Question for Open players who don't like PVP/ganking... help me understand

Part timers all My average since the end of Jan is 342 hours a month but in the begining I was only doing 6 hours a day and I had a week off for ship overhaul nowadays when duty is a joy im engaged from every waking moment.

So many to do , so little time to do them 💀
I play about 5 times a week at an average of about 90 minutes per session, and my wife is convinced I am obsessed with the game, so it’s all relative ..
 
I'm certainly not an expert on what the developers have or haven't said about the game - I'm new, as stated, and am just coming to it now, in mid-2020.

And yes the "keeping Elite dangerous" thing has been done to death, apologies for that as it is cliche.

But - there's an element of truth to it. I never think or worry about NPCs in a system. Evading an NPC interdiction is the height of triviality. Other players, however, are another thing altogether, and their presence forces me into an extremely enjoyable decision loop that influences everything I do as long as they are around. Do I immediately high wake? Can I get to the station without getting interdicted? Do I interdict them? All of these options are on the table, and that makes for engaging gameplay. It's gameplay challenge and interest, and what I enjoy about Open, regardless of whether any PVP actually results.

Give it a few more weeks and other cmdrs are a triviality too. In ED you only die when you actively allow it to happen.
 
Fair enough - though as we've spoken about previously in this thread, figuring out exactly what constitutes a weaker target is not always that easy to define.....

...a load of stuff...

So, one rational solution - just interdict everyone you see

There's a comms panel - it's on the top left of the HUD - I think people sometimes use it to detect the presence of other players so maybe you've heard of it?
 
Also, ctrl-B to detect players.

Yep, that one's nice too.

Comms panel is nice though as before you scan them, it tells you what kind of ship they are in, making it somewhat faster to find them in the contact panel on the left, if it's a busy instance (or by spamming next target)

Anyway...

That wasn't... really... my point...

I was actually trying to be a bit of a Richard(abbreviated) about the OP - but you ruined it by giving out handy info.

Cheers, pal.
 
On the more positive side, I've been playing in Open Powerplay for the last six months and really enjoying the fact that I've got opposing players after me. I'm expecting to be attacked now and have a ship built to deal with this.

Exactly, expecting is the key word here. For me, having clear risk/reward mechanics in place would go a long way to make PvP "meaningful" and even enjoyable. If I chose to take a risk in hope of higher rewards, getting blown to bits by other commanders would actually make sense and the threat of having that happen would be exciting. The point is, that the game's security levels are pretty meaningless, and especially so when PvP is concerned. I don't care about "punishing" murderers, because frankly, they don't really care either (being mostly Fabulously Rich Immortal Space Pirates, minus the piracy). But if punishment or other consequences would confine their murderous activities mostly to anarchy and low-sec systems, I'm all for it. And if they really wanted to go on a murder spree on a high-sec system, they should be able to (at least try) - it's just that the response and consequences should be much harsher to discourage it.
 
But with the introduction of Fleet Carriers into the game recently a notorious CMDR doesn't need access to stations particularly as refit & repair as well as bond/explo data being cashed in on-board... The only purpose stations would have is to provide missions as everything else is possible from the FC.

Well, perhaps notoriety should be applied to their FC, too? Ie. the FC would not be permitted in "lawful" systems.
 
The fact that my interdiction is meaningless - because the CMDR isn't a PowerPlay enemy or whatever - is more a symptom of a game in which all PVP combat is essentially lacking in larger meaning. This is a failing of the game design, pure and simple.

Quoted for truth.

I think that at the core, this is because the game was designed to be a "modernization" of the old Elite, with multiplayer. Problem is, multiplayer literally changes everything. Game mechanics, incentives, game modes, player interactions... everything needs to be designed around multiplayer, instead of just slapping multiplayer on what is essentially a single player game. Being a bit of a RPG and board game geek, I can't help but think FDev should have consulted someone with extensive board game design experience, since they are literally built around player interaction mechanics.
 
...
Quoted for truth.

I think that at the core, this is because the game was designed to be a "modernization" of the old Elite, with multiplayer. Problem is, multiplayer literally changes everything. Game mechanics, incentives, game modes, player interactions... everything needs to be designed around multiplayer, instead of just slapping multiplayer on what is essentially a single player game. Being a bit of a RPG and board game geek, I can't help but think FDev should have consulted someone with extensive board game design experience, since they are literally built around player interaction mechanics.
But again that assumes fdev would have wanted to build a multiplayer game first and a modernised Elite second, and just messed up by not doing that. I think we have EXACTLY what they wanted to design, and it just can't fit what some people want. Because no game ever will.
 
There are those who believe anyone doing anything antisocial in-game must be identically antisocial out-of-game. That's a big assumption.
There are those who believe anyone following the conventional moral rules in-game must also be a good person out-of-game. Also a big assumption.
And there are those who completely divorce anything happening in-game from real life. "It's just a game" and so forth.

Agree.

For me, what makes the difference is people. Real people, as opposed to make believe pixel people. If you want to escape the moral prison of every day life by being a murder hobo, it's fine as long as there aren't actual people concerned - once there are, it's no longer just a game. There is an actual person involved, and frankly, if your enjoyment of the game is based on ruining another's enjoyment of the game, you are being antisocial in a very real way. The "just a game" defence is nonsense - if it was "just a game" to you, you'd be perfectly happy murdering pixel people instead.
 
There is an actual person involved, and frankly, if your enjoyment of the game is based on ruining another's enjoyment of the game, you are being antisocial in a very real way.

Of course, exception being competitive/adversary games. Ganking doesn't fall into this category, but consenting PvP definitely does. A game of FIFA or PES would be a classic example, and ganking is the equivalent of being able to force something to play a match against you - not cool.
 
Man, this has been one heck of a thread. Before I delve into a wall of general text about the whole thing (from a decidedly "why can't we all just have fun together?" point of view, which I believe was the group that Danquememe wanted to honestly talk to from the beginning), let me just thank aforementioned Danquememe for having started it in the first place and praise him for his neutral, even-handed approach to the whole subject.. Good job, CMDR.

Now, I'm of the Class of '84, the group of sad geeks who played the everloving heck out of the original and, in my case at least, had long since given up on ever seeing its like again, although hope springs eternal. So when it was announced and, after much drumming up of popular support, my own included, and then came into being, I was there from the start and don't actually recall any issue with the whole "ganking/griefing" thing. We were all too busy just having fun with our dream come true.

I was on a long break, not because I lost interest but because other things became more important, and came back not too long ago, loaded with my somewhat jaded view of the whole PvP/ganking/griefing community and a decidedly black and white view of the whole thing, bordering on the "anybody who fires on others without a very good reason is a psychopath" point of view.

Well, thanks to these forums and this thread, I've learned a thing or two. For one thing, griefers (who DO exist) and gankers are not the same thing. They're similar in some fashions, but the griefers, a tiny minority, are the ones who really need to address their personal issues before taking it out on others, they're the ones that derive some sort of sick joy from deliberately annoying/harassing/stalking others. Gankers, on the other hand, just like blowing things up. It's not personal. They're not the ones obsessively chasing individuals, they just like to have something to shoot at that isn't an NPC. I get that, even if I don't personally agree with it, but I do see their point of view.

Also, the gankers/PvP'ers are some of the most helpful individuals around. If some newb shows up to ask for advice on how to build a better ship for gank-evasion techniques or any other purpose, they're the first ones to put up links and explain the advantages/disadvantages of various aspects of the frankly bewildering (and awesome) choices we all have in this game. And they're also the ones to offer advice on how NOT to be ganked. (Shout out to Sir Ganksalot who, although not the only one, has gone as far as to devote his own time to personally teach new players how to avoid the antics of himself and players like him).

And they're also pretty fun and laid back, not to mention they share the same sick sense of humor that I have (not necessarily an endorsement, but hey).

I haven't changed my approach to how I, personally, like to play this game because of all of this, but I most certainly HAVE changed my opinion of those who don't play it the same way I do, and I do really appreciate that. I like to think that I've made new friends this way. If I haven't, then at least we've had an honest, adult discussion rather than just shouting at each other and calling each other names, something of which I'm guilty too.

And that's not nothing.

o7, CMDRs.
 
Agree.

For me, what makes the difference is people. Real people, as opposed to make believe pixel people. If you want to escape the moral prison of every day life by being a murder hobo, it's fine as long as there aren't actual people concerned - once there are, it's no longer just a game.

This is ridiculous. When two teams take to the ice to play hockey, they're made of people. Still a game.

When I shoot you down in Elite your inability to understand it's just a game is your problem, not mine.

There is an actual person involved, and frankly, if your enjoyment of the game is based on ruining another's enjoyment of the game, you are being antisocial in a very real way. The "just a game" defence is nonsense - if it was "just a game" to you, you'd be perfectly happy murdering pixel people instead.

Simply because another person is involved doesn not mean whatever happens is based on "ruining another's enjoyment." It's still just about playing the game.

Your leap of logic here is immature in the extreme.
 
Of course, exception being competitive/adversary games. Ganking doesn't fall into this category, but consenting PvP definitely does. A game of FIFA or PES would be a classic example, and ganking is the equivalent of being able to force something to play a match against you - not cool.
How is "blazing your own trail" not competative and adversarial Its only possible to be "ganked" once through naivatey after that its no diferent to evading NPC,s thats quiet apart from the mode choices everyone has
 
Simply because another person is involved doesn not mean whatever happens is based on "ruining another's enjoyment." It's still just about playing the game.
Distance Ganks felt like it was intended to ruin another's enjoyment. However, I'm not too hard on DG because 1) It took real commitment to move a combat-focused ship across the galaxy, and 2) There was a DW private group created specifically to avoid PvP, so explorers had the choice to avoid you murderhobos completely (and "hobo" is apropos considering the distances covered).
 
Consent is not implied, it is explicit & specific. Some just don't care to confirm consent because the consequences of non-consensual acts in a game aren't usually very bad.

Why should I care? I'm under no obligation to confirm a player knows what they did when they clicked Open Play.

Frankly, it's ridiculous to suggest I sound "confirm consent." We all bought the game. We all installed the game. We all open the game on our computers. We all have mode choice. We all click Open Play or not of our own free will.

I didn't buy Elite to hold another person's hand.

Distance Ganks felt like it was intended to ruin another's enjoyment.

You'll be pleased to know the people behind Distant Worlds are just as capable as Distant Ganks in this regard.
 
Back
Top Bottom