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.
