Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Robert Maynard]

Is there any technical reason why PG couldn't be 200'000 for example? And if not, that should be an easy and quick change which would give you an open PvE mode in all but name. Though I guess there's technically the risk of someone infiltrating, but I believe that's a bannable offence.

And I know I certainly would play a lot more if I could reliable find PvP whenever I wanted. I just find it a lot more fun than any other aspect of the game.

From memory the PC client PG membership management is a limiting factor. On consoles it may be something to do with the platform provider.

I understand that some players really enjoy their PvP.

 

[A C Ender]

Isn't that what CQC is all about ?

I can't use my ships there.

 

[MishaTX]

Attacking without communication doesn't imply griefing and piracy without communication doesn't imply anything other than piracy.

You're right. But absent any form of communication, I have to assume that you're a griefer, or choose to be an idiot.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'd have thought the ones that should be excluded are the ones that are causing problems for the others

Robbing lunch money is acceptable though.

 

[soloe]

It isn't though. One is forcing other into a situation they don't want one in, crystal clear.

When my client log out I am forced into a situation I don't want to be part of too.

Seriously: both of us aren't forced into this - we both choose open (hopefully) knowing the "downsides".

It certainly does as it is simply an attack without context or interaction from the attacked player.

The attacked player just don't know the context. To be clear: I can understand that it is (even) less fun for a victim not knowing what the attack was all about, but it doesn't make it griefing.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Depends - it's up to them really - the game provides modes and tools to control who one plays among, or not, and leave at will.

While some rather obviously want any player they target to be forced to stick around to the end of an interaction, playing their way, Frontier didn't create their game like that. Sandro did indicate that not all players would agree with Frontier's stance regarding menu exit - which means that Frontier are aware of disagreement - however that hasn't changed it.

I don't honestly know what FD are playing at, because Sandro also said:

Powerplay is fundamentally about consensual player versus player conflict. We think that pretty much all of the systems and rules would benefit from being played out in Open only, as it would dramatically increase the chance of meeting other pledged players and being able to directly affect the outcomes of power struggles.

So for one feature at least, the playground remains dangerous.

Of course since Sandro is not involved with ED, both statements could have timed out. Only EDO will really tell us what path FD are taking now.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

You're right. But absent any form of communication, I have to assume that you're a griefer, or choose to be an idiot.

Lack of comms (which I hate with a vengance) does not make you a griefer, a ganker maybe. I do think it's important to distinguish: a ganker attacks random players for no particular roleplay reason and usually doesn't bother to communicate. A griefer has a personal agenda against you and is out to ruin your game experience by following you around and repeatedly attacking.

 

[soloe]

You're right. But absent any form of communication, I have to assume that you're a griefer, or choose to be an idiot.

You don't "have to" assume anything. You could also assume that the player has technical problems for example. To give you an example: A former squadmate couldn't text due to some kinde of firewall problems for a while.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

I don't honestly know what FD are playing at, because Sandro also said:



So for one feature at least, the playground remains dangerous.

Of course since Sandro is not involved with ED, both statements could have timed out. Only EDO will really tell us what path FD are taking now.

Who's EDO?

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Who these are is a matter of perspective.



Attacking without communication doesn't imply griefing and piracy without communication doesn't imply anything other than piracy.



I don't particularly want to play with anyone who is willing to to abuse the unintended side-effects of ill-conceived or shoddily implimented mechanisms to influence the BGS or preserve their CMDR's assets, but if I want to play Elite: Dangerous at all, outside of the single player training scenarios, I have to compromise on this point.

I don't compromise on how I spend my playtime.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't honestly know what FD are playing at, because Sandro also said:

He did - then it was pointed out that pad-blocking, menu exit and the block feature would likely need to be changed if Powerplay went Open only - then he came back with a rerun of the Open play bonus proposal - then it went quiet.

So for one feature at least, the playground remains dangerous.

Maybe "would have been changes to be" - as it hasn't happened, nor has it been confirmed to be happening.

Of course since Sandro is not involved with ED, both statements could have timed out. Only EDO will really tell us what path FD are taking now.

Maybe, maybe not - we'll find out in due course.

 

[Morbad]

You're right. But absent any form of communication, I have to assume that you're a griefer, or choose to be an idiot.

You can assume whatever you want, as long as it doesn't affect gameplay. If you have to opt-in to an encounter after having already clicked 'Open', something is seriously wrong.

Frankly, you are precisely the kind of player I don't want to have to encounter in my games, but I acquiesce to such encounters by clicking "Open".

 

[soloe]

Lack of comms (which I hate with a vengance) does not make you a griefer, a ganker maybe. I do think it's important to distinguish: a ganker attacks random players for no particular roleplay reason and usually doesn't bother to communicate. A griefer has a personal agenda against you and is out to ruin your game experience by following you around and repeatedly attacking.

Technically speaking ganker is just someone (or a group) who attacks a weaker or outmatched player. Weather the reasoning behind this is to cause grief is another matter. So pirates are indeed often times gankers.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You don't "have to" assume anything. You could also assume that the player has technical problems for example. To give you an example: A former squadmate couldn't text due to some kinde of firewall problems for a while.

While one does not "have to" to assume anything, after a few such encounters, one may be wise to assume the worst.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Who's EDO?

Elite Dangerous Odyssey. I type EDO because it saves time and I enjoy adding to the crazy PP NPC CC PA HRP DDS TTK loveliness

 

[Morbad]

I don't compromise on how I spend my playtime.

Then you don't play this game, or you happen to be one of the phenomenally rare individuals who feels the game has no flaws at all.

 

[Rubbernuke]

He did - then it was pointed out that pad-blocking, menu exit and the block feature would likely need to be changed if Powerplay went Open only - then he came back with a rerun of the Open play bonus proposal - then it went quiet.

All of which are easily solvable- I sorted them out several times over and I'd expect a dev like FD to have done it too.

Maybe "would have been changes to be" - as it hasn't happened, nor has it been confirmed to be happening.

Maybe, maybe not - we'll find out in due course.

Lets hope something actually constructive rather than half thought out appears.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Then you don't play this game, or you happen to be one of the phenomenally rare individuals who feels the game has no flaws at all.

It has too many.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Technically speaking ganker is just someone (or a group) who attacks a weaker or outmatched player. Weather the reasoning behind this is to cause grief is another matter. So pirates are indeed often times gankers.

If valid roleplay is involved and the pirate state his business and his conditions "give me 5t or else" and the victim tries to run I don't agree that the victim has been ganked, as he at least had a choice to comply. Personally I would do my best to disable without killing as a pirate who kills get no loot and is therefore not a very good pirate.

 

[Hole in Head]

One thing I don't understand is the need to take over someone's else system. There are approximately 400 billion system's in ED, OK the vast majority don't contain stations of any kind. And with the exception of Colonial and a couple of other areas' of space. Only the bubble has stations in the over whelming vast majority of systems in the bubble. The bubble is only a small percentage to the total area on can utilize in ED. And if only one percent of the entire availability has stations, which would equate to about one million. Why would anyone want a system already utilized by another, when there are so many more they could acquire doing less work.

I'd reckon it's because humans in general don't want what they can or do already have, they want the reason Cain killed Able. What they don't or can't have!

Because it's a game and it's fun.