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

[MishaTX]

When I came to Elite, my honest impression was that they'd tried to make it almost as meaningless to die as it was in a combat flight sim. There's just enough of a "sting" to make you care if your ship gets blown up - maybe - but otherwise, I sincerely thought the devs were sending a very strong and unambiguous message to, for real, just "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

Oh, ever since FDev opened the Credit spigots to the, quite frankly, ridiculous levels they're at now the rebuys definitely haven't bothered me. The main factors that bothered me were 1) lack of "rhyme or reason" when suddenly jumped and blown to smithereens, which is probably because I'm an RP'er rather than a Pew-Pewer in Elite. That and the lack of comms. And 2) frustration if, say, coming back from a month in the black with no ill intentions or anything of value to anyone else, only to go "boom", just because. I mean hey, blow up my ship if you must, I'll buy another, but all of my data and my tags? That's a month wasted that I won't get back again.

But that's what Solo is for, so I used it, silently cursing the fact that Open was inhabited by spoilsports. And it's that last half that has changed a lot for me thanks to the "meet the gankers" threads in this forum, this one being a fine example. I haven't changed my opinion of being interdicted while minding my own business much, but I certainly no longer see the interdictor as a soulless, sadistic spoilsport.

And it seems to work both ways, at least going by your reports of your recent activities. You better understand how players like myself tick as well.

The wonders that can happen when we all just sit down and have a chat, eh?

 

[CaptainPugwash]

OK folks, maybe there is something to this "Wholesome Ganking" thing after all.

For review, thanks to this thread, I've begun doing very light roleplay when interdicting players. My go-to is "You have been randomly selected for a Gank Evasion Test. High wake or die, CMDR!" Afterwards, regardless of outcome, I send a friend request. If it is accepted, I share feedback on the outcome of their test - and yes, it truly is a test, if you think about it - and if they have any questions about how to evade ganks, I give them the full run-down.

I'm pleased to report that tonight, I had a 2/3 success rate in getting the friend request accepted. The funniest reply was "Hell of a way to make friends!", which made me laugh out loud (CMDR wasn't wrong). In each of those cases, however, I spent a good bit of time - probably 5 or maybe 10 minutes? - chatting with the player, sharing tips, telling them what they did right and what they could have done better. In each case, the interaction went from guarded - quite reasonably so - to genuinely pretty friendly by the end. I emphasized that I would be happy to be a resource for them if they had any questions. One of them even said something to the effect of, "well, you're definitely not a griefer," and I took that as a compliment.

Anyways, it won't always go like it did tonight, but I do feel like this has shown me a path towards a play style that suits me quite well. It still sort of shocks me how positive the response has been, though. It's almost like everyone in this thread was on to something! I am grateful for the feedback and am trying to find a way to play as an outlaw without it being a completely one-sided affair. I have no illusions that every player will see it that way, but I'm hopeful that the percentages have at least improved a bit.

This thread has had real food for thought, indeed.

I’m impressed, really. Thanks for what you’re doing: this type of gank is worlds apart from the ganking style of most gankers. You are showing that it is possible to gank in style.
Takes a bit of extra effort but certainly worth it for the people concerned and for the game.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Yes faction manipulation (BGS stuff) is what I do, it's slower paced than direct PvP but both combined is the game at it's best imo.

There are players only interested in direct combat with other players, and that is something I can appreciate but I find it a bit boring on it's own. Short term fun, but not really for me.

There are players (lots & lots of them) that are only interested in indirect conflict via the BGS. That's much closer to what I do & enjoy, but again doing it in Group is a bit boring & well, easy. So generally I do it in Open, and sometimes I meet my opposition . That's the rare & meaningful interaction David Braben talked about way back during kickstarter. My slant on that is that I prefer to negotiate treaties and alliances than just fight, but either way it can be a thrill to utterly crush the spirit of some big arrogant player group without ever even instancing with them

So to me instancing, modes, platforms don't matter. It'd be nice to meet them & chat, but even with submarine warfare you can usually send & receive 'messages' through action & inaction. A relatively small group of players is present in one of 'my' systems, they kept trying to gain ground. I pushed one of my factions up to almost start a war in a system they controlled, held the gap for about a week, then let my faction fall back again. They backed off in my system. Never met 'em, no idea who any of them are.

One of my most enjoyable battles against players was just a few days ago when I ran into a rival group that is working against our planned expansion: we had a brief exchange of views before getting down to the nitty gritty - I was outnumbered 3 Corvettes to 1, but managed to get one of them to run before I had to. That was one of those ‘fist in the air’ moments . The fact that we have had negotiations in the past that have broken down, leading to conflict, all adds to the spice of these encounters.

 

[Bottom Hat]

Quite unacceptable - the spaz threads have moved this to page 2, so I am restoring order.

 

[thistle]

It's also not my fault. I am, in fact, playing the game the way it was made to be played.

If that upsets you, that is in fact your choice. I understand why you might get upset, but it's still a choice that you're making, based on your failure to accept the game as it has been designed and delivered.

No I'm not upset, I fully support the game as it is, and as designed. Gankers can gank, I've been ganked a few times since 2014 as you can imagine. Solo players can use solo, groups can use private group. Players of all kinds can use open and occasionally risk losing their ship.

I'm just amused by the rationalisations. Your whole long post I replied to was a rationalisation for ganking which made me chuckle, boiling down not to the truth (your enjoyment from ganking), but your apparent overwhelming desire to impart your wisdom and method of playing the game to others. Selfless. In the case of new unprepared players of course, that's by ruining their game, the game they were playing, not the one you by your grace decided to invite them to enjoy.

Gank away, no problem here. Just own it, as opposed to "Jump in the water's fine!" "many of us genuinely want to help other players take that leap" etc.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

Enjoying ship go boom and wanting to help others are not mutually exclusive intentions to have in a person.

 

[Danquememe]

No I'm not upset, I fully support the game as it is, and as designed.
...
I'm just amused by the rationalisations.
...
Gank away, no problem here. Just own it, as opposed to "Jump in the water's fine!" "many of us genuinely want to help other players take that leap" etc.

If you truly do "fully support the game as it is, and as designed," then why the snide comments insinuating that players are trying to force "their" gameplay on others, or "rationalize" an activity in the game that is fully within the game's intended scope?

Do I force "my" gameplay on someone when I move a chess piece? Do I force "my" gameplay on someone when I roll dice that may cause them to suffer the loss of a piece, or of some progress, or whatever?

Or is that the game just being played, in your words, as it is, and as designed?

In fact, if one is playing the game as designed, then there's no rationalization or even explanation necessary for any activities performed within the design scope, correct? If you accept that this is the game as designed, then this conclusion necessarily follows, does it not?

 

[Riverside]

If you truly do "fully support the game as it is, and as designed," then why the snide comments insinuating that players are trying to force "their" gameplay on others, or "rationalize" an activity in the game that is fully within the game's intended scope?

Do I force "my" gameplay on someone when I move a chess piece? Do I force "my" gameplay on someone when I roll dice that may cause them to suffer the loss of a piece, or of some progress, or whatever?

Or is that the game just being played, in your words, as it is, and as designed?

In fact, if one is playing the game as designed, then there's no rationalization or even explanation necessary for any activities performed within the design scope, correct? If you accept that this is the game as designed, then this conclusion necessarily follows, does it not?

Staring to feel like this whole thread has been about trolling & not understanding at all.

Oh well.

 

[Brrokk]

If you truly do "fully support the game as it is, and as designed," then why the snide comments insinuating that players are trying to force "their" gameplay on others, or "rationalize" an activity in the game that is fully within the game's intended scope?

Do I force "my" gameplay on someone when I move a chess piece? Do I force "my" gameplay on someone when I roll dice that may cause them to suffer the loss of a piece, or of some progress, or whatever?

Or is that the game just being played, in your words, as it is, and as designed?

In fact, if one is playing the game as designed, then there's no rationalization or even explanation necessary for any activities performed within the design scope, correct? If you accept that this is the game as designed, then this conclusion necessarily follows, does it not?

Both views are right. It's a spaceship game with weapons. A player can indeed play for maximum explosions because he enjoys those. However, not many other players enjoy exploding, particularly if they had some other plan for their play session. We need to be aware that ED has tools for a player to make sure that he can only be exploded once. Complaining about either ganking or blocking is futile. Explaining what's going on in-game helps.

 

[Riverside]

Both views are right. It's a spaceship game with weapons. A player can indeed play for maximum explosions because he enjoys those. However, not many other players enjoy exploding, particularly if they had some other plan for their play session. We need to be aware that ED has tools for a player to make sure that he can only be exploded once. Complaining about either ganking or blocking is futile.

The not complaining is the key component I feel The OP protests too much now.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

I’m gonna sound like a pvp-er now, but let’s not forget that the only way to avoid being blown up is to go off exploring. Many players still get blown up by NPCs. There is also solo mode for when you ‘don’t feel like it’. Then there is the fact that BGS conflict can happen at any time and is in my opinion much more emotive potentially than a once in a blue moon random gank, where at least your opponent is visible (more or less)

 

[thistle]

Staring to feel like this whole thread has been about trolling & not understanding at all.

Oh well.

Yes, it's been about ganking.

 

[Riverside]

I’m gonna sound like a pvp-er now, but let’s not forget that the only way to avoid being blown up is to go off exploring. Many players still get blown up by NPCs. There is also solo mode for when you ‘don’t feel like it’. Then there is the fact that BGS conflict can happen at any time and is in my opinion much more emotive potentially than a once in a blue moon random gank, where at least your opponent is visible (more or less)

Firstly, modes & the blocklist are a thing, and secondly, the overwhelming majority of players do not shoot first & ask questions later. They will just be other people that also 'get blown up by NPCs'

"I can act like a tool because the rules allow it" does not mean the behaviour is not still acting like a tool

 

[thistle]

Do I force "my" gameplay on someone when I move a chess piece? Do I force "my" gameplay on someone when I roll dice that may cause them to suffer the loss of a piece, or of some progress, or whatever?

No, the players are sitting facing each other, understanding the game they are playing.

A new player being silently seal-clubbed is clearly not playing the same game as the ganker.

And that's fine.

But to suggest it's to welcome them in to the glorious community that surely awaits ... for their own good ... jump in the water is lovely ... lol.

(edit - and my only solution to the problem, in as much as it's actually a problem (which isn't much), is for those doing it to, well, not.)

 

[Danquememe]

Staring to feel like this whole thread has been about trolling & not understanding at all.

Oh well.

I have in fact learned a great deal from this thread. I have grown as a player and even modified my approach to in-game behaviors because of it. And I have profited, in terms of game satisfaction, from those modifications. I have shared that journey with those who care to read about it (albeit in the form of altogether too wordy posts, for which I apologize).

I'm not here to rationalize away a choice that is completely "kosher" within the game rules, as we've discussed. I'm also not here to convince people they're wrong for being upset at the way those rules play out for them, meaning, because of what happens to them due to the actions of other players.

The goal is, was and remains to achieve understanding and I believe that there has been progress made in this thread.

But it's normal to react to someone casting aspersions on your motivations, when in fact they are sincere. When those aspersions are couched in specious logic, as was the case with the post I was originally replying to, it's appropriate to push back and set the record straight.

I've tried to do that with this post. Submitted for your consideration.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

"I can act like a tool because the rules allow it" does not mean the behaviour is not still acting like a tool

Yes, I agree. In fact the OP did try to modify his ganking style in quite an original way, to the point that personally I’m pretty sure I would enjoy being attacked as he described.

 

[thistle]

Yes, I agree. In fact the OP did try to modify his ganking style in quite an original way, to the point that personally I’m pretty sure I would enjoy being attacked as he described.

I don't think any of us here in this thread would have any problem with Danquememe ganking US. My argument has been about those unprepared/new, and the rationalisations for doing it to them.

It's a blessing, you see.

 

[Danquememe]

No, the players are sitting facing each other, understanding the game they are playing.

A new player being silently seal-clubbed is clearly not playing the same game as the ganker.

And that's fine.

But to suggest it's to welcome them in to the glorious community that surely awaits ... for their own good ... jump in the water is lovely ... lol.

(edit - and my only solution to the problem, in as much as it's actually a problem (which isn't much), is for those doing it to, well, not.)

So if I checkmate a new chess player with a scholar's mate, is that sealclubbing, or is that showing them how to play the game? Or both?

What if the player had spent a bunch of time reading chess books and still fallen for it, out of plain inexperience or incompetence?

I think this is an important question to consider, and which we've discussed a bit in this thread. When is a player no longer a seal to be clubbed?

We've determined that their combat rank isn't a good guide on its own - they could be playing an alt and actually be a tremendously experienced player, despite a low combat rank. Or they could be high ranked, and all their experience is from grinding NPCs, meaning they're ill equipped to deal with an actual PVP encounter.

Likewise, the ship they're flying isn't considered a fair assessment, either, even if the ship happens to be one of the ultimate endgame ships. I've literally seen a Harmless player in a Corvette. The Corvette is unabashedly a combat ship. The definition of a combat ship. An endgame combat ship. And yet Harmless combat rank implies nearly zero combat experience.

So what defines a seal?

"Just don't be a jerk" isn't a realistic answer in the context of a game whose creator has said "making things go wrong for other people" is part of the richness and tradition of the game experience. That's a direct quote of Mr Braben from last week's livestream.

So, yes, these are important questions, but there are relevant things to consider. Plenty of these new players have responded quite positively to my overtures. They've even thanked me after. Are they wrong?

 

[CaptainPugwash]

I don't think any of us here in this thread would have any problem with Danquememe ganking US. My argument has been about those unprepared/new, and the rationalisations for doing it to them.

It's a blessing, you see.

He he ..
While I agree that a certain degree of discernment should be used if you come across a new player (who wouldn’t put up the fight to make it interesting anyway), I myself would have welcomed such an approach, But of course I speak for myself.

 

[Riverside]

Yes, I agree. In fact the OP did try to modify his ganking style in quite an original way, to the point that personally I’m pretty sure I would enjoy being attacked as he described.

Maybe It is still acting like a tool.