Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Goose4291

Banned
Thanks Goosey. :)

Back to the point of a section of this forum who will provoke to get responses and go: "look how mean the anti-PvP crowd is" when they get them.
The thing is you're again glazing over how the PvE anti-change brigade act whenever someone outside it voices an opinion that doesn't conform 100% to their views.

We saw it with the genuine pirates in the early days. GRIEFERS! GANKERS! REAL LIFE TERRORISTS! Was the cry.

Again, when PvE BGS Faction War types like I used to be espoused views regarding modes it was 'You're all griefer shills trying to force us to be your victims."

When powerplayers like Rubbernuke came enmasse to the forums for the OOPP discussion it was 'bah! These are made up arguments by wannabe real life murderers.'

I could go on. I could highlight the cringe that was the denial regarding botting, or the train wreck that was the Dogma campaign.

Instead I'll close with this. I work in a close confined environment with 40-50+ other individuals for four months at a time where you have to get on regardless of background, politics or even religious differences. The fact I feel more kinship with the likes of the SDC group type playerbase should speak volumes about the 'friendly' face of the PvE community.
 
They try to provoke responses. They will troll until they get them. Once they get them, they play the anti-PvP victim card, and act all: woe is us.
Oh sure, I'm aware of the disposition of many of these people.
As a general rule you have to divide up life between what you can control and what you cannot control.

There simply is no way to prevent someone from being a bad sport in a PvP game.
Cannot stop 'em from peacocking on the forums, posting offensive videos, or running around acting like nitwits.

What a person can control is whether or not he buys a PvP game, logs into a PvP server, and runs around in a PvP hotspot.
I don't have sympathy for those that keep trying to control the behavior of other players when simply clicking 'Group Play' fixes the problem.
 
they plan and make their setup for the 99.9% of the things that happen.
Ganking along DW2 is either a common (and loudly decried) phenomenon, or a 0.1% sort of thing. It can't be both. The ~3000 rebuys claimed by DG2 and frequent complaints on this board indicate to me that it is the former, and that a wise player will plan accordingly.

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?
Because if they are weakly outfit and go into open at a DW2 waypoint or similar area they will likely be destroyed. Not 0.1% chance destroyed. I don't have a percentage but it's non negligible. I wouldn't be surprised if it was above 50% (open only - including solo/PG DW2 explorers it is a tiny %).

Otherwise agreed for solo/PG and off the beaten path locations.


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.
I don't. Only one of my last twenty kills on DG2 was challenging, and that was a pleasant surprise. To get it I ended up having to eat 50 million in rebuy+bounty from a station and lost my SLF NPC, but it was fun. The overwhelming majority (~93% since Jan 31st) of my encounters in DG2 have resulted in deaths or c-logs for the other pilot. (Note I am on console, so every encounter was 1v1, aside from a 1v2 where I was the "1").

One point of yours seems to be that gankers don't want challenging PvP. But wanting challenging PvP and killing explorers are not exclusive. Many of us want both.


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?
Not at all, escorting is borderline impossible due to the game mechanics and unrewarding to boot. The more sensible defense is for open mode explorers to be prepared on their own.



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.
As long as I'm willing to put in some extra jumps, I absolutely can do any exploring an explorer can, barring systems that cannot be reached with ~42ly jump range.

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.
Certainly superior at blowing stuff up. Not necessarily as a player, since that is subjective.

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?
Compared to the rest of the game, this is quite unpredictable. There are elements of ED that are opaque until studied, but the game is mostly predictable. Even if only one of twenty PvP encounters I've had lately was unpredictable, this is a significant increase over the zero of twenty PvE encounters that are unpredictable.

Plenty of BGS work, PP activity, etc. is as one sided as PvP. Personally I feel PP results in arguably harsher toxicity than ganking.



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?
I am forced to do plenty of gameplay I don't want to do. Mat grind being the most obvious example. It's unfortunate, and not due to another player, but it certainly disrupts the gameplay I do like. It's unpleasant but I deal with it to get to the gameplay I like. I don't feel there is some fundamental difference between unpleasant gameplay caused by design versus caused by other players. If anything, the former "should" be more aggravating IMO.

It's much much easier for explorers to avoid the gameplay they don't like than for me to avoid mat grinding.
 
Last edited:

Goose4291

Banned
Oh sure, I'm aware of the disposition of many of these people.
As a general rule you have to divide up life between what you can control and what you cannot control.

There simply is no way to prevent someone from being a bad sport in a PvP game.
Cannot stop 'em from peacocking on the forums, posting offensive videos, or running around acting like nitwits.

What a person can control is whether or not he buys a PvP game, logs into a PvP server, and runs around in a PvP hotspot.
I don't have sympathy for those that keep trying to control the behavior of other players when simply clicking 'Group Play' fixes the problem.
 
Oh sure, I'm aware of the disposition of many of these people.
As a general rule you have to divide up life between what you can control and what you cannot control.

There simply is no way to prevent someone from being a bad sport in a PvP game.
Cannot stop 'em from peacocking on the forums, posting offensive videos, or running around acting like nitwits.

What a person can control is whether or not he buys a PvP game, logs into a PvP server, and runs around in a PvP hotspot.
I don't have sympathy for those that keep trying to control the behavior of other players when simply clicking 'Group Play' fixes the problem.
That's all true.

But that doesn't mean people can blame a large group of people for the actions of a few. That is wrong in case players who are sports and play PvP should be held responsible for the less savoury griefer crowd peacocking. And it's wrong when an entire PvE community is held responsible for the reactions of a few.
 
Last edited:
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.
Yes, but again, it is not a tour aimed towards combat, so the same principle applies, though yes, since it is a tour the chance of getting attacked is significantly increased.
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.
Sure, you can take a decent combat vessel exploring, I've done that several times, but that assumes you are alright and have the time for the amount of jumps slower jumping can take. Not everyone has the time for that, maxing jump range reduces amount of jumps, if or if people have the time for many jumps is not something I or I think anyone but they themselves can judge.

And again, will that make a big difference against a fully engineered combat ship?
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.
Cool, but again, that doesn't count for everyone, I do not know why others play with the fits they do, my point is merely, that they shouldn't be forced to play a fit they do not want to, they should play a game for what they find as fun, because it is just that a game. And not at the whim of someone else, no one, in my experience like being subjected to something like that. It is just easier for PvP'ers to generally brush it off, because there is very little, given the none permadeath nature, that they risk or lose with their preferred gameplay style, compared to other general none combat game play styles.
The ship I took explores just fine and has less than half the jump range of most DG vessels, let alone their prey.
I'm not saying you cannot explore with a lower range ship, it will just take more time and certain areas will be out of your range, why should explorers be forced to do that?

Ganking along DW2 is either a common (and loudly decried) phenomenon, or a 0.1% sort of thing. It can't be both. The ~3000 rebuys claimed by DG2 and frequent complaints on this board indicate to me that it is the former, and that a wise player will plan accordingly.
Ganking against explorers is the low chance, this is obviously higher because it is announced, gankers know where to go.
Because if they are weakly outfit and go into open at a DW2 waypoint or similar area they will likely be destroyed. Not 0.1% chance destroyed. I don't have a percentage but it's non negligible. I wouldn't be surprised if it was above 50% (open only - including solo/PG DW2 explorers it is a tiny %).

Otherwise agreed for solo/PG and off the beaten path locations.
Yes, and here's the issue and why I see there being people upset by it. Those destroying them, gain nothing from doing it other then personal enjoyment knowing they may have caused the explorer to lose a lot of exploration and have returned them home.

This causes many to not be in open, which causes PvP'ers to complain that open has no people, and wanting incentives to people so there are more people in open.
All because some people enjoy going after targets that generally as a concept have no chance, nor should they be expected to have a chance, even if they had a proper setup, they might not be combat pilots at all and freeze up or similar, it seems odd to expect them to fit into a role for another players enjoyment?
I don't. Only one of my last twenty kills on DG2 was challenging, and that was a pleasant surprise. To get it I ended up having to eat 50 million in rebuy+bounty from a station and lost my SLF NPC, but it was fun. The overwhelming majority (~93% since Jan 31st) of my encounters in DG2 have resulted in deaths or c-logs for the other pilot. (Note I am on console, so every encounter was 1v1, aside from a 1v2 where I was the "1").

One point of yours seems to be that gankers don't want challenging PvP. But wanting challenging PvP and killing explorers are not exclusive. Many of us want both.
The general concept of a gank, would seem to indicate that, what some people want is another thing, but if challenge is wanted then why go after explorers? sure you might find people that can fight back, but likely the majority won't be able to
Not at all, escorting is borderline impossible due to the game mechanics and unrewarding to boot. The more sensible defense is open explorers be prepared on their own.
Potentially compromising their game play, increasing their required play time due to lower jump range, or maybe they simply aren't combat talented, I do not know, I cannot say, and it seems a bit much to say that others can 'just' prepare.
As long as I'm willing to put in some extra jumps, I absolutely can do any exploring an explorer can, barring systems that cannot be reached with ~42ly jump range.

Certainly superior at blowing stuff up. Not necessarily as a player, since that is subjective.
Yeah, and if an explorer does the same with fit, they need extra jumps as well, extra time, time they may not have, time they may not want to spend, it entirely depends on the person.

And yes, I should hope a combat fitted ship can blow up a none combat fitted ship, but that doesn't really say much, it is pure mechanics at best.
Compared to the rest of the game, this is quite unpredictable. There are elements of ED that are opaque until studied, but the game is mostly predictable. Even if only one of twenty PvP encounters I've had lately was unpredictable, this is a significant increase of the zero of twenty PvE encounters that are unpredictable.

Plenty of BGS work, PP activity, etc. is as one sided as PvP. Personally I feel PP results in even more toxicity than ganking.
I enjoy PvP, because of that as well, the skill and requirements it takes, but that is also why this whole thing with attacking targets like this is lost on me.
It seems to do absolutely nothing.
I am forced to do plenty of gameplay I don't want to do. Mat grind being the most obvious example. It's unfortunate, and not due to another player, but it certainly disrupts the gameplay I do like. It's unpleasant but I deal with it to get to the gameplay I like. I don't feel there is some fundamental difference between unpleasant gameplay caused by design than by other players. If anything, the former "should" be more aggravating IMO.

It's much much easier for explorers to avoid the gameplay they don't like.
The former, gameplay design of the game, is equal for everyone.

The later is entirely up to random people online that you have no control over, a substantial difference in my book.

As for explorers avoiding game play they do not like, they still need to mat grind and similar, probably not as much for ammo and other PvP related things, no, but that is your choice, it is how the game is designed. It is no other players fault on how the game is, so why should they be punished for that?
 
That's all true.

But that doesn't mean people can blame a large group of people for the actions of a few. That is wrong in case players who are sports and play PvP should be held responsible for the less savoury griefer crowd peacocking. And it's wrong when an entire PvE community is held responsible for the reactions of a few.
PvP cannot compare to PvE in that, if you ask me.
PvP requires other players to be PvP, it requires someone to attack and someone to defend from. Add that the amount of people participate in griefing and call themselves PvP'ers is something you cannot really know or judge properly because they can effectively claim anything online.
In my book for PvP to work, people need to have a nature of good sport about it, otherwise PvP can end up killing itself, and given the amount of complaint threads with low open population, that could on the surface seem to be what is happening?

PvE does ultimately not require any other players, and as such is based around game mechanics, which you cannot really blame those players for.
 
Last edited:
PvP cannot compare to PvE in that if you ask me.
PvP requires other players to be PvP, it requires someone to attack and someone to defend from. Add that the amount of people participate in griefing and call themselves PvP'ers is something you cannot really know or judge properly because they can effectively claim anything online.
In my book for PvP to work, people need to have a nature of good sport about it, otherwise PvP can end up killing itself, and given the amount of complaint threads with low open population, that could on the surface seem to be what is happening?

PvE does ultimately not require any other players, and as such is based around game mechanics, which you cannot really blame those players for.
Indeed. Luckily griefers tend to announce themselves as griefers when they are extracting salt, so they're happy to be identified. The griefer's aim is to get attention for their griefing. So when judging individually it's easy to do.

I say you judge individuals based on their actions and statements they make in the forum. If an explorer is being rude, that explorer is being rude. It doesn't mean explorers are rude. If a PvPer gets joy out of ruining other player's game, and boast about this on the forum, you judge that individual on getting joy out of ruining other player's games.
 
I'm not saying you cannot explore with a lower range ship, it will just take more time and certain areas will be out of your range, why should explorers be forced to do that?
No one is forced to do anything. Everyone has a choice.

It's just natural for people to be critical of choices that lead to foreseeable consequences that are at odds with the success of the apparent goal.

In my book for PvP to work, people need to have a nature of good sport about it
All that's required for this is for people to adhere to the game's rules.

Any further imposition on what's possible, or attempts to enforce in-game symmetry of encounters, could never be anything other than diametrically opposed to organic PvP, and is totally unnecessary for organized PvP.
 
Indeed. Luckily griefers tend to announce themselves as griefers when they are extracting salt, so they're happy to be identified. The griefer's aim is to get attention for their griefing. So when judging individually it's easy to do.

I say you judge individuals based on their actions and statements they make in the forum. If an explorer is being rude, that explorer is being rude. It doesn't mean explorers are rude. If a PvPer gets joy out of ruining other player's game, and boast about this on the forum, you judge that individual on getting joy out of ruining other player's games.
Exactly.

No one is forced to do anything. Everyone has a choice.

It's just natural for people to be critical of choices that lead to foreseeable consequences that are at odds with the success of the apparent goal.
Everyone has a choice, that is very true.

But given that this is a game and not real life, a game they presumably bought to have fun, then yes you can indeed force people to do something they do not find fun. Gankers can effectively take the fun out of the game for others, and can force them to do stuff.
All that's required for this is for people to adhere to the game's rules.

Any further imposition on what's possible, or attempts to enforce in-game symmetry of encounters, could never be anything other than diametrically opposed to organic PvP, and is totally unnecessary for organized PvP.
Game rules generally do not contain 'good sport' as such last I checked, though the EULA and other do state something that I would say leans towards good sport and it could most certainly be argued that many do not do that, however proving those things is another matter.

That said, I would say that this thread isn't really pointing towards organic PvP, because my view on PvP is that it is two sided, not just one sided squashing of easy targets. But yeah, that is something that is subjective.
Can and should there be organic PvP? in my book definitely. But such should not be after the weakest and easiest targets, which this currently seems to be baring few exceptions.
 
Last edited:
Game rules generally do not contain 'good sport' as such last I checked
When it comes to in-game actions between in-game characters, such rules would only be an immersion defying burden.

though the EULA and other do state something that I would say leans towards good sport and it could most certainly be argued that many do not do that, however proving those things is another matter.
Some players certainly do cross the line into out of character harassment of other players, using a wide variety of means do so. I've long been an advocate for stronger enforcement of the rules meant to keep this behavior in check.

However, one CMDR (or many CMDRs) blowing up another doesn't imply anything of the sort, even in the most lopsided and unsporting of encounters.
 
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.

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.
This is true, if one goes out exploring not part of an expedition, and avoids having hostile parties on their friend list, there is hardly any need to include defenses beyond surviving basic navigational hazards. Provided one isn't dead set on selling the exploration data at Jameson's or similar, the likelihood of encountering anyone else at all is pretty low.

That said, after some reflection I disagree that your recipe amounts to "very very little exploration ability" lost. Yes, it costs little to outfit survivable internals, presuming engineering is in play. But those utility slots are at a premium if the explorer isn't in a large ship! I played around with those engineered 0E boosters before leaving, but wound up only taking one on each of my expedition ships. It cost me a chaff launcher on one, and a xeno scanner on the other. Irrelevant if you consider exploration to include just neutron boosting to distant locales (with some emergency heatsinks), but I'm also bringing various scanners to test interactions with any new oddities we might encounter.

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...
Well, to each their own. I have to say, now that I've watched (okay, scrolled through at high speed) a few streams from DG2 players, I don't get the appeal. Combat clips on Youtube don't include the hours spent staring at space or a surface site waiting for a target to appear. At least the ones who are streaming have the distraction of chatting with their viewers and wingmates to fill the time.

Ganking along DW2 is either a common (and loudly decried) phenomenon, or a 0.1% sort of thing. It can't be both. The ~3000 rebuys claimed by DG2 and frequent complaints on this board indicate to me that it is the former, and that a wise player will plan accordingly.

Because if they are weakly outfit and go into open at a DW2 waypoint or similar area they will likely be destroyed. Not 0.1% chance destroyed. I don't have a percentage but it's non negligible. I wouldn't be surprised if it was above 50% (open only - including solo/PG DW2 explorers it is a tiny %).
Not so sure about that. As one of you told me a while back, gankers have to sleep too, and they aren't evenly distributed in timezones. I tend to play at all kinds of random hours depending on my schedule, and I periodically pop into Open (PC) at waypoints and similar just to see what's up. I've seen gankers in the system *maybe* one time out of four. So I could buy that, if I exclusively flew those systems in Open in a weak ship, then I'd have high odds of *eventually* getting unlucky and blown up. But at any given random day and time, even Open on PC is relatively safe.
 
I periodically pop into Open (PC) at waypoints and similar just to see what's up. I've seen gankers in the system *maybe* one time out of four. So I could buy that, if I exclusively flew those systems in Open in a weak ship, then I'd have high odds of *eventually* getting unlucky and blown up. But at any given random day and time, even Open on PC is relatively safe.
The key point is that you periodically pop into Open. As you note, if you flew in it all the time, the odds would shift dramatically. Thus I object to the "99.9%" claim and use terms such as "likely" or at least "non negligible".

Of course at a single (or a few) selected moment(s) there is no danger. I could close my eyes and run across the street at a few quasi-randomly selected moments and probably be fine. I wouldn't call the practice "relatively safe" and if I always crossed the street this way I would likely be hit by a car.

One day I left my SRV largely unattended (periodically I synthed fuel) at waypoint 4 for 8 hours straight. Not a single other contact. This doesn't mean explorers are safe from me in open nor that I have killed them all. It just means ED space is sparse, especially on PS4.

Irrelevant if you consider exploration to include just neutron boosting to distant locales (with some emergency heatsinks), but I'm also bringing various scanners to test interactions with any new oddities we might encounter.
I could have fit my conda with various trappings like that with only a slight decrease in my ability to kill explorers.

Agreed it's trickier on a smaller ship.
 
Last edited:
That said, after some reflection I disagree that your recipe amounts to "very very little exploration ability" lost. Yes, it costs little to outfit survivable internals, presuming engineering is in play. But those utility slots are at a premium if the explorer isn't in a large ship! I played around with those engineered 0E boosters before leaving, but wound up only taking one on each of my expedition ships. It cost me a chaff launcher on one, and a xeno scanner on the other. Irrelevant if you consider exploration to include just neutron boosting to distant locales (with some emergency heatsinks), but I'm also bringing various scanners to test interactions with any new oddities we might encounter.
Smaller ships are harder to hit and can usually be made pretty fast with minimal difficulties. They also benefit proportionally more from HRPs. So, if it doesn't have a lot of utility slots, it probably doesn't need them to be made survivable.

The most popular ships along the DW2 routes are the Anaconda, the Krait Phantom, and the Asp X. Correspondingly, the most popular weapons among DG2 seem to be frag cannon, as they offer the best odds of downing relatively large, but soft, targets before they can escape or disconnect. There is really little compelling reason for larger ships to sacrifice the ability to escape for a handful of tons in defense that will amount to a low single digit percentage loss in jump range. I have seen a fair mix of other weapons, but frags predominate and as frags are extremely poor against smaller ships, if you can survive a railgun hit or two, or some phasing pulse laser fire, you'll reliably be able to jump away with one.
 
Not true. You can block someone from the menu.

I block people from my router - L2 traffic reject. There are two people in there, and six countries.
All you have to do is send a friend request to the people on the list. They do NOT have to accept. Just send a friend request and THEN block, then unfriend. Done. Mr. Potter found himself blocked in this fashion because I don't mind PvP but loathe gankers. Been that way since my days in Ultima. If someone is a ganker that person is a turd and I wish to not play with turds. Play your way, I will play mine.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom