Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

If "anything you can do is allowed" then that includes blocking and using menu exit - as there are no restrictions on their use.

.... and PGs lack the unlimited population of Open
But it is a large multi-purpose space.

Why don't you campaign for lifting the limit on PG size if that's the problem?

My point is what you're complaining about it part of the game, and you don't have to like it, but it's false to claim that none likes being subjected to pirates or gankers. I do, because I enjoy the chance to prove myself better than my opponent.

Because the majority is playing in Open despite the risk of attack, clearly they either share my view or didn't think the negatives outweigh the positives. They think it's the best mode. Doesn't make it perfect.
 
I think you can apply that to piracy too. In the end it's in the eye of the beholder what they consider griefing. Having someone trying to leech from you all the time I would consider at least "annoying".
The question is "is it fun for both parties" - if it's not then that's where the issue arises. Fun sponges (who hog all the fun for themselves) aren't much fun to play with.
So even piracy is no longer viable gameplay in your opinion? Or do you ask "us" pirates to ask our clients beforehand if they're okay with "playing catch"? "You" give your consent when clicking "open". Everything goes to the point where it's clear that the player is the target of an attack, not the player character. Not being aware of the rules of a game, is no excuse.

Personally I wouldn't want to ruin anyone's game when I (try to) get them, but I surely won't ask if I'm allowed to interdict when meeting a trader in open, or change my game for them. I will just assume they are okay with the "dangers" comming with playing in open.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But it is a large multi-purpose space.
Exactly - shared by players of different play-styles.
Why don't you campaign for lifting the limit on PG size if that's the problem?
Even better, an Open-PvE mode.
My point is what you're complaining about it part of the game, and you don't have to like it, but it's false to claim that none likes being subjected to pirates or gankers. I do, because I enjoy the chance to prove myself better than my opponent.
Some like it, some don't - I don't believe I claimed that no-one likes it - just that not all like it.
Because the majority is playing in Open despite the risk of attack, clearly they either share my view or didn't think the negatives outweigh the positives. They think it's the best mode. Doesn't make it perfect.
While the majority may play in Open, another Dev has indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.
 
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.

2) Powerplay: This was built to help encourage PvP, so seems like this would be perfect for those who want to do PvP. Again, there are many 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.

(Look familiar?)

3) Pirating: This is great fun when it works and is perhaps the only PvP activity that can net a potentially meaningful monetary reward. This is generally an activity that should not result in the death of even the victim (provided they comply with demands). Again, we have problems here:

Solo / PG: Obtaining cargo and selling it are just as effective (if not more so in this case with mining) in Solo or Private Group. NPCs pose just a minor fraction of risk that a player does. So there's really no incentive at all to play in open. Instead there are specific incentives to conduct this in solo / pg for the current mining meta.
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. While some cargo can be extracted with hatchbreakers, pirates tend to announce demands first and give time for their victim to comply since they want to encourage this behavior. The small time window however doesn't afford this luxury.
Blocking: The entire purpose of pirating is to find players transporting high value items. If no players are found, there is no pirating to be done at all. Broken instances from blocking only exacerbates empty instances from the lack of players playing in Open.

(Again, look familiar?)

4) CQC: Perhaps the only PvP that actually works, but it's not very meaningful in the sense of personal CMDR progression or contributing to something bigger. We also cannot use the ships we want to fly, which are the ones we've spent credits and time building.

5) Organized PvP Events: These can be great fun, and many who enjoy PvP attend such events. But these tend to be few and far between, and have the problem of not contributing to something greater.

So, put yourself in the shoes of someone who really enjoys combat with other players in the grand universe provided in Elite. You're really just ending up hitting roadblock after roadblock. What's there left to do? You probably guessed it: Ganking. It's true for me, and I'm sure it is for others, ganking you see in Elite is largely a result of boredom.

To be successful at ganking, you have to:

1) Go somewhere that you have a chance of finding a target. This means an engineering system, where everyone is mining, or where it's being sold (though sell systems have been empty in open lately). We've already established BGS and Powerplay functionally do not provide an adequate environment for open PvP. With many in solo / pg or blocking, these are the only systems that you have any chance to encounter players.
2) Attack quickly and ruthlessly because you potentially only have 15 seconds if your target decides to combat log (or less depending on method). Time spent messaging or attempting to pirate often just results in the player combat logging.
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.
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!
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
So even piracy is no longer viable gameplay in your opinion? Or do you ask "us" pirates to ask our clients beforehand if they're okay with "playing catch"?
If the question is not asked then whether the target would find any interaction to be "fun" (or a complete waste of their time) is an unknown.

Also, if the question is not asked then it seems that the answer is unimportant to the attacker - in which case, why should the target play along?
"You" give your consent when clicking "open". Everything goes to the point where it's clear that the player is the target of an attack, not the player character. Not being aware of the rules of a game, is no excuse.
... and that consent can be removed at any time and the player may leave the encounter subject to the rules.
 
.... because it's the only large multi-purpose space, shared by players of all games. That some assume that everyone is playing dodge-ball is down to them.

It was put rather well here:
I don't find that this was a fitting comparison, as in our "gym" it is part of the tos to be allowed to start fencing at any time and with anyone even if the unwillingly sparring partner has no sabre at all.
Even better, an Open-PvE mode.

I can wholeheartedly understand why some players wish to have an open pve mode. Personally I would be in favor of flags though, even knowing that would be much harder to implement in a way that cannot be easily exploited. I'd just love to play with both: my pve only and open only enthusiastic friends on the same playground.

... and that consent can be removed at any time and the player may leave the encounter subject to the rules.

Yes. Wether I like it / think it's a good design, or not.
 
as in our "gym" it is part of the tos to be allowed to start fencing at any time and with anyone even if the unwillingly sparring partner has no sabre at all.

The terms of service not specifically prohibiting that, although you can make a case that they do, doesn't serve as a justification for unwelcome behaviour
 
No , but being clear this is piracy via some form of communication I think is necessary, otherwise it's just griefing
No. I do not agree here. At all. That being said I do communicate, but not texting while shooting breakers because the pirate is either not able or willing to doesn't make it griefing.
 
So even piracy is no longer viable gameplay in your opinion? Or do you ask "us" pirates to ask our clients beforehand if they're okay with "playing catch"? "You" give your consent when clicking "open". Everything goes to the point where it's clear that the player is the target of an attack, not the player character. Not being aware of the rules of a game, is no excuse.

Personally I wouldn't want to ruin anyone's game when I (try to) get them, but I surely won't ask if I'm allowed to interdict when meeting a trader in open, or change my game for them. I will just assume they are okay with the "dangers" comming with playing in open.
I just don't want to play with you.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I don't find that this was a fitting comparison, as in our "gym" it is part of the tos to be allowed to start fencing at any time and with anyone even if the unwillingly sparring partner has no sabre at all.
True enough - it doesn't mean that the unwilling sparring partner will either enjoy it or stick around though.
I can wholeheartedly understand why some players wish to have an open pve mode. Personally I would be in favor of flags though, even knowing that would be much harder to implement in a way that cannot be easily exploited. I'd just love to play with both: my pve only and open only enthusiastic friends on the same playground.
I'd prefer an additional game mode rather than a PvP on/off flag in existing Open - as mixing players invulnerable to player damage with players vulnerable to player damage would be both jarring and very likely open to exploit.
Yes. Wether I like it / think it's a good design, or not.
I expect that Frontier consider it, like the block feature, to be a necessity in their multi-player game.
 
Exactly - shared by players of different play-styles.

Even better, an Open-PvE mode.
I was talking about mobius, which is a large PvE mode.

Some like it, some don't - I don't believe I claimed that no-one likes it - just that not all like it.
That's all about the pirate's fun - still no sign of "fun" for the trader.
You clearly stated that there's no fun to be had for the trader, instead of that not everyone likes it, which is what I quoted before too and argued against. Had you acknowledged that it can be fun I wouldn't have objected.

While the majority may play in Open, another Dev has indicated that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP.
Hmm... I wonder if it could have anything to do with that it's only if you specifically go looking for PvP that you can find it, and even then it's a chore! You can't just log on at any time and engage in PvP with your ship like in other games with PvP. If you were interested in PvP you would realise this. Other playstyles can go explore, trade, mine, bounty hunt, CZ, bgs, or even PP whenever they want. The content is always there. For PvP we have to be lucky to instance with someone who want a duel.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I was talking about mobius, which is a large PvE mode.
PG membership is capped at 20,000 players on PC and 1,000 players on consoles.
You clearly stated that there's no fun to be had for the trader, instead of that not everyone likes it, which is what I quoted before too and argued against. Had you acknowledged that it can be fun I wouldn't have objected.
I should have been clearer that I wasn't seeing any fun for the trader.
Hmm... I wonder if it could have anything to do with that it's only if you specifically go looking for PvP that you can find it, and even then it's a chore! You can't just log on at any time and engage in PvP with your ship like in other games with PvP. If you were interested in PvP you would realise this. Other playstyles can go explore, trade, mine, bounty hunt, CZ, bgs, or even PP whenever they want. The content is always there. For PvP we have to be lucky to instance with someone who want a duel.
We don't know - it may be that the game has attracted more PvE players than PvP players.
 
I'd have thought the ones that should be excluded are the ones that are causing problems for the others

Who these are is a matter of perspective.

No , but being clear this is piracy via some form of communication I think is necessary, otherwise it's just griefing

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

I just don't want to play with you.

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.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Attacking without communication doesn't imply griefing and piracy without communication doesn't imply anything other than piracy.
Nothing at all about the encounter can be inferred by the target if there is a lack of communication from the attacker - not even that it is piracy (that would be an assumption - and assumptions are often incorrect).
 
PG membership is capped at 20,000 players on PC and 1,000 players on consoles.

I should have been clearer that I wasn't seeing any fun for the trader.

We don't know - it may be that the game has attracted more PvE players than PvP players.
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.
 
Who these are is a matter of perspective.

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

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

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