Griefers make open impossible, and how easy the solution is.

NisseNeutron

NisseNeutron
Icooperzzz said:
So, everyone told you how bad of an idea this was on Reddit (where you also mentioned the only thing keeping you from going on an IRL killing spree is laws, not morals, which is obviously very telling to your character) so you decided to bring it to the forums for everyone to tell you how bad of an idea it is again?
Click to expand...

Posted on both places at the same time, I was angry at the time, wanted people to hear. I see now that I over reacted, my bad, but like I said, I was really frustrated.

And that bit was a joke, obviously I thought, of course I would kill someone for killing me in a game. I'm not a lunatic. But my point was that given a lawless state, it is always accompanied by great violence. Take (a bit extreme but still) Somalia, that place is way worse than it needs to be. Morals didn't save those people. And like Somalia, Elite is lawless. Where killing people for no reason has less repocution than it should, especially in high security systems. And thus my point, in a system that has laws, there should be a higher penalty for ingame serial killers. "Oh he killed 5 people in the other system but here he did nothing so we cool" is not a good way, in my opinion, to discourage players from killing each other. More repercussions means less killing, thus less grieving, thus safer systems. And people like me don't go on a rant. You wanna murder me when I'm mining in an anarchy system? That sucks, but fair enough. I was just coming in with supplies for the community event and got shot down, that's just vilanic boredom. If that guy knew he would get in trouble maybe he wouldn't have done it.
 
Last edited:

Mimix

Mimix
I get your frustration, but the solution is as simple as building a ship that is able not only to survive, but resist the griefers. Griefing in the form of attacking players for no reason isn't against the rules, so that can't be punished. Once you get yourself a ship with a decent combat loadout and plenty of engineering they'd become an annoyance rather than a threat and you'd easily scare them away. Most gankers won't attack players who are skilled or have good ships.

If you don't like the hostile atmosphere of open, you can take the PG route, make your own with friends or join a large one where they prohibit ganking. If you still wanna play open, keep out of the hotspots (Shinrarta Dezhra, Deciat, Diaguandri, etc..) and you'd be fine.
 

Slange Lands

Slange Lands
OP, I am sorry that you have had bad experiences in Open. I would be happy to assist you in your travels should you wish. Just friend me, my in game name is the same. I am a PvPer and will attempt to protect and/or teach you. Open can be the wild west, but I assure you, with some patience and grit, you will start WELCOMING any interactions, especially hostile ones. There is a lot of huff and puff, but in the end, it's just a bunch of little boys wanting to play with their toys and eat candy. It's fun to make them take a bath ..... in srb railguns with a corrosive friend.
 

Kyle Stryker

Kyle Stryker
In my opinion open won’t be hospitable to casual players until ship toughness & weapon engineering are nerfed closer to stock levels. Until then stay away from CGs and deal with it.
 

[VR] M4st0d0n

[VR] M4st0d0n
Rubbernuke said:
Maybe a better way is that after a certain amount of kills your instances are rotated? So if you are being repeatedly ultraspanked, the game will temporarily de instance you and your attacker (sort of like a time limited block) to give you time to get away.

Obviously this would not count for Powerplay, where its your job to flay the skin of your enemies over and over, in glorious blood soaked battle.
Click to expand...

I have the gut feeling the game is already doing the opposite. First instancing in a busy system like SD, and it always seems there's less people than reinstanced after a drop to an USS, the station or the nav neacon.
 

kaokao

K
It's obvious hyperbole like this OP that show that there really isn't a griefer/ganker "problem". Hopefully, FDev has realized this.

The problem we do have is overly entitled snowflakes, who are products of "outrage culture" and who should not be playing this game, crying on the forums about their latest outrage.
 

Bryan K

Bryan K
kaokao said:
It's obvious hyperbole like this OP that show that there really isn't a griefer/ganker "problem". Hopefully, FDev has realized this.

The problem we do have is overly entitled snowflakes, who are products of "outrage culture" and who should not be playing this game, crying on the forums about their latest outrage.
Click to expand...
I hear this response a lot, and always find it hilariously hypocritical since many vocal members of the PvP community are equally whiny about blocking and menu-logging (both of which have as much of FDev’s blessing as ganking).
 

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
Un1k0rn said:
OP would like to see players banned for... Playing the game?

Okay.

XD
Click to expand...
In an ideal world I would love to see the game react in a plausible way, that way players role playing psychopath villains would have to make base on the outskirts of populated space and systems with security would be a deadly place for them to be, but equally those same villains would make anarchy space dangerous.

However either FD are unable or unwilling to make that game. The same players telling their would be victims to get gud too often don't want their own actions to have consequences .

It is what it is, and ultimately players just need to accept open is madmax mode where it is easier to be a psycho (in game) than it is to chase the psychos as the deck is stacked in their favour.

We have the modes and that is the games saving grAce imo.
 

Alone Wulff

A
I'm not a fan of griefers. I play in Open but avoid known hotspots.

I have another solution:
If a player is destroyed x amount of times within x minutes, they are banned from Open until they improve a defence score - calculated by 'recommended' ship defences per ship i.e. a-rated shields, boosters/cell banks/military hull bla bla. If they are killed again within x minutes then they are banned from Open further until they improve an increased defence score - they need to buy a stronger ship that can take more hits etc. On and on until the player is in a hull/shield tanked 'Vette and if they're killed in that within x minutes, they're banned from Open permanently.

Open isn't strictly for 'making friends' (you can do that on Mobius Private server) and although they're annoying, if greeeeefers should be punished for playing the game how they prefer to play, why shouldn't a trader be punished for not bothering to beef up their defences using options available in-game?
 

Ezren

Ezren
Alone Wulff said:
I'm not a fan of griefers. I play in Open but avoid known hotspots.

I have another solution:
If a player is destroyed x amount of times within x minutes, they are banned from Open until they improve a defence score - calculated by 'recommended' ship defences per ship i.e. a-rated shields, boosters/cell banks/military hull bla bla. If they are killed again within x minutes then they are banned from Open further until they improve an increased defence score - they need to buy a stronger ship that can take more hits etc. On and on until the player is in a hull/shield tanked 'Vette and if they're killed in that within x minutes, they're banned from Open permanently.

Open isn't strictly for 'making friends' (you can do that on Mobius Private server) and although they're annoying, if greeeeefers should be punished for playing the game how they prefer to play, why shouldn't a trader be punished for not bothering to beef up their defences using options available in-game?
Click to expand...
Hello, this is a pretty terrible idea. Restricting a player from playing where they want because they're not built for combat is so horrifically shortsighted I don't even know how to really explain it without being insulting so I'm just going to end the post.
 

Deleted member 110222

D
Mad Mike said:
In an ideal world I would love to see the game react in a plausible way, that way players role playing psychopath villains would have to make base on the outskirts of populated space and systems with security would be a deadly place for them to be, but equally those same villains would make anarchy space dangerous.

However either FD are unable or unwilling to make that game. The same players telling their would be victims to get gud too often don't want their own actions to have consequences .

It is what it is, and ultimately players just need to accept open is madmax mode where it is easier to be a psycho (in game) than it is to chase the psychos as the deck is stacked in their favour.

We have the modes and that is the games saving grAce imo.
Click to expand...
No problem with modes.

Using Solo myself right now.

But literally saying "ban PvP players" like the OP...

Sorry. He's being stupid.
 

Lightspeed

Lightspeed
Ezren said:
Hello, this is a pretty terrible idea. Restricting a player from playing where they want because they're not built for combat is so horrifically shortsighted I don't even know how to really explain it without being insulting so I'm just going to end the post.
Click to expand...
He he .... bad at combat? Fined 100 Arx ..... that should do it :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom