Gankers' rights movement?

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?

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.

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).
If you as a single player want to "punish" the gankers, build a ship and skill that can escape. The people who get all their enjoyment from blowing up innocent are unlikely to enjoy every innocent escaping.

Going to the forums too complain is also unhelpful, as if they enjoy annoying people, you have just proven they succeeded.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
If you as a single player want to "punish" the gankers, build a ship and skill that can escape. The people who get all their enjoyment from blowing up innocent are unlikely to enjoy every innocent escaping.
If one wishes to change ones gameplay to accommodate them, that's certainly one approach. Another approach is not even to give them a target - whether by blocking them or changing mode as one wishes.
Going to the forums too complain is also unhelpful, as if they enjoy annoying people, you have just proven they succeeded.
Indeed.
 
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?

And in busy places like Shin or Deciat, is it 99% ganker v you? Plus, the opposite is true in that outside these areas ganking would be unlucky. The player has the power to choose what time, system, underlying ship and skills to use, yet seem to ignore them. I get some people don't like high pressure or other people, and solo is a valid reason for that, but to treat open like solo is a big mistake since players are not instanced NPCs and potentially very, very dangerous.

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.

The problem being these is Open is what it is, a space where anything can happen. The fault is clicking OK on open if you are not willing to learn and adapt to it and bouncing out. If enough people did learn, ganking would be harder as more people would escape- not all, but it would greatly impact the numbers. If people went around in wings they'd be even more safe if they all knew what to do.

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).

And here I agree- solo and pg are valid in a neutral game situation- but the core issue is about ganking and if its right or not in Open and that people mistakenly think its like solo when its not. Open is 80% safe if you know basic rules and a few skills, and yet these are ignored and we wind up debating the same issues.
 
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.
I don't mean "roving ATR", I mean insta interdiction and crushing force.

At the moment Open for a high end PvP build is like someone looking like Salvador from BL2 turning up in hi sec and the law does nowt until the PvP build engages someone.
This is how it SHOULD be In a dystopian hi sec (i.e. Judge Dredd) area.....old JD would take one second to think and then pull the trigger on his Lawgiver to send a hi ex round up Sals butt cheeks.

Playing a "bad guy" should be the hardest way to play the game. Hi sec should be completely off limits, likewise Anarchies should be off limit's to lawfuls NOT thinking like JD or Robocop.

I know many don't care if they are destroyed, because there's no meaningful long term repurcussions to bad behaviour. Someone can play as a murder hobo, then with minimal hassle be mining LTDs to raise the cash for their next murder spree, that shouldn't be possible.

Of course there's in game reasons (factions/PP/Imps v Feds) for an allowable PvP killing that FD would need to code for. I believe if FD set up proper c&p with "bad guy" career path the game would be much better for it in open AND solo. I'd even be tempted to buy a second copy for an Alt "bad guy" account playstyle (still solo though;) )
 
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.

Pablo Escobar says hi:
pablo-escobar-whitehouse1.jpg


High-security should mean that an area has both enough crime, and enough assets to protect, to justify the cost of maintaining rapid response forces capable of being a credible deterrent and possibly even stopping a crime in progress.

Using reality as an analog, it doesn't matter how high the security is somewhere, if I want someone dead badly enough, chances are they will die. When every second counts, help is minutes away. The reason there isn't considerably more violence and chaos in places with effective security is that the consequences are extreme. Yes, I could stab, shoot, run down with a large vehicle, or stuff my van with a ton of homemade explosives and five hundred pounds of tungsten ball-bearings and kill just about anything...but the chances of me doing this in a 'high security' area, and escaping are negligible. If I want to survive, freedom intact, as a killer, I need to target nobodies, or ambush people where response times are long, witnesses few, and surveillance absent.

Elite: Dangerous is too soft on consequences. There is no crime prevention system, and no credible deterrent, because of this lack of consequence. There is no way to make an ATR response swift and potent enough to actually protect anyone as long as CMDRs inclined to attack clean targets can be clean while doing so and ATR, as ineffective as they are, already have absurd and immersion defying capabilities (weapons no CMDR can get a vague analog to and the ability to teleport).

Waiting for criminals to act is acting too late, but deterrents need to be as proactive as possible, because making them heavy handed like ATR is both ineffectual and implausible. Unfortunately, the game is completely lacking in the mechanisms (mostly persistence related) to do credible C&P.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
And in busy places like Shin or Deciat, is it 99% ganker v you?
Who sits still long enough to count? ;)
Plus, the opposite is true in that outside these areas ganking would be unlucky.
Probably - however an "unlucky" encounter with them still isn't "fun" for many.
The player has the power to choose what time, system, underlying ship and skills to use, yet seem to ignore them. I get some people don't like high pressure or other people, and solo is a valid reason for that, but to treat open like solo is a big mistake since players are not instanced NPCs and potentially very, very dangerous.
Indeed - some players don't want to compromise their own gameplay to accommodate those who aren't "fun" to play with.

That Open isn't necessarily a good mode choice for those players is obvious.
The problem being these is Open is what it is, a space where anything can happen. The fault is clicking OK on open if you are not willing to learn and adapt to it and bouncing out. If enough people did learn, ganking would be harder as more people would escape- not all, but it would greatly impact the numbers. If people went around in wings they'd be even more safe if they all knew what to do.
It's a vicious circle - and not everyone has trusted players to call on to wing up when they need them.
And here I agree- solo and pg are valid in a neutral game situation- but the core issue is about ganking and if its right or not in Open and that people mistakenly think its like solo when its not. Open is 80% safe if you know basic rules and a few skills, and yet these are ignored and we wind up debating the same issues.
Ganking happens in Open as a consequence of the ability to shoot at anything one instances with - it's neither "right" nor "wrong" from the game's perspective, it just "is" and represents a play-style that some players choose. That it affects the enjoyment of the game for others is obvious and is probably one of the attractions to ganking for some players, given all the references to salt.

We probably end up debating the same issues because, unlike many other MMO games, Frontier chose not to include a PvP-disabled open game mode. Other long running debates around particular design decisions are also seemingly interminable. DBOBE has explained Frontier's reasons for not attempting to include a PvE mode in this game however, in my opinion, much more could relatively easily be made of Private Groups in that regard.
 
Last edited:
I don't mean "roving ATR", I mean insta interdiction and crushing force.

Again, it would need to be even more than what a station pumps at you, from several ships at once. At some point players have to assume some responsibility for that situation and not rely on security because unless ATR extreme™ spawn in a circle 500m around you and open fire right away you still have about 30 seconds to a minute of you saving yourself. In the game its safe to assume PvE security will save you in PvE- in a PvP situation treat everything as anarchy.

At the moment Open for a high end PvP build is like someone looking like Salvador from BL2 turning up in hi sec and the law does nowt until the PvP build engages someone.
This is how it SHOULD be In a dystopian hi sec (i.e. Judge Dredd) area.....old JD would take one second to think and then pull the trigger on his Lawgiver to send a hi ex round up Sals butt cheeks.

They should, but EDs sec response is reactive and only ATR do that (even then thats after they warn you in advance and you keep on killing). Someone has to die to set the chain going- the object should be that person dying should be someone else and not you.

Playing a "bad guy" should be the hardest way to play the game. Hi sec should be completely off limits, likewise Anarchies should be off limit's to lawfuls NOT thinking like JD or Robocop.

It should, superpowers should shun you if you get hostile, ATR, BH and all sorts should hunt you (while criminal gangs accept you more readily).

I know many don't care if they are destroyed, because there's no meaningful long term repurcussions to bad behaviour. Someone can play as a murder hobo, then with minimal hassle be mining LTDs to raise the cash for their next murder spree, that shouldn't be possible.

The question becomes what do you punish someone with if they are not afraid to be shot down? Like I said earlier (and you suggest) there should be repercussions outside of that encounter- but, players need to be able to avoid being a victim too.

Of course there's in game reasons (factions/PP/Imps v Feds) for an allowable PvP killing that FD would need to code for. I believe if FD set up proper c&p with "bad guy" career path the game would be much better for it in open AND solo. I'd even be tempted to buy a second copy for an Alt "bad guy" account playstyle (still solo though;) )

There are a multitude of ways to do it, its all down to FD. I don't envy them, because this topic touches the whole game.
 
Who sits still long enough to count? ;)

Which indicates at least people are viewing the system with caution, which is the first step to self protection.

Probably - however an "unlucky" encounter with them still isn't "fun" for many.

But it is a fundamental consequence of Open- a necessary consequence to drive co-operation, skill acquisition and build better.

Indeed - some players don't want to compromise their own gameplay to accommodate those who aren't "fun" to play with.

Then don't pick Open to begin with, because you are ruining it for others, and not being true to yourself and what you want.

That Open isn't necessarily a good mode choice for those players is obvious.

They should not be surprised its full of nutters (small N) and guns.

It's a vicious circle - and not everyone has trusted players to call on to wing up when they need them.

But you can still build better, choose another time, choose another system. Players have the tools, use them. Even INARA has crime stats to look at.

Ganking happens in Open as a consequence of the ability to shoot at anything one instances with - it's neither "right" nor "wrong" from the game's perspective, it just "is" and represents a play-style that some players choose. That it affects the enjoyment of the game for others is obvious and is probably one of the attractions to ganking for some players, given all the references to salt.

To me, people need to stop obsessing about others- gankers just "are". You either view them as content (just as they view you the same) or you don't. Open is making everyone content for everyone else- they are drivers to either get better at escape, build better, understand the topography (i.e. what systems are dangerous and why).

We probably end up debating the same issues because, unlike many other MMO games, Frontier chose not to include a PvP-disabled open game mode. Other long running debates around particular design decisions are also seemingly interminable. DBOBE has explained Frontier's reasons for not attempting to include a PvE mode in this game however, in my opinion, much more could relatively easily be made of Private Groups in that regard.

We will both be here debating when the servers go dark, such is our fate now.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Then don't pick Open to begin with, because you are ruining it for others, and not being true to yourself and what you want.
Who, in the context of ganking and Open, is ruining what for whom?

.... remembering that we all bought the same game.
We will both be here debating when the servers go dark, such is our fate now.
Highly likely.
 
Heh I heard nice story yesterday about Shinrarta and its happenings. And Oh so brave PVP heroes. Friend of mine was visiting there with his lightly built Imperial Courier. Some never do well immediately starts blasting away in vicinity of station. My friend managed to land with 2% of hull left. Now business what my friend was doing was buying a Federal Corvette. When he flew shiny new unengineered Corvette out, somehow our PVP heroes did not press their triggers. Could it be that that they did not dare? (Even though unengineered Corvette is just dead meat...) Likewise same kind of observation by me, Shinrarta is mostly peacefull when flying say my engineered FdL, or even my Cutter. It seems to me that certain people just look for easy target. Well in case of Shinrarta it is not noobkilling on my books, as you'll need to have at least one Elite status.
 
Who, in the context of ganking and Open, is ruining what for whom?

.... remembering that we all bought the same game.

For open to flourish (i.e. to form large scale interdependent co-operative / combative player groups / happenings) you have to accept in Open that you are content regardless for what purpose. IMO it seems people who don't agree to that are the ones who go into open and can't deal with being shot at, or chased etc.

Its why I dislike block, but support the modes- the consequence of that mode should mean something.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
For open to flourish (i.e. to form large scale interdependent co-operative / combative player groups / happenings) you have to accept in Open that you are content regardless for what purpose. IMO it seems people who don't agree to that are the ones who go into open and can't deal with being shot at, or chased etc.
Not all want the "combative" aspect of that. However, only one game mode has an unlimited population and Private Groups are not advertised on the launcher - so players seeking to play among others co-operatively have to compromise their wants if they choose to play in Open.

It seems we don't all want the same things nor agree what would constitute an improvement to the game.
Its why I dislike block, but support the modes- the consequence of that mode should mean something.
I expect that the block feature, given that it has only been strengthened and made easier to use over the years, isn't going anywhere.
 
Not all want the "combative" aspect of that. However, only one game mode has an unlimited population and Private Groups are not advertised on the launcher - so players seeking to play among others co-operatively have to compromise their wants if they choose to play in Open.

But thats the thing- PG is really a mini Co-operative open, while Open is random chance. If you choose open, you need to have the chance of the bad as well as the good, otherwise its not 'open'. I did wonder why PGs have limits, and had a thought that perhaps FD did not want PG to become a parallel open mode. But thats a random thought.

It seems we don't all want the same things nor agree what would constitute an improvement to the game.

Its why I would like to see more rules imposed on the modes so people know where they stand. Right now its down to personal opinion, which is not healthy long term.

I expect that the block feature, given that it has only been strengthened and made easier to use over the years, isn't going anywhere.

But I still disagree with it, at least in part because it causes a bigger problem than it solves. It messes with instancing, not to mention you can hop to solo and back to avoid the situation anyway, and defeats the object of confrontation in Open (and Powerplay as well). I have no problem with blocking language or peoples messages, but beyond that I think its counter productive as it stands.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But thats the thing- PG is really a mini Co-operative open, while Open is random chance. If you choose open, you need to have the chance of the bad as well as the good, otherwise its not 'open'. I did wonder why PGs have limits, and had a thought that perhaps FD did not want PG to become a parallel open mode. But thats a random thought.
A PG is Open with fewer players - and there's nothing other than trust in place to ensure that the PG is PvE only. Some players have knowingly "agreed" to PvE rules to gain access to PvE Private Groups with the intent of engaging in PvP whilst there. Once kicked, if those players seek to rejoin while hiding their identity, I believe that Frontier has stated that there would be consequences for those players.

The PG membership limit is 20,000 on PC and 1,000 on consoles.
Its why I would like to see more rules imposed on the modes so people know where they stand. Right now its down to personal opinion, which is not healthy long term.
There are no rules for modes - the modes themselves are simply instancing filter settings.
But I still disagree with it, at least in part because it causes a bigger problem than it solves. It messes with instancing, not to mention you can hop to solo and back to avoid the situation anyway, and defeats the object of confrontation in Open (and Powerplay as well). I have no problem with blocking language or peoples messages, but beyond that I think its counter productive as it stands.
While it may seem counter-productive from the perspective of one seeking PvP, in a game where PvP itself is entirely optional it is consistent with the game's design - it's a more refined method of removing unwanted players from ones game experience.

Whether one disagrees with it is neither here nor there - just the same as with the ability to shoot at anything one instances with.
 
Last edited:
Heh I heard nice story yesterday about Shinrarta and its happenings. And Oh so brave PVP heroes. Friend of mine was visiting there with his lightly built Imperial Courier. Some never do well immediately starts blasting away in vicinity of station. My friend managed to land with 2% of hull left. Now business what my friend was doing was buying a Federal Corvette. When he flew shiny new unengineered Corvette out, somehow our PVP heroes did not press their triggers. Could it be that that they did not dare? (Even though unengineered Corvette is just dead meat...) Likewise same kind of observation by me, Shinrarta is mostly peacefull when flying say my engineered FdL, or even my Cutter. It seems to me that certain people just look for easy target. Well in case of Shinrarta it is not noobkilling on my books, as you'll need to have at least one Elite status.
Nice story, until you run into someone capable, using reverb torps or a wing that knows what it's doing.
Then the false sense of security about "PvP heroes not daring" leads to another salty forum thread or reddit post about ebul gweefers 😂
 
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?

My CMDR has the right to use valid game mechanics to engage in PvP. Others will point at me and cry about my tactics or even accuse me of "cheating" because they don't like my tactics. Examples: SLF and crimes on. Recently an outlaw cmdr pulled me in Deciat and started whining in comms: "no police!" and when I released my beautiful SLF pilot, he called me a cheater and left the instance. I passively griefed him and it gave me a good chuckle. Should I be actively opposed for that? meh.
 
A PG is Open with fewer players - and there's nothing other than trust in place to ensure that the PG is PvE only. Some players have knowingly "agreed" to PvE rules to gain access to PvE Private Groups with the intent of engaging in PvP whilst there. Once kicked, if those players seek to rejoin while hiding their identity, I believe that Frontier has stated that there would be consequences for those players.

But its still you vetting who you let in though- admittedly as hard as that can be over the internet.

The PG membership limit is 20,000 on PC and 1,000 on consoles.

I imagine because consoles have unlimited commanders.

There are no rules for modes - the modes themselves are simply instancing filter settings.

What is needed is boundaries so that where features overlap they do so in a way that does not adversely affect that mode- blocking for example in Open Powerplay.

While it may seem counter-productive from the perspective of one seeking PvP, in a game where PvP itself is entirely optional it is consistent with the game's design - it's a more refined method of removing unwanted players from ones game experience.

But blocking and modes do negatively prevent useful player structures forming via necessity driven by encountered problems. Why is it in Shin Dez people don't ad hoc wing up for protection like gankers do? There is no rule against it but why do some think in singular terms? That is solo thinking transposed into open which just leads to disaster. In solo its fine because you have a massive advantage in capability, in Open you don't.

Whether one disagrees with it is neither here nor there - just the same as with the ability to shoot at anything one instances with.

But in a mode where the worst outcome is destruction, you should not use block tools to prevent that. Blocking should be to remove offensive language and messages that have no place in the game- unlike violence which is firmly a part. If you don't like that, choose a mode that has less of it.
 
My CMDR has the right to use valid game mechanics to engage in PvP. Others will point at me and cry about my tactics or even accuse me of "cheating" because they don't like my tactics. Examples: SLF and crimes on. Recently an outlaw cmdr pulled me in Deciat and started whining in comms: "no police!" and when I released my beautiful SLF pilot, he called me a cheater and left the instance. I passively griefed him and it gave me a good chuckle. Should I be actively opposed for that? meh.
SLFs are a fringe case for me.
I linked a Corvette vid against Paul in another thread, Paul and I did several Big3 clashes. After the first one, where I nearly completely lagswitched him off
with my SLF (not even spamming commands) I refrained from using one. When I'm back in Carcosa I'm gonna try to make a vid about this.
There is something seriously borked about it, technically.

Whereas the police thing is one where I'd say "hey bad boy, trying to kill me? Your bad, you're breaking the law…"
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But its still you vetting who you let in though- admittedly as hard as that can be over the internet.
Indeed.
I imagine because consoles have unlimited commanders.
Possibly.
What is needed is boundaries so that where features overlap they do so in a way that does not adversely affect that mode- blocking for example in Open Powerplay.
I expect that, as the block feature has formed part of the published design long before Powerplay was announced, it's unlikely to be changed for Powerplay. Those seeking to be unblockable by at least part of the player-base would very likely pledge if the block feature was over-ridden if both players were pledged.
But blocking and modes do negatively prevent useful player structures forming via necessity driven by encountered problems. Why is it in Shin Dez people don't ad hoc wing up for protection like gankers do? There is no rule against it but why do some think in singular terms? That is solo thinking transposed into open which just leads to disaster. In solo its fine because you have a massive advantage in capability, in Open you don't.
Ad-hoc wings require trust - and not all those who might wish to join a wing are to be trusted, as some players delight in betrayal. While the existence of the modes is a problem for some, it's a feature for others.
But in a mode where the worst outcome is destruction, you should not use block tools to prevent that. Blocking should be to remove offensive language and messages that have no place in the game- unlike violence which is firmly a part. If you don't like that, choose a mode that has less of it.
What blocking should or should not be used for is not for players to decide - and Frontier place no apparent limits on its use.
 
Top Bottom