PvP Behold, the great Fdev Ganker filter..

[Sethiest]

Lol, this game is so fraking full of exploits that crying about removing one exploit, is like trying to solve world hunger by throwing a guy a tictac.

Yes how dare they continue to developing their game to where they intend it to be.

I MADE MONEY

There were a few "gold rushes" to be sure. But they weren't intended methods and got patched out. You fix leaks as they happen, you don't sit in the boat and think, "well you know, theres already 5 holes in this boat, might as well sink lol". Even if that seems silly as mining is intended and by using it you can go from broke to Anaconda in less than a day.

I didn't both with the Passenger delivery exploits or the as planned Void Opals because credits become meaningless to me around 3years ago.

..... Well then you don't really have a dog in this race, do you? It's meaningless to you because you already have everything you need and you never really worked for any of it anyway. Money means nothing to the rich and everything to those who have to work for it.

Or more on point, if you play a video game and cheat your way to the top, whether it be lvls, items, skills, currency....it's not satisfying. Elite Dangerous developers want you to be satisfied with their game. Funny that.

So pretending that killing one exploit that would actually make Player Bounty Hunting viable, is just comical.

But you do refer to it as an exploit. So you know it's wrong or not working as intended. The problem is you just don't care what it does to the game.

 

[00nutzy]

Considering the whole community is the correct way to develop a game like this, but the PvP/Open community have been starved of improvements for a long while. What's worse is that Fdev have frequently talked about coming improvements with things like Powerplay and Piracy etc but have never acted upon them. So people are justified at being pi**ed at them to be honest, they're all talk, no action.



People who complain usually don't hate the game, otherwise they wouldn't bother saying anything, I don't know about anybody else but I don't waste my time with games I hate. They just dislike the design philosophies of Frontier and the direction they have taken with Elite. There's been a very clear pattern since 2016 of marginalizing the once thriving PvP community, and not giving PvP-centric features any priority. You could argue that the scaling back of grind for engineering was an improvement, but ultimately that helped everyone so shouldn't be counted.

PvP'ers generally see the great potential Elite has/had to be a hugely successful open-world game, but get frustrated to see Frontier squander that potential through bad design decisions and their politically correct obsession with wrapping their playerbase up in cotton wool.

The game was designed with the express purpose of solo/pg/open. It was not intended to be PvP only or open only. The game was not designed to be that game.
Trying to improve a game because you like it is a great thing however trying to change what the game is doesnt fit.
Then calling FDev horrible game makers when they wont give you what you want when in fact if you knew what the game was when you bought it you are just as culpable as anyone.
It was never hidden that everyone affects everyone else it was never hidden that solo would affect the entire game. To claim the developers are the reason for you to gank and kill newbs is a flat out copout. You do it because you want to period. If you didn't want to you wouldn't do it or are you so totally unable to control yourself that you have none.
(by you I am referring to those that are trying to blame FDev for their actions)
Just own up to it there is no shame in enjoying what you do in the game.

The hand grenades thrown about in relation to open and power play were just possible ideas nothing was hidden about it only being an idea, and as far as I know they are still kicking all that around.
Piracy needs love, bounty hunting needs love: however, the actions of some of the PvPers make those things very difficult to implement due to the nature of the player base. You may not like the non PvPers but they are a big part of the player base you have to live with it just like they have to live with you. (editorial you)

 

[Lateralus]

The game was designed with the express purpose of solo/pg/open. It was not intended to be PvP only or open only. The game was not designed to be that game.

I have not said it should be open only anywhere in this thread.

Trying to improve a game because you like it is a great thing however trying to change what the game is doesnt fit.

What does this mean? My suggestions are to improve the game for players who enjoy the open environment and player interaction. While at the same time having a minimal impact on solo/PG players.

Then calling FDev horrible game makers when they wont give you what you want when in fact if you knew what the game was when you bought it you are just as culpable as anyone.

Where have I called Fdev horrible game makers? Have you got room for all these strawmen you're making?

It was never hidden that everyone affects everyone else it was never hidden that solo would affect the entire game. To claim the developers are the reason for you to gank and kill newbs is a flat out copout. You do it because you want to period. If you didn't want to you wouldn't do it or are you so totally unable to control yourself that you have none.
(by you I am referring to those that are trying to blame FDev for their actions)
Just own up to it there is no shame in enjoying what you do in the game.

Lack of activities for PvP players to do results in an increase of ganking. This is a common held opinion among players who've been pvping in this game for 5 years, many of those who say this used to be part of rp groups and just turned away from that because it didn't work out. If you think this is not correct then you're going to have to back up your statements with some evidence because I have done already.

The hand grenades thrown about in relation to open and power play were just possible ideas nothing was hidden about it only being an idea, and as far as I know they are still kicking all that around.

They've been talking about improving Powerplay and piracy for 3 years with nothing done thus far, forgive us for getting impatient. Fdev's concept to realisation pipelines are some of the slowest I've ever seen. It's not surprising that a lot of us think they've just binned the idea, because they never say anything definitive.

Piracy needs love, bounty hunting needs love: however, the actions of some of the PvPers make those things very difficult to implement due to the nature of the player base.

How so? If Fdev take a line of deliberately not developing certain areas of the game to punish a small minority of the community, then that's a pretty negative and toxic way to work. I seriously doubt this is the case, as it would be hugely unprofessional.

You may not like the non PvPers but they are a big part of the player base you have to live with it just like they have to live with you. (editorial you)

Strawman number 3 - I don't have an issue with PvE players at all, in fact my playstyle (piracy) requires they be in the game, also there are plenty of PvE players I have a lot of respect for because they have a healthy, non-salty attitude towards open.

I just wish Frontier would CONSIDER the PvP playerbase more in certain areas of the game, namely Powerplay, Piracy & Bounty Hunting.

 

[CMDR Slee Piboi]

Player A says to player B, "Destroy my ship, take the 100 million, it's okay I have loads of credits"

Player B does so, skips to one of the endgame ships and buys a lovely Anaconda.

So now we would have someone flying an Anaconda when it would've taken them a day more mining VO/painite. IDK if that's really anything worth worrying about.

I don't even remember what the exact bounty cap is because it was something totally not worth pursuing. 2mil? That doesn't even get you a 6C bi-weave shield generator. Should just uncap the damn thing and see what happens. I bet inflation won't be any worse than what it already is. But it might make a few players pick up the bounty hunter profession which might make life more interesting for both sides of the equation.

And since everyone needs one moneymaker, significant bounties would actually make chasing criminals a worthwhile alternative to mining for those who are combat- oriented in their playstyle. I know killing NPCs by the hundreds sure isn't it, and neither is chasing a hundred human players reliably to rebuy screen, when compared to sitting in a T9 for an hour, chipping away Painite.

Player A thinks, "Oh hey, I could totally charge people on the side for quick in game credits".

Boom, easy credit buying is in the game now.

Send me a buck, I'll jettison a few VO canisters and here we have easy credits buying.

 

[00nutzy]

I have not said it should be open only anywhere in this thread.



What does this mean? My suggestions are to improve the game for players who enjoy the open environment and player interaction. While at the same time having a minimal impact on solo/PG players.



Where have I called Fdev horrible game makers? Have you got room for all these strawmen you're making?



Lack of activities for PvP players to do results in an increase of ganking. This is a common held opinion among players who've been pvping in this game for 5 years, many of those who say this used to be part of rp groups and just turned away from that because it didn't work out. If you think this is not correct then you're going to have to back up your statements with some evidence because I have done already.



They've been talking about improving Powerplay and piracy for 3 years with nothing done thus far, forgive us for getting impatient. Fdev's concept to realisation pipelines are some of the slowest I've ever seen. It's not surprising that a lot of us think they've just binned the idea, because they never say anything definitive.



How so? If Fdev take a line of deliberately not developing certain areas of the game to punish a small minority of the community, then that's a pretty negative and toxic way to work. I seriously doubt this is the case, as it would be hugely unprofessional.



Strawman number 3 - I don't have an issue with PvE players at all, in fact my playstyle (piracy) requires they be in the game, also there are plenty of PvE players I have a lot of respect for because they have a healthy, non-salty attitude towards open.

I just wish Frontier would CONSIDER the PvP playerbase more in certain areas of the game, namely Powerplay, Piracy & Bounty Hunting.

Why are you taking this personally?
I have stated the You is the editorial You and is directed at those players who are claiming that FDev is responsible for them ganking, an action that they say they do not like. That is dishonest period.
FDev is not making you play the game, they are not making you gank other players thats on you and you alone.
(Before you get all het up about it that is still the editorial you)
You are saying they are inept or bad at the game because you say they are making you do it (still the editorial you)
And that is a lode of excrement.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to do that in a game that allows it (this one for instance) so why do you (editorial) need to justify your (again editorial) actions?

As far as you personally (not the editorial in this case) you may not feel these things but others by their attitudes and posts certainly push that point. You I dont know at all just some loudmouth on the internet just like me.

You want more for PvPers, so do I even though I suck at it, im trying to get better. The ideas for Power Play while certainly a hot topic at the time did not go far enough and I am not sure there is any easy way to make the changes that so many seem to want or even if it would be enough to make them (editorial again) happy.

The world if full of laws to punish the minority of bad actors that affects everyone not just the bad actors, If that is not apparent I envy where you live. Games are no exception.

Many of the changes to the game have been made due to explotation by the players including the "Evil" cap on bounties and the merit issues with player on player kills. Frontier are not by a long shot the only game company that makes changes like that.

The filter referenced in the graphic fails on the main function of a filter they dont add things that were not there in the first place. Saying FDev are responsible for the ganking is a flat out lie, they are not sitting behind you holding a gun to your head (again editorial you) telling you to gank that newb, that is on you (editorial).

 

[Lateralus]

Why are you taking this personally?

I'm not taking anything personally, I'm simply responding to your statements which were in direct reply to mine, that's ok right?

I have stated the You is the editorial You and is directed at those players who are claiming that FDev is responsible for them ganking, an action that they say they do not like. That is dishonest period.

No it's not, its backed up by 5 years of evidence.

FDev is not making you play the game, they are not making you gank other players thats on you and you alone.
(Before you get all het up about it that is still the editorial you)

Sure, but we're talking about macro-trends here, not the single actions of individuals. What drives player trends in games? The design.

You are saying they are inept or bad at the game because you say they are making you do it (still the editorial you)
And that is a lode of excrement.

Again no, I'm saying their design philosophies limit the potential for meaningful PvP and encourage meaningless, low-effort PvP, which in a lot of cases is ganking.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to do that in a game that allows it (this one for instance) so why do you (editorial) need to justify your (again editorial) actions?

I'm not trying to justify anything, I'd just prefer PvP in Elite was more centered around end goals and RP -or- competitive arena-style engagements with leagues and stuff. I'm not saying ganking needs justifying or shouldn't be allowed or anything like that. Players can do what they like.

As far as you personally (not the editorial in this case) you may not feel these things but others by their attitudes and posts certainly push that point. You I dont know at all just some loudmouth on the internet just like me.

I'm not really sure what this is about, everyone expresses their opinions on a forum... that's the whole point right? Would you prefer I shut up?

You want more for PvPers, so do I even though I suck at it, im trying to get better. The ideas for Power Play while certainly a hot topic at the time did not go far enough and I am not sure there is any easy way to make the changes that so many seem to want or even if it would be enough to make them (editorial again) happy.

So if something's hard to do it's not worth doing? You never get anywhere thinking like that.

The world if full of laws to punish the minority of bad actors that affects everyone not just the bad actors, If that is not apparent I envy where you live. Games are no exception.

Well I don't get punished when someone else commits a crime where I live, I'm sorry if that's common where you are.

Many of the changes to the game have been made due to explotation by the players including the "Evil" cap on bounties and the merit issues with player on player kills. Frontier are not by a long shot the only game company that makes changes like that.

Capping is a low-effort, low-thought way of dealing with exploitation that throws the baby out with the bathwater. There are ways to get round it with design creativity. The rebuy cut idea I proposed is one way to do it, have a look: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-get-a-cut-of-their-kills-rebuy-value.332637/

The filter referenced in the graphic fails on the main function of a filter they dont add things that were not there in the first place. Saying FDev are responsible for the ganking is a flat out lie, they are not sitting behind you holding a gun to your head (again editorial you) telling you to gank that newb, that is on you (editorial).

I don't think you understand the concept of a filter... A filter removes certain aspects from a collective mass, leaving you with a reduced or purified mass. That mass in this case is the PvP player base - the filter removes RP players from the collective and leaves you with gankers.

 

[Wargfoot]

Again no, I'm saying their design philosophies limit the potential for meaningful PvP and encourage meaningless, low-effort PvP, which in a lot of cases is ganking.

Again, I agree with much of what you write but this one sentence is silly.

You seem to be saying that these gankers want meaningful, substantive, challenging PvP and since the PvP alternatives available in Elite Dangerous don't scratch that itch they down shift to the least challenging, least engaging, and least profitable form of PvP available.

That literally makes no sense.

I think YOU want meaningful PvP (1), whatever you imagine that to be, but I think you fail to understand that the vast majority of gankers actually see squashing noobs as the only end game in which they're interested. Many of them will give you the "but I've got nothing meaningful to do" line but that is marketing. People who are actually about meaningful PvP either create their own (Loren's Reapers do this in Colonia) or they go find a game that has meaningful PvP.

A ganker who logs onto ED every day and spends 3 hrs squashing noobs in Deciat is doing that because that is what she enjoys.
FDev cannot create a PvP arena, or goal, or meta game that would appeal to that person as she has already found her nirvana.

Yes, I understand that YOU want some sort of meaningful PvP (and good for you) but what you want is not what most gankers are seeking.



NOTES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Whatever that is - I'm sure I don't know.

 

[Sethiest]

So now we would have someone flying an Anaconda when it would've taken them a day more mining VO/painite. IDK if that's really anything worth worrying about.

I don't even remember what the exact bounty cap is because it was something totally not worth pursuing. 2mil? That doesn't even get you a 6C bi-weave shield generator. Should just uncap the damn thing and see what happens.

But we saw what happened. It's why it got capped in the first place. And not pursuing money wise. I still do it for the fun of trying to catch baddies.

And since everyone needs one moneymaker, significant bounties would actually make chasing criminals a worthwhile alternative to mining for those who are combat- oriented in their playstyle. I know killing NPCs by the hundreds sure isn't it, and neither is chasing a hundred human players reliably to rebuy screen, when compared to sitting in a T9 for an hour, chipping away Painite.

Its hard work bounty hunting as theres a lot agaisnt you, but I do like it regardless. The payout is bad, i never said 2mil is fantastic, I suggested that uncapped bounties resulted in what FDev didn't intend for.

Send me a buck, I'll jettison a few VO canisters and here we have easy credits buying.

This is already a thing. But it's way more complicated and annoying to pull off. How are you going to drop 1bil worth of void opals to a player who only just bought a cobra or hauler or something. Even with collecters that'll take ages.

 

[JonesTheFilm]

I'll start with my usual disclaimer. I'm not a PvPer in ED. I'm not much of a PvPer at all but I have been in the past - racing games like Gran Turismo, shooting games like CoD & Battlefield - but at the moment the only game I play regularly where I'm exposed to PvP is Red Dead Online. The Elite games were always a solo experience and that's the way I like to play them, even though the latest iteration has a multiplayer option. Great if people want it, but personally I don't use it.

This kind of thread isn't at all unusual. There's a massive rift between PvPers and non-PvPers in this game, I think we all know that. The number of threads I've seen in my few years on this forum about ganking & griefing. combat logging, open-only-this-that-or-the-other, are too many to recall.

I think, in a way, the problem boils down to FDev's love for 'realism'. In particular one thing that I've always thought was an odd idea for a game like this. The rebuy. It's kind of realistic in the sense that it's insurance with an 'excess' to pay just like a lot of RL insurance. Nice idea maybe for an RPG, but for an MMO it has serious consequences for PvP gameplay.

ED's biggest problem with PvP is that the consequences for anyone losing a PvP encounter can be huge, and that becomes an even bigger problem if the PvP is non-consensual. Yeah, I know, I know, now all the PvP supporters are shouting "It's called Elite DANGEROUS!". Yes, it is, and that phrase is often rolled out in these arguments, but it doesn't change the fact that the unusually high risk of PvP in this game affects players behaviour - on both sides of the argument - so maybe it's something that does need to be addressed.

If I lose PvP in GranTurismo there's nothing hurt but my pride. If I get killed in a multiplayer FPS game, I usually wait a few seconds and respawn, no big deal. Even in Red Dead Online (which is probably the most relevant example here), there's a PvP toggle so if I get shot by a griefer while in non-PvP mode what happens? I just respawn some distance away... plus I have the option to 'press charges' and increase the griefer's bounty level. I don't lose any money, I don't lose any items, the most annoying thing is if the griefer 'kills' my horse then I have to call up the temporary 'Scrawny Nag' and ride to a stable to collect my healed horse. Even then if it's non-consensual the griefer has to pay the 'vet bill' to revive the horse, which in other cases would be my cost. However in the single player version of Red Dead Redemption - the story mode - character death results in a percentage loss of money, which increases in steps if you get killed again within a certain time limit, so it can be very costly. Horse death in single player is worse, if your horse dies in story mode it's dead, that's it, buy a new horse.

I honestly think FDev should take a look at the Read Dead approach to loss in both single and multiplayer. It seems the more sensible way to do it. If losing your spaceship in ED wasn't such a big thing I think a lot more people would be interested in PvP and Open mode in general. I'm not saying get rid of the rebuy entirely... just remove it from Open, keep it in Solo, hey maybe even go hardcore like Red Dead and make Solo mode seriously Dangerous.

 

[Bigmaec]

I'll start with my usual disclaimer. I'm not a PvPer in ED. I'm not much of a PvPer at all but I have been in the past - racing games like Gran Turismo, shooting games like CoD & Battlefield - but at the moment the only game I play regularly where I'm exposed to PvP is Red Dead Online. The Elite games were always a solo experience and that's the way I like to play them, even though the latest iteration has a multiplayer option. Great if people want it, but personally I don't use it.

This kind of thread isn't at all unusual. There's a massive rift between PvPers and non-PvPers in this game, I think we all know that. The number of threads I've seen in my few years on this forum about ganking & griefing. combat logging, open-only-this-that-or-the-other, are too many to recall.

I think, in a way, the problem boils down to FDev's love for 'realism'. In particular one thing that I've always thought was an odd idea for a game like this. The rebuy. It's kind of realistic in the sense that it's insurance with an 'excess' to pay just like a lot of RL insurance. Nice idea maybe for an RPG, but for an MMO it has serious consequences for PvP gameplay.

ED's biggest problem with PvP is that the consequences for anyone losing a PvP encounter can be huge, and that becomes an even bigger problem if the PvP is non-consensual. Yeah, I know, I know, now all the PvP supporters are shouting "It's called Elite DANGEROUS!". Yes, it is, and that phrase is often rolled out in these arguments, but it doesn't change the fact that the unusually high risk of PvP in this game affects players behaviour - on both sides of the argument - so maybe it's something that does need to be addressed.

If I lose PvP in GranTurismo there's nothing hurt but my pride. If I get killed in a multiplayer FPS game, I usually wait a few seconds and respawn, no big deal. Even in Red Dead Online (which is probably the most relevant example here), there's a PvP toggle so if I get shot by a griefer while in non-PvP mode what happens? I just respawn some distance away... plus I have the option to 'press charges' and increase the griefer's bounty level. I don't lose any money, I don't lose any items, the most annoying thing is if the griefer 'kills' my horse then I have to call up the temporary 'Scrawny Nag' and ride to a stable to collect my healed horse. Even then if it's non-consensual the griefer has to pay the 'vet bill' to revive the horse, which in other cases would be my cost. However in the single player version of Red Dead Redemption - the story mode - character death results in a percentage loss of money, which increases in steps if you get killed again within a certain time limit, so it can be very costly. Horse death in single player is worse, if your horse dies in story mode it's dead, that's it, buy a new horse.

I honestly think FDev should take a look at the Read Dead approach to loss in both single and multiplayer. It seems the more sensible way to do it. If losing your spaceship in ED wasn't such a big thing I think a lot more people would be interested in PvP and Open mode in general. I'm not saying get rid of the rebuy entirely... just remove it from Open, keep it in Solo, hey maybe even go hardcore like Red Dead and make Solo mode seriously Dangerous.

Except the consequences aren't there if you invest a modicum of build expertise.
Even explorers who have the most to lose can build fundamentally ungankable ships with the loss of only some light years range.
Traders can be made ungankable even more. People just don't do it...

 

[Morbad]

ED's biggest problem with PvP is that the consequences for anyone losing a PvP encounter can be huge

No, not really.

Anything you can lose in a PvP encounter, you can lose in a non-PvP encounter. I also don't consider consequences for mistakes that lead to ship loss, through any legitimate means, to be a problem.

that becomes an even bigger problem if the PvP is non-consensual.

I don't agree with that either.

If I lose PvP in GranTurismo there's nothing hurt but my pride. If I get killed in a multiplayer FPS game, I usually wait a few seconds and respawn, no big deal. Even in Red Dead Online (which is probably the most relevant example here), there's a PvP toggle so if I get shot by a griefer while in non-PvP mode what happens? I just respawn some distance away... plus I have the option to 'press charges' and increase the griefer's bounty level. I don't lose any money, I don't lose any items, the most annoying thing is if the griefer 'kills' my horse then I have to call up the temporary 'Scrawny Nag' and ride to a stable to collect my healed horse. Even then if it's non-consensual the griefer has to pay the 'vet bill' to revive the horse, which in other cases would be my cost. However in the single player version of Red Dead Redemption - the story mode - character death results in a percentage loss of money, which increases in steps if you get killed again within a certain time limit, so it can be very costly. Horse death in single player is worse, if your horse dies in story mode it's dead, that's it, buy a new horse.

In Jumpgate, losing your ship meant ejecting and starting in a starter ship at a station. You didn't get your old ship back, though you got a percentage of it's value back based on your insurance rating, which went down the more frequently you needed to use it...I knew some people that were only getting half the value of their ship back. You then had to either have parts stored, or you needed to track down and rebuy everything, perhaps even having to go through the steps to make it if stock wasn't available. You also didn't get back any special/unique equipment at all; pre-collapse artifacts (the equivalent of Engineered modules) and the like were just gone. PvP was also even more unrestricted than in ED...no modes, no separate instances, no way to block anyone, and no easy way to log off or disconnect to cheese one's way out of consequences...no equivalent to high or low wakes either, except at the jumpgates leading to and from systems, which could be dozens of minutes of travel away.

In Shadowbane, outside a few small newbie zones, you could be attacked and killed anywhere at any time, by any number of hostile player characters, of any level. You also dropped everything in your inventory and anyone could immediately loot it; there was even a chance of some equipped gear staying behind.

These games were almost to the level of consequence I'd prefer.

If losing your spaceship in ED wasn't such a big thing I think a lot more people would be interested in PvP and Open mode in general. I'm not saying get rid of the rebuy entirely... just remove it from Open, keep it in Solo, hey maybe even go hardcore like Red Dead and make Solo mode seriously Dangerous.

You can already opt out of consequences in PvP. If you want a rebuy free experience, organize a fight with some acquaintances with some rules that make ship loss unlikely.

It's far easier to set limits this way, for those that would prefer limits, than it is to remove limits intrinsic to the underlying game mechanism.

Forced consequence free PvP makes practical, organic motives, indeed any motive beyond sport, impossible. Without the ability to inflict loss or suffer attrition, there can be no long lasting victory, no deterrent.

 

[Lateralus]

Again, I agree with much of what you write but this one sentence is silly.

You seem to be saying that these gankers want meaningful, substantive, challenging PvP and since the PvP alternatives available in Elite Dangerous don't scratch that itch they down shift to the least challenging, least engaging, and least profitable form of PvP available.

That literally makes no sense.

I think YOU want meaningful PvP (1), whatever you imagine that to be, but I think you fail to understand that the vast majority of gankers actually see squashing noobs as the only end game in which they're interested. Many of them will give you the "but I've got nothing meaningful to do" line but that is marketing. People who are actually about meaningful PvP either create their own (Loren's Reapers do this in Colonia) or they go find a game that has meaningful PvP.

A ganker who logs onto ED every day and spends 3 hrs squashing noobs in Deciat is doing that because that is what she enjoys.
FDev cannot create a PvP arena, or goal, or meta game that would appeal to that person as she has already found her nirvana.

Yes, I understand that YOU want some sort of meaningful PvP (and good for you) but what you want is not what most gankers are seeking.

I'm merely relaying back what many high profile PvP players have said over the last few years. And as I've also said many times in this thread now, I've backed up my findings with evidence and examples - all the people saying I'm wrong have failed to do that, they've just provided their personal thoughts on the motivations of gankers, which does not disprove anything I've said.

 

[00nutzy]

Sorry latarulus but your 5 years in Elite dangerous count as nothing when looking at the gaming industry trends from way back to the MUD games through BBS long before the internet is what it is today. Even in the old Pen and Paper games. Always things are taken away from the majority due to the actions of a few, its not likely to change anytime soon.
You (this is the direct one just in case you cant tell) seem to be saying that FDev is making the non inclined gankers to become gankers and that can be proven wrong by the people who dont become gankers even though they deal with the same issues, so that 5 years of evidence negates the evidence saying they are forced to do so.
What makes people gank is they want to gank, for whatever reason they get a kick out of it. No judgement, there is no reason to judge or hold some illusion of higher ground.
People play the way the want or they dont play.
There is nothing wrong with playing the way a person wants to play, any time justification is sought out it must be because the player feels the need to justify their actions so they must feel it is in some way wrong, but its not.
Its a game its a way to have fun and pass time, why do you or anybody else feel the need to justify ingame actions, there is no need.
Stop searching for scapegoats there is no need to find one.

 

[Powderpanic]

It has been said by many great and no longer with us Cmdr's, that the best time of Elite was just after launch.
When the exploits were mostly unknown but to a few and no one knew about high waking. Actions had consequences.

Everything carried a risk for both sides of the engagement. Where a trade conda with guns, was just as dangerous as a pirate python.
Most people ran around in Combat Asps and the Clipper was the alpha PVP ship because few could afford a Python. Vipers, Cobras had a place.
And not a sniff of the stupid release that was engineering.

If you weren't there you cannot comment on it, but know that you really missed the best Elite had to offer. This is where a lot of want of change stems from. It worked until the exploits and some insanely broken game mechanics became known. Player groups were dropping content as you wouldn't believe and the community wasn't the toxic mess it is today.

The core systems were buzzing, people feared having a wanted tag, as it opened you up to attack and the level of screeching about non-consensual PVP was almost non-existent. If FDEV had built on that, the game would have been magnificent today. We almost thought we had it with Power Play...Until Powerplay launched...

Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing

 

[Havvk]

It has been said by many great and no longer with us Cmdr's, that the best time of Elite was just after launch.
When the exploits were mostly unknown but to a few and no one knew about high waking. Actions had consequences.

Everything carried a risk for both sides of the engagement. Where a trade conda with guns, was just as dangerous as a pirate python.
Most people ran around in Combat Asps and the Clipper was the alpha PVP ship because few could afford a Python. Vipers, Cobras had a place.
And not a sniff of the stupid release that was engineering.

If you weren't there you cannot comment on it, but know that you really missed the best Elite had to offer. This is where a lot of want of change stems from. It worked until the exploits and some insanely broken game mechanics became known. Player groups were dropping content as you wouldn't believe and the community wasn't the toxic mess it is today.

The core systems were buzzing, people feared having a wanted tag, as it opened you up to attack and the level of screeching about non-consensual PVP was almost non-existent. If FDEV had built on that, the game would have been magnificent today. We almost thought we had it with Power Play...Until Powerplay launched...

Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing

Nah. I like my engineering, as 70+ lyr jumps wouldn't be possible. Adapt or get left behind yo, pre-engineer elite was crap tbh.

 

[Screemonster]

Nah. I like my engineering, as 70+ lyr jumps wouldn't be possible. Adapt or get left behind yo, pre-engineer elite was crap tbh.

Engineering is generally neat and allows for varied builds, the main thing that makes engineering a problem for PvP is defensive bloat, particularly to shields. The fact that a combat ship can be made so it will not only beat a noncombat ship, but is completely untouchable by a noncombat ship, skews things to a huge degree.
Like, people can gank in shinrarta with impunity because their defensive bloat allows them to just ignore the cops until ATR shows up, and if their targets are fitted for anything other than combat, they aren't equipped with the same kind of insane defensive stacking.
Engineered weapons, barring a few experimental effects, haven't powercrept to anywhere near the degree that shields/boosters/hrps have.

 

[Havvk]

Engineering is generally neat and allows for varied builds, the main thing that makes engineering a problem for PvP is defensive bloat, particularly to shields. The fact that a combat ship can be made so it will not only beat a noncombat ship, but is completely untouchable by a noncombat ship, skews things to a huge degree.
Like, people can gank in shinrarta with impunity because their defensive bloat allows them to just ignore the cops until ATR shows up, and if their targets are fitted for anything other than combat, they aren't equipped with the same kind of insane defensive stacking.
Engineered weapons, barring a few experimental effects, haven't powercrept to anywhere near the degree that shields/boosters/hrps have.

Rails and plasma accelerators then, just takes an extra minute so what? We're flying ships that are up to the size of actual football fields, what the hell makes you think that fights should be quick like 2 biplanes dogfighting?

 

[Screemonster]

Rails and plasma accelerators then, just takes an extra minute so what? We're flying ships that are up to the size of actual football fields, what the hell makes you think that fights should be quick like 2 biplanes dogfighting?

what the hell makes you think that narrowing the entire field of weapons down to only two remotely viable ones is even close to fun or balanced?

 

[CMDR Slee Piboi]

But we saw what happened. It's why it got capped in the first place. And not pursuing money wise. I still do it for the fun of trying to catch baddies.

But that's the thing. Nowadays money doesn't mean a thing, so all the cap does is make BH unprofitable. It's a calling but not a viable line of work in the ED universe.

Edit to clarify: If money doesn't mean a thing, then why does profitability matter? Because everyone needs at least one moneymaker and the current options are heavily biased against combat. I would perhaps enjoy bounty hunting as an alternative to VO/painite mining for the occasional need to make a quick couple of hundred million credits.

How are you going to drop 1bil worth of void opals to a player who only just bought a cobra or hauler or something. Even with collecters that'll take ages.

You don't have to. Drop 10 units of VO to a newbie and they get on the hockeystick curve of earning where they'll never have to look at another Cobra or Hauler ever.

There is no need to donate a billion when anyone can make their own in a day.

It's just a matter of getting past the initial million or two and then -- poof -- money quickly becomes a no-thing.

 

[Havvk]

what the hell makes you think that narrowing the entire field of weapons down to only two remotely viable ones is even close to fun or balanced?

Because that's how you rock paper scissors.

If you want everything to be the same, go play CQC.