Gankers' rights movement?

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
It's not so much a question of how the noobs respond...more a question of what's the appeal for the ganker (or griefer, or whatever the appropriate buttclown moniker is)? To which I note the OP has not responded, LOL.
The video linked in post #17 seems to describe the motivation(s).
 
Seems to be one person's "these are the definitions and if you don't agree you're wrong" opinion piece - and tries to reserve the right to define to "experienced gamers" (which is in itself undefined).
I had the same reaction as you. I typically like this player's videos, but the definitions he arrived at have no real basis or much distinction. It's like when I read a news story that cites "anonymous sources" to makes its point, I assume its fake news.

Gankers: a group of players that attack a single player.
Griefer: a player that attempts to create salt and grief vs another player or players.

I have been both and the victim of both.
 
Last edited:
I have been both and the victim of both.
Interesting to say, because the most vocal victims of such action often express of how deeply wounded they have been by such action, and you don't seem any worse for wear... except for that ridiculous hairstyle!:eek:

:ROFLMAO:

But the question is - do you feel as though you have the right to act as the "bad guy" if you so choose?
You are being penalized for it, and although that chastisement is more like a joke than an actual discouragement, there are consequences for your negative action. But there are those disruptive digital tree huggers that seek to impose external punishment (bans etc.) or try to have such action physically prevented due to their inability to emotionally cope with the utter savagery they have recently been exposed to.

Should these people be actively opposed?
 
The real toxicity is designing one mode for PvP and PvE players.

If you can tell the difference between the PvP and PvE, something is wrong with the latter.

But the question is - do you feel as though you have the right to act as the "bad guy" if you so choose?
You are being penalized for it, and although that chastisement is more like a joke than an actual discouragement, there are consequences for your negative action. But there are those disruptive digital tree huggers that seek to impose external punishment (bans etc.) or try to have such action physically prevented due to their inability to emotionally cope with the utter savagery they have recently been exposed to.

Should these people be actively opposed?

Who is being penalized for playing the "bad guy"?

Not that I agree with this phraseology; the only times my CMDR has 'ganked' anyone he was honestly trying to save the galaxy, and he gave up once he realized it neither could, nor desired to, be saved. My CMDR is a 'bad guy' when he trades slaves or murders (NPCs) to test new equipment...not when he forces a few ejections upon other CMDRs whose reckless mercantilism threatens to destabilize the underlying economic fabric of civilization.

Anyway, the game's overly soft and easily ignored C&P doesn't constitute penalization of a playstyle, no do shifty interaction mechanisms, or even non-enforcement of rules that should be enforced, even if they do make this entirely legitimate gameplay more difficult in practice.
 
I honestly don't understand how naive FD were in creating the "open" option and allowing unrestricted PvP combat. It's a no brainer that without enforced rules a "lord of the flies" situation would develop in certain areas.

There's nothing wrong with playing "the bad guy", but there needs to be repurcussions and it seem most "bad guys" do it with relative impunity.

Hence why I will never touch open, not even with a 10 mile barge pole, and if Elite becomes open only I get to reclaim some drive space.
 
I'm bored, so I'm gonna go kill something defenceless - ah yes, the classic Shakespearean villain.

Ganking is a poopy thing to do, but I'm not saying that we shouldn't be able to do it. But trying to justify it by contriving some RP reason is just dumb. (If the reason is "my character is insane" it's doubly dumb).

Gank if you want to, but don't pretend to take some moral high ground at the same time.

Well appeal is nice explosion and even better is if target sends some angry, sad, emotional message. Salt mining.

That's it. "Haha ship go boom" and maybe someone's day is a little worse for it.

Open is open, and you're free to be a butt if you want to. Just don't pretend you smell of roses.
 
I honestly don't understand how naive FD were in creating the "open" option and allowing unrestricted PvP combat. It's a no brainer that without enforced rules a "lord of the flies" situation would develop in certain areas.

There's nothing wrong with playing "the bad guy", but there needs to be repurcussions and it seem most "bad guys" do it with relative impunity.

Hence why I will never touch open, not even with a 10 mile barge pole, and if Elite becomes open only I get to reclaim some drive space.

A more feisty and effective C&P system would be good in high-sec systems. something close to what happens at stations, but everywhere.

However, theres nothing naive about unrestricted PvP in a galaxy this big. People just spread out if it causes a problem. Look at all the nasty passengers, commodities, factions, powers, superpowers. The ED vision of the future is not a nice place! If there were kittens, theyd be crammed into cargoholds by the tonne and probably eaten like soft-shell crabs.
Occasional murderhobos are entirely consistent with the galaxy, and you learn a lot from the encounters if you care to look.
 
A more feisty and effective C&P system would be good in high-sec systems. something close to what happens at stations, but everywhere.

However, theres nothing naive about unrestricted PvP in a galaxy this big. People just spread out if it causes a problem. Look at all the nasty passengers, commodities, factions, powers, superpowers. The ED vision of the future is not a nice place! If there were kittens, theyd be crammed into cargoholds by the tonne and probably eaten like soft-shell crabs.
Occasional murderhobos are entirely consistent with the galaxy, and you learn a lot from the encounters if you care to look.

Yes I am all for repurcussions for everyone, anarchies should be extremely dangerous for non criminals. I've always been an advocate for FD fleshing out a "pirate" "bad guy" career path, with special bases special weapons etc etc. I understand people want to play the "bad guy", I'm a huge TIE fighter fan, I think Stormtroopers are the biz, and Han solo (smuggler/Rogue) was the true Star wars hero and not wimpy Luke. ;)

What I don't like is "seal clubbing" and general "Dbag" style behaviour for the "lulz" and "salt".
 
Yes I am all for repurcussions for everyone, anarchies should be extremely dangerous for non criminals. I've always been an advocate for FD fleshing out a "pirate" "bad guy" career path, with special bases special weapons etc etc. I understand people want to play the "bad guy", I'm a huge TIE fighter fan, I think Stormtroopers are the biz, and Han solo (smuggler/Rogue) was the true Star wars hero and not wimpy Luke. ;)

What I don't like is "seal clubbing" and general "Dbag" style behaviour for the "lulz" and "salt".

The problem is, even with ATR in the same instance the average ship will be toast and the attacker gone.

To me this suggests:

Being a killer locks away lawful parts of the galaxy but unlocks anarchy style missions since 100% 'safe' areas are impossible, meaning consequences must be felt elsewhere.

Players need to take individual responsibility for making a defensible ship and knows how to escape. It should be that the pilot training should include this.
 
Last edited:
FD should market "open" as "Mos Eisley", yes I know it's not "that" bad everywhere, but people should be aware there are certain areas that have a higher chance of encountering a bored long term(skilled) player in a fully engineered kill ship......it's akin to sailing in the indian ocean a bit too near Somalia and wondering what those "stick" things those chaps are carrying in that boat speeding towards you are.
 
The problem is, even with ATR in the same instance the average ship will be toast and the attacker gone.

To me this suggests:

Being a killer locks away lawful parts of the galaxy but unlocks anarchy style missions

Players need to take individual responsibility for making a defensible ship and knows how to escape. It should be that the pilot training should include this.

What needs to happen is as soon as a killer jumps into a hi sec area ATR is dispatched, Hi Sec MUST mean Hi Sec, waiting for a criminal to act is pointless.

Yup, "bad guy" career path with special mission types.

I agree FD do fail to prepare new players for open.

It's took me too long here to realise what I already knew, people play games to get away from their lives and that often means playing the "bad guy". I still think it goes too far for some individuals, there should be a bit more mutual respect for other players, but that's a whole different argument.
 
What needs to happen is as soon as a killer jumps into a hi sec area ATR is dispatched, Hi Sec MUST mean Hi Sec, waiting for a criminal to act is pointless.

Yup, "bad guy" career path with special mission types.

I agree FD do fail to prepare new players for open.

It's took me too long here to realise what I already knew, people play games to get away from their lives and that often means playing the "bad guy". I still think it goes too far for some individuals, there should be a bit more mutual respect for other players, but that's a whole different argument.

But even having roving ATR won't save an explorer light build. A G5 combat ship will tear it apart in seconds, whereas ATR will strip shields but take minutes to kill someone- bear in mind too some don't care they are destroyed in the attack.

Its why personal responsibility in Open is a must, knowing how to react as well as building for safety so that your time to be destroyed is more than the time it takes to escape or call for help.

I don't want to go 'there', but I have to: if lawful players made it harder in general to be ganked via skill and correct builds, there would be less ganking and it would not be a problem. What happens is people don't learn, moan, and go to solo and repeat the mistakes saying ganking is out of control. I'll end by saying solo has its place in the game for those who want to play alone- thats fair and should not change. However, solo should not be a stick to beat open with when the failings are generally with the pilot and how they approach open.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I don't want to go 'there', but I have to: if lawful players made it harder in general to be ganked via skill and correct builds, there would be less ganking and it would not be a problem.
In a gameplay area the size of this one, lawful players are at a disadvantage simply because the gankers don't care who they target and may attack any ship they encounter, whereas the lawfuls would require to find the gankers. There's also the point that the chase may be exactly what some of those ganking actually want - in which case why reward the behaviour at all?
What happens is people don't learn, moan, and go to solo and repeat the mistakes saying ganking is out of control.
Those who don't care if their target has "fun", when the target may not even be interested in combat at all, have only themselves to blame if players choose not to play with them. Just as the ability to shoot at anything one instances with is a core feature of the game, so is the ability to choose whether or not to play with other players, be it by mode choice or by use of the block feature.
However, solo should not be a stick to beat open with when the failings are generally with the pilot and how they approach open.
Solo is as valid a mode choice as Open - and all players affect the galaxy, regardless of game mode. If some players choose to play in a manner that has the effect of discouraging the combat disinclined from playing in Open then that's their choice - and they are not in control of the choices of others.

The oft ignored Private Group feature offers sociable players an option for co-operative play without the unwanted attentions of those who simply like to shoot at players (and don't care if they enjoy it).
 
But even having roving ATR won't save an explorer light build. A G5 combat ship will tear it apart in seconds, whereas ATR will strip shields but take minutes to kill someone- bear in mind too some don't care they are destroyed in the attack.

Its why personal responsibility in Open is a must, knowing how to react as well as building for safety so that your time to be destroyed is more than the time it takes to escape or call for help.

I don't want to go 'there', but I have to: if lawful players made it harder in general to be ganked via skill and correct builds, there would be less ganking and it would not be a problem. What happens is people don't learn, moan, and go to solo and repeat the mistakes saying ganking is out of control. I'll end by saying solo has its place in the game for those who want to play alone- thats fair and should not change. However, solo should not be a stick to beat open with when the failings are generally with the pilot and how they approach open.
Why should I take responsibility in open? That's what support is for...
 
Top Bottom