no effective response by FD for indiscriminate killing of players, has still not been addressed by FD in any meaningful way and at this rate it most likely never will. The C&P "update" we got was an opportunity for FD to try to fix the issue but instead they just added a needlessly complex and annoying system that severely inconvenienced and frustrated players who got trivial bounties but has done nothing whatsoever to reduce griefing. This is another issue where FD does not play their own game and therefore does not really care about griefing because none of the devs have put enough time into actually playing the game to understand how frustrating it is for players.

I dunno, I saw Ed Lewis in a live stream being smashed up and he was very aware of the problem - at least by the end of the stream. He was own team killed by wingmates in CZ and at the end could not even get out of the station. FD are aware of the problem but they seem to be unable to solve it - presumably without implementing some Draconian system that they do not want.

He openly admitted that it just was not fun.

 

[Stealthie]

Its like a man using a lock on the toolchest. If a guy locks it chances are the normal every day guy is not going to try to steal anything.

But if the opportunity presents itself and they really want to get in there. They will.

It's more like somebody travelling 10,000Ly specifically to steal your tools when they can steal the same thing from their next-door neighbour.

[wacko]

 

[M00ka]

It's more like somebody travelling 10,000Ly specifically to steal your tools when they can steal the same thing from their next-door neighbour.

[wacko]

Nearly right Stealthie, isn't it more like someone travelling 10,000Ly specificially to steal your tools only to find out the toolbox only contains a salt shaker?

 

[Devari]

I dunno, I saw Ed Lewis in a live stream being smashed up and he was very aware of the problem - at least by the end of the stream. He was own team killed by wingmates in CZ and at the end could not even get out of the station. FD are aware of the problem but they seem to be unable to solve it - presumably without implementing some Draconian system that they do not want.

If FD truly wanted to fix, or at least improve, the C&P system then why did we get a C&P rework that has literally made things worse? That only happens if you either don't want to solve the problem or if you don't play your own game enough to understand how it actually works. The C&P rework locks players out of station access for simple fines, sends players to detention centres without giving a simple option to pay off bounties, and makes it hard to deal with accidental bounties such as hitting a system authority ship who literally flies into your line of fire. These issues were very apparent during the Gnosis debacle where FD didn't even think through the consequences of their own C&P system. At the same time that the new C&P system is severely inconveniencing regular players they are also allowing griefers to swap out or clean a "hot" ship simply by paying credits (which was never a deterrent to begin with) and lets their notoriety decay by sitting afk with the client open in the background. Griefers can easily avoid or reduce all of the consequences from killing other players. That can only happen if FD literally has no idea what the problem is and are simply making a broken system more complex and problematic because they never actually knew what to fix in the first place.

He openly admitted that it just was not fun.

Sure, and Sandro straight-up said "We don't want to waste your time" about the new Engineering rework. And then FD proceeded to, yet again, waste our time in various fundamental ways.

The problem here is that you are still trusting FD to mean what they say, and do what they say, instead of looking at the game they have shown us after more than 4 years of development since launch.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

If FD truly wanted to fix, or at least improve, the C&P system then then did we get a C&P rework that has literally made things worse? That only happens if you either don't want to solve the problem or if you don't play your own game enough to understand how it actually works. The C&P rework locks players out of station access for simple fines, sends players to detention centres without giving a simple option to pay off bounties, and makes it hard to deal with accidental bounties such as hitting a system authority ship who literally flies into your line of fire. These issues were very apparent during the Gnosis debacle where FD didn't even think through the consequences of their own C&P system. At the same time that the new C&P system is severely inconveniencing regular players they are also allowing griefers to swap out or clean a "hot" ship simply by paying credits (which was never a deterrent to begin with) and lets their notoriety decay by sitting afk with the client open in the background. Griefers can easily avoid or reduce all of the consequences from killing other players. That can only happen if FD literally has no idea what the problem is and are simply making a broken system more complex and problematic because they never actually knew what to fix in the first place.



Sure, and Sandro straight-up said "We don't want to waste your time" about the new Engineering rework. And then FD proceeded to, yet again, waste our time in various fundamental ways.

The problem here is that you are still trusting FD to mean what they say, and do what they say, instead of looking at the game they have shown us after more than 4 years of development since launch.

I can't argue with any of that! You ain't wrong !and I admit After a promising but MVP start where I had complete faith in FD to make the game they outlined the last 5 years have steadily eroded my faith away too. I am fortunate that I only bought the game for a simple multiplayer with friends but essentially single player elite game so many (but not all) of the issues I can dodge... But even so.........

 

[voidwalker]

They face no danger because they are flying combat fitted ships. Its not rocket science.

The disparity is massive between a combat and non-combat build.

Even if people kit for defense, they are not kitting for PvP. They still present no risk to a ganker. The more you kit for offense to provide risk for an attacker, the more you gimp your capability to do the actual task you want to do.

The only way to provide the risk back to the gankers is kit for combat, which means playing their game. A whole lot of the discussions that go on around here are about how (some) PvPers demand that everyone else plays the game the way they do, without any consideration that the game they play is not interesting for many.

They demand others face risk or play the game how they do, all the while facing no risk themselves from anyone who wants to do things other than combat.

And yet, when those who want to play the game differently suggest things like an Open PvE mode or reduced risk for not going combat fitted, then its all "oh no, can't be having that!"

Basically you are saying "play my way" to which is say "Poo to you"

No, that's incorrect. They face no danger because there are no players presenting any. The disparity between combat and non-combat ships is massive, I don't disagree, but that's normal. It's intended. It's expected.

You don't even have to kit up for defence. For an expedition like DW2, there's no reason not to arrange a security service to go along for the ride. Will some explorers still be ganked? Yes, it's called attrition. Will the security service kill and eventually dissuade the gankers? Maybe, maybe not. There's a higher chance they will be though. There's no chance without an escort. Alternatively, there is no reason not to kit your exploration ships for escape and survival. Mine is. It does great.

And no, I'm not demanding you play my way at all. I'm telling you what your options are. Ultimately, the choice is yours, but if you make a choice that ignores the risks, you essentially choose to be a potential victim. And you don't get to pretend that you don't have options with the "but I want to play THIS way" because of course you do, I'm not telling you what you want, and I'm not telling you how to play. Not even remotely. So don't pull that intellectually bankrupt nonsense with me. If you make a CHOICE to not be a risk to gank, then of COURSE there's no risk to the gankers. Why would you expect otherwise?

 

[Powderpanic]

No, that's incorrect. They face no danger because there are no players presenting any. The disparity between combat and non-combat ships is massive, I don't disagree, but that's normal. It's intended. It's expected.

You don't even have to kit up for defence. For an expedition like DW2, there's no reason not to arrange a security service to go along for the ride. Will some explorers still be ganked? Yes, it's called attrition. Will the security service kill and eventually dissuade the gankers? Maybe, maybe not. There's a higher chance they will be though. There's no chance without an escort. Alternatively, there is no reason not to kit your exploration ships for escape and survival. Mine is. It does great.

And no, I'm not demanding you play my way at all. I'm telling you what your options are. Ultimately, the choice is yours, but if you make a choice that ignores the risks, you essentially choose to be a potential victim. And you don't get to pretend that you don't have options with the "but I want to play THIS way" because of course you do, I'm not telling you what you want, and I'm not telling you how to play. Not even remotely. So don't pull that intellectually bankrupt nonsense with me. If you make a CHOICE to not be a risk to gank, then of COURSE there's no risk to the gankers. Why would you expect otherwise?

Loops back nicely to incentivising PVP.

You want viable defenders to defend something like DW2?

Give defenders viable rewards to make their effort worth while.

Fixed

Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing

 

[Robert Maynard]

No, that's incorrect. They face no danger because there are no players presenting any. The disparity between combat and non-combat ships is massive, I don't disagree, but that's normal. It's intended. It's expected.

They do not face "no danger" - they face the level of "danger" decided by Frontier when they set the parameters for the game as a whole - and that "danger" is usually provided in context, unlike the "for the lulz" type supplied by some players.

 

[AlexAndTheDJ]

Even if explorers outfitted their ships for combat, most explorers would likely lack the skill and experience to seriously damage a griefers ship.

I feel like a broken record but prevention is better than cure. PG's are slightly different but anyone getting griefed and/or ganked only has themselves to blame.

Crying on the forums because you can't fight them is ridiculous. Of course you can't fight them, you're in an explorer vessel. Avoid them instead. You don't need Fdev to create a PvE only environment to do that. Simple solution to a simple "problem".

 

[Robert Maynard]

Loops back nicely to incentivising PVP.

You want viable defenders to defend something like DW2?

Give defenders viable rewards to make their effort worth while.

Fixed

Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing

Given that players break agreements, ref. joining a PvE private Group with the intention to engage in PvP, why should any player trust that a player engaged to provide protection would do so?

Trust is a scarce enough commodity already.

.... and all that encouraging players to trust other players would do is increase the glee of those who choose to betray trust when those players prone to that kind of behaviour inevitably do so.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Do you ever ask yourself why they face no danger?

Is there any good reason why other players can be that danger?

Because that's my point. You call it a meme. I call it choice.

There's one really good reason: most players aren't PvPers, and are thus no threat to the typical Playerkiller, let alone an actual PvPer.

You need three things to be good at PvP: interest, mindset, and time. Most players lack at least one of these traits.

If you lack interest in PvP, then you'll never get good at it. You'll be spending your time doing the things you enjoy, not the things you don't. This goes double for those players who are far more interested in the non-combat aspects of this game, who put up with the unwelcome combat aspects to get access to the gameplay they enjoy, simply because there's no better game like Elite: Dangerous out there.

If you lack the correct mindset for PvP, then you'll never be good at it. Without the correct mindset, a certain "killer" instinct, you'll always lose to those who do. This goes double for those players who are role-players at heart. They prioritize not breaking character, and thus will make sub-optimaly decisions, while the so-called meta-game is about as out-of-character as you can possibly get.

The last is time. If you want to develop master-level skills, then you need to spend time to do so. Most players don't put in nearly as many hours as the typical PvPer does, between practice, "grinding," and of course actual fights. Most players still find fighting the AI to be challenging, because they're lucky to put in five hours a week in this game. What hope do they have against a player who spends twenty hours a week either preparing for fights, looking for fights, or engaged in fights?

I know it's a meme that "humans are the most dangerous prey," but that's not the case. Most humans are panicky animals who'll either freeze up or bolt when in danger, even simulated "danger." It takes a lot of training for a human being to be dangerous. Most players are less of a threat to your typical player-killer than your typical NPC is, and will always be that way.