Attacking commander can blow it up and feel all great for destroying another commander (gets bounties if any etc) and is none the wiser that they haven't, the attacked commander doesn't suffer any actual penalty other than perhaps feeling a bit guilty about yanking the cable. Everyone wins
Already mentioned earlier but there are players for whom that would simply not be enough unless they were "sending someone to the rebuy screen". They're a subset of a subset but they're out there and they would likely be
very vocal at the thought that their PVP kills weren't causing distress to another player.
After reading some posts I do realise that implementing this feature is difficult, but leaving everything as it is and having an "oh who cares just pretend you won" attitude towards this isn't going to help anyone.
Implementing the feature as requested in the current game isn't difficult, it's impossible. Implementing a whole new networking architecture, then implementing the feature as part of that might be possible but it's not something FD have given any indication of being interested in. But there are some big changes afoot so you never know.
If someone logs because they didn't want to lose property, why are they playing in open in the first place?
That's the more interesting question. There is some evidence on the forums (assuming it's posted in good faith, of course) that a few players glean as much pleasure from wasting the time of those wishing to "send them to the rebuy screen" as those other players glean from doing the sending, although I suspect that's a subset of a subset of a subset.
But in general I've no idea, and I've been here for a long long time. As a largely non-PVP player I used to bounce between modes waiting for the day when FD would implement sensible, scalable, system-dependent authority response so I could minimise encounters by choosing my routes / cargoes / allegiances carefully rather than simply avoiding locations with the most hollow squares. But as soon as I realised that wasn't going to happen -- even ATR is a band-aid rather than significant rethink -- and that Open would always the
de facto "PVP mode"
everywhere, I stopped using Open.
Why others with similar attitudes towards PVP continue to do so, certainly more than once, is an utter mystery to me. Maybe it's for non-PVP interaction, because Open does tend to offer more random instancing than even the busiest private groups. It's an argument I've seen a few times on here. Personally I don't get it. It's like frequenting the nightclub with the worst reputation for random stabbings because it's always wall-to-wall. But hey, horses for courses. And my nightclub days are as far behind me as my Open days, so perhaps that's not the greatest analogy.
I'm not ranting or anything, but since PvP is a major element in this game I see no harm in adding some consequences to clogging.
I see others have beaten me to it, but I would dispute the word "major" unless you're speaking subjectively. According to this infamous quote, PVP was a minor activity across the player base as a whole in 2016, and I've not seen anything authoritative to supersede this:
While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.
The key is coming up with a workable
method for adding some consequences. Without that, it's unfortunately just a wishlist. One that's been around pretty much since gamma, if not DDF.
Incoming! I can just hear the keyboards typing the phrases like: "PvP is not a major element etc"
Yes, it's annoying when those pesky facts get in the way of a good opinion.
