Griefers at the Engineers

[mant3z]

Why they should do anything about it? Without ganakers game in open will boring as hell.
Frontier wrote that I need combat skills in the open and that there will be pilots with huge bounties.
And that is true, in some places I get my ass kicked, in others I and my team have decent wing fights in others we boil up paper ships or hount PP enemies.
Whenever I wan't to play boring game, avoid fight, grind, sneak in... whatever. I just chose single/PG.
And what I see, that's what other PvPers do.

Best is to just log off from the forum and improve skills, use all possibility game is giving to you. That's what I can advice.

 

[Rampant]

This is a good point. It's what I was alluding to when I mentioned fighting griefers instead of dealing with them.

When I was really into serial murder it struck me how all the words in all the world never stopped any of us from pullin' down a CMDR and smoking them. But teaching them how to survive? Not just the tactics, build, but the will as well? Oof, that makes people unstoppable.

Help me help you help us all. Or however that goes!

Jog on.

Many players are just not interested, so they can never be "taught" the will to engage in what they would opine to be "non-consensual" PvP.
I'm one of those players that finds PvP "your way" utterly tedious.

Now, on the other hand, PvP in the way that Old Duck has described his version earlier in this thread - that wouldn't be so tedious - that would strike me as interesting and much more importantly as FUN.
Sadly, Old Duck is in an exceptionally miniscule minority group with that outlook on PvP, potentially a group of only one.

The far more popular "PvP" that is described by yourself - as "serial murder" - probably performed from the safety of a fully combat optimised, combat equipped and combat engineered fighting vessel - against anything and everything that is in all likelihood not optimised for PvP or engineered for PvP, or probably not even a fighting vessel at all - that is the very definition of tedious to the vast majority of those players whose ships you destroyed.

I shall go on - the very notion that you yourself label it as "murder" just goes to show the mindset of those partaking in this style of "PkP". The reason I can state that with utter conviction is that no character ever "dies" in the game - they merely have their ships destroyed, so "murder" is factually inaccurate, but if you want to label it as such - to label it as "I killed another player" - that only gives the rest of us a window into your own mindset when performing what is more factually correctly written as "destroying another character's ship". That'd be a fair observation and comment, would it not?

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Der Zeitgeist]

What consequences? A few people complaining on the internet and some salty messages from a few nasty players? I don't see any consequences. Once again, more extreme over exaggeration to push an agenda.

The consequences are people not wanting to play with you and blocking you for wasting their game time.

 

[Rampant]

Wait... what?

I've had many fingers pointed at me during my time on this forum but this is the first time I've ever been accused of having an anti-Solo agenda. I should win an award for having kept it so well hidden for six years.

This thread has broken everything.

What I read from your post is that you want this to be coded into the game:

Players who are in Solo or PG modes when piloting through certain "High Security" systems should have powerful NPCs spawn on them to engage them in combat, for the simple reason that other players in an Open mode instance of the same system are playing as "bad actors".

It's an emphatic NO to that idea, I'm afraid.
Just because some bad actor players are turning the notion of "High Security" upside down in certain locations, that doesn't mean the game code needs to be changed to reflect some player's non-canon version of the galaxy.

Does that make more sense? Or did I misunderstand your original point?

 

[Rampant]

It's a big playerbase. All that does on either end is filter out undesirables who 'can't hack it' for the ganker, and filters out gankers for the victim. Net positive all around.

That is not a net positive - for the gankers - and well you know it.

Just as you know for a fact that, in general, the very players that gankers prefer to engage are the ones most likely to use the block function and/or the players that have already blocked them, because they know that it is these very players who would have a negative reaction to being ganked - and that's the main aim of ganking - is it not? It's all about the negative reaction...
There are quotes from individuals in this very thread who confirm this to be true, so it would probably be best if you check out the players who have confirmed this before you disagree with the sentiment of what I just wrote.

In sum, it is the player who "can't hack it" that are the more satisfying target. Despite the fact that it is nothing to do with "not being able to hack it" - that's just a thinly veiled insult - more to the point is that players like me just find it tedious to be ganked when I'm in a non-combat, non-combat engineered, non-fighter vessel when the ganker is one of a wing of combat optimised, combat engineered, fighter vessels. Just tedious, yawn.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

If you get blown up and complain and whine about it on the internet, that is the epitome of "not hacking it".
And that's exactly what solo and PG are for.

It's nothing remarkable or controversial.
The game was designed that way.

 

[Rampant]

I blame the game for this, not the griefers. If Old Duck were in charge (hahaha), I could easily fix this by changing the game, but Braben stopped answering his phone when I call, so I guess we're stuck with what we have.

I mostly blame the game, but also place a small amount of blame on the overall mass of players themselves.
Why do I say this - well both you and I can "see" the intent of the game - or the "vision" for the game, if you like - so it's not as if this is not possible for others to see. Some players probably are unable to see what we see, while others - on a sliding scale - are unwilling to accept the possibilities that they see. So some small amount of blame surely must be laid at the players.
But I do agree that it is mostly the game itself that we should blame... Even though you and I can act in a way that is consistent with what we see as the original vision while others cannot or will not. It's even in my sig - do as you ought to...

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Rampant]

3. There are already MASSIVE potential in-game consequences for ganking. Gankers are usually wanted, and entirely legal to shoot at most of the time and in most places you might find them. They are putting themselves at more risk than you almost all of the time. The difference is, they don't care if they lose a ship, because they know it's just a game. Even if they have to grind money for another ship, they don't care. It's just a game.

The bit in bold...
That is a mistruth. It appears to me to be a deliberate mistruth, but I could be incorrect on that...

Gankers definitely and emphatically do NOT place themselves at risk. They are commonly to be found in the most well defended, most well weaponised and often in groups of more than one. Not much in the galaxy poses any material risk to these players because they have equipped themselves to tank almost any threat you'd care to throw at it.
What is more, is that due directly to their play style, they have more experience than most on how to escape from the small amount of risk that do pose any modicum of threat to their ships.

Experience and exposure translates into "skill", so to say they are more skilled at both tanking risk, destroying any risk or escaping form any risk than most is very true... which is effectively a "multiplier" that can be applied to their equipment stats.

So, NO, gankers certainly and demonstrably do not put themselves "at risk" much of the time at all - if ever.

And that's what makes dealing with gankers so TEDIOUS. Me and many others are simply not in the least bit interested in PvP and might not even be interested in combat at all, even with NPCs. "Dealing" with gankers directly really boils down to equipping a ship for combat - engineering a ship for combat - and then gaining as much exposure and experience with PvP as is humanly possible. Each of those things is a time sink in its own right, plus... All three of those things might be tedious to acomplish to a large group of players. Any single one of those apsects being tedious to a players, is enough to dissuade them from the endeavour entirely.

So, when we tell you that we're not interested in pursuing that kind of activity in what is my leisure time - which is limited enough as it is without having to fill it to pursue this non-fun loop a gameplay instead of the gameplay that is actually non-tedious - then you gotta just lay off the hyperbole - particularly that mistruth about gankers putting themselves at more risk, lol.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Rampant]

If you get blown up and complain and whine about it on the internet, that is the epitome of "not hacking it".
And that's exactly what solo and PG are for.

It's nothing remarkable or controversial.
The game was designed that way.

You can believe that if it makes you feel superior - like some kind of religion or something - which clearly I cannot dissuade your "belief".

However, it is still not true about "not hacking it". If a person goes out to do something in particular, that they believe they can achieve, and promptly fails, then this is the epitome of "not hacking it". Going about your business and being forced to do something which you do not want to do, or never expected to have to do in the first place is not a valid description of "not hacking it".

Plus - as described previously - the phrase is just a thinly veiled attempt at an insult.

Keep the quote as some kind of mantra if you like, it doesn't bother me if you use it - but you need to know that it isn't an accurate depiction of those who have a different perspective on the game to you

 

[Northpin]

3. There are already MASSIVE potential in-game consequences for ganking. Gankers are usually wanted, and entirely legal to shoot at most of the time and in most places you might find them. They are putting themselves at more risk than you almost all of the time. The difference is, they don't care if they lose a ship, because they know it's just a game. Even if they have to grind money for another ship, they don't care. It's just a game.

No, not really. As already mentioned by Rampant - they don't put themselves at risk.
Also, while someone that is out for pvp has nothing to lose bar some credits at the rebuy screen, anyone else will lose the credits and cargo, data, missions, the slf pilot if any and generally speaking more or less progress time in a certain direction.

Things will be less dire if the cost of having your ship go puff will be limited to credits only and you get to keep all the other stuff (cargo, data etc).
And while we are at it, making military stuff being able to be fit only in military slots will also give some fighting chances to the one being on the receiving end of forced pvp.
As is it now, its absolutely silly to see all those ships full of hrp, mrp, scb and shield boosters - in terms of game lore at least.

Edit: also i find it silly that one is able to scan and see the internals of other ships. It basically removes the corsairs from the game and blows away any chance of a surprise when engaging someone.

 

[voidwalker]

No, not really. As already mentioned by Rampant - they don't put themselves at risk.
Also, while someone that is out for pvp has nothing to lose bar some credits at the rebuy screen, anyone else will lose cargo, data, missions, the slf pilot if any and generally speaking more or less progress time in a certain direction.
Things will be less dire if the cost of having your ship go puff will be limited to credits only and you get to keep all the other stuff (cargo, data etc).
And while we are at it, making military stuff being able to be fit only in military slots will also give some fighting chances to the one being on the receiving end of forced pvp.
As is it now, its absolutely silly to see all those ships full of hrp, mrp, scb and shield boosters - in terms of game lore at least.

Why should you NOT lose everything on your ship when you explode? I can see a rational case for your other points, and although I'd argue against them, this particular one is just stunningly ridiculous.

I don't know what Rampant mentioned, but the ganker does indeed take a risk. As I explained, the difference is they don't care about the risk, and the ones they do care about, they mitigate. Most traders/explorers don't do squat to mitigate their own risk, and then complain on the forums and demand they not have to lose anything when they explode. I'm sorry, but no. And I'm saying this as an explorer. If someone blows me up when I'm coming home after three months of exploration or more, then everything I spent that three months or more doing should be LOST. The 'wasted time' argument is irrelevant. No one has wasted your time but yourself by virtue of you choosing to log into a video game. If your time is so precious to you, then don't waste it on video games.

Also, if military gear was restricted to military slots only, you would be putting the balance of power even in the hands of the gankers. You would be precluding powerful defensive setups on trade and exploration ships, such as the ones I use, for players that DO choose to mitigate their risk, and you would be reducing the options of all players on a grand scale.

 

[Screemonster]

I think making bounty claims apply to the pilot rather than the ship, and subsequently un-capping them, might help people pursue them. Make bounties stick around unless explicitly claimed (via KWS or killing in the same system) and implement something that, if nothing else, makes players who have or have recently had very large bounties unable to cash in on it.

There's so much that could be done to make bounty hunting actually work, but FDev is, in my opinion, unconcerned with heavy revision in favour of slapping fixes over existing systems (i.e. the 2 million bounty cap).

Making KWS scans reveal bounties against any ship owned by the CMDR in question, not just the one they're flying, would be a great start. Still make it illegal in the current jurisdiction to attack them unless one of the revealed bounties is local, though.
The trick there would be to figure out how to stop suicidewinders to clear the bounties outside of a straight-up forced asset seizure (as in, if you have the funds in your account, they're taken from you even if you take the freewinder)

 

[Old Duck]

I mostly blame the game, but also place a small amount of blame on the overall mass of players themselves.

Every game has a percentage of players hellbent of ruining the experience of others. In Overwatch it's the idiots on your team that jump up and down in front of your face while you're trying to aim, as one example. Thankfully this tends to be a small percentage, and that game allows me to both block and report such players.

Are all griefers immature brats (of any age) "jumping up and down" trying to ruin my game? No, but the idea that every griefer is deserving the noble peace prize IRL because they are wonderful people is equally ludicrous. There are some real, bona fide jerks in all online games I play, ED included, who get their jollies out of ruining the game for others because they are bored. People in this thread can either deny that or own it for themselves, but I think "the lady doth protest too much" in defense of all griefing.

And that's all I'll say, lest I get banned from this thread again

 

[Screemonster]

Bounties should be harsh. Asset seizure would massively discourage player crime, as it ought to in real life.
I guess the real issue is that running up that amount of bounty is... well, it's suicide, if you have one of the truly massive multi-hundred-million bounties. Maybe a percent-payment thing, like if you take out a loan?
I mean, IRL you'd go to prison. Bu5 that miiiiiight be a bad idea ;P

Well, the biggest claimable bounty is 2 million, so snatching 2M out of your assets and reducing your bounty against your wanted ships by that much (or wiping it if it's less) shouldn't be too much unfair exposure. The risk of having a massively-bountied murderboat parked the next system over would be that anyone with a KWS would get a free license to kill you repeatedly no matter which ship you're flying, effectively making you persona-non-grata until the bounty is wiped.

And let's face it, if you're the kind of person who's running around racking up a multi-million credit bounty, you should be able to afford 2M a pop without risking a fly-without-rebuy

 

[ethelred]

So, when we tell you that we're not interested in pursuing that kind of activity in what is my leisure time - which is limited enough as it is without having to fill it to pursue this non-fun loop a gameplay instead of the gameplay that is actually non-tedious - then you gotta just lay off the hyperbole - particularly that mistruth about gankers putting themselves at more risk, lol.

I understand your point, but if that is the case why not just choose another mode?

 

[Interstellar Overdrive]

Every game has a percentage of players hellbent of ruining the experience of others. In Overwatch it's the idiots on your team that jump up and down in front of your face while you're trying to aim, as one example. Thankfully this tends to be a small percentage, and that game allows me to both block and report such players.

Are all griefers immature brats (of any age) "jumping up and down" trying to ruin my game? No, but the idea that every griefer is deserving the noble peace prize IRL because they are wonderful people is equally ludicrous. There are some real, bona fide jerks in all online games I play, ED included, who get their jollies out of ruining the game for others because they are bored. People in this thread can either deny that or own it for themselves, but I think "the lady doth protest too much" in defense of all griefing.

And that's all I'll say, lest I get banned from this thread again

Nobel. Dynamite. Peace.

Oh. Part of my proposal was uncapping bounties, so going after those murderboats would actually be incentivised besides 'it feels good to blow up guys who blow up other guys'.

Credit transfer.

 

[Interstellar Overdrive]

So what? Void opals can match those profits now.

Irrelevant.

 

[Screemonster]

Irrelevant.

Not really? I can gather up a hundred million in opals far faster and at far less risk than I can rack up a hundred million in bounties.

 

[Old Duck]

Nobel. Dynamite. Peace.

Forum chaff. Gimbal lock lost.

 

[Interstellar Overdrive]

People in real life have sold out their friends for bounties. No lore reason to forbid it, even if out of game it's a credit-making exercise.

Not really? I can gather up a hundred million in opals far faster and at far less risk than I can rack up a hundred million in bounties.

Does not make it any less of credit transfer. This all has nothing to do with it.