Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
In the context of FD saying be ready, I mean. Its warning you other players can shoot you.
Ah. Well, they might, or might not - it depends on the player. It doesn't say one requires to stick around to the end of any encounter though.
Not at all. 'Git Gud' means building a ship that can stay alive for a few minutes, not fly in a straight line and know what a hollow triangle is. Couple that with being alert in social spaces and it barely registers until you need it.
Otherwise known as needing to build their ship in a way other than they'd want to. The only players who get to build the ship they want in that scenario are the attackers - other roles have to compromise to accommodate the attackers.
But its the equality of the outcome- you can pirate an NPC and get goods, but also choose to pirate players- both situations should play out the same (and be subject to the same conditions). NPCs don't log out on you, nor should players. Its why I would not mind a clause that says if you are clean and empty (thus have no reason to be attacked / pirated) you are free to log out, while if you are choc full of LTDs or merits you can't in Open.
One may choose to pirate players - one cannot force the player target of piracy to play along. NPCs are provided by the game for our enjoyment, players are not and can remove themselves at any time. Just because one person chooses to engage in an activity does not mean their target is forced to engage in that activity - in this game. We're back to Frontier's application of player choice - the player's choice who to play with, or not, and when to leave, takes precedence over the desire of any player who may wish to play with them - they don't implement inescapable player interactions.
 
Last edited:
Everyone affecting the BGS is just as much a core feature of the game as being able to shoot at anything one instances with and being able to choose whether to play among players, or not, as the case may be.

Players who prefer to play in Open "own" the BGS no more, or less, than those who play in Solo and Private Groups.
I understand that, but repeatedly we see cries for more meaningful PvP. It only needs a device, an excuse if you like to create that. This would appear to be the perfect device and it is hamstrung by people being able to essentially take part in a war whilst activating 'God Mode'.
 
Why, again, is the fact that soloers can affect the BGS being used as an argument to justify dragging solo players into PVP?

How many solo players actually give a flying fox which nameless faceless pointless faction is in charge of a station or system? How many care which power controls a system for that matter?
The are plenty of solo players that are heavily into maniplulating the BGS and to them it is very important who controls a station.

The open-ony players that engage in a conflict with the solo players are to some extent at a disadvantage in these situations as they could be hindered by other players, whereas the solo players can't.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I understand that, but repeatedly we see cries for more meaningful PvP. It only needs a device, an excuse if you like to create that. This would appear to be the perfect device and it is hamstrung by people being able to essentially take part in a war whilst activating 'God Mode'.
It needs a device that does not already part belong to players with no interest in PvP.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
The are plenty of solo players that are heavily into maniplulating the BGS and to them it is very important who controls a station.

The open-ony players that engage in a conflict with the solo players are to some extent at a disadvantage in these situations as they could be hindered by other players, whereas the solo players can't.
Players who may be hindered by other players made the choice to play in Open.
 
Ah. Well, they might, or might not - it depends on the player. It doesn't say one requires to stick around to the end of any encounter though.
But you can't then say all modes are equal, because the outcomes are different.

Otherwise known as needing to build their ship in a way other than they'd want to. The only players who get to build the ship they want in that scenario are the attackers - other roles have to compromise to accommodate the attackers.
You need a shield that has enough Mj in essence. Thats not really imposing, thats being sensible in a potentially dangerous space- you are not forced to fly about in an HRP packed Cutter with the biggest shield possible.

One may choose to pirate players - one cannot force the player target of piracy to play along.
Its irrelevant about choosing, there is no equality in the outcome if you can interdict and rob an NPC, but interdict a player and they log on you. The trader is playing along by carrying valuables in Open.
 
It needs a device that does not already part belong to players with no interest in PvP.
Hmm! How about divergent Universes. If we wait long enough until FD no longer supports ED. It was promised that the code would be released so it could be run on a private server. IIRC.

Then everyone could be happy. Sláinte 🥃
 
The are plenty of solo players that are heavily into maniplulating the BGS and to them it is very important who controls a station.

The open-ony players that engage in a conflict with the solo players are to some extent at a disadvantage in these situations as they could be hindered by other players, whereas the solo players can't.
My question remains though. Why?
What do players get out of seeing the Derelict Row Ballers is charge of a station instead of The Boy George Fan Club or the Jeremy Beadle Alliance?
 
Hmm! How about divergent Universes. If we wait long enough until FD no longer supports ED. It was promised that the code would be released so it could be run on a private server. IIRC.

Then everyone could be happy. Sláinte 🥃
Ironically Sea of Thieves is testing private servers for a fee.
 
My question remains though. Why?
What do players get out of seeing the Derelict Row Ballers is charge of a station instead of The Boy George Fan Club or the Jeremy Beadle Alliance?
I'm no BGS maniac but a lot of players like forging their space in the galaxy and it is also a very deep part of the game - you should ask them though.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But you can't then say all modes are equal, because the outcomes are different.
One outcome is against a construct provided for entertainment - the other relates to an interaction with another player who does not need to engage in whatever it is the other player wants.
You need a shield that has enough Mj in essence. Thats not really imposing, thats being sensible in a potentially dangerous space- you are not forced to fly about in an HRP packed Cutter with the biggest shield possible.
Depends on the use case.
Its irrelevant about choosing, there is no equality in the outcome if you can interdict and rob an NPC, but interdict a player and they log on you. The trader is playing along by carrying valuables in Open.
Why is the choice of the attacker being given precedence over the choice of their player target? Again, NPCs are provided for entertainment. Frontier can't provide players for the entertainment of those who need them - the players have a free choice of who to play with and when to leave.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Ageed, but does not make what I said any less true.
Of course - and I could try landing on a planet with an 8g gravitational field in a ship with inadequate thrusters - it would affect my success rate and would be my choice.

Simply put, the BGS, as Frontier reminded us not long ago, is for all players, regardless of platform or game mode - which means that PvP is not required.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
That just isn't relevant as an analogy, in fact it's probably just avoiding the issue
Not at all - choices have consequences. If one likes playing among other players who may affect ones efficiency in PvE actions then no one else made that choice - effectively the player chose to hinder themself while engaging in a game feature that does not require PvP.
 
One outcome is against a construct provided for entertainment - the other relates to an interaction with another player who does not need to engage in whatever it is the other player wants.
But at a pure game loop level, its not. One ship has cargo, one wants it.

The only difference is if the player looses connection, but even then NPCs have done the same (i.e. not appeared).

Depends on the use case.
As long as you can boost, fly evasively and keep away from fire you'll more often than not survive. You don't need to fit weapons, just have a ship that can evade and not be made out of paper.

Why is the choice of the attacker being given precedence over the choice of their player target? Again, NPCs are provided for entertainment. Frontier can't provide players for the entertainment of those who need them - the players have a free choice of who to play with and when to leave.
Because the player carries something someone else wants- setting up that situation. If that possible situation is not what people want then other modes exist.
 
Not at all - choices have consequences. If one likes playing among other players who may affect ones efficiency in PvE actions then no one else made that choice - effectively the player chose to hinder themself while engaging in a game feature that does not require PvP.
choices have consequences
and yet

If one likes playing among other players who may affect ones efficiency in PvE
The player who logs is the one affecting the efficiency in this case. There is no consequence to one person, while the other has wasted time.
 
Not at all - choices have consequences. If one likes playing among other players who may affect ones efficiency in PvE actions then no one else made that choice - effectively the player chose to hinder themself while engaging in a game feature that does not require PvP.
I could just as well say that when a player chooses to go into open with an unshielded T7 at Deciat and then whines on the forums when he gets blown up, it was all his own choice.
My point is that it doesn't really get us anywhere does it? .. and you seem happy with that.
 
Top Bottom