Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[MadSinUN]

Then, unless the block feature breaks connections between instanced players when it is used (which I don't think it does), the attacker must have blocked the other player prior to instancing with them - which implies that they knew who they were already and could select them on recent contacts to block them.

I really do not know how the attacker was able to block my friend while already in battle with him, but I am talking about what I saw and what the attacker did not deny.

Is there anyone who has experienced this? Someone was effectively blocked while already in the same instance?

 

[MadSinUN]

Then, unless the block feature breaks connections between instanced players when it is used (which I don't think it does), the attacker must have blocked the other player prior to instancing with them - which implies that they knew who they were already and could select them on recent contacts to block them.

Perhaps the attacker flew away at a sufficient distance and was not in the same instance with us? As in the situation with SLF mining. It was flying away from us, that's for sure, and we weren't chasing it. Then it came back at a high speed to attack Maybe that's why it got blocked?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Perhaps the attacker flew away at a sufficient distance without going to the SC, that would not be with us in the same instance. As in the situation with SLF mining. It was flying away from us, that's for sure, and we weren't chasing it. Then he went up in speed to attack. Is that why this block was created?

I'd agree that that is unlikely to be an intended use case - however it ends up being collateral damage due to the apparent necessity for the block feature to exist in the first place.

Like those seeking a PvE experience at the moment, the only way to impose out-of-game rules on gameplay is to play in a Private Group (and hope that everyone plays by the rules they agreed to when joining it).

 

[soloe]

[...] would be for Frontier to decide.

Robert. Please. Pretty pretty please with cheese on top. It has reached a point where it is annoying!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Robert. Please. Pretty pretty please with cheese on top. It has reached a point where it is annoying!

.... so are demands to give bonuses to Open play - or restrict existing pan-modal content to Open only.

What I'm getting at when stating the obvious is that it matters little what a few players want, noting that not all players want the same things, we are not in a position to change anything.

 

[MadSinUN]

Like those seeking a PvE experience at the moment, the only way to impose out-of-game rules on gameplay is to play in a Private Group (and hope that everyone plays by the rules they agreed to when joining it).

Thanks but no. I don't want to run away. I want to see other players around me, I want to look at what they do, what they say, it brings the game to life for me. I'm just disappointed that a lot of the mechanics and features look like they were created with an axe rather than high tech.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Thanks but no. I don't want to run away. I want to see other players around me, I want to look at what they do, what they say, it brings the game to life for me. I'm just disappointed that a lot of the mechanics and features look like they were created with an axe rather than high tech.

In that case it's a situation where one must accept the all of the rules of multi-player.

What is meant by "high-tech" in the context of a solution to the requirement to remove problem players from another players instance?

 

[Dragsham]

The game is essentially a coop mode game. With a few select players in a grp holding assets looking after it all...their empire! We all have empires to protect hehe.
Just think open only would add to the richness gameplay experiences. Yes PvP would be about but not on the scale it's at uncontrolled atm.
The games aimed to single play. Lord knows why.
Best game in the world and no multiplayer.
I don't include squadron experience as multiplayer I mean a persistent world with 1000s of cmdrs all types.
I've tried to level the playing field. I know the pvpers would allow it. They don't want to gank upset or anything they want immersion. Not ivory tower play.
The games broken as it stands.
Posts here say why. I'm not going to go over it all.
But until we have harsh laws one world and a better set of mechanics for instances etc. Nothing can be done.
You've allowed 2 builds no punishment and no incentive. The argument for change falls on deaf ears.
Shame

 

[MadSinUN]

What is meant by "high-tech" in the context of a solution to the requirement to remove

Unfortunately not. Here the word "Capricious" is more appropriate in the case of removing unwanted players. And why do you exclude the possibility of getting through to Fdev, so that they would Polish this function to the state of "high technology"? Do you think it's useless?

 

[CaptainPugwash]

The game is essentially a coop mode game. With a few select players in a grp holding assets looking after it all...their empire! We all have empires to protect hehe.
Just think open only would add to the richness gameplay experiences. Yes PvP would be about but not on the scale it's at uncontrolled atm.
The games aimed to single play. Lord knows why.
Best game in the world and no multiplayer.
I don't include squadron experience as multiplayer I mean a persistent world with 1000s of cmdrs all types.
I've tried to level the playing field. I know the pvpers would allow it. They don't want to gank upset or anything they want immersion. Not ivory tower play.
The games broken as it stands.
Posts here say why. I'm not going to go over it all.
But until we have harsh laws one world and a better set of mechanics for instances etc. Nothing can be done.
You've allowed 2 builds no punishment and no incentive. The argument for change falls on deaf ears.
Shame

We already have open mode - what benefit would there be for open only? Com'on man, you're just fueling that fire for the PVE ony/PvP only divide.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Not true. The so-called "suicidists" clearly estimate the cost of the cargo on the destroyed ship and if the cost of their ship with all modules exceeds the cost of the cargo, they will not attack you. Figuratively speaking, they are ready to merge the ship for 1 million for the sake of cargo worth 2 or more million. And if you're talking about corporate battles, it's a war, the winner gets a lot of profit, it's worth it.



And this may well be a cure for gank. It is strange to me when people continue to fly to Deciat as to their home, knowing that there is a great threat to be destroyed. There, these people are defeated and then start complaining.

1) Point is invalid, people do it. They are willing to lose their ships/investment to get their gank on.

2) People generally fly to Deciat for engineering. Maybe some people have it as their home, but assuming most who fly there because its home would be wrong.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

.... remembering that Frontier removed the ability to UA bomb practically overnight, about eighteen months ago, much to the chagrin of some players:

News - Removal of 'UA Bombing'

Greetings, Commanders. From Thursday November 29, selling Thargoid Sensors at starports will no longer have any negative effect. As a result, ‘UA bombing’, as it has become known, will no longer be possible. Along with these changes, you will now be able to sell Thargoid items legally rather...

forums.frontier.co.uk

I strongly suspect that some of the uses to which UA bombing had been put caused the feature to be removed for all players.

Overnight? UA bombing was a thing for months.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Just think open only would add to the richness gameplay experiences.

For some, no doubt - not for all players who bought a game with no requirement to engage in PvP to engage in any game feature (apart from CQC - and that was released after launch).

The games aimed to single play. Lord knows why.

It's aimed at Open play too - just that every player has a choice of mode rather than being forced to play in one mode.

Best game in the world and no multiplayer.

Is Open completely empty then?

.... or is it that no-one is forced to play in multi-player that isn't accepted?

I've tried to level the playing field. I know the pvpers would allow it. They don't want to gank upset or anything they want immersion.

I'll agree to disagree - as PvP in this game between ships optimised for different roles is inherently not a level playing field - and there's a subset of the PvP player-base who gank already, so forcing everyone (who still played the game) to play in Open would just provide them with more targets.

The games broken as it stands.

A game that doesn't require PvP isn't "broken" - it's simply not designed to be a game that is dominated by PvP.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

So why on earth do you think this is an 'open only' thread???
The title is Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

Nothing to do with open only, if anything the main voice here is "PVE only"

1) Please don't shout.

2) I never said this was an open only thread. I noted threads like this and open only threads share similiarties.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Unfortunately not. Here the word "Capricious" is more appropriate in the case of removing unwanted players. And why do you exclude the possibility of getting through to Fdev, so that they would Polish this function to the state of "high technology"? Do you think it's useless?

Again, what is meant by "high-technology" in this context?

 

[CaptainPugwash]

1) Please don't shout.

2) I never said this was an open only thread. I noted threads like this and open only threads share similiarties.

Fair enough (I wasn't shouting i just copied and pasted the title )

 

[Robert Maynard]

Overnight? UA bombing was a thing for months.

Oh it was a thing for quite some time - however Ed made his post on a Wednesday night - the next morning, after the weekly tick, UA bombing was no longer a thing.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Fair enough (I wasn't shouting i just copied and pasted the title )

Ah, that happens since we changed to the new forum. You need to change the formatting.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Oh it was a thing for quite some time- however Ed's made his post on a Wednesday night - the next morning, after the weekly tick, UA bombing was no longer a thing.

Ah, you mean between their public statement and implementing the change. Well, it took them long enough to take a public stance on the issue.

 

[Dragsham]

I'm not fuelling anything. I'm asking for a level playing field...1 field not 3 where s done without recourse.
One world not 3. And the PvP is not why I ask. I ask purely for immersion. I want to feel other players around me. Not solo cold on my own or just wingmates.
Open atm is deserted. Everyone is in solo or pvt to avoid PvP. And l get that. Because the whole system is fooked.
I don't advocate PvP or wotever I advocate multiplay. That's what this game is Inherantly designed for.
Not 13000 sandboxs just 1