How Gankers Made my Game more Fun.

[Robert Maynard]

Would Captains Jean luc Picard and Katharine Janeway go exploring without shields and weapons?



[edit] I mean even the "runabouts" had shields and weak sauce weapons....

The ability to respawn and rebuy changes ones outlook quite a bit in relation to personal safety - even when compared to fictitious characters.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Would Captains Jean luc Picard and Katharine Janeway go exploring without shields and weapons?



[edit] I mean even the "runabouts" had shields and weak sauce weapons....

Again, completely different world. How this little detail slipped from you I have no idea.

 

[Riverside]

Not in mine or, from anecdotal evidence, a not insignificant number of other players, yes.

So you agree that people playing in a way that is inconsiderate to others generates emergent content & therefore is a net positive too?

Or do you accept that large factions being supported by players in private groups, impersonally taking over otherwise dynamic & nuanced regions of space without ever meeting the players they oppose are overall a net negative influence on the galaxy we all share?


Seems to me you are not stepping back quite far enough to see the big picture here

 

[Riverside]

Again, completely different world. How this little detail slipped from you I have no idea.

The point is that (in Open) it isn't. People just want it to be, others don't. In Group, it can be.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So you agree that people playing in a way that is inconsiderate to others generates emergent content & therefore is a net positive too?

It rather depends on who the emergent content is generated for whether it's a net positive, or not as the case may be.

Or do you accept that large factions being supported by players in private groups, impersonally taking over otherwise dynamic & nuanced regions of space without ever meeting the players they oppose are overall a net negative influence on the galaxy we all share?

The indirect and asynchronous nature of competition in a BGS split over three platforms without cross-play (as well as three game modes) means that opposing players can't meet in some cases - not that there's any need for them to, given that other players are optional in the game. Just because some players want to interact with others does not mean that anyone needs to accede to their desires.

 

[Riverside]

It rather depends on who the emergent content is generated for whether it's a net positive, or not as the case may be.

The indirect and asynchronous nature of competition in a BGS split over three platforms without cross-play (as well as three game modes) means that opposing players can't meet in some cases - not that there's any need for them to, given that other players are optional in the game. Just because some players want to interact with others does not mean that anyone needs to accede to their desires.

So a player being swamped by direct PvP and a player being swamped by indirect BGS manipulation are analogous.

A player can just give up on supporting a faction or system, just as a player can give up on playing in open. In both cases having to accept quite a significant compromise in their game which understandably they will be unhappy about.

Seems pretty analogous to me

 

[Robert Maynard]

So a player being swamped by direct PvP and a player being swamped by indirect BGS manipulation are analogous.

A player can just give up on supporting a faction or system, just as a player can give up on playing in open. In both cases having to accept quite a significant compromise in their game which understandably they will be unhappy about.

Seems pretty analogous to me

Quite.

 

[Morbad]

They were exploring a world inhabited by other people, tribes, nations who were armed and protective of their property. Not an empty galaxy.

Points of interest, hotspots, event waypoints, and tourist traps aren't empty, pretty much by definition.

If one goes exploring someplace actually empty in Elite: Dangerous, then one doesn't need to worry about running across 'muderhobos'...unless one was followed.

 

[Linnunrata]

I guess it is somewhat of a pity that part of that "enemies in the dark" thing was lost with FCs that mean that even BP can have uncompromised killer builds. Not that I personally would bother risking all that explodata that far in the deep.

 

[Riverside]

I guess it is somewhat of a pity that part of that "enemies in the dark" thing was lost with FCs that mean that even BP can have uncompromised killer builds. Not that I personally would bother risking all that explodata that far in the deep.

That gate swings both ways though, if you sell your data on a carrier the little risk there was with exploration (having to return to dock & sell your data) is also eliminated.

So everyone's a winner

 

[Linnunrata]

That gate swings both ways though, if you sell your data on a carrier the little risk there was with exploration (having to return to dock & sell your data) us also eliminated.

I guess so, though I don't see those issues really in par with each other - mostly because I don't think that exploration became notably less dangerous than before FCs. Risk of actually dying on an exploration trip to a natural hazard was IMO always* pretty neglible as long as you don't try anything dangerous like land on a high G planet (no real need). And I'm not sure introducing FCs to that equation is "winning" from explorers point of view, though I like the lore idea of deep space carriers floating in the middle of nowhere.

I mean it was at least remotely interesting that people who wanted to gank voyagers at BP (or partly SagA* before Xplorers Anchorage) needed to outfit and fly their ships there. Now it is just same possible meta ship building everywhere from Bubble to BP. (It's important to note that I don't really think that killers at BP or SagA* is some kind of massive problem in ED that is really, really unfair - just a thought about ship metas).

* - Or at least with engineered jump ranges and route plotting. I have no experience of pre-Horizons exploration, and have a tinge of jealosy for those first explorers who braved the galactic extremes.

 

[Riverside]

I guess so, though I don't see those issues really in par with each other - mostly because I don't think that exploration became notably less dangerous than before FCs. Risk of actually dying on an exploration trip to a natural hazard was IMO always pretty neglible as long as you don't try anything dangerous like land on a high G planet (no real need). And I'm not sure introducing FCs to that equation is "winning" from explorers point of view, though I like the lore idea of deep space carriers floating in the middle of nowhere.

I mean it was at least remotely interesting that people who wanted to gank voyagers at BP (or partly SagA* before Xplorers Anchorage) needed to outfit and fly their ships there. Now it is just same possible meta ship building everywhere from Bubble to BP. (It's important to note that I don't really think that killers at BP or SagA* is some kind of massive problem in ED that is really, really unfair - just a thought about ship metas).

The risk for the explorer comes from what would normally be a minor inconvenience (eg losing your only SRV) being a big deal because of how far you are from dock. Ship loss itself isn't a big deal, losing weeks or months of accumulated data is. Carriers eliminate these, the carrier becomes your spawn point, your repair shop, your data depository.

So yes you can get popped by a fool but it's also not really a problem if you do.

Of course you can still travel without a carrier, but you could always travel armed & armoured too

I think lots of players explore in high jump range paper aeroplanes. I fitted a C6 scoop to my CZ corvette. Different ways to play

 

[Linnunrata]

Carriers eliminate these, the carrier becomes your spawn point, your repair shop, your data depository.

Yeah, I know - and I think it is in the same way more of a loss than a win for the challenges of exploration in this game, just like FCs narrow the challenges that need to be solved before preying on paper planes at BP. I guess it would be okay if new challenges were introduced, but so far there hasn't been any and it's pretty hard to imagine what they could be because you can't just have really lethal randomly occuring events in deep space.

 

[Riverside]

Yeah, I know - and I think it is in the same way more of a loss than a win for the challenges of exploration in this game, just like FCs narrow the challenges that need to be solved before preying on paper planes at BP.

So don't fly a paper aeroplane & accept the compromise

In a low jump range ship the galaxy changes from a desert to be crossed, to a maze of dead ends & traps. The challenge is still there for the most part.

Don't get me wrong, I have high jump range ships too. But I still use them in Open, confident in both the miniscule chance of meeting another player let alone a hostile one in a system that doesn't actually have a carrier in it, and my ability to handle a hostile encounter if it does happen.

IRL one can be concerned about airline safety & either accept the risk & go anyway, or choose not to fly & take another mode of transport (that probably has a higher risk associated with it). In the game you can also choose to play in group or solo, completely eliminating all PvP threat. I choose to remain in Open & mitigate the risks my own way, accepting the compromise in jump range.

 

[Linnunrata]

I think we might be talking about slightly different subjects.

I'm aware that one can compromise exploration ships and build them to last, or mode select. I just lament the fact that FC updates made everything a bit simpler, providing repair&rearm and data dumps all over the galaxy - for a long time I actually thought that this is why FDev wasn't initially going to provide UA to FCs, if my memory serves me right. And parking space for a fleet of meta combat ships.

Of course one can make own challenges by flying a low jump range ship, or take an engineered FDL to BP without a carrier to gank randos, so I guess it's okay, but very few are going to do that anyway, so...

 

[Riverside]

I think we might be talking about slightly different subjects.

I'm aware that one can compromise exploration ships and build them to last, or mode select. I just lament the fact that FC updates made everything a bit simpler, providing repair&rearm and data dumps all over the galaxy - for a long time I actually thought that this is why FDev wasn't initially going to provide UA to FCs, if my memory serves me right.

Of course one can make own challenges by flying a low jump range ship, or take an engineered FDL to BP without a carrier to gank randos, so I guess it's okay, but very few are going to do that anyway, so...

Indeed. When I said everyone's a winner I was being ironic

But carriers have not stopped me being able to do anything I could do before, and have added some things that allow players to do things they might not otherwise have considered practical. There are some vids in the PvP section of this forum of wing fights against awesome backdrops that carrier respawn has made feasible. And yes, someone could hunt at BP in a meta FDL too They always could of course, it would have just taken more commitment for them to do it.

 

[Linnunrata]

I'm actually now a bit tempted of building a 25ly Cobra or something and trying how it navigates the mazes. Unfortunately I don't trust FDev not to drop a double engineered rail gun a month after my departure.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Points of interest, hotspots, event waypoints, and tourist traps aren't empty, pretty much by definition.

If one goes exploring someplace actually empty in Elite: Dangerous, then one doesn't need to worry about running across 'muderhobos'...unless one was followed.

"Murderhobo galaxy" wasn't related to exploring. It's just that the incessant killing in the setting isn't really believable. And setting means the background - not actually players killing. I mean the whole world is not so believable.

 

[Riverside]

I'm actually now a bit tempted of building a 25ly Cobra or something and trying how it navigates the mazes. Unfortunately I don't trust FDev not to drop a double engineered rail gun a month after my departure.

In late 2016 I was 10,000ly from the bubble, near the ETA Carinae Nebula in a 19ly Corvette when news of the first Thargoid Hyperdictions came in. I decided to keep going & didn't dock again for a year (in Colonia via Beagle Point). Don't let FOMO decide your story imo, create your own

(I completely skipped the skimmer rain bug too btw)

 

[Mazelinho]

So there was that minievent everybody talked about, so i thought: "Nice, some lorestuff. Le's go there." Since i play in open 90% of the times, i knew there might be murderes flying around the site. So i packed up my PackhoundCutter, my Big Lasergunspewpew Corvette and managed to get a Spot with my Carrier. Shortly after i arrive i read a message from someone "This area is protected by SPEAR (Or S.P.E.A.R). Landing permit is required if you wanna touch down" Something like that, i dont remember the exact wording.

Oi, I was in that system at the same time and had the same "permit required" message in my system chat. Now I feel important

I saw a name that ringed a bell. Not sure whether it was a ship name or cmdr name, but last time I saw it was years ago when the Guardians were added to Elite and were hot and shiny with CGs and all. Morale: don't know, maybe even "emergent content creators" are loyal to Elite