Are Gankers Pushing People Into Solo?

[Robert Maynard]

Like I suggested, make NPC security G5 generally. If FD had done that you would not need ATR, or continually messing with murder influence levels.

Security affects all players whereas ATR only affects those who persist in their criminality - so, as not all players have Horizons, it's better the way it is - for most players.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Security affects all players whereas ATR only affects those who persist in their criminality - so, as not all players have Horizons, it's better the way it is - for most players.

Its those people persisting who I'm talking about. If you are lawful regardless of Horizons or not, there is no difference. Plus, ATR don't care what edition of ED you have

 

[Robert Maynard]

Its those people persisting who I'm talking about. If you are lawful regardless of Horizons or not, there is no difference. Plus, ATR don't care what edition of ED you have

In which case reduce ATR response times and increase their numbers and outfit proportionately to the "strength" of the CMDR they've been sent to deal with - oh, and give them a persistent memory so that they don't suffer from near instant amnesia if the CMDR jumps out of the system and back in.

 

[Rubbernuke]

In which case reduce ATR response times and increase their numbers and outfit proportionately to the "strength" of the CMDR they've been sent to deal with - oh, and give them a persistent memory so that they don't suffer from near instant amnesia if the CMDR jumps out of the system and back in.

Or, remove ATR and make all security ships G5. If you don't break the law, nothing changes- C + P response has much more teeth for PvE.

Plus, you can't reduce ATR response any further than now, as its instant once you get the warning and keep on killing.

 

[Misty_Dark]

I should qualify my disdain for bullet sponges. I can totally understand a battleship (Cutter, Corvette, Conda, etc) being a bullet sponge. When a small ship like an Eagle can eat bullets for even 30 seconds from an engineered Mamba, THAT requires a suspension of disbelief that just ruins things like CZs for me. Now contrast this to the Harmless Eagle NPC which I can one-shot with another small ship, and I start asking myself, "Is there Vibranium in Elite Dangerous? Is this Tony Stark's Eagle?" You can thank engineering and HRP stacking for this.

But if it takes me all day to sink a "battleship", then I'm fine with that. In some ways I prefer it, as it makes sub-targeting much more useful (I always kill Cutters via their power plant, for example).

Yeah, there are quite alot of these sort of inconsistencies to be found, and several of these can in many cases be traced back to balancing PvP... so that a big ship does not automagically give the big ship player an I-WIN-BUTTON against small ships... I have never really encountered any combat system that works unaltered for both PvE and PvP combat.
Look at games like Destiny 2, here in simplitics terms, there are two sets of rule, one for PvE and one PvP. And that is normally how this is done, and most games have separated out PvE from PvP, so that we do not mix these things. But in Elite they seems to have tried to have the same rule set for both sets of combat and all of a sudden, something that makes sense for PvP messes up PvE and vice versa.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Or, remove ATR and make all security ships G5. If you don't break the law, nothing changes- C + P response has much more teeth for PvE.

Which goes back to some players seeking to make the game more difficult for all players.

Plus, you can't reduce ATR response any further than now, as its instant once you get the warning and keep on killing.

Reduce the threshold before they're sent then.

 

[EUS]

At least 4 times a year this exact topic arises, in the past it was sent to the correct subforum.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Which goes back to some players seeking to make the game more difficult for all players.

The only people who would lose out would be core players who are killers. But since you already have ATR its just front loading the difficulty rather than escalating it. Plus, ATR are totally avoidable while main sec are not.

Reduce the threshold before they're sent then.

Which again is pretty tight already. 1:30 low sec all the way to 0:10 high sec. I forget if 3.x BGS lockdown makes a difference.

One more kill and they just jump right in and have you autotargetted and have weapons drawn (which us cheating).

 

[Robert Maynard]

The only people who would lose out would be core players who are killers. But since you already have ATR its just front loading the difficulty rather than escalating it. Plus, ATR are totally avoidable while main sec are not.

Make ATR totally unavoidable then.

Which again is pretty tight already. 1:30 low sec all the way to 0:10 high sec. I forget if 3.x BGS lockdown makes a difference.

Reduce those further - maybe 30 seconds and 5 seconds.

One more kill and they just jump right in and have you autotargetted and have weapons drawn (which us cheating).

In which case they could be pro-active - and be on the CMDR's tail as soon as they arrive in-system - no need to await another kill.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Make ATR totally unavoidable then.

Reduce those further - maybe 30 seconds and 5 seconds.

In which case they could be pro-active - and be on the CMDR's tail as soon as they arrive in-system - no need to await another kill.

I agree, the ATR should react quickly enough that a ganker knows he will probably not survive - has a proposal been made and has it been discussed by Frontier?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Make ATR totally unavoidable then.

The only way to do that would be to give all security reverb lasers, which strip shields but hull tanking still makes that moot really.

Reduce those further - maybe 30 seconds and 5 seconds.

In previous BGS builds lockdowns did just that. I'd love that mechanic back.

In which case they could be pro-active - and be on the CMDR's tail as soon as they arrive in-system - no need to await another kill.

Again, this is what they should be doing- I've posted many ideas that do just this.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I agree, the ATR should react quickly enough that a ganker knows he will probably not survive - has a proposal been made and has it been discussed by Frontier?

If your ship is a tin foil shield heavy build, ATR are a nightmare if you wait for them.

If your ship is a steel ingot with multiple HRPs, MRPs and hardened modules, they are a nuisance.

Its why security needs to be better from the ground up. It solves a lot more problems.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

If your ship is a tin foil shield heavy build, ATR are a nightmare if you wait for them.

If your ship is a steel ingot with multiple HRPs, MRPs and hardened modules, they are a nuisance.

Its why security needs to be better from the ground up. It solves a lot more problems.

It's a partial solution, I agree

 

[Sync Mercy]

Solo (and private groups) players constitutes the vast majority of players. Ganking is but one of the MANY reasons people choose to not play in Open. The general lack of incentive to play in Open unless you are doing PvP (which most players don't) come basically from a "higher risk, same rewards" situation.

There has ALWAYS been talks about how to make Open better, and it boils down to this : offer something in Open that you can't do in private/solo. When PowerPlay come about, it was proposed that you shouldn't be able to contribute to Powerplay while in Private/Solo, for example. But sadly it never came to pass.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The only way to do that would be to give all security reverb lasers, which strip shields but hull tanking still makes that moot really.

I'm pretty sure that the game could sent ATR outfitted appropriately to deal with the specific build the CMDR is using.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'm pretty sure that the game could sent ATR outfitted appropriately to deal with the specific build the CMDR is using.

I wish all mission based NPCs, high level security and Powerplay assassins did really.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Solo (and private groups) players constitutes the vast majority of players. Ganking is but one of the MANY reasons people choose to not play in Open. The general lack of incentive to play in Open unless you are doing PvP (which most players don't) come basically from a "higher risk, same rewards" situation.

There has ALWAYS been talks about how to make Open better, and it boils down to this : offer something in Open that you can't do in private/solo. When PowerPlay come about, it was proposed that you shouldn't be able to contribute to Powerplay while in Private/Solo, for example. But sadly it never came to pass.

I don't think the power play proposal is dead just yet.
I saw an informal survey recently by one of the better known streamers where several hundred players participated and the result was about 30% play in open.
Personally I only dabble in PvP, and like just to see other players around.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I wish all mission based NPCs, high level security and Powerplay assassins did really.

It's a different situation - ATR are sent to destroy or rout a transgressor; whereas mission NPCs are part of the mission and outfitting to mitigate them is part and parcel of taking the mission, IMO at least. It could work well for high ranked security vessels and Powerplay assassins.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

I wish all mission based NPCs, high level security and Powerplay assassins did really.

Yep, and Frontier could do this without spending lots of money I think

 

[Old Duck]

Yeah, there are quite alot of these sort of inconsistencies to be found, and several of these can in many cases be traced back to balancing PvP... so that a big ship does not automagically give the big ship player an I-WIN-BUTTON against small ships..

IMO, pilots being equal in skill, a large ship SHOULD have a large "I win!" advantage over a small ship. Now FOUR small ships vs. a large ship, on the other hand, should pose a threat. Lower HP of smaller ships and lower ridiculous turning rates of larger ships, and things would balance out nicely I believe. As much as I hate small bullet sponges, I hate battleships that maneuver like F-18 fighter jets even more.