Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But at a pure game loop level, its not. One ship has cargo, one wants it.
In a situation where there are two players more than what one player wants matters.
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.
That presupposes that having ones time wasted being attacked is "fun".
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.
Just because one player set up the situation does not mean they get what they want.

Open is the compromise mode with PvP, an unlimited population, menu exit and the block feature. If players menu exiting is not what a people want, don't interfere with other players.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
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.
Indeed.
My point is that it doesn't really get us anywhere does it? .. and you seem happy with that.
It doesn't - because the BGS was designed, developed and sold to be affected by all players and does not require PvP. I'm happy in the knowledge that I made sure that PvP was an optional extra before I backed the game.
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
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.
The one who uses menu exit has presumably already had time wasted by the attacker. The attacker faces little consequence or, likely, risk - if they're selecting targets "properly" - and may have their "fun" at the other player's expense, regardless of whether the targeted player has "fun" if they stick around.
 
In a situation where there are two players more than what one player wants matters.
Then what is dictating the game, the fact the other person is a player, or what they are doing?

That presupposes that having ones time wasted being attacked is "fun".
Then don't get attacked, by using your ship, map and skill to avoid it. "Cut-thoat" is more than suggesting attack, its also being able to avoid problems as well.

Just because one player set up the situation does not mean they get what they want.
By carrying valuables they are playing the role, and being a proxy to an NPC.

Open is the compromise mode with PvP, an unlimited population, menu exit and the block feature. If players menu exiting is not what a people want, don't interfere with other players.
Which means that Open is pointless then for playing the game- its not a compromise at all if you can't gain anything from being in it.
 
The one who uses menu exit has presumably already had time wasted by the attacker. The attacker faces little consequence or, likely, risk - if they're selecting targets "properly" - and may have their "fun" at the other player's expense, regardless of whether the targeted player has "fun" if they stick around.
If that attacker is a pirate, then is wasted time. If it is someone trying to stop merits in Powerplay, its wasted time.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Then what is dictating the game, the fact the other person is a player, or what they are doing?
If both players are up for it, it'll happen - all it takes is for one not to be for it not to happen.
Then don't get attacked, by using your ship, map and skill to avoid it. "Cut-thoat" is more than suggesting attack, its also being able to avoid problems as well.
It's not the target's choice whether they are attacked or not - it's the choice of the attacker.
By carrying valuables they are playing the role, and being a proxy to an NPC.
Only in the eyes of the attacker - the player carrying valuables is seeking to profit from them - they need not play the role of "willing victim" if they choose not to.
Which means that Open is pointless then for playing the game- its not a compromise at all if you can't gain anything from being in it.
It is where players can engage with likeminded players - but where players may be thwarted by the choices of others.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
If that attacker is a pirate, then is wasted time. If it is someone trying to stop merits in Powerplay, its wasted time.
If a player chooses to engage in an activity that wastes their time then that's up to them. For some, PvP is a complete waste of their time.
 
If both players are up for it, it'll happen - all it takes is for one not to be for it not to happen.
You can't know in advance, thats what the Open toggle is for, to pre screen what people supposedly want.

It's not the target's choice whether they are attacked or not - it's the choice of the attacker.
The target chooses to be in that location at that time in that ship.

Only in the eyes of the attacker - the player carrying valuables is seeking to profit from them - they need not play the role of "willing victim" if they choose not to.
This is an Elite game, pirates want valuables.

It is where players can engage with likeminded players - but where players may be thwarted by the choices of others.
Unless you all agree in advance (which is impossible in Open) you can never tell who is 'like minded'- coupled with FD advertising hostile players the scope of Open is about the unknown, rather than making everything plain.
 
Perhaps it would be prudent to test new system, but at start do it with attacker. So for party making interdiction: No logging out, and no waking out as long as there is other ship in instance, be it cmdr or NPC police. Lets see how fun that would be. Better be fast swatting out those cops to make escape.
 
If a player chooses to engage in an activity that wastes their time then that's up to them. For some, PvP is a complete waste of their time.
But its not a waste of time- its a valid game loop that has the victim pointing a gun at themselves saying 'I'll shoot and ruin your day' if it goes wrong.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
You can't know in advance, thats what the Open toggle is for, to pre screen what people supposedly want.
.... and in the
The target chooses to be in that location at that time in that ship.
Indeed. That some assume that that is an invitation to attack means that it is as prone to error as most assumptions.
This is an Elite game, pirates want valuables.
Of course they do - however it's not all about what they want in a game with other players who want different things.
Unless you all agree in advance (which is impossible in Open) you can never tell who is 'like minded'- coupled with FD advertising hostile players the scope of Open is about the unknown, rather than making everything plain.
It's not impossible - it just isn't done. I'm fairly sure that players could use ship names or callsigns to indicate whether they were "up for" PvP if they organised it.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But its not a waste of time- its a valid game loop that has the victim pointing a gun at themselves saying 'I'll shoot and ruin your day' if it goes wrong.
Receiving demands with menaces may tick some players' boxes - but being mugged isn't "fun" for many. Valid game loop or not, if it's not "fun" then players can choose to leave at will.
 
Can you imagine using these arguments to justify mugging someone in real life? In this world of woke hysteria, just making such arguments would lose you your job and get your face all over the internet.

Of course, this is a game, not real life, and I'm sure that we all - rightly - have completely different standards of behaviour for each.
But still, arguing that someone deserves to lose their stuff because they have something you want and didn't do a good enough job hiding from you? Bloody hell.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Can you imagine using these arguments to justify mugging someone in real life? In this world of woke hysteria, just making such arguments would lose you your job and get your face all over the internet.

Of course, this is a game, not real life, and I'm sure that we all - rightly - have completely different standards of behaviour for each.
But still, arguing that someone deserves to lose their stuff because they have something you want and didn't do a good enough job hiding from you? Bloody hell.
Quite. The "I want what I want and I don't care what you want because the game lets me do it" argument doesn't really work in this context.
 
Top Bottom