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

Exactly like that, yes. It was done to make a point that you acknowledge.

I didn't need the reminder; that stuff gets hurled at me here frequently enough that it rarely worth puzzling out which ones are genuine and which ones are not. I was surprised to read it coming from you, so that clears that up at least.

I do get why one would banter with JB - he does have it coming. That atrocious avatar alone deserves it. But do note other depraved murderers adopt a more reserved posting style and read your posts too. In any case, point taken.
 
Last edited:
I didn't need the reminder; that stuff gets hurled at me here frequently enough that it rarely worth puzzling out which ones are genuine and which ones are not. I was surprised to read it coming from you, so that clears it up.

I do get why one would banter with JB - he does have it coming. If nothing else for that atrocious avatar. But do note other depraved murderers adopt a more reserved posting style and read your posts too.

They do indeed. It is up to each reader to decide whether to take it personally. I do not control how readers react.
 
Last edited:
They do indeed. It is up to each reader to decide whether to take it personally. I do not control how readers react.

That exact reply could be made regarding all the "git gud" condescension you seemed very set against though. [Also arguably applies to every murdered explorer's reaction]

Why join in the cacophony?

Let's just agree JB's avatar needs to git gud.
 
Last edited:
Did you take offence to the description?

No. It struck me as absurd. I (incorrectly given your clarification) chalked it up to you getting worked up at JB and carried away. Since the point was deliberate, I didn't accurately assess things; whether that was due to the expression or my perception or some combination of the two is debatable and of little consequence.
 
Last edited:
It is ironic that I post my build and among the first things that you notice are how similar our builds are aside from how strong my defense is.

Your previous posts gave the impression we were all flying around dedicated murderboats with some outrageous attack advantage. Now you see, this is not the case. My shield resists don't let my ship kills yours any quicker, unless your piloting allows me to ram you.

To be specific, my engineering ~doubles my raw shield, and ~quintuples my thermal resists. The armor effect is less dramatic, ~20% raw and 50-80% resists. My DPS is boosted by much less than this. That is one of several reasons why it is easier to escape & live than to attack & and kill.

Choosing not to leverage engineering on shield boosters is choosing to forego what is arguably the most overpowered module in the game. That is your decision.

You are correct to not carry guns. My guns cost me ~5ly jump and I pay this price when I keep pace with DW2. I am performing about 10% more jumps because of this choice. You made a different time trade-off - you chose not to highly engineer for defense. A very rational decision if in solo, an irrational one if in open.




I have never played Eve Online so cannot comment on any of that. I don't do this for a challenge, although I will note that keeping the pace of DW2 with those heavy guns and without the ability to repair/refuel at bases means that I am arguably facing more of a challenge than the solo/pg explorers.

Ironically, I am likely to have my codex discoveries and mapping tags nabbed by someone else, as I can only turn in my exploration data infrequently. Another trade off I have made.

As far as "why can't pvpers do that" - well, sure we could. I choose not to. Every time I've tried to explain why I've just encountered personal attacks so I don't bother any more. It's not worth asking why, better to just accurately assess the situation and act accordingly.

EDIT - To be specific about one point you made - undersizing your thrusters to 6A instead of 7A is a build tradeoff I consider incredibly unwise if flying in open (although even some gankers have done this). This is much more important than engineering shield boosters IMO. The 40 ton difference between size 6 and 7 does incur a jump range penalty of about 1-1.5ly (~3-4%) but in a confrontation it means my Conda will probably be able to ram your Conda, and certainly keep it in optimal firing range. By performing ~3% more jumps, I have the ability to kill your ship because I can dictate the distance during the engagement and most likely ram you at will.

This can also apply to distro, although tradeoffs here are more subtle

Thank you. You answered my questions.

I assume your engineered guns are just as 'slightly more than double' the effectiveness.

In other words, I don't stand a chance unless I pour hours of time into the PvP metagame and engineers, which frankly would bore the donkeys out of me.

I'll stay in PG. I did try.
 
I assume your engineered guns are just as 'slightly more than double' the effectiveness.

No and you could have determined this by 20 seconds of editing the build I posted rather than making an untrue assumption.

I will quote "~doubles my raw shield, and ~quintuples my thermal resists [...]My DPS is boosted by much less than this". To be specific, my DPS is boosted by ~38.5%. Not "slightly more than double".



In other words, I don't stand a chance unless I pour hours of time into the PvP metagame and engineers, which frankly would bore the donkeys out of me.

I'll stay in PG. I did try.


Every assumption you've made about my build so far has turned out to not be the case, so stop trying to quote me to support your point. I immediately concede, it is perfectly rational to avoid open and grinding just because you want to. There is no need to search for engineering / build related reasons, which is good, because there aren't any.

Regarding grind willingness, you did choose to grind out G5 DD thrusters - showing a willingness to grind for certain things that are useful in solo, but not for different things that are less useful in solo. That is a fair choice, but belies the assertion you made a (well guided) "try" of open.

The primary reason I would destroy your ship has nothing to do with shields and is in an edit to my quote. Choosing to downsize those highly engineered thrusters sacrificed the ability to keep distance and better evade my fsd reset dumbfires. This sacrifice saved you ~3% fewer jumps.

I believe without this downsizing choice, and with good piloting/situational awareness, you could probably survive an encounter with me even with modestly engineered defense.

I can't blame someone for avoiding the engineering grind and have been vocal about how much I hate the grindwall every time it comes up. However it is hard to support a claim of build imbalance when you choose to do one set of grinds, but not another.
 
Last edited:
No and you could have determined this by 20 seconds of editing the build I posted rather than making an untrue assumption.

I will quote "~doubles my raw shield, and ~quintuples my thermal resists [...]My DPS is boosted by much less than this". To be specific, my DPS is boosted by ~38.5%. Not "slightly more than double".

Every assumption you've made about my build so far has turned out to not be the case, so stop trying to quote me to support your point. I immediately concede, it is perfection rational to avoid open and grinding just because you want to. There is no need to search for engineering / build related reasons, which is good, because there aren't any.

Regarding grind willingness, you did choose to grind out G5 DD thrusters - showing a willingness to grind for certain things that are useful in solo, but not for different things that are less useful in solo. That is a fair choice, but belies the assertion you made a (well guided) "try" of open.

The primary reason I would destroy your ship has nothing to do with shields and is in an edit to my quote. Choosing to downsize those highly engineered thrusters sacrificed the ability to keep distance and better evade my fsd reset dumbfires. This sacrifice saved you ~3% fewer jumps.

I believe without this downsizing choice, and with good piloting/situational awareness, you could probably survive an encounter with me even with modestly engineered defense.

I can't blame someone for avoiding the engineering grind and have been vocal about how much I hate the grindwall every time it comes up. However it is hard to support a claim of build imbalance when you choose to do one set of grinds, but not another.

They said they tried (playing in Open). They didn't have to try at all. Most of the reason why I play in Open is to offer myself up as content for others, to be accommodating to the playstyles of others (both good and nefarious, I have never been successfully pirated & regularly fly a T-9 when I'm in the bubble).
 
They said they tried (playing in Open). They didn't have to try at all.

Do I seem unaware of this?

I immediately concede, it is perfectly rational to avoid open and grinding just because you want to.

It's also a perfectly logical choice to change that ratio to infinity by playing in solo.

Or better yet switch to solo [when confronted on comms by a hostile].

Those are just the quotes from the last 2 pages of this thread. I won't drone on with the dozens (hundreds?) of other times I've acknowledged this point. Thrice should suffice.


Most of the reason why I play in Open is to offer myself up as content for others, to be accommodating to the playstyles of others (both good and nefarious, I have never been successfully pirated & regularly fly a T-9 when I'm in the bubble).

That is very generous of you. I will assume you don't undersize the thrusters on that T-9. I will also assume you wouldn't ask a "Practical question" [actual phrasing that kicked off my chain of responses] and then completely misinterpret the well intended and accurate answers given to you in order to conclude that a T-9 is not viable in open. (Obviously in practice you wouldn't need to ask at all).

I also suspect you have more fun in open. You don't strike me as the type to not maximize things, and I will assume a big reason you play games is for fun.
 
Last edited:
Do I seem unaware of this?

Yes.



I will assume

I just play the game & come what may. Most of my ships are cheap throwaways, I don't really see the point in massive shields when protracted fights are boring. If it's not over in 5 minutes I'd rather eat the rebuy & get on with my game. I don't use external tools, I don't write things down. I don't have a problem with people that do. I almost never ask questions, if I want to know something I'll google it, I only ask if it has clearly not been answered.

I can understand your feeling of frustration though.
 

No I don't. I clearly understand the poster didn't have to try at all. Asserting otherwise is another absurdity.

Perhaps you're implying I didn't react in a way commensurate with the attempt.

I'm not sure though and tired of the guessing games. Just say what you're getting at. Or take it up with JB when he's back on.
 
Last edited:
No I don't. I clearly understand the poster didn't have to try at all. Asserting otherwise is another absurdity.

Perhaps you're implying I didn't react in a way commensurate with the attempt.

I'm not sure though and tired of the guessing games. Just say what you're getting at. Or take it up with JB when he's back on.

You seemed unaware, hence my response. You also seem like a decent person & am happy to follow your train of thought without any agenda.

If your gameplay requires willing 'victims' in order for it to work you should aim to be entertaining so they will want to play with you again. It seems from your posts that you personally tend to play with this in mind. Not everyone seems to. The phrase 'overfishing' comes to mind ;)
 
I think everyone needs to take a step back for a moment and remember Elite: Dangerous is just a game (an awesome game, however) that allows many different styles of playing.

Elite: Dangerous was designed so people can either compete against each other through combat, or work and play together through peaceful means. The different modes are within the game to allow everyone to play their way and that's not going to change.

If you are looking for a game which is completely competitive, Elite: Dangerous isn't that game even though there are competitive elements.

If you are looking for a game which is completely peaceful, than again Elite: Dangerous isn't that game as there are combat elements from both NPC's and other players, although one can either protect themselves against combat (decent shields etc.) or avoid it completely from players if they wish (different modes).

This is the game that was designed from the beginning and if that comes as a surprise to you then I'm afraid you didn't research the game properly (sorry).
 
You seemed unaware

Despite quoting myself 3 times in the past few hours in this very thread acknowledging that exact point? I can't wrap my head around that one but I'll agree to disagree if you will.

In any case, I'm all too aware of how sparsely the PS4 pond is populated. I have weighed my pros and cons and decided on in-game behaviors. Not all of them are apparent on this board, especially given the immediate focus on DG2.

I do appreciate the civility on your end. I'll not insult you with my preferred salute and instead offer up an o7
 
Last edited:
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.

:D S

My point was that I'd prefer an ingame reason for this type of emergent gameplay. If you expect explorers to be armed to the teeth there should actually be a reason for it. Because some people decided to kill them just for fun is not a convincing ingame reason. Add reasons for killing explorers and I'll agree that they should prepare to defend themselves.
 
Add reasons for killing explorers and I'll agree that they should prepare to defend themselves.

Would have been awesome if they had these players in Thargoid Scout ships dropping in on the fleet when they got close to Thargoid space. Would certainly have been a new challenge compared to fighting the fairly easy thargoid AI, and wouldn't have required AX weapons.

And best of all, it would have actually made sense.
 
Reasons for killing explorers? We have stolen tons of exploration data and claimed it as hours. Stalking through multicrew and then flying to these systems and killing them, and scanning their systems, just as an example. Watching discords for information spills and stealing a couple of ELWs. On top of that, killing lots of hefty HVT people who considered us hostile before the expedition even begun - consider this a counter offensive.

Not to mention the explorers challanged us to do this themselves. Remember the promise of 2000 combat ready anacondas pulverising us as soon as we turn up? We decided to take on that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom