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

[Feros-da-Grundig]

The thing that will get an inexperienced player into trouble is panicking in a time critical situation. This just requires experience to overcome. Next would be situational awareness (an acquired skill of knowing what's important & what's less of a concern). Anything to do with ship loadout would be at least third on the list. FSD reboot only matters if you are trying to jump away for example.

I only mentioned FSD to address a concern of Ziljan's. I am well aware of how it works and when it matters.

You can read my previous post (quoted below) for the level of situational awareness that I find typical in DW2 participants.

This is why I elevate it to #1 on the list. Boosting from pad directly towards a hovering gankaconda who has told you in comms that he intends to murder you is not a panic problem.

However during my last attack I comms'ed the pilot twice while they were in the station to warn CMDR I would attack when CMDR departed the station. I do not think CMDR read comms or even checked for hollows based on how the departure went. There is nothing you can do to save a pilot in open who is that unaware of his/her surroundings. With advance notice of the danger I literally told CMDR twice, CMDR had numerous options for escape, especially since CMDR had a 5km head start due to my need to keep distance from station.

CMDR began departure by rapidly closing the 5km gap between us - probably the worst possible option CMDR had. If CMDR simply boosted at altitude ~400m directly away from station until well beyond my danger range then CMDR would certainly have escaped completely unharmed.

 

[Rampant]

I've always maintained that you dedicated Mobius types were the cruelest of the cruel, but despite that this kind of surprised me; mocking a fellow explorer for getting destroyed. Dollars to donuts these guys are just poor schmuck's who simply don't know any better and are learning the (very) hard way. I've noticed that over on the DWE special sub whenever someone does mention getting blown up in Open, the Fleetcomm brigade shows up pronto to ridicule them for their mode choice and marginalize their suffering. Essentially throwing them under the bus as soon as possible to try and end the discussion.

In contrast, the DG gang is always cool to anyone who wants to open a dialogue with them. Kind of makes you stop and think on who the real bad guys are in this situation?

Nobody in Fleetcomm has gone out if their way to *deliberately* take something away from another player.

Therein lies the realistic difference.

Deliberately *taking away* from these "poor schmucks" (no apostrophe, lol)...

Versus talking about the results *after* the fact.

You don't really have any credibility to moralise using phrases like "throw under the bus". That'd be exceptionally hypocritical and ridiculous.



Mark H

 

[Riverside]

I only mentioned FSD to address a concern of Ziljan's. I am well aware of how it works and when it matters.

You can read my previous post (quoted below) for the level of situational awareness that I find typical in DW2 participants.

This is why I elevate it to #1 on the list. Boosting from pad directly towards a hovering gankaconda who has told you in comms that he intends to murder you is not a panic problem.

Panicking would include not knowing what to do or being indecisive. Boosting towards a ganker that says they are going to shoot you is not necessarily a bad plan, but not having a plan at all & ignoring an obvious thread would be.

We clearly agree that Ziljan's post was fundamentally incorrect, but situational awareness comes with experience, and before that experience is gained panic is the biggest killer. Once being shot at becomes mundane (panic is no longer the problem) then what to do about it (situational awareness) comes to the fore. Once that has been established loadout issues become more relevant. It is more important that any incoming fire be avoided than what that incoming fire actually is, but with loadout experience one can learn to prioritise which hits to take and which it's more important to try to avoid.

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

We clearly agree that Ziljan's post was fundamentally incorrect, but situational awareness comes with experience, and before that experience is gained panic is the biggest killer.

I believe 3rd party research can give situational awareness before the experience needed to overcome panic. I (frequently here) bemoan the fact this information is not given in game early on to new pilots.

It's not panic when you have an unlimited amount of time sitting on a pad to decide how to respond to the comms. The adrenaline would have worn off in the amount of time the comms lasted (over 10 minutes between first and 2nd warning). He could have googled what to do.

My guess is the CMDR neither checked comms or even looked at contacts or for hollows before departure, probably AFK for 1st warning (not 2nd). Advice to check for hollows is shouted from the rooftops here & in 3rd party tutorials, and going AFK is unwise - I may not have detected him if he had been in menu instead, and instead gone off looking elsewhere for other explorers.

Once CMDR made that non-panic induced mistake, the encounter was effectively decided.

I am sure he panicked once my hardpoints deployed due to exactly what you say.

Yes, we basically agree and I just quibble over details. However I'm out here doing the baddie stuff, seeing in practice how the encounters are decided (at least in the more sparsely populated PS4 galaxy). I don't claim this makes me the authority, but do suggest my anecdotes be taken into account.

(I'm not sure I agree with "Ziljan's post was fundamentally incorrect" but don't feel like going back for more review of exactly what point(s) I was referring to. If explorers followed Ziljan's advice to the letter then my "success" rate might be 0%, or at least very low. For better or worse though, I doubt many explorers ever will do this)

 

[babelfisch]

Another swerve.

Means that what I wrote was spot on and that you have no credible response.
Thanks for your early submission.

Mark H

While I disagree with everything Jason says just because of his avatar, I have to admit that he has good humour.

 

[babelfisch]

Isn't exploring about seeing the unknown, and therefore accepting the unexpected? I think the main issue with exploration is that it hasn't been inherently dangerous enough; people felt they could get away with shield-less ships focussed entirely on maximising jump range. And we have been able to sidle all the way up to the body exclusion zones of black holes without anything bad happen, fly near stars and through asteroid belts without any danger from particles of any size or type. And there are very few to no baddies outside the main population centres.

I think explorers should at least make sure their ships can survive long enough for a high wake, and be able to perform a high wake well enough to get away from troublemakers, be it players or NPCs. From that perspective, DG is actually doing us a favour by reminding everybody that the game is after all still called Elite Dangerous.

S

That's actually a good point, but if exploring is about seeing the unknown, shouldn't random ganking also be about something?

 

[Riverside]

(I'm not sure I agree with "Ziljan's post was fundamentally incorrect" but don't feel like going back for more review of exactly what point(s) I was referring to. If explorers followed Ziljan's advice to the letter then my "success" rate might be 0%, or at least very low. For better or worse though, I doubt many explorers ever will do this)

Your ability to find anyone at all is contingent on there being a large pack of players to choose from. I've played in Open for years at all times of the day & barely encountered trouble let alone lost a ship and it's not because of loadout or personal combat skill, it's because I am experienced enough not to panic, and situationally aware enough to wait for the kids to go to sleep or whatever.

Panic is not knowing what to do, or which path to choose. Situational awareness comes later in the learning process, and requires some experience. I think maybe you are using a narrower definition of 'panic' than I am, I'm happy to accept that you think situational awareness is more important than not panicking as I think you are defining it (indecision).

 

[Jenner]

Reminder to stay on topic and off each other's backs, please.

I appreciate good banter as much as the next guy, but sometimes it's hard to figure out if someone is just engaged in good natured ribbing or really just talking smack.

I removed some off topic posts for this very reason.

TL;DR Play the ball, not the player.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Good natured ribbing here! Promise! [haha]

(You can tell cause there’s no cussing.)

 

[Sysmon]

That's actually a good point, but if exploring is about seeing the unknown, shouldn't random ganking also be about something?

There is nothing random about DG2. That being said, any random gameplay should not really be rewarded. Of course, if the reward is the gank itself (thereby rewarded outside the game structure, assuming the ganker gets a dopamine rush from blowing up tin cans, or something similar), the game should at least add mechanics detrimental to such behaviour if the behaviour is not wanted in the game.

I am not for having some sort of parental system in place that limits the gankers from playing how they want to. So wagging fingers and saying "bad ganker, bad bad ganker" will never work. Instead encouraging the explorers to protect themselves may be a better solution. Protection Versus Ganking +2 modules are not a solution either, nobody wants to drag such specific modules around if such modules are not useful for current gameplay. But shields would be immensely more attractive to explorers (and traders) if the environment in general was harder on shield-less ships. And shields also protect against a few volleys of enemy fire, so generally very useful.

Other solutions would be to make attacks on random and seemingly defenseless ships more risky. Defense systems could be introduced that would paralyse an attacker. They could be single-shot features and restricted somehow (PF might log their use, for example). Whatever the solution, it should be in-game and make sense from a game-world perspective. Gankers would then have to take a real risk into account, which would take the randomness out of the ganking itself.

S

 

[Ziljan]

If explorers followed Ziljan's advice to the letter then my "success" rate might be 0%, or at least very low. For better or worse though, I doubt many explorers ever will do this)

Yeah this is the main problem. People tend to selectively read only a fraction of what you write and then interject their own expectations into the equation (often based on misleading PVE info from fighting paper NPCs that deal a small fraction of their potential DPS). In the guide I wrote, I tried to organize it in a way that the most critical info was placed first in order to minimize the amount of damage that panic could inflict. But I found that even people who read the guide and tested it out commonly neglected to pre-map a jump system for a near instant 2 button escape sequence, and instead wound up fiddling through the nav panel. Which is literally the first thing listed in the guide.

It's frustrating for sure, but practice and study are the only ways to get around it. And yes following the advice to the letter wouldn't hurt either

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

Yeah this is the main problem

For you ;-)

We're always hiring.

 

[Ziljan]

For you ;-)

We're always hiring.

For what? fishing with dynamite? How many guys do you really need? At a certain point you're just hammering a cold red puddle in the dirt.

 

[Sysmon]

Yeah this is the main problem. People tend to selectively read only a fraction of what you write and then interject their own expectations into the equation (often based on misleading PVE info from fighting paper NPCs that deal a small fraction of their potential DPS). In the guide I wrote, I tried to organize it in a way that the most critical info was placed first in order to minimize the amount of damage that panic could inflict. But I found that even people who read the guide and tested it out commonly neglected to pre-map a jump system for a near instant 2 button escape sequence, and instead wound up fiddling through the nav panel. Which is literally the first thing listed in the guide.

It's frustrating for sure, but practice and study are the only ways to get around it. And yes following the advice to the letter wouldn't hurt either

I'm definitely guilty of panic-scrolling through the Nav Panel when PvP fire is on! That being said, an easy way to add caution is to set a jump target as soon as any open symbol shows up on the radar, supercruise or otherwise.

S

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

I'm definitely guilty of panic-scrolling through the Nav Panel when PvP fire is on! That being said, an easy way to add caution is to set a jump target as soon as any open symbol shows up on the radar, supercruise or otherwise.

S

IMO the advice to preselect a jump target is not sufficient. A pilot must also know to cut thrusters (bypassing FSD cooldown) immediately after high wake to drop out of SC.

This "creative" use of thruster cutting bypasses the "feature" that following a wake scan relies on instancing with the target to catch the next wake.

If you do not perform this extra step, I can be in your instance within 7 seconds of your high wake arrival. Sooner if I bothered to grind a better engineer.

Alternatively one can preselect a high wake that is at max jump range (if one is confident that the ganker has lower range).

This generally requires opening gal-map, so should be done from safety. (DW2 explorers just following a long pre-plotted route to next WP/POI get this for free)

The "feature" that wake scanners depend on instancing reduces the utility of wake scanners to an ignorance tax (also annoying that it can't plot a 2 jump route).

Nevertheless, some of us carry them anyway. It's not like we need 8 utility slots to "hammer a cold red puddle in the dirt", as the pursuit has been poetically described.

[EDIT great avatar, S]

 

[jasonbarron]

For what? fishing with dynamite? How many guys do you really need? At a certain point you're just hammering a cold red puddle in the dirt.

When your talking overkill there's no such thing as "too much."

 

[Rafe Zetter]

My plea to PVE players like the Op. Is consider getting good enough at the game, that you finally understand how easy it is not to die to even the most determined of PVP player.

Get that knowledge right and you can be as social is you like and just lol at anyone trying to force you into non-consensual gameplay

Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing

How does that fit in with things like DW2 where ships are fitted exclusively for long range exploration? Not everyone on that cruise has a ship that can be fitted with long range AND have some survivability built in "just in case".

You think EVERYONE who signed up for that did it for the exploration? Don't kid yourself, more than a few joined for the sole reason to essentially shoot fish in a barrel.

"git gud" ONLY works under "normal / everyday" conditions where people are advised to sacrifice jump range or cargo space etc etc for the sake of added survivability.

"git gud" DOES NOT WORK - when the griefer has a grandfathered god modded ship with heavy firepower AND a long jump range against a smaller long jump fitted ship with all the survivability of a wet paper bag.

"git gud" isn't the universal solution answer - it never was, never will be, and frankly tired of hearing it from players who defend PvPers who clearly have no interest in "legit" piracy and who do it solely for the giggles of murdering players.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Reminder to stay on topic and off each other's backs, please.

I appreciate good banter as much as the next guy, but sometimes it's hard to figure out if someone is just engaged in good natured ribbing...

It's Valentines Day and my girl left three years ago, so there will be no good-natured ribbing from me, I'm afraid.

 

[Eshackleton]

I highly doubt they remove PVP as some had suggested. I think what the OP is asking for would be something along the lines of switching solo mode to open PVE, which I'm fine with I guess. The only problem I have with it is that players can influence the BGS via CG's and PP without any danger whatsoever which I disagree with however, players can already do this in solo and private mode so I guess it wouldn't matter.

(I am not a PVP pilot and have yet to kill another pilot in over 1000 hrs of gameplay. That being said, The game is so easy right now with nearly zero danger even in open that it gets boring.)

 

[Deleted member 115407]

I am not a PVP pilot and have yet to kill another pilot in over 1000 hrs of gameplay...

Do eeet...