PvP Frontier created PVP gankers. By design.

That's not true!
Did you read the title of the topic? No one is accusing anyone of making any kind of choice. The topic is that the existing conditions of the game do not prevent players from interfering with other players to play.
( I do not know if my phrase is translated correctly.)
Well player has choice. Pulling trigger is voluntary :D
 
No it's not true at all. Most people don't go out of their way to intentionally cause harm to others. It's not because it's 'against the rules'.
The only people who do that are sociopaths...
If people didn't have to fear the potential consequences of their actions their risk vs. reward assessment would change, and many more people, with and without any sort of personality disorder, would be motivated to harm others.

We have thousands of years of philosophy and a few hundred years of psychology and statistical observations that generally acknowledge the utility of punishment as a preventative deterrent, at least when applied rationally. There is still plenty of debate about the specifics, but deterrence is a well founded principle that is the basis for the existence of punishment in many justice systems.

LOL you guys are funny...

wrong but funny o7
I don't think you've provided anything to support your original assertion that, "when you take a monetary gain or power/control gain from an encounter then there is no reason to do it other than saying you can", and even the implication that PvP cannot influence these things, in practice, is demonstrably false.

I like flying ships and utilizing the capabilities of those ships...that is one of the primary forms of gameplay and one of the main incentive to play, that this game provides. Maybe to say you can is the only motivation you have to do what you do with the game, but that certainly can't be applied to everyone, and certainly isn't exclusive to things that lack more explicit in-game reward.

It's not 'chest beating' when my CMDR takes apart a non-hostile NPC vessel he came across in an unpopulated system. It has no appreciable monetary gain, and has no BGS implications what so ever. Nor does it being my 'choice' detract from the gameplay. Replace that NPC with a CMDR (making it a PvP encounter), and the target becomes more unique and dynamic, but the gameplay incentives may well remain the same...and can still have nothing to do with 'chest beating'. Same can apply to almost anything else, because the game is about a lot more than collecting credits, or flipping systems.

Its called taking responsibility for your own choices.
I do.

I also take responsibility for the choices I allow others to make, and the actions I allow them to take, when they are acting in settings or venues under my control. If I want to depict a certain setting faithfully, I don't expect anyone else to refrain from options that are presented to them on the basis of my unenforced whim. I set rules and I enforce consequences...contextually, if possible.
 
Doing it because you can and get nothing else out of it is exactly that... ;)
Which describes essentially no one. People do what they find rewarding.

Gankers gank because they find it rewarding. You fly FA off everywhere because you find it rewarding. I have my CMDR flip systems to shape fantasy geopolitics in accordance with his background narrative because I find it rewarding. Others may like seeing their credits tick up, or because rank badges provide a sense of accomplishment. None of these rewards is more or less supported or valid than any other.
 
I find it fun... that is that. it isn't something it isn't. Simply.

There is no reward. a reward is something you get FOR doing something. Fun is what you get AS you do something you enjoy.... ;)
 
Which describes essentially no one. People do what they find rewarding.

Gankers gank because they find it rewarding. You fly FA off everywhere because you find it rewarding. I have my CMDR flip systems to shape fantasy geopolitics in accordance with his background narrative because I find it rewarding. Others may like seeing their credits tick up, or because rank badges provide a sense of accomplishment. None of these rewards is more or less supported or valid than any other.
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.

I've talked to gankers and they usually kill for fun, not that it's useful to anyone, even them.
 
That's not true!
Did you read the title of the topic? No one is accusing anyone of making any kind of choice. The topic is that the existing conditions of the game do not prevent players from interfering with other players to play.
( I do not know if my phrase is translated correctly.)
I read this part:

Frontier created PVP gankers. Discuss.
My argument is that FD didn't create the gankers. Gankers exist in many games. In just about game game with a combined PvP/PvE environment you will find gankers (and griefers). It has nothing to do with the developers.
 
I do.

I also take responsibility for the choices I allow others to make, and the actions I allow them to take, when they are acting in settings or venues under my control. If I want to depict a certain setting faithfully, I don't expect anyone else to refrain from options that are presented to them on the basis of my unenforced whim. I set rules and I enforce consequences...contextually, if possible.
That's ok, i don't think I was arguing against anything like that.
 
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.
 
...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
...
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 !
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: 0B
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?
 
Top Bottom