Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Leper Messiah]

Hmm... just disable everyone in a certain area?

Interesting. Open to abuse a bit though if people are working in wings. Someone stays out of range while their friend fries themselves and other ships.

I prefer the bomb. Its quicker and cleaner.

The person who fires the EMP has the EMP shielding installed in weapon slots and escapes. The one that doesn't have the shielding is prey to what you thought up...i.e. their own fault.

Imagine setting an energy bomb off outside Jamesons! Not sure the forums would be clean!!

 

[Misty_Dark]

While I appreciate the sentiment here, you and everyone else who keeps asking for PvP content, are doing it all wrong. You gotta ask for something small first, like fixing CQC and letting us use are own ships for it first. These big proposals to change a bunch of stuff will always be shouted down by the solo community and ignored my the devs.

I think a bigger issue is that trying to change something that would only benefit a small subset of players at the cost for all the other players experience is a the biggest issue.


I do think you are on the right track with the CQC thing.

 

[Brrokk]

Peak skill! Git gud! (although wasn't it B? E was ECM wasn't it???)

You could be right, I'm hazy on the details. But you had to press it really skilfully.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

I think a bigger issue is that trying to change something that would only benefit a small subset of players at the cost for all the other players experience is a the biggest issue.


I do think you are on the right track with the CQC thing.

Yeah I agree. Especially if you want to convince the devs to add PvP content, you gotta start with something small to show them there is interest in PvP, which is probably why they introduced CQC to begin with, but they implemented it so poorly that almost no one has any interest in it.

I think a good argument could be made for open only power play as well because so few have any interest in it to begin with but the second you suggest open only BGS you lose all your credibility.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

Imagine setting an energy bomb off outside Jamesons! Not sure the forums would be clean!!

That would be hilarious.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think a good argument could be made for open only power play as well because so few have any interest in it to begin with but the second you suggest open only BGS you lose all your credibility.

Frontier do at least seem to be still considering Sandro's proposal of May'18 that included a potential change to Open only Powerplay. That Frontier reiterated their stance on the BGS and who it is for, some time after the Flash Topics, rather strongly suggests that the BGS remains off the table.

 

[Bigmaec]

That would be hilarious.

Every ganker would fly one and set it off if he loses, or just for sh*t and giggles.
Explorers still would skip them and die, because muh jumprange,
and traders/miners would also skip them due to muh cr/hr.

Give us the energy bomb!! Hilarity would ensue, salt would flow en masse

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

Frontier do at least seem to be still considering Sandro's proposal of May'18 that included a potential change to Open only Powerplay. That Frontier reiterated their stance on the BGS and who it is for, some time after the Flash Topics, rather strongly suggests that the BGS remains off the table.

Yeah, and I agree. I don't like the way BGS is implemented but obviously, many others do.

I didn't know that about power play. That's pretty cool. They gotta do something with it. It has so much wasted potential.

 

[gorankar]

Problem with open only anything is console players having to have a Gold subscription, as well as Fdev saying what amounts to everything in the game is for every platform and mode. PowerPlay being open only would not bother me, but, then again, I already have the PP modules I want. People looking for those prizmatics and othe PP modules on Xbox would have to pay for a sub to Gold to get them.
That's not even counting the people with barely good enough for solo internet connections.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

Problem with open only anything is console players having to have a Gold subscription, as well as Fdev saying what amounts to everything in the game is for every platform and mode. PowerPlay being open only would not bother me, but, then again, I already have the PP modules I want. People looking for those prizmatics and othe PP modules on Xbox would have to pay for a sub to Gold to get them.
That's not even counting the people with barely good enough for solo internet connections.

Eh, sounds like console problems to me. Sorry, not sorry

Also, the arguments for PP open only include making all the modules tech broker unlocks instead but I don't see why making, unlocking them more dangerous and risky is a problem.

 

[Screemonster]

sociopaths

I wondered how long it'd take before that word showed up

I need to start keeping a picture of Inigo Montoya on hand.

 

[Chaparral]

While I appreciate the sentiment here, you and everyone else who keeps asking for PvP content, are doing it all wrong. You gotta ask for something small first, like fixing CQC and letting us use are own ships for it first. These big proposals to change a bunch of stuff will always be shouted down by the solo community and ignored by the devs.

I really think this is a good idea. CQC with player owned ships. An arena to practice PVP without rebuy pains, and some mechanism to record progress (KD ratios, total kills, rank etc.). This would also promote build experimentation. You could go crazy and have sm / m / L size classifications etc.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Yup, it's one of those threads...

PvP consistently seems to be the last thing considered with game features. If anything, features are introduced that hamper PvP in Elite. This pattern I believe is contributing to the infamous ganking "problem" so often posted on reddit or these forums. Full disclosure, I do my share of ganking. Let's go over some avenues that can bring about meaningful PvP in this game.

1) BGS: One player faction comes into conflict with another for control of stations and systems. This has great potential to drive meaningful PvP since each side has an incentive to hamper the efforts of the other. But there are some things that get in the way:

Solo / PG: Actions are just as effective in these modes compared to open, so players have no incentive to play in open if there's threat of hostile action.
Menu Logging: Allowed by FDev, reviled by the PvP community. You can de-spawn your ship in 15 seconds after getting attacked, leaving players very little time to complete an attack. With today's defensive modules and engineering, it's incredibly easy to have a ship that can survive 15 seconds of fire from fully decked out PvP ships.
Blocking: Say each group has 3 players in a wing. Wing 1 has blocked 2 members of the opposing wing already. Because of this, instancing will likely be incredibly broken, such that either the two wings don't see each other at all, or Wing 1 will only see a single member of Wing 2, while the other two members fail to instance with the rest of the players, giving Wing 1 an advantage. They can also just proceed to block any member if the opposing faction, effectively playing in PG but in open.
....
...
3) Don't communicate before interdiction otherwise you might just get blocked.

So really, if there is a ganking problem, its really due to the design of the game, and the lack of compelling options for PvP because of it. As someone who ganks, I would absolutely love to have a compelling BGS war with another player group far more than just ganking in a random high traffic system. There'd be more fun pirate interactions as well if the current situation didn't overtly hamper pirating efforts so harshly.


TLDR: PvP players are left with little to no compelling options for PvP content, resulting in increased ganking.

So again one of those those threads wanting to make pewpew mode supreme over others.

Blocking function btw has nice legitimate use. Say there is some quite obnoxious player, even possible cheater concentrated just on trolling people. It just gets quite irritating to instance with that one. Block function works nicely enough. Also even in open there are many players who are NOT interested in turf war between say "Lave communist freedom fighters", and "Lave free communist liberation fighters" but may want simply to do business in said system. Blocking whoever participicates in blockade of said system works nicely.

 

[Screemonster]

So again one of those those threads wanting to make pewpew mode supreme over others.

Blocking function btw has nice legitimate use. Say there is some quite obnoxious player, even possible cheater concentrated just on trolling people. It just gets quite irritating to instance with that one. Block function works nicely enough. Also even in open there are many players who are NOT interested in turf war between say "Lave communist freedom fighters", and "Lave free communist liberation fighters" but may want simply to do business in said system. Blocking whoever participicates in blockade of said system works nicely.

Blocking cheaters? I'm cool with that.

That second one just sounds scummy. If you don't want to be a part of people's game that are playing the game legitimately, take yourself off to private instead of screwing up instancing for everyone else.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Sure, there will always be gankers no matter what. But many of us who might not otherwise gank end up doing so given the lack of organic PvP content to be had due to the game's design.

Umm by definition gank is multiple attackers against usually weaker opponent, many times opponent is weaker than any single ship of gankers side? What exactly forces you to gank others? Why you cannot say attack one on one against some strong opponent? Those might be more likely to fight it out with you without logging out.

 

[Brrokk]

I really think this is a good idea. CQC with player owned ships. An arena to practice PVP without rebuy pains, and some mechanism to record progress (KD ratios, total kills, rank etc.). This would also promote build experimentation. You could go crazy and have sm / m / L size classifications etc.

PvP players could have this just by picking a couple of anarchy systems to gather in. Why won't they? Or have they done that but not publicised it?

 

[TiberiusDuval]

That second one just sounds scummy. If you don't want to be a part of people's game that are playing the game legitimately, take yourself off to private instead of screwing up instancing for everyone else.

About as "scummy" as attacking without warning, typical way of learning possible "blockade" is by getting ganked without warning.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You could be right, I'm hazy on the details. But you had to press it really skilfully.

I seem to remember just headbutting the keyboard and praying.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

PvP players could have this just by picking a couple of anarchy systems to gather in. Why won't they? Or have they done that but not publicised it?

San Tu is perhaps the only organized PvP hub, or at least it used to be, and it was publicised. I even helped them with their BGS for a while.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

Umm by definition gank is multiple attackers against usually weaker opponent, many times opponent is weaker than any single ship of gankers side? What exactly forces you to gank others? Why you cannot say attack one on one against some strong opponent? Those might be more likely to fight it out with you without logging out.

We do fight stronger opponents about 90% of the time. I bet I've paid more money in rebuys than many players have spent on their entire ship fleet.
There's nothing forcing us to gank, it's just something that's fun and funny to do