Yeah, I like it, but i haven't problem with gankers, few times per year isn't big problem. I was killed? Meh, few millions to rebuy and i can play. But this is extremally rare, usually i can escape.
PVP vs. PVE
- Thread starter BIZZNAWICH
- Start date
In my geographical location, player killers, or even people interested in PvP encounters are extremely rare. Our player faction plays in open. Many of our new members were concerned about gankers due to various online posts about them, but as they started playing alongside us in open and none of them got destroyed by miscreants, they realised it wasn‘t so bad, plus everyone gets to meet everyone else with minimal trouble. Sure we have the odd ganker or two but they have to stay at Shinrarta Dezhra to even be able to meet any randoms. I bet they give up in disgust after a few hours. The vast majority times I can supercruise straight to my destination in Shinrarta Dezhra or Deciat and not see a single CMDR.
I enjoy baiting gankers in cheese ships so if one is reported (word gets out fast in our region, it’s big news to us) I’ll try to head on over to annoy them for a while.
On the other hand, nobody thinks any less of anyone playing in solo when they have a hold full of mined minerals, or weeks worth of cartographic data. You do what you do to get the results you want.
I enjoy baiting gankers in cheese ships so if one is reported (word gets out fast in our region, it’s big news to us) I’ll try to head on over to annoy them for a while.
On the other hand, nobody thinks any less of anyone playing in solo when they have a hold full of mined minerals, or weeks worth of cartographic data. You do what you do to get the results you want.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That is their choice. There's no requirement to engage in PvP to participate in any feature of this game (except CQC/Arena, of course - and that's out of game).
Frontier would seem to have already ruled out splitting the galaxy - and the three game modes, mode shared galaxy, along with mode switching at will, have formed part of the game design from the very beginning of the Kickstarter pitch.
When you intentionally engage in an activity to destroy what another individual or group of players are doing, and you specifically chose a play mode where they have no way to even see you, you don't find that rude?
You're on the beach building a sand castle with your kids. When you go to get more water, another parent (who doesn't want you to build a sand castle) jump on your castle and destroy it. Once you return, all your hard work is gone, and you don't even know who did it. Not only is it rude, it's also cowardly. Not because you're not tough, but because they chose to hide behind anonymity while purposely sabotaging your efforts. You want to get your way without anyone being able to try and stop you if they disagree. You can't even try diplomacy if you would feel so inclined.
Even so, my original post you took offense to was targeted at the person who saw no reason to play open but to be a . I posted an alternative reason: that you see it as rude to sabotage people without giving them the chance to stop you.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While some may find it "rude" others may consider it to be "part of the game".
While some may see attackers not giving them a chance to oppose using PvP as rude - that's pretty much irrelevant in a game where PvP is an entirely optional play-style.
Last edited:
They're not mutually exclusive.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
When did the feelings of the targeted player(s) start to be a consideration in any non-consensual attack?
In your world, it's fine to non-consentually destroy someone's work and effort through BGS, but it's not fine to non-consentually attack a ship. Care to explain why the former is fine, but not the latter?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Both are in accordance with the rules of the game - noting that players may have different opinions on each. Just as each player can choose to engage in BGS activity from any of the three game modes, each player can choose to attack anything they instance with.
Frontier gave each player the choice to completely avoid the latter though - which means that it is an optional extra for those inclined to engage in it, by design.
Last edited:
Yeah that's just how the game is. I usually play in my private group, so I don't really encounter stuff like that unless my friends are up to some shenanigans. That said, it definitely is just part of the game, so if you play in open, expect it to happen a few times. For example, I've heard countless horror stories about the kind of hijinks some commanders get up to at Jameson Memorial haha. Play along, it's all in good fun usually.
Just because something is within the rules doesn't mean that it's a nice behaviour. Like I already said, I find it rude to play BGS against someone but hide in solo. You have expressed that you think attacking someone is undesired behaviour (by explicitly calling it non-consentual which is very loaded terminology), but don't think it's undesirable to destroy someones' effort from solo/PG. Why is the latter desired, where the former is not? I'm asking for your opinion not what the rules are.
I find it more fun to see who I work against or who try to stop me. I find it rude to hide in Solo/PG when knowingly oppose another group, and the explicit reason to chose that mode is to prevent anyone from stopping you. I play this game to have fun, not to win. I much rather have fun losing than be bored winning.Win and you won't mind at all.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Unwanted PvP can be avoided through the choice of the appropriate game mode - some choose poorly.
I bought a game that was specifically advertised as offering all players the opportunity to both experience and affect a single galaxy state shared between three game modes. That some players can't accept that players don't need to play with them to be able to affect the galaxy is obvious - just as it is obvious that Frontier haven't changed their stance on the topic in over seven years since the game design was published.
I also made sure, before backing the game, that I would not require to engage in PvP if I did not wish to - that hasn't changed either, as no game features are locked to Open.
When asked, around the time that player supported minor factions were announced, Michael Brookes had this to say on the topic:
Then the BGS & Scenarios stream recap in late 2018:
Regarding whether I think it's rude for players to engage with part of the BGS, in Solo or Private Groups, that may be supported by players who prefer PvP - no, I don't. The game does not revolve around PvP - and no player requires to engage in it (even if those defending want them to).
You seem to imply that I don't accept that you can choose whatever game mode you want. I do accept that you can choose whichever game mode you want. I just find it rude if you do so in the situation I already stated. I find it rude because you want to be able to change things anonymously without interacting with your opponent, and without any chance for a compromise or agreement between the two of you. I find it rude because you don't want to face the consequences of your actions.
I know the game doesn't revolve around PvP. I don't that's much of an explanation of your stance however. Would appreciate if you tried to explain why you don't think it's rude. Do you understand why I find it rude?
Oh, I totally get you. We've faced a lot of people in Colonia with this very rude attitude... but it's very sweet to know you got their number anyway!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I understand that players who prefer PvP might feel that BGS opposition not offering them an opportunity to engage in the optional playstyle that is PvP in defence of their BGS is rude. There are no PvP consequences to engaging in the BGS, unless two groups choose to make it happen.
That does not change the rules with regard to affecting the BGS though - and the rules don't care how any participant feels about PvP, nor do they require any participant to engage in PvP.
Last edited:
4) you already gitted-gud at highwaking out of trouble so know open's perfectly safe if you know what you are doing, can't be bothered with PVP but like meeting and nattering with other players even if some of them will try to shoot at you.
Craith
Volunteer Moderator
I just wanted to add that shooting the opponents usually is the way to lose a BGS conflict, apart from inside a conflict zone. Even if you get all of their ships and blow them up, you will hurt your faction (generally speaking, there are cases where it might be beneficial, but still worse than working the BGS yourself).
I suppose it is also rude people on Xbox and Playstation can work against you and you cannot see them either?