DW2 - A missed opportunity

[Ziggy Stardust]

Going to echo the comments of some by saying that we explorers don't care. We are all having a blast and those in Open knew the consequences. For that small percentage that has made it into the private group, we can deal with them and luckily if it's proven that someones death was at the hands of one of these people they won't lose any progress as we have a way to get them back to where they were. This is an event about exploration and discovery not PVP and not really even PVE. We are explorers, scientists and just regular CMDRS who wanted to go and discover the secrets of the galaxy. It's funny then how left out the PVP crowd must have felt that they needed to create their own Distant Ganks and then try to force RP terms to make them stop. Trust me, we aren't worried one bit and are having and going to continue to have a wonder expedition.

On that not, let's be nice to each other in her and keep this to topic on track and like Qohen said, not another OPEN, PVP, PG blah blah blah thread.

Well said CMDR o7

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

Of course, if the problem is just that the compensation isn't enough, counterproposals will be gladly entertained. We're talking about a huge fleet of veteran explorers who've become fabulously wealthy probing the most distant reaches of the galaxy. It seems obvious that they would choose bribery over guns, if push came to shove. Of course the bankers at Zaonce curiously forbid direct credit transfers between members of the Pilots' Federation. But gems? Alien relics? Alien ... samples, even? No matter how exotic your tastes, I believe my associates here could get you what you need.

I laughed so hard that I cried when I watched Zarek try to sacrifice a commander to the Thargoids, and when he caught a spy flying a cobra mk 3 in eravate.

My allegiance was won by this laughter, a currency that is very dear to me. [Also of course by his awe inspiring might, and my concern for the impending heat death of the universe]

So unless your associate is Norm Macdonald or Eddie Izzard and he's going to do a stand up show for me at my house, I doubt you'll be able to bribe me over.

Other CMDRs - who knows. It's a jungle out there.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Going to echo the comments of some by saying that we explorers don't care. We are all having a blast and those in Open knew the consequences. For that small percentage that has made it into the private group, we can deal with them and luckily if it's proven that someones death was at the hands of one of these people they won't lose any progress as we have a way to get them back to where they were. This is an event about exploration and discovery not PVP and not really even PVE. We are explorers, scientists and just regular CMDRS who wanted to go and discover the secrets of the galaxy. It's funny then how left out the PVP crowd must have felt that they needed to create their own Distant Ganks and then try to force RP terms to make them stop. Trust me, we aren't worried one bit and are having and going to continue to have a wonder expedition.

On that not, let's be nice to each other in her and keep this to topic on track and like Qohen said, not another OPEN, PVP, PG blah blah blah thread.

Well said CMDR o7

 

[NeilF]

Most of what needs to be said about this has been said already, but by golly, maybe you're right. So you know what, let's give this a go! You're hired!

Here's my offer: for every ganker you destroy at a waypoint more than twenty jumps from the nearest respawn, I will arrange to source one void opal for you. Payable back in the bubble of course; my "associates" will handle the logistics. Up to you how you want to document the destruction, just make it convincing. Any other PvPers want to do the same and flip to fleet defense mercenary, send them our way, maybe we can work something out.

Indeed, ArchAngelofDeath's suggestion reads well, but of course will play badly... As I said to his comment a few pages back:-

The problem is:-

• Why create even more work to deal with individuals simply hell bent on schadenfreude? The organisers involved already have no doubt buckets of work/effort to do, and you suggest they undertake folks expect to deal with sort of needless cynical behaviour too?
• Then consider the fact the game really doesn't support the kind of policing you suggest. The gankers in question have enough shields to generally just jump away from any attack, to then continue picking on weak dedicated exploration ships for their schadenfreude fix.
• Then consider the gankers flying around in Wings in different instances to your "protection".
• And the protection forces you suggest then have the exciting gameplay ahead of them of.... sitting in the game... waiting...

In truth the only "missed opportunity" is for a huge fun community event, organised no doubt at some considerable expense in time and effort by those involved, to simply go by without a small committed toxic number of players needlessly causing grief and aggravation, simply to garner the enjoyment they get from grief.

So, in summary, not only are your ideas rather flawed, so is your delivery too, with unfounded rhetoric/needless back handed insults.

ps: Maybe you could/should suggest FD spend some time adding some logical C&P mechanics to apply some sensible measured punishment for what could be considered psychotic behaviour within the game, simply and sadly (in truth) all too often for schadenfreude.

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

Haha, this was tried at the Salomé event and we know how it turned out.

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

Haha, this was tried at the Salomé event and we know how it turned out.

That was a completely different sort of thing (I do agree with your point, it boggles my mind HP was given a trusted role).

However, the core problem with convoy protection was identified in this thread already:

- it only works if *everyone* knows their part in the procedure, including all the explorers. If the explorers are willing to do that much advance prep they could just get themselves some decent shields and not need external protection.

If there are any weak link pilots, they will die. The defense combat pilots are basically playing with a massive handicap because the fact of the matter is most explorers have no idea what to do.

And not just the explorers; earlier today I rolled up on an "escort" conda who has been PvP'ing for at a year o rmore (so at least twice as long I have). He was protecting a landed unmanned Asp.

I had my hardpoints out, and drifted towards him for 15 seconds while I did my comms schpeal. At no point did he consider it suspicious a hardpoint deployed conda just happened to be rolling up on him. Do you know why?

Because I named my ship "DW2 HULL REPAIR VESSEL".

Don't believe everything you read! (What he should have been reading was my squadron ID - "Z0Z0").

Anyway, during that 15 seconds he could have:

- alerted the grounded asp-x to dismiss ship
- low waked away
- scanned my loadout to notice plasma/MCs/seekers/dumbfires/SLF, a straight up murder load with experimentals to prevent escape. Not a hull seal loadout.
- premptively demanded I retract hardpoints
- shot first and asked questions later
- all of the above

Instead he did literally nothing during that time. I downed his combat conda in about 10 seconds, he got maybe one evasive boost in. I'm not sure he ever even deployed hardpoints.

 

[space voyager]

Instead he did literally nothing during that time. I downed his combat conda in about 10 seconds, he got maybe one evasive boost in. I'm not sure he ever even deployed hardpoints.

If you destroyed his Anaconda in 10 seconds, that was no battle escort. The ship may have been carrying weapons but was fitted for exploration. Also, you seem to be real proud of your "cunning". Well, you're not my hero.

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

If you destroyed his Anaconda in 10 seconds, that was no battle escort. The ship may have been carrying weapons but was fitted for exploration. Also, you seem to be real proud of your "cunning". Well, you're not my hero.

You are correct re 10 seconds, I just whipped out a number from vague recollection. Going back and checking the footage, it was exactly 30 seconds from the first shot fired.

That might still sound fast, but I had ramming, 4 OC multis, 2 PAs, and seekers hitting him point blank and 4 pips to weps. He didn't fire chaff or evade well. Very few ships will live through an uncontested one sided barrage like that.

He was certainly a battle escort - his last comms were to the landed asp "o7 i'm escort if needed". Keep in mind, my ship is also fitted for exploration. 2 AMFU, cargo bay, guardian fsd boost, size 6 SRV hangar, DSS, and repair limpets don't help me much in the PvP department.

In the followup messaging he claimed a year+ of PvP experience and also admitted to having combat logged at least once to a cmdr I know of. So certainly a combat escort, just not a very good one.

As far as proud of cunning - my in game CMDR is delighted how effective he is at carrying out Zarek's edict.

In real life, quite the opposite. First off it's just a silly game, and second I long ago realized people tend to be gullible. It's nothing to be proud of to dupe some rando, if anything i was a little depressed such a simple tactic worked. It's like going to a park in a major city and playing 3 card monte, and thinking it's a fair game.

I and many others are repeating on this forum ad nauseam the tactics explorers and escorts should be using, and all I get in response is derision. Fine, judge away, it means nothing to me.

Of course I'm not your hero. It's. A. Game.

Why are you more concerned with repeating how little you respect my gameplay, than the fact that one of the few documented escort vessels for Open DW2 did literally everything wrong in his one chance to fulfill his role?

[video evidence the encounter went down as I say it did is available upon request]

 

[Rock-Hermit]

If you destroyed his Anaconda in 10 seconds, that was no battle escort. The ship may have been carrying weapons but was fitted for exploration. Also, you seem to be real proud of your "cunning". Well, you're not my hero.

This.

And this is exactly why expeditions in Open Play will never ever work. An expedition that players invest considerable time in to travel along is not like any other event in this game. Its not like a CG in the bubble where death is a minor setback and people are back doing the CG 10 minutes later. Death on an expedition can end that expedition for the player in an instant and wipe out months of gametime. Expeditions only work because there is a level of trust built up between those taking part, and trust only flourishes when there are rules that can be put in place to remove rule breakers and get those effected by those rule breakers back out to where they where with as little fuss as possible. There are no rules in open, therefore no trust, therefore no chance what so ever that anyone in their right mind would organize an expedition wholly for players in open.

All it takes is one basecamp meetup in open play to get wiped out, and by the time the next one comes around you'll see that barely anyone shows up as they've all opted for solo or a PG. Rinse and repeat and you'll soon no longer have an expedition taking part in open play. Which is what I suspect will be happening on dw2 now. I doubt many will be left playing open play by the halfway point, and only those that are will be gankers and people hunting the gankers. The explorers will be long gone from your universe and playing in their own PGs or going it solo. Prepping ships and making grand plans for defense this or defense that are wishful dreaming as been pointed out over and over again on this thread. I'm still yet to see anyone write up their grand ideas of how it could work in open and present them here. Talk is cheap, lets see people put their ideas into practice so we can watch them crash and burn by the first waypoint.

 

[OldManKnott]

Why has it sailed? You think all gankers left already? I don't think so. One VO may just not be enough for the gankers to start fighting each other...

There are still a lot of gankers following along in open. A few of us were hiding in our SRVs near the last WP in open play and the instance was always occupied with several of them watching and waiting. I'd guess I saw up to 25 different names over the last few days waiting for an explorer to turn up in open.

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

I'm still yet to see anyone write up their grand ideas of how it could work in open and present them here. Talk is cheap, lets see people put their ideas into practice so we can watch them crash and burn by the first waypoint.

I have elsewhere on this forum advocated a nearby (~5 jump?) spawn for deep space death, with explo data in a black box protected by some moderate but not insurmountable mission to regain data.

I gain no pleasure sending people 10kly back to the bubble, quite the opposite.

Poor pilot explorers would still die, but it would ease their pain as they could swap into solo and regain their lost progress in a matter of a half hour, instead of days. Good pilot explorers would have a much more reasonable risk/fun tradeoff in open.

FDev putting meaningful training into the entry stages of the game that emphasize just how dangerous open can be, and how to respond well. Actual security in noobspace (but this would have to be coupled with more mechanisms to find players in open outside noobspace, jameson, CG).

 

[Rock-Hermit]

I have elsewhere on this forum advocated a nearby (~5 jump?) spawn for deep space death, with explo data in a black box protected by some moderate but not insurmountable mission to regain data.

I gain no pleasure sending people 10kly back to the bubble, quite the opposite.

Poor pilot explorers would still die, but it would ease their pain as they could swap into solo and regain their lost progress in a matter of a half hour, instead of days. Good pilot explorers would have a much more reasonable risk/fun tradeoff in open.

FDev putting meaningful training into the entry stages of the game that emphasize just how dangerous open can be, and how to respond well. Actual security in noobspace (but this would have to be coupled with more mechanisms to find players in open outside noobspace, jameson, CG).

I do like that suggestion, the black box idea and respawn points . So yes you're on to something with that as it lessens the blow for explores dying far from home. But then you'll get the argument that exploration is already too easy as it is, so adding another safety net isn't helpful.

I think your idea would be perfect if the galaxy itself was a lot more dangerous, not just by other player actions, but if the environments themselves were deadly. Like crashing into a black hole equals instant death, or lots of really nasty hazards to watch out for. If exploration by design was a dangerous pursuit, then adding things like spawn points and black box data retrieval gameplay would help balance it out. Until then though we have no middle ground. Players play it 99% safe in a PG, or risk it all in Open. Its down to fdev to find that balance, the players can only work with what they have, so we see this polarization going on at the moment. Its not good, but that's how it is sadly.

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

I do like that suggestion, the black box idea and respawn points . So yes you're on to something with that as it lessens the blow for explores dying far from home. But then you'll get the argument that exploration is already too easy as it is, so adding another safety net isn't helpful.

I think your idea would be perfect if the galaxy itself was a lot more dangerous, not just by other player actions, but if the environments themselves were deadly. Like crashing into a black hole equals instant death, or lots of really nasty hazards to watch out for. If exploration by design was a dangerous pursuit, then adding things like spawn points and black box data retrieval gameplay would help balance it out. Until then though we have no middle ground. Players play it 99% safe in a PG, or risk it all in Open. Its down to fdev to find that balance, the players can only work with what they have, so we see this polarization going on at the moment. Its not good, but that's how it is sadly.

Thank you for discussing with me as two civil rational adults, instead of dismissing everything I say and insulting me because naughty pew pew pew is my entertainment of choice. (I don't think you've done it but seems to be a common response to me in this thread).

Also to give credit where due, while I did think of that idea on my own others had suggested similar ones long before I was even a member of the forum. I have heard FDev considered and rejected them :-(

I don't think exploration is easy as much as I think it's grindy (if others enjoy, more power to them). I'd leave it to explorers to give better feedback than I have on how to spice up their experience. To me it seems you are correct it's a nearly all or nothing sort of danger currently.

 

[Qohen Leth]

A more dangerous environnement and black boxes have been suggested and asked for continually for years.

 

[Olivia Vespera]

Let's not turn this thread into yet another griefing vs PvE vs Open vs PG mess.

Organized protective fleet would have been cool but the game is not designed for this, period. That's all there is to it.

The problem is:-

• Why create even more work to deal with individuals simply hell bent on schadenfreude? The organisers involved already have no doubt buckets of work/effort to do, and you suggest they undertake folks expect to deal with sort of needless cynical behaviour too?
• Then consider the fact the game really doesn't support the kind of policing you suggest. The gankers in question have enough shields to generally just jump away from any attack, to then continue picking on weak dedicated exploration ships for their schadenfreude fix.
• Then consider the gankers flying around in Wings in different instances to your "protection".
• And the protection forces you suggest then have the exciting gameplay ahead of them of.... sitting in the game... waiting...

In truth the only "missed opportunity" is for a huge fun community event, organised no doubt at some considerable expense in time and effort by those involved, to simply go by without a small committed toxic number of players needlessly causing grief and aggravation, simply to garner the enjoyment they get from grief.

So, in summary, not only are your ideas rather flawed, so is your delivery too, with unfounded rhetoric/needless back handed insults.

ps: Maybe you could/should suggest FD spend some time adding some logical C&P mechanics to apply some sensible measured punishment for what could be considered psychotic behaviour within the game, simply and sadly (in truth) all too often for schadenfreude.

I have to agree with the above folks here. Especially Qohen. The game in its current form doesn't really support this kind of play. ensuring everyone gets the same experience out of it with instancing is going to be very spotty.

In anycase I think this thread has run it's course. I've taken to going a marie kondo way of doing things recently so I've asked myself this question.

Hope you all have a good day.

 

[space voyager]

I have elsewhere on this forum advocated a nearby (~5 jump?) spawn for deep space death, with explo data in a black box protected by some moderate but not insurmountable mission to regain data.

I love the suggestion. Only explorers are risking weeks of work playtime to be lost in an instant at the first mistake.

I do like that suggestion, the black box idea and respawn points . So yes you're on to something with that as it lessens the blow for explores dying far from home. But then you'll get the argument that exploration is already too easy as it is, so adding another safety net isn't helpful.

I think your idea would be perfect if the galaxy itself was a lot more dangerous, not just by other player actions, but if the environments themselves were deadly.

A more dangerous environnement and black boxes have been suggested and asked for continually for years.

I am definitely among the people asking for more danger in the galaxy. Very unpopularly I also keep repeating my suggestions that only large ships should be able to take on those dangers on a long voyage.

 

[Han Zulu]

Just thought of one problem being in the defense. Notoriety. If a defender kills a griefer, the defender gets notoriety unless the griefer is kind enough turning off the report crime flag (which he/she obviously wouldn't do). In other words, the defender becomes criminal and will have limited resources to repair and such, if I understand it right.

 

[NeilF]

Just thought of one problem being in the defense. Notoriety. If a defender kills a griefer, the defender gets notoriety unless the griefer is kind enough turning off the report crime flag (which he/she obviously wouldn't do). In other words, the defender becomes criminal and will have limited resources to repair and such, if I understand it right.

Not if the griefer has incurred a Pilots Federation bounty as they've killed enough PF members over a given period... They would then be fair game!

A set of fairly logical rules/steps could sensibly hold "lllegal" destruction accountable and hopefully rein it in as would make sense in the ED universe and more importantly as makes sense in the ED game!

The latest Notoriety addition to the C&P gameplay seemed very odd IMHO and really doesn't seem to count where it needs to?!

 

[Han Zulu]

Not if the griefer has incurred a Pilots Federation bounty as they've killed enough PF members over a given period... They would then be fair game!

So the notoriety won't go up on the defender in that case? That's a good thing. But then, a griefer could prepare for an event like DW2 by waiting out the notoriety they have themselves, clear their bounties, and then show up with a clean slate. Not sure how a defense could protect themselves from being flagged and get bounties for killing the griefers then.

 

[NeilF]

So the notoriety won't go up on the defender in that case? That's a good thing. But then, a griefer could prepare for an event like DW2 by waiting out the notoriety they have themselves, clear their bounties, and then show up with a clean slate. Not sure how a defense could protect themselves from being flagged and get bounties for killing the griefers then.

It's nothing that hasn't been discussed and kicked around for years, but which FD seem unwilling to implement, and we instead get something like the "clunky Notoriety" they decided to add, with rather bizarre "hot ships and modules" to boot!

Here's a post of mine from recently on this very subject:-

Well, to me a couple of smallish steps could give logical effective results.

1) A reputation value (call it Pilots Federation Reputation if you will) is incremented with any illegal destruction you carry out. This value takes considerable time to decay. eg: Weeks... And it only reduces with time...

2) Once this reputation value gets to a reasonable level punishments are applied. So a few illegal destructions over a given period are ignored. But once you start acting like a habitual psycho, you get noticed. The more you continue the more punishments are applied to you.

3) Punishments could vary from more and more stations and indeed whole systems denying you access. To you being highlighted to other Pilots Federation members (on their scanner) immediately as a threat (known psycho). To the ATR turning up more and more often in your instance. To a Pilots Federation Bounty being applied to you to make you a legal target everywhere.

4) Non-government/No Population systems should default to "Security: None" not "Security: Anarchy". Only systems with an anarchy government can enforce an anarchy system. Thus at Beagle Point, "illegally" destroying a CMDR will be noticed rather than ignored.

There...

...and there's been myriads of similar proposals all along similar variations/thoughts.

But here we still are years on, with nonsense like the current ganking going on with nothing to rein it in sensibly. And just as sadly, no PvP being offered and orchestrated by the game of note.