PvP GANK TV - WARNING

Because, in truth, this is just a game, so I find there's no place for all that horse.
Well, that's your problem right there. This exactly the sort of stuff many people want in their games and indeed, this sort of stuff is a fundamental part of the vision Frontier originally had.

The game cannot exclude the forms of competition simply because you do not personally have a place for them in your entertainment. It's already provided various ways to-opt out of undesirable forms of competition (other than the BGS, of course), but the baseline has to be as unrestricted as possible to allow for as many playstyles as possible.

Organic PvP cannot exist with overmany arbitrary hard limits on who can engage who, or on what terms. Quite a few players, most of whom have no ill will toward, nor are attempting to cause grief for, others, thoroughly enjoy the potential for assymetric encounters the challenges that only they can bring.

If I want a simulated combat sport within the game, I can have that essentially any time I care to. However, PvP is so much more than this, and most of the time I am not looking for a simulation of a combat sport, I am looking for a hollistic simulation of conflict...where the only gamist concessions are to avoid most of the real-life tedium and physical dangers associated with real-world conflicts. Strategy, logistics, tactics, attrition...I want to experience all of that as I have my CMDR pursue his personal doctrines.

And I want to be opposed by other players who aren't having their CMDRs pull any punches, because I find nothing more damaging to the verisimilitude of fantasy organic conflict than an enemy that seems to want to give me a sporting chance. I don't expect most of my CMDRs opposition to be a match for him, and most of them should not expect it either...which is why they should be stacking the odds in their favor any way they can. A victory is a victory, and I'll respect an opponent that knows their limitations and waits until my CMDR can be caught with his pants down at least as much as I'll respect one that can best him in a 'fair' fight.
 
At the heart of every one of these threads lies a common theme.
A commander gets killed by an overwhelmingly powerful attacker then spends a billion pixels explaining that they didn't mind dying but just had to comment on the psychological makeup of someone enjoying such an easy kill.

Over and over again.

The take home message is simple.
Some players just like to kill anything that moves.
If you're in open then you're on the menu.
 
Well, that's your problem right there. This exactly the sort of stuff many people want in their games and indeed, this sort of stuff is a fundamental part of the vision Frontier originally had.
I originally stopped reading right there, because if the rest of your post is based on this it is blatantly untrue.

Citation:

DBOBE: "rare and meaningful"


So no, ganking was, categorically, NOT a part of the fundamental vision for the game.

Perhaps that was a naïve vision, but it was the fundamental vision that this game, and I paraphrase: sought to provide a public game environment that would be free of children/teenagers.

Yours Aye

Mark H
 
The players from Eastern Europe seem more likely to engage in the 4v1 ganking style of gameplay. But on those rare occasions when you engage them 1v1, the results are interesting. Now, Cmdr Tinvanno, the OP of this thread, is great in a pack, but in a straight-up 1v1, things are a lot closer. I lost fair and square, but I was surprised at how well a Krait Mk2 did against OP's Anaconda. Enjoy, or just skip to the last 30 seconds for the money shot.

Source: https://youtu.be/rK1E_6eRXMU
 
I originally stopped reading right there, because if the rest of your post is based on this it is blatantly untrue.

Citation:

DBOBE: "rare and meaningful"


So no, ganking was, categorically, NOT a part of the fundamental vision for the game.

Perhaps that was a naïve vision, but it was the fundamental vision that this game, and I paraphrase: sought to provide a public game environment that would be free of children/teenagers.

Yours Aye

Mark H
It's not unusual for a creation to evolve in ways its creator never intended.

Whatever it is you think Braben wanted we're clearly somewhere else. What are you going to do about it?
 
I originally stopped reading right there, because if the rest of your post is based on this it is blatantly untrue.

Citation:

DBOBE: "rare and meaningful"
Braben also didn't want the game to feel too gamist from the CMDR's perspective. Click the link in my signature for the relevant segment of the dev plan.

So no, ganking was, categorically, NOT a part of the fundamental vision for the game.
I don't agree. Rare and meaningful doesn't rule out ganking.

Plenty of examples of what many would consider ganking in the early promotional material for the game and combat between CMDRs even of vastly different capabilities was deliberately never prevented.

Ganking is arguably too common and losses certainly aren't meaningful, but that's a problem with the game's lack of a credible economy and lack of consequences.

The absense of "all that horse" that you have a problem with is exactly why ganking is as prevalent as it is. Frontier has allowed the instant gratification gamist elements to run roughshod over verisimilitude.

You wanted a game within a game and that's exactly what you got.
 
Last edited:
The players from Eastern Europe seem more likely to engage in the 4v1 ganking style of gameplay. But on those rare occasions when you engage them 1v1, the results are interesting. Now, Cmdr Tinvanno, the OP of this thread, is great in a pack, but in a straight-up 1v1, things are a lot closer. I lost fair and square, but I was surprised at how well a Krait Mk2 did against OP's Anaconda. Enjoy, or just skip to the last 30 seconds for the money shot.

Source: https://youtu.be/rK1E_6eRXMU
GF btw
 
The players from Eastern Europe seem more likely to engage in the 4v1 ganking style of gameplay. But on those rare occasions when you engage them 1v1, the results are interesting. Now, Cmdr Tinvanno, the OP of this thread, is great in a pack, but in a straight-up 1v1, things are a lot closer. I lost fair and square, but I was surprised at how well a Krait Mk2 did against OP's Anaconda. Enjoy, or just skip to the last 30 seconds for the money shot.

Source: https://youtu.be/rK1E_6eRXMU
Greetings Cmdr,

could you explain to me why you think Tinvannos ship is OP?

IMHO you lost because of three reason:

1. The absolute absence of pip management.
2. You did not care about your power management
3. You relied on torps

Keep also in mind, that the low hull state at the end could also be part of a strategy.

Do you homework and try once more.

Best regards,

Cmdr Aldimann

Proud to be [RoA]
 
My fault. I read the second "OP" wrong and thought you mean the ana is OP.

That's were I have to do my homework. Reading more careful. ;)
 
Braben also didn't want the game to feel too gamist from the CMDR's perspective. Click the link in my signature for the relevant segment of the dev plan.
That's as may be, and is a diversion from the point I was answering, but doesn't change what I said - so I accept that you concede my point, thanks.

My point being the fact that Braben's Fundamental Vision didn't include this kind of gameplay. I already conceded that his vision was probably a naïve one - which is again a different discussion, but we both know what I'm saying is true. The fact that you don't want it to be true is particularly irrelevant, just face facts.

I don't agree. Rare and meaningful doesn't rule out ganking.
Yes.
Yes it does.
We talked about the naïve original vision for the game - well to put this in perspective - for all those players that go out on ganking sprees - how is PvP combat being "rare" for that ganking CMDR? It isn't. By definition. You will therefore need to agree (probably reluctantly) that the player is not conforming to the vision for the game, because that gank spree is the antithesis and opposite of "rare". (Show me a CMDR that performs ONE gank and then changes game-style to some other style of play and only goes back to ganking on a "rare" occasion. We both know this doesn't happen - a Ganker pursues ganking as a staple part of their gameplay. Continuously. As much as possible in some cases. Perhapos that might not be as much as desired due to the other grind loops required in the game - but those grind loops are pursued reluctantly by a gank CMDR - strictly with the aim of going back to ganking as soon as possible. Ergo, it is not "rare", (for that CMDR).
I agree with you that nothing in the game "prevents" [1] ganking, but that doesn't change the quote - that the Vision was for that not to be the way players would choose play. Braben's fundamental vision (at the time) was that this was not what he wanted, regardless of whether it does or not happen now, regardless of whether it CAN happen or not, this categorically does not change the Vision.


[1] C&P has always been an intention to "discourage" ganking, rather than "prevent" ganking.


Plenty of examples of what many would consider ganking in the early promotional material for the game and combat between CMDRs even of vastly different capabilities was deliberately never prevented.
Pull the other one. We have somebody else here trying to argue that finding a combat ship is some kind of freak chance and argues that you aren't able to tell which ships will go pop at one shot or not. Which is it?
If that was true, then what might have appeared to be a weaker ship in that early promotional material material may not have been such. Perhaps it had strong shields and the attacker had low end weapons - and early days were no wings, so haow is it possible to tell the particular details of what the promotional scenario depicted? It may only appear to be a gank from a ganker's mindset and not as a gank from another perspective... I'd say that is a poor analogy and certainly no evidence of Braben's fundamental vision, since that promotional material came a LONG time after the vision went onto Kickstarter.


Ganking is arguably too common and losses certainly aren't meaningful, but that's a problem with the game's lack of a credible economy and lack of consequences.
We might be able to find some common ground here.
Interesting that you mention "Losses" and not "gains" here, now that is definitely a window into your perspective.

Are you saying that you'd prefer to see more drastic "consequences" on those players who were subjected to a gank attack. Rather than the other way around - some kind of reward for the "winner" [bleurgh - it pains me to type that word in relation to a player who has basically roflstomped another, in all likelihood, uninvited]


Perhaps this is where I can bring this point around.
So when you say that there's nothing in game to stop ganking - and that, in your (hopefully former) view makes it part of the fundamental vision (which I've argued with conviction and evidence that isn't), perhaps the fact that iterations of C&P have failed to successfully minimise this kind of gameplay - perhaps the devs have seen that their only recourse is to ensure that when ganking does happen, that it doesn't disadvantage the gankee too much?

Think on that for a while.


The absense of "all that horse" that you have a problem with is exactly why ganking is as prevalent as it is. Frontier has allowed the instant gratification gamist elements to run roughshod over verisimilitude.

You wanted a game within a game and that's exactly what you got.

I haven't ever confirmed what kind of game I wanted. I know that I enjoy playing this game, and it's pretty much the only game I play. I don't really know what point you're trying to make here? Like I said originally - we can discuss how naïve the original vision was. The way it has evolved has been problematic for FDev, because they always wanted to stick to this original vision, and that's the principal reason, imho, that the gratification gamist has ridden roughshod, because the original vision was never surrendered. Ganking exists despite this fundamental Vision.
 
Top Bottom