Probably... or this is how we would find gankers in training and PvE Bounty hunters... as these should be the only that realistically would use these. as there are little to no use for any others to use a KWS.
General Hide 'player' ship on scanner and on the description - additional option
- Thread starter Kyokushin
- Start date
Probably... or this is how we would find gankers in training and PvE Bounty hunters... as these should be the only that realistically would use these. as there are little to no use for any others to use a KWS.
Okay, that is why i suggested the KWS as device what could allow to see who is a commander. Maybe it could be modified (for example longer scan time or specific scan method).
As you can see its easy to avoid gankspots, so there is no reason to fly with 'i am player' ID turned off alltime, but again - its giving a choice.
yes its fun 'to be pirated', but it require in fact as approval of person who will be pirated, so if someone would be rady for the 'arr adventure' then will just keep the ID on... or here maybe we would use modified KWS.
So if you get your wish and the KWS is modified to be quicker, see wider etc., doesn't that invalidate the entire concept of hiding that you are after. Currently, NPCs and Commanders are identified via hollow or solid squares/triangles on the scanner, by their thumbnails in the Comms chatter (NPCs always have a helmet) and I think from memory, by their name when passively scanned.
Now you want the squares/triangles removed but also an increase in the capability of the KWS to make it far easier to identify whether a subject ship is an NPC or Commander?
Any you wonder why you aren't receiving a lot of support for this idea????? Wow, just wow
Not exactly as you wrote 
Firstly, not removing, but giving a choice.
secondly, about the KWS - i mentioned as variant - it may me done in different ways - and good its shortening the scanning, but nobody said the CMDR id will be known at same speed as other info - its matter of design.
Firstly, not removing, but giving a choice.
secondly, about the KWS - i mentioned as variant - it may me done in different ways - and good its shortening the scanning, but nobody said the CMDR id will be known at same speed as other info - its matter of design.
Another issue is the non-survivability of non-pvp ships when facing a dedicated pvp ship. There is no real risk to the ganker if they are not preying on their fellow pvp'ers.
Defenses should be made available that are in effect expensive 1-shot solutions. And their use should result in a 'trial' by which it was determined if nuking the attacker was an appropriate response. Another solution could be a single-use EMP bomb that would render an attacker immovable for long enough that the defender can get away. Again, a 'trial' would be necessary to see if the use was justified.
S
Defenses should be made available that are in effect expensive 1-shot solutions. And their use should result in a 'trial' by which it was determined if nuking the attacker was an appropriate response. Another solution could be a single-use EMP bomb that would render an attacker immovable for long enough that the defender can get away. Again, a 'trial' would be necessary to see if the use was justified.
S
Thanks for your reply. You didn't address the issues I raised though. KWS currently doesn't work in supercruise, which is where PP and BGS rivals are probably most likely to encounter each other.
Encountering another CMDR is a rare enough event outside hotspots anyway, and will ONLY be made rarer by your suggestion.
I also think you're being a little naive if you genuinely think people who would consider using such an option would even REMEMBER to turn it on and off for different situations, let alone make a conscious choice to do so.
I really can't see any real benefit to anyone other than a "ganker" wishing to hide in plain site, only drawbacks.
I have addressed - i wrote KWS my require some modification.
however i am keeping it asan option, maybe its not necesaary at all.
it will be same numbers of commanders, you will just have a less knowledge who is who.
in same way as considering less - you may consider more.
As i wrote on the beginning - a choice is not a drawback here and if someone will have something harder - only a folk who gank, because others can easily avoid people who gank and gankers need others for their gameplay.
however i am keeping it asan option, maybe its not necesaary at all.
it will be same numbers of commanders, you will just have a less knowledge who is who.
in same way as considering less - you may consider more.
As i wrote on the beginning - a choice is not a drawback here and if someone will have something harder - only a folk who gank, because others can easily avoid people who gank and gankers need others for their gameplay.
Op you still don't grasp what everyone else is trying to tell you. The only players that will benefit from your balderesk cunning plan are the gankers. No one else, nada, nil, none, nobody else apart from those who prey on other Commanders. You are proposing to make it far easier for these types of players to hide and attack unsuspecting players in a risk free environment. Anyone else, especially a new player or a player in a non-combat ship will have to check EVERY SHIP ON THE SCANNER, they will just leave open in droves and play in Solo/PG. All your gankers have to do is cruise around and wait, it will be easy for these experienced player to be able to identify a player from an NPC, be it via their name, by a scan or just they simple way their are flying.
Seriously, read what everyone else here has said, it just isn't a viable solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Seriously, read what everyone else here has said, it just isn't a viable solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Again, thanks for the reply. You still are not satifactorily addressing the issues put to you though. Saying "the KWS may require some modification" isn't addressing the issue. If you mean that the KWS would work in a similar way to the Discovery Scanner (i.e. you "honk", then ALL ships in your instance become "scanned"), then yes this would address the issue, but I wouldn't support THAT change either - I'm certain I'm not alone.
As things stand, if one is flying a trade ship and one gets interdicted, one makes a choice what to do. Generally speaking, if one is being interdicted by an NPC, one fights the interdiction, as interdictions by NPCs tend to be winnable. However, if being interdicted by another CMDR, one tends to submit immediately. If the CMDR being interdicted is not aware of this distinction, they may try to fight the interdiction, lose and then have a greatly reduced chance of escaping, due to the increased FSD cooldown.
This is part of the main point you haven't addressed - that this "option" would have a much greater benefit for the "ganker" than the person at risk of being "ganked".
For my part, avoiding being "ganked" is generally trivial, and this is in no small part due to the fact that I can ALWAYS see when another CMDR is present and can plan my actions accordingly. Your proposal would effectively remove this "early warning" that players currently enjoy - I can't help but feel that this is you goal, despite your protestations to the contrary.
Last edited:
I cant say you exactly how it will work - its up to devs. I have shared an example how it may be done, there are many different ways to do it reasonably - and dependable what effect you would like to have. There may be no KWS recognition at all and that will be also reasonable or we can bring KWS 'scan human id only' functionality to supercruise.
Both one who is inderdicting and who is interdicted are do not know they're humans or not, they may guess, scan loadout, then take a decision about behaviour.
Finally you may win interdiction both against player and NPC's and in both cases you may submit and run.
I am not considering my proposal will remove a warning - you could be right in case when one side would be able to be seen and other not, but its the game situation, there both sides are seeing each ogher.
And the reverse argumentation - the ganker will not be warned a victim is in his area as same way victim will not about other ganker. Again, its giving a choice.
At this point again - it will be easier 'to guess' who may be the ganker than who will be the victim. Gankers will have mostly specific recognizable builds, but possible victims will be obscured by similar NPC crowd.
Both one who is inderdicting and who is interdicted are do not know they're humans or not, they may guess, scan loadout, then take a decision about behaviour.
Finally you may win interdiction both against player and NPC's and in both cases you may submit and run.
I am not considering my proposal will remove a warning - you could be right in case when one side would be able to be seen and other not, but its the game situation, there both sides are seeing each ogher.
And the reverse argumentation - the ganker will not be warned a victim is in his area as same way victim will not about other ganker. Again, its giving a choice.
At this point again - it will be easier 'to guess' who may be the ganker than who will be the victim. Gankers will have mostly specific recognizable builds, but possible victims will be obscured by similar NPC crowd.
Last edited:
But is that really a choice? Which players would still fly with the player id on? would you play with the player id on?
Fun fact: when I encounter a player, my pirating consists of "fly up to them, give them some yarrrr in chat, and demand some token amount like 10-20 tons of stuff".
When I'm pirating an NPC, I alpha-strike their drives out and hatchbreak them over and over to rob them of everything they've got.
Utility slots are already a limited resource on most ships and a pirate ship already has to use one of them for a manifest scanner - are we supposed to fit a KWS too to know whether we're pirating a player or not?
Yes, it would be up to the devs, but this would then require traders, explorers, miners etc to carry a KWS at all times? Currently this is not required (or even useful).
You MAY win an interdiction against a CMDR, but with the current system of interdiction, the balance is HEAVILY in favour of the interdictor. I'm certain you know this. The only time I submit against an NPC is if I'm armed and want the bounty (or in my Type-9 and can't be bothered with the time it takes to win) - all other occasions, NPCs can easily be defeated in the interdiction minigame
This may be lost in translation, as I'm not quite sure the point you're making here
True, but for a "ganker" sitting in supercruise at a high traffic area to see a "blip" appear on the scanner, turn and scan to see if it's a CMDR is only a minor inconvenience. For the CMDR arriving in the system and seeing a dozen or more "blips" and having to scan each one to see if they're in danger, much less so. Again, the advantage here is far more in favour of the "ganker".
As has been previously pointed out, a "ganker" will tend to have much more experience in spotting the difference between an NPC and a CMDR than a potential "gankee". I also refer you to my point above - if the "ganker" has already scanned every ship in their instance, and another arrives, it's trivial for them to simply scan that ship, discover it's a CMDR and attack before their victim has even scanned the first 2 ships in their instance. The advantage weighs heavily with the "ganker"
You don't get to see their build unless you're pointing at them.
So.. gankers will fly around pointing at their target ships and checking their loadouts. They don't have a destination in-system, their target is the destination.
Targets are trying to get to Farseer or whatever. They're flying towards their destination. If a ship appears behind them, they have to pull a 180 to look at them to see if they're armed or not, and if they have to do that for every ship they see it'll take them ten times as long to get where they want to go.
So without IFF, gankers aren't impeded at all since they're scanning every ship they see anyway, while victims have to stop what they're doing just in case that new pip is a ganker.
Thanks - this is the point I was trying to make - you've explained it much better than I did!
Stubbornly? Listen to yourself.
There's nothing stubborn about it. They're new players. They don't know what the pvp hotspots are yet. They have no way to know until someone tells them.
Just because it's well known to someone that's been part of the pvp community for years doesn't mean it's actually obvious.
It's like a broken stair on the third floor of a building - everyone who lives in the building knows about it and steps over it, a few of them have tripped over it before, but someone who's never visited that building before has no way of knowing to watch out for the step.
Another great point. The only players who are seriously at "risk" from "gankers" are new players. These players would also not be able to spot a "gank build", regardless of how meta it is.
Experienced players don't require this change, as avoiding being "ganked" is trivial for them, or fun to avoid.
Exactly what is specific about a ganker build as opposed to any other sort, I genuinely wish to know both from curiosity and a desire not to accidentally build a ganker ship.
Last edited:
All frags is gankers weapon of choice due to the high alpha damage.
But at this point I belive OP is either a troll or has no clue about player interactions in open game play because his suggestions are not even based on how it works in the current state of the game.
yes.
That would cause KWS useful - and decision - something instead of something and choice - to have it not and have not a possibility to scan.
Interdictions was balanced few times, and probably will be also in future, however, thats still not an issue - personally i am always submiting because its faster to me, no matter who is interdicting me. I am never flying a build where i am unable to run somehow.
Again about KWS - its again - matter of the implementation, to do it not just like 'a blip'. There can be many of ways, including not implementing that point at all.
You may esily recognize common pvp builds and avoid them. Its few clicks to know what is onboard and what ship may be used.
And the point of game is 'to know'. If someone do not know, and will fly into it, and again will havebad luck and will be recognized somehow by a ganker then will simply explode. Its a part of the game. Nobody is want to bring up 100% anti-gank button here.