Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[A C Ender]

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.

I agree. There would probably have to be a toggle that make you unable to gain merits with the flag active. I think that would be fair, and nothing would be lost by those who wish to use it outside of power play, while power play would remain same as now (where people can still hide in solo which I think is bad, but it's not what I'm discussing).

 

[soloe]

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.

Under the currently discussed flag, PP should require PvP to be active imo. Anyway: a player kill gets you 1 (!) merrit. Hardly worth it ;-).

Bgs: denial of delivery hardly makes a difference. Knowing who your enemy is is the valuable part, as you now can engage in diplomacy(if you wish). This is the one thing that frustrates me from time to time when playing the bgs: since so many play in pg or solo plus timezones, platforms etc it sometimes takes weeks or month to get to know who is your enemy.

 

[Stealthie]

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.

See, I'm not keen on this attitude.

It's kind of like a kid getting beaten up at school and then, when they complain about being beaten up, being told that if they don't like getting beaten up they should lock themselves in a broom cupboard.

In ED terms, why should people who don't enjoy PvP be forced to isolate themselves from every social interaction within the game?
Course, ED has Mobius and I'd certainly suggest everybody who isn't interested in PvP tries to join if they can but it's an obvious shortcoming that FDev don't provide their own PvE environment.

There's plenty of opportunity for non-explodey interactions in ED so it shouldn't be surprising that human beings seek a social experience even if they don't want PvP.

That's why I'd like to see FDev find a way to make high-sec systems truly safe - PvE players could play in Open with a reasonable degree of safety and they're likely to dip their toe into more risky ventures too, and if they get exploded while doing that they're more likely to accept it as a reasonable consequence of their actions and remain in Open rather than scurrying back to the safety of PG/Solo.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

Not complete invincibility - the rest of the game would be as it is in the other modes, apart from player / player damage.

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.

True enough.

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.

It might be at that.

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.

Anyone is free to disagree - just as many disagree with any proposal for an Open-PvE mode. Putting forward a proposal doesn't guarantee that anyone agree with it. Whether something "has nothing but upsides" for any particular player group is a matter of opinion - of course some may see a benefit from it.

I don't expect that anything short of disabling player / player damage will remove the ability to gank from a multi-player game mode.

 

[Screemonster]

See, I'm not keen on this attitude.

It's kind of like a kid getting beaten up at school and then, when they complain about being beaten up, being told that if they don't like getting beaten up they should lock themselves in a broom cupboard.

In ED terms, why should people who don't enjoy PvP be forced to isolate themselves from every social interaction within the game?
Course, ED has Mobius and I'd certainly suggest everybody who isn't interested in PvP tries to join if they can but it's an obvious shortcoming that FDev don't provide their own PvE environment.

There's plenty of opportunity for non-explodey interactions in ED so it shouldn't be surprising that human beings seek a social experience even if they don't want PvP.

That's why I'd like to see FDev find a way to make high-sec systems truly safe - PvE players could play in Open with a reasonable degree of safety and they're likely to dip their toe into more risky ventures too, and if they get exploded while doing that they're more likely to accept it as a reasonable consequence of their actions and remain in Open rather than scurrying back to the safety of PG/Solo.

See, this is why I'm 100% up for a conditional flag. I want high-sec systems and starter engineers and the like to be safe. The problem is, I don't want it to come at the cost of mobius-like "you can't fight other players under any circumstances, even in wars". I'd love for open to be safer for more social players. The issue is finding a way to achieve that goal without impacting the numerous reasons where combat does arise.

 

[Hole in Head]

That's why I'd like to see FDev find a way to make high-sec systems truly safe - PvE players could play in Open with a reasonable degree of safety and they're likely to dip their toe into more risky ventures too, and if they get exploded while doing that they're more likely to accept it as a reasonable consequence of their actions and remain in Open rather than scurrying back to the safety of PG/Solo.

If you're working against another faction in a BGS war, would basically mean certain areas are afforded additional stability than others just because they're in a "high-sec" system. Unlike Eve Online, all systems have a BGS system where factions can gain/lose control of assets (except for a few exceptions like Sol). So you really can't have a system where it's so high-sec PvP is impossible like how Concord works in Eve.

 

[soloe]

See, I'm not keen on this attitude.

It's kind of like a kid getting beaten up at school and then, when they complain about being beaten up, being told that if they don't like getting beaten up they should lock themselves in a broom cupboard.

I'm not keen on those kind of arguments. This is no schoolyard. This is the open and everything is allowed mode of a computer game. Nobody is being beaten up by anyone and most of us clearly are old enough to not get their feelings hurt too much by some pixel explosions...

 

[Hole in Head]

PvP isn't required in order to influence the BGS or in PP.

Sure, it's not required, but it'd be fun PvP content for those who like it, hence the point of this thread. The inability of the game to facilitate these kinds of gameplay loops results in PvPers just going for the only semi-reliable organic PvP interaction, ganking.

If System Security was capable (somehow) of deterring PvP it'd simply mean that players/groups attempting to influence the BGS or involved in PP would have to use tactics suitable for the target system.

We seriously do not need yet another roadblock to PvP, there are enough already.

You might get away with overthrowing a government in Africa by massacring a couple of villages.
Try doing the same thing in the USA and you're soon going to find yourself on the wrong end of a Tomahawk missile.
If you wanted to overthrow a goverment in the USA you'd need to ask Xi Jinping do stuff like use propaganda, cause civil unrest, damage the economy (and, if possible, cause an epidemic).

Not really an equivalent comparison, since in Elite's universe, CMDRs have access to top of the line military power where as random groups in RL Earth tend to not.

 

[Stealthie]

I'm not keen on those kind of arguments. This is no schoolyard. This is the open and everything is allowed mode of a computer game. Nobody is being beaten up by anyone and most of us clearly are old enough to not get their feelings hurt too much by some puxel explosions...

Well, no.

It's a video game, sold by a company, and marketed as providing a variety of possible activities.

When it turns out that one particular activity exerpts ultimate authority over all the others, and the only advice for anybody unwillinto to indulge in that activity is "go play by yourself", that's not a good look.

My attitude is that somebody who paid the same £30 for the game that I did has as much right to play in Open as I do, regardless of what they want to spend their time doing.
That's not to say I don't think they should be able to avoid being exploded.
I just don't think it's right to tell them "go play by yourself".
The solution needs to be MUCH smarter than that.

 

[Stealthie]

Not really an equivalent comparison, since in Elite's universe, CMDRs have access to top of the line military power where as random groups in RL Earth tend to not.

Cool.

Can I come visit your Farragut?

Or, were you exaggerating when you said we have access to "top line military power" when, in fact, any half-decent faction should really be able to crush us like insects?

 

[Hole in Head]

Cool.

Can I come visit your Farragut?

Or, were you exaggerating when you said we have access to "top line military power" when, in fact, any half-decent faction should really be able to crush us like insects?

You can visit my fleet carrier, or fight our group which can push back a Farragut.

 

[Arvel Yael]

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.

1. I'm on my way to the station, trying to concentrate on avoiding the loop of shame when I'm interdicted.
2. I get an interdiction attempt. If I win, I find myself on the far side of the station, and I have to set back up, get on the right side of the station and do my approach all over again. If I don't win...
3. I get dropped into realspace where...
   1. I lose a portion/all of my cargo.
   2. I get to enjoy having my ship shot up and suffer the indignity and frustration of being disturbed and teabagged by someone I don't know and don't want to interact with.
   3. I have to go through the process of rebooting my modules and limping to a station, where I have to pay a lot of credits to get everything repaired.
4. Once that is over, I sell what remains of my cargo and log off, in a bad mood, my relaxing enjoyable gaming experience soured. I'm angry at the at who tried to make me his content, I'm irritated that some of my cargo was stolen, I'm vexed that I had to pay to repair my ship and I'm ed off that someone interfered in my relaxing gaming experience.
5. The at gets rewarded with some tasty cargo and a warm fuzzy feeling for preying on an unarmed transport ship. And who says bad behaviour is never rewarded?

Where did you get "no downside" from, again?

 

[Schmack]

Stop obsessing over how unfair life is, its not healthy in the game. If you are prepared and plan, the ganker has to work harder to find and kill you.

This what you envision PvP to be? Do you envision it to be a turkey shoot where fully kitted out engineered meta build vessels find the weakest prey and attack them relentlessly? I don't want to be on either side of that equation.

It was a simple question about risk.

Votes? Really? Where are they? Is this the silent vocal majority again?

People vote when they click Open or Solo/PG, or when they combat log (in some ways). This is what the thread is about - lack of proper PvP mostly because people don't want it.

PvP in ED is opportunistic, you have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time flying the wrong ship. Remove one or more of those variables and the problem stops- and its all within your power to do. So stop being so wet and take control.

Or fly in Solo or PG and the problem stops.

So if you log holding merits that could win a cycle of Powerplay, thats OK then? If a win / lose condition is dependent on it, I'd say you are talking cobblers.

It's all OK. Killing in the game is OK. As I said, it's not about right or wrong, but desirable and undesirable. People don't CL because it's wrong to kill them, but because they don't want to be killed. I don't falsely equate not wanting to lose your ship to it being wrong to kill another player. I just observe that many players avoid that scenario since they don't enjoy it, win or lose.

If someone logs at Davs Hope, a) its dull b) shows FDs poor design choices and c) does not affect a game loop between people fighting in space. There is no equivalence because one is gathering an item, the other is player v player interaction.

So? That's a convenient distinction. If the game has poor design choices for mat gatherers and miners and mission board hoppers, why does that magically resolve with unwanted PvP?

You can't make consent of a crime consensual beyond clicking Open, which according to how ED market the game means other commanders might be hostile towards you.

I agree with that. If you want cardboard box gameplay elements and nothing more or less, you're right. You can mimic the NPC 100% down to the words they use. Say "tasty cargo" even. If you want to have a relationship with other gamers that allows you to conserve your player base and have a target rich environment, the target has to agree to be there and for that there needs to be quid pro quo.

Again, what is wrong saying "stop, drop cargo or die?" thats a pirate, and if you don't stop they make you stop. The problem arises in ED from being able to log out even when the pirate is doing the right thing, and that for ages trader ship hulls were made of cardboard (meaning they were weaker than the thrusters you try to disable).

How is that working for you?

Again, blame the equal and opposite reaction. Unwanted gank, unwanted combat log. Must be the combat log that's the problem because the box says I can kill you at my leisure. The box doesn't say the other person will play along. I don't agree with combat logging. If you're going to play in Open, you have to accept the consequences. Therefore many do not play in Open because they also don't agree with combat logging OR they simply don't see any entertainment value in providing you content.. again, what's in it for them? Certainly not entertaining based on your cardboard approach, cargo or die.

The problem in ED is that there is no ecosystem- its totally dysfunctional. With credit scarcity and high running costs traders and miners have the money to pay for protection from mercs (who rely on danger money) while pirates have to be as good as possible- and that gankers soon run out of cash. In reality we have too many credits, leading to gankers who can eat rebuy after rebuy. Thats the problem.

The pirates don't have to be pirates. If a miner was struggling, someone would suggest they do something else. For some reason a pirate is exempt from that.

The problem is that it's really really difficult to discern ganker from griefer while you are being interdicted. Everything else is just cause and effect. In Solo, you don't have to decide, it's always a ganker. I like gankers, don't care for griefers. It's well know many here and there routinely flip flop between the two, some even stream it.

And shows why they don't understand what Open is, which is sad.



Then what is left is a long line of broken game loops and unsatisfying interactions, fuelling more bored gankers rather than via design encourage fully formed outcomes.

I don't care if gankers are bored. They cannot get to Solo or PG. I'd like everyone to play in the same instance and have a real set of relationships and meaningful actions and consequences, but we know better.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

1. I'm on my way to the station, trying to concentrate on avoiding the loop of shame when I'm interdicted.
2. I get an interdiction attempt. If I win, I find myself on the far side of the station, and I have to set back up, get on the right side of the station and do my approach all over again. If I don't win...
3. I get dropped into realspace where...
   1. I lose a portion/all of my cargo.
   2. I get to enjoy having my ship shot up and suffer the indignity and frustration of being disturbed and teabagged by someone I don't know and don't want to interact with.
   3. I have to go through the process of rebooting my modules and limping to a station, where I have to pay a lot of credits to get everything repaired.
4. Once that is over, I sell what remains of my cargo and log off, in a bad mood, my relaxing enjoyable gaming experience soured. I'm angry at the at who tried to make me his content, I'm irritated that some of my cargo was stolen, I'm vexed that I had to pay to repair my ship and I'm ed off that someone interfered in my relaxing gaming experience.
5. The at gets rewarded with some tasty cargo and a warm fuzzy feeling for preying on an unarmed transport ship. And who says bad behaviour is never rewarded?

Where did you get "no downside" from, again?

Please read my signature and join. I'd be happy to show you how not to die. Your first mistake is fighting the interdiction. Always make sure to submit to the interdiction and high wake. I can teach you how and provide you with one on one practice until you perfect it.

 

[Arvel Yael]

Please read my signature and join. I'd be happy to show you how not to die. Your first mistake is fighting the interdiction. Always make sure to submit to the interdiction and high wake. I can teach you how and provide you with one on one practice until you perfect it.

I'm genuinely grateful for your offer, but the very first words in your signature are If you enjoy playing in open.
Thanks again though, thumbs up.

 

[Sir Ganksalot]

I'm genuinely grateful for your offer, but the very first words in your signature are If you enjoy playing in open.
Thanks again though, thumbs up.

I guess it should be if you "want" to play in open lol

 

[Maggie_Oz]

trying to concentrate on avoiding the loop of shame when I'm interdicted.

As a tip, the "Loop of Shame Legend" can help in avoiding an interdiction

 

[Arvel Yael]

I guess it should be if you "want" to play in open lol

Same problem .

As a tip, the "Loop of Shame Legend" can help in avoiding an interdiction

That's true .

 

[Screemonster]

1. I'm on my way to the station, trying to concentrate on avoiding the loop of shame when I'm interdicted.
2. I get an interdiction attempt. If I win, I find myself on the far side of the station, and I have to set back up, get on the right side of the station and do my approach all over again. If I don't win...
3. I get dropped into realspace where...
   1. I lose a portion/all of my cargo.
   2. I get to enjoy having my ship shot up and suffer the indignity and frustration of being disturbed and teabagged by someone I don't know and don't want to interact with.
   3. I have to go through the process of rebooting my modules and limping to a station, where I have to pay a lot of credits to get everything repaired.
4. Once that is over, I sell what remains of my cargo and log off, in a bad mood, my relaxing enjoyable gaming experience soured. I'm angry at the at who tried to make me his content, I'm irritated that some of my cargo was stolen, I'm vexed that I had to pay to repair my ship and I'm ed off that someone interfered in my relaxing gaming experience.
5. The at gets rewarded with some tasty cargo and a warm fuzzy feeling for preying on an unarmed transport ship. And who says bad behaviour is never rewarded?

Where did you get "no downside" from, again?

Did you even read?
Would you rather just be blown up and die, losing everything like what happens now?

A car crash is still gonna suck even if you're wearing a seatbelt, but it sucks a lot less than if you're not wearing one and it's barely an inconvenience to put it on. Are you gonna rail against seatbelts next?

edit: actually, looking back at your last post, you don't even like playing in open. In which case... yes, this would absolutely have no downside for you. It would have no upside either. It would literally not affect you in any way. Which is why I'm baffled that you're against it.

 

[bigmuthatrukka]

The answer to pvp interaction is very simple. It's about time. Those who don't have much of it don't want theirs ruined by people who have lots of it. The time poor will always stay in solo or PG. But if the game wasn't so meta then the playing field would be more attractive. The only reason most griefers are dangerous is because they have more time to have an engineered meta tank. Stick most of them in a cqc battle and you'll see how distinctly average they are. No one likes play to win, but this is worse. People with more time are rewarded by being able to get an advantage. That advantage didn't exist in the old elite. So I think the current system is spot on for all. I believe that piracy should be easier for those that like that. In the original elite you'd simply blow another ship out of the sky and scoop his materials and any cargo that broke free. Im happy with that coming back, as long as I get the choice to choose to play open/solo/PG if I want. Crying about open play is so utterly pointless given you have a choice. If there was no choice then that would be an issue. If you don't have the time to lose, play in solo or PG. Use the xbox find a group or on other platforms find a sympathetic squadron. If you like the risk and have time to build a ship to repel a pirate then go open. I really don't see how difficult this choice is.