PvP Frontier created PVP gankers. By design.

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I advise you to read that post and understand that playing BGS without PP is just a fiction of individual players.
One can engage in BGS activities, working for or against faction(s) as one wishes - it's no fiction. I expect that many more players play the BGS than are pledged to Powerplay.

The beauty of playing the BGS is that one does not have a "target" painted on ones ship, i.e. no Powerplay pledge indication, and that one can be allied with as many factions as one wishes, no need to pledge to a single Faction.
 
Sorry, OT, but are you pirating in a Type-7? That's brilliant (y) :)
Nobody expects it. Hence the name.
20201116100616_1.jpg
 
I'm not sure what you're getting at here? If there's a joke there, I'm not seeing it. Yes, I accidentally destroyed a ship (NPC, man, whatever) - nothing I could do about it. Didn't even realised it had happened until the bounty notification appeared...
Just because you committed a crime does not exonerate YOU.
So you're limiting this to only interdictions now? This hasn't been mentioned before. How will this be policed? Does this mean the "gankers" hanging around Farseer Inc can continue their "ganking" with impunity?
I'm not a genius and don't know much of the mechanics of the game, so I put the suggestion here to identify its weaknesses.
And that near Felicity fly pirates NPC? Is her zone a mining zone or a lighthouse?
It may be a noble cause, however Mr Braben himself has said that "the hypothetical Griefconda destroying the hypothetical Noobwinder" is perfectly legitimate.
I think you misunderstood him. Rather, he said that it is not against the rules of the game and for this you can not be banned.
And I suggest that it is against the rules of the game?
Who forbids you to do this? I heard that many people buy a sidewinder and die on it themselves, it's their right.
 
The beauty of playing the BGS is that one does not have a "target" painted on ones ship, i.e. no Powerplay pledge indication, and that one can be allied with as many factions as one wishes, no need to pledge to a single Faction.
I understand YOU, it's YOUR charm that gives all the disadvantages of this. Do you want to get only the pluses without the minuses? Or is this an attempt to cheat the game?
Spider-Man doing good deeds and was wearing a mask so everyone can see that he is a spider-man. Spy can easily be killed by his own because they do not know that he is for them.
This is YOUR game and it is YOU who knows what YOU are risking. Do you want to reduce the risk? Join the Force officially!
(I'm sorry, but that's kind of a different topic.)
 
The above asked about the development time of this, this can only be determined by the developers themselves and only THEY.
I always try to give a suggestion for minimal game code changes.
Check the attacker cargo scanner and the presence of the goods, the appearance of a bunch of ATR firing missiles anti FSD and anti-engine, I do not think that is much, but it's not for me to decide.
 
Just because you committed a crime does not exonerate YOU.

You are proposing that any stray shots or friendly fire should cause automatic arrest to whoever fired the shot. This could lead to events even worse than "suicidewinders." If I want to grief someone, I simply fly into a battle between two consensual PVPers. If either of them hit me on accident (Because I am trying to get into their line of fire), then they are instantly "arrested" by the game. This is far more inconvenient than having to flee station security if you hit a suicidewinder, where at least you have a chance to get away. And furthermore, now the griefer doesn't have to deal with a rebuy, either. (At least "suicidewinders" are forced to click through the game over screen)

I'm not a genius and don't know much of the mechanics of the game, so I put the suggestion here to identify its weaknesses.
And that near Felicity fly pirates NPC? Is her zone a mining zone or a lighthouse?

She's an engineer. She's the first engineer new players get access to, so it's a hub of underpowered ships.

I think you misunderstood him. Rather, he said that it is not against the rules of the game and for this you can not be banned.
And I suggest that it is against the rules of the game?
Who forbids you to do this? I heard that many people buy a sidewinder and die on it themselves, it's their right.

I don't know if antiriad is referring to this, but in this video he talks about how making things go wrong for other people is part of the tradition of elite. That's part of why I think it's best to approach the problem of ganking from the perspective of "what can players do." Fuel was designed to cause players extreme difficulty if not managed well, or if they went too far and broke a fuel scoop. This fueled the creation of the fuel rats, and I think we're better off with that than if we had a system where fuel was "easier" or you didn't have to worry about fuel.

Why? This is exactly the case in the sentence !
This was the series of events:
  • The type 9 interdicts the victim
  • Type 9 demands that victim hands over cargo
  • Victim refuses and fires on type 9 in order to defend their cargo
  • Type 9 destroys the victim
Are you saying that because the victim fired first, they are at fault? Do you think people should not be allowed to protect their cargo? It's just a technicality that the victim drew first blood.

I understand YOU, it's YOUR charm that gives all the disadvantages of this. Do you want to get only the pluses without the minuses? Or is this an attempt to cheat the game?
Spider-Man doing good deeds and was wearing a mask so everyone can see that he is a spider-man. Spy can easily be killed by his own because they do not know that he is for them.
This is YOUR game and it is YOU who knows what YOU are risking. Do you want to reduce the risk? Join the Force officially!
(I'm sorry, but that's kind of a different topic.)

So much effort has been put into the BGS by the developers. Why shouldn't players interact with this?

The above asked about the development time of this, this can only be determined by the developers themselves and only THEY.
I always try to give a suggestion for minimal game code changes.
Check the attacker cargo scanner and the presence of the goods, the appearance of a bunch of ATR firing missiles anti FSD and anti-engine, I do not think that is much, but it's not for me to decide.

I'm not sure if you really are giving suggestions with minimal code changes. What you suggested would need a lot of flags and a new event sequence. And that adds load, because you then need things checking for flags. Consoles are already starting to lag, do you want to put more stress on these systems, especially on top of all the changes happening in Odyssey? In a P2P networked game?? I swear, some people think frames per second is a dial a developer turns until it's the right speed.

And it's nice to say that only the developers can determine this (And apparently fdev are the only ones who know how to estimate software design times?show me the secret gantt charts fdev) but suggestions should be feasible. I might have a super cool idea for 5 new alien species that have 20 different system states or whatever, and no matter how good my idea is it would be laughable to think that the developer would pick it up because that would require massive development time, especially with the way they roll lore changes into the universe. However, if you propose a change of "make the galaxy map UI for thargoid systems a color that stands out more since it's hard to see on LCD", or even "tweak the price of void opals so it's less OP," it's more likely to be picked up even though it's bland, since the development time is very small. Even in the case of the second one, which takes a short amount of time to code, it would take a lot of time in design and testing to make sure that the change was necessary, and that any changes wouldn't negatively impact other parts of the game.

What you're suggesting will change gameplay for almost every single player who uses PVP. Fdev is deliberate about how it rolls out even changes to the economy, because of the ripple effects. If they were to seriously consider a insta-death system for nonconsensual PVP (to include consensual PVP falling under BGS, situations where traders manage to get first blood on pirates, and situations where players get first blood on gankers), this would completely change how the game is played. Even if the change was good, any major change to a game this old is going to drive away at least part of the player base.

So, even changes like "have more system authority vessels attack player based on notoriety" may seem simple, but now you have to:
  • Create a way for NPCs to work in wings
  • Ensure NPCs do not crash into each other while in wings
  • Have a check for notoriety level and system security upon interdiction of player by system authorities
  • Manage the consequences of frame rates for edge-cases (large wing of PCs and large wing of NPCs)
  • Ensure all of that works across consoles and PC
 
You are proposing that any stray shots or friendly fire should cause automatic arrest to whoever fired the shot. This could lead to events even worse than "suicidewinders." If I want to grief someone, I simply fly into a battle between two consensual PVPers. If either of them hit me on accident (Because I am trying to get into their line of fire), then they are instantly "arrested" by the game. This is far more inconvenient than having to flee station security if you hit a suicidewinder, where at least you have a chance to get away. And furthermore, now the griefer doesn't have to deal with a rebuy, either. (At least "suicidewinders" are forced to click through the game over screen)
Accidental fire always causes death ?
And in general I personally do not like the fact that even if you accidentally hit someone clean you immediately wanted, I think that should be changed. But this is another topic.
She's an engineer. She's the first engineer new players get access to, so it's a hub of underpowered ships.
You will not read what I was answering. What's that got to do with it?
I don't know if antiriad is referring to this, but in this video he talks about how making things go wrong for other people is part of the tradition of elite. That's part of why I think it's best to approach the problem of ganking from the perspective of "what can players do." Fuel was designed to cause players extreme difficulty if not managed well, or if they went too far and broke a fuel scoop. This fueled the creation of the fuel rats, and I think we're better off with that than if we had a system where fuel was "easier" or you didn't have to worry about fuel.
Wait. What about the phrase about NPCs and Humans?
Why no NPC fuel rats? Why in one case there should not be a division of people and NPC and in another case you can? How can rats help in SOLO?
The type 9 interdicts the victim
So T9 has become a criminal?
Or did it just fly in from the side? It's as simple as that. As long as you're not shot at, you don't have to shoot clean.
It's just words.
So much effort has been put into the BGS by the developers. Why shouldn't players interact with this?
No problem.
1. You spit on the rules and do what you want, but then you don't have to complain.
2. In interacting with BGS in terms of POWER.

After all, hunger is showing that it is profitable to drive food. I understand that some have an interest to starve the system and then speculate on food ...
Even if the change was good, any major change to a game this old is going to drive away at least part of the player base.
Or vice versa will attract and return even more.
And then why do you write about instant death? You have to meet a lot of conditions to lose your ship with all the modules. And like any idea it must be tested ...
 
I think you misunderstood him. Rather, he said that it is not against the rules of the game and for this you can not be banned.
And I suggest that it is against the rules of the game?
Who forbids you to do this? I heard that many people buy a sidewinder and die on it themselves, it's their right.
Pretty sure I didn't misunderstand. Thinking back, it was actually one of the community managers that said the quote, possibly pre-launch? Either way, he was speaking on behalf of FDEV. Any player has the right within the rules of the game to attack any other player at any time and for any reason. This much has been clarified many times.

If you're talking about "laws within the game", then that's a different matter, and they change from system to system.

This is YOUR game and it is YOU who knows what YOU are risking. Do you want to reduce the risk? Join the Force officially!
Join what Force immediately? Are you referring to a Powerplay power? Not sure that you understand that this is not even remotely the same as supporting a BGS faction? The fact that this is player created content should not make it any less legitimate. I would wager that more players support BGS factions than Powerplay powers - are you going to deny them their gameplay?

So T9 has become a criminal?
Or did it just fly in from the side? It's as simple as that. As long as you're not shot at, you don't have to shoot clean.
It's just words.
There seems to be some confusion here. The ship that Screemonster is flying (the ship we see the events from) is a Type-7, the ship that gets destroyed is a Type-9. Let's call them Pirate and Miner to avoid confusion. Miner is happily mining, Pirate comes along and demands some cargo, Miner refuses, issues a threat and orders its fighter to attack the Pirate. When (and only when) the fighter has attacked, the Pirate destroys the Miner with ease. So in this case, the Pirate was technically the aggressor, but the game would see that the Miner fired the first shot and initiated the combat. Are you saying the Miner shouldn't have been able to try to defend themselves? Or maybe that the Pirate isn't allowed to return fire?

Here's another problem. If any ship that destroys another ship within a lawful system gets immediately destroyed by system authorities (whether NPC or CMDR), then how exactly does one go bounty hunting? Since all Wanted ships are immediately destroyed, the RES sites would just be full of miners mining and bored system security. Are you intending to remove bounty hunting from the game? I suspect THAT would meet with some opposition.

Anyway, you asked earlier whether there were any drawbacks to your idea. You have been presented with several - whether you choose to understand or accept them is neither here nor there. However, if you still feel your idea is workable, you should make a post in the Suggestions section - any idea is worthy of debate.
 
Here's another problem. If any ship that destroys another ship within a lawful system gets immediately destroyed by system authorities (whether NPC or CMDR), then how exactly does one go bounty hunting? Since all Wanted ships are immediately destroyed, the RES sites would just be full of miners mining and bored system security. Are you intending to remove bounty hunting from the game? I suspect THAT would meet with some opposition.
noooo but it's a video game and you must be punished if you don't file the proper paperwork and jump through the right hoops

because who doesn't like pointless bureaucracy?
 
So T9 has become a criminal?
Or did it just fly in from the side? It's as simple as that. As long as you're not shot at, you don't have to shoot clean.
It's just words.
I rammed someone down to 1% once and because I didn't destroy them or actually use a weapon, I didn't get a bounty. I just bashed them a couple of times.
If they'd fired on me then they'd have become wanted because the game doesn't recognise bashing into someone as an attack unless it actually kills them, even in the no-fire-zone it's only a fine.

And if you changed that, then you get into the suicidewinder thing again where people deliberately get in the way of other ships to trick the game into thinking they rammed you.

If you look at the mobius rules, one of the examples of a thing that you're not allowed to do in the group is deliberately getting people wanted by the authorities, and the example given is flying in front of a mining ship.

Imagine if I took a small stealthy fast combat ship like, say, a Diamondback Scout into a res site. I find a miner. I'm flying a cold build so they can't see me. I wait for them to start mining, and boost straight through their lasers. They don't have time to react and let go of their trigger, the game recognises them as having shot my ship with a laser, THEY ASSAULTED ME, GET ARRESTED.

Right now, that's already a jerk move as I'd then be able to turn around and get a free kill, or they'd be chased off or destroyed by the cops.
Under your system, they'd lose their ship and modules too. Congratulations, you just made gankers and griefers able to do even more damage than they already can.
 
noooo but it's a video game and you must be punished if you don't file the proper paperwork and jump through the right hoops

because who doesn't like pointless bureaucracy?

I must admit to being disappointed that 500 hours in and I’m still waiting for all the paperwork for my Pilots’ Federation license to arrive in the post... I was looking forwards to filling it all in and then having it sent back to me because my hand slipped and my signature was a gnat’s whisker outside of the designated box.
 
I think you misunderstood him.
I found the quote - it was actually from Sandro Sammarco, but the point remains the same.

Now let's take another example: the hypothetical Commander "greifconda" slaughtering the hypothetical Commander "newbwinder" with maniacal glee. The first thing to note is: as an event, it's acceptable within the rules of the game.

That's pretty clear, isn't it?

Here's the link - https://forums-new.frontier.co.uk/threads/yes-pvp-is-unfair.226764/page-82#post-3583549
 
I found the quote - it was actually from Sandro Sammarco, but the point remains the same.

Now let's take another example: the hypothetical Commander "greifconda" slaughtering the hypothetical Commander "newbwinder" with maniacal glee. The first thing to note is: as an event, it's acceptable within the rules of the game.

That's pretty clear, isn't it?

Here's the link - https://forums-new.frontier.co.uk/threads/yes-pvp-is-unfair.226764/page-82#post-3583549
So?
I am outside of the proposal to change this rule. Although my suggestion does not forbid killing as well. Take it and do it.
 
So?
I am outside of the proposal to change this rule. Although my suggestion does not forbid killing as well. Take it and do it.
Not quite sure what you're getting at here?

Maybe I've misunderstood your proposal, so I'll describe my understanding of it here
  • if Ship A (CMDR or NPC) destroys Ship B (CMDR or NPC) which has a clean legal status, in a lawful system, then Ship A is immediately and unavoidably destroyed by system security
  • Ship A loses the ability to rebuy in this circumstance
Please let me know if this it not correct, because the implication of this is to effectively remove the ability of certain players to go about their gameplay style, despite it being within the "rules of the game" - hence my quoting of Sandro's comment. No one will fire upon another ship if they KNOW that they will DEFINTELY lose their own ship - it would make no sense. My BH Corvette has a rebuy of ~60m CR, but a purchase price of over 1b CR - I'm willing to risk the former, but if I thought that 1 accidental stray shot would lose me 1bn CR (not to mention the G5 modules!), it'd stay parked at the station and I'd be bounty hunting in a Viper3. Your suggestion would effectively remove a significant portion of the game.

Another example of why this idea doesn't "have no drawbacks" as you suggest: Let's say I'm interdicted by a would-be "ganker". The "ganker" would gain Wanted status by interdicting me, sure. But they've bitten off more than they can chew in this case. Once in normal space, I boost, FA-Off flip and hit them with an alpha strike, then another, then another. Suddenly their shields have gone, and they're losing hull rapidly. They stow their weapons and high wake. However, I have a wake scanner, so I follow them (to a system where they are NOT wanted), I interdict them and finish the job. I then lose my ship, completely, with no ability to rebuy? Does that sound fair to you?

You've also previously equated a deliberate "gank" with an accidental stray shot in a fight - saying both should incur the same penalty. Really? So to use a real world analogy, should a person who commits a pre-meditated murder be treated exactly the same as someone who is hunting a deer, but is unfortunate enough to have a hiker walk between his gun and the deer at just the wrong moment? Again, does that sound fair?

Bottom line is, there already are penalties for those that choose a life of crime in ED - they could probably be better, but your suggestion is very much a "nuclear option", which would create far more problems than it solves.
 
Maybe I've misunderstood your proposal, so I'll describe my understanding of it here
There are conditions there. Read the offer.
Another example of why this idea doesn't "have no drawbacks" as you suggest: Let's say I'm interdicted by a would-be "ganker". The "ganker" would gain Wanted status by interdicting me, sure. But they've bitten off more than they can chew in this case. Once in normal space, I boost, FA-Off flip and hit them with an alpha strike, then another, then another. Suddenly their shields have gone, and they're losing hull rapidly. They stow their weapons and high wake. However, I have a wake scanner, so I follow them (to a system where they are NOT wanted), I interdict them and finish the job. I then lose my ship, completely, with no ability to rebuy? Does that sound fair to you?
The "ganker" would gain Wanted status by interdicting me, sure. You attack the criminal, no problem.
You've also previously equated a deliberate "gank" with an accidental stray shot in a fight - saying both should incur the same penalty. Really? So to use a real world analogy, should a person who commits a pre-meditated murder be treated exactly the same as someone who is hunting a deer, but is unfortunate enough to have a hiker walk between his gun and the deer at just the wrong moment? Again, does that sound fair?
I think a person with brains should put the gun down when he sees another person nearby, so then he won't be able to prove whether he killed him on purpose or just shot in that direction.
Bottom line is, there already are penalties for those that choose a life of crime in ED - they could probably be better, but your suggestion is very much a "nuclear option", which would create far more problems than it solves.
So far I see no weaknesses in my proposal, and my conversation with you only strengthens my position.

If I want to kill pirates in the system, I'll just take the appropriate mission and that's it.
 
There are conditions there. Read the offer.
I asked about the details of your proposal - you haven't clarified. Read the question.

The "ganker" would gain Wanted status by interdicting me, sure. You attack the criminal, no problem.
Wanted status is linked to a system - you can be wanted in System A (where the first interdiction took place), but not in System B (where I chased the player to)

I think a person with brains should put the gun down when he sees another person nearby, so then he won't be able to prove whether he killed him on purpose or just shot in that direction.
OK you took it literally... the point is that mistakes happen, and the punishment should fit the crime. The punishment should fit the INTENT, not the end result.

If I want to kill pirates in the system, I'll just take the appropriate mission and that's it.
You seem to be clinging to this misconception that lawfully killing pirates requires you to take a mission. That is demonstrably false.

So far I see no weaknesses in my proposal, and my conversation with you only strengthens my position.
If this is genuinely the case, then go ahead and create a post in the Suggestions forum. Numerous weaknesses have been presented to you, and you have simply batted them away without consideration.
 
You aren't in the position to make offers. You're the one proposing the change, it's your job to convince everyone else, not everyone else's job to convince you.
So far I haven't heard any specific disadvantages other than accidentally hitting a clean ship and killing it right away.
I'm always annoyed when I'm hunting missions and accidentally hit someone, I have to kill only FDL and fly away, not as usual kill all the ships (usually 4 more Vultures) and collect materials from all.
 
Top Bottom