PvP GANK TV - WARNING

I originally stopped reading right there, because if the rest of your post is based on this it is blatantly untrue.
That seems to be a general problem on your side: jumping to conclusions. Because if you continue, there's actually the part that marks very much the original vision:
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.
The simple effect of this unrestricted baseline and I absolutely agree with Morbad here, is the possibility of ganking as a playstyle. Whether it is rare or not.
So this:
Ganking exists despite this fundamental Vision.
Is either simply a confusion of cause and effect on your side, or far more likely the deliberate misreading what others say. As ganking exists in this game, because of the fundamental vision of a unrestricted baseline, since any arbitrary ruleset like the often asked for Open PvE would be exactly the opposite of an unrestricted baseline.
What you want is obviously something else than a unrestricted baseline: a gamist concept of fair and consensual combat.
Because, in truth, this is just a game, so I find there's no place for all that horse. If you want your opponent to have fun, and engage, with both you and the game, then you don't actively choose a player that is hopelessly out-equipped. That pursuit is just for undesirables who don't want their fellow player to enjoy or have fun. Don't confuse that for "armchair psychology". It isn't. It's a simple statement that players who are hopelessly outclassed by somebody attacking them (and choosing to attack them on the principal grounds that they are outclassed) is a part of the game that is, in the vast majority, undesired.
Now this desire of yours is completely acceptabel as a desire. Many games offer exactly that and there are even tournaments in-game adhering to this desire. But there isn't any kind of factual, objective, social or even logical necessity for games in general to follow the limitations of your desires.
 
That seems to be a general problem on your side: jumping to conclusions. Because if you continue, there's actually the part that marks very much the original vision:
Notice my word "originally".
Meaning I went back and re-read your post.
Meaning that I originally read that first line and knew where you would incorrectly lead your script.
Meaning that I had to check myself, and read the rest carefully, so as not to taint the rest of your words with that first statement.
Meaning that I took care to make sure the rest of the words were coherent with that first statement. And they did appear to be just that.
So although my first impression was that I need not read on... I took great personal care to ensure I got your meaning correct.
My conscience is totally clear.

There's always Ad Hominem if you can't tackle the actual argument properly?

Also, let's examine that assumption of me "jumping to conclusions" again and consider which one of us did that... because it certainly wasn't me.



The simple effect of this unrestricted baseline and I absolutely agree with Morbad here, is the possibility of ganking as a playstyle. Whether it is rare or not.
So this:

Is either simply a confusion of cause and effect on your side, or far more likely the deliberate misreading what others say. As ganking exists in this game, because of the fundamental vision of a unrestricted baseline, since any arbitrary ruleset like the often asked for Open PvE would be exactly the opposite of an unrestricted baseline.
What you want is obviously something else than a unrestricted baseline: a gamist concept of fair and consensual combat.
Your position, to me, appears like a deliberate misinterpretation or subversion of the truth.

The truth goes more like this:

Braben has been on record as saying that he wanted to build a game that HE would play, that he wanted to play - I paraphrase, but you can find the actual footage if you are at all interested in the truth, instead of trying to peddle this subverted version and claim it as truth - he wanted to play a game and design a game where a player wouldn't be hassled by angsty teenagers/gankers.

Now we can discuss whether he was successful in that vision or not, but the lack of success in that direction still doesn't change the fact that his original vision for the game was one where players did not feel the "need" or "urge" to go out and gank. This is the truth whether you like it or not.

The Vision was an unrestricted baseline, yes, but NOT as a goal in itself. Rather, the unrestricted baseline was the implementation that DBOBE assumed (naïvely) would be adequate, because the rest of the game he felt (naïvely) would be interesting enough for angsty teenagers to play without resorting to hassling others and not that interesting for angsty teenagers who wanted to do just intervene on other's games: such that PvP combat would be rendered "rare and meaningful" to both parties performing it. This much is clear from his multiple interviews at the time of marketing the Kickstarter campaign. Maybe go check them out. Or not.

To a certain extent, the vision has had some, if limited success, in that to go all out to intervene unwantedly on another player's game, there is a significant "not so much fun" part to go through first, which turns out to be "not un-fun" if the player isn't going all out to build a murder-boat to destroy randomly. Witness the massive amount of moans about the grind on this forum. Mainly moans that PvP is locked behind a massive "grind-wall".

Players like myself do not feel the game is a grind at all. Not in the least. Stuff like materials just take care of themselves. I've never, ever resorted to going out looking for a specific material in order to engineer a specific thing. The normal un-engineered stuff in game is good enough that I can just get on with whatever I want to do to have some fun or make some aim, and when I find I have enough stuff, I might go engineering. I also play in such a way that I only take missions from like-aligned factions, where the grind-moaners would just accept any faction provided it rewarded the right material. And then those players have the idiocy to then say that they "role-play". ROFL. While also module shopping/ship shopping by working different Powers. Role playing NOT.

Ever considered that this "grind-wall" was by design a deterrent?

Clearly, DBOBE was not 100% in his assumptions about how the implementation would lead to what he wanted.
Ganking does indeed exist.
Not as a game design, but in spite of the original Vision.


You also misinterpret what it is that you think I " want ".
An unrestricted baseline is fine and dandy.
I get in my car to drive places in an "unrestricted baseline". Sure, there are laws and stuff which "deter" me from ramming other people who get in my way and "deter" me from travelling faster than some arbitrary posted speed limit. Nothing "PREVENTS" unsocial behaviour. But I still expect to get to my destination having not been rammed by another driver, despite the fact that there's no PREVENTION in place. Sure, I sometimes on a rare occasion feel like ramming other cars myself. But I don't. I prevent myself from doing so.
What I would prefer, then, is that players didn't act like angsty teenagers to other players who clearly don't want interventions performed by angsty teenagers. Even when an unrestricted baseline is given. Sure thing, there is nothing at all "PREVENTING" a player from acting like an angsty teenager, even though there are game aspects designed to "deter" it. But I guess angsty teenagers will never see eye to eye with this - this other people's preference - because for an angsty teenager it's all about them and nobody else.

In this, it is clear to me, that my thought process is more alike to DBOBE than any player who ganks for fun.

The game does not prevent - so maybe prevent yourself? Or is that asking or expecting far too much?
 
Notice my word "originally".
Meaning I went back and re-read your post.
Meaning that I originally read that first line and knew where you would incorrectly lead your script.
Meaning that I had to check myself, and read the rest carefully, so as not to taint the rest of your words with that first statement.
Meaning that I took care to make sure the rest of the words were coherent with that first statement. And they did appear to be just that.
So although my first impression was that I need not read on... I took great personal care to ensure I got your meaning correct.
My conscience is totally clear.

There's always Ad Hominem if you can't tackle the actual argument properly?

Also, let's examine that assumption of me "jumping to conclusions" again and consider which one of us did that... because it certainly wasn't me.





Your position, to me, appears like a deliberate misinterpretation or subversion of the truth.

The truth goes more like this:

Braben has been on record as saying that he wanted to build a game that HE would play, that he wanted to play - I paraphrase, but you can find the actual footage if you are at all interested in the truth, instead of trying to peddle this subverted version and claim it as truth - he wanted to play a game and design a game where a player wouldn't be hassled by angsty teenagers/gankers.

Now we can discuss whether he was successful in that vision or not, but the lack of success in that direction still doesn't change the fact that his original vision for the game was one where players did not feel the "need" or "urge" to go out and gank. This is the truth whether you like it or not.

The Vision was an unrestricted baseline, yes, but NOT as a goal in itself. Rather, the unrestricted baseline was the implementation that DBOBE assumed (naïvely) would be adequate, because the rest of the game he felt (naïvely) would be interesting enough for angsty teenagers to play without resorting to hassling others and not that interesting for angsty teenagers who wanted to do just intervene on other's games: such that PvP combat would be rendered "rare and meaningful" to both parties performing it. This much is clear from his multiple interviews at the time of marketing the Kickstarter campaign. Maybe go check them out. Or not.

To a certain extent, the vision has had some, if limited success, in that to go all out to intervene unwantedly on another player's game, there is a significant "not so much fun" part to go through first, which turns out to be "not un-fun" if the player isn't going all out to build a murder-boat to destroy randomly. Witness the massive amount of moans about the grind on this forum. Mainly moans that PvP is locked behind a massive "grind-wall".

Players like myself do not feel the game is a grind at all. Not in the least. Stuff like materials just take care of themselves. I've never, ever resorted to going out looking for a specific material in order to engineer a specific thing. The normal un-engineered stuff in game is good enough that I can just get on with whatever I want to do to have some fun or make some aim, and when I find I have enough stuff, I might go engineering. I also play in such a way that I only take missions from like-aligned factions, where the grind-moaners would just accept any faction provided it rewarded the right material. And then those players have the idiocy to then say that they "role-play". ROFL. While also module shopping/ship shopping by working different Powers. Role playing NOT.

Ever considered that this "grind-wall" was by design a deterrent?

Clearly, DBOBE was not 100% in his assumptions about how the implementation would lead to what he wanted.
Ganking does indeed exist.
Not as a game design, but in spite of the original Vision.


You also misinterpret what it is that you think I " want ".
An unrestricted baseline is fine and dandy.
I get in my car to drive places in an "unrestricted baseline". Sure, there are laws and stuff which "deter" me from ramming other people who get in my way and "deter" me from travelling faster than some arbitrary posted speed limit. Nothing "PREVENTS" unsocial behaviour. But I still expect to get to my destination having not been rammed by another driver, despite the fact that there's no PREVENTION in place. Sure, I sometimes on a rare occasion feel like ramming other cars myself. But I don't. I prevent myself from doing so.
What I would prefer, then, is that players didn't act like angsty teenagers to other players who clearly don't want interventions performed by angsty teenagers. Even when an unrestricted baseline is given. Sure thing, there is nothing at all "PREVENTING" a player from acting like an angsty teenager, even though there are game aspects designed to "deter" it. But I guess angsty teenagers will never see eye to eye with this - this other people's preference - because for an angsty teenager it's all about them and nobody else.

In this, it is clear to me, that my thought process is more alike to DBOBE than any player who ganks for fun.

The game does not prevent - so maybe prevent yourself? Or is that asking or expecting far too much?
God is naive. I could've told you that.

That's why it's best to just thumb your nose at 'em and move on with your life.
 
The game does not prevent - so maybe prevent yourself? Or is that asking or expecting far too much?
Yes, I like getting attacked. And I do like the inept attackers as well as the competent ones. Because there is something in this that seems to me the very core of subjectivity. A vainglorious and very necessary idiocy.

As to the rest of your post, while I'm a good bit beyond that age, I probably like angsty teenagers a bit more. There is obviously a deep righteousness in that rebellion and that's coming from someone probably a lot more conservative than he once thought himself to be.
 
Gotta say - I think posting this kind of gameplay is important for FDEV to see. It supports the narrative that open in ED is a gankfest.

I don't necessarily think that is accurate, but a newb seeing this will definitely get that impression.

From my point of view, creating viable reward structures for pvp, and meaningful consequences for ganking in high security systems should be a priority for the next iteration of this game. I hope the OP keeps up the "good work" and posts more of these vids.
 
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?
]Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx9io7bFR64


Anyway, lacking context, it's never been possible to tell the particular details of such scenarios, and I'm not just talking about trailer materials.

Interesting that you mention "Losses" and not "gains" here, now that is definitely a window into your perspective.
In a setting where things have plausible costs, where attrition is actually possible, where turnaround times are non-trivial...it's generally a zero sum game. The losses of one's enemies are one's gains.

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]
I'd prefer more plausible consequences, full stop.

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?
No, and I still reject your interpretation of the original vision.

The mechanisms that make ganking trivial for the gankees are the same mechanism that enable widespread ganking to exist in the first place. Lack of rational consequences for actions. This infects everything from insurance to C&P.

Lightening consequences even further for one side of this arbitrary ganker/gankee dichotomy would simply exacerbate the issues I perceive with the game. The game can neither interpret the particular details of any given scenario, nor can it credibly enforce any ideals of morality and/or ethics except via in-game NPC actors and their in-game policies.

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.
There was nothing wrong with the original vision other than Frontier's refusal to see it through. Every step of the way they caved to desires for more gamist elements and erosion of meaningful consequences. The game definitely feels like a game, rather than a credible, immersive, experience, from the CMDR's perspective.

Braben has been on record as saying that he wanted to build a game that HE would play, that he wanted to play - I paraphrase, but you can find the actual footage if you are at all interested in the truth, instead of trying to peddle this subverted version and claim it as truth - he wanted to play a game and design a game where a player wouldn't be hassled by angsty teenagers/gankers.
Then he should have ensured that the consequences of losing ships and breaking laws were not trivial.

Now we can discuss whether he was successful in that vision or not, but the lack of success in that direction still doesn't change the fact that his original vision for the game was one where players did not feel the "need" or "urge" to go out and gank.
I don't think anyone could have been so naive as to think that there would not be players who had these urges. And yes, I've seen all the old developer/Kickstarter videos...they are what sold me on the game.

Braben perhaps underestimated their prevalence, but he's not fool enough to think that people would act plausibly without the sorts of rational cause and effect consequences that define plausibility. Without limits and without deterrents, anything becomes plausible.

I get in my car to drive places in an "unrestricted baseline". Sure, there are laws and stuff which "deter" me from ramming other people who get in my way and "deter" me from travelling faster than some arbitrary posted speed limit. Nothing "PREVENTS" unsocial behaviour. But I still expect to get to my destination having not been rammed by another driver, despite the fact that there's no PREVENTION in place. Sure, I sometimes on a rare occasion feel like ramming other cars myself. But I don't. I prevent myself from doing so.
Almost everyone prevents themselves from engaging in such behavior, even if they really want to, because there are a whole slew of likely consequences they do not find acceptable.

If you remove all of the potential consequences from running people down, people would be running eachother over all the damn time. If they knew they couldn't get hurt; if they knew they couldn't permanently hurt anyone else; if they knew they couldn't lose their car; if they knew that the worst legal penalty that could possibly be imposed upon them was a fine that amounts to pocket change and being dropped off at a bus station two blocks from the crime scene...any place with both people and cars would look like bumper cars meets a demolition derby.
 
Top Bottom