PvP Distant Worlds? More like Distant Jerks

[ethelred]

The problem seems to be from the fact that the element of danger is entirely depending on random factors of random players location, mood and intent.

And being subject to such where all advantages are one sided is something few enjoy last i checked.

Just as there are situations that the general PvP crowd viciously complain about.

I'd agree with you, excepting that the element of danger is entirely avoidable. If it weren't, that would be an issue.

Do you concur?

 

[Goose4291]

That's the key issue though isn't it?

I'm an Open only player, non-PvP focussed (totally Han Soloing it as a smuggler, trader etc), but the killer PvP CMDRs add excitement to my game. I like the fact that it's not DPS or engineering that will get me out of scrapes, but situational awareness, my build and knowing what to do.

I'm away this week, or I would absolutely be hitting the trade CG in Open in my hauler (yes, I need to update my sig).

So it's frustrating to see people who seemingly can't accept that Open can be a very dangerous place and then worst of all moan about being destroyed in asymmetric combat especially when there are ways to avoid this, or other modes to choose.

We can amend C&P as much as you like, but short of instant destruction of a PvPer if they destroy a CMDRs ship, you will get asymmetric combat.

In principle I'm not against an PvE server (as I would never play on it) excepting that it would take away dev time from the main game and new things to do.

My basic principle is that unlike real life, if you choose Open, then the consequences are on you, rather than the fault of your attacker. Other people think differently which is why this debate rumbles on and on and on, but honestly the way the game is designed I can't understand why people have problems with this basic issue. Again, this shows the excellence of the modes in my opinion you can truly play as you like.

You're not wrong.

I'm a little taken aback you're now in a Hauler btw, you're stealing my 'small ship open smuggler' brand!

 

[Zoltah-Talion]

What nonsense is this? I'll let the OPer educate you regarding the "work" of exploration. OPer? OPer..... Where for art thou OPer?

I do love a bit of Shakespeare OD, as many here now know. Juliet though wasn't asking Romeo where he was, but why the guy she'd fallen for turned out to be from an enemy family. It's a vexing question... I have the feeling the OP is still similarly discomfited, and that after these acres of argument won't be hurrying back for more of the same.

 

[xondk]

I'd agree with you, excepting that the element of danger is entirely avoidable. If it weren't, that would be an issue.

Do you concur?

It is only avoidable by compromising what they might want, playing in open.
Open is more then pvp, it allows interaction with random people and what can happen there.
Though pvp is part of that yes, but often it seems not just be a part, but become the majority. Disrupting the non pvp that people want to do.

 

[Goose4291]

It is only avoidable by compromising what they might want, playing in open.
Open is more then pvp, it allows interaction with random people and what can happen there.
Though pvp is part of that yes, but often it seems not just be a part, but become the majority. Disrupting the non pvp that people want to do.

Except it has never (outside of the usual hotspots) been the majority.

Seriously, like last time I played (about late November) I was interdicted or attacked a grand total of once in a month, and I usually ply the busier Hutton lanes around Sol.

 

[ethelred]

It is only avoidable by compromising what they might want, playing in open.
Open is more then pvp, it allows interaction with random people and what can happen there.
Though pvp is part of that yes, but often it seems not just be a part, but become the majority. Disrupting the non pvp that people want to do.

I'll be honest - this is the part I can't understand. Open has allowable PvP in it, by default. If you choose open as a mode then therefore you accept these terms?

 

[Deleted member 115407]

It is only avoidable by compromising what they might want, playing in open.
Open is more then pvp, it allows interaction with random people and what can happen there.
Though pvp is part of that yes, but often it seems not just be a part, but become the majority. Disrupting the non pvp that people want to do.

Except it has never (outside of the usual hotspots) been the majority.

Seriously, like last time I played (about late November) I was interdicted or attacked a grand total of once in a month, and I usually ply the busier Hutton lanes around Sol.

I have never known the game to be over-saturated with PvP. About 99% of people I've seen in game just leave others alone to do their own thing.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

What nonsense is this? I'll let the OPer educate you regarding the "work" of exploration. OPer? OPer..... Where for art thou OPer?

First of all you can play in solo, where there's no risk of a player killing you at all.

You don't get credit for exploration if you don't make it to port.
That's perfectly reasonable.

So prepare to do so.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

In any society, even dystopian, there is a form a natural justice ie. you do wrong to me, expect something equally unpleasant in return.

Accepting that the rules and morals are skewed within the game, the same basic natural justice is still likely to prevail. Be it a frontier society, or a troop of apes, the wrongdoings of an individual are often resolved by the affected individual, or by the group. Our Commanders, as our alter egos, are individuals within the framework that the game mechanics dictate. Take C&P - attack and kill a clean ship in populated space, and the game enforces that you are now Wanted. Do that in the void, or in lawless areas, then there's no such penalty. Gaming the system is as easy as swapping ships to avoid the wanted status. Where that other ship is being flown by a player, the game mechanics make no distinction, and the same penalties or otherwise are given regardless and by design. However, the Commander, and by extension the player behind them, has been wronged. A crime against the Commander has been committed, and it is only natural that the Commander/Player would want to seek recourse or retribution.

The way the current mechanics allow, the identity of the attacker is not shown after the fact without delving into the journal files. ...

Baloney.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

It shows up in your comms panel once you've been destroyed, LOL!

I suspect the rest of your rant is based on more non-factual premises.

 

[Wargfoot]

I'm putting together my taxes for 2018 and they seem kind of high.
I assume Distant Ganks is involved, but I cannot prove it.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

I'm putting together my taxes for 2018 and they seem kind of high.
I assume Distant Ganks is involved, but I cannot prove it.

You would not believe how casually people blame Smiling Dog Crew for in or out-of-game maladies.

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

The way the current mechanics allow, the identity of the attacker is not shown after the fact without delving into the journal files.

Or by selecting the contacts tab, where it will say something like "CMDR MeanGanka KILLED YOU"

Folks writing treatises on how to "fix" things when they don't even understand the most rudimentary aspects of the current mechanics.

Plenty of active PvPers (lawful and gankers) have ideas how to reduce ganking by providing alternatives, incentivize lawful bounty hunting of gankers, incentivize "traditional" non murder-y piracy, etc that might actually work.

Moot point, since FDev will leave the status quo and also because many vocal posters want total 100% absolute safety at all times, not rational PvP.

But if one is going to seriously consider any proposals, might as well consider those - rather than ones from folks who never use combat or C&P but nevertheless churn out suggestions about mechanics they don't understand at all.

 

[Zoltah-Talion]

... FDev will leave the status quo and also because many vocal posters want total 100% absolute safety at all times...

Your first clause there is undoubtedly correct. FDev basically gives us the island from Lord of the Flies, and just like the boys marooned on that island in the story, we soon discover that in the absence of civilization's restraints, human behavior rapidly degrades into savagery.

Your second clause is certainly mistaken. Some of us just hope for decency and honor. We should be grateful I guess to folks like you who show us the pointlessness of such hope.

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

Let's up the ante - since explorers risk weeks of exploration data and progression (distance traveled) for dying, combat pilots should also have equal skin in the game - say the loss of all engineering on ship rebuys. Now I bet if Frontier was to actually implement this, the PvP crowd would be screaming like a child thrown into a witch's oven. Yet it's considered perfectly normal for explorers to carry this burden. Talk about unbalanced!

You're just projecting IRL personality traits that fit your world view.

Last week I sacrificed 50 million in bounty and rebuy and an SLF NPC that I spent many hours (dozens perhaps) just to get a tricky explorer kill. No tantrums. I knew what I was doing and the likely consequences; I did it anyway and moved on. In terms of time lost these consequences are similar to what I would lose from a ship's worth of G5s.

PvPers would similarly adapt to any draconian nonsense such as your suggestion - likely in ways suggested by PeLucheuh.

I've already proposed a sane (and similar to long previous proposals) solution to the disproportionate risk faced by explorers. Cap on deportation distance and reasonable way to retrieve lost data for them (which cannot by stolen by gankers) that can be performed in solo/PG/open as desired. Does not require disproportionate lashing out type revenge-punishment.

Nothing will save the folks who choose not to save themselves. Unless OpenPvE is adopted, it is and always will be use solo/PG or learn to survive in open. FDev could help facilitate the latter with better in game training and a reduced engineering grindwall / buff to non engineered ships.

 

[Han Zulu]

Nothing will save the folks who choose not to save themselves. Unless OpenPvE is adopted, it is and always will be use solo/PG or learn to survive in open. FDev could help facilitate the latter with better in game training and a reduced engineering grindwall / buff to non engineered ships.

Honestly, the OPvE most likely would be "griefed" somehow anyway. Even if weapons were made harmless, the ingenuity of finding ways of annoying other people is infinite. So, personally, I doubt OPvE would solve anything. Rivers of salt will continue to flow...

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

Honestly, the OPvE most likely would be "griefed" somehow anyway. Even if weapons were made harmless, the ingenuity of finding ways of annoying other people is infinite. So, personally, I doubt OPvE would solve anything. Rivers of salt will continue to flow...

Agreed 100% but quantity would be lowered. There's only so much time in the day.

 

[Screemonster]

You would not believe how casually people blame Smiling Dog Crew for in or out-of-game maladies.

whenever I hear of SDC's exploits, especially when they're at the expense of some other group lording it over the playerbase (wasn't there something like that happening with the salome thing? A big player group marching in and hijacking the event for themselves and demanding no other players approach with weapons fitted or they'll be fired upon?) it just makes me think of that speech from team america

 

[Han Zulu]

Agreed 100% but quantity would be lowered. There's only so much time in the day.

And it probably wouldn't be that people lost hours of exploration data, but rather just annoying things like blocked mail slots or whatever. Minor griefing.

Even so, I don't like the idea of OPvE. Griefing in Open isn't a big issue. Yes, it's irritating and frustrating when it happens, but it's not an everyday thing. I have a new account that I just started playing. from ground up. Have a sidey, with E class most things. Doing some missions... In Open. Seen a few hollow squares and triangles, but no one has bothered me. If I get killed, so what. Now I'm just doing it for the challenge. Doing one or two missions max at a time. Slowly making money. I think I got almost half a mil in assets and wealth now! Wohoo!! I'm rich!!!

--

Just flew to Eravate. No one here...

 

[Squelch]

Baloney.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

It shows up in your comms panel once you've been destroyed, LOL!

I suspect the rest of your rant is based on more non-factual premises.

I'd forgotten about the Comms panel, so it is an incorrect statement.

Not sure about the rant part though.

Or by selecting the contacts tab, where it will say something like "CMDR MeanGanka KILLED YOU"

Folks writing treatises on how to "fix" things when they don't even understand the most rudimentary aspects of the current mechanics.

Plenty of active PvPers (lawful and gankers) have ideas how to reduce ganking by providing alternatives, incentivize lawful bounty hunting of gankers, incentivize "traditional" non murder-y piracy, etc that might actually work.

Moot point, since FDev will leave the status quo and also because many vocal posters want total 100% absolute safety at all times, not rational PvP.

But if one is going to seriously consider any proposals, might as well consider those - rather than ones from folks who never use combat or C&P but nevertheless churn out suggestions about mechanics they don't understand at all.

No thoughts on not being able to track the attacker after then?

I see how it works now. One incorrect point invalidates all other points. Sounds reasonable logic to me.

Some folks actually crave meaningful PvP, but don't wish to indulge in random and mindless encounters. Perhaps those same folks don't realise they must be in a special club to even express a thought on the matter.

Carry on.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I'd forgotten about the Comms panel, so it is an incorrect statement.

Not sure about the rant part though.



No thoughts on not being able to track the attacker after then?

I see how it works now. One incorrect point invalidates all other points. Sounds reasonable logic to me.

Some folks actually crave meaningful PvP, but don't wish to indulge in random and mindless encounters. Perhaps those same folks don't realise they must be in a special club to even express a thought on the matter.

Carry on.

It shows you don't understand the fundamentals, and therefore all your views on the subject are suspect.

That's perfectly reasonable and it has nothing to do with tribalism.
If you are free to express uninformed thoughts, and no one suggested you are not, we are certainly free to dismiss them with rational points.

It's easy to find someone.
Send them a friend request.
They aren't hiding from anyone.

You'd understand how that works if you indulged in that spectrum of play.
Which of course brings us full circle.