Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Robert Maynard]

But it automatically gives wealthy traders an advantage while griefers have to find someone willing to pay the bills, stay still for them and drain them of money.

Given the events that some players have engaged in over the years, I would not be surprised if there were a number of extremely wealthy CMDRs prepared to bankroll friends (and their own altCMDRs) for the purpose engaging in such activities.

 

[Screemonster]

I can hardly believe what i’m reading to be perfectly frank. YOU ALREADY HAVE PG man! Why write thousand of posts that consistently stonewall any reasonable discourse about open mode, what is your problem? You’re the one who wants to force players into cotton wool mode to suit your play style, not the other way round, and you’re obviously willing to spend an awful lot of time on the forums to achieve your aim. Get a life.
I very rarely treat other people on forums this way, but don’t worry, you won’t hear from me again.

The dude has an absolutist position and absolutely refuses to compromise on it in any way.

For this reason, it's not worth discussing with him as it's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The dude has an absolutist position and absolutely refuses to compromise on it in any way.

It's not a compromise when nothing is offered in return for what is taken.

 

[Screemonster]

It's not a compromise when nothing is offered in return for what is taken.

Dude, even when people have proposed adding things like PvP-flagging to open while leaving solo and private intact, you dig your heels in if it's anything short of a complete invincibility toggle against any damage that originates from a player.
It was earlier in this thread, or another one, where I mentioned a system where a player would be protected from destruction but could still be damaged and have their engines shot out, to allow piracy and other by-design gameplay to take place. A PvP flag that would make random murderhoboing and ganking pointless to attempt.

You shot it down for not being good enough even though it's something that has no downside from the PvE player's point of view.

Even when offered an inch, you complain that you weren't given a mile. That's why it's pointless engaging with you - no solution will satisfy you, so why even bother trying?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Dude, even when people have proposed adding things like PvP-flagging to open while leaving solo and private intact, you dig your heels in if it's anything short of a complete invincibility toggle against any damage that originates from a player.

PvP flagging quite often means that those unflagged can't be attacked by other players.

It was earlier in this thread, or another one, where I mentioned a system where a player would be protected from destruction but could still be damaged and have their engines shot out, to allow piracy and other by-design gameplay to take place. A PvP flag that would make random murderhoboing and ganking pointless to attempt.

Which seems to be a "make piracy easier" flag - as the attacker would not need to take as much care not to simply blow up the target..

You shot it down for not being good enough even though it's something that has no downside from the PvE player's point of view.

Being able to be more easily incapacitated and made immobile making piracy easier can be considered a downside.

Even when offered an inch, you complain that you weren't given a mile. That's why it's pointless engaging with you - no solution will satisfy you, so why even bother trying?

What was being offered to the PvE player in this case?

 

[Havvk]

Dude, even when people have proposed adding things like PvP-flagging to open while leaving solo and private intact, you dig your heels in if it's anything short of a complete invincibility toggle against any damage that originates from a player.
It was earlier in this thread, or another one, where I mentioned a system where a player would be protected from destruction but could still be damaged and have their engines shot out, to allow piracy and other by-design gameplay to take place. A PvP flag that would make random murderhoboing and ganking pointless to attempt.

You shot it down for not being good enough even though it's something that has no downside from the PvE player's point of view.

Even when offered an inch, you complain that you weren't given a mile. That's why it's pointless engaging with you - no solution will satisfy you, so why even bother trying?

Because there should be no measures that lock out any gameplay, for any reason, in open. Open is what it is, it's not a warzone, it's not a battle royal, nor is it a happy daisy-filled field where everybody holds hands.

We need gameplay that properly balances out all parts of gameplay, so they can be easily melded from one into another and so on.

 

[SMcA]

It's not a compromise when nothing is offered in return for what is taken.

I reckon that you're on a hiding to nothing.

Spoiler

 

[Screemonster]

PvP flagging quite often means that those unflagged can't be attacked by other players.

You have modes for that.

Which seems to be a "make piracy easier" flag - as the attacker would not need to take as much care not to simply blow up the target..

Being able to be more easily incapacitated and made immobile making piracy easier can be considered a downside.

Logging out is still allowed under the rules. The pirates might not be happy with that, but you can always shoot back and raise your PvP flag if you really want to thumb your nose at them.

What was being offered to the PvE player in this case?

Protection from being murdered on their way to farseer? In fact, what's being taken from them?

 

[Screemonster]

Because there should be no measures that lock out any gameplay, for any reason, in open. Open is what it is, it's not a warzone, it's not a battle royal, nor is it a happy daisy-filled field where everybody holds hands.

We need gameplay that properly balances out all parts of gameplay, so they can be easily melded from one into another and so on.

Oh, for sure. I just wish that people would take it as it is instead of playing in the wrong mode then demanding open be made to change so they can be just as safe as solo.
Even the most minor concession towards changing open to their benefit is thrown back as being not good enough.

 

[A C Ender]

PvP flagging quite often means that those unflagged can't be attacked by other players.

Which seems to be a "make piracy easier" flag - as the attacker would not need to take as much care not to simply blow up the target..

Being able to be more easily incapacitated and made immobile making piracy easier can be considered a downside.

What was being offered to the PvE player in this case?

So you think a "PvE" player prefer to be destroyed than robbed? And that it would somehow be a downside to be able to toggle "I can't be destroyed but still disabled"...? what...

 

[Robert Maynard]

You have modes for that.

Not with an unlimited population.

Logging out is still allowed under the rules. The pirates might not be happy with that, but you can always shoot back and raise your PvP flag if you really want to thumb your nose at them.

I'd expect that such a flag would frustrate some pirates even more - as the target would be immune from destruction and could menu exit at will.

Protection from being murdered on their way to farseer? In fact, what's being taken from them?

Being incapacitated above a planet with gravity is still a rebuy. The flag would likely not change the outcome of an attack much, if at all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So you think a "PvE" player prefer to be destroyed than robbed? And that it would somehow be a downside to be able to toggle "I can't be destroyed but still disabled"...? what...

At least the unwanted interaction is over on rebuy. With the target incapacitated, the attacker gets to do what they want while the target can only sit and watch - or log out i suppose.

 

[Havvk]

Oh, for sure. I just wish that people would take it as it is instead of playing in the wrong mode then demanding open be made to change so they can be just as safe as solo.
Even the most minor concession towards changing open to their benefit is thrown back as being not good enough.

Again. Stop using that arguement. The real problem with all of this lies within the really bad and cr@ppy C&P system that, at "best", locks out a player just because they played the game in a way they could and was allowed to. Should you be punished like that for PvPing? No. The Fdev could look at Star Citizen for C&P inspiration. Imagine using a basic unarmed slf to do a jailbreak, flying through those tight narrow spots like in those stations from CQC arenas. Make "going to jail" fun. Otherwise you'll just make people gank or grief more, 10 minutes of ganking just to get slapped with a "Sit in timeout for 10 hours". Can't even pay off fines or turn yourself in if you have high enough notoriety. That's just terrible by design, and you can't tell me otherwise

 

[A C Ender]

At least the unwanted interaction is over on rebuy. With the target incapacitated, the attacker gets to do what they want while the target can only sit and watch - or log out i suppose.

The outset of the argument is that the victim of the interaction doesn't want to be blown up. If they don't care about that, why are they bothered about being blown up in the first place? If they don't want to be blown up but also don't want any possible dangerous interactions with players, there's modes for that. The toggle would let those who don't want to be blown up (and lose data etc) to be able to play in open while still risking being robbed.

 

[soloe]

Being incapacitated above a planet with gravity is still a rebuy. The flag would likely not change the outcome of an attack much, if at all.

At least the unwanted interaction is over on rebuy. With the target incapacitated, the attacker gets to do what they want while the target can only sit and watch - or log out i suppose.

You are aware of reboot and repair?

 

[Screemonster]

Not with an unlimited population.

Nothing that I proposed precludes you agitating for a complete invincibility PvE mode as well.
I actually love mobius. Mobius forbids firing upon other players under any circumstances even in conflict zones when you're on opposing sides in a war.
The fact that those people are in mobius means that I don't have to deal with them.

I'd expect that such a flag would frustrate some pirates even more - as the target would be immune from destruction and could menu exit at will.

Some, not all. Besides, if I shoot out someone's drives and hatchbreak them they're going to spin off into the distance while I'm scooping the loot, I certainly can't be bothered pulling the whole bump-stop maneuver on someone who can disappear in 15 seconds. That flag would make pretty much zero meaningful difference for most pirates.
I only ever go for the kill if they fire back, in which case... their PvP flag would be raised because they fired on me. So no change there either.

Being incapacitated above a planet with gravity is still a rebuy. The flag would likely not change the outcome of an attack much, if at all.

Not every gank is carried out in a gravity well. If anything they're in a minority. So it's not perfect. It won't catch every possible method of ganking or griefing. But it will still catch some which is a material improvment over what you have now.
This is what I mean by absolutist. You freely shoot down anything short of having complete godmode in the game. Even if something has nothing but upsides for PvE players, you still don't want it - you'd prefer gankers to have free reign like they do now? I mean, we can do that too, but you're clearly not happy with it.

 

[Hole in Head]

The outset of the argument is that the victim of the interaction doesn't want to be blown up. If they don't care about that, why are they bothered about being blown up in the first place? If they don't want to be blown up but also don't want any possible dangerous interactions with players, there's modes for that. The toggle would let those who don't want to be blown up (and lose data etc) to be able to play in open while still risking being robbed.

Sometimes blowing up the target is required to meet your objective though. For powerplay, the merits must be destroyed. For BGS, denial of ability to run missions for opposing faction.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You are aware of reboot and repair?

Of course - as would the attacker be - and would likely ensure that the player remained incapacitated.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The outset of the argument is that the victim of the interaction doesn't want to be blown up. If they don't care about that, why are they bothered about being blown up in the first place? If they don't want to be blown up but also don't want any possible dangerous interactions with players, there's modes for that. The toggle would let those who don't want to be blown up (and lose data etc) to be able to play in open while still risking being robbed.

True. It might work for some.

 

[Screemonster]

Of course - as would the attacker be - and would likely ensure that the player remained incapacitated.

Log out. Switch mode. Reboot. Continue to destination.