Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Morbad]

"If you are detected ganking you will be banned for 30 days" - would be a pretty effective after the fact.
Yet again, it's about the consequences

This might be effective, but since ganking is neither against the rules nor even against Frontier's intended scope of play, it's unlikely that such a prohibition would ever be implemented.

And yet you have no rebuttal for it

Why would you make such an assumption?

Illegal is when something is against the law. Wrong is when something is immoral. Unless you let legislature dictate your morality, conflating the two is a fallacy.

Does something stop being wrong because the authorities aren't around to see it? Is following any law, no matter how arbitrary, biased, or unjust automatically right? Unless you can answer an unequivocal 'yes' to both of those questions, it should be clear that conflating "wrong" with "illegal" is absurd.

That's my quick rebuttal, one that I didn't think would need to be said, because it should be self-evident, not because it wasn't always there.

It certainly does, I'll use an independent arbiter to prove it :

Now you are falsely conflating 'griefier' with 'ganker'.

I have never once, in my ~7k hours of Open play, seen griefing performed via ganking.

Nothing about ganking implies someone looking for an out-of-game outcome. I've rarely had cause to even suspect this was the case when my CMDR was targeted, and I certainly have never used my CMDR's attacks against other CMDRs as a proxy for attacking another player.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm not saying 'the game' needs gankers, just open mode.

Not everyone agrees on that point either - as some want a social experience with an unlimited population - and the game lacks an Open-PvE mode (often present in many other MMO).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes of course, as I said above , detecting the context is the problem

Quite.

Much in the same way going to jail for murder doesn't help the victim, but it goes a long way to stopping most people from being murders

Comparisons with RL C&P don't really work when the most that any player can lose in-game is time spent playing the game in the comfort of their preferred gaming environment with an immortal space pixie as an avatar and an unlimited supply of free spaceships....

 

[Maggie_Oz]

Semantics

 

[Dragsham]

Harassment griefers wow I've not met one not heard of one from squadron chat.

Do they exist? And obviously if so why are they not just banned? Surely there's rules to protect us all from being followed tracked ...?
I remember this was prevalent in wow. And got players banned for it..weird.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Not really - a destroyed rebuy (and loss of anything not covered by the rebuy) is a rebuy - regardless of the outcome for the attacker. There are those who don't care about what happens to them as long as they can spoil someone else's game.

You are again making a moral judgement on the gankers motives that is entirely unjustified: most gankers just see another player, want some PvP pew-pew, and don't bother asking, simple as that.

That players still gank in high-sec in EvE indicates that a deterrent is merely another challenge to some players and does little to deter their actions.

This proves nothing: a higher deterrent will mean that it will require a high amount of skill/determination to gank, I agree, but it will be more limited and we will have a more realistic simulation.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

Comparisons with RL C&P don't really work when the most that any player can lose in-game is time spent playing the game in the comfort of their preferred gaming environment with an immortal space pixie as an avatar and an unlimited supply of free spaceships....

I don't agree.
RL and games are inextricably linked, if only for the fact you have paid real money for the experience and taking away that experience has a tangible real world cost.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Nothing about ganking implies someone looking for an out-of-game outcome. I've rarely had cause to even suspect this was the case when my CMDR was targeted, and I certainly have never used my CMDR's attacks against other CMDRs as a proxy for attacking another player.

Yet Distant Ganks II trumpeted its successes - and published a leaderboard of explorer kills on the forums (both ironically and rather amusingly providing a proto-block-list for players on Distant Worlds II) - that seemed to be quite specifically designed to garner an out-of-game outcome.

 

[Morbad]

Semantics are how words are used, their very definitions, and ultimately their meaning. If you use the wrong words, you convey the wrong meaning.

Conflating 'illegal' and 'wrong' is either absurd, if you've used the words you meant to use, or sloppy to point of not conveying any meaning at all.

Same goes for 'greifer' and 'ganker'. One cannot have a meaningful argument or discussion while attaching connotations to key terms that the other side is not.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You are again making a moral judgement on the gankers motives that is entirely unjustified: most gankers just see another player, want some PvP pew-pew, and don't bother asking, simple as that.

It wasn't a moral judgement - it was an observation relating to some players, not all gankers.

This proves nothing: a higher deterrent will mean that it will require a high amount of skill/determination to gank, I agree, but it will be more limited and we will have a more realistic simulation.

How would ganking be detected by the game - and how would that detection be proof to exploit and turnaround by the ganker?

 

[Rubbernuke]

For interactions they want, not for interactions they don't want - it's their choice when to leave Open just as it was their choice to select Open at the start of the game session.

Its the person taking the football home when they are losing- it breaks any sense of continuity if the other person can log on them.

Other players have no "right" to the contents of a player's hold.

They do, if they are caught in Open, depending on the outcome of in game activity- thats why its called a game.

With the lack of game provided information relating to Private Groups (and an Open-PvE game mode), players who want to play socially only (initially at least) have Open. Some players may log in to Open for social interactions - with the downside of other players attacking.

Then thats on them, its up to people to use the correct mode and leave those who are willing to deal with consequences play in Open so that every interaction has some sort of continuity and is worth partaking in.

PvP was expected to be "rare and meaningful" - however the outcome seems to be "common and (often) meaningless).

For the reasons I mention- it can't be meaningful if there is no narrative and conclusion.

As DBOBE said in one stream, "it takes two to tango" - and if only the attacker wants to engage in PvP then it won't be much of a tango.

Then frankly people need to be honest with themselves and pick modes and features that truly reflect what they want. It seems people who log on piracy or when engaged in Powerplay (and block) are in denial of what they want out of the game.

As DBOBE agreed, when asked, in the Engineers launch stream - "it's not sold as a PvP game".

Then he needs to have words with his advertising department who suggest it is a very real possibility, and with himself to understand what 'meaningful' PvP actually is.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Semantics are how words are used, their very definitions, and ultimately their meaning. If you use the wrong words, you convey the wrong meaning.

Exactly.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

Wow, semantics about semantics, nice work.

 

[Moriarte]

I wasn't referring to any particular play-style.

Not everyone agrees that the game "needs" gankers - no matter how much they like to try to persuade other players that they're "providing a valuable service".

Gankers is the natural result of skill distribution: weak players band together to get an edge. Whether everyone agrees it’s needed is hardly relevant - it’s bound to happen. FD, in their infinite wisdom, created avenues for both gankers and “everyone” to live alongside and never meet.

 

[Morbad]

Yet Distant Ganks II trumpeted its successes - and published a leaderboard of explorer kills on the forums (both ironically and rather amusingly providing a proto-block-list for players on Distant Worlds II) - that seemed to be quite specifically designed to garner an out-of-game outcome.

I can only offer my own perspective:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EB5ziJH6YM

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yJYHxByP34

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKuVyKaodj0

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7nr1tX7OI4


Maybe they were trying to somehow harm me, Morbad, the player of this game, rather than CMDR Backer #-12412, the character I play.

That seems pretty silly to me though, as harming me though my character, without overtly breaking the rules of the game, is categorically impossible, and we seem to get along fine out-of-character.

Wow, semantics about semantics, nice work.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

How would ganking be detected by the game - and how would that detection be proof to exploit and turnaround by the ganker?

Just an extension of what happens now: if i kill a player (or NPC) I would be notorious and would have the ATR on my back wherever I went. I would also have a sizeable bounty (and by that i mean high enough that it could ruin me financially).

 

[GloatingSwine]

Gankers is the natural result of skill distribution: weak players band together to get an edge. Whether everyone agrees it’s needed is hardly relevant - it’s bound to happen. FD, in their infinite wisdom, created avenues for both gankers and “everyone” to live alongside and never meet.

Well no. Ganking in games is a natural result of the fact that people behave like gits when they can get away with it without real-world consequences.

It's nothing about "skill distribution", one of the reasons gankers like Deciat is that that's where you can reasonably expect to catch newbies. Because the last thing gankers are interested is an actual PvP experience, they want to beat up on someone as helpless as possible for the luls.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Its the person taking the football home when they are losing- it breaks any sense of continuity if the other person can log on them.

It's their ball - they can take it home any time they like if someone else demands to play with it.

They do, if they are caught in Open, depending on the outcome of in game activity- thats why its called a game.

Apparently not - as menu exit still works.

Then thats on them, its up to people to use the correct mode and leave those who are willing to deal with consequences play in Open so that every interaction has some sort of continuity and is worth partaking in.

Not every interaction in Open is worth partaking in - as not everyone enjoys PvP.

For the reasons I mention- it can't be meaningful if there is no narrative and conclusion.

If only one party is seeming meaning, narrative and conclusion then they're rather out of luck in this game.

Then frankly people need to be honest with themselves and pick modes and features that truly reflect what they want. It seems people who log on piracy or when engaged in
Powerplay (and block) are in denial of what they want out of the game.

.... or people just need to accept that no-one needs to PvP with them, regardless of game mode.

Then he needs to have words with his advertising department who suggest it is a very real possibility, and with himself to understand what 'meaningful' PvP actually is.

There's the thing - something being a possibility does not mean that it is an unavoidable necessity. The game certainly includes the possibility of PvP between players who are up for it - it does not, however, force any player to engage in it or stick arround when someone else engages them.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Just an extension of what happens now: if i kill a player (or NPC) I would be notorious and would have the ATR on my back wherever I went. I would also have a sizeable bounty (and by that i mean high enough that it could ruin me financially).

A subset of the player-base would be less than chuffed at their gameplay being changed in that manner this long after release.

NPCs are provided by the game for "fun" - and I don't see the need for consequences for shooting NPCs to be the same as those for shooting at other players (although I know that some are dead set against them being different). We did have Pilots' Federation bounties for a short time - however they disappeared after an update.

 

[Morbad]

Well no. Ganking in games is a natural result of the fact that people behave like gits when they can get away with it without real-world consequences.

It's nothing about "skill distribution", one of the reasons gankers like Deciat is that that's where you can reasonably expect to catch newbies. Because the last thing gankers are interested is an actual PvP experience, they want to beat up on someone as helpless as possible for the luls.

I reject the assertion that ganking implies anyone 'behaving like gits' or that it's not 'an actual PvP experience'.

NPCs are provided by the game for "fun" - and I don't see the need for consequences for shooting NPCs to be the same as those for shooting at other players (although I know that some are dead set against them being different). We did have Pilots' Federation bounties for a short time - however they disappeared after an update.

I am against a setting that treats NPCs fundamentally differently because it compromises the verisimilitude of that setting. The whole thing with every player character always being a PF CMDR and CMDRs being untouchable, sacrosanct, gods incarnate while all other people in human civilization are disposable swine, is already completely overdone and a significant barrier to my immersion.