Well, I will happily "populate" solo even more, like always did, since relase back in 2014. I dont need weak cmdrs in my game.
Last edited:
Ganking People in Sol
- Thread starter Hellstar
- Start date
Ethics and morality are about as subjective as anything gets. Personally, I have never pinned any strong negative ethical connotations on playing a game within the rules of that game.
I do acknowledge that some behaviors that are technically within the realm of the rules can be disruptive, but 'ganking', given that it can be at least superficially contextual, is easily countered it is, and how low the stakes are, barely even registers here. I've never really understood the outsized reaction ganking produces.
As far as I can tell, pretty much all animals, up to and including behaviorally modern humans, go to great lengths to avoid fighting their equals or betters, and almost always seek to stack the odds of any potentially violent confrontation as heavily in their favor as possible. Literally hundreds of millions of years of selection have selected against doing dumb stuff like fighting a harder fight than needed to accomplish one's goals.
Humanity has wrapped all sorts of baggage around this, but we still behave the same way, and this behavior is accepted. The world functions on a might makes right doctrine because that's the only way it can. We form organizations that attempt to monopolize the use of violence to impose order. Violence is a tool and resource; we go to great lengths to use it as efficiently as possible. We don't send armies to fight fair fights, unless we're desperate. We don't make a habit of sending police into dangerous situations without sufficient support to maximize their safety and minimize their risk. To do anything that would even suggest we were looking for a fair fight, where anything is actually at stake, is generally regarded as criminal if there is any responsibility beyond the personal. The self-aggrandizement of seeking honor though taking unneeded risk has been lauded at times and makes for some good stories, but more often than not is viewed as negligently reckless and selfish, if not a treasonous dereliction of duty.
I'm not even sure what it is about fighting a stronger foe that one would think changes the ethical considerations of the conflict. I root for the underdog too (and I like playing the underdog in games like this, which is very hard to do without things like 'gankers' around, or absurd levels of self-handicapping), but an underdog with a crappy goal and crappy means isn't any more righteous than someone with an overwhelming advantage doing the same thing for the same crappy reasons.
Within the context of the game's setting, there is no reason for ganking to be treated differently than any other assault. Maybe the penalties could be higher, but that's never gone over well with the bulk of players. Casual players tend to be both consequences adverse and to bear the brunt of consequences that more experienced players can avoid.
Only after lunch recess on the playground?
That's a lot of words for "I don't care if my gameplay causes grief or distress to the other player, malicious intent or not".
It's a fun experiment to try to intellectualize gamer behaviour, but in the end, as one can witness by the ever resurfacing "I've been ganked" threads, it causes distress in some people. And a lot of the gankers, no matter how "nice" they are in real life, and no matter how "helpful" they are afterwards, revel in this, call themselves salt miners and similar, and laugh about the players who are distressed by their behaviour and respond with "ship go boom" and "pixels bro" memes. And that's just not nice, no matter how much a saint you are in real life. In that moment, when they blow up a helpless mostly harmless ship just because they can, they know it is likely to cause distress, and they don't care. It makes them, even if only for that moment, a donkey. Doesn't matter if you're Mother Theresa for the rest of the day.
It's a fun experiment to try to intellectualize gamer behaviour, but in the end, as one can witness by the ever resurfacing "I've been ganked" threads, it causes distress in some people. And a lot of the gankers, no matter how "nice" they are in real life, and no matter how "helpful" they are afterwards, revel in this, call themselves salt miners and similar, and laugh about the players who are distressed by their behaviour and respond with "ship go boom" and "pixels bro" memes. And that's just not nice, no matter how much a saint you are in real life. In that moment, when they blow up a helpless mostly harmless ship just because they can, they know it is likely to cause distress, and they don't care. It makes them, even if only for that moment, a donkey. Doesn't matter if you're Mother Theresa for the rest of the day.
A
One fictitious spaceship exploding another is indeed as subjective as anything gets.
One human using his leisure time to waste and spoil the leisure of another (who may well have less of it) is obnoxious.
Both can be linked and happen at the same time.
It's the RL connection...
One fictitious spaceship exploding another is indeed as subjective as anything gets.
One human using his leisure time to waste and spoil the leisure of another (who may well have less of it) is obnoxious.
Both can be linked and happen at the same time.
This was likely THE most annoying aspect of being interdicted. Getting quite good at "winning" the mini-game, only for it to simply never end after I'd hit the mark that should mean I escaped. It then turns into a case of keep playing the mini-game, hoping the server - or whatever decides the "win" - will actually pay attention, or allow the other guy to "win", even though they failed. I'd get this constantly, so much so that I do nothing but submit now. To NPC's too. I'd also get an issue where the escape vector indicator would fail to appear, but that was a long time ago now. I get your frustration.
I'm going to assume your post was at least partially in reference to mine as I have a lot of words and you didn't quote Elpapo.
I am positive that I care more about the impact of my gameplay and related choices, as far as limiting potential grief or distress to other players, than most other players.
For example, back when I thought block was chat-only (because the matchmaking weights in the early game where low enough to make it's effects subtle), I eventually had about a hundred CMDRs on my block list (mostly for filling chat with distracting out-of-character nonsense). Once it became apparent (though personal and third-party testing, as well as Sandro's later elaboration on the topic) that this was causing instance fragmentation, I started purging my block list. At first I left those that I had strong evidence were cheating outright, but upon further reflection, I decided that it wasn't my place to police those individuals and the harm I was doing by shunting them into someone else's instance (where they would surely be more of a problem to others than the could possibly be to me) wasn't something I wanted to be responsible for in any way shape or form (while still acknowledging that Frontier's neglect was the ultimate source of this problem). By late 2016, my block list was empty, and has been ever since. I cannot, in good conscience, use the feature knowing how it works, no matter how much I may occasionally want to, because this is a multiplayer game and I pride myself on not causing unnecessary harm to other players.
A large subset, perhaps even a majority of players seem to treat this multi-player only game as a single player title. I think that's a bit rude, but Frontier has encouraged this to give lip service to markets that otherwise wouldn't be attracted to this game, so it's not unexpected.
What doesn't cause distress in some people?
At some point one has to acknowledge that reasonable accommodations have been made and that whatever distress remains, no matter how unfortunate, is unavoidable.
With regards to my own behavior, I draw the line at needing to portray a character that I do not wish to portray, or being forced to further undermine the contextuality of the setting, which is something I feel strongly degrades the experience as a whole, for both myself and others. Sooner or later the actions I have my CMDR perform will inevitiably upset someone, but this is often not predictable, and if those actions are appropriate to the venue, the onus is not on me to refrain from them. Some people have chosen the wrong game if they cannot handle being subject to the reasonable behaviors of other players.
Who they are in real-life is meaningless, as I am not going to interact with them except via the game, or perhaps the forum. Gankers aren't any more or less likely to be someone I'd approve of than anyone else. The sort of behaviors you cite do not appear to be any more common among gankers than non-gankers and don't strike me as particularly different from sentiments you yourself have expressed. I'm not sure how reveling in the frustrations of gankers is any different than gankers reveling in the explosions of their victims. Neither is very nice, both are completely irrelevant.
People enjoying what they do does not change what they do. If some gankers gets the drop on my CMDR and can fool themselves into thinking I'm somehow not enjoying the encounter, that's a net gain in community weal and a win for all involved. I don't judge what gives them pleasure any more than I judge people for getting tatoos, wearing jewelery, socially drinking, or having subjecitively weird sex fetishes. Whatever makes them happy, that isn't against the rules of the game, is no skin off my teeth. I might find it bizzare or petty or whatever, but there is no accounting for taste and I know this.
The tunnel game is pretty bad gameplay, IMO. I can't even remember the last time I tried to fight a CMDR interdiction, unless it was to delay them for a moment.
Funnily enough, being nice and playing together with them doesn't, usually.
I play together with everyone; directly with those I see in Open, indirectly with anyone who has ever had their CMDR interact with the BGS in any way, shape, or form.
Every time a 'ganker' yanks my CMDR out of SC or tries to pin my CMDR's ship to a docking pad, we're playing together, and I am probably under the assumption that the player at the other end is being nice, unless they've been hurling blatantly out-of-character insults at me.
There is nothing remotely incongruous about players amicably collaborating together on a game with their friends, who are all playing characters that are trying to defeat or murder each other. Competition is a form of cooperation in the context of a game. I get that some people don't see it this way, but I don't understand why you or anyone else would choose to make the assumption that you're under attack by another player, because your character in a game is under attack by another player controlled character, especially if that assumption does not add to your enjoyment of the game. It's mind boggling to me.
I'll use my relationship with some of the members of SDC as an example. Without being hyperbolic in the slightest, my CMDR has hundreds of violent encounters with SDC (and their predecessors/successors). Nine times out of ten, when we encounter each other, it's them trying to figure out how to blow up my CMDR, and my (usually outnumbered and overmatched) CMDR trying to figure out how to bloody a nose or two before escaping. It would be accurate to state that my CMDR hated most SDC members, and would happily have permanently killed them all, had he the power. However, I as a player, didn't have any real problem with what they were doing, until the 'five-for-one' exploit. The worst thing any of them have done, or indeed could possibly do, to me is cheat (which they did out of sight) in the game I'm playing and thus messing with it's internal consistency/continuity.
Being nice and playing together:
I was fairly surprised to not have been ambushed in the first video (despite being as futile as all involved would have known it to be), and after the third video, I shared my findings regarding hyperspace load times with DeathDingo...because, as players, we got along just fine, and I don't want silly technical limitations crapping up anyone's gameplay any more than necessary. Of course, our characters still hate each other, even if DeathDingo isn't actively making such distinctions. If he's still around, he'll surely try to shoot my CMDR down next time my CMDR looks vulnerable and not because he thinks he's going to upset me by doing so. They know I'm always game, no matter where I am or what I'm doing, because I clicked that 'Open' mode that makes me so.
On a side note, I'm pretty sure players like Dave and Replicant were trying to steal my electrolytes, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate their presence:
Replicant and are on pretty friendly terms, in and out of character, because of that encounter.
Anyway, safe spaces make games like this boring. I'd probably lose my mind out on those multi-thousand jump exploration trips if I couldn't imagine someone stalking my CMDR to keep my mind occupied.
Last edited:
You can't claim with a straight face that a ganker wants to play "together" with the CMDR they plan to destroy, especially not those who only go after weaker targets and flee at the slightest hint of resistance, or camp at places that are especially likely to have them encounter inexperienced CMDRs. Destroying a clearly unprepared and clearly inferior target isn't playing together, it's exerting domninance, it's a power fantasy. Saying they are playing "together" is just.... I don't know what it is. Delusional at best.
And don't get me wrong. If living a power fantasy and exerting dominance over other players is what tickles you fancy, it's fine by me - it's within the game rules after all. Just don't try to sell it as something it isn't, be honest. Don't try to sell smelly dog poo as delicious chocolate.
(Again, as often is the case: Not you personally. The proverbial you. The Newbie ganker "you").
(Again, as often is the case: Not you personally. The proverbial you. The Newbie ganker "you").
I believe you're mistaken. That they want to play with these other players is self-evident by them seeking out their CMDRs. They may be similarly lacking in empathy as their more vocal critics, and thus dismissive of the harm they occasionally case. A particularly loud minority of them may actively seek to upset other players, but most gankers are just playing the game, like you or I, and aren't out to hurt anyone. And I strongly suspect that the overwhelming majority of players take these actions in stride, without being overly offended by them. Complaints are like negative reviews. Look up the RTX 4090 and one might think half of them are going to explode due to issues with power connectors...when in reality the failure rate from that cause is probably sub-1%.
Or maybe I am delusional and ganking is a far greater problem than I perceive it to be. In this case, I'm still better off for it, because Open as seen through the filter of my perspective has to be a more enjoyable experience than it is when viewed through a perspective dominated by paranoia, malice, and persecution.
![Afterglow [SecB]](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/38/38904.jpg?1659821716){kind=avatar}
Unfortunately, that's exactly how it is.
Maybe it is. It's certainly not a problem for you, and while I dislike it a lot and keep arguing against it, it's not a problem for me either. It's just that my stance is: Just because it's not a problem for you and me and not causing you or me distress, it doesn't mean that the problems and distress it causes for other players aren't real. It is real, and belittling it, making fun of it with "git gud" memes, or discussing away the issues they have with it just isn't nice.
A little empathy and trying to put yourself in someone else's shoes just a little bit goes a long way.
Last edited:
If a new commander takes interest in promoting a minor faction in a low traffic system and in their modest ship spends all of their in game effort slowly plugging away in a CZ to win a war, does a veteran commander with an optimized ship who goes into the same CZ and in hours negates a week of the first player's work commit an egregious act? If they are both in solo or otherwise never instanced together and completely unaware of each other are any accusations of mistreatment moot? If the veteran player has no real interest in the system and somehow knew they were relatively effortlessly undermining the efforts of a new, ill equipped player, does that make it bad when it otherwise would not be? I would say motivations of either player are always irrelevant, they are both playing the game within the game's rules and structure.
I would say that there is one guy with over two hundred player kills this week, and at least one of them has had enough.
I just blocked nearly fifty players, on principle. They each had a thousand kills, or were in Sol, ganking right now.
This has nothing to do with ganking, and reducing it to "it's all within the rules" is oversimplifying.
I've said it a few times, the anonymity of an online game makes it far too easy to ignore who you are playing with (or against). Maybe I am a big softie, but when I play a real life game with other people, and me roflstomping another player within the rules causes another player to get mad, or be distressed in any way, or just to spoil the fun for them, I don't go beating my chest and tell them to git gud or go home. It's more likely I adjust my play style so we both have fun instead of, over and over, humiliate them. Because the result of the latter is very probably that they won't play with me again.
Last edited:
It adds a degree of separation to a discussion about the strong preying on the weak, removing the aspect of direct ship vs. ship combat (something I have zero interest in). I'm not claiming direct and indirect PvP are identical things, but I do feel it is a relevant enough comparison to test congruity of principle in regards to accusations of power tripping for the enjoyment of ruining another's game play.
Edit: "it's all within the rules" is very simple, and it is the reality of the situation