A Serious Question, Does Griefs/Gankers truly do harm to Elite Dangerous

[Riverside]

They're only cannon fodder for those who choose to become experienced in combat

Yes I said that in the post you replied to.

 

[Riverside]

Comments from a couple of players, in another thread, would seem to support this - something along the lines of "this would affect how I play so you can't have it" - even though they would not require to play in such a game mode.

I think you just didn't understand the point being made then.

 

[CR33P]

Here's how I see it...

If you like killin' stuff there's plenty of games such as CS:GO, L4D, War Thunder - or even ED's own CQC - to choose from.
In those games you sign up with the expectation that you'll be involved in shootin' stuff and getting shot at - and little else.

There are then other games which promise more diverse, complex, immersive, forms of entertainment.

When you're hoping to play a game for diverse, complex and immersive entertainment and you find that other people can play it as it it was a simplistic deathmatch game, it only serves to undermine the experience.

"Undermine *your experience"

Do people feel that ganking hurt the sales/longevity of the Dark Souls franchise considering it's invasion mechanics?

 

[Robert Maynard]

That's only true because, at some point, somebody created a set of rules that dictate what sort of behaviour is acceptable within the shared environment.

You see the parallel, right?

A bit tenuous - as there are no life-threatening consequences to playing a video game, safe and warm in ones preferred gaming environment - all that one can really lose is time (spent recouping losses).

As I said, I'm pretty sure that's precisely why some people are playing ED rather than War Thunder, CG:GO or whatever.

Whether they're okay with that, or not, is something else FDev should probably be asking themselves.

I expect that what we have is the compromise position.

Subjecting NPCs and CMDRs to exactly the same rules is something I'd oppose simply because NPCs and CMDRs don't act in similar ways or adhere to the same code of conduct.
Frankly, I always felt that PvE "C&P" was fine as it was and all the new C&P stuff should have been presented as being the will of the Pilot's Federation, thus allowing it to police player activity alone.

Given that CMDRs are "different" from NPCs, I'd agree.

Fundamentally, when it comes to this stuff, the only question you really need to ask is what'd happen to Open if FDev created an official PvE mode.

It'd be interesting to observe - not that I expect them to, for the reasons explained by DBOBE in the Engineers launch stream.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think you just didn't understand the point being made then.

Oh - I think I did. Players who rely on the "unwilling" as part of their gameplay might see their gameplay changed if the "unwilling" did not need to accept potential PvP as part and parcel of playing in a game mode with an unlimited population. Basically, the single game mode with an unlimited population is PvP enabled - and some players don't want to lose that.

 

[Stealthie]

"Undermine *your experience"

Do people feel that ganking hurt the sales/longevity of the Dark Souls franchise considering it's invasion mechanics?

No idea. Never played it.

I do know that, for example, games like Minecraft have different servers for different types of gameplay and whenever you read about somebody getting hacked-off, it's always because they're trying to do something else and somebody's showed up and done something violent.

At the end of the day, violent behaviour always (?) yields the upper-hand in games - when confronting other players not intent on violent activities - and that fundamental truth exposes the weaknesses of game environment and highlights the need for rules and regulations to balance a games environment suitably.

Kind of a convoluted example but, as I've said before, what'd you suppose would happen if you met Bill Gates in a public toilet and beat the snot out of him?
Sure, in our universe you'd almost certainly be subject to some kind of law-enforcement but, even in an anarchic universe, if Bill Gates decides to get even it's not going to go well for you.

That's the difference between games an real-life.
If a game seeks only to portray a single aspect of real-life (such as, say, military conflict) then it's probably not a big deal.
If, OTOH, a game seeks to portray a broad spectrum of activities then it either needs to regulate how players interact or it needs to provide sufficiently diverse forms of interaction that allow many forms of interaction beyond violent behaviour.

If a game that seeks to portray a broad spectrum of activities fails to manage these things competently then it WILL devolve to lowest common-denominator violent gameplay and the more diverse aspects of the game will be wasted.

 

[Riverside]

Oh - I think I did. Players who rely on the "unwilling" as part of their gameplay might see their gameplay changed if the "unwilling" did not need to accept potential PvP as part and parcel of playing in a game mode with an unlimited population. Basically, the single game mode with an unlimited population is PvP enabled - and some players don't want to lose that.

You didn't.

Not knowing whether another player is a threat or not, or how much of a threat they represent is a key part of the playstyle of a lot of players in Open. I would not want to lose that existential threat. Actually being shot at is vanishingly rare outside of a few hotspot systems.

I am not an Open only advocate, although I would encourage any player to try it for themselves. I like the game I bought.

 

[Bashy81]

When the natural home for meaningful PvP (yes, im talking about Powerplay) has any chance of evolved PvP encounters neuteured by modes, its a wonder that more dont engage in meaningless PvP, as a poor substitute.
Some people will sit in their bedrooms giggling hysterically as they imagine ruining someones day. Characters like that exist in Solo too, ofc, ive had to try negotiating peace deals with those types a few times too.

Weeding-out those who gank for want of something better to do, by providing something better, can only help everyone.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You didn't.

Not knowing whether another player is a threat or not, or how much of a threat they represent is a key part of the playstyle of a lot of players in Open. I would not want to lose that existential threat. Actually being shot at is vanishingly rare outside of a few hotspot systems.

I am not an Open only advocate, although I would encourage any player to try it for themselves. I like the game I bought.

That "existential threat" would remain - in Open. The addition of an Open-PvE game mode would not change that - although it might increase the probability of a player encountered in Open being hostile - which is a variable in the first place.

I get the impression that some want to deny those not seeking PvP the ability to play in a social game mode where the population is unlimited simply because of their own play-style preference - because they don't want those players to be able to choose between Open and another game mode with the same potential population but a better probability of social encounters (rather than anti-social encounters). That seems to be rather selfish.

I expect that many have already tried playing in Open - with the interactions they experienced there informing their opinion as to which game mode best meets their gameplay expectations.

Some players like the frisson of potential PvP - some, obviously, do not. It's up to each player to work out for themselves which they prefer. For some, PvP is a tax on socialisation in this game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

When the natural home for meaningful PvP (yes, im talking about Powerplay) has any chance of evolved PvP encounters neuteured by modes, its a wonder that more dont engage in meaningless PvP, as a poor substitute.
Some people will sit in their bedrooms giggling hysterically as they imagine ruining someones day. Characters like that exist in Solo too, ofc, ive had to try negotiating peace deals with those types a few times too.

Weeding-out those who gank for want of something better to do, by providing something better, can only help everyone.

Players prone to skill-less attacks exist - and seem to revel in their endeavours.

Providing something for them to do would not stop ganking - in which case, why reward them with Dev time that might be better spent on all players instead?

 

[Riverside]

That "existential threat" would remain - in Open. The addition of an Open-PvE game mode would change that - although it might increase the probability of a player encountered in Open being hostile - which is a variable in the first place.

I expect that many have already tried playing in Open - with the interactions they experienced there informing their opinion as to which game mode best meets their gameplay expectations.

Some players like the frisson of potential PvP - some, obviously, do not. It's up to each player to work out for themselves which they prefer. For some, PvP is a tax on socialisation in this game.

I agree that having a separate 'open PvE' mode would not change how I play in Open, any more than having lots of PvE groups does now.
However a player managed group can kick any player for any reason, an official one would be subject to appeals & justification disputes that would take up resources FDev are apparently tight on.

I suspect that an awful lot of PvE players just assume 'here be dragons' without actually checking. I have no more evidence to back that up than your own assertion of course

 

[Stealthie]

Not knowing whether another player is a threat or not, or how much of a threat they represent is a key part of the playstyle of a lot of players in Open. I would not want to lose that existential threat. Actually being shot at is vanishingly rare outside of a few hotspot systems.

See, I do agree with this but it also provides an example of the problem too.

If you're, say, a trader or a miner then there's the element of risk as to whether or not you're going to get exploded by those hollow blobs on your scanner.
Sure, that adds a bit of interest to the game.

Trouble is, where's the similar sense of risk for a combat pilot?

Shouldn't a combat pilot also be subject to some sense of risk at the possibility that they might have, say, chosen to attack somebody who's well-connected to the local law-enforcement, or an underworld figure who has dangerous connections or an oligarch who has the resources to ruin your life?

The vast majority of risk is always in favour of somebody who's intent on combat rather than any other activity.

 

[Rubbernuke]

See, I do agree with this but it also provides an example of the problem too.

If you're, say, a trader or a miner then there's the element of risk as to whether or not you're going to get exploded by those hollow blobs on your scanner.
Sure, that adds a bit of interest to the game.

Trouble is, where's the similar sense of risk for a combat pilot?

Shouldn't a combat pilot also be subject to some sense of risk at the possibility that they might have, say, chosen to attack somebody who's well-connected to the local law-enforcement, or an underworld figure who has dangerous connections or an oligarch who has the resources to ruin your life?

The vast majority of risk is always in favour of somebody who's intent on combat rather than any other activity.

Isn't this where Powerplay should come in?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I agree that having a separate 'open PvE' mode would not change how I play in Open, any more than having lots of PvE groups does now.
However a player managed group can kick any player for any reason, an official one would be subject to appeals & justification disputes that would take up resources FDev are apparently tight on.

I suspect that an awful lot of PvE players just assume 'here be dragons' without actually checking. I have no more evidence to back that up than your own assertion of course

Player managed PGs are population limited - 20K on PC and 1K on consoles. Some of the PvE oriented Private Group rules" I put forward some time ago would go a long way to limiting the effects of protagonists in an Open-PvE game mode - if coupled with "if it's a player then no damage is done":

Spoiler

For PvP:

• Enable mass-lock delay on hyper-jumps if due to player ship? [yes/no]
• Disable menu exit delay if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
• Disable menu exit option if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
• Disable weapon healing effects? [yes/no]
• Disable premium ammunition? [yes/no]
• Disable Shield Cell Boosters? [yes/no]
• Lost connection while "in danger" due to player attack results in destruction / rebuy? [yes/no]

For PvE:

• Disable player / player interdiction? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake following? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake dropping? [yes/no]
• Kick player on attacking another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
• Kick player on destroying another player and move attacking player to a Solo instance? [yes/no]
• Remove menu exit delay if "in danger" flag was only set due to player attack? [yes/no]

For all play-styles:

• Move player to another instance after a period of inactivity on a landing pad.

 

[M00ka]

Isn't this where Powerplay should come in?

Not everyone participates in PowerPlay, so unless it was made mandatory then it is totally ineffective as any form of determent or anti-crime mechanic.

 

[Riverside]

See, I do agree with this but it also provides an example of the problem too.

If you're, say, a trader or a miner then there's the element of risk as to whether or not you're going to get exploded by those hollow blobs on your scanner.
Sure, that adds a bit of interest to the game.

Trouble is, where's the similar sense of risk for a combat pilot?

Shouldn't a combat pilot also be subject to some sense of risk at the possibility that they might have, say, chosen to attack somebody who's well-connected to the local law-enforcement, or an underworld figure who has dangerous connections or an oligarch who has the resources to ruin your life?

The vast majority of risk is always in favour of somebody who's intent on combat rather than any other activity.

There is always a bigger fish

Most PvP players I know PvE (mining mostly) to earn the cash for rebuys, and share wing mission rewards. You can't share a wing mission reward if you're in Solo (or not in the same group).

 

[PeLucheuh]

See, I do agree with this but it also provides an example of the problem too.

If you're, say, a trader or a miner then there's the element of risk as to whether or not you're going to get exploded by those hollow blobs on your scanner.
Sure, that adds a bit of interest to the game.

Trouble is, where's the similar sense of risk for a combat pilot?

Shouldn't a combat pilot also be subject to some sense of risk at the possibility that they might have, say, chosen to attack somebody who's well-connected to the local law-enforcement, or an underworld figure who has dangerous connections or an oligarch who has the resources to ruin your life?

The vast majority of risk is always in favour of somebody who's intent on combat rather than any other activity.

The element of risk of getting exploded is present for anyone equaly no matter the activity. A combat ship can also get interdicted and destroyed. Survival aspect is common to everyone, not exclusive to combat.

The vast majority of risk is non existent if you acknowledge how the game works and what you can do within game's rules and mechanics.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Isn't this where Powerplay should come in?

Nah - it's where effective Security protection of clean CMDRs, provided by the Pilots' Federation (of which we are all members) should come in.

Powerplay's not a universally liked (or pledged) feature.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

IMHO the answer to OP : Yes, absolutely.

Without touching the Details (which were never published) that caused this Design Decision that enabled, encouraged, protected and nourished mindless Ganking/Griefing (GvP) over the course of those ~5 years, it was - for all I know - the worst and single most harmful Design Decision of the entire Game.

I saw it as an exceedingly poor Decision back in early 2015 and nothing has changed in that regard.
How much revenue was lost and how much damage it has caused to the active Player base is anyone's guess. But I'd reckon it's profound.

PS.
All those Livestreams in Open where poor Ed (or any other Community Manager) repeatedly got Ganked over and over and over...
And still noone at Decisionmaking Level had the guts to step up and admit "we messed up, we got it all wrong, we made a Rookie Mistake in the MultiPlayer/MMO Design... something needs to change".

But then, nothing is static. New Era is supposedly a refactor/refresh, so at least there's a chance we see this core issue addressed properly. We'll see....

 

[andrewg_oz]

However a player managed group can kick any player for any reason, an official one would be subject to appeals & justification disputes that would take up resources FDev are apparently tight on.

I would expect that any Open PvE mode would be subject to the same control and dispute resolution as the existing Open mode. In other words, no extra work to Frontier. I would expect that it would be impossible to kick people from Open PvE unless it was something serious enough that it would get them kicked from the current Open, i.e. harassment, doxxing, whatever. The existing player block function would still be available.