Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
I’m not usually one for shooting players who won’t give me a good fight, but I also have zero sympathy for paper plane pilots in open play.

Direct actions against other players = Player vs Player
If they want to fly their carebear ships in Open, I am only too happy to send them on their way back to Solo.
 
I'm still full of awe that even some of the more honorable PvP veterans consider this shoot-the-lemmings event as actual PvP. This nonsense is more and more turning into ED's very own variant of Karneval. :p

What it actually has in common with Karneval is that it's really not easy to find the original thought(s) behind it. Meanwhile I've learned what it is - in case of Karneval (believe it or not, it's born out of necessity!). But Distant Ganks still leaves me in the dark. I'd really like to laugh about this mental mass monstrosity, if only I would get the joke. [where is it]

Hey, I'm on top of page 42. Guess that means I've already found the answer.

And then I found this post from Jason Barron, incidentally it's post #42 in its original thread:

I just wanna thank you for the gif of Jason you posted doing his all-American victory dance. There's just no end to the guy's talents. Cooking, dancing, ganking... the fella's a Renaissance Man! ;)
 
Last edited:
If they want to fly their carebear ships in Open, I am only too happy to send them on their way back to Solo.
Also @Cknarf and a few other spirits in mind:

And you really don't think this sounds just a little bit... self-righteous? Mimicking always feels so safe and comfortable when doing it in a group of sympathizers, doesn't it. Just don't confuse this behavior with "personality".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m not sure I understand.

I’m a seasoned PvP pilot who knows how things work in open play. I was once a paper plane pilot myself, and even my combat ships were built to PvE standards. I could survive players in those, sure. But I didnt just want to survive, I wanted to fight them.

So I built my ships proper, and did just that. Now I’m confident I can take on just about anyone on the platform I play on, and have at least an 50-50 chance at coming out on top, even against the best pilots around.

My trade and exploration ships? Virtually unkillable as well.

Its difficult for me to feel bad for people who take poorly built ships into open play, then complain about being destroyed, especially when there are two other game modes where they can avoid this fate entirely.
 
Its difficult for me to feel bad for people who take poorly built ships into open play, then complain about being destroyed, especially when there are two other game modes where they can avoid this fate entirely.
Engineered for maximum jump range does not equate to "poorly built". Not every pilot is combat obsessed. Some might think going after unarmed easily destroyed ships to be beneath them, especially if they are indeed worthy and capable fighters, but I have got used to these intemperate outbursts now, as well as the lack of honor in those spouting them.
 
If you have exactly zero chance to survive an attack from another player, your ship is poorly built for survival in open play. That’s a simple fact, as evidenced by the countless complaint threads, and videos of ships being destroyed by little more than a scrape, or a single volley of fire.

And it’s not about being combat obsessed, you don’t have to be a PvP hotshot with maxed out defense stats to have a competently built ship. You just have to build long enough to survive an attack, which is hardly a feat if you can spare a few lightyears of range.

Imagine you’re in a deep hole. You can’t climb out with your bare hands, but luckily for you, you have other options.

A lift labeled Private Group/Solo play

A ladder labeled Engineering

The first offers you a zero-effort solution to your problem. Hit the button, and you’re on your way to safety.

The second takes a bit more time, but is more rewarding once you reach the top. You are now free of the hole, and stronger because of it.

Your third option is to decline both of those, and remain at the bottom of the hole, doing nothing to improve your situation. You can complain all you want, but nothing is going to change for you— unless you step on the lift, or grab hold of the ladder. Thankfully, these options will always be available to you.

You’re only stuck in the hole for as long as you wish to be.
 
I don't know, this whole argument always seems like people are upsay at say, that some people drive in a long range vehicle on a road, rather then going in a slower four wheel drive with survival gear.
People use the setups they use, because those setups fit the task they are aiming to go out for. There is no reason why they should do something else simply because others feel they should.

In this case it would be like explorers making fun of people that come to attack them because of their low jump ranges.

It is, silly at best, in my book to keep using this as an excuse.

If people simply want to hunt down and disrupt what other players are doing, because that is what they find to be fun, then admit to that.
Rather then the long line of various excuses with testing things, or doing it for their own sake, or to teach people a lesson about going unarmed, or for that matter that others are doing something wrong in your eyes by having those setups.
 
Last edited:
Just trying to help people have a better experience.

If traveling 20,000ly, just to get blown up and sent home is your thing, then by all means, go for it.

Just don’t act as if there aren’t ways to avoid it.
 
Last edited:
I don't know, this whole argument always seems like people are upsay at say, that some people drive in a long range vehicle on a road, rather then going in a slower four wheel drive with survival gear.
Open in ED is not at all like a public road. At any active spot it's more like a monster truck destruction derby (even if people wish it were otherwise). Showing up in a Vespa because it's fuel efficient is unwise.

(I'll note outside hotspots, open is mostly like solo, which is unlike a road at all (where one is likely to encounter people), and instead like some huge incredibly deserted empty stretch of land with some sightseeing points, ghost towns, etc)


If people simply want to hunt down and disrupt what other players are doing, because that is what they find to be fun, then admit to that.
We definitely do it primarily for fun, and a few other supporting reasons. It's a video game, so of course the major motivating factor is fun.


In this case it would be like explorers making fun of people that come to attack them because of their low jump ranges.
Generally the ridicule is not about our builds but instead armchair psychology nonsense.
 
Last edited:
...
We definitely do it primarily for fun, and a few other supporting reasons. It's a video game, so of course the major motivating factor is fun.
I could live with that interpretation if I only could get where the fun in this sort of activity would be. That's indeed something the "armchair psychologist" in me only can shake his head about in disbelief. But then I also could ask why little boys have lots of fun making knots into earthworms...

Note, I'm in no way defending this other nonsense of flying paperships in Open and then whining when this lottery goes downhill, just to be clear. But when in doubt, and weighing both nonsense against each other, I would say the nonsense that you defend is still a lot bigger.
 
Last edited:
I don't know, this whole argument always seems like people are upsay at say, that some people drive in a long range vehicle on a road, rather then going in a slower four wheel drive with survival gear.
People use the setups they use, because those setups fit the task they are aiming to go out for. There is no reason why they should do something else simply because others feel they should.
The threats one could reasonably encounter on major public roads, where help is usually not far away, may not mandate an off-road vehicle or survival gear, but omission of such gear/vehicles on a trek through areas with less infrastructure, more wilderness, harsher climates, or unhelpful people, would absolutely not 'fit the task'. A drive from Warsaw to Ulaanbaatar, or Tunis to Cape Town, is going to take different considerations than a drive from New York to San Francisco, or Lisbon to Prague. And on any of these trips, the speed and fuel efficiency of the vehicle is rarely going to be the prime consideration.

Same premises apply to Elite. The right tool for the job is the one that does what it's intended to do, despite the obstacles one encounters.

In this case it would be like explorers making fun of people that come to attack them because of their low jump ranges.
The difference is that low jump range is barely even an inconvenience on DW2. It's mostly through high stellar density parts of the galaxy and proceeds at a positively glacial pace. You could get by with single digit ly jump ranges for the first 90% of the trip.

Hostile ships, in Open, at way stations along a publicly declared, guided tour, that is seeing significant traffic, far from any legal jurisdiction, is eminently foreseeable. The decision to cripple the defensive and escape capabilities of one's ship in order to shave off 5-10% of the total number of jumps on a tour of such a pace is highly unsound, especially for the less experienced.

It is, silly at best, in my book to keep using this as an excuse.

If people simply want to hunt down and disrupt what other players are doing, because that is what they find to be fun, then admit to that.
Rather then the long line of various excuses with testing things, or doing it for their own sake, or to teach people a lesson about going unarmed, or for that matter that others are doing something wrong in your eyes by having those setups.
No one needs an excuse to do what they do and the ultimate arbiter of whose loadout was superior is how successful that loadout was in achieving the task at hand. Most of the ships lost on DW2 could have used some improvements.

I could live with that interpretation if I only could get where the fun in this sort of activity would be.
There is no accounting for taste and not sharing in it doesn't mean it's not legitimate.

Of course, subjective opinions of legitimacy are entirely irrelevant if someone else's tastes become an obstacle. At that point it's not the why that matters, just the how.
 
Last edited:
...
There is no accounting for taste and not sharing in it doesn't mean it's not legitimate.

Of course, subjective opinions of legitimacy are entirely irrelevant if someone else's tastes become an obstacle. At that point it's not the why that matters, just the how.
In case you haven't realized and since you start about tastes now... I wasn't talking about legitimation, rather my opinion about a restaurant that I'm never going to enter and why. From far outside and mainly cause I deeply dislike the meals being dished out there. Have fun under like-minded but don't whine when your food chain will become very limited and less soft in a foreseeable future. :D
 
Open in ED is not at all like a public road. At any active spot it's more like a monster truck destruction derby (even if people wish it were otherwise). Showing up in a Vespa because it's fuel efficient is unwise.

(I'll note outside hotspots, open is mostly like solo, which is unlike a road at all (where one is likely to encounter people), and instead like some huge incredibly deserted empty stretch of land with some sightseeing points, ghost towns, etc)
Open is 'public' everything, road, desert, offroad, water terrain, that at least is how i view open. It contains everything, and is why I use that comparison.

And those that plan to take the road to a destination, are not planning for offroad, or for water, or for anything else that they normally would not encounter, they plan and make their setup for the 99.9% of the things that happen.
We definitely do it primarily for fun, and a few other supporting reasons. It's a video game, so of course the major motivating factor is fun.
Looking over the many threads on this topic, many seem to use the other excuses mentioned, obviously I can make no statement about everyone, but it is in no way an uncommon claim from my view.
Generally the ridicule is not about our builds but instead armchair psychology nonsense.
Well continuing my comparison from previous, that is because a lot do not understand the various excuses used, when essentially what is happening, is a survival fitted heavy offroader with weapons does its best to catch up and then drive into someone driving on the road, that does not seem to be the place where such an outfit would be needed, of course that offroader with weapons can harm the unarmored long range vehicle?

The threats one could reasonably encounter on major public roads, where help is usually not far away, may not mandate an off-road vehicle or survival gear, but omission of such gear/vehicles on a trek through areas with less infrastructure, more wilderness, harsher climates, or unhelpful people, would absolutely not 'fit the task'. A drive from Warsaw to Ulaanbaatar, or Tunis to Cape Town, is going to take different considerations than a drive from New York to San Francisco, or Lisbon to Prague. And on any of these trips, the speed and fuel efficiency of the vehicle is rarely going to be the prime consideration.

Same premises apply to Elite. The right tool for the job is the one that does what it's intended to do, despite the obstacles one encounters.
Yes, but as mentioned above, you plan for the 99.9% of things that happen. The enormous amount of time, getting attacked by a player is not an issue for explorers, so why would they outfit for the chance that someone attacks them?
Especially when likely ANY outfit they can make that doesn't hurt their main goal, to explore, is not going to be able to stand up to someone entering in a combat fit.
Yes, they could explore in a combat fit, but why should they do that?
The difference is that low jump range is barely even an inconvenience on DW2. It's mostly through high stellar density parts of the galaxy and proceeds at a positively glacial pace. You could get by with single digit ly jump ranges for the first 90% of the trip.
That is not my point.
My point is of course someone combat fit can take out an explorer, that really is a no brainer, but why would the combat fit person ever expect an explorer be able to stand up to them? I wouldn't ever expect them to personally.
Just like I wouldn't expect someone that is hunting down others to not arrive ready for combat?
Hostile ships, in Open, at way stations along a publicly declared, guided tour, that is seeing significant traffic, far from any legal jurisdiction, is eminently foreseeable. The decision to cripple the defensive and escape capabilities of one's ship in order to shave off 5-10% of the total number of jumps on a tour of such a pace is highly unsound, especially for the less experienced.
Is it forseeable? sure definitely, but in a real situation those points would be defended and such actions would be discouraged, but this is RL and Elite is a game. You want to require there to be dedicated defenders to defend the exploration, that hang around 24/7 just to catch the attackers whenever they might show up?
That would be an insanely boring role to play, because most of it would be waiting, why should anyone be forced to do that?
No one needs an excuse to do what they do and the ultimate arbiter of whose loadout was superior is how successful that loadout was in achieving the task at hand. Most of the ships lost on DW2 could have used some improvements.
I agree, people do not need the excuses, but they there are plenty of them that use it as reason for attacking targets that have no chance.

But no, nothing is proven with the explorer getting blown up. The attacker in a combat fit, isn't superior, or at best they are only superior in combat, they cannot explore like explorers can.
I simply do not see taking out easy obvious targets as proving anyone is superior. They are having fun doing it, sure, they enjoy doing it, sure. But superior? no.
There is no accounting for taste and not sharing in it doesn't mean it's not legitimate.

Of course, subjective opinions of legitimacy are entirely irrelevant if someone else's tastes become an obstacle. At that point it's not the why that matters, just the how.
I never once stated it wasn't legitimate, it is something the game allows you to do. From my view it simply doesn't provide anything productive to the game.
It is what people find fun doing, and that in itself is fine.

But that is about it, it doesn't provide anything else then fun for the killer.
The outcome is predictable, and why should one player group get to dictate what another does? which is why you end up seeing posts about not enough people to hunt in open, because people do not want to be subject to the whim of some random person.

And those attacking no doubt have things they do not want to do as well, imagine if they were forced to do those things by another group and had no chance of resisting that without disrupting the gameplay they do like?
 
Yes, but as mentioned above, you plan for the 99.9% of things that happen. The enormous amount of time, getting attacked by a player is not an issue for explorers, so why would they outfit for the chance that someone attacks them?
DW2 isn't pure, or even primarily, exploration. It's a pre-scheduled guided tour and social get-together, with a public itinerary.

This mandates very different considerations.

Especially when likely ANY outfit they can make that doesn't hurt their main goal, to explore, is not going to be able to stand up to someone entering in a combat fit.
Reaching systems few other vessels can reach or minimizing the number of systems one needs to pass through to reach a waypoint is hardly the be all and end all of exploration.

Very, very little exploration ability is lost by making sure your ship can boost then adding a few E rated shield boosters and an MRP. If anything the increased safety margin is an asset to exploration, even in the absence of hostile ships. In the presence of such ships, survival and successful exploration become synonymous.

Yes, they could explore in a combat fit, but why should they do that?
I took a combat fit vessel so I wouldn't always be the one running.

Surviving an attack, ship and data intact, requires far less than that.

But no, nothing is proven with the explorer getting blown up. The attacker in a combat fit, isn't superior, or at best they are only superior in combat, they cannot explore like explorers can.
The ship I took explores just fine and has less than half the jump range of most DG vessels, let alone their prey.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom