PvP Gankers in Fleetcomm at Beagle Point

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Bigmaec

Bigmaec
Ziggy Stardust said:
The DWE2 leadership did a spectacular job organising DWE2. None of the guys who are shouting from the sidelines here would have done a better job. None of the guys here have even attempted to pull of organising something like this. Dr.Kaii and Erimus are legends for their work and effort. I know that won't be accepted around these parts, but it is accepted where it counts. Among those who are taking part and experiencing DWE2 and having a blast.

They know.
Click to expand...
I agree they did a great job.

Rock-Hermit said:
Ganking paper ships in Open is fine, and your advice is sound for that. But every major expedition thats been made over the past 4 years has been held in a PvE PG for a reason. If you want to know why, set one up yourself, make it open play only, train your people to defend themselves, add your anti-gank wings, make sure all your instances are protected, and let us know how that turns out for you.
Click to expand...
It would've been possible to add a "open play" part of DW2, and not simply recommend PG. But that's a small nitpick.

I say respect individual playstyles. But I also say make combat logging impossible and prevent PG "nuking" of BGS/Powerplay.
 

Ingram

I
Well my DW2 ship is a full war config, all legacy level 5 overcharged weight reduction weapons, plus SCBs and shield with average 40%+ resistance to all damage types. It's slower than 70ly+ super jumpers but still I reached destination yesterday. I even saw corvettes arrived earlier than me at beagle. So personally I think the jump range that exploration ship usually has, is more than adequate for such group event. In DW2 we travel in a fixed pace around 5~8kly per week, that is acceptable for a minor engineered full combat conda or other ships with decent defenses. Not to mention now we have FSD boosters comparing to good old days.

I'm not defending the fact that some gankers broke rule and kill in FleetComm PG. Those rule breakers should be punished.
But the real problem is, when there is a big event across the server, globally, everyone bought this game should enjoy such event equally, not part of players staying in a dedicated PG like this.

I would suggest next time exploration fleet should have a FD operated fleet carrier accompanied, providing save-on-the-way feature, providing temporally exploration data storage service (player ships cannot jump with carrier). There would be more fun in open where gankers and fleet defenders clashing with each other, and let fleet mechanics and exploration crews doing their jobs in some real hot zones.

If gankers cannot gain reward or have fun in such global event, then let it go open, put a reasonable kill score for different fleet roles.
If explorers cannot sustain the loss of weeks-worthy exploration data and progress, then let them not fear and provide in-fleet respawning and saving support.


Let combat rank means more than kill counts, and let explorer rank means more than jump ranges.
 
Last edited:

Interstellar Overdrive

I
Rock-Hermit said:
Ganking paper ships in Open is fine, and your advice is sound for that. But every major expedition thats been made over the past 4 years has been held in a PvE PG for a reason. If you want to know why, set one up yourself, make it open play only, train your people to defend themselves, add your anti-gank wings, make sure all your instances are protected, and let us know how that turns out for you.

Or use a PG where PvP is a bannable offence and then players can choose what loadouts to take and not be railroaded by a minority of people who have no interest in what your event was about in the first place.
Click to expand...

I think there was some mention of fleetcomm not being able to guarantee 100% safe in some instructions somewhere, people being people and such. I think it remains sound advice even for PG.

There were also quite a few participants playing in open, so there is that :)
 

Myrm

Myrm
Bigmaec said:
But I also say make combat logging impossible and prevent PG "nuking" of BGS/Powerplay.
Click to expand...

Not sure how that would be made impossible. All I would have to do is pull the plug on my console, or turn off the wifi, then I am out of the game. For FDev to ban somebody for CL, FDev would have to prove it was an intentional CL and not a loss of power or wifi at an inconvenient time.
 

Bigmaec

Bigmaec
Myrm said:
Not sure how that would be made impossible. All I would have to do is pull the plug on my console, or turn off the wifi, then I am out of the game. For FDev to ban somebody for CL, FDev would have to prove it was an intentional CL and not a loss of power or wifi at an inconvenient time.
Click to expand...
Ark does it by having persistent players. I have no idea if it's possible with Elite's architecture but it is in other games.
It's certainly a revolution in this game, but I could also imagine auto-destruction / rebuy if losing connection in a dangerous situation.

The outcry will be louder then any before, that's for sure and this is I why I don't believe we get it, but one can dream :)
 
Last edited:

Wargfoot

Wargfoot
If we could return to farting on meals that would be helpful.

The analogy was meant to convey the idea that we all obey 1,000 different unwritten rules every day. Many of the rules wouldn't even occur to you, such as letting loose on someone's omelet. The rules are real, even when not written down, because the moment you break them everyone in the room looks at you like you're an idiot. You can stand there and claim that "Hey, I'm only in the wrong if I violate rules I agreed to follow" but nobody is going to buy that nonsense.

So when someone tells me, "Hey, there is no FDev rule that says I cannot join a private PvE group and whack people", that may be true, but it doesn't excuse the behavior. You can still be in the wrong and even worse, hypocritical - because you rely on 1,000 unwritten rules every day and you get angry if they're violated.

It is true that players need to be careful when creating a private group.
They have to be careful to keep out the [redacted], but that doesn't change the fact that the people they're keeping out are [redacted].

Going beyond that, as a PvP advocate I have to point out that it greatly weakens the PvP argument when private groups aren't respected.
The phrase, "Go play in a private group" is disingenuous if murderhobos follow people into those groups.

It isn't fair to expect someone else to respect your style of play (Open World PvP) if you cannot respect theirs, even after they take your advice to go to a private group.
 

Wargfoot

Wargfoot
Phisto Sobanii said:
I completely understand this. Question is, how do you stop the ones that want to join Fleetcomm to kill CMDRs?
You can't. So then what?
Click to expand...

Well, what happens when people are unwilling to obey simple common decency protocols is that either people leave the situation altogether (leave the game) or raise such a stink that the authority moves in with half-baked written, or in this case, programming rules to fix the problem. That means time and resources are spent fixing something that could have been fixed by people simply being polite.

From what I've seen, the fix is usually worse than the problem and ends up introducing a whole different set of abuse vectors to the game. (Real life example: Tax loop holes, getting away with serious crime because of a technicality, farting on omelets, etc.)

Maybe if we just universally condemn people for violating a private group's rules we can:
1) Reduce the amount of crying on the forum.
2) Help ensure the success of the game
3) Lend credibility to the advice, "If you don't like PvP play in a private group".

Of course, private groups should also police themselves better and warn members that occasionally an [redacted] gets through the screening process.
Let's squeeze the morons from both sides - maybe we can get those guys to leave the game.
 

Interstellar Overdrive

I
Wargfoot said:
programming rules
Click to expand...

Wargfoot said:
Of course, private groups should also police themselves better and warn members that occasionally an [redacted] gets through the screening process.
Let's squeeze the morons from both sides - maybe we can get those guys to leave the game.
Click to expand...

Private groups seem to be a little ill-equipped to deal with large amounts of players though. Some better management tools would be great :)
 

Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist
Myrm said:
Not sure how that would be made impossible. All I would have to do is pull the plug on my console, or turn off the wifi, then I am out of the game. For FDev to ban somebody for CL, FDev would have to prove it was an intentional CL and not a loss of power or wifi at an inconvenient time.
Click to expand...

Cat tripped over the network cable. Terrible accident.
 

Wargfoot

Wargfoot
jasonbarron said:
One theory floating around the intellectual dark web is that to the faithful, Zarek Null will one day ascend to godhood, and this process will be hastened by the sacrifice of explorers in his name. Explorers in Fleetcomm are worth 20 explorers found Open.
Click to expand...
That sort of nonsense can only exist in the darkest parts of the web - turn on a light and the nonsense evaporates.
Zarek Null is a cancer, a boil, a festering sore on the backside of an insignificant moon.

He is an omelet - bloated and yellow, steaming on a greasy plate in a Waffle House, and I fart upon him.
 

Bigmaec

Bigmaec
Wargfoot said:
That sort of nonsense can only exist in the darkest parts of the web - turn on a light and the nonsense evaporates.
Zarek Null is a cancer, a boil, a festering sore on the backside of an insignificant moon.

He is an omelet - bloated and yellow, steaming on a greasy plate in a Waffle House, and I fart upon him.
Click to expand...
That's it. I take everything back, you'll so get ganked if you come to Carcosa...
Z0
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom