PvP Frontier created PVP gankers. By design.

[Morbad]

There is no reward. a reward is something you get FOR doing something. Fun is what you get AS you do something you enjoy....

A reward doesn't need to come after a completion of a task to be a reward. Nor does the game need to specifically incentivize every action to acknowledge them in some manner, or for them to be rewarding.

Fun is the reward of gameplay.

I think there is a translation error here, but I don't agree with you.
There is a word useful - i.e., it gives access to something else. And there is the word funny - which brings nothing further.

If you are implying that ganking has no utility...that's debatable and subjective to one's goals.

I've talked to gankers and they usually kill for fun, not that it's useful to anyone, even them.

Fun is useful to them. The entertainment value alone is going to be the overwhelming incentive for most people to play most any game.

 

[SergMx]

...
Fun is the reward of gameplay.

If you are implying that ganking has no utility...that's debatable and subjective to one's goals.

Fun is useful to them. The entertainment value alone is going to be the overwhelming incentive for most people to play most any game.

No. I understand what you mean and now I will try to explain without touching the usefulness.

In the case of entertainment from the game in the usual sense and you bring yourself joy and all.
In the case of ganking, you give yourself joy at the expense of other people's negativity.

You paid for the ticket and came to the circus.
1. There the clown smacks himself on the head (that's his job) and you and the others have fun.
2. The clown drags YOU into the arena and bangs you on the head, everyone is having fun except YOU.

 

[Morbad]

In the case of entertainment from the game in the usual sense and you bring yourself joy and all.

It's a multiplayer game and the potential to affect others is implicit in many activities.

In the case of ganking, you give yourself joy at the expense of other people's negativity.

Sometimes, but not always.

Likewise, there are activities that wouldn't be called ganking that can certainly impact others negatively. Plenty of people get upset when their PMF faces opposition for example. Doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me, though being directly attacked by other CMDRs usually takes less work to fix than being opposed via the BGS.

You paid for the ticket and came to the circus.
1. There the clown smacks himself on the head (that's his job) and you and the others have fun.
2. The clown drags YOU into the arena and bangs you on the head, everyone is having fun except YOU.

If I'm playing in a mode where CMDR is subject to being attacked by other CMDRs, I've opted into that.

My only problem with ganking is that the travel, persistence, and consequence mechanisms that allow it to be as prevalent as it is detract from the depiction of a credible setting. If the underlying game made sense, ganking would fall to a level that also made sense.

 

[Old Duck]

In Elite Dangerous, gankers & griefers think they are the heroes of the story. In Space Engineers, they know and admit that they are the villains.

 

[SergMx]

...
My only problem with ganking is that the travel, persistence,
...

Stop.
You are a good pilot and I do not believe that YOU have a problem with ganking, even I, as I am not a skilled pilot and I believe that I have no problem with ganking.
I mean the newbies who just started playing the game and learn the mechanics of the game, here's literally like this today asked about the star map ...

Gankers will not chase you, not even me. They will hang out in Deciat and kill newbies !

 

[Morbad]

Gankers will not chase you, not even me. They will hang out in Deciat and kill newbies !

Newbies are certainly more likely to have negative experiences with gankers.

However, these newbies still opted in to the possibility of such encounters. The game doesn't promise safety from other CMDRs in Open.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Happens so that Open is default mode setting. More reasonable system would be default to Solo, next option Open, last PG

 

[0B]

At the end of the day, regardless of whether someone opts in or not, or is able to avoid gankers, I don't think it changes one basic thing.

If we were to remove PVP from the game, we would lose a large subset of gameplay: this impacts more than just the people who enjoy PVP for its own sake, it includes piracy activities, the purpose of groups like iridium wing, etc. It's the same as if we were to remove exploration, or trading. Other players would be adversely impacted by the loss.

However, if we were to remove only ganking, we would lose nothing. Ganking provides no benefit to other players.

The only reason removing ganking would affect you is if: 1) it's done in a way that negatively impacts another aspect of the game (to include PVP), or 2) you're a ganker. I think the ideal solution is if we keep the impact on other parts of the game as low as possible.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

At the end of the day, regardless of whether someone opts in or not, or is able to avoid gankers, I don't think it changes one basic thing.

If we were to remove PVP from the game, we would lose a large subset of gameplay: this impacts more than just the people who enjoy PVP for its own sake, it includes piracy activities, the purpose of groups like iridium wing, etc. It's the same as if we were to remove exploration, or trading. Other players would be adversely impacted by the loss.

However, if we were to remove only ganking, we would lose nothing. Ganking provides no benefit to other players.

The only reason removing ganking would affect you is if: 1) it's done in a way that negatively impacts another aspect of the game (to include PVP), or 2) you're a ganker. I think the ideal solution is if we keep the impact on other parts of the game as low as possible.

Removing ganking is easier to say than do.

 

[0B]

Removing ganking is easier to say than do.

I completely agree there, as well. Any measures we can think of will either negatively impact other parts of the game (PVP, instancing weirdness) or will not be as effective (We can buff system security all day, but a ganker can still one-shot a noob before dying, and a rebuy is trivial). It's a tricky problem, and if there were an easy solution it would have been solved already

 

[SergMx]

I completely agree there, as well. Any measures we can think of will either negatively impact other parts of the game (PVP, instancing weirdness) or will not be as effective (We can buff system security all day, but a ganker can still one-shot a noob before dying, and a rebuy is trivial). It's a tricky problem, and if there were an easy solution it would have been solved already

I don't agree with you. For example, why don't the ATRs fly in quickly to help in high-security systems?

 

[antiriad]

We can buff system security all day, but a ganker can still one-shot a noob before dying, and a rebuy is trivial

I've always thought it odd that, if I'm carrying some valuable cargo, invariably an NPC will spawn and attempt to interdict me for my "tasty cargo" or similar, but a "ganker" can sit in supercruise in a High Sec system indefinitely without system security batting an eyelid. Sure, the ATR will be dispatched if said "ganker" attacks another ship, but by then it's too late.

If "gankers" in High Sec systems were being chain interdicted by ATR (obviously the ATR's interdiction skills would require buffing to the point where it would be very difficult to evade), then would this be a deterrent to those that hang around in the same systems all day/night looking for easy targets?

 

[oblivionmanman 2476]

most gankers are in wings,so realy you dont have much of a chance 3-1,normaly will win,not often you find a lone ganger,and then they jump away when the realize you are fighting back with equal weapons and shields,

 

[TiberiusDuval]

I don't agree with you. For example, why don't the ATRs fly in quickly to help in high-security systems?

Well think about noob's chances of lasting, noobboat won't last even for 15 sec timer to run to end against gankboat's alpha strike....

 

[TiberiusDuval]

most gankers are in wings,so realy you dont have much of a chance 3-1,normaly will win,not often you find a lone ganger,and then they jump away when the realize you are fighting back with equal weapons and shields,

And typically when we talk about noobboats, even one decent gankship is enough.

 

[SergMx]

And typically when we talk about noobboats, even one decent gankship is enough.

Yes, they'll manage to kill one, but they can't be in this system anymore until they drop the limelight.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If we were to remove PVP from the game, we would lose a large subset of gameplay: this impacts more than just the people who enjoy PVP for its own sake, it includes piracy activities, the purpose of groups like iridium wing, etc. It's the same as if we were to remove exploration, or trading. Other players would be adversely impacted by the loss.

Some players would feel the loss, no doubt - others would be able to play co-operatively in a multi-player mode with no population limit without being bothered by those wishing to engage in PvP.... Not everyone who bought the game did so to engage in, or even tolerate, PvP.

Not that I'm suggesting that an existing game feature be removed, of course, unlike those who seek to PvP-gate content to Open who support removing content from players who don't enjoy PvP.

 

[0B]

I don't agree with you. For example, why don't the ATRs fly in quickly to help in high-security systems?

NPC AI is a complex problem. I think it would negatively impact gameplay if you had ATRs fly in immediately after someone interdicts. And if a noob can be killed in one-two shots, then ATRs flying in after the kill may be ineffective. The ganker has the same tools that other players do to avoid interdiction, and it's unlikely that the AI will be programmed to use tactics like slamming into another ship to cause a FSD reset.

I've always thought it odd that, if I'm carrying some valuable cargo, invariably an NPC will spawn and attempt to interdict me for my "tasty cargo" or similar, but a "ganker" can sit in supercruise in a High Sec system indefinitely without system security batting an eyelid. Sure, the ATR will be dispatched if said "ganker" attacks another ship, but by then it's too late.

If "gankers" in High Sec systems were being chain interdicted by ATR (obviously the ATR's interdiction skills would require buffing to the point where it would be very difficult to evade), then would this be a deterrent to those that hang around in the same systems all day/night looking for easy targets?

Chain interdictions might be more effective- the goal is to annoy the ganker rather than defeat them, since rebuys are arbitrary. If a ganker has to eat a rebuy every time they gain notoriety (Or have to flee system and switch ships), that may be a deterrent, or at least slow down the ganking.

I'm not sure if it's possible to build ATR AI in such a way that it's actually capable of preventing ganking, but maybe it can slow it down. So it's not as effective as blocking gankers, for example. Perhaps half-measures are all we need?

 

[0B]

Some players would feel the loss, no doubt - others would be able to play co-operatively in a multi-player mode with no population limit without being bothered by those wishing to engage in PvP.... Not everyone who bought the game did so to engage in, or even tolerate, PvP.

Not that I'm suggesting that an existing game feature be removed, of course, unlike those who seek to PvP-gate content to Open who support removing content from players who don't enjoy PvP.

A PvE mode would add to the game experience, not detract from it, to be certain. If I decide to play PvE instead of PvP with you, that doesn't affect you any more than if I decided to play Scrabble instead of ED. However, I could understand an argument against letting players in PvE or other non-PvP modes affect powerplay or community goals, since those are intended to be competitive.

While researching, I did find this article about SDC infiltrating Mobius in order to kill PvE players. I find it interesting how a subset of PvP players took it personally that other players wanted to do PvE and said mean things about it on the forum, and then painted themselves as the good guys for attacking PvE players in a PvE server. That's not too different than someone hacking a peaceful mode/non-PvP server in Minecraft to allow them to kill other players (With access via social engineering instead of modification of the actual code).

(apologies for double post, I didn't see we were on a new page and I thought your response was interesting)

 

[Robert Maynard]

A PvE mode would add to the game experience, not detract from it, to be certain. If I decide to play PvE instead of PvP with you, that doesn't affect you any more than if I decided to play Scrabble instead of ED.

Apart from affecting the pan-modal game features, of course - which may have an indirect effect on other players.

However, I could understand an argument against letting players in PvE or other non-PvP modes affect powerplay or community goals, since those are intended to be competitive.

All players affect the shared galaxy state - by design - it's the principle upon which the game was pitched over eight years ago. The debate as to whether that's a feature or a problem to be solved has been ongoing for years. Frontier chose to design their game around every player affecting the galaxy while not requiring any player to engage in PvP (if they don't want to).

That one of the game modes guarantees that the player cannot be shot at by another player and another offers multi-player among selected others, means that "players in PvE or other non-PvP modes affect powerplay or community goals" - and have done since they were introduced. On the announcement of Community Goals being added to the game, Michael Brookes was quite clear that they are for all players, regardless of game mode - just as DBOBE spoke of players in Solo affecting Powerplay in an AMA when Powerplay was released.

Competition, in this game, does not require any player to engage in PvP - apart from in CQC, of course.

While researching, I did find this article about SDC infiltrating Mobius in order to kill PvE players. I find it interesting how a subset of PvP players took it personally that other players wanted to do PvE and said mean things about it on the forum, and then painted themselves as the good guys for attacking PvE players in a PvE server. That's not too different than someone hacking a peaceful mode/non-PvP server in Minecraft to allow them to kill other players (With access via social engineering instead of modification of the actual code).

Some players seem to get really offended by the fact that other players can play the game without them - even though we all bought the same game that offers three game modes, a single shared galaxy state and the ability to switch modes at will. Those who would join threads created by players asking why they were destroyed for no apparent reason to give the sage advice: "git gud or go solo" were, I expect, one of the reasons that the Mobius PvE Private Groups grew in size quite so quickly in the early days of the game. Thankfully Frontier haven't PvP-gated any content to Open - so no-one needs to play among those players.