PvP Frontier created PVP gankers. By design.

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Why non consensual pvp is worse than non consensual pve?
We all bought a game where we share the galaxy with all other players, regardless of game mode - however there's no requirement to engage in PvP to engage in any game feature (except CQC).

No-one who bought the game requires to enjoy or even tolerate PvP to play this game, whereas we all play a game where we all affect the galaxy (which includes players who choose not to play among other players).

It comes down to choice - each player's choice of who to play with precedes and may over-ride the wishes of other players to play with them.
 
Edit: I add, this is a question/debate not a statement of my own intent. I'll be more succinct . When little to no trill, reward, even challenge is in PVE combat the challenge etc may be sort via PVP. Is this by design? Why is PVE combat discouraged in Elite? Is this even a factor?
Not all players are seeking the "thrill" of combat - and, as two of the paths to Elite don't require the player to fire a shot in combat, Frontier must be aware that not all players want to engage in combat and don't force players to engage in it.
The thing is, the combat-averse nature of some players means there's an outcry even when optional content is added that actually challenges wings of players. AX combat has (thankfully) mostly avoided this fate, so thargoids remain a challenge and it's generally accepted that no, your average joe shouldn't be able to solo a hydra in a stock ship. AXCZs have disappeared into the aether though - they were the content that came to players (and bizarrely were most accessible to players, as you can largely ignore the interceptors and just kill scouts) but they're gone. Otherwise, if you want AX content, you have to go out of your way to look for it and find it, which puts it out of the reach of the "I'll just do whatever's on the mission boards and expect to be able to breeze through it with my invinciboat" brigade.

See the people that complain about spec ops being "OP". Rather than just going and doing a low-intensity zone where they won't have to actually face them, they want them nerfed/removed so that nobody gets to encounter them. Same with the people complaining about wing assassinations to get them nerfed. There have been several attempts in the game's history to add optional content that actually challenges skilled pilots (or mediocre pilots in engineered ships) and every time there's an outcry to tone it down because apparently just not participating in that content until you're ready for it isn't an option.

I wish there was something out there, other than AX combat, that came close to the sort of engagement you could get out of a PvP scrap. Hell, even some actually challenging PvE content that I didn't have to artificially restrict myself by going "haha I'm gonna take on this stack of pirate lords with a courier instead of my krait or 'vette" would be nice.

Completely separate of the PvP discussion, I'm a little tired of "not all players want this, therefore nobody should have it".
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
The thing is, the combat-averse nature of some players means there's an outcry even when optional content is added that actually challenges wings of players. AX combat has (thankfully) mostly avoided this fate, so thargoids remain a challenge and it's generally accepted that no, your average joe shouldn't be able to solo a hydra in a stock ship. AXCZs have disappeared into the aether though - they were the content that came to players (and bizarrely were most accessible to players, as you can largely ignore the interceptors and just kill scouts) but they're gone. Otherwise, if you want AX content, you have to go out of your way to look for it and find it, which puts it out of the reach of the "I'll just do whatever's on the mission boards and expect to be able to breeze through it with my invinciboat" brigade.
With two Elite ranks being able to be achieved without firing a shot in combat, it is unsurprising that some players are disinterested in combat.

Regarding setting the challenge at a level where multiple players are required to succeed, I expect it's a balancing act - as Frontier know how many players play in groups / Wings and how many don't - which may influence the decision making as to how much content to "gate" to groups / Wings.
See the people that complain about spec ops being "OP". Rather than just going and doing a low-intensity zone where they won't have to actually face them, they want them nerfed/removed so that nobody gets to encounter them. Same with the people complaining about wing assassinations to get them nerfed. There have been several attempts in the game's history to add optional content that actually challenges skilled pilots (or mediocre pilots in engineered ships) and every time there's an outcry to tone it down because apparently just not participating in that content until you're ready for it isn't an option.
Fully half of players are at or below median skill - set the challenge too high and that in and of itself may effectively restrict the content to a relatively small subset of the player-base. In a game with no difficulty setting, where the newest and most experienced players experience the same galaxy setting, where combat is a subset of gameplay, I expect that setting the global challenge is a non-trivial exercise, as is deciding how high to set the challenge in optional aspects of the game without effectively excluding too many players.
I wish there was something out there, other than AX combat, that came close to the sort of engagement you could get out of a PvP scrap. Hell, even some actually challenging PvE content that I didn't have to artificially restrict myself by going "haha I'm gonna take on this stack of pirate lords with a courier instead of my krait or 'vette" would be nice.
Quite.
Completely separate of the PvP discussion, I'm a little tired of "not all players want this, therefore nobody should have it".
While some may be of the opinion that "not all players want this, therefore nobody should have it", others are, possibly more likely to be, of the opinion that "not all players want this, therefore nobody should be forced to engage in it".
 
Last edited:
See the people that complain about spec ops being "OP". Rather than just going and doing a low-intensity zone where they won't have to actually face them, they want them nerfed/removed so that nobody gets to encounter them. Same with the people complaining about wing assassinations to get them nerfed. There have been several attempts in the game's history to add optional content that actually challenges skilled pilots (or mediocre pilots in engineered ships) and every time there's an outcry to tone it down because apparently just not participating in that content until you're ready for it isn't an option.
Hear, hear!
 
Frontier invented a game. In the early Betas many players said that combat was too easy. Enter engineering.
This allowed major ship/weapons upgrades as well as getting players to try a little bit of everything the game
offers. It was brilliant. Now two players knowing what they are doing upgrade their ship and weapons. Combat
between them is a lot harder.

The negative is that in Open mode any player lacking in experience and ship engineering is target practice for
any serious PvP combat player. The solution is to always know your surroundings and use Solo and especially
Group modes which can eliminate the use of Open mode in many play styles.

Frontier invented a game with may play options. The players decide what is popular with PvE versus PvP. Any
forum post that suggests one is more popular than the other is opinion not fact.
 
The modes and the fact that all players affect the BGS, Powerplay, etc., make perfect sense for a game where PvP is an optional extra for those who wish to engage in it, i.e. the game is not designed around PvP and does not require any player to engage in it to participate in any game feature (except CQC).

Powerplay is soley built around PvP. It is driven by players, for players, against players. There is little background affection to it apart from PP influences on minor factions and some discounts on outfitting in LYR space for instance. However, the gameplay of Powerplay is nothing but PvP, albeit indirect. And since it's PvP, it's competetive and competition doesn't really work when the rules aren't equal to all. Because as a matter of fact, the modes are not equal as open displays a higher threat than any other mode as explained by Sandro some years ago.

While there may be a "high demand for PvP" among those players who enjoy PvP, the same cannot necessarily be said for those who don't enjoy PvP, noting that, while Frontier have indicated that the majority of players play in Open (at least some of the time, the statement was unclear on that point), Frontier have also indicated that they are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.

PvP exists simply because players can shoot at anything they instance with - however players don't require to instance with other players and can also block specific players they don't want to play with.

Ganking existed long before this game - it's not new or unexpected. Which is probably one of the reasons why the three game modes exist while every player affects the shared galaxy.

Ofcourse ganking exists beyond Elite and the game but that's a different topic. The OP is referring to ganking in Elite and I explained why it exists. Depending on wheather or not ganking is considered a problem or not, one may or may not take action against it.
Assuming everyone is fine with ganking and being ganked, we don't have an issue to solve and we can just continue with what we're doing. Let it be mining, exploring, bounty hunting, ganking or even organised PvP.
However, as a matter of fact, the frequent threads popping up on the forums and elsewhere indicate that some players do indeed consider ganking a problem. Now, to solve a problem one must come up with a possible solution to it, which I have also portrayed in my post by adding more PvP offer for those that wish to participate in it, completely optional, ofcourse. A more precice example would be PvP combat zones for instance where player kills give a special currency or so (like PP merits) which then could be used to purchase powerplay modules without the need to pledge and wait 4 weeks every time. Just an example. No direct advantage either.

But as the interest is objectively low to solve the ganking problem for those that consider it as such there won't be any change in the near future. Neither to modes, nor to ganking.
Hotspots like Deciat will be farmed for kills over and over simply to expand the lead on the kill counter rank list, occasionally get a screenshots of immature comments for the amusement of others and participating in forum threads like this one just to mention again what has already been mentioned a thousand times before.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Powerplay is soley built around PvP. It is driven by players, for players, against players. There is little background affection to it apart from PP influences on minor factions and some discounts on outfitting in LYR space for instance. However, the gameplay of Powerplay is nothing but PvP, albeit indirect. And since it's PvP, it's competetive and competition doesn't really work when the rules aren't equal to all. Because as a matter of fact, the modes are not equal as open displays a higher threat than any other mode as explained by Sandro some years ago.
While I agree that Powerplay is competitive between players, and can be characterised as indirect PvP, its pan-modal implementation suggests that the later re-definition of what Powerplay "is" was a retcon.

The modes are, according to Devs, "equally valid choices", not necessarily "equal" (as one contains no other players, one might contain other players and one does contain other players).

The fact that players might pose a more significant challenge to another player is obvious - however it's no less optional, for those who seek that challenge.
The OP is referring to ganking in Elite and I explained why it exists. Depending on wheather or not ganking is considered a problem or not, one may or may not take action against it.
Assuming everyone is fine with ganking and being ganked, we don't have an issue to solve and we can just continue with what we're doing. Let it be mining, exploring, bounty hunting, ganking or even organised PvP.
However, as a matter of fact, the frequent threads popping up on the forums and elsewhere indicate that some players do indeed consider ganking a problem.
Some consider ganking to be no problem - it seems to be tolerated by at least part of the PvP community. Others consider ganking to be a problem. We don't all agree.
Now, to solve a problem one must come up with a possible solution to it, which I have also portrayed in my post by adding more PvP offer for those that wish to participate in it, completely optional, ofcourse. A more precice example would be PvP combat zones for instance where player kills give a special currency or so (like PP merits) which then could be used to purchase powerplay modules without the need to pledge and wait 4 weeks every time. Just an example. No direct advantage either.
Rewarding gankers with new content is, I expect, almost certain to fail in its aim - if the aim is to stop players ganking. I expect that nothing short of making ganking impossible would remove ganking from the game - as some players seem to rather enjoy the experience of being the ganker.
 
Now two players knowing what they are doing upgrade their ship and weapons. Combat
between them is a lot harder.
Assumpation that player with full acces to engineering know what is he doing is very generous, same as assumptation that fight betwean 2 players flying same ship will be hard. skill ceiling in elite is preety hi as in most simulation like games, exactly opposite is reason for solo/pg to exist, as rebuys of noob are cheap and help him develop as a player (more or less) while rebuys for experianced but weak player are more expansive, same applies to territory denial in power play or BGS.
 

Aye, the modes are "of equal choice" and I too sometimes choose to stay in PG, especially when I want to show a new friend how the game works. They have their use and purpose to exist.
Regarding powerplay, I do believe that Sandro and his ex-team finally realized at that point that PP won't work as originally intended due to the modes. In their attempt to brainstorm changes, a discussion errupted which lead to the abandonement of the planned changes, leaving us with a flawed status quo that still causes PP to be mostly dead.

Also aye, not everyone is considering ganking as a problem. In fact, some even enjoy the added risk and possibility to be hunted down each second.

Rewarding gankers is not what I am proposing. I also don't think that the majority of gankers perform ganking because they enjoy it. Instead, they do it because there is no other PvP experienced offered that matches the potential challenge level and complexity. Again, what activities are there for the generic PvP player that boots up the game with the intention to quickly compete against other players in direct combat? Ganking. Organised PvP is much more rare. Alternatively, organic PvP is an option but again, also quite rare as most players are not fitted for PvP or are interested in the first place.
However, if there would be a place to go for PvPers that statisfy the demands of quick PvP with high challenge level and complexity, there'd be no reason to choose to gank as there is a better alternative.
Ofcourse, you won't be getting rid of all the gankers as some do indeed enjoy ganking as is and that is okay, to be fair. The proposal has not the demand to completely get rid of ganking but reduce it to the players that actually enjoy it and give those who don't a better alternative and - ultimately - a reason to play the game.

Because the majority of gankers gank because there is no alternative and not because they actually enjoy it that much I dare to claim. However, it's still better than waiting for hours in supecruise for a challenger to show up so at a certain level of boredom, ganking occurs.

EDIT: Typo fixing
 
Last edited:
That 2 million bounty cap really is awful.

The effort it takes to kill a fully engineered ship can be immense, and you’re putting your own rebuy on the line when hunting someone down.

In a time where you can be an Elite billionaire via mining in a couple sessions, what would it hurt to let me collect 10,000,000 from blowing up a bad guy?
 
Frontier created PVP gankers. Discuss.

For.
All in game combat delivers no balanced/relevant in game reward.
Once done with the forced/effective methods of "play" that got you the money to being combat ship build ready, you have no in game challenges left.
You think back on your time mining and want to watch it burn! With laser fire.
You also did some exploration so they can get some too.
You did some AX stuff, that was beyond you, those guys are nuts, can't kill a shieldless psychopath.
Go back to killing miners, explorers and very helpfully useless noobs. Those seal cubs won't club themselves.

Against.
It's a fun and involving game where building the ship is it's own reward.
You get to say, but not show, how great your weapons layout is.
I play my way, combat is the reason why society has broken down in 3306.
I like mining.
I like exploration.
Stop bating us with your "combat is not rewarded rubbish and help me fill this carrier with painite/LDT"

Edit: I add, this is a question/debate not a statement of my own intent. I'll be more succinct . When little to no trill, reward, even challenge is in PVE combat the challenge etc may be sort via PVP. Is this by design? Why is PVE combat discouraged in Elite? Is this even a factor?
Though I dislike the idea of being ganked and as of yet, haven't been, not that it hasn't been tried on a few occasions, but due to my having took the time and effort, learned how to avoid and or flee from would be ganker's. I have to admit that though ganking isn't my cup of tea, it is one of the available styles of playing that some player's prefer. I paid for my copy of ED and assume that any and or all ganker's also paid. Which in a nut shell allows one to play they way this wish.

Of the three available modes in which to play ED, doing so in two of them would and does cut the ability of getting ganked to the point of extremely rare. And in one of them, getting ganked is 100 percent impossible. Why if anyone is so opposed to ganking, do they play in the only mode in which it is a minimum 100 percent chance of getting ganked.

I'd concur that such person's don't look either way when jay walking across a street!
 
That 2 million bounty cap really is awful.

The effort it takes to kill a fully engineered ship can be immense, and you’re putting your own rebuy on the line when hunting someone down.

In a time where you can be an Elite billionaire via mining in a couple sessions, what would it hurt to let me collect 10,000,000 from blowing up a bad guy?
What makes it currently even more ridicolous is that for example power play victim dont even have to pay his power play bounty after rebuy, 2mln cap in pvp when you can share 50 mln wing mission and get full 50 mln with 0 contribution....
 
Frontier also created the block feature, by design. Literally - they wrote the program code and UI for the block feature with full knowledge of instancing, networking, and intimate understanding of how block interacts with these things. So all you "blockers are selfish, you are ruining the game for everyone" carebears:

iu


/rant
 
Frontier also created the block feature, by design. Literally - they wrote the program code and UI for the block feature with full knowledge of instancing, networking, and intimate understanding of how block interacts with these things.
And it's fine, just remove it from competetive elements of game, even if i m not sure if 3 modes AND block in current form make much sense in any part of the game. I miss block function blocking comms, stopping system spam would be good, but i cant do this, becouse i dont want to kill instancing with others, and it's against my sqd rules.
 
And it's fine, just remove it from competetive elements of game, even if i m not sure if 3 modes AND block in current form make much sense in any part of the game.
You can see my "pro-blocking" arguments here (you'll notice it's an evolving conversation back when I was figuring all this out):


But I do agree with you, I'm totally okay with things like Power Play and all lawless zones (CZs and anarchy systems) being "block-free zones", at least when it comes to instancing. Heck, I'd be okay if the block algorithm took into consideration system security. High Sec might offer 100% blocking efficiency, while Low Sec might offer 33% blocking efficiency. But like PvP in general, I don't see Frontier doing any balance passes anytime soon, so I'll just use the tools they gave me.
 
If blocking only affected comms, I definitely woulda considered smashing that block button a time or two.

Just because I don’t wanna read their nonsense in local chat doesn’t mean I don’t wanna blow ‘em up still lol.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But I do agree with you, I'm totally okay with things like Power Play and all lawless zones (CZs and anarchy systems) being "block-free zones", at least when it comes to instancing. Heck, I'd be okay if the block algorithm took into consideration system security. High Sec might offer 100% blocking efficiency, while Low Sec might offer 33% blocking efficiency. But like PvP in general, I don't see Frontier doing any balance passes anytime soon, so I'll just use the tools they gave me.
Given that the block feature has worked in all game features, all over the galaxy, from the outset and has only ever been strengthened and made simpler to use over time, I doubt that it would be made less useful now.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I need you defending me in that other thread, where the anti-block gankers are ganking me hard!
Given Frontier's stance on player freedom, i.e. a player's choice of who to play with (or who not to play with) precedes and may over-ride the desire of others to play with them, I doubt that the block feature will be going anywhere....
 
Top Bottom