How to avoid Gankers.

[DeletedUser191218]

Organic pvp in Elite is certainly the most ridiculous way of using "organic" as an adjective. It got electrolytes too? Casual pvp while describing griefing is as ridiculous. It's just not working. Even Fallout 76, as disastrous as the game is, has a pvp switch.

Everytime people use those term, as well as "emergent" to describe a lack of feature leading to people turning on each other due to a lack of content, they should just slap their forehead and realize they became product evangelists, apologizing and trying to find and name virtues for a placeholder feature in a videogame with a development hiatus.

They should also question why almost every modern online successful game has either a zone or switch. None of them go on the premise of 'if you play online you're fair game for every overpowered ganker out there'. That's just lazy, archaic game design. Unless all these other very successful games are wrong and a handful of ED gankers are right? You'll forgive me if I trust the view of experienced developers of commercially successful games first.

 

[Backelaer]

I guess I am to an extent. He openly admitted to wanting the freedom to attack players who don't want to PvP. That's EXACTLY what I suggested. But he claimed that's 'organic'. I would say that's dressing it up, so yes, if you like, I'm calling him disingenuous.

You can get that risk.....in PvP zones. Simple. You get what you want. I get what I want everyone is a winner. We can also remove the starter zones....actually let's make them PvP zones. This is all falling into place.

I guess I am to an extent. He openly admitted to wanting the freedom to attack players who don't want to PvP. That's EXACTLY what I suggested. But he claimed that's 'organic'. I would say that's dressing it up, so yes, if you like, I'm calling him disingenuous.

You can get that risk.....in PvP zones. Simple. You get what you want. I get what I want everyone is a winner. We can also remove the starter zones....actually let's make them PvP zones. This is all falling into place.

If something can only happen to you when you choose to seek it out that isn't called risk.

 

[DeletedUser191218]

Specific tips on situational awareness would be more helpful; what are some of those personal experiences that can be used by a variety of CMDRs.
From this bit, I get "keep moving, don't sit still" which makes sense, is advice I can agree with, but isn't always helpful if your task requires sitting still for a bit (e.g. collecting space junk for X).
I still think might just be a troll thread but that doesn't mean we can't learn something here anyway.


So help us out with some of that situational awareness. Details, stories, or even commented videos if you have those.

Lol. Situational awareness is such a cop out. Just make a better game.

 

[DeletedUser191218]

If something can only happen to you when you choose to seek it out that isn't called risk.

But it is called consentual gaming. You can have that risk - in a pvp zone or with a pvp flag on. No-one is denying you. Why are you denying others? Unless you NEED those others to get your thrills? If you want that type of risk, go and play PvP. If someone doesn't, allow them to abstain. Really quite simple, isn't it?

 

[DeletedUser191218]

Also, of course it's Elite Dangerous, it got danger in the name you see,

That's why you need to advocate ganking, it's such a dangerous activity to kill traders in one strike and let your notoriety disappear while AFK overnight.

Therein lies the truth. They talk about 'risk' and 'danger'. But they want some poor sod flyimg an AspX to be the one assuming that risk while they fly around with g5 prismatics with little threat posed by their prey. If they want 'risk' then go against other consenting PvPers. It strikes me the thought of someone being able to fight back intimidates them.

 

[Backelaer]

But it is called consentual gaming. You can have that risk - in a pvp zone or with a pvp flag on. No-one is denying you. Why are you denying others? Unless you NEED those others to get your thrills? If you want that type of risk, go and play PvP. If someone doesn't, allow them to abstain. Really quite simple, isn't it?

Ok, so I like a bit of randomness in my game. The chance of being interdicted. You don't. You like having a choice to not be attacked. You have multiple options: group, solo, or avoiding the (literally) handful of systems where there's an actual chance of being interdicted.
Whith the introduction of pvp zones, I would have zero options.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

Ok, so I like a bit of randomness in my game. The chance of being interdicted.

Interdiction is certainly one of the less random aspect of this game. The attacker lagging will consistently win even with ships of the same class.

That's what lead to the usual "good advice" of submit/high wake.

And even if you win one interdiction, a 5vs1 scenario will likely involve chained interdictions.

It's a completely design.

 

[Bigmaec]

Therein lies the truth. They talk about 'risk' and 'danger'. But they want some poor sod flyimg an AspX to be the one assuming that risk while they fly around with g5 prismatics with little threat posed by their prey. If they want 'risk' then go against other consenting PvPers. It strikes me the thought of someone being able to fight back intimidates them.

Most of "them" would be happy if people would be way more of a threat, fighting back even or at least won't be sitting (or straight line-flying) ducks without meaningful shields who just blow up. And most of "them" are people who later chat with you giving you advice how to become better at the game, regardless if you ran away succesful or exploded. Sure, there are some redacteds but the people who take the time to write here usually don't deserve the flak they sometimes get.
And I still can't wrap my head around the "argument" they wouldn't go after other consenting PvPers. They do all the time. Most of "them" actually go after everyone that moves, not just consenting PvPers or harmless noobs. Everyone. You see lawfuls going against pirates and gankers at CGs all the time, you see gankers versus gankers, gankers versus traders, gankers versus noobs... The gankers fight everyone

 

[rxay579]

Lol. Situational awareness is such a cop out. Just make a better game.

Yeah, it can be a cop-out; not as bad as "Git gud, scrub".

Some of the advice that I consider useful I've learned about situational awareness in avoiding encounters you aren't prepared for so far...
(should be obvious)
CMDRs are hollow blips on your radar; NPCs are predictable, CMDRs are not.
If you're doing PowerPlay and in hostile territory, be alert.
(maybe less obvious)
If a CMDR is "Wanted" or "Hostile" (if you PowerPlay), assume that it's accurate and keep your distance.
If you're in a social hotspot like a CG, Engineer, special system (e.g. Sol, Shinrarta Dezhra, etc), be extra alert, like you're walking down a dark alley.
If you see hardpoints deployed (triangle blip), keep you distance and stay alert.
If you're in Lawless / Anarchy space, stay alert.
If you see CMDRs in SuperCruise following, scanning, and especially interdicting other CMDRs, then yes, expect that it could happen to you as well.

Anything useful to add that can be generally or even situationally useful?

 

[DeletedUser191218]

Ok, so I like a bit of randomness in my game. The chance of being interdicted. You don't. You like having a choice to not be attacked. You have multiple options: group, solo, or avoiding the (literally) handful of systems where there's a chance of being interdicted.
Whith the introduction of pvp zones, I would have zero options.

I agree. I play in mobius. The problem is it's a bit of a deadzone on ps4. Most people I know are in solo now. What most of us want from ED is the interactive online part of the game and the reality is open in populated systems - but those are ganker central. So there is no option to have that interaction without being harassed. So given we know solo and pg doesn't solve the problem, why is PvP zones a bad idea? It means you can PvP. You can gank. Players can get that element of risk. I can avoid it. Why is it important to you that you get the style of play you want but ONLY if I don't get the style of play I want? My proposal is giving us both what we want..you're way is just forcing me out of open completely (and i'm not alone).

 

[Brrokk]

If something can only happen to you when you choose to seek it out that isn't called risk.

It is.
Otherwise what does the phrase "taking a risk" mean?

Specifically, in ED I think it's accurate to say I'm "taking a risk" whenever I drop into an AX CZ. The same would be true if I dropped into a PvP zone.

 

[DeletedUser191218]

Yeah, it can be a cop-out; not as bad as "Git gud, scrub".

Some of the advice that I consider useful I've learned about situational awareness so far...
(should be obvious)
CMDRs are hollow blips on your radar; NPCs are predictable, CMDRs are not.
If you're doing PowerPlay and in hostile territory, be alert.
(maybe less obvious)
If a CMDR is "Wanted" or "Hostile" (if you PowerPlay), assume that it's accurate and keep your distance.
If you're in a social hotspot like a CG, Engineer, special system (e.g. Sol, Shinrarta Dezhra, etc), be extra alert, like you're walking down a dark alley.
If you see hardpoints deployed (triangle blip), keep you distance and stay alert.
If you're in Lawless / Anarchy space, stay alert.
If you see CMDRs in SuperCruise following, scanning, and especially interdicting other CMDRs, then yes, expect that it could happen to you as well.

Anything useful to add that can be generally or even situationally useful?

This is all helpful advice. But have you noticed you can essentially distil most of it to one truth - the places you are likely to meet people are going to have gankers. So if you want to interact with players in open, you're going to get griefed. How is that a good situation for an online game to be in?

 

[Backelaer]

I agree. I play in mobius. The problem is it's a bit of a deadzone on ps4. Most people I know are in solo now. What most of us want from ED is the interactive online part of the game and the reality is open in populated systems - but those are ganker central. So there is no option to have that interaction without being harassed. So given we know solo and pg doesn't solve the problem, why is PvP zones a bad idea? It means you can PvP. You can gank. Players can get that element of risk. I can avoid it. Why is it important to you that you get the style of play you want but ONLY if I don't get the style of play I want? My proposal is giving us both what we want..you're way is just forcing me out of open completely (and i'm not alone).

As you yourself mentioned earlier, it indeed seems quite hard to get ones point across here: your proposal isn't giving me what I want at all.

 

[Midian Cabal]

Specific tips on situational awareness would be more helpful; what are some of those personal experiences that can be used by a variety of CMDRs.
From this bit, I get "keep moving, don't sit still" which makes sense, is advice I can agree with, but isn't always helpful if your task requires sitting still for a bit (e.g. collecting space junk for X).
I still think might just be a troll thread but that doesn't mean we can't learn something here anyway.


So help us out with some of that situational awareness. Details, stories, or even commented videos if you have those.

See if this Git Gud Guide to Trading in Open can teach you something new.

 

[Bigmaec]

Yeah, it can be a cop-out; not as bad as "Git gud, scrub".

Some of the advice that I consider useful I've learned about situational awareness so far...
(should be obvious)
CMDRs are hollow blips on your radar; NPCs are predictable, CMDRs are not.
If you're doing PowerPlay and in hostile territory, be alert.
(maybe less obvious)
If a CMDR is "Wanted" or "Hostile" (if you PowerPlay), assume that it's accurate and keep your distance.
If you're in a social hotspot like a CG, Engineer, special system (e.g. Sol, Shinrarta Dezhra, etc), be extra alert, like you're walking down a dark alley.
If you see hardpoints deployed (triangle blip), keep you distance and stay alert.
If you're in Lawless / Anarchy space, stay alert.
If you see CMDRs in SuperCruise following, scanning, and especially interdicting other CMDRs, then yes, expect that it could happen to you as well.

Anything useful to add that can be generally or even situationally useful?

As I said before:

look out for wings
look out for clown avatars
look out for wanteds & power play enemies
look out for combat ships (especially Mambas, Kraits, FdLs, Cutters, Corvettes, less so Clippers, FASs & Anacondas)
look out for people "Z0'ing" you (better Z0 back or you're toast)
look out for people hanging between entry point and target destination

also for bonus points:
never fly above 100 near starports
generally have a highwake target selected at engineers, CGs, Shinrarta

 

[DeletedUser191218]

It is.
Otherwise what does the phrase "taking a risk" mean?

Specifically, in ED I think it's accurate to say I'm "taking a risk" whenever I drop into an AX CZ. The same would be true if I dropped into a PvP zone.

Good point actually. The option to take said risk should be..well optional. I still can only explain the obsession with unwitting traders being prey in open without consent by the fact gankers don't actually want a fair fight.

 

[Lestradae]

The whole debate is a result of bad game design by Frontier.

Design Flaw 1: You can either have a battle ship or a paper cut. There is nothing inbetween. You have an explorer, trader or miner ship, and meet a battleship in PvP: There is no GitGud possible, ever. You can't win against a tank in a shoebox.

Design Flaw 2: You want realistically dangerous? So give it to the gankers, too. Play a psychopathic serial killer all the way you want - but be prepared to be killed at sight in civilised systems and have a billion-Credit bounty on your head in anarchies - which also other players can get.

Remove these two design flaws and the whole debate is over, on both sides.

 

[DeletedUser191218]

As you yourself mentioned earlier, it indeed seems quite hard to get ones point across here: your proposal isn't giving me what I want at all.

How does it not give you what you want? I fail to see how that can be the case. It's an ENORMOUS galaxy. If you want PvP or the threat of ganking then you can ply your trade in the region of space designated for that. It's exactly the same situation as now, but just in a determined zone. How does that fail to achieve what you want....any more than a zone in space that you can't enter at all in case you gank newbies????

 

[Midian Cabal]

As I said before:

look out for wings
look out for clown avatars
look out for wanteds & power play enemies
look out for combat ships (especially Mambas, Kraits, FdLs, Cutters, Corvettes, less so Clippers, FASs & Anacondas)
look out for people "Z0'ing" you (better Z0 back or you're toast)
look out for people hanging between entry point and target destination

also for bonus points:
never fly above 100 near starports
generally have a highwake target selected at engineers, CGs, Shinrarta

If you're on PC, press Ctrl-B to easily see if there are other commanders in the system. If you see a sudden spike in data transmission, there's someone else in the system, even if you can't see him on the radar.

 

[DeletedUser191218]

The whole debate is a result of bad game design by Frontier.

Design Flaw 1: You can either have a battle ship or a paper cut. There is nothing inbetween. You have an explorer, trader or miner ship, and meet a battleship in PvP: There is no GitGud possible, ever. You can't win against a tank in a shoebox.

Design Flaw 2: You want realistically dangerous? So give it to the gankers, too. Play a psychopathic serial killer all the way you want - but be prepared to be killed at sight in civilised systems and have a billion-Credit bounty on your head in anarchies - which also other players can get.

Remove these two design flaws and the whole debate is over, on both sides.

I suggested the idea of player bounties in the past as well...and surprise surprise, the advocates of risk and danger were dead against it. Pattern emerging perhaps?