PvP Frontier created PVP gankers. By design.

The only people who do that are sociopaths...
Alas, they are in the game. And I do not care about them, I feel sorry for newcomers who can get negative from this great game.
I have communicated with them and they always write back: we do not violate the rules of the game. And that's where we come back to the topic of the forum.
 
How long have you been playing the game? All holidays gankers hovered over Felicity's port and killed 10s of newcomers bringing her meta alloys.

I have over 3000hrs in the game. I fly open unless I'm specifically hunting a super high res screen shot. I have been attacked many times but but only been 'ganked' a handful of those times. Been to Ms Farseers a few times over the holiday season.... all of which doe not refute my point... IF I got killed there and really thought I'd get killed again I could just swap modes and completely nullify all the PvP that FDev had created in a single button press.

Alas, they are in the game. And I do not care about them, I feel sorry for newcomers who can get negative from this great game.

Of course they are in game. They will be anywhere people are. But thats besides the point. Just because you can do something in the game as it is 'allowed' does not make the developers responsible for people 'choosing' to gank.. that is on the players themselves choosing to do so.
 
I have over 3000hrs in the game. I fly open unless I'm specifically hunting a super high res screen shot. I have been attacked many times but but only been 'ganked' a handful of those times. Been to Ms Farseers a few times over the holiday season.... all of which doe not refute my point... IF I got killed there and really thought I'd get killed again I could just swap modes and completely nullify all the PvP that FDev had created in a single button press.
So you think the newcomers who brought Felice's meta-alloys intentionally set up their ship for the ganker?
Of course they are in game. They will be anywhere people are. But thats besides the point. Just because you can do something in the game as it is 'allowed' does not make the developers responsible for people 'choosing' to gank.. that is on the players themselves choosing to do so.
I disagree with you.
In my opinion, if in a system with high security, the ganker is not afraid to attack someone, then this is not a system with high security.
Somehow they wrote to me that there is a ganker who has fines of 1.5 billion, and he spit on it continues to fly as before.
This is normal ?
 
Your actions depend on the consequences. If you see that there will be no consequences, then you will do anything.
Depends on person, I think most people would not do "anything" even without consequences. Though their inner morale compass may differ quite much from what is defined in lawbooks.
 
Isn't it true?
It's just that forbidding rules prevent them from doing it on a regular basis. These people are called criminals and are caught and isolated from society.

I don't quite understand YOU. Are you for the unpunished gank in the game?

I'm not making a comment on whether there should be punishment or not in ED for ganking.

I'm talking about blame shifting.

I'm saying its like a criminal in society blaming the government for allowing them to be a criminal, because they government didn't stop them being a criminal. Yes, there are consequences for crime (if caught) but it doesn't stop the crime happening in the first place.

Gankers and griefers are gankers and griefers because they want to be gankers and griefers. If they couldn't get their jollies in ED, they would get their jollies in other games.
 
I just merely pointed out that the choice is not a 'gameplay reason' but your choice to do so if there are nigh on no reason to do so as it's inconsequential to gameplay.

There are plenty of gameplay incentives to make the choices we make and plenty of gameplay consequences to them.

I'm not sure how it could be argued otherwise, if that's what you're arguing. The game doesn't need to demarcate consequence in explicit numerical terms for it to be relevant to gameplay.

You can disagree all you want but everything you ahve said is a choice you made on how you play and has zero consequence to anyone you meet. and PvP facilities nothing in this context at all. See below.

How I play often has major consequences to those I meet, and vice versa. That's kinda the point of multiplayer, especially direct multiplayer.

Much of the gameplay of this game is other CMDRs, and this is explicitly the case for the Open mode.

'Translated to' does not equal 'required' as I originally stated. Off course a lot of skills relating to damage application, combat positioning etc that are gained from PvP can be USED elswhere in the game but they are most certainly not required and are quite irrelevant when you consider the grand scheme of things. If they weren't then people would simply not be able to play the game without the need to go train in PvP, which obviously they don't so...

Not the sort of skills I was thinking about, nor was I implying that all skills are required to play the game to some degree, just that the more things one can do, the more gameplay options there are.

There are skills I would not have even considered if not for PvP that I've found quite useful in contexts outside of PvP, that have nothing to do with damage application or combat positioning. PvP, for example, made me better explorer, trader, and racer than if I had just focused on those tasks to the exclusion of others. I'll never have to avoid scooping from a white dwarf jet cone, or need to worry about landing without shields on a high-g world, because of abilities I acquired fighting or escaping other CMDRs in PvP scenarios. Even the early Buckyballs I participated in were an extension of PvP.

Again taken completely out of context, a re-occurring theme in your quotes of me, but it's besides the point.

I thought the context was PvP and how there are supposedly no gameplay reasons for it.

This was from the point of view as a ganker not someone fighting off a ganker.

Ganking is a major gameplay incentive for gankers and a subset of PvP.

I was just elaborating on other, arguably more contextually supported, incentives.

The tiny 'penalty' you face in the rebuy (given the silly ease at which credits are now made) is nothing as you simply go back and block the attacker, or go 'solo' and carry on about your business. therefore no consequence.

If someone is in Open it's probably to interact with other players. Going to Solo is going to have pretty enormous consequence to their gameplay here, and blocking isn't exactly consequence free.

Consequence has implications far beyond credits, and ship loss is usually not the primary consequence of PvP, nor is rebuy often the primary consequence of getting shot down.
 
Gankers and griefers are gankers and griefers because they want to be gankers and griefers. If they couldn't get their jollies in ED, they would get their jollies in other games.
It doesn't matter to me, as long as they don't cause the newcomer to be negative about this great game.
 
I could just swap modes and completely nullify all the PvP that FDev had created in a single button press.

And also abdicate the gameplay opportunities of Open.

Consequences and gameplay implications all-round, for all sides. Not always the ones we should have, but they're there none the less.

I'm talking about blame shifting.

Blame isn't a zero sum thing. Those responsible for conditions that allow something to occur can be fully culpable without reducing culpability elsewhere.

I'm saying its like a criminal in society blaming the government for allowing them to be a criminal, because they government didn't stop them being a criminal. Yes, there are consequences for crime (if caught) but it doesn't stop the crime happening in the first place.

Prevention is the primary argument for the existence of those consequences in most modern societies, and the only pragmatic one. Punishment is supposed to be a deterrent...and it often is. A society that doesn't deter behavior it finds undesirable, invites such behavior, and that doesn't have to absolve anyone.

Punishment without deterrence is just sadism.

Gankers and griefers are gankers and griefers because they want to be gankers and griefers. If they couldn't get their jollies in ED, they would get their jollies in other games.

If they couldn't get their jollies in ED, the couldn't get their jollies in ED. What do other games have to do with anything?
 
My point is they make their own choices. Blaming FD for the choices is disingenious.

Its called taking responsibility for your own choices.
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.)
 
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.
 
Top Bottom