Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Rubbernuke]

What are your reasons then? Because honestly, Ganking seems to be one of the least, if not the least interesting thing to do in this game? You want more people to play in open then actively inhibit the fun they can have in open with random killings? You're not even doing it to take their loot you just want them dead. You're not teaching them anything other than they're wasting their time in open because they die and loss weeks of exploration data, or all their cargo, or whatever else they had. I've not once been ganked in a ship that can defend itself and I think that says a lot about Gankers.

I'm honestly more shocked that people don't seem to see why ganking is so hated, than the fact that people gank.

My view is that people obsess regards other pilots to the detriment of what they are doing. People are looking for reasons from another player when in reality they should be focusing on maximizing their own chances of victory. Players have all the in and out of game tools to avoid most problems, and even then problems are often temporary as players move about.

I've not once been ganked in a ship that can defend itself and I think that says a lot about Gankers.

Which means you want to learn and avoid trouble- you took an active step. Many feel they should be able to fly anywhere in a cardboard box in total safety and wonder why they get shot down so much.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

Elite Dangerous meta ganking is fine. From nonsensical interdiction to free from masslocked high waking, game mode switching, to menu logging and the hilarious powercreep behind all that. It has provided an endless source of entertainment for years now to read how tryharding wanabe competitive players defend a set of wonky placeholders, so they can safely one shot clueless traders. Just feel free to troll the trolls. If "pvpers" wanted a viable pvp ecosystem, they wouldnt use the sandbox as cat litter.

 

[Jade Merrydown]

My view is that people obsess regards other pilots to the detriment of what they are doing. People are looking for reasons from another player when in reality they should be focusing on maximizing their own chances of victory. Players have all the in and out of game tools to avoid most problems, and even then problems are often temporary as players move about.

See I just want to know the mindset, my outlook for it, and if I ever start ganking is killing pilots of the other factions, I'm signed up for the Alliance admittedly for RP reasons. But at this point, I'd be hunting down Imperials and Feds, and I'd give that reason in response to any "whys?"

I guess people just like to know they weren't killed for literally no other reason than to be turned into space dust right?

 

[Rubbernuke]

I guess people just like to know they weren't killed for literally no other reason than to be turned into space dust right?

Why does it matter? People need to stop trying to find answers from other people because quite often there are none.

I'm signed up for the Alliance admittedly for RP reasons. But at this point, I'd be hunting down Imperials and Feds, and I'd give that reason in response to any "whys?"

How would this be communicated to another person? Some people are totally ignorant of EDs Superpowers and Powers, they don't even look at the message panel. To them you are indistinguishable from a ganker. Am I ganking if I blow up someone pledged who (unbeknownst to me) is module shopping? To me I don't care. They need to die because they are the enemy and if they don't understand that, thats down to their ignorance.

Its why its best to let go of trying to find answers, and get back to crafting your own narrative- knowing what systems are safer, knowing how to evade etc. The tools are all there, its a matter of using them together better. It won't always work, but its more satisfying than quitting the process which just prolongs the issue.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The fun of it is struggling against the odds- for some reason in ED, the game with infinite lives, unending credits etc this has been inverted so that people are risk adverse rather than embracing risk.

Some find "struggling against the odds" to be fun - even when the odds are massively stacked in favour of the attacker - some don't find the odds associated with player attack much "fun" though (as attacking players often build their ships and select their targets so as to encounter little or no risk to themselves).

Time is the real currency of this game, in my opinion - and I suspect that many players don't like to have their time wasted for a few seconds of someone else's "fun" - especially when the encounter itself isn't "fun".

Its a similar argument to the Open Powerplay one; at some point you need hard rules to make the game an actual game. If there are too many clauses it becomes impotent.

We have hard rules - we can shoot at any player we instance with; all players affect the game regardless of mode; playing among other players is optional.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Some find "struggling against the odds" to be fun - even when the odds are stacked in favour of the attacker - some don't find the odds associated with player attack much "fun" though.

The point is that in Open you need a basic fail state (lose cargo, destruction) for the mode to make sense. Its far too easy to circumvent that, rather than use situational awareness at a local, SC and galactic scale, as well as draw knowledge from other disciplines. In addition people need to accept danger should exist, and when things go wrong accept it, learn from it and move forward.

Time is the real currency of this game, in my opinion - and I suspect that many players don't like to have their time wasted for a few seconds of someone else's "fun" - especially when the encounter itself isn't "fun".

Thats tough, frankly. All tasks should have the same fail state and risks attached. Just because they don't like wasting time does not mean the action itself is meaningless, or that they need special mitigating measures. Quite often if they planned better, built better they'd not waste so much time being blown up.

We have hard rules - we can shoot at any player we instance with; all players affect the game regardless of mode; playing among other players is optional.

No we don't- with piracy for example the victim can cheat the pirate out of cargo by using logging. Powerplay is another, some modes are just more efficient than others, taking an uneven and dull feature that simply duplicates a five year old hackneyed mechanic to absurd lengths. Its back to the analogy of the hurdler, some hurdlers remove obstacles to win while other s keep them- now in competition is that a race, and does the person hurdling less actually 'win'?

 

[Blasphemous One]

PvP is optional just like all other activities, game caters to all playstyles.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The point is that in Open you need a basic fail state (lose cargo, destruction) for the mode to make sense. Its far too easy to circumvent that, rather than use situational awareness at a local, SC and galactic scale, as well as draw knowledge from other disciplines. In addition people need to accept danger should exist, and when things go wrong accept it, learn from it and move forward.

That fail state exists in all game modes. That the PvE challenge is not enough for some players has been discussed many times, as has the fact that the PvE difficulty settings are in Frontier's control (and they consider the whole player-base when setting them).

Thats tough, frankly. All tasks should have the same fail state and risks attached. Just because they don't like wasting time does not mean the action itself is meaningless, or that they need special mitigating measures. Quite often if they planned better, built better they'd not waste so much time being blown up.

In which case "that's tough" for those who like to waste others time - as no-one needs to play with them.

No we don't- with piracy for example the victim can cheat the pirate out of cargo by using logging. Powerplay is another, some modes are just more efficient than others, taking an uneven and dull feature that simply duplicates a five year old hackneyed mechanic to absurd lengths. Its back to the analogy of the hurdler, some hurdlers remove obstacles to win while other s keep them- now in competition is that a race, and does the person hurdling less actually 'win'?

Interesting choice of words - that a player can "cheat" cargo away from a player intending to steal it from them - which seems to assume that the attacker has a "right" to the cargo in the first place - especially when Sandro was quite clear that menu exit (not combat logging, that's different) is acceptable at any time (and acknowledged that not all players would agree). Predatory gameplay may be "fun" for the instigator - however there's no need for the target to play along.

The "hurdles" in the analogy are, presumably, players. Encountering players is and has always been optional in this game. That some players choose to encounter other players, which may in turn add hurdles to their race, is their choice and their choice alone. Players who choose not to encounter other players face the number of hurdles set by the game.

 

[soloe]

PvP is definitely not always ganking, but if you pull a paper plane in a PvP FdL then it does have a slight resemblance with bullying.

No. While I'd agree that a gank could be used to bully someone, a gank does not even slightly resembles with bullying. A gank is just defeating an opponent by overwhelming force. I've done that on multiple occasions and it has always been for in character reasons. And no: I do not play as a serial killer...

Just like clubbing seal puppets, it's wrong.

Seriously? The seal clubbing argument?

I'm honestly more shocked that people don't seem to see why ganking is so hated, than the fact that people gank.

But I do understand. That's why I would advocate for a open only universe with some sort of pvp flag. Until then, or most definitely forever, we have the different modes.

 

[Jade Merrydown]

How would this be communicated to another person? Some people are totally ignorant of EDs Superpowers and Powers, they don't even look at the message panel. To them you are indistinguishable from a ganker. Am I ganking if I blow up someone pledged who (unbeknownst to me) is module shopping? To me I don't care. They need to die because they are the enemy and if they don't understand that, thats down to their ignorance.

Understandable yes, and I'd be dropping messages into the comms so they can see, I find most people try to talk to the people that gank them anyway, so there's always a learning experience to be had.

Why does it matter? People need to stop trying to find answers from other people because quite often there are none.

It matters because people tend to like to know, that's literally the only thing. At the end of the day, Gankers will need to accept that they are going to be hated for what they do, it's not fun to be on the receiving end of a gank, especially newer players who as you said yourself may not even know how to look for websites that can make it safer for them, or even know what else to do outside of running into solo or PGs. I saw it happen today, someone getting ganked in Deciat system, "Guess I'm going back to my PG" Once again, people want Open to have more players, but then they have a really hard shock when they realise people don't like getting ganked for no reason, a reason for the random killing could actually keep them in the game, Rather than a "Lol git gud" which is what most gankers do.

 

[Jade Merrydown]

But I do understand. That's why I would advocate for a open only universe with some sort of pvp flag. Until then, or most definitely forever, we have the different modes.

So you're saying like WoW has currently? You slap on the sign saying "I'm Targetable for PvP"? Because the problem will still exist with that system. It'll just be hard locked rather than people hiding away in differnt modes, you'll just have untargetable people, I'd wager that'd be more frustrating.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That fail state exists in all game modes. That the PvE challenge is not enough for some players has been discussed many times, as has the fact that the PvE difficulty settings are in Frontier's control (and they consider the whole player-base when setting them).

No it does not. Logging, legit or not, is too often used as an excuse that wrecks any consequences. In my book, you should only be able to log out while in a station, surface or stationary in an isolated instance.

In which case "that's tough" for those who like to waste others time - as no-one needs to play with them.

Which is absurd- why play in a mode with others to begin with? Surely its better to play in PG or solo then. Its the people unwilling to risk anything wasting the time.

Interesting choice of words - that a player can "cheat" cargo away from a player intending to steal it from them - especially when Sandro was quite clear that menu exit (not combat logging, that's different) is acceptable at any time (and acknowledged that not all players would agree). Predatory gameplay may be "fun" for the instigator - however there's no need for the target to play along.

This is where I disagree with Sandro- if you are intercepted for any reason to me requires that situation to play out fully otherwise its someone taking their football home in a strop because they are losing the match.

The "hurdles" in the analogy are, presumably, players. Encountering players is and has always been optional in this game. That some players choose to encounter other players, which may in turn add hurdles to their race, is their choice and their choice alone. Players who choose not to encounter other players face the number of hurdles set by the game.

But once you are locked into a situation, you are cheating others by dropping out- the pirate gains nothing even though they 'won', while the trader remains untouched even though they were of less skill, flew an unsuitable ship etc or just plain unlucky. Without chance there is no game.

The analogy is mainly for Powerplay- by reducing the hurdles you are reducing the potential chances for problems- in other words simplifying the game. FD made this mistake and Powerplay suffers from it because the base state is unrewarding and drawn out, encouraging robotic repetitive play. The actual flying (which should be the game) is demoted to an inconvenience rather than being front and centre.

 

[soloe]

So you're saying like WoW has currently? You slap on the sign saying "I'm Targetable for PvP"? Because the problem will still exist with that system. It'll just be hard locked rather than people hiding away in differnt modes, you'll just have untargetable people, I'd wager that'd be more frustrating.

Not exactly and I don't have a real answer to that problem, more like I feel like it could be better with some sort of flag(s). One idea could be that as soon as you pledge for a power, you would automatically be pvp flagged and unflagged only after a few days of cool down when leaving the power.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Understandable yes, and I'd be dropping messages into the comms so they can see, I find most people try to talk to the people that gank them anyway, so there's always a learning experience to be had.

Admirable.

It matters because people tend to like to know, that's literally the only thing. At the end of the day, Gankers will need to accept that they are going to be hated for what they do, it's not fun to be on the receiving end of a gank, especially newer players who as you said yourself may not even know how to look for websites that can make it safer for them, or even know what else to do outside of running into solo or PGs. I saw it happen today, someone getting ganked in Deciat system, "Guess I'm going back to my PG" Once again, people want Open to have more players, but then they have a really hard shock when they realise people don't like getting ganked for no reason, a reason for the random killing could actually keep them in the game, Rather than a "Lol git gud" which is what most gankers do.

To me its a case of knowledge- of knowing where the danger is, and how to avoid it. For engineers for example, its knowing when to go, are there alternatives, can I team up etc. This comes from an internal drive to overcome or accept obstacles exist.

What I would like to see from FD is training in evasion, ship building etc, and some sort of briefing on where danger may come from. I think seeding this early would put new players on a better footing.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

pvpers are a minority (how do they know by the way?)

OP states that people turn to ganking because of boredom as there isn't enough meaningful PvP.

His suggestions are to incentivise people into open (making the leap that by being in open you are actively seeking PvP which may not be the case btw)

If we accept what OP is saying, then logic would dictate that if the majority want to PVP, then no one would need incentivising to play in open or to PvP and the post is a futile one.

It would also dictate that if the majority are into PvP (not the same as simply playing in open) then why are the majority so bored they turn to ganking? Why aren't they just PvP'ing each other?

It must be the case that people that want PvP fights are in the minority then. Otherwise OP is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. You don't have to incentivise a majority into doing something they want to do.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No it does not. Logging, legit or not, is too often used as an excuse that wrecks any consequences. In my book, you should only be able to log out while in a station, surface or stationary in an isolated instance.

That menu exit (delayed or not) exists as it does is likely a result of the way that some players choose to play the game, just as the block feature has been strengthened over time.

That the game does not follow the personal preferences of some players is obvious.

Which is absurd- why play in a mode with others to begin with? Surely its better to play in PG or solo then. Its the people unwilling to risk anything wasting the time.

Open is the only game mode with an unlimited population and players need to discover Private Groups out of game.

If there was an Open-PvE mode then a lot of the angst associated with players selecting Open for some, but not all, of its features would likely disappear.

This is where I disagree with Sandro- if you are intercepted for any reason to me requires that situation to play out fully otherwise its someone taking their football home in a strop because they are losing the match.

Which would be a boon to griefers - forcing players to self destruct to be able to be rid of them - which is probably why it is not the case.

But once you are locked into a situation, you are cheating others by dropping out- the pirate gains nothing even though they 'won', while the trader remains untouched even though they were of less skill, flew an unsuitable ship etc or just plain unlucky. Without chance there is no game.

There is no being "locked" into a situation in this game - no matter how much some players would like there to be. Players consent to continue an interaction and can withdraw that consent at any time.

The analogy is mainly for Powerplay- by reducing the hurdles you are reducing the potential chances for problems- in other words simplifying the game. FD made this mistake and Powerplay suffers from it because the base state is unrewarding and drawn out, encouraging robotic repetitive play. The actual flying (which should be the game) is demoted to an inconvenience rather than being front and centre.

The game provides a standard hurdle set. That some players consciously choose to add hurdles into their way of participating in a pan-modal feature is their choice, just as ship, build, engineering, etc. is their choice.

 

[Jade Merrydown]

What I would like to see from FD is training in evasion, ship building etc, and some sort of briefing on where danger may come from. I think seeding this early would put new players on a better footing.

See I'd love this sort of stuff to be in the game, it would be amazing to have a tutorial for evading interdictions and shipbuilding. I'd also be on the side of adding a sort of Kobayashi maru style test. You can't win it's just there to teach you that loss isn't the end, and that you can maybe learn from the mistakes that got you there, or that sometimes you did everything right, but still managed to lose, and that there isn't anything wrong with that.

I come from games where ganking is literally the only form of pvp that people take part in so I don't have a personal problem with it, just can see why it'd be off-putting for others.

 

[Rat Catcher]

A very nicely constructed post - well done OP!

I don't really have a horse in this race, I will 'mingle' in open with my main account as he is my 'social' account, the other 2 accounts really CBA to play along with random characters, I have a few friends I'll play with when they are online, otherwise my galaxy is mainly just me, it works for me and that is all I care about.

No doubt there will be another sympathetic post coming along real soon, although probably not as eloquent as the OP here, and the game will go on as before...
Perhaps Odyssey will bring more to the table for PvP engagement, certainly by the vague descriptions for 'FPS' it sounds as if a small part of that itch will be scratched
(Why, it may even 'force' me to play in open with a sniper rifle - assuming the 'stealth' offering in the description means exactly that - I could have a good belly laugh if suddenly all players are on an even footing - you know, a bit like CQC - which is shunned because the playing field is a bit too level, maybe?)

 

[Rubbernuke]

That menu exit (delayed or not) exists as it does is likely a result of the way that some players choose to play the game, just as the block feature has been strengthened over time.

That the game does not follow the personal preferences of some players is obvious.

Then you don't understand the gameplay consequences of it existing to begin with. In strengthening them, you detrimentally impact parts of the game that rely on negative consequences.

Open is the only game mode with an unlimited population and players need to discover Private Groups out of game.

Its explained to them via lots of in game text.

If there was an Open-PvE mode then a lot of the angst associated with players selecting Open for some, but not all, of its features would likely disappear.

The problem then becomes the hurdler again- people picking and choosing the rules to what should be a uniform race.

Which would be a boon to griefers - forcing players to self destruct to be able to be rid of them - which is probably why it is not the case.

Or, it makes people realise situational awareness, ship builds and skill actually matter and use them more.

There is no being "locked" into a situation in this game - no matter how much some players would like there to be. Players consent to continue an interaction and can withdraw that consent at any time.

Without a chain of consequences, there is no game- just a jumble of random actions that go nowhere.

The game provides a standard hurdle set. That some players consciously choose to add hurdles into their way of participating in a pan-modal feature is their choice, just as ship, build, engineering, etc. is their choice.

If there are no rules as to what rules are 'correct' then there is no game. Powerplay fails because the optimal path is the one that bypasses all action, and that NPCs do not offer what players do. In CGs this is fine because a CG is not an 11 way competition, in Powerplay where you have up to 100+ CGs at once its not, its repetitive grind. That and PP being optional to begin with, and, that you can block people who oppose you....can you restrain rival hurdlers to win the race? How is that a race to begin with? Plus, if you agree to be in Open in a mode about opposing others, why is it right to block those shooting you?

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Why does it matter? People need to stop trying to find answers from other people because quite often there are none.

That from those players viewpoint who want to immerse thems into game is a problem. IRL people, even most deranged sorts of people usually have some reason for violence. It might be of course some total delusional like "voices told me to do it" but it exists. Certain subset of this game's open population ownly has one reason "for the lulz". I would not be very unhappy if the lulz crowd left the game for good.